i can't think of a better voice to tell me what would happen in the region if we get a bad deal with the iranians. israel is in the crosshairs of the iranian. ayatollahs have been for decades. they threatened to destroy the state of israel. so i want to hear from the people on the grouped israel in particular as to what a good deal would look like and what a bad deal would look like. i want to hear from the prime minister of israel the consequences of a bad deal. i do not trust this administration to negotiate a good deal but maybe i'm wrong with and the best way to find out is for congress to look at the deal and if it is a good deal believing vote for it because the arabs and israelis will tell us this is something we can live with. at the end of the day a good feel diehl is a blessing for the world, a bad deal is a nightmare. i not only welcome the prime minister of israel to speak to congress, i am looking forward to it because i hope to learn something that would make me a

better senator regarding our own national security. and the only thing i can tell the american people without any hesitation, isil is a threat to us it's a threat to the region they're the most barbaric terrorist organization roaming the globe today they represent a direct threat to our homeland but the threat they represent is a distant second to iran with a nuclear weapon. and that ought to tell you a lot about how i feel. if i can watch what's on tv like you do and see what isil is doing to christians and others throughout the region and say that threat is secondary to iran, i hope that means something, it means a lot to me because if the iranians get he a nuclear weapon, then every arab in the region that can afford one will get a nuclear weapon and you're on the road to armageddon. northward of the north korea the same thing i worry about the same people that negotiated that deal, congress was absent now it's time for congress to be involved and say whether or not this is a good deal. i have legislation with senator

corker and six democrats six republicans, asking that congress review any deal and i'd be curious to see what the prime minister thinks about that. so in summary this will be the most important decision we make as a body, how to deal with the iranian nuclear threat, the most important issue i deal with as a united states senator and i've been here almost 20 years because the consequence of a bad deal is an absolute nightmare. if you relieve the sanctions tomorrow and gave the iranians the money they're due under sanction relief, do you think they would build schools and hospitals? or would they continue to pour money into their military to disrupt the region and continue to build icbm's? as i speak without a nuclear weapon iran is leading an offensive today in iraq and i know the president the presiding officer of the senate was a ranger, was an infantryman in iraq and could you ever imagine in your wildest dreams that the iraqi security

forces are marrying up with shia militia on the ground in iraq leading the effort and we're sitting on the sidelines? you talk about a screwed-up foreign policy. you're going to let these guys negotiate with iran, the people that brought you iraq and syria and the mess you see this the region and you feel good about them doing a feel with the iranians you don't want to look at the deal yourself? this is beyond screwed-up and the worst is yet to come. a bad deal. but maybe the best is yet to come a good deal. i don't know but i want to hear what israel thinks a good deal would like like and if you don't want to hear that, we're on different planets in terms of the consequences of what's going on in the world today. with that i would ask the senator from new hampshire who has been watching the iranian behavior on the ground and their missile program in particular and ask her what are her concerns about iran with extra money coming into the coffers from sanction relief?

ms. ayotte: i would thank the senator from south carolina and the senator from south dakota. as i look at where we are right now, first of all our support for israel and our friendship with steel this has been a very strong bipartisan issue and it's an issue that rightly crosses party lines. because we share the same values the relationship is very important we share technology we share intelligence and we share the concern that we do not want the world's worst regime to obtain the world's most destructive weapon and that is the iranian regime. so i want to welcome prime minister netanyahu to the congress and very much listen to what he has to say. because he comes to us in a very important time where the administration is negotiating a appropriation agreement with iran and what we want most of all is that that agreement will end iran's nuclear program and be a very verifiable,

transparent agreement. because a good agreement is a blessing. a bad agreement is a nightmare. and we have to hear from the prime minister of israel and i look forward to hearing what he has to say today about what a good agreement looks like. but make no mistake of why we must stop the iranian regime from having a nuclear weapon. because what they are doing around the world right now they're the largest spate sponsor of terrorism in the world, they have essentially destabilize the government in yemen through their support of the huedies there. they have been supporting hezbollah, terrorist organization they have been helping assad the assad regime murder its own people. they have been participating in cyber attacks against our interests. and this is a regime that has said they want to wipe israel off the map. i can understand and i want to hear from the prime minister of

israel why the people of israel would say never again when they hear those words. but make no mistake this is not just about the security of israel. this is about our security in the united states of america. they've called us the great satan and this is an issue that represents a threat to our core national security interests, to allow a state sponsor of terrorism to obtain the most destructive weapon in the world. that is a danger that we cannot afford as a country, it's one of concern and importance that we share with our strong ally, israel and we need to do everything we can in this congress on a bipartisan basis to ensure that that never happens. that's why i'm honored to be a sponsor of bipartisan legislation that would give the congress a say on this very important issue because we worked together to put together some of the toughest sanctions that have actually brought the iranians to the negotiations

table. we should not lift those sanctions that were put in together on a bipartisan basis without ensuring that this is a good agreement that will end their nuclear program and when i mean end it, i don't mean it for a decade, i mean end it permanently because iran has been engaged in terrorist activity a lot longer than a decade and this is something we have to make sure is a permanent, transparent verifiable agreement. i would also add that we can't allow the situation where we have a spin-off in terms of nuclear weapons capability. there has been discussions about a year breakout period in this agreement. i'd like to hear what the prime minister has to think about that because my concerns are is that this will lead to the situation my colleague from south carolina talked about where we have a sunni-shia nuclear arms race where everyone seeks to enrich uranium and have a breakout period and that results in more

proliferation of nuclear weapons that makes the world less safe and endang i.r.s. the united states of america. so today we -- endangers the united states of america. i very much look forward to listening to what prime minister netanyahu has to say. this is about the security of the united states of america. this is about obviously our strong friendship with israel. we are aligned in ensuring that iran does not have a nuclear weapon and ensuring that we work together to stop their support of terrorism around the world. that we work together to end their icbm program which estimates are they could hit the east coast of the united states of america by 2015 if they continue object this path. so this is about us, this is about our relationship with israel and i very much look forward to hearing the prime minister today. thank you. mr. hoeven: i'd like to thank our colleague from the state of new hampshire and i'd again like to turn to the senator from south carolina and pose a question.

i've been a supporter of the strong sanctions that we put in place with the kirk-menendez legislation which the senator from south carolina was very involved in and during the negotiations those sanctions with have been relaxed by the administration which i think is a great concern and i think the biggest deterrent to iran pursuing a nuclear weapon is the sanctions that we put in place with our allies. now as the administration negotiates this agreement the colleague -- my colleague from south carolina and others on a bipartisan basis have put forward legislation requiring that that agreement with come to this body for an up-or-down vote. i'd like him to describe that effort and why it is so important and why this speech today from the prime minister goes to the very heart of that important matter. mr. graham: i think the legislation the senator described is the most important this year or maybe any other year. the sanctions against iran were a hundred to nothing.

every member of the senate believed the iranians needed to be sanctioned for the mischief they've created and for the nuclear ambitions. the administration objected but the body 100-0 agreed to those sanctions. if there is a deal with the iranians and i hope there is a good deal, the diplomatic solution is preferred by everyone. it's a simple concept. before the sanctions that congress created can be lifted, congress has to look at the deal and have a say. under the 1-2-3 section of the atomic energy act there is a provision that allows for congress to approve commercial deals between the united states and any other country when nuclear technology is shared. we've done that 24 times where congress had to approve nuclear deals between the united states and other nations. including russia, china argentina and that rogue country

called canada. i can't imagine wanting to look at a deal with canada but not wanting to look at a deal with iran. so this bipartisan legislation is very simple. any deal negotiated with the p-5 plus one will come to the senate and the house to be disapproved, not approved. now,,if i did that to accommodate my democratic colleagues. there is concern that with 54 plugs that we hate boom so much we'll reject the deal because we don't like him. i'm not in that camp. i don't like president obama's foreign policy but i hope i'm smart enough to understand a good deal is a blessing and i've had some track record of doing what's best for the country so if it's a good deal, israel and the arabs will tell us and other people will tell us. i'll gladly vote to approve it. but the construct senator coach hoeven, is to disapprove it you have to have 60 votes to disapproval.

some democratic colleagues have to join with the republicans to say this is not good enough, go back and try again. it's not that we want to end negotiations we just don't want to legitimize an industrial strength nuclear program that is on the verge of a breakout and a north korea in the making. we're not going to sit on the sidelines and let a deal be negotiate yesterday they have thousands of centrifuges and the only thing between them between and a nuclear breakthrough is the u.n. so we're going to look at the deal. i think every senator should want to look at the deal and it allows your constituents to have a say. not one person in america is having any input now regarding the p-5 plus one talks but if it comes back to the congress you've got a person you can call. you can pick up a phone, you can call your member of the house, member of the senate and you can have a say about the deal because you are affected as senator ayotte said. it's not just israel that's in the crosshairs of these people. it's us, the united states.

i worry they would slayer the technology with a terrorist organization and it would work its way here and name one weapon they develop that they shouldn't shared with terrorists. so this bipartisan approach i think is sound is consistent with what we've done 24 different times with other nations and i hope we can have an overwhelming vote here soon that will say to the p-5 plus one --. the presiding officer: the majority time is expired. mr. graham: do your guest job if it's a good deal, we'll vote yes, if it's a bad deal, we'll say try harder. mr. hoeven: i'd ask for 30 seconds to wrap up. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hoeven: i'd like to thank my colleague from south carolina and new hampshire. this is a bipartisan effort to join with the administration and on a matter of this importance i believe congress must be involved. so again we would appeal to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join with us in this effort and i will conclude

by saying we look forward very much to having the prime minister speak to us this morning. thank you mr. president. the presiding officer: for the information of the senate the chair makes the following announcement. the president pro tem of the senate and the speaker of the house of representatives pursuant to the provisions of section 201-a-2 of the congressional budget act of 1974 have appointed dr. homer keith hall as director of the budget office effective april 1, 2015 for the term expiring january 3, 2019. the assistant democratic leader. mr. durbin: at 11:00 this morning there will be a historic joint session of congress. it doesn't make history that a leader from some other country would speak to a joint session. it's happened over a hundred times. i've attended many of those during the time that-off served in the house and the senate. what is particular about this session is that it was called unilaterally by the republican speaker of the house, john john

boehner. usually, consistently, joint sessions of congress have been called on a bipartisan basis and in most cases involve the administration the executive branch. in this case speaker boehner made history his own way by saying he would announce a joint session of congress welcoming the prime minister of israel. i checked with the senate historian. it turns out there is another piece of history being made today. he can find no precedent when members of congress can come forward from both the house and the senate and announced publicly they would not attend a joint session of congress. that has happened. i might say that that's a personal private decision by each member of congress as to whether they wish to attend this joint session this morning. i am going to attend it, primarily because of my respect for the state of israel, the fact that throughout my public career in the house and the senate, i have valued the bipartisan support of israel which i found in both the house and the senate. i am proud that it was president harry truman, a democrat, who

was the first executive in the world to recognize the nation of israel and i'm proud that throughout history democratic and republican presidents alike have supported the state of israel and i have tried to do the same as a member of the united states house and senate. this meeting with prime minister netanyahu comes at an awkward moment. he is two weeks away from a national election in israel. some have questioned the timing of this. i am not going to raise that question because i don't know the political scene in israel. i don't know if this visit helps him or hurts him but it is, in fact two weeks away from this important election. what we all agree on, i hope, both democrats and republicans is one starting point a nuclear iran is unacceptable. we have to do everything we can to stop that possibility because it would invite an arms race in the middle east, many other countries would race to become nuclear powers, and that would be destabilizing and also because we know the agenda of iran.

it has been engaged in terrorist activities throughout the middle east and around the world and putting a nuclear weapon in the hands of a country that is dedicated to terrorism is the kind of concern that i hope all of us share when we look in the future. so as democrats and republicans gather for the joint session, we are in common purpose to stop the development of a nuclear iran. what troubles me greatly is the criticisms which i have heard on this floor and in the past week or two about the obama administration and this issue. president obama's made it clear from the start he is opposed to having a nuclearized iran. in fact, it was president obama using his power as president who has really brought together the sanctions regime that is working to bring iran to the negotiating table. he didn't do it alone as one of my colleagues from south carolina just noted. there were times when congress wanted to push harder than president -- the president but

we have to concede the obvious. were it not for the president's dogged determination we would not have this alliance, this coalition imposing sanctions on iran today that have made a difference and brought iran to the negotiating table. give president obama credit for this whether it's prime minister netanyahu or the republicans who are generally critical of the president, at least acknowledge the obvious. the president made his position clear opposing a nuclear iran and made it clear he would put his resources and energy into building a coalition to stop that possibility. secondly, it is this president's leadership which has created the iron dome defense the missile defense, which has protected israel. that has been a very effective defense mechanism. i know as chairman of the defense appropriation subcommittee that we have appropriated hundreds of millions of dollars for that protection. president obama initiated -- if not initiated was an early supporter of this effort and has

funded it throughout his presidency and now it has kept israel safe. i hope the republicans and prime minister netanyahu will give the administration credit for that effort to keep their nation safe. let me also say about negotiations here's the reality. we have countries around the world joining us in a regime to impose sanctions on iran, to bring iran to the negotiating table, and they are there. the negotiations are at a delicate moment, literally weeks away from seeing whether we could move forward. i hope that they are successful. the president has said at best there is a 50-50 chance of success. it is just that challenging. but let's consider what the alternative will be if negotiations fail. first, if we can reach an agreement, we have to verify it. we can't take the word of iran. we need to make certain that when they promise they will destroy certain equipment, they will not go forward in developing a nuclear weapon.

we can verify that. without verification, the agreement is worthless and the president has said as much. let's assume the worst case. either the negotiations break down or the verification proves that iran did not negotiate in good faith. what then is the alternative? well if the coalition that imposed the sanctions believes we made a good-faith effort to bring iran to a peaceful place and they failed, then we can continue the sanctions regime, put more pressure on them to move forward to a good solution. but if there is a feeling among our coalition that we have not goarkted in good faith that we didn't make an honest effort to find common ground with iran that avoids nuclearizing, we could lose the sanctions regime and then it becomes next to impossible to put the pressure on iran to make them change. what the president's trying to do is to achieve through negotiations a peaceful end to this global challenge but secondly to make sure the sanctions regime, the countries

that have joined us, p-5-plus one and others will continue to believe we're operating in good faith and continue to support us. the alternative is to allow iran to develop a nuclear weapon. that is unthinkable. if it starts to occur, there will be a military response, and it will be deadly. i don't know the scope or nature of it. there is no way to guess but we understand what it would mean if military action is taken by -- against iran because of the development of these nuclear weapons. let me also say that i am considering and reviewing the so-called corker-menendez proposal, that the congress will review any agreement reached with the iranians should such an agreement be reached. i haven't reached a decision yet because i think it raises a serious and important question of policy and constitution. we know that if we're dealing with a treaty, that it's up to the senate to step forward to

approve such treaty, but this is not a treaty. this is in the nature of an agreement. we have had nuclear arms agreements in the past that were not subject to congressional approval. we have had other agreements on the environment and other issues that were not subject to congressional approval. i need to look and review carefully whether the corker-menendez legislation that has been proposed is a reasonable assertion of congressional authority. i would also add that it's obvious -- and i want to state it because it was raised as a question in the earlier comments -- any congressionally imposed sanctions will require congressional action to suspend them, so ultimately congress has the last word on sanctions we have put into law. i don't think there is any question about that. those sanctions imposed by the executive branch the president may remove or change by executive order should he choose but the congressional authority to continue sanctions

or even propose new ones is not diminished by any agreement which is reached by the president. i listened earlier to the majority leader as he came to the floor and spoke about a number of issues. one of the issues that he raised in criticism of the president i'd like to address. he criticized the president for proposing the closure of guantanamo as a prison for those who we suspect are engaged in terrorism. the president's position on this has been very clear and i have supported it. for two reasons. first, we know that guantanamo has become a symbol around the world, a symbol which has been used against the united states when they want to recruit terrorism to attack our country. i think guantanamo has outlived its usefulness and should be closed. the second point is one that is very obvious. we have over 300 convicted terrorists currently serving their time in the existing federal prison system. in federal prisons across this nation including my state of

illinois, we have convicted terrorists who are reporting to their cells every day and are no threat to the community at large. they are being handled in a professional thoughtful way by the men and women who work for the bureau of prisons and there is never any question that these terrorists being in this system are somehow a threat to this country. in fact, they are well contained and have been for a long time. the alternative at guantanamo is one that even fiscal conservatives ought to think about twice. we are currently spending up to $3 million per guantanamo prisoner each year to incarcerate them. almost $3 million a prisoner. what does it cost to keep the most dangerous prisoners in the federal prison system, in the maximum security prisons? no more than $60,000 a year. $60,000 to keep them in the federal prison system. $3 million to keep them in guantanamo. 50 times the cost, if my

calculations are correct. and that suggests to me a horrible waste of money money that could be better spent to keep america safe rather than maintain this symbol of guantanamo. secondly an argument was made by the majority leader earlier that we made the mistake of bringing our troops home from iraq and from afghanistan. i disagree. this notion of a permanent army of occupation by the united states in the middle east is certainly not one that i welcome. we need to encourage those countries, iraq and afghanistan to develop their own capacity to protect their own countries. the united states can be helpful. we can provide support but ultimately we have got to call on these countries to step forward and to defend themselves with our support so long as they are fighting the forces of terrorism. i see that my colleague senator menendez is on the floor and i yield the floor. mr. menendez: mr. president.

the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president i appreciate my distinguished colleague yielding me some time here. i want to rise in anticipation of the speech of our ally and our partner, prime minister benjamin netanyahu of israel to the soon-to-be joint meeting of congress. look i agree with many of my colleagues that the political timing of the prime minister's speech to the congress is a challenging one and one that didn't derive itself in the best of circumstances but i also think very clearly that it is important to listen to what the elected leader of the people of israel a one true democracy in the middle east, a major trading

partner of the united states, a major security ally of the united states and the one country most likely to be voting with us in common cause and international forums has to say. now, there is a history here that i think drives the leader of the jewish people to the circumstances in which he feels so passionately about the security of his country. you know, if you have traveled to israel, as i have and i think many members here as well have, you know, here is a country that you can go from tel aviv to jerusalem on a good day in 45 minutes. it's a country that if you are just flying the width would just take a couple of minutes. it's a country that has its back to the sea and surrounded by neighbors who generally speaking are hostile. it's a country whose people have

a history in which there are those who sought to annihilate them. now, we can maybe not fathom those challenges, but those are the challenges of the people of israel. and so when you have an issue like iran's march towards nuclear weapons, you have an understanding of why the people of israel have a concern for their existential -- for the existential threat that iran, if it achieves nuclear weapons is ultimately capable of creating to them. now, i have worked as hard as anyone else. as a matter of fact, i started my focus on iran when i was in the house of representatives and found out that the united states was sending voluntary contributions to the international atomic energy administration beyond our

membership dues to do what? to create operational capacity for a nuclear facility. not in the national security of the united states. not in the interests of our ally the state of israel. and i led a drive to stop those voluntary contributions. and since then -- it's been almost 20 years now -- i have been following iran's march towards nuclear power not for peaceful purposes, because let's be honest, a country that has one of the world's largest oil and other reserves doesn't need nuclear power for domestic consumption. and because of what we clearly believe were the militarization of its efforts that in fact there were purposes that were not benign. so we all hope for a deal, although today when foreign minister sharif said in response to president obama's comments that ten years should be the minimum time frame for a deal, he said to prime minister sharif, that is unacceptable,

illogical and excessive. well, that's a problem. and so i look forward to listening to what the prime minister has to say about the challenge to all of us, to our national security, to israel's national security, and to understand all of the dimensions historical and otherwise, so that we can conclude and make our own judgments. if prime minister cameron can come here and lobby the congress on sanctions i think they are -- and which was fine with me -- then i think it's also fair to listen to what the prime minister of israel has to say and i look forward to hearing what he has to say. with that, mr. president i yield the floor. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order the senate stands in recess until 2:15 p.m. >> the senate has recessed to adjourn the joint meeting in the house to hear benjamin

netanyahu. senators returned this afternoon at 2:15 eastern, they plan to debate whether to proceed to a vote to override the veto of the keystone oil pipeline authorization. we have live coverage on c-span2. we're hearing from a number of sources confirming that the house may act on homeland security funding during this morning's house gop conference meeting, john boehner revealed that a clean bill could come to a vote today. frank for tweeted john boehner layout three outcomes in the stalemate over funding shutdown was not an option, god forbid there was a terrorist attack. timing of that vote is in the air but you can watch it on our companion network c-span today. keep track of the republican-led congress and follow its new members through its first session.

new congress, best access on c-span, c-span2, c-span radio and c-span.org. >> the american israel public affairs committee is holding their annual policy conference in washington and one of the speakers was senate majority leader mitch mcconnell. the american israel public affairs committee described as america's pro-israel lobby. this is about 15 minutes. >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. my third day back here. we have to stop meeting like this. we are honored to be joined by senate majority leader mitchell mcconnell. [applause] >> he was first elected when he was 21 years old. he has been an outspoken advocate of the u.s./is real

relationship during 30 years representing kentucky and the united states senate. he has traveled to israel and the region many times, he sponsored many relevant pieces of legislation. he has been an outspoken advocate for out this past summer. he sponsored the bipartisan legislation and you just heard reference to providing israel with $225 million from beneath the iron dome to defend against incoming hamas rockets. please join me in welcoming senator mitch mcconnell. ♪ [applause]

>> good morning, senator, thank you for coming over here. we might as well dive in because that is what this is all about, the big event today is the prime minister's speech. i asked people up here before what you listening for? >> we obviously are interested in his opinion about nuclear deal with iran that appears to be on the verge of being made. i think there is no question that iran is the biggest threat to israel's very existence, no small threat to us as well. and an exporter of terrorism all over the world and in particular the middle east. the question is can you make a credible deal with a country like that? i am pretty skeptical. lots of members of congress are skeptical. we are interested in his opinion and expect to hear it this morning. >> he was here yesterday.

[applause] >> the prime minister said he means no disrespect but has the moral obligation to speak out about his concerns in these negotiations. president obama's interview with reuters yesterday acknowledged the disagreement between his administration and the israel government over how to achieve a goal that the country's share with iran not getting a bomb. how can these two countries manage their alliance even as they manage these differences? >> i suspect a majority of congress does not disagree with the prime minister of israel. [applause] congress under the constitution as we all know has cable to play in foreign policy and there are two measures. [applause] there are two managers most

everybody at the conference is familiar with. the correct bill which basically would be offered if we were not in agreement to ratchet up the sanctions further, there's a proposal by senator corcoran and senator lindsey graham that would require the agreement to come to congress for approval. typically, nuclear agreements like this are sent to congress, the administration does not want to send either of these to congress for support either one of them. leading us to have a suspicion they are on the cusp of making a bad deal. so you can tell what i am very skeptical but i am willing to listen. there is no country in the world that could give us better advice with is this is a deal that ought to be made and is real and their prime minister.

[applause] >> susan rice, national security adviser said we cannot have an achievable deal, she also made reference to her approach, the administration's approach, distrust and verify. what in your view should be the necessary elements of those elements of a good deal? >> they have already given away too much. the elements of this deal. [applause] the elements of this deal that appears to be close to being made has already given away too much and so i would be shocked if this was an agreement, if reached, that would be one that very many people in this audience would support, or very many people in congress. >> what would you support? >> we need to have an agreement which i suspect would be difficult to achieve that cannot

enrich. [applause] >> the administration -- >> it is not achievable and i would say it is. what brought the sanctions? the sanctions that we gave them. get recognition that the minority leader is not a good bad as being the majority leader. i was able to get afford given the vote of the presidency, to his credit he implemented. that brought them to the table.

if you hear from somebody saying the choice is either a deal or not, the choice is either a deal or tougher sanctions that really squeeze them. >> last one on this. last one on this for the record here. if there is no framework deal as announced by the 24 of march deadline will the legislation you referenced be brought to the floor? >> well, look. one of the things the majority leader get to do that the minority leader didn't get to do is to schedule business in the senate. so let me say so there is no possibility of misunderstanding if there is a deal we will be voting. if there's not a deal we will be voting on kirk menendez.

[applause] you have to ask the question why would the administration not want representatives of everybody in america to vote on something of this consequence? at least the suspicions that this is not going to be at very good deal. we don't want to make a bad deal with these people. this regime whether it is the nuclear threat or whether it is funding and fomenting terrorism around the world this is one of the worst regimes in the world. the thought that we could consummate an agreement with them even if it were a good one, that they are going to keep makes one pretty skeptical. the choice is not this deal lower war.

the choice is this deal or serious sanctions that really squeeze them. we know that works. the other thing. [applause] the other thing that is helping is $50 a barrel oil. that is going to stay at that price very long but at the moment they are hurting that way as well. >> let me talk about the entire region is in turmoil. you mentioned backstage, you think you have been to israel and the region close to a dozen times the you know it well, you talk to people in leadership throughout the region and certainly experts here. what do you see as the most serious foreign policy national security concerns you mentioned iran, facing israel, facing the united states of america? >> we faced one of them the possibility of iran becoming a

nuclear armed country. the second one obviously is the extremism, not radical muslim organizations like isil and other groups in the arabian peninsula, al qaeda is still around, this is an extremely dangerous period in world history. i remember the relief we felt when the berlin wall came down and the cold war ended and this is a new world order. is in many ways, nobody to negotiate with. when you had a conflict between countries usually somebody won and somebody lost and prisoners went home. >> even with the bad guy. >> passivity is not the answer to this.

as much as we hate -- [applause] >> as much as we hate conflict lucky to success is a strong american military allied with strong israeli military. [applause] and these people have to be defeated. it is easy to say that but how do you do it? that is not maybe where you want to go. >> finish your point. >> the one indispensable nation in the world is the united states. a force for good. [applause] typically nothing happens -- the president is slowly coming to the right place america is going to have to lead.

doesn't necessarily involve at this point troops on the ground but isil is going to have to be defeated by troops on the ground. maybe the kurds, maybe the iraqi military, if retrained, operate better than it has in the past but these people are not going away. it will be a long hall and the longer -- >> let me end where i began which was a speech today and the relationship between these two countries. there is tension between presidents and prime ministers in the past. congress has been on this one pretty consistent with respect to the relationship with israel. today there will be some who are not attending the prime minister's speech. how do you assess the mood now? somewhere this becomes a partisan issue. how did that transpire or get

avoided? >> there may be a small minority of democrats who don't -- i expect they will be watching in their offices. [applause] the administration by taking offense at the speakers -- the speaker's invitation to the prime minister made this a much bigger deal than it should have been. [applause] the facts are these. put aside the israeli election. the fact that march 24th test of the the drop dead date on this agreement, why would we not want to hear from the prime minister of israel, whoever that might be at any given time? [applause]

about a deal that could threaten the very existence of israel. it is obvious this is the time to be hearing from the prime minister of israel related to this issue. it is timely. it is important. we have never had in my time in the senate a speech to a joint session that had this much interest. everybody is trying to get a ticket. >> you got a ticket? >> no. a long waiting line of people who want them. >> think they will get in. >> it is timely and important and congress will speak. let me say this to all of you. congress will be speaking. [applause]

i won't say as part of the well-known republican politicians said read my lips. >> i remember is that. >> i will say if there's a deal we will be voting on corker and graham. if there is not a deal we will be voting on kirk and men mendez and we will be voting soon. >> thank you very much, appreciate it. a lot to watch, a lot to listen for. [applause] ♪ >> majority leader mitch mcconnell will blame his senate colleagues and those in the house this morning for joint meeting to hear from the israeli prime minister. ahead of that speech john boehner met with benjamin

netanyahu. a picture of the house speaker giving benjamin netanyahu a bust of winston churchill and instagram because netanyahu and churchill are apparently the only foreign leaders who have spoken three times to a joint meeting of congress. this picture of that bust was exchanged between the two. when he speaks the israeli prime minister is expected to lay out specific concerns about emerging nuclear deal between iran and world powers. the speech comes two weeks ahead of a national election in israel. as of this morning seven democrats and one independent senator and 36 democrat house members are planning to skip the speech. one republican house leader said he would not be attending for other reasons. live coverage of the joint meeting at 11:00 eastern, ten minutes from now on c-span. here is an exchange on the senate floor that took place this morning on what lawmakers want to hear from the prime minister. >> mr. president, are wanting to engage in a colloquy with the good senator from south

carolina, will be joined by senator from new hampshire, senator from kentucky, senator from arizona. the purpose of the colloquy is to welcome prime minister benjamin netanyahu this morning who will be speaking in front of congress and to talk about why is so important that he is joining us today. we will hear remarks from the israeli prime minister, benjamin netanyahu in the house chamber. wants to welcome him to congress to of firm of a friendship between the people of the united states and the people of israel and assess the threats facing our two democracies. today's speech is not unusual. this is the 115st time that a foreign leader has addressed the joint session of congress. this is the seventh time in israeli prime minister will address a joint session of congress. it is prime minister netanyahu's third address to congress. it is not surprising that we are

hearing from the leader of our ally israel. israel is the democracy in that neighborhood of authoritarian governments. prime minister netanyahu speaks the language of freedom with us today. there can be no doubt of his passion on behalf of the people he represents and that makes us take his message very seriously. this joint session is not unusual or surprising but that does not mean that it is unimportant. today's speech is profoundly important. the parter ship between the united states and israel is critical for the security of the middle east and the world. we need a strong u.s./is really partnership to stop iran from developing a nuclear weapon. the israeli parter should to stand against the extremism that is ripping apart nations across the middle east.

we need a strong u.s./is really partnership to demonstrate the value of democracy, human rights and follow rule of law for societies that are no longer satisfied with dictatorships. for all of these reasons it is good to have a prime minister netanyahu here today. it is good to reaffirm the bond between israelis and americans and it is good to join hands again with an ally to stand against tyranny and extremism. i look forward to hearing from the prime minister because views directly from israel are extremely important. since its birth in 1948 israel has faced one security threat after another. israel's strength and a comedy in the face of these threats are that testament to its people and its leaders to head off threats to security before they become impossible to overcome. there is no substitute for the

is relieve you of security in the middle east and the iranian threat in particular. today represents an important moment on how israel sees its own security and understand next steps for the u.s./is really partnership. i would like to turned to my colleague from south carolina for his comments about this important speech from the prime minister of israel today. >> i appreciate being on the floor with the senator from north dakota who has been very loud in trying to secure america against a variety of threats. i will get to the heart of the matter. some people feel the prime minister should not be here at this time. a couple weeks there will be an election in israel, parliamentarians system, a parliament system. i cannot speak, i have got a cold. a vote differently. they vote for parties not people. they are having a real contest over in there about who should

be in charge and what coalitions will beat israel. i have that central command. for israelis to decide. you decide you want to run your country, you vote for the party or the groups of people you think best represent your view of israel. that is your business, not mine. my business is to try to find out what this does for america when it comes to defending our nation. that is why all of us are here on the floor today. i don't think i can adequately do my job if i don't hear from the prime minister of israel if he is willing to talk to me. some people may be able to do that. god bless you. now is the time to boycott this speech, you want to send a political message about politics in israel, be my guess. i am going to be at the speech to try to learn what to do regarding america/israel concerning the iranian nuclear threat. it is important for me to be there. i can't think of a better voice to tell me what would happen in

the region if we get a bad deal with the iranians. israel was in the cross hairs of the iranian ayatollahs for decades. they threaten to destroy the state of israel. i want to hear from the people on the ground, israel in particular, what a good deal would look like and what a bad deal would look like. i want to hear from the prime minister of israel, the consequences of a bad deal. i do not trust this administration to negotiate a good deal but maybe i am wrong. the best way to find out is for congress to look at the deal and if it is a good deal i will vote for it because the arabs and israelis will tell us this is something they can live with. at the end of the day a good deal as a blessing for the world, a bad deal is the nightmare. the good senator from north dakota, not only welcome the prime minister of israel to congress, i am looking forward hope to learn something that would make me a better senator

regarding our national security. the only thing i can tell the american people without any hesitation, isil is a threat to us, a threat to the region. they are the most barbaric terrorist organization today, they recognize a direct threat to the homeland but the threat they represent is a distant second to iran with a nuclear weapon. i will tell you a lot about that. if i can watch what is on tv every night and see what isil is doing to christians and others throughout the region and a that is secondary to iran i hope that means something. it means a lot to me because if iranians get a nuclear weapons and every arab in the region is going to get a nuclear weapon on the way to armageddon. north korea, the same people negotiating this deal negotiating the korean deal. congress was's intended is time for congress to be involved and say whether this is a good deal. legislation with senator corker

and six democrats, six republicans asking congress to review any deal and i will be curious to see what the prime minister thinks about that. in summary this will be the most important decision we make as a body, how to deal with the iranian nuclear threat. this will be most important issue i deal with as the united states senator. i have been here almost 20 years because the consequences of a bad deal is an absolute nightmare. if you leave the sanctions tomorrow engage the iranians the money they're doing this sanction relief to you think they would build schools and hospitals? o will play disrupt the region and continue to build icbms? without a nuclear weapon iran is leading events of the day in iraq and the president presiding officer of the senate was an infantryman in-year-old. can you imagine in your wildest dreams, of the shiite militia

had of the revolutionary guard on the ground in iraq, we are sitting on the sidelines. talk about a screwed up foreign policy. you let these guys negotiate with iran, the people who brought you iraq and syria and the next you see in the region you feel good about them doing a deal with the iranians that you don't even look at the deal yourself? this is beyond screwed up and the worst is yet to come but maybe the best is yet to come, a good deal. i don't know. i want to hear if israel believes it is a good deal and if you don't want to hear that we are on different planets as to the consequences of what is going on in the world today. with that, the senator from new hampshire who has been watching the iranian behavior on the ground in the middle east and a missile program in particular. what are her concerns about iran with extra money coming into the coffers from sanctions relief? >> i thank the senator from north dakota and the senator

from south carolina and as i look at where we are right now, first of all our support for is real and our friendship with israel this has been a strong bipartisan issue, and it is an issue that crosses party lines because we share the same values, the relationship is very important, we share technology we share intelligence and we share the concern that we do not want the world's worst regime to obtain the world's most destructive weapon and that is the iranian regime. i want to welcome prime minister benjamin netanyahu to the congress and very much listen to what he has to say because he comes to us at an important time when the administration is negotiating potential agreement with iran and what we want most of all is that agreement will end iran's nuclear program and be a verifiable transparent agreement, a good agreement is a

blessing, bad agreement is the nightmare and we have to hear from the prime minister of israel and i look forward to hearing what he has to say today about what a good agreement looks like but make no mistake, why we must stop the iranian regime from having a nuclear weapon. what they are doing around the world right now, the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world, they have essentials destabilize the government in yemen through their support of the whoes their, they have been supporting hezbollah, a terrorist organization. they have been helping assad murder his own people. they have been participating in cyberattacks against our interests and this is the regime that said they want to wipe israel off the map. i can understand and i want to hear from the prime minister of

israel why the people of israel would say never again when they hear those words. but make no mistake, this is not just about the security of israel but our security in the united states of america. they call this the great satan. this is an issue that represents a threat to our core national security interests. to allow a state sponsor of terrorism to obtains the most destructive weapon in the world, that is the danger we cannot afford as a country. it is one concern and importance we share with our strong ally israel and we need to do everything we can in this congress on a bipartisan basis to ensure that never happens. that is why i am honored to be a sponsor of bipartisan legislation that would give the congress say on its import tissue because we work together, to put together the toughest sanctions that brought iranians to the negotiation table. we should not lift those sanctions that were put together

on a bipartisan basis without ensuring that this is a good agreement that will end their nuclear program and i don't mean end of for a decade but permanently because iran has been engage in terrorist activity along your than a decade so this is something we have to make sure is a permanent transparent verifiable agreement. i would also add the situation where we have a set up in terms of nuclear-weapons capabilities and the breakout period. i would like to hear what the prime minister thinks about that because my concerns are about that. this will lead to the situation that my colleague from south carolina talked about where we have a sunni/shia nuclear arms race where some one wants to enrich uranium and that results in new proliferation of nuclear weapons in a way that makes the

world less safe and endangers the united states of america. so today we welcome prime minister netanyahu. i very much look forward to listening carefully to what he has to say. this is a bipartisan issue. this is about the security of the united states of america. this is about our strong friendship with israel. we are aligned in insuring that iran does not have a nuclear weapon and the we work together to stop their support of terrorism around the world, that we work together to end their icbm programs which estimates are they keep -- they could hit the east coast of the united states by 2015 if they continue on this path. this is about us and our relationship with israel and i very much look forward to hearing the prime minister today. >> mr. president, i would like to thank our colleague from the state of new hampshire and turn to the senator from south carolina and posed a question. i have been a supporter of this strong sanction we put in place

with the menendez legislation which the senator from south carolina was very involved in. during these negotiations those sanctions have been relaxed by the administration which i think is a great concern and i think the biggest deterrent to iran pursuing a nuclear weapon is the sanctions we put in place with our allies. as the administration negotiates this agreement the colleague from south carolina and others on a bipartisan basis have put forward legislation requiring that agreement would come to this body for an up or down vote. i would like him to describe that effort and why this speech today from the prime minister goes to the very heart of that. >> legislation the senator described is the most important thing we will do this year. the sanctions against iran congressionally created where 100-0. every member of the senate believed the iranians needed to

be sanctioned, for the mission they created and for their nuclear ambitions, it would march toward a nuclear weapon. the administration objected but the body 100-0 greed. if there's a deal with the iranian and i hope there is a good deal the diplomatic solution to this problem it is a simple concept. before the sanctions congress created can be in lifted congress has to look at the deal and have essay. under the 1-2-3 section of the atomic energy act there is a provision that allows congress to approve private commercial nuclear deals between the united states and another country when nuclear technology is shared. we have done that 24 times where congress had to approve nuclear deals between the united states and other nations including russia china, argentina and

canada. i can't imagine wanting to look at it deal with canada but not looking at a deal with iran. this bipartisan legislation is very simple. any deal negotiated with the p 5 plus 1 will come to the senate and house to be disapproved not approved. i did that to accommodate my democratic colleagues. there is concern with 54 republicans the we hate obama so much we reject the deal because we don't like him. i am not in that camp. i don't like president obama's foreign policy but i hope i am smart enough to understand a good deal is a blessing and i had some track record i would like to think of doing something i think is best for the country. if it is a good deal israel and the arabs will tell us and other people will tell us, i will gladly vote to approve it. but the construct is that to disapprove the deal you have to get 60 votes to disapproved. that means some democratic colleagues have to join with the republicans to say this is not

good enough, go back and try again. not that we want to end negotiations. we don't want to legitimize and industrial strength nuclear program that is on the verge of a breakdown in north korea in the making. we won't said on the sidelines and let the deal being negotiated where a have thousands of centrifuges and the only thing between them and the nuclear breakout is the u n. that did not work well in north korea. we won't do that again. we are going to look at the deal. every senator should want to look at the deal and allows your constituents to have essay. not one person in america is having any input regarding the p 5 plus 1 talks but if it comes back to congress you have a person you can call. you can pick up the phone and call your member of the house or senate and have a say about the deal because you are affected. is not just israel that is in the cross hairs of these people it is us, the united states. i worried a share the technology with terrorist organization, it

would work its way here name one weapon they developed they haven't shared with terrorists so this bipartisan approach is sound, consistent with what we have done 24 times with the nations and i hope we can have an overwhelming vote here soon that will say to the -- >> the majority's time is expired. >> do your best job, let us look at it, it is a good deal we will vote yes, it is a bad deal, we will vote no, try hard to get a better deal. >> thank you. >> i asked for thirty-second. >> is there objection? >> i would like to thank my colleague from south carolina and new hampshire this is a bipartisan effort to join with the administration, and on a matter of this importance congress must be involved. i conclude by saying we look forward to having the prime

minister speak with us this morning. >> congress will hear from the israeli prime minister in a moment. reading members of congress, you can see it in its entirety on c-span. after the speech, you cannot for your thoughts and if you miss it it will re-enter later on the c-span network and on line at c-span.org. we would like to get your reaction to the speech on our face book page at facebook.com/c-span. ashton carter, the new defense secretary will link his first appearance on capitol hill at the pentagon's top job. along with join chiefs of staff general martin dempsey will go before the senate armed services committee and talk about the defense department's budget request. live coverage starts at 2:30 eastern on our companion network c-span3. from the associated press republicans say the house will vote as early as today to fully fund homeland security department through the end of the budget year without

immigration restrictions with fewer and fewer options available. john boehner you see there outlined the situation for rank-and-file gop members during a closed-door caucus meeting. there is opposition from conservatives who demand the measure rollback the president's unilateral changes on immigration. that from the associated press. >> the political landscape has changed with the 114th congress. not only are there 43 republicans and 15 democrats in the house and 12 republicans and one new democrat in the senate, there are also 108 women in congress including the first african-american republican in house and the first woman veteran in the senate. keep track of members of congress using congressional chronicle on c-span.org. the congressional chronicle page has lots of useful information including burning resulted statistics about each section of congress. new congress best access. on c-span radio and c-span.org.

>> senior adviser to the president dan pfeiffer talk about politics and policy with mike allen. first mr. allen starts with a short interview with april ryan of the american urban radio networks. this is about an hour. >> thank you for coming out. we appreciate you being here. cocktails with two fantastic guests, great conversation. we are going to start with april a lot of you know, we will talk about the presidency in black and white and talk about her experiences governing president bush, clinton and obama and after that, we will have dan pfeiffer, the president and senior adviser. i want to thank all of you who are watching thank c-span for carrying this and saying banc of

america for these conversations. and cocktails, and eliminating conversations we have had. hash tag political cocktails', and get the question in. american urban radio networks. and the most respected members of the white house. >> thank you for having me. >> in you know there was something called book weaves? >> i should have taken one true b.. >> april is a single mom who wrote this book without taking any time off. >> not taking any time off, and

commute every day to washington. the presidency in black and white. and race in america, three presidents, it bush, clinton, obama. as president obama do enough to reach out to african-americans? >> he has brought a lot of issues to the table. there's a difference with this president. barack obama was a president who happens to be black, second term black obama is the president definitely is indeed a black. >> did you see that change coming? was that predictable or are you surprised by how sharp it is? >> i am surprised at the sharpness of the change, particularly second term fourth

quarter. unequivocally talking about race and issues of race. first term he navigated the water successfully to avoid the topic to get a second term so he is going to selma as he is making no bones about the issues, and having the controversial movie selma screened in the white house issues to the muslim people and addressing the issue of racial profiling mistrust between the black community and police, trials and support the police in this nation as well as trying to root out those who are doing that. is an interesting time in this white house. >> you are in the white house press room everyday, you talk about the importance of being fair. you are not a pandit. why do you need to be there and what you mean by being in that room every day?

>> if you are not -- on the body. the body in the third row is in the middle, they cannot avoid me. that really helps perpetuate your questions, the question in front of the principals, the president of the united states or the press secretary, it is important to ask a question, to be seen, to know you are serious about your coverage, serious about what you do because unfortunately there's a curve, there's a learning curve. it is tough to navigate. particular elite if you are not the millionaire rhode seeds. it is pretty hard the further back you go to gain the attention from the principles. >> the briefing on c-span or computers, what is happening off camera? specifically what is the principal deputy principal deputy press secretary doing?

>> i could get a lot of trouble but eric who used to be the principal deputy secretary -- >> sure is. >> if a reporter would ask questions they don't feel comfortable with or didn't want them, there would be a certain look, the eyes would roll you would feel they were piercing for review and give you i contact and as you sometimes it text message who is that sitting next to you so you don't know if they are a person. there's a lot going on. i answered them because there was a question tell me this. a lot of times they would ignore me. >> it always worked. >> you got to work. >> what young person coming in to the white house, you have been great mentoring women and other reporters who come through the white house. what is the biggest specific advice you could give to them about how to be as you are a

tough perspective interesting reporter? >> the objective between opinion and fact now, be as objective as you can. do not rely on just information in the white house because i think you get more when you have sources outside the white house to give you more of a lot back story without as much spin as it is in the white house. and people inside the white house, your sources as well as outside the white house. >> for this book, the presidency in black-and-white, you had a fantastic standing room only event at politics and prose and you cannot high level obama administration up the shoulder. >> several people from various administrations and barack obama saturday night and the appearance. it was interesting and i reached out and ask and she said she would come. >> what is baron's roll?

>> the senior advisor to president barack obama. the president of the united states. she has the unique role. she is close to this president as far as from chicago. she advises him domestically, she helps him as well as others navigate the waters how to engage in this country or fix problems or go forward with issues. >> is she the most powerful person in the white house? >> the president is. >> i think she is. i think she -- i am not saying that in the negative fence. it is a wonderful thing. we had condoleezza rice in the bush years who was instrumental. the presidency in black-and-white, she acknowledged that she was one of

the closest advisers to the president. the president called her mother hen and it is true. >> what does the president call you? >> i don't know. >> george w. bush had all those names. did you? >> she calls a gabriel, a spanish version of my name. i don't know. i hope they call me honest and fair. i hope that is what they call me. >> in your book the presidency in black and white, you write about covering president clinton and you right in there about the soul food dinner that you offer president clinton. >> we had a historic dinner with president bill clinton at a time when we were dealing with issues of race, and the numbers of black reporters in the white house, many of the white reporters -- bose t r is off the record.

off the record many of the correspondence -- >> millionaire's row. >> will probably be named now. they had all of these off the records with the president you always want to get close to the principle to find out what he is thinking, to give a sense of how to report on a certain story but the other reporters were complaining we never got it. the white house is trying to figure out how to get a meeting with one so they can talk about what they think about race and we are trying to think about that so both sides met in the middle and a local reporter's house. this is when the secret service had too much. they were there watching the clock. garlic fried chicken, the best chicken in the world. he jokingly said during the bush

years in the oval office, how are you doing? i said hey, mr. president. what about that dinner? yes, that is why i am having our heart attack. i said no mr. president. you can do that to me. >> you covered first lady hillary clinton and secretary clinton. hillary clinton to cover at the white house as a candidate and perhaps -- >> she is different from her husband. people need to recognize that. she is a trailblazer. the presidential pedigree, i'm not saying that as someone for her or against her but she is looking at the paper. she has the pedigree but she is not president clinton. we would have to see how she navigates the water. one thing we have to figure out, she has to figure out how to

handle president clinton because he has to have something to do in the white house. i say this honestly. demand was president of the united states who has gone around the world has this great initiative, the clinton global initiative. team might be the

liability. >> another interview i think eddie murphy would be great. those are two of my dream comedians. >> and so congratulations on your book. thank you for coming. [applause] >> by the book. >> good luck at your next interview. we welcome the president and senior advisor dan pfeiffer. [applause]'s senior advisor dan pfeiffer. [applause] dan has been with this question since-zero. rejoined the president the day before he announced for president on martin luther king day 2007. how was he different than? >> at his core he is the same

guy. this discordant experience where he is sitting around as we are travelling around the country or the world talking sports. going back to the same conversations we were having eight years ago when it was just the president and i flying around on a commercial plane in the early days of the campaign and then step back and like we are having a conversation on air force one on our way to the vatican to meet the pope or something critical like that but at the core he is the same person. he is more battle hardened over time more experienced. he has more gray hair like all of us. he feels like the same person to me. >> what is the biggest thing you've learned from this president about life, leadership and management? >> this president has an amazing ability to really give people

respect. i see this every interaction with any person is potential -- no matter how crumb be retired you are that day, what was in the paper that morning, when you meet that person who comes in your office, maybe one chance to brief you, however many years, it to be nice and make that person feel that they matter. the does that incredibly well. if he can do that can't we all do that? >> david axelrod's book believe her, there is not moment in there where the president called david axelrod, can say on c-span, it stars with them, you probably heard that yourself. >> if you have been around long time. >> have you been called that? >> i have been called some words

over the course of time. we are each in our fresh air. >> what is it that will put the president in the mood of like that? what trips his wire? >> could be an array of things. >> i tell you this. >> when politics get in the way of easy, simple solutions. >> that is not what he does yelling at david axelrod. >> you are the guy who woke me at the office at the wrong time. >> he definitely is. >> that happens to all of us but what drives him crazy as a simple solution that happens with congress all the time. politics gets in the way and it is a wasted opportunity. that drives me nuts. >> dan pfeiffer starts with the news, the president didn't interview jeff mason in that interview the president said

that iran should commit to a verifiable freeze on nuclear activity, the president called it double digit years. what is the outlook for getting a permanent agreement on those lines? >> the president said the odds were against, i don't think that has changed. we made progress but it is a hard thing to do. it will be hard, we will keep working on it. we have work to do. >> this president needs a deal for a foreign policy. >> the core after the president's legacy we made some real strides whether ending will work in iraq taking up osama bin laden, and a very important one.

>> what would it mean for the country? >> what is the deal with the alternative? and that could be a messy situation. and put any effort into the deal, has to be a deal that is the most important thing a verifiable deal and it is important that we are arguing to get a deal and have given us spaces to appreciate. we will keep working out what we can do. >> watching in live stream, a in downtown d.c. prime minister jihadi john once a nearby hotel.

and is real inconvenient. this weekend on cnn, turning down the rhetoric from the administration on this visit which is not your idea and taking you by surprise. >> what the president said in his interview, you haven't seen soon prime minister netanyahu said unprecedented security cooperation with the israelis, the dispute over the speech and howard all came about is a distraction from the larger issue. >> there was a time -- >> i think we made a point that it is important to keep the u.s./is really relationship non-partisan. that is the hallmark of howard

has been handled overtime. if we can get past this then back to business. >> you can be honest if nothing else. you would love for prime minister netanyahu to lose this election. >> the idea that won't get involved in the fraud election. that is true. it has to do with how the president is handling the visit. >> one other news of the day question. if the administration loses the supreme court case on the affordable care act a and millions of people could lose their health care subsidies,

what would the president's message be? >> first to not lose the case. it is not up to me. i wish it was. the law is on our side. is clear what the intent was here. more arguments and a couple days here and we focus our energy on the department of justice winning those arguments and i suspect we will do that. is important to recognize what the consequences of this decision would be for millions of americans who depend on these subsidies and the impact it would have on premiums. ..

whether the congressional leadership that could result in a bargain? >> i think in a lot of ways a grand bargain would get there this way and if you look in the congress passed few days ago this would be a complicated business to get guns. the most simple thing that congress could do is fund the agency for three weeks. and so i don't think we are going to rest our hopes -- i would say we are always hopeful something could change or publicans could get more functional but we are not

naïve. >> there are a lot of ways to grand bargain in the fourth quarter. >> the grand bargaining generally is a bipartisan agreement. there is a chance and the president is going to try for it. we have to recognize -- >> what is he going to try for? >> we might be able to get it done trade is one option. one would be can we reform the tax code and use that to pay for infrastructure? i don't know if you would call that a grand bargain. a grand but bargain or something like that. we have the most right-wing congress in history. they've never been compromised with this president. but if we can find an opportunity to do that we well. >> a week ago we would have said on the list of things that could get it done, trade is at the top and in an interview with

politico you saw senator elizabeth warren said she was against the tpa and the tpp and said she was very concerned about some of the specific provisions. >> not necessarily. trade is going to be hard. it's probably a little bit harder now than it's been in the past because you can't count any of the republican votes because there is an isolationist wing and the republican party. but i think people should do is if we are going to have a tpp deal he is not going to agree to one that isn't. it's not quite be the one after fighting for the middle class every step of the way of a progressive view of economics that's not going to have been. so everyone is trying to -- everyone is critiquing but it's not done yet.

>> i don't really have got to be the case. i think we should let her see the deal and then make a judgment. >> so you remain optimistic about changing senator warren's mind? >> click >> it's not up to me judging data. for me it is an actual deal to let people look at that and then they can make their own judgments. >> you're going to be leaving the white house when asked >> friday. >> so you've been doing a lot of things for the last time. what's something you were happy to do for the last time? >> happy to do for the last time -- the last time i wake up before five in the morning i will be happy to do that. >> you use to tell me you woke up every day at 4:20. >> over the course of time that was true in the early days. i got better as time management and more tiger to come and so now i wake up at that hour for a

couple days a week. other days i sleep a bit later. >> 4:50? >> five something. >> this will serve everyone in the room and watching. what is the time management that he picked up that gave you 40 extra minutes of sleep? and >> it's something you learn in the white house which is being able to separate the signal from the noise, what's real and what is just a distraction. at the first year you think everything is a huge deal in the presidency and overtime you realize that isn't that big a deal and you can focus your energy a little bit better. >> thank you for doing this on your shortlist between now and friday what else is on your shortlist click >> pack my office, which i'm very behind on because i have six years of accumulated stuff. you know and i wanted to sort of soap in the last few days. you use this as an opportunity to put this entire experience into perspective because it's --

it's been sort of a nostalgic mood obviously the last few weeks that if you look back to those very early days in the campaign, there's just a small handful of us and the idea that we'd all be here doing this and have this opportunity. and i probably, if i had one regret is the last eight years i spend too much of this front seat for history with my face buried in my blackberry. there is no major presidential speech i actually watched. i usually just heard it and read my e-mails and checked while i was doing it. so the last few days i want to try to soak in and recognize what it's about. >> what's something you did for the last time clacks >> i don't know whether the trip

i took with the president will be my last one -- >> when was the? >> we traveled last week, we went to florida. as i was getting off them again i thought that might be the last one. that is just a regal experience. we were sitting on the helicopter and i thought this will be the last time. we have another one on friday. you have a fantastic vacation planned? >> i'm going to take several weeks traveling. [inaudible] its hard vacation planning when you have another job because you can always find -- you never stop but i'm looking forward to getting time off. i will take more time -- i will

have more time off in the coming months than the last ten years. >> what are your short-term planned? to >> [inaudible] >> [inaudible] >> that's what i want to focus on quickly. i have a few weeks to go and i'm going to try to get a little sleep. [inaudible] [laughter] you recently did a swing through silicon valley, high-level visits. what is the most surprising thing you've learned >> to get the best and brightest social media companies cover the folks in the venture capital world working with the next technology is that folks are

doing. the digital marketing and engagement. the premise is over the course of the six years in the white house particularly the last two years, the media landscape has changed so much that it's getting increasingly difficult to get your chosen message out and actually heard by people and at the same time it's getting easy for your opponent to get sort of their more viral message into the ether. so that was the press. then you go out there and you look at the problems we're facing and we are facing and their answer is yeah we have the same problem. everyone across-the-board is confronting this hyperkinetic media space where you've gone from google where we refer to as the broadcast model where people hear what tv radio newspapers are broadcasting to the network model where you are not hearing directly from necessarily from

politico or cbs or abc. you are hearing from someone else that has heard from cvs. they are selected based on their own bias and you end up in this world where people are maybe only hearing the information that their friends or colleagues want him to year and that makes it much more challenging to get your message out. >> what is the coolest thing that's being worked on clacks >> i think everyone can see this now it's what snap chat is doing with espn, cnn and some others through the discover function. it's fundamentally change the way that i watch espn. it's kind of frowned upon in the morning. it have to do a white house briefing there is a fair trade. but it is a very cool way of doing it. one of the things you find is

they are getting their news from david and facebook necessarily that snap chat and instant ram and they are finding ways to get information out in ways that are antithetical to distributing the news and information. >> is the president on snap chat? >> he is not. i will be clear about that. he watches on television at the gym like many americans. >> if you are the president you have any tv you want. over the years he has been a big ipad-er. >> he still has a blackberry. as for the ipad is his primary sort of media device. >> over the years you and i have had a longitudinal conversation about what the president reads. there's a lot of things the president does that takes you by surprise. what are some things you know

he's going to read? >> is always going to read magazines. sometimes actual hardcopy form that marked him -- martin nichols and carry around command also has ipad and and about as everything that is everything from espn magazine and rolling stone to the economist the atlantic. he focuses not so much on the political articles that are interesting because he knows a lot about that, but other topics he finds incredibly fascinating. >> one of the projects that you engineered was reimagining how the state of the union is packaged and pulled out and one of the decisions was to put the text of the state of the union on the media before the president opened his mouth. this was a mildly controversial decision in the white house because you are breaking a pretty long tradition of sort of the end or go copy of the text. a lot of people it's like a

great farce in washington which is a number of minutes before the speech the president will put out the press list the embargo copies or the text of the speech. then every -- then they will send it to their forces that are a. then they will send it to their friends. and by that time the the time the president hits the podium, basically everyone in official washington has seen the speech but no one in the public has. and so our view this time was two things. one come if every official in washington can see it why can't the public sees clacks we are not going to change it. you might as well put it out. i don't know that but i heard they got close to the podium before we did. also one of our goals we have about the state of the union is go where the conversations are happening because the television audience is diminishing every year. about half now what it was in the first in about one third of

what it was not too long ago and so we decided to try to design and content across the board if you were watching a live stream you would have an enhanced version. if you were just someone following on twitter we would be sending out info graphics and things like that in the moments. it is a growing community where people go into so we decided that if we put it there and maybe show respect to that community people would see it and then people would either read it we would never watch the speech, we would just read it to the people would become interesting and now there's a place where they congregate. so we had a couple different groups of people in mind. we segment of the audience into four different groups. people would actually watch it on television and that means writing a good speech into delivering it well.

people would watch on live stream on their laptop or their ipad and this would be the enhanced content developers and for graphics stacks, photographs, stuff like that. they are missing important things like i do which is watch it so we have twitter and facebook and content for that and then people who were never going to watch the speech in its entirety. so we are putting out segments we wanted people to see, posting the speech on the media for people to see and so we try to design content for all of that. >> there is a risk and reward it to putting the white house officials on twitter. >> yes twitter came into the prominence after we came to office. it was an emerging technology

during the campaign. but it was less at the time that they were using to convey their message. reporters started getting not quickly and he would look out and people were constantly typing on their phones. he thought they were just texting but it turns out that they were sending out the briefing. so we felt like the conversations we had to get into what create the press secretary account. but then we sort of slowly over time added a couple of other people. myself and -- >> will you keep that were well you get a new handle clacks >> we will see. >> hopefully, that would be michael. >> somehow i think that could be arranged.

and the people they kept this whose job it was to speak for the president. if you could do an on the record interview you probably could handle a twitter account. hopefully. we realize over the course of time that we were missing a lot of conversations. one, we didn't have enough of our staff on twitter because there's a huge back and forth happening with reporters themselves about shaping the narrative about the president and a sort of the event of the day that we were doing and we need more bandwidth to engage in the conversation. we saw a reporter sending something that was in and correct take on what we thought was an incorrect take on the events that day. we can clear that up before it went too far. but then we also realized that there are communities of interest out there of people who would be very interested in

immigration. they were talking about immigration and therefore in the domestic policy they have a long set of experiences and immigration community and is spearheaded on twitter to talk to those people. that's what you do with that is at risk because the big tension that we deal with is discipline and authenticity. they are not completely as it sounds but the more people you put on twitter the less experienced into the more likely you are to have someone make an error so we decided after a while that by trying to be so disciplined, we were missing out on the conversation happening in social media. >> how has the rapidly changing world affected how the campaign is covered and ron >> it will be different a year from now because the pace of

changes so fast right now. i think that the camp in terms of how it is run they will need a lot more people than we needed certainly in 2008 because you're going to have to have people who are reaching out to influencers across the board there will be people you know that we have all heard of that have a large twitter following like paul krugman or tom friedman or someone like that and then there are also people that are influential on the specific set of issues. one example is dave roberts. people may not know who he is but he has a lot of influence on line so people need to be reaching out to influencers like that. that's going to take a lot of effort and resources. the second thing is i think that

the idea of the political message of the day is if it isn't dead, it's dying because we now have this built like there may be one thing that they will cover cover that day and you will have to adhere to that end of you with it. but you now have this ability to reach out to people through alternative means either through social media, through some of these new media platforms that have come out and as you talk about other issues you want to talk about. you may be talking about your tax plan that all of the reporters are covering. you can also have a team of people that are measuring your climate plan, health care plan veterans plan are the people interested. so it is going to be harder for the reporters to cover because the conversations me the most important but they are not the ones that are happening at the event that you are covering that day. >> you worked with secretary clinton and he worked against secretary clinton. what will be the key to success

for the campaign? >> i will let her an ounce whether she is running. i will say doing this generally i think it is the success for any democrat running who is going to be how do you motivate the coalition of the voters who came out in 2008 2012 and it's going to be harder for the next person. the president has a very visible connection. so it's going to require more work and organization. that's going to be a challenge but i think that will be the key to discuss. >> you've still got it. when you first came to the white

house and you were asked, who was the most powerful white house officials who got the least attention you said jim messina and i think that has been cured. in april 2013 i asked you that question and you said melissa also cured. who is now the person? the neck that person now is a nida breckinridge who works across the whole from me. it's like one of the most important jobs. the next person in the white house will get to know that person the person but she knows the president as well as anyone. also the presidential candidates used to drive the president around in her car running in the senate perry in 20033 if she

goes way back. and the president was smoking. reportedly so. this is a question from the politico magazine editor. what's something you wished you wish you could change about the white house press corps backs to the >> if april were in charge every year. >> i think that would be a big draw. let's say you got that, what would the next wish be? >> i think it was always a tricky question to ask because let's say you wanted a change and they specifically were not changing. but i think we want what every white house wants which is to have the opportunity to explain

our motivations for why the president does things because so often this is endemic of a lot of press. everything is put through a political filter. it's going to help us win the 2,014th election or when this group of voters in this state. but it's what the president thinks is the right thing to do and i believe wholeheartedly that the white house press corps should have very real skepticism. the white house has earned that over time and they should keep that up. but there also should be a level of trust and the idea is sometimes we make a mistake and sometimes it's just a mistake. someone says the wrong thing, they didn't read the talking point of the memo. >> i have a couple of questions i will let you read this one. >> whose idea was it to make

michelle obama -- >> i can't take credit for that although i wish i could. i believe that it was the first lady communication staff that came up with that. very clever. she's very good at social media. she understands that with him and the nature. >> here's another question are there any topics or issues that are high on the potential agenda that can't be priorities right now? >> i don't think so. i think that the agenda of the president will have when he has a moment to sort of think about what comes next will be right at the core of the issues that drove him in the white house. there is not a secret issue like we are waiting. it will be the waste of a presidency. but i think certainly you would imagine the basket of the economic issues.

i suspect the work on my brother's keeper that had an anniversary friday. >> the attorney general said that might be the most important legacy. >> it is a mentoring program giving young people confidence. >> it's to set up a series of initiatives. it's something he takes very personally and to hear the president talk to people of color on his his experiences and if you didn't take them take the whole interview or hear it i guess, the historical interview us tweak that i think air on friday where he had a conversation with the young man with the criminal justice system to make himself better and have the president talk about his experiences not going up with a

father was powerful. >> the president recently did a buzzfeed interview that did a component of the affordable care act. did you feel like that crossed the line into sponsored content? >> i didn't. i think buzzfeed came to us with a proposal that included the substantive interview and a funny video and -- >> originally it was just one of the -- >> know they came with them together. we had a number of conversations the number of times and the idea for the video came from them. this has been portrayed as some suggested we will give you an interview on how this works and i think it was -- almost 51 million views. >> that's more than the dress. >> the dress is trying to catch

up. i think like as we get new platforms or new ways of going about and doing things. so buzzfeed is a very successful platform. they got a very tough but fair sense of the president and they have a content video that their audience will enjoy. so it has worked for them and other people have other outlets or different sorts of proposals. but these are media companies and they have different -- they also engage with their audience. >> foods were those? >> i think that they just found them lying around. but it turns out if they were vice president biden's shades i will send it out of the white house. it was fun. people see the president like if you are what shape the news

standing behind the podium talking about isis or a fight with republicans about whether they can fund the department of homeland security during the campaign people got to know him and see the other side of him and it's important to be able to see and have some fun with it. we don't have to take ourselves so seriously all the time. it was great. >> the president recently did fox. did you think the questions would be tougher? >> i thought they were plenty tough, but i always did. look, i think they have a very specific policy oriented audience and they produce content that works for the audience and the way they did their video is very clever and it's different than if we did a television interview. this is a challenge for a lot of the media companies now is to be able to develop content that is different but speaks to the audience and i think fox did a

good job of that and i think that others are going to try to figure that out. >> i think that politico has a question and we will get a microphone to him. last year we talked about modernizing the white house briefing. how it might change to the eu said it was something that you had given a lot of thoughts to that you could imagine ways that it could change, but you said there are some things only a new president could do what with the advice be to your successors? >> my advice would be before you get to the white house to sit down with the association and have a legitimate conversation about how you can't achieve both -- can achieve the white house and the association because we get as many complaints to the white house correspondents association about the correspondence about the briefing that kind of makes sense make sense in this 24/7

media cycle. this isn't like the old days where you wake up in the morning, call some sources go to the briefing, you hear something, put it in writing and turn it in at 6:00 at night. now they are constantly writing and producing content. if you sat down with them you might be able to find ways that made it more suitable to the current media environment and in the current work patterns of the white house correspondents while at the same time preserving what i think is a good reinforcement tradition -- important tradition of the white house answering questions on a regular basis. >> what would be an example of how you might do that? >> josh would shoot me for saying this, but you could do it earlier in the morning. you could do a more -- you could do an earlier morning off-camera

gaggle that what sort of serves some purpose is for people who are writing. there are a whole host of ways to do it. getting additional media outlets in the room finding ways to take questions from people who can't be there -- there are a lot of ways people smarter than me and with more skin in the game can figure out. they will figure it out when the time comes. >> what outlets would you like to see in the room that are not now? >> i think it is diversified and expanded in terms of number of outlets but more diversity in a whole host of other ways. i think if we can find ways for people to have -- whether it is a capacity for questions from the public in some way, shape or form for smaller outlets -- like one of the challenges we have is even though the media landscape is changing the papers are incredibly important that the

economics of the papers have made it so such that very few of them are ever able to come to the briefing. if there are ways you can take questions from them, the internet or some other way that would be good because it's not -- i don't think it's great that people in a lot of districts were on the reading -- they don't get the local spin as much as they should on how the policies affect their state. ..

radicalize segments of the population? >> i didn't see that poll. i am notably skeptical of public polling in america, let alone in other countries so i can't tell you whether, what that poll reflects reality. i can just explain the or try to explain the logic how we address this issue, which is, i think it is very important and i think, you know, the bush administration was very good at making this point which is that we're at war with terrorists not at war with islam and the more we allow the very adept propogandists for al qaeda and isil to paint the idea that we are at war with islam and not at war with them, hampers our

efforts. we try to be very good, specific about this. will very involved with moderate elements, in syria and across the middle east. >> we're about to get the hook here. you're someone known in the white house for doing a lot of reading, even making time to read fiction in the white house. you read a lot of presidential memoirs. as partisan a guy as you are, i'm told after reading about and by george w. bush you felt a little sympathy? >> i read peter baker's book about -- >> days of fire. >> thank you. i couldn't remember the title. no offense, peter. and you know, i think, very few people get ever get to experience the same things that we experience every day sort of the pace in the white house, the fact that you wake up and the entire world as you know it has

changed because something you had no control in the world. so i did real sympathy for the bush great -- with their policies i felt from the bush staffers were going through a lot of the same things we were going through. i mean these are really hard jobs, the choices, the policy choices are incredibly strategic and decisions you make are always 51-49 decisions. no easy call that you make. reading that book i did have sympathy for them. >> what did you learn from "days of fire"? what surprised you from "days of fire"? >> i read it after the holidays. after the health care web site was broken. there were stories about the death of obama presidency. i read that book and john haireries's book right before that, about bill clinton's

presidency. wrap my mind around second term presidents. i took away both those books, as bad as our 2013 was man, those guys had worst years than we did. i felt better about our standing. >> what are you reading at this moment? >> i'm reading -- book at this moment, believer. >> how true is it? >> it is very true. >> have you found anything you're like, come on? >> not yet. you know it's like you know now at this point i don't whether i believe these things, i think these things are true because they happened or talking about them for six years now. but i think it is a very poignant read for me as i wind down my time here, to put myself back in the place what it felt like in the campaign and sort of the big huge, bet, that we made in early 2007 and so very

poignant. great read. i've known david for a long time but i learned a ton about acts, his days as reporter. it is a great book. even if you are not a huge obama fan or huge ax fan i can't imagine anyone not a huge axe fan, gives you idea what the time in the white house and campaign was about. >> what will you read now for fun now that you're liberated? >> that is good question. the next book by richard price, a crime thriller one of my favorite authors. that will be hopefully a good beach read at some point. >> penultimate question we'll get you out of here. you're a young person coming to washington. you want to be dan pfeiffer what do you do? >> aim higher than that. but, look i think in washington, or on campaigns who, where you went to school who you know, who your parents are, who they gave money to may

get you in the door but-ups you're in the door none of that the makers anymore. the person who works hardest and smartest succeeds. there is no better example of that is david plouffe, who came to washington got into politics without ever graduating from college and ended up managing the presidential election in 2008. if you work harder you know when you if you work on the campaign in particular this works the best get to work before your boss. and leave work after your boss, you're going to have real shot making it. >> as we say good-bye, you're a big georgetown basketball fan another of city's well-known georgetown basketball fans minister of united arab emirates. he has a question for you, we have talented and young team heavy with good guards but no centers. given young nature and disadvantage in size how do you think we'll fare in the big

dance? >> look i think, there is a little bit baked into that question. >> exactly. >> this is a team, this is the most athletic georgetown team in a very long time. one of the challenges in the tournament we run up against teams that were more athletic than us. florida gulf coast a few years ago most notably. we got a real this team, if the freshman can stay poised chance to make a run. >> who in your final four? >> as of today it is kentucky virginia gonzaga, and arizona. >> thank all of you in live stream land. thank all of you on c-span. thank the colleagues at bank of america for making this these conversations available. we appreciate this partnership and these events. i want to thank my "politico" event colleagues worked so hard. dan's colleagues at white house who made this possible in very short period of time. thank you to all of you coming out tonight despite having motorcades parking elsewhere. dan, thank you. congratulations on amazing run.

thank you for a great conversation. >> thank you. [applause] >> we learned today that dr. ben carson is announcing he has create ad presidential exploratory committee. he is a retired pediatric neurosurgeon, a regular speaker at republican events. by forming a exploratory committee he raise money to transfer to a presidential campaign if he decides to go ahead. this is his first try running for election to a public office. senate is in recess partly by a speech from israeli prime minister bejnamin netanyahu wrapped up short time ago. weekly policy luncheons. senators will move forward on resolution to disapprove a labor relations board ruling regarding unions. they may debate to override the

president's veto of the xl oil pipeline. live coverage when the senators return on c-span2. ash carter and joint chiefs chairman general michael dempsey, will testify before the senate armed services committee on capitol hill this afternoon. they will be explaining their defense department's budget requests for next year. c-span3 will have live coverage starting 2:30 eastern. senator bob menendez spoke at the annual american after israel public affairs congress. should prevent iran developing one nuclear weapon. that was the prime minister issue for israeli prime minister bejnamin netanyahu before a joint meeting of congress a short time ago. we'll have the speech entirety about 12:30 eastern. right now senator menendez. this is about 20 minutes. [applause]

♪ >> thank you very much. let me thank my good friend lonnie kaplan and all of aipac's leaders and members. this is not in my remarks but let me just say i listening to these parents was so moved. we must make sure that no child in israel ever loses their life in a situation like this and no parent ever has to come before you as an audience against this. [applause] as i look out at this sea of fellow americans i want to

recognize the new jersey delegation. this year almost 500 strong. [applause] and to all of you from new jersey and across the nation welcome to washington. my name is bob menendez and anyone who knows me knows three things. i believe it is in the national security and interests of the united states to have a strong, unwaiverring relationship with the state of israel! [cheers and applause] i have always stood for the israeli people's right to defend themselves and live in peace in the land of their ancestors. [applause] and when it comes to defending the u.s.-israel relationship, i am not intimidated by anyone. not israel's political enemies and not my political friends

when i believe they're wrong. [applause] now, i agree with some democrats that the political timing of prime minister netanyahu's speech to congress tomorrow may have been unfortunate and we must work fervently to keep the u.s.-israel relationship a strong bipartisan endeavor. [applause] but i must disagree with those who say the prime minister's visit to the united states is destructive to u.s.-israel relations. and tomorrow i will be proud when i escort the prime minister to the house chamber to give his speech. [cheers and applause] to show him the respect he deserves from every american, who cares about our relationship

with the only true democracy in the middle east. [applause] the only vibrant democracy with a dynamic economy, a proud, strong responsible military, home to entrepreneurs activists, intellectuals artists and scientists and a model for the region and the world. prime minister cameron of great britain came to washington in january and he lobbied congress against iran sanctions. well it seems to me that if it is okay for one prime minister to express his views, it should be good for all prime ministers. [cheers and applause] the fact is. the fact is, is that the

u.s.-israel relationship and security of the israeli people is much more important than -- any one person or any speech to congress. it is sacrosanct, untouchable and transcends party affiliation or philosophy and that's why we are here at aipac. why all of us, democrats, republicans, christians and jews come together at one of the largest assemblies washington hosts every year to exercise our constitutional right to advocate with our government to stand up for israel and to stand against anyone who would dare challenge israel's fundamental right to exist. [cheers and applause] now, know that there are more than a few people here in

washington who say that i am outspoken in my defense of israel. and frankly i'm not only proud of it, i am fully prepared to stand on this stage today or any stage anywhere, anytime to carry that message to both the friends and enemies of israel around the world. [cheers and applause] now, when it comes to iran i say to the ayatollah and president rouhani that any deal to be a good deal, has to be built on more than mothballing iran's program more than an inspection and verification regime focused on monitoring a

one-year breakout capacity. you can be certain the mullahs are not going to call us in washington when they decide to breach the agreement. they are going to sneak out covertly gradually over time when they think we're not looking. just as they have in the past. and they're going to parse the words of this agreement and argue as they have already about whether a nuclear advancement technically violates the agreement. i have to be honest with you. as someone who has followed this well over 20 years from my days in the house of representatives that's simply not good enough. it is not a good deal. if it leaves iran as a threshold nuclear state or if iran decides to kick out inspectors, it's not a good deal if iran proceeds on a covert path and we have no more than a year to

respond. it's not enough time for us to do anything other than exercise a military option. so, let us do all we can now to get an agreement that dismantles iran's illicit program and insures that it will not have to be a military response. a good deal not just any deal is what we need. [applause] now, if and i underline if, if what the published reports describe are true, and it is a deal where iran remains a threshold nuclear power for the next 10 years, with the potential to build up its nuclear infrastructure, in exchange for large-scale sanctions relief and access to

currently frozen assets, especially in the last five years of those 10 years, well, that essentially make this is a five-year deal, not a 10-year deal, let alone the 20-years we were originally seeking. and if that is the case, then we have gone too far towards iran's positions. so here we are. [applause] here we are, near the end of the negotiations to have a framework document and the goalposts have moved from dismantlement to reconfiguration. from a peaceful nuclear program to just enough to detect breakout. from no right to enrichment, to getting an alarm system. now i have agreed to wait until after march the 25th, before supporting a vote on prospective, prospective new tighter sanctions, before voting

on the new sanctions bill that i authored with senator kirk but iran needs to understand there are consequences to an impasse. those consequences are additional consequential sanctions. [applause] iran's leaders, much make up their mind about what is more important, a nuclear weapons program or the welfare of its people. [applause] now until now until now, iran has not been motivated sufficiently to make that decision. and, if we do reach an agreement, and i certainly pray that we reach an agreement that we can all embrace, that is what i have been working for better part of the last nearly two decades. i have joined however if we do get agreement, i have joined

chairman corker and senators graham and kaine along with senator donnelly, hide cam king nelson, ayote, rubio mccain and risch introducing bipartisan oversight legislations to insure that congress has a chance to review the legislation before it goes into effect and to oversee it compliant after it goes into effect. [applause] it was congress that was responsible for bringing iran to the table. and it is congress that should have a roll role besiding whether to provide sanctions relief based on their compliance or noncompliance with an agreement. [applause] a deal can not be built on trust alone. it can not be built on hope. it can not be built on

aspirations or good inten shuns like the north korea deal. not when iran still holds nuclear aspirations. not as it continues to sponsor terrorism and not while it asserts hegemonic interests from yemen to bahrain, iraq and lebanon. not as events in syria worsen a human tragedy of now unimaginable proportions, supported, encouraged and financed by tehran. and not while iran's fingerprints remain in the dust of the israeli embassy and jewish community even as it seeks to bargain with that country's leader for be a solution. that can not be the case. [applause] this this is iran. this is the state we are negotiating with.

there can be little doubt that under a flawed deal that fails to roll back iran's nuclear program, that every extra sense, no every extra would go directly towards iran's nefarious adventures that threaten israel, the region and are diametrically opposed to national interests and security of the united states, our friends and allies. and i can tell you one thing. as long as i have an ounce of fight left in me as long as i have a vote and a say and a chance to protect the interests of israel the region and the national security interests of the united states, iran will never have a paths way to a -- pathway to a weapon. it will never threaten israel or its neighbors and it will never be in a position to start a nuclear arms race in the middle east. not on my watch. [applause]

now, israel is a country a government and a people that loves peace and values life. last summer israel under assault from hamas's campaign of terror rockets in the air and terror tunnels from the ground stood by its inalienable right to self-defense but forced to take on an enemy who doesn't celebrate life but celebrates death, hides rockets in mosques, schools and hospitals and shields them with women and children, what did israel do? given this range of impossible options, it chose to distribute flyers and warn innocent citizens that the idf is coming. said leave go now. it made phone calls and it said,

leave, go now. it made radio announcements and it said, leave, go now. what other army in the world tells you we are coming? [applause] as a result israeli soldiers were put at risk but israel did it anyway. why? because it was right to protect innocent palestinians who should not have to suffer more than they already have. [applause] now for the past year the united states has actively sought to bring israeli and palestinian leaders together to directly negotiate for peace and security in the context of a two-state solution. unfortunately palestinian authority president mahmoud abbas, rather than face the hard work of building domestic support for compromise has

turned to international unilateralism. he ran to new york and the u.n. security council this past december with a lopsided resolution that was so egregiously imbalance, it failed without a veto. he ran to rome to join the international criminal court despite the fact that he is not the president of a state. here is the tough reality that president abbas must accept. a palestinian state will only come through the hard work of direct negotiations. it will only come with a commitment to build up non-corrupt government institutions and it will only come through economic development, education and responsible security. these are the reality he has yet to face. [applause] and i think a continuous effort to pursue unilateralism, is

diminished international support. so, i want to, this night renew my call for the palestinian authority to end its pact with hamas, a recognized terror organization, that is committed to israel's destruction and whose charter calls for the murder of jews. as i have said before, president abbas's actions can not stand, assistance is not a blank check. and u.s. support is not conditional. [applause] now, we hope and pray for peace but we must always have israel's back and having israel's back means fighting back against efforts by any nation or any anti-semitic terrorist group, any haters or holocaust deniers who try to delegitimatize israel. as i have said here many times,

and on many other occasions the holocaust was the most sinister possible reminder that the jewish people in exile lived in constant jeopardy. but while the shoa is central to israel's identity, it was never the reason behind its founding and it is not the main justification for israel's existence today. [applause] the true justification is written in thousands of years of undeniable history that lead to an undeniable conclusion, re-establishment of the state of israel in modern times is the result of a political reality that has grown from strong deep roots going back to the time of abraham and sarah. . .

by lives saved, peace made and battles one. there can be no denying the history or the courage of the jewish people. and i know there can be no denying the jewish people their legitimate right to live in peace and security on the homeland for which they have a

connection for thousands of years. [applause] that is while you are in washington, and that is why i will not yield to those who wish to break me. for so long as i have a voice and a vote i will not yield to those who wish to break my resolve on stopping iran's illicit nuclear program or on preserving the unshakable bond between israel and the united states. thank you and show shalom. [applause] ♪ ♪ ♪ >> those remarks of yesterday in a speech by israeli prime minister finish up about 30 minutes ago. political is written the story about of israeli prime minister netanyahu warned a joint meeting

of congress today that iran must not be trusted in its negotiations with the united states over its nuclear program. netanyahu said an emerging deal with western powers including the united states makes concessions that would guarantee that iran retains the ability to develop a nuclear weapons capability. quote, it doesn't block their path. it pays their path to the bomb. we will have that speech in its entirety before the senate returns at 2:15 p.m. before we get to it house democrats are expected to come to the radio and tv gallery. a live picture here. they will be responding to the prime minister's remarks and we'll have that lie for you when it begins on on c-span2. it should be in just a couple of moments. right now remarks from senate democrats on the senate floor this morning point to the speech by prime minister netanyahu you for the joint meeting of congress today. >> at 11:00 is when there will

be a historic joint session of congress. it doesn't make history that the leader from some other country would speak to a joint session. it's happened over 100 times. i've attended many of those trendy time that i served in the house and the senate. what is historic about this session is that it was called unilaterally by the republican speaker of the house of john boehner. usually consistently joint sessions of congress have been called on a bipartisan basis. and in most cases involve the administration, executive branch. in this case speaker boehner made history his own way by saying he would announce a joint session of congress welcoming the prime minister of visual. i also checked with the senate historian. it turns out there's another piece of history being made today. he can find no precedent when members of congress have come for from both the house and senate and announced publicly that would not attend a joint session of congress. that has happened.

i might say that that's a personal private decision by each member of congress to wish, whether they wish to attend this joint session this morning. i'm going to attend primarily because my respect for the state of israel, the fact that throughout my public career in the house and the senate i have valued a bipartisan support -- >> senate democrats this morning on the floor. we will leave this at this point and go live to hear from house democrats on the prime minister's speech this afternoon, this morning. >> but again this is part of a strategy that he used. i resented the condescending tone that he used which basically indicated that he didn't anybody in congress or the country understood the threat that a nuclear weaponize iran posts to his country, to the region and the world. i think the president has made it very clear we understand that threat. i don't think that there is any

doubt that everyone in congress and the administration understands that iran has been a bad actor in the region, that it has sponsored terrorism, that it has done things that would like to see changed. we all know that. nice of him to remind us. and i also resent the fact that he was telling us how to negotiate when the administration and their representatives have been at this for two years now with the cooperation and participation of five other major nations in the world. this speech was straight out of the dick cheney playbook. this was fear mongering at its ultimate. phrases like essentially saying nuclear war is inevitable if this deal were to be i deal were to be accepted. phrases like this would pave the way to iran having a nuclear bomb. these are things that i think are again part of what dick

cheney would have done and did. this has been prime ministers pattern. is gone to the u.n. and done the same thing. i understand and as all of us do, all of us who desperately support israel and care very deeply about israeli security, that israel perceives its threat differently than we might. i don't think there's any question that the administration and all of us understand the threat and are trying our best to thwart it. my final comment, prime minister netanyahu basically said that the only acceptable do was a perfect deal, or an ideal deal. it's like the child who says i want to go to disneyland every day, eat ice cream and drink coca-cola everyday and not go to school. that would be a nice life for a child but this is very serious business and it is being conducted in a very very real

world. idealism is fine as william f. buckley once said that as it approaches reality the cost prohibited. and in this case i believe that insisting on the ideal deal again in a world where things constantly change and realities change, something for which the cause will be prohibited. and those costs would be a lost opportunity to put an end to iran's nuclear program. and with that i would like to introduce david price of north carolina. >> thank you, john, and good morning. as john said the members are individually made our decisions about attended the speech but what we are united in is our determination to learn from this controversy the controversy that has surrounded the speech, and move on to reinforce the u.s.-israel relationship and to protect the world against a nuclear-armed iran.

speaker boehner should never have extended this invitation at this time. given the proximity of this speech to israel's national elections and the fact that delicate international negotiations which the prime minister clearly wishes to upend are hanging in the balance at this moment. and prime minister netanyahu should not have accepted this invitation which was extended without the usual consultation of bipartisan leadership and the normal notification of an consultation with the president. for these reasons the invitation and the speech set a dangerous precedent whereby congressional leaders from one party can invite a foreign politician to publicly oppose the policies of the sitting president on the house floor, in doing so we not only tarnish the grander vision of the joint session, we also run the risk of politicizing diplomatic relationships, in this case a very special relationship that is dedicated to israel's security and prosperity. but the speech has happened.

now we have to determine the best way forward. we must give new consideration to what the prime minister is said which, of course, is an depend on the form in which he said it. we must also subject his charges and claims to intense scrutiny. for example, the notion that everything has to be solved in terms of our bilateral issues before anything can be solved. for example, a description of the deal which makes an agreement seemingly totally out of reach. we must redouble our efforts to protect israel, the region in the world from a nuclear-armed iran. these are tough negotiations. of course, they are tough, but there are no good alternatives. they are bringing a comprehensive, strong and enforceable agreement to fruition. it's extremely important for us and for the international community to stay on that course. through all this our communities safe and secure israel must remain firm and open dialogue is critical to that process.

i in all of us i think stand ready to engage with israeli leaders from across the political spectrum. this speech today wasn't about whether we agreed or disagreed. it was about the circumstances of this invitation and the lasting damage it could do. but it's our job now to get past this controversy to focus on the task at hand. securing the relationship with israel and securing an international enforceable international agreement that would prevent a nuclear-armed iran. >> thanks, david. next i like liked it is one of the icons of congress, john lewis, of georgia. >> thank you very much. in this congress i take a backseat to no one in my commitment and support for israel and the american jewish community. on many occasions we have worked

side-by-side to strengthen our democracy and fight for equality and justice in this country. that commitment will not change. we are consistently throughout my career for long-term peace in the middle east a secured jewish state, and i have fought against anti-semitism and hate on american shores, and abroad. however this nation is currently involved in ongoing negotiations with iran. election in israel just about two weeks away on march 17. the speaker of the house of representatives would allow the floor of this chamber to be used -- negotiations of the president of the united states is partisan, and it's not right. seven ambassadors as well as the

leader of permanent jewish organizations call upon the prime minister to cancel his speech. the speakers action is an affront to the president of the united states, to the democratic leadership of congress, and the department of state. it is meant to purposely undermine the work of our elected and appointed representative is who are the ones responsible to protect the interest of the american people. before the house is a centerpiece of public debate in our democracy. it should not be used as a partisan tool. and i'm saddened that the speaker would threaten this historic position bipartisan support by israeli brothers and sisters by this action. it is for this reason that i chose not to attend this morning's address, and it is my

hope that today's partisan political floor will never ever be repeated again on the house floor. thank you. >> next is jim schakowsky of illinois. >> -- jam. >> thank you very much. i agree very much with the goal that iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. the president could not be more clear, and that has been the point of the negotiations with five other major powers in order to make sure that happens. i agree with the guy ministers that the united states is israel's best friend. sometimes, as in as often before the united nations israel's only friend. and i agree with the prime minister when he said we have to

learn the lessons of history and not repeat the mistakes of the past. and so i want to recount for you some of the words of the prime minister when he was a public citizen, not an elected official in israel. in 2002 when he made a major address, actually it was testimony before dan burton's committee, and he said, if you take out saddam saddam's regime i guarantee you that it will have enormous, positive reverberations on the region. and he went on to say quote and i think that people sitting right next door in iran young people and many others, will say save the time of such regimes of such despots is gone. well, it didn't quite turn out that way. in fact, the big winner of the iraq war was iran.

and then just last year the prime minister said -- anyway the prime minister said last year that the joint plan of action -- here it is -- that we've had for the last year he said that it has not, this is about the gpo well take the gpl a bill enacted last year, it's not made the world a safer place. like agree with north korea in 2005 this agreement has made the world a much more dangerous place but in fact the joint plan of action has made the world safer by freezing iran's nuclear weapons plan and has been abided by by iran. and so it seems to me that what

we are faced right now is a speech that as congressman yarmuth pointed out that many falsehoods about it. but one is that the intelligence and security agencies of this country and our allies do not support the idea that iran can somehow unlearn to build centrifuges and have a nuclear infrastructure, and that the kind of proposals that the prime minister were suggesting are absolutely impossible, even destroying their current infrastructure iran and its centrifuges and its nuclear capacity would not do the job. the only thing that will do the job is the kind of negotiated carefully negotiated agreement that has a vigorous oversight intrusive inspections and

monitoring. that is where we are going. we should be able to continue to lock down and roll back in a verifiable way iran's ability to achieve a nuclear weapon. that's the goal. we can't achieve it bibi netanyahu's way. >> thank you. >> thank you. good afternoon to all of you. i am congressman butterfield. represents the first district of north carolina. i am chief debbie with of the house democratic caucus and that the chairman of the congressional black caucus. but today i speak in the individual capacity as one of 435 members of the house your my first reaction was to come to this press conference this afternoon and simply remain solid and just keep my personal opinions personal. but that is contrary to my

personality and so i will simply just lay out some facts. that support my conclusion. i was a judge for 15 years at north carolina 15 years before that i was a lawyer and the first thing we would always do would be to establish the facts and then we would draw upon the facts and reach our conclusion. fact number one democrats my opinion and i know most of them if not all of them support the right of israel to exist free from the threat of annihilation by iran or any other state. that's a fact. fact number two i support personally i support the right of visual to exist free from the threat of annihilation by any country. the state of israel has the absolute right to feel threatened by iran's conduct of assembling a nuclear arsenal. i support president obama's responsible efforts to negotiate an agreement with iran short of

imposing additional sanctions. the president is a strong negotiator. that is my opinion. he is a very strong negotiator. secretary kerry is a strong negotiator. ambassador rice is a strong negotiator. and we need not inhibit their ability to attempt a resolution protecting the state of israel and the world. it is the protocol and custom of international diplomacy that heads of state have standing to invite other heads of state to their respective countries, for diplomatic visits or speeches to the parliamentary assembly. in this case the speaker of the house extended an invitation to the prime minister with full knowledge that the invitation would be viewed as an insult and rebuked to present. and vice president and secretary of state. the speaker, in my opinion based on my knowledge, did not consult with the executive branch. i think that is acknowledged now. that is a matter of record, and the speaker did not consult with

the executive branch which is unprecedented, and i believe it was intentional. i have received numerous calls from strong allies around the country commending me for my personal decision to not attend the joint session. they understand as i hope you understand that i have the ability, i am an intelligent 67 year-old man. i have the ability to separate my support for israel from my disdain of the protocol used by the speaker for the joint session. i received a very delightful call just a few days ago from the ambassador, reassuring me that the prime minister continues to want and need the support of the congressional black caucus. during that telephone conversation i pleaded with the ambassador to seek a postponement of the joint session, but he dismissed that idea. notwithstanding i pledge to

israel my continued personal support and explained that his show has many friends in the congressional black caucus, and do not think that speaker boehner's conduct will interfere with our relationship. based on all of these facts, my personal decision was to watch the joint session on television and i watched every word of it. i believe it was a politically motivated invitation. the speech made, a convincing case for continued u.s. support, and made clear that which we already knew, that the conduct of iran is threatening and it is unacceptable. i thank you. thank you, mr. yarmuth. >> next is jim mcdermott of washington. >> thank you and good morning. i concur in the remarks of most of my colleagues but i want to take a somewhat different point to talk about so as not to

repeat. the president of the united states responsibility is to protect the people of the united states. at this first and foremost responsibility. and in so doing he has to do with all kinds of things. when he came into office we were at war in afghanistan. we were at war in iraq and he is gradually tried to bring those situations down to a situation where we can withdraw and let the forces in those countries began their evolution of whatever kind of government they want. in the case of iran, we have had the president leading a negotiated effort consistently pushing forward in spite of a constant barrage of efforts to undermine even before it got off the ground, and here we are

again today seeing that same thing. what you are witnessing today was a very old concept. if you can make the people afraid, you can make them do anything. and that's what prime minister netanyahu was doing. he was trying to make people afraid and somehow saying that the president wasn't doing his job. there is no evidence whatsoever that the president does not have our safety first and foremost in his negotiation and he is thinking about the future. in that sense this was a very sad display of political activity being brought into the house of representatives to demean what the president has been doing under great stress for the last years six eight months directly but even before

that. how do you get things on a safe position with iran? the president deserves our support and didn't need this today. john boehner ought to be ashamed of himself for having brought it on him. >> lloyd doggett of texas. >> thank you, john. will surely the prime minister's strong speech satisfied his political objectives to attempt to survive in a very desperate election here in the next couple of weeks. i surveyed agree with him that we all stand with israel. it is no more any israel to criticize and challenge mr. netanyahu that it is any american to criticize and challenge dick cheney. if you look at what happened today, it is the first time in american history that as many as 60 members of the congress deliberately chose not to

participate in this campaign have rally. and far more than that are questioning the approach that the prime minister is insisting upon. what do we know today that we did not know before he gave his speech? i think there's really only one thing. he is a rejectionist. there is no agreement to this administration could achieve with iran that would be good enough for him. he wants to resolve all of the many wrong things that all of us have opposed with that iran has been a part of and is a part of today in one agreement that should be focusing only on nuclear issues. i believe the prime minister thinks that inspectors, no matter how intrusive and how careful they are, may not be able to locate all of the nuclear facilities that iran has underway. well, if the inspectors can't locate them, how can he bomb all of them?

because the only alternative that it offers really in the climbing and saying that war is not the option it is complete and total string of iran is not going to happen. i believe that we need to continue to pursue verifiable firm, intrusive inspections and that we cannot give mr. netanyahu of veto power over what will protect both american and israeli families. the prime minister was wrong about iraq. he was wrong in the united nations about an iranian breakout. he was wrong about the interim agreement that has made our families safer, and he is wrong today. i do not trust or as the best way to prevent iran from getting nuclear weapons. the only approach that will work for the safety of our families is a verifiable agreement that this administration has worked so hard to achieve. the iranians may prevent it but we need to make every effort to

achieve it. thank you. >> earl blumenauer of oregon. >> thank you. i was six weeks ago made it clear that i was not going to dignify what i think is a political charade and be part of netanyahu's next campaign commercial, like his last appearance was. nothing that i heard as i watched the speech on television suggests that the majority of the israeli people who thought it was a mistake for him to come, but the majority of americans who think it is a mistake to go through this exercise. i saw nothing to suggest that they were wrong. and i think as our friends in the news media do the deeper dive as suggested, i have listened to netanyahu. i've been in congress 19 years.

back when he first came to have listened to his alarmist predictions. i listen to him cheerlead for the united states greatest single blunder in our history of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives, and the extent towhich he's accurate that somehow iran controls now for countries. i think there's some question about that but the extent to which the outside influence it's the direct result that a disaster and is flawed judgment. he suggests that there is no alternative. listen care for to the speech and go back and listen. he gave no alternative path forward. just having a series of demands. nothing that suggests that he would have any greater success. i think people ought to challenge his assumption that the iranians and americans will

always be enemies. now think about that. all of my friends who visited iran as private citizens are struck by how friendly and outgoing iranians are. all of us represent people from iran who are here in the united states, and who are not just merely friends of the regime. but they reject that category that you can't be warmer relations between our countries. surveys tell us that iran is the only country in the middle east where the majority of people, average, normal people still have positive feelings towards the united states. and have a rich history of cooperation with the iranian people dating back well over a century. but i was struck that the prime minister took all this time to come all this way all the pomp

and circumstance. i listen very carefully. there was not one word from the prime minister about how he would deal with his failure to move his country forward with a peace process with the palestinians. some of us were in israel recently. the majority of israelis favor a negotiated settlement in moving things forward. prime minister netanyahu repeatedly has failed in that objective and have not one word about what he would do any differently. he is lecturing us about how we ought to conduct ourselves in the future when we have unparalleled progress with the potential of negotiations with five major countries aligned with us. and who thinks they're going to continue to be with us if we take his hard line and try and go it alone?

i would respectfully suggest this was a mistake. i respectfully suggest that congress ought to take a deep breath, exhale, and allow the administration to see if they can bring this agreement across the finish line. then they can always go forward with more extreme sanctions, or war if they wish. nothing is lost by attempting to make diplomacy work. >> a steve cohen of tennessee. >> thank you. i chose early not to be in favor of the speech and ask them to be put off because i thought it would be political theater, and, indeed, it was political theater. worthy of an oscar. this republican leadership team has used the gallery in the house to advance political agendas and to give little favors to folks who come to

washington. early, i think it was in january, they had a pro-life crowd appear on the anniversary of roe v. wade and so they scheduled a 20 week fetal pain bill to give them something they could vote on and say look at good we are and how much we love you, be strong with the pro-life crowd. today they did the same thing with aipac. speaker boehner was successful i think in submitting his and republicans relationship with aipac, and with some very wealthy donor so i think were behind this entire program this entire speech were active in the republican party and oppose the president and democrats. and i believe the prime minister was successful in probably getting reelected. i'm sure this will play well in israel. now, stress how it affects the world in reality, i think it is harmful because the game is in geneva, not in washington and on television. it would have been better if he took his concerns directly to

the president and the state department kind of scenes and try to get a better deal. instead he has driven himself and his country further away from the president and our country. and i agree with the 200 israeli generals and security officials who felt that this will hurt israel because of make israel weaker in the eyes of the united states administration, its relationship with the president and emboldened iran to be even tougher at the bargaining table and more likely there will be an agreement that is less beneficial to issue. i think the political game was won but the world game of peace was lost today. i had misgivings at times listening to the speech as a jewish american, whenever the holocaust is brought up threats to the jewish people, i'm concerned. but i definitely feel everybody is trying to do same thing, and be on israel's side and support

israel. and the president has israel's best interest at heart as well and negotiations on the only way you can do it. there was not an alternative except more sanctions. everybody pretty much agreed, i watched the speech on television with a bunch of aipac folks from memphis. we all agreed that this regime is rather bizarre in some of its ambitions, most of its ambitions and its fate for israel and america. with that as a given i don't think that additional sanctions collective agreement would drive them to their knees. i think it would just emboldened them and make the world less safe. >> peter welch of vermont. >> thank you. thank you very much. i attended the speech. i have a strong relationship in support of israel, strong opposition to iran. voted 10 times for new sanctions and enhance existing sanction. voted five times to condemn the government of iran for its human rights violations. i have signed letters and

basically everything i can to support the strong israel and to challenge belligerent iran. but i also went to the speech because i was hoping that i would hear from the prime minister something that would justify why he came in the first place to give this speech two weeks before his election. and why he arranged this speech totally behind the back of the white house with speaker boehner. and why he wanted to make a decision that put at risk what has always been a strong bipartisan approach towards israel and turned it into a partisan battlefield. frankly i came away from the speech disappointed. you know, a nuclear iran is off the table. the president has made that clear. in his position, distrust but verify. his position no deal is better than a bad deal. what i hear from the prime minister was that no deal is better than any deal.

i did not here from the prime minister plan b what will happen as an alternative is we have no negotiations. does that mean a military strike, and who was involved? does it mean we follow the vice with respect to iran that he gave ask with respect to iraq? the biggest long-term mistakes that i think the prime minister made was in embracing a john boehner led effort while he snubbed very directly the president of the united states. a strong u.s.-israel relationship has the support of congress. it needs to continue support of the administration. and why would a friend of america act this way towards the president, whose record itself is one of enormous support for israel? under president obama, israel

and and with our support, by the way. israel has received over $20 billion since 2009. and under president obama, u.s. has provided israel with over 123 billion for the iron dome system alone, totally, that was after gaza totally 2.9 billion under president obama. last year was the united states was the united states the by standing for israel with respect to 18 resolutions in the u.n. prime minister netanyahu directly challenged the president who has directly and steadfastly been the friend of israel and he did not offer an alternative to negotiations but repudiated those negotiations before we even know what the final deal may be. so this i think did not help and it's unfortunate that the prime minister chose to make this speech at this time. thank you. >> and last but tall as jared

huffman of california. >> and two john. i attended the speech by might well have joints of my colleagues in not attending it but for the fact that almost everything around you there's something outrageous going on in the floor upstairs and i would give us of into a truancy problem pretty quick if i started not beginning every time i had frustrations and concerns. look i am pro-israel by any measure. i have consistently voted to support israel to support u.s.-israeli relationship and i've traveled to israel. i have family in israel. my eyes are wide open about iran and the current regime in iran but i don't want them to have nuclear weapons. i understand the threat that they pose not just israel but to broader security concerns that we care about. but i feel like we have to give the diplomatic problem-solving track a chance at least to succeed. and i think the danger in what

happened today is we had prime minister netanyahu telling us stop trying don't even pursue a diplomatic track with this government. he did a great job of smacking down a strawman deal that doesn't exist, serving not in the form that he characterized, and may never exist but i think there's a real danger when we say we're just not going to present diplomat solutions anymore. and i just want to add one more thing to hear from a foreign leader who has got a real judgment problem, a real credibility problem on these issues makes it that much more troubling whether it's a joint plan of action mischaracterizations, whether it was last year when he wanted us to go to war in syria over chemical weapons whether it was the original iraq war we've got a real credibility and judgment problem. and to hear the prime minister tells that the enemy of our any is our enemy and we must always be enemies of iran is just a little too much for me to

stomach. so this was a step backward unfortunately, in our relations i believe with israel. it doesn't sheikh my support for israel but it does give me one more reason to be concerned about the current government of israel and to hope that in the future whether it's prime minister netanyahu or another prime minister, we'll have an israeli prime minister that natalie says he respects our president but treats our president with respect. >> thanks to everyone. questions from everybody. >> what did you achieve by not attending the speech? what did you will achieve by not being there? >> microphone, please. >> i was sure, political fear and wrong just for the congressional gym and i got to share it with at least a dozen or more aipac members from the and have an interchange. >> the house of representatives

is the most prestigious venue in the world and to use it for political purposes was something that i did not want to be part of the. >> and let me just underscore this isn't a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with the speaker. we've all been to speeches by foreign leaders in the chamber, which was partly agree disagree with putting prime minister netanyahu's prior speeches. this is amount of abstaining from a speech that should never have occurred. that's what's different about it. >> make no mistake occasionally the house of representatives is involved in medical theatrics -- political theatrics. this was unusual in terms of how was undercutting our own government. >> could i just add? i had an executive session with myself. that's what i did.

and i listened to every word of the speech with 25 hours of aipac from a clinton. and then talked with them. i think i did the right thing. sound[inaudible] >> you made the same argument over the iraq war, that it was time for the united states to not pay attention to any world opinion, but just to go it alone. what i heard today felt to me like an effort to stampede the united states into war once again. that we should break from the p5, before p5+1 yes, we are the one i should break with

them. and i believe that it was to consider war. >> let me just say that he barely tried that once before. one of the only foreign policy decisions of the bush administration that i agree with, the bush administration said no in 2008 according to reports. we need to be clear that that's not an acceptable approach. and i guess the israeli people will decide in this election if they think it's an acceptable approach. >> i think that's delusional. i mean, they have nuclear weapons. netanyahu presumably could unleash dozens of nuclear weapons. israelis know they can't go it alone. that's what all of us have voted repeatedly for money and assistance sometimes when you do things then give us

heartburn, like a reckless settlement policy. but the notion somehow that he thinks that israel can just bowl through this on their own against the world, i think based on my limited experience in israel, in fact israelis don't believe that and that's what i think a majority of israelis think they country is on the wrong path, regardless of how their odd math works out in their final election. [inaudible] >> i think that's really the white house's decision. i think all of us are here today because this was in our body come in our house and none of is supported that activity. but i do think that what you see

in the coming days is a white house that is committed to pursuing these negotiations and i don't think they will let, i guess is they would not let the speech distract them from the. that is the most important thing they have going right now and i think they will just move on and let their actions be their response. >> let me just say though i think at the very least the intention or the hope of the prime minister was to then force the administration to make its case in favor of diplomacy, to raise the kinds of questions now that the white house is going to have to devote itself to trying to explain or tamp down. i thought that susan rice did a magnificent job at her aipac speech yesterday, laying out what those real choices are. very compelling. i was not -- it was not made on the floor of the house of representatives with every media

outlet right there, but i think right now with the secretary of state in geneva that the white house will, ma you know, have to respond now in some way that wouldn't have happened had the prime minister not made the speech. >> i just wanted and if i could, i think the widest needs to keep its eye on the ball. this diplomatic effort was going to be tough anyway. i think the white house is told it's an uphill fight whether they can even get yes with a red. so to allow this to be a distraction, to set us on the back for the from what's already a tough mission i think would be unfortunate but i think they will move forward. i think they understand this is a prime minister who is never seen a war he did what our country to fight and that they need to finish a tough job but it may not lead to a deal but if there's any possibility that we can continue to stay focused and give it a shot.

[inaudible] >> i think it's an overreach by far, and i think he knew that. you know i was thinking about and maybe it's a given, everybody sees it but in political theater what you had today, especially joe biden not sitting behind him, was everything that the state of the union is packed house, all the congressman, representative give or take him and he took the place of the president, spoke from where the president speaks on the state of union. it was putting them on an equal level of the president in united states, in washington, d.c. and in congress, and that was wrong.

>> thank you all. >> thank you. >> house democrats reacting to the speech today by israeli prime minister netanyahu. by the way we'll have that for you in its entirety next. nearly 50 members decide to skip the meeting. and as to how to turn a session at this hour house speaker john boehner tweeted out reminder president faces bipartisan opposition on iran sanctions veto threat. also before the speech that underway we learned how speaker boehner told house republicans that the house will debate a clean bill fully funding homeland security through september 30 of this year. not clear when the potus to her but you will be able to watch that debate and vote on c-span. and now the speech by israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu before congress today. it is about 50 minutes.

[applause] [applause] [applause]

[applause] [applause] [applause]

[applause] [applause] [applause]

[applause] >> members of congress, i have the high privilege and distinct honor of presenting to you the prime minister of israel, his excellency benjamin netanyahu. [cheers and applause]

>> thank you. [applause] >> speaker of the house john boehner president pro tem senator orrin hatch, senate minority -- majority leader mitch mcconnell, house minority leader nancy pelosi, and house majority leader kevin mccarthy. i also want to acknowledge senator, democratic leader harry reid. area, -- hairy it's good to see you back on your feet. [applause] -- harry. >> i guess it's true what they

say, you can't keep a good man down. my friends i am deeply humbled by the opportunity to speak for a third time before the most important legislative body in the world, the u.s. congress. [applause] i want to thank you all for being here today. i know that my speech has been the subject of much controversy. i deeply regret that some perceive my being here as political. that was never my intention. i want to thank you democrats and republicans, for your comment support for israel, year after year, decade after decade. [applause]

i know that no matter of which side of the aisle you said you stand with israel -- use it and -- no matter on which side of the aisle you sit you stand with israel. [applause] the remarkable alliance between israel and the united states has always been about politics. it must always remain above politics. [applause] because america and israel we

share a common destiny the destiny of promised lands that cherish freedom and offer hope. israel is grateful for the support of america's people and of america's presidents, from harry truman to barack obama. [applause] we appreciate all that president obama has done for israel. now some of that is widely known. [applause] some of that is widely known like strengthening security cooperation and intelligence sharing, opposing anti-israel resolutions at the u.n. some of what the president has done for israel is less well

known. i called him in 2010 when we had the carmel forest fire and he immediately agreed to respond to my request for urgent aid. in 2011, we had her embassy in cairo under siege, and again, he provided vital assistance at the crucial moment. or his support for more missile interceptors during operation last summer when we took on hamas terrorists. [applause] in each of those moments, i called the president, and he was there. and somewhat the president has done for israel might never be known, because it touches on some of the most sensitive and strategic issues that arise between an american president and an israeli prime minister.

but i know it and i will always be grateful to president obama for that support. [applause] and israel is grateful to you the american congress, for your support, for supporting us in so many ways, especially in generous military assistance and missile defense including iron dome. [applause] last summer, millions of israelis were protected from thousands of hamas rockets because this capitol dome helped build our iron dome. [applause]

.. >> in our nearly 40,000 years of history, many have tried -- repeatedly -- to destroy the jewish people. tomorrow night on the jewish holiday we'll read the book of esther, we'll read of a powerful persian viceroy named ark man

who plotted to destroy the jewish people some 2500 years ago. but a courageous jewish woman queen esther exposed the plot and gave the jewish people the right to defend themself against their enemies. the plot was foiled our people were saved. [applause] today the jewish people face another attempt by yet another persian potentate to destroy us. iran's supreme leader, ayatollah khamenei -- iran's supreme leader ayatollah khamenei, spews the oldest hatred the oldest hatred of anti-semitism with the newest technology. he tweets that israel must be

annihilated. he tweets. in iran there isn't exactly free internet. but he tweets in english that israel must be destroyed. for those who believe that iran threatens the jewish state but not the jewish people, listen to the leader of hezbollah, rapps' chief -- iran's chief terrorist proxy. he said if all the jews gather in israel, it will save us the trouble of chasing hem down around the -- them down around the world. but iran's regime is not merely a jewish problem any more than the nazi regime was merely a jewish problem. the six million jews murdered by the nazis were but a fraction of the 60 million people killed in world war ii. so too iran's regime poses a

grave threat not only to israel but also to the peace of the entire world. to unjust how dangerous iran -- to understand just how dangerous iran would be with nuclear weapons, we must fully understand the nature of the regime. the people of iran are a very tall lended people. -- talented people. they're heirs to one of the world's great civilizations. but in 1979 therm hijacked by religious zealots who imposed on them immediately a dark and brutal dictatorship. that year the zealots drafted a new constitution for iran. it directed the revolutionary guards not only to protect iran's borders, but also to fulfill the ideological mission of jihad. the regime's founder, ayatollah khomeini exhorted his followers to export the revolution throughout the world. i'm standing here in washington,

d.c., and the difference is so stark. america's founding document promises life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. rapp's founding document pledges -- iran's founding document pledges death, tyranny and the pursuit of jihad. and as states are collapsing across the middle east, iran is charging into the void to do just that. iran's goons in gaza its lackeys in lebanon, its revolutionary guards in the golan heights are clutching israel with three tentacles of terror. backed by iran assad is slaughtering syrians backed by iran shiite militias are rampaging through iraq backed by iran hueties are seizing control of yemen, threatening the strategic straits at the mouth of the red sea. along with the straits of hormuz, that would give iran a second chokepoint on the world's oil supply.

just last week near hormuz iran carried out a military exercise, blowing up a mock u.s. aircraft carrier. that's just last week. while they're having nuclear talks with the united states. but unfortunately for the last 36 years iran's attacks against the united states have been anything but mock, and the targets have been all too real. iran took dozens of americans hostage in tehran, murdered hundreds of american soldiers marines in beirut and was responsible for killing and maiming thousands of american servicemen and women in iraq and afghanistan. beyond the middle east iran attacks america and its allies through its global terror network. it blew up the jewish community certain and the israeli embassy in buenos aires it helped al-qaeda bomb u.s. embassies in

africa, it even attempted to assassinate the saudi ambassador right here in washington d.c. in the middle east, iran now dominates four arab capitals; bagged dad, damascus beirut and sana'a. and if iran's aggression is left unchecked, more will surely follow. so at a time when many hope that iran will join the community of nations, iran is busy gobbling up the nations. [applause] we must all stand together to stop rapp's conquest of -- iran's con southwest of sub jewish -- conquest of subjugation and terror. [applause]

now, two years ago we were told to give president rouhani and foreign minister zarif a chance to bring change and moderation to iran. some change. some moderation. rouhani's government persecutes christians jails journalists and executes even more prisoners than before. last year the same zarif who charms western diplomats laid a wreath at the grave of -- [inaudible] the terrorist mastermind who spilled more american blood than any other terrorist besides osama bin laden. i'd like to see someone ask him a question about that. iran's regime is as radical as

ever. its cries of "death to america," that same america that it calls the great satan as loud as ever. now, this shouldn't be surprising, because the ideology of iran's revolution their regime is deeply rooted in militant islam. and that's why this regime will always be an enemy of america. don't be fooled, the battle between iran and isis doesn't turn iran into a friend of america. iran and isis are competing for the crown of militant islam. one calls itself the islamic republic, the other calls itself the islamic state. both want to impose a militant islamic empire first on the region and then on the entire world. they just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that empire. in this deadly game of thrones this is no place for america or

for israel, no peace for christians jews or muslims who don't share the islamist medieval creed no rights for women, no freedom for anyone. so when it comes to iran and isis the enemy of your enemy is your enemy. [applause] the difference is that isis is armed with butcher knives, captured weapons and youtube whereas iran could soon be around with intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs. we must always remember -- i'll say it one more time -- the greatest danger facing our world the marriage of militant islam with nuclear weapons.

to defeat isis and let iran get nuclear weapon woulds would be to win the battle but lose the war. we can't let that happen. [applause] but that, my friends, is exactly what could happen if the deal now being negotiated is accepted by iran. that deal will not prevent iran from developing nuclear weapons it would all but guarantee that iran gets those weapons, lots of them. let me explain why. while the final deal has not yet been signed certain elements of any potential deal are now a

matter of public record. you don't need intelligence agencies and secret information to know this. you can google it. [laughter] absent a dramatic change, we know for sure that any deal with iran will include two major concessions to iran. the first major concession would leave iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure, providing it with a short breakout time to the bomb. breakout time is the tomb it takes to amass enough weapons-grade uranium or plutonium for a nuclear bomb. according to the deal, not a single nuclear facility would be demolished. thousands of centrifuges used to enrich uranium would be left spinning. thousands more would be temporarily disconnected but not destroyed.

because iran's nuclear program would be left largely intact iran's breakout time would be very short, about a year by u.s. assessment, even shorter by israel. and if iran's work on advanced centrifuges, faster and faster centrifuges is not stopped, that breakout time could still be shorter, a lot shorter. true, certain restrictions would be imposed on rapp's nuclear program -- on iran's nuclear program, and iran's adherence to those restrictions would be supervised by international inspectors. but here's the problem: you see, inspectors document violations. they don't stop them. inspectors knew when north korea broke to the bomb, but that didn't stop anything. north korea turned off the cameras, kicked out the inspectors. within a few years, it got the bomb. now we're warned that within five years north korea could have an arsenal of 100 nuclear

bombs. like north korea, iran too has defied international inspectors. it's done that on at least three separate occasions 2005 2006 2010. like north korea, iran broke the locks, shut off the cameras. i know this is not going to come as a shock to any of you, but iran not only defies inspectors it also plays a pretty good game of hide and cheat with them. the u.n.'s nuclear watchdog agency is iaea said again yesterday that iran still refuses to come clean about its military nuclear program. iran was also caught, caught twice -- not once, twice -- operating secret nuclear facilities in natanz, facilities that inspectors didn't even know existed.

right now iran could be hiding nuclear facilities that we don't know about the u.s. and israel. as the former head of inspections for the iaea said in 2013 he said if there's no undeclared installation today in rapp, it'll be the first time in 20 years that it doesn't have one. iran has proven time and time again that it cannot be trusted. and that's why the first major concession is a source of grave concern. it leaves iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and relies on inspectors to prevent a breakout. that creates -- that concession creates a real danger that iran could get to the bomb by violating the deal. but the second major concession creates an even greater danger that iran could get to the bomb by keeping the deal. because virtually all the restrictions on iran's nuclear

program will automatically expire in about a decade. now, a decade may seem like a long time in political life, but it's the blink of an eye in the life of a nation. it's the blink of an eye in the life of our children. we all have a responsibility to consider what will happen when iran's nuclear capabilities are virtually unrestricted and all the sanctions will be lifted. iran would then be free to build a huge nuclear capacity that could produce many many nuclear bombs. rapp's supreme leader -- iran's supreme leader says that openly. he says iran plans to have 190,000 centrifuges. not 6,000 or even the 19,000 that iran has today, but ten times that amount, 190,000 centrifuges enriching uranium. with this massive capacity iran could make the fuel for an

entire nuclear arsenal, and this in a matter of weeks once it makes that decision. my longtime friend, john kerry secretary of state confirmed last week that iran could legitimately possess that massive centrifuge capacity when the deal expires. now, i want you to think about that. the former sponsor the foremost sponsor of global terrorism could be weeks away from having enough enriched uranium for an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons, and this with full international legitimacy. and by the way, if iran's intercontinental ballistic missile program is not part of the deal -- and so far iran refuses to even put it on the negotiating table -- well iran could have the means to deliver that nuclear arsenal to the far reaches, corners of the earth

including to every part of the united states. so you see my friends this deal has two major con -- concessions. one, leaving iran with a vast nuclear program and, two, lifting the restrictions on that program in about a decade. that's why this deal is so bad. it doesn't block iran's path to the bomb, it paves iran's path to to the the bomb. so why would anyone make deal? because they hope that iran will change for the were better in the coming years or they believe that the alternative to this deal is worse. well i disagree. i don't believe that iran's radical regime will change for the better after this deal. this regime has been in power for 36 years, and it's voracious appetite for aggression grows with each passing year.

this deal would whet appetites, would only whet iran's appetite more more. would iran be less aggressive when sanctions are removed and its economy is stronger? if iran is gobbling up four countries right now while it's under sanctions, how many more countries will iran devour when sanctions are lifted? would iran fund less terrorism when it has mountains of cash with which to fund more terrorism? why should iran's radical regime change for the better when it can enjoy the best of both worlds aggression abroad prosperity at home? this is a question that everyone asks in our region. israel's neighbors iran's neighbors know that iran will become even more aggressive and sponsor even more terrorism when its economy is unshackled and

it's been given a clear path to the bomb. and many of these neighbors say they'll respond by racing to get nuclear end withs of their own. -- racing to get nuclear weapons of their own. this deal won't change iran for the better it will only change the middle east for the worse. a deal that's supposed to prevent b nuclear proliferation would instead spark a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous part of the planet. this deal won't be a farewell to arms, it would be a farewell to arms control. and the middle east would soon be crisscrossed by nuclear trip wires. a region where small skirmishes can trigger big wars would turn into a nuclear tinderbox. if anyone thinks, if anyone thinks this deal kicks the can down the road, think again. when we get down that road we'll face a much more dangerous

iran a middle east litter ored with nuclear bombs -- littered with nuclear bombs and a countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare. ladies and gentlemen i've come here today to tell you we don't have to bet the security of the world on the hope that iran will change for the better. we don't have to gamble with our future and with our children's future. we can insist that restrictions on iran's nuclear program not be lifted for as long as iran continues its aggression in the region and in the world. [applause]

before lifting those restrictions, the world should demand that iran do three things. first, stop its aggression against its theirs in the middle east. [applause] second -- [applause] second, stop supporting terrorism around the world. [applause] and, third, stop threatening to annihilate my country israel, the one and only jewish state. [cheers and applause]

if the world powers are not prepared to insist that iran change its behavior before a deal is signed, at the very least they should insist that iran change its behavior before a deal expires. [applause] if iran changes its behavior, the restrictions would be lifted. if iran doesn't change its behavior, the restrictions should not be lifted. [applause] if iran wants to be treated like a normal country, let it act like a normal country. [cheers and applause]

my friends, what about the argument that there is no alternative to this deal? that iran's nuclear know-how cannot be erased that its nuclear program is so advanced that the best we can do is delay the inevitable which is essentially, what the proposed deal seeks to do? well nuclear know-how without nuclear infrastructure doesn't get with you very much. a race car driver without a car can't drive, a pilot without a plane can't fly. without thousands of centrifuges, tons of enriched uranium or heavy water facilities, iran can't make nuclear weapons. [applause]

iran's nuclear program can be rolled back well beyond the current proposal by insisting on a better deal and keeping up the pressure on a very vulnerable regime, especially given the recent collapse in the price of oil. [applause] now, if iran threatens to walk away from the table -- and this often happens in a persian bazaar -- call their bluff. they'll be back. because they need the deal a lot more than you do. [applause] and by maintaining the pressure on iran and on those who do business iran, you have the power to make them need it even more. my friends, for over a year

we've been told that no deal is better than a bad deal. well, this is a bad deal. it's a very bad deal. we're better off without it. [applause] now we're being told that the only alternative to this bad deal is war. that's just not true. the alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal. [applause]

a better deal that doesn't leave iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and such a short breakout time. a better deal that keeps the restrictions on iran's nuclear program in place until iran's aggression ends. [applause] a better deal that won't give iran an easy path to the bomb. a better deal that israel and its neighbors may not like, but with which we could live, literally. and no country -- [applause] no country has a greater stake in country has a greater stake than israel in a good deal that peacefully removes this threat. ladies and gentlemen history has placed us at a fateful crossroads. we must now choose between two

paths. one path leads to a bad deal that will at best curtail iran's nuclear ambitions for a while. but it will inexorably lead to a nuclear-armed iran whose unbridled aggression will inevitably lead to war. the second path, however difficult, could lead to a much better deal that would prevent a nuclear-armed iran, a nuclearized middle east and the horrific consequences of both to all of humanity. you don't have to read robert to know you have to live life. to know that the difficult path is usually the one less traveled. but it will make all the difference for the future of my country, the security of the middle east and the peace of the world, the peace we all desire.

[applause] my friends standing up to iran is not easy. standing up to dark and murderous regimes never is. with us today is holocaust survivor and nobel prize winner elie wiesel. [applause]

[applause] elie your life and work inspires to give meaning to the words "never again." [applause] and i wish i could promise you, elie, that the lessons of history have been learned. i can only urge the leaders of

the world not to repeat the mistakes of the past. [applause] not to sacrifice the future for the present, not to ignore aggression in the hopes of gaining an illusory peace. but i can guarantee you this: the days when the jewish people remained passive in the face of genocidal enemies those days are over! [cheers and applause] we are no longer scattered among

the nations powerless to defend ourselves. we've restored our sovereignty in our ancient home, and the soldiers who defend our home have boundless courage. for the first time in a hundred generations, we, the jewish people can defend ourselves. [applause] this is why, this is why as prime minister of israel i can promise you one more thing. even if israel has to stand alone, israel will stand. [applause]

but i know that israel does not stand alone. i know that america stands with israel! i know that you stand with israel! [cheers and applause] you stand with israel because you know that the story of israel is not only the story of the jewish people, but of the human spirit that refuses again and again to succumb to history's horrors. [applause] facing me right up there in the

gallery overlooking all of us in this august chamber is the image of moses. moses led our people from slavery to the gates of the promised land. and before the people of israel entered the land of israel, moses gave us a message that has steeled our resolve for thousands of years. i leave you with his message today. [speaking in native tongue] be strong and resolute, neither fear nor dread them. my friends may israel and america always stand together strong and resolute, may we neither fear, nor dread the challenges ahead. may we face the future with confidence, strength and hope. of may god bless the state of israel and may god bless the united states of america! [cheers and applause]

[applause] [applause]

>> thank you very much. [applause] thank you. thank you very much. thank you all. [cheers and applause] you're wonderful! thank you, america. thank you. [applause] thank you. thank you. [applause]

[applause] >> nearly 60 members of the house and senate decided to boycott the prime minister's address to congress this morning. one of those members was kentucky democratic congressman john yarmouth. he, along with several other house democratic members held a press conference. congressman yarmouth criticized the speech calling it "political theater." here's a look. >> gathered with me are colleagues, all of whom opposed the appearance of prime minister

netanyahu today, some who attended the event some who didn't, but all of whom have something to say about his appearance. first of all, again, these remarks are only attributable to me. everyone can speak for him or herself. first, i'd like to congratulate speaker boehner and prime minister netanyahu on a very impressive bit of political theater. now the prime minister can go home to his campaign and say he lectured congress, and the american people on things that apparently we didn't know. i think the speech validated all of the reasons i said i was opposed to the speech. i expected the prime minister to peck late on and -- speculate on and mischaracterize the negotiations and a potential deal. for instance he continually said that the deal ends in a certain period of time, and there are no restrictions, would be no reductions on iran's

nuclear program after the deal expired. that is not the case as we have been advised by the white house. but, again, this is part of the strategy that he used. i resented the condescending tone that he used which basically indicated that he didn't think anybody in congress or the country understood the threat that a nuclear weaponized iran poses to his country, to the region and to the world. i think the president has made it very clear we understand that threat. i don't think that there's any doubt that everyone in congress and the administration understands that iran has been a bad actor in the region that it has sponsored terrorism, that it has done things that we would like to see changed. we all know that. it's nice of him to remind us. and i also resent the fact that he was telling us how to negotiate when the administration and their representatives have been at this for two years now with the

cooperation and participation of five other major nations in the world. this speech was straight out of the dick cheney playbook. this was fear mongering at its ultimate. it's like essentially saying nuclear war is inevitable if a deal were to be accepted. phrases like this would pave the way to iran having a nuclear bomb, these are things that i think are, again part of what dick cheney would have done and did. this has been prime minister's pattern. he's gone to the u.n. and done the same thing. i understand, as all of us do, all of us who desperately support israel and care very deeply about israeli security that israel perceives its threat differently than we might. but i don't think there is any question that the administration and all of us understand that

threat and are trying our best to thwart it. >> that i do not support -- >> live picture of the u.s.meri house this afternoon. house has approved debate on mu funding for amtrak today butmust members are unexpectedly debating the senate's clean bill that would keep homeland security funded through september 30th.lusi the agency is running onuld temporary funding right now, and this clean bill does not include the president'sas executive order on immigration. the decision to take up the billus o was announced by speaker john boehner during a meeting with th house republicans this morning. a vote on final passage could come sometime today. the senate will return in about five minutes with the chamber expected to move forward. resolution to disprove of labor relations board ruling regarding unions, and we could see debate on whether to override the president's veto of the keystone xl pipeline. a vote on that's expected tomorrow. life coverage of the senate continues here on c-span2 when the chamber gavels in at 2:15 eastern. and coming up in about 15

minutes, defense secretary ashton carter and joint chiefs chair martin dempsey will be testifying on their department's budget request for 2016. they'll be speaking to members of the senate armed services committee. that gets underway live at 2:30 eastern. you'll be able to see it on c-span3. >> the c-span cities tour take booktv and american history tv on the road traveling to u.s. cities to learn about their history and literary life. and this weekend we've partnered with comcast for a visit to galveston, texas. >> people throng to the beach, and the rising tide, the rising wind certainly drew them. they watched in amazement as both of these factors battered the beachfront structures. at that time we had wooden bathhouses out over the gulf of mexico, and we also had piers, and we even had a huge pavilion called olympia by the sea.

as the storm increased in intensity, these beach structures literally were turned into matchsticks. ♪ ♪ >> the 1900 storm struck galveston saturday september 8 1900. the storm began toward noon increased in dramatic intensity and then finally tapered off toward midnight that evening. this hurricane was and still is the deadliest recorded natural event in the history of the united states. >> watch all of our events from galveston saturday at noon eastern on c-span2's booktv and sunday afternoon at two on american history tv on c-span3. >> you would see what we used to

call when i was a kid a mutt and jeff combination or a stickball set. washington is, was a large man. six foot, very robust, terrific natural athlete. and madison is a skinny little guy. >> this sunday on "q and ark," historian david o. stewart on founding father james madison and the partnerships he made that aided in the success of our fledgling nation. >> his gift that i write most about is his ability to form remarkable partnerships with really the great people of his era. but it also alludes to the gift of his country of his talents and what he was able to do to help create the first self-sustaining constitutional republic. >> sunday night at 8 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a." >> well in a moment we'll go

live to the senate floor. lawmakers are returning after attending the joint meeting of congress this morning to hear the speech by the israeli prime minister and then convene their weekly party lunches. we're expecting debate today on moving forward with a resolution disapproving of a labor relations board ruling regarding unions. also possible debate on whether to override the president's veto of the keystone xl oil pipeline. a vote on that is expected tomorrow. see live coverage of the senate in just a moment here on c-span2. the associated press reporting on president obama's reaction to the israeli prime minister. the president said he didn't offer any viable alternatives to the nuclear negotiations with iran during his speech to congress. the president says he read a manuscript of netanyahu's speech today. he says there is nothing new in the speech. also house minority leader nancy pelosi said the speech was is so insulting that it almost made her cry. by the way if you missed any of the israeli prime minister's

speech, you will be able to see it online at c-span.org anytime. it'll also reair tonight on the c-span networks. shortly we'll go live to the senate floor. we'll have that live for you here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: s. 625, a bill to froir congressional review and oversight of agreements relating to iran's nuclear program and for other purposes. mr. mcconnell: i no ask tosh a second reading and in order to place the bill on the calendar, i object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. mcconnell: is now mr. president, -- the presiding officer: the bill will be read for a second time on the next legislative

day. mr. mcconnell: mr. president this morning prime minister netanyahu laid out a threat posed by the nuclear -- by a nuclear iran in very clear terms, not just to israel, not just to the united states, but to the entire world. he reminded us that no deal with iran is better than a bad deal with iran. that seems to run counter to the obama administration's thinking on the issue, which is worrying enough. what's also worrying is the seeming determination to pursue a deal on its own without the input of the people's elected representatives. remember, it was congress that helped bring iran to the table by putting sanctions in place actually against -- against -- the wishes of the administration. congress was right then and congress and the american people need to be a part of this discussion too. that's why i'm acting to place this bipartisan bill on the legislative calendar. it's legislation crafted by members of the both party that

would ensure the american people have a say in any deal. senators corker, graham, and others worked on similar legislation, and they will mark that bill up in committee. congress must be involved in reviewing and voting on an agreement reached between this white house and iran, and this bill would ensure that that happens. i yield the floor. mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: i have seven unanimous consent requests for committees to meet today during the session of the senate -- during today's session. they have the approval of the majority and the minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these request be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: mr. president pursuant to the provisions of the congressional review act i move to proceed to s.j. res. 8 a joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval of the rules submitted by the national labor relations board relating

to representation case procedures and i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. this motion is not debatable. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or change their vote? if not the yeas are 53, the

nays are 45, and the motion to proceed is agreed to. the clerk will now report the joint resolution. the clerk: calendar number 21, h.j. s.j. res. 8 providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5 united states code by the rule submitted by the nlrb relating to representation case procedures. the presiding officer: pursuant to the congressional review act there will be up to ten hours of debate equally divided between those in favor and those opposing the resolution. the senator from tennessee is recognized. mr. alexander: thank you mr. president. i have come to the floor today to discuss the congressional review act resolution that senator mcconnell the republican leader, senator enzi, the senator from wyoming and i have filed to stop a new national labor relations board rule. last december, the national labor relations board issued a

final rule that shortened the time between when pro-union organizers asked an employer for a secret ballot election and when that election actually takes place. i refer to this as the ambush election rule, because it forces a union election before an employer has the time to figure out what's going on. even worse it jeopardizes employees' privacy by requiring employers to turn over employees' personal information including email addresses phone numbers, shift hours and locations to union organizers. mr. president, this action of the labor relations board which increasingly has become a union advocate instead of an umpire disputes between -- between employees and employers it's attracted enormous attention across this country. i have letters from the united

states chamber of commerce, from the coalition for democratic workplace, from the national council of chain restaurants from the national retail federation the retail industry leaders association the associated builders and contractors incorporateed the american lodging and hotel association, the h.r. policy association, the national association of manufacturers the society for human resource management the associated general contractors of america. 173 total organizations mr. president, who have registered their deep concern about the unfairness of this ambush election rule, and in the time that i have today and that others -- i see senator enzi is already on the floor. he has for many years fought

this battle. we want the american people to understand why the ambush election rule is such a bad idea why it's so unfair to employers by causing them to be forced to have a union election before they can figure out what's going on, and for the same reason it's unfair to employees. they have to vote in a union election before they have a chance to hear both sides. here's how the procedure will work. if a majority of the senate approves this resolution, it will then go to the house for a vote. if it passes both houses, the president can veto the resolution. it would take 67 votes in the senate to override that veto. if the nlrb's new rule is disapproved, the board can issue a substantially similar rule without congressional approval. mr. president, the question i -- i would ask is what's the rush? what's the problem here?

today, more than 95% of union elections occur within 56 days of the petition filing. 95% within 56 days of the time a petition is filed. but under this new rule, elections could take place in as few as 11 days. this rule will harm employers and employees alike. if you're an employer who gets ambushed in that 11-day quickie election here's how it works. on day one you get a faxed copy of an election petition that's been filed at your local nlrb regional office stating that 30% of your employees support a union. the union may have already been quietly trying to organize for months without your knowledge. your employees have only been able to hear the union's point

of view. by day two or three you must publicly post an election notice in your workplace and if you communicate to your employees electronically, you have to publish the notice online as well. by noon on day seven you must file with the national labor relations board what is called a statement of position. this is a comprehensive document in which an employer sets out legal positions and claims in writing under the nlrb's new rule you waive your rights to use any legal argument not raised in this document. so it should be pretty obvious mr. president, that by day seven at least, you will have to have a lawyer on hand, at least for several days before that. you probably need that lawyer on hand on day two hopefully on day one because if you make any

mistake, if you make any mistake in these filings you might have -- you might have the -- in the leadup to the election, the nlrb might set aside the results and order a rerun election, or worse when a bigger mistake is made could require an employer automatically to bargain with a union. now, think about the real world mr. president. at our hearing before the health education labor and pensions committee a national representative of the federation of independent businesses testified. she said there are 350,000 members of the nfib. that's just some of the small businesses in america. the average number of employees that that organization has is about ten as i recall. so you have got small businesses all over america. they don't sit around with labor lawyers. they don't have money to hire labor lawyers. and they are expected to know within a day or two exactly what

to do about a complicated petition before the nlrb because of this ambush election that could cause the election to happen within 11 days. on day seven you must also present the union and nlrb with a list of prospective voters as well as their job classifications, their shifts, their work locations. now, if you're a business with five six seven eight employees, it seems to me like you're going to be spending your whole time working on this union matter in a compressed period of time, your customers might be wanting your services. they might want dloifers on whatever it is you make. they might want on-time dloifers. all of a sudden, you're running around trying to find a labor lawyer trying to avoid making mistakes so you can deal with this ambush that is suddenly coming. on day eight a pre-election hearing is held with the nlrb regional office and an election day is set on day eight.

by day ten the employer must present the union with a list of employee names employee personal email addresses employee personal cell phone numbers and home addresses of employees. you've got to hand that over to the union organizers. whether the employees want that or not. day 11 is the earliest day on which the nlrb could conduct the election under the new rule. under the new rule, the union has the power to postpone an election by an additional ten days at this point but the employer has no corresponding power. so you have the ambush. the ambusher, the union has the power to postpone the election that it has called, it has forced to be called. but the employer who has been ambushed has no similar right. so under this new nlrb rule before the hearing on day eight

an employer will have less than one week to do the following things -- figure out what an election petition is and for most of those hundreds of thousands of small businesses with five, six eight employees they might have no idea what it is. find legal representation. not only find a lawyer, that's not just a matter of looking at a phone book. it's a matter of finding a lawyer with whom you would be comfortable, whom you would trust, who you know has some ability. that would take a while particularly if you're not a great big company and you're not accustomed to labor relations litigation. determine legal positions on the relevant issues. learn what statements and actions the law permits and prohibits. these are all things that on day eight an employer will have had to do -- communicate with employees about the decision they are making, correct any

misstatements and falsehoods that employees may be hearing from union organizers. and as i mentioned earlier making even the slightest mistake in the leadup to an election with result in the nlrb setting aside the results and ordering a rerun election, or worse, when a bigger mistake is made the board could require an employer to automatically bargain with the union. but, mr. president, it is the employees who stand to lose the most under the new rule. in the first place all of the employees, some of the employees may know what's going on before the union files its notice of an election but all of the employees don't have a chance to hear both sides of the issue in an ambush election. second because of the ambush, -- well, that's the first -- they may have only heard half the story. only 4.3% of union elections

occur more than 56 days after the petition filing. i mentioned this a little bit earlier, and the current median number of days between the filing and election is just 38 days. these figures are well within the nlrb's own goals for timely elections. the unions won 64% of elections in 2014 in recent years. the union win rate has actually been going up. so what's the rush? why is 38 days the median number of days between a filing and an election? why is 38 days too long? it's well within the nlrb's own goals. the nlrb is winning more elections than it uses. and then let's go to the 1959 debate when we can look to a former member of this body. senator john f. kennedy, in a debate over amendments to the national labor relations act he

warned against rushing employees into election, and this is what he said -- "there should be at least a 30-day interval between the request for an election and the holding of the election in which both parties can present their viewpoints." senator john f. kennedy april april 21 1959. if senator kennedy thought 30 days was approximately right if 38 days is the mean of what's happened today if that's within the nlrb's own goals why the rush? why the push for an ambush election? why have an election that can -- that can be set 11 days before employers and employees know what's going on? mr. president, i might add this -- when a workplace is unionized, especially in a state that has no right to work law employees have dues money taken out of every paycheck whether they like it or not. they lose the ability to deal directly with their employer to

address concerns or ask for a promotion or a raise. instead, they have to work through the union. important considerations like which of their employees will be included in the bargaining unit will be no longer determined before the election. as the two dissenting members of the nlrb put it, when this rule was decided employees will be asked to -- quote -- vote now understand later. and i would like to emphasize what the employers are losing in addition to the opportunity to fully understand the election before them. they are losing their privacy mr. president, because the rule requires employers to hand over employees' personal email addresses, cell phone numbers shift hours and locations job classifications, even if the employee has made clear he or she doesn't want to be contacted by union organizers. now, some on the other side

well it's the modern age. we have internet, we have google. let's get modern. i would think because we're in the modern age and privacy is assaulted toach so much on every side, we would be even more careful, even more careful about not just rushing up an election but saying to the employees who may not have any interest at all in creating a union that just because a petition is filed by 30% of the employees that within 11 days employers have to hand over your personal email address, your cell phone number, your shift hour location, your job classification, even if you don't want that to happen. even if you don't want that to happen. this rule appears to be a solution in search of a problem. it is clear to see that it's wrong, and that is why senator enzi senator mcconnell and i are asking the senate to disapprove it today and prohibit the nlrb from issuing any

similar rule. i'll come back on the floor mr. president, during our debate time and talk about how this is one part of a process by the current national labor relations board board to become even more of an advocate than an umpire. that is the reason senator mcconnell and i have introduced legislation that would change the national labor relations board back from an advocate to an umpire. by doing three things. one is, end the partisan advocacy by creating a six-member board of three republicans and three democrats and a majority will require both sides to find a middle ground. second rein in the general counsel, businesses and unions would be able to can challenge complaints filed by the general counsel in federal district court. number three, encourage timely decisions in two ways, first either party in a case before the board may appeal to the

federal court of appeals if the board fails to reach a decision in their case within one year. this rule, this ambush election rule is part of a general trend that has caused the nlrb to shift dramatically toward union advocacy. and when i come back on the floor i'll also talk about the joint employer standard, and the consideration the nlrb is giving to a decision that would destroy more than 700,000 american businesses called franchises. these are the men and women who operate health clubs barbershops, child care centers, neighborhood restaurants, music stores, cleaning services, much more. you can -- you combine the attack on franchises with the ambush election rule and the case a couple of years ago about microunions so that unions may

target even a small union in a large company and you see that there's a consistent trend here. an effort by unions and their friends in the nlrb to tip the balance in a way that it was never intended by the creators of the national labor relations board act. the national labor relations board is supposed to be an umpire not an advocate. and if there ever was an example of unfairness and tipping the balance in one direction instead of the other it would be an ambush elections rule which allows a union -- union organizers to within 11 days ambush a company unsuspecting, force an election before the employer and all of the employees have a sufficient amount of time to suggest out what is going on. and in conclusion i would think that senator kennedy's advice