relief will come into effect. there is no signing bonus. there will be no immediate changes to the un, eu, or us sanctions. only if iran fulfills the conditions will be live sanctions on a phase in basis, sanctions the target third-party countries. of course we must guard against the possibility that iran does not uphold that side of the deal which is why if it violates commitments we will be able to promptly snapback most us and un sanctions, and since preventing the un snapback requires a vote from the un security council the united states has the ability to effectively force the reimposition of the sanctions. we maintain significant sanctions that fall outside the scope of the deal including primary us trade

embargo and other measures with very little exception iran will continue to be denied access to the world's largest market and maintain powerful sanctions support for terrorist group such as hezbollah, is destabilizing presence in yemen, missile program and human rights abuses at home. and we will not be relieving sanctions on the iranian revolutionary guard corps, any of their subsidiaries or senior officials. the sanctions relief is premature. the funds iran recovers to be diverted. i understand the concern, but iranian ties to terrorist groups are why we must keep it from ever

obtaining a nuclear weapon. the combination wouldthe combination would raise a nightmare scenario. a nuclear armed iran would be far more menacing. jcp la will address the nuclear danger freeing us and our allies to check the regional activities. by contrast walking away would leave the world's leading sponsor of terrorism with a short an increasing nuclear breakout time. iran's 100 billion in restricted reserves which many fear will be directed for nefarious -- nefarious purposes constitute long-term savings. after sanctionssavings. after sanctions relief iran will only be able to freely access around half of these resources because over $20 billion is committed to projects with china

nontraditional loans, iran's energyloans, iran's energy and banking sector. as a matter of financial reality, there will likely be needed to meet international payment obligations. moreover president ronnie was elected on a platform of economic revitalization and face the political imperative to start meeting is unfulfilled promises. he faces over a half trillion and pressing investment requirements and government obligations. iran is in a massivea massive economical from which it will take years to climb out meanwhile enhancing our cooperation with israel and partners in the gulf. backingbacking away from this deal to escalate the economic pressure and trying to

obtain a broader capitulation would be a mistake. eveneven if one believe extending sanctions pressure was a better course, that choice is simply not available. our partners agreed to impose costly sanctions to put a stop to his program. if we change terms now they just would not do it. we would be left with neither a nuclear deal or effective sanctions. it is unrealistic to think this would force iran to totally capitulate and impractical to believe we

can marshal a global coalition of partners to impose such pressure after turning down a deal a partners believe is a good one. this is a a strong deal, and a powerful snapback is built-in to block iran's path to a nuclear bomb.nuclear bomb. that is an overriding national security priority and should not be put at risk. thank you, and we look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you, secretary lou. the 24 day suspect site process does expired 15 years. the iaea additional protocol loan would not deter iran based upon past experience with noncompliance. i think that

point stands. the other question i would like to ask sec. cary relates to what the secretary of defense said in his testimony about the eye and icbm stands for intercontinental which means flying from iran to the united states. simply countries develop icbms to deliver a nuclear warhead, and these will be aimed at us, not at moscow. at the same time these restrictions are coming off sanctions on the iranian scientists involved are also coming off how is that making us safer? it seems to me that the winner is russia which demanded and one on the lifting iran's behalf of these icbm sanctions. sanctions. why did we can see? >> we did not concede on that. we won a victory because we

have seven nations negotiating. three of the seven thought that the sanctions ought to be lifted immediately. four of them thought they should not. what we succeeded in doing was keeping both the arms embargo on the missile component, thecomponent, the missiles for eight years, the officer five, notwithstanding the fact that iran has a legitimate argumenta legitimate argument that they were making that the un resolution which is what created the sanctions and the structure we were negotiating under said that if iran comes to the table and negotiates all of the sanctions would be lifted. they did not come to the table to negotiate, they made a deal they felt they were in compliance with the un resolution and we felt that their behavior in the region was such that it

would be unconscionable notwithstanding. the compromise was to find the need, but we don't feel we lost anything whatsoever for the following reasons. the unthe un resolution 1929 is a nuclear resolution. susan rice put the arms peace and at the last minute, a throw in at the last moment into this nuclear resolution. resolution. the nuclear resolution always contemplated that if the iaea came to what is

known as its broad conclusion that iran was not engaged in any illicit activities and hits declared or undeclared activities then all the sanctions are lifted. no matter what was going to happen here we were going to lose the missile and arms under the human component.component. here is what we have done in the meantime that we believe actually takes care of this issue. >> issue. >> mr. secretary, i followed the arguments that you have made about the laws that we have to defend against iran's missile program, and i understand the stuff that you took here. i am saying big picture, we end up with a bottom line where in eight years they get the missile it does not look like a victory to me. >> they can buy the technology. >> the embargo is lifted. >> actually, they can't because we have several other protocols which prevent that from happening, specifically missile control

technology regime preventing them from taking place, an executiveplace, an executive order by the president of the united states that prevents the transfer. >> i would point out they're is a reason russia pushed it, a reason we did not want. >> we did not want the un component, but they know we have separate capacities and will apply them. >> i would hope that we could strengthen our hand as we go along. iran is getting a financial windfall increasing its support for terrorist proxies.

every integrates into the global economy, upgrades conventional weapons. i think it of greatest ballistic missile program over the time of the agreement. it has an industrial size nuclear program and ten years command that is the timeframe only if they don't. when i look at this and i see that iran's neighbors trust of the least, i just ask -- we are presuming iran will change his behavior, and that behavior did not change last weekend when they not change last weekend when they were chanting again death to america. >> please, with all due respect, we are not presuming any such thing. there is no presumption about what iran will or will not do. there is one objective, make sure they can't get a nuclear weapon. on the backside we have a robust initiative that will push back against iran's other activities. let me be specific. >> my time has expired. >> authorizing us sanctions on foreign persons that materially contribute to the proliferation of missiles.

by any person or foreign country of proliferation concern. that is just one. >> my time is expired. i am going to go to mr. angle. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to get back. frankly, it disturbs me the most. the truth is after 1515 years iran is a nuclear threshold state legitimized in this agreement which means they can produce weapons grade highly enriched uranium. you can make the argument, argument about why would we not try to negotiate a deal where they could not have those things and 15 years? i also want to mention that a nuclear agreement does not whitewash the fact that iran continues to remain a

destabilizing action in the region and continues to fuel terrorism around the globe. our friends in israel rightfully are concerned. one of the issues i have had is that it only focused on limits to the nuclear program. with this agreement iran's financing of terrorism we will continue and could become much worse. they take advantage of any sanctions relief that results from an agreement between p5 plus one because simply put money is to follow like to know how specifically we will work with our allies to minimize the potential windfall and protect our allies like israel. the other issue is the lifting of the arms embargo.

further destabilizing the region. i wasregion. i was disappointed that these will eventually be lifted. they were outside the scope of the negotiation. the changes to the sanctions should have been outside the scope as well. iran will be able to legally shift reference so they can continue to torture and kill his own people. open to further consideration? the arms embargo and ballistic missile sanctions are not specifically mentioned in the jcp away.

violations of the arms embargo would be considered violations. the snapback of sanctions apply. would they be in violation? >> well, congressman, there are so many questions in there. let me try to take on the biggest ones first. let me call to everyone's attention, the ir gc opposes this agreement. they are not sitting there thinking they are not sitting there thinking they will get the whole world. one of the reasons they oppose this agreement is that they see themselves losing the cover of the nuclear umbrella they hope to have.

there is nothing here to prevent us from pushing back going forward. congress and others were free to work together to build a push back. let me ask you a simple question, is for an empowered empowered more destabilizing the region with a nuclear weapon or stripped of that ability of venice coming in underneath? the answer is crystal clear. you asked the question. under the additional protocol please focus on what happens. there is not some sudden break off. they are under remarkable

restraint, specifically the comprehensive safeguard agreement that they have to negotiate which goes on forever providing the right and obligation to provide safeguards on all sore sense special fissile material in iran to ensure the material is not diverted to nuclear weapons. they have to bring this into agreement. the comprehensive safeguard agreement requires a rent to maintain detailed accounting records in all material cooperating records of all public facilities providing for a range of iaea inspections including verifying the location, identity, quantity, composition of all nuclear materials, the design of

nuclear facilities, requiring the board of governors to take action without delay in a situation where it is essential and urgent and provides consequences for finding of noncompliance. there are a set of of requirements for access, inspection, and accountability. congressman, they are forever under enormous constraints with respect to inspections and accountability. they have to provide accountability for all the nuclear research and development activities not involving nuclear material, manufacturing and production of sensitive technology construction of ourselves, uranium mines, concentration plants of all kinds of things. >> later today panelists will discuss the 2016 presidential race. chuck todd we will monitor that event and a look now

it's book tv programming with authors who have recent best-selling books. in american history tv. former donald trump campaign adviser discussingadvisor discussing the 2016 presidential race and his experience working with donald trump.

>> this sunday night on q&a stanford law school professor talking about her book the trouble with lawyers. the high cost of law schools and the lack of diversity in the profession.

>> we need a different model of legal education that includes one year programs for people doing routine work, to your programs, an option for people who want to do something specialized and 34 years for people who want the full general practice legal education that we now have. it is crazy to train in the same way someone doing routine divorces in a small town in the midwest and someone doing mergers and acquisitions on wall street. we have this one-size-fits-all model that is extremely extensive. it assumes you can train everyone to do everything in the same way. i am licensed to practice into states and would not trust myself to do a routine divorce. >> sunday night. passmack. >> a signature feature, our all-day coverage of book fairs and festivals across the country with top nonfiction authors. here is our schedule.

>> earlier today president obama secured a vetoproof majority. the senate will begin debate on members return to session on tuesday. this lasts about an hour. [applause] >> dear friends, we thank all of you for coming today for an historic message for a great american leader. let me just add not too long ago the secretary asked me and my partner to write an op-ed about the iran

agreement. we were eager to do so and were grateful that it has been published. at the same time the title of this is, there is no perfect nuclear agreement. the gist of the article is what happens next. no perfect agreement, and we say that the experience of dealing with russia, ukraine, belarus. there were treaties which sec. kerry was the chairman and foreign relations committee. i was privileged to be ranking member to work with him for ratification of the treaty, and they are important treaties. more important is the follow-through. with regard to the russian

situation, for 20 years i went to russia at least once a year for 20 years. i was attempting to visit with russians and make sure that the best was happening, namely that nuclear weapons were being destroyed. destroyed. over the course of that 20 years 700 nuclear weapons were destroyed. let me mention that these weapons were on large missiles and several could go out in different directions. they were targeted not only the military installations of our country but at our major cities. i was appalled to find indianapolis was on the target list. i served as mayor for eight years oblivious to the fact that we could have been obliterated at any time which is why i take seriously and i'm grateful that secretary kerry was so

supportive throughout those years of the efforts that sam and i put in. now we are in a new chapter, very important one. this is an agreement that deserves the support of the american people and more immediately the support of the united states congress. arduous negotiations involving the secretary of state come almost endless talks and difficult arguments likewise sometimes with our partners countries that are backing up including russia germany, france, great britain. these are important partners. placed against that country. secretary kerry, and arduous negotiation has helped bring

about a remarkable agreement it comes after a lifetime of public service. some of the parallels our lives are substantial but one of them was i volunteered for the navy and served most of my time as an intelligence prefer. secretary kerry volunteered for the navy and ended up out in the mekong delta. three purple hearts from that very significant service early in his career and was willing to give his life for this country. the tenant governor of massachusetts under governor to caucus and then came to

the united states senate. twenty-eight years of magnificent service, the chairman of the senate foreign relations committee, but throughout that time one pursued foreign relations committee are asleep and worked in a nonpartisan way to bring about results. senator kerry, secretary kerry succeeded joe biden has the chairman of the committee. i was the ranking member or chairman of republicans in control or not a control but we put together. to see if we could

get a 16 to zero vote from the foreign relations committee. the best, strongest face of america for the rest of the world as opposed to a 97 situation that was somehow rather a treaty or significant agreement. this is still a very important principle and is why it is a genuine pleasure to be with the secretary today to note that here is a a man who not only has served in the senate that was a candidate fora candidate for president of the united states in 2004 and barely lost by a few electoral votes, came back and continue that service as chairman of the foreign relations committee and now since 2013 as our secretary of state. it isstate. it is a genuine honor and personal privilege to introduce to you today my friend, secretary john evans kerry. [applause]

[applause] >> thank you so much for that introduction. good morning to all of you here. it is great for me to be able to be here in philadelphia. ii am delighted to see so many young people with us. i no school has started. we are glad you made the choice she did. i am particularly grateful that the senator chose to come here this morning in order to introduce me and to reaffirm his support for this agreement, but i am even more grateful for his service to our country over the course of a lifetime.

as a former colleague of his, i can bear witness that he is one of the true legislative pathfinders of recent time with a long record of foreign policy accomplishments. what they did was a lasting legacy of making this world safer. he is also someone who has consistently placed our country's interest above any other consideration and has a deep understanding of how best to prevent nuclear weapons from falling in to the wrong hands. he is one of our experts when it comes to that judgment. so it is appropriate that the

senator's here with us this morning, and everyone of us joins and saying one of us joins and saying thank you for your tremendous service. it is also fitting to be here and philadelphia, the homeground of this absolutely magnificent center for the constitution of the liberty bell, and one of our nation's most revered founders of benjamin franklin command i must say, i never quite anticipated that this is one of the great vistas in america and to be able to look down and see independence all is inspiring for all of us here. i would say a quick word. in addition to his many inventions and his special status as america's 1st diplomat, he is diplomat, he is actually credited with being the 1st person known to have made a list of pros and cons , literally dividing a page into handwriting all the reasons to support a proposal to one side and all

the reasons to oppose it on the other. and this morning i would like to invite you all, those here for those listening through the media, to participate in just such an exercise. because two months ago in vienna the united states and five other nations, including permanent members of the un security council reached agreement on ensuring the peaceful nature of that country's nuclear program. as early as next week, congress will begin voting on whether to support the plan. the outcome or matter as outcome will matter as much as any foreign policy decision in recent history. like sen. lugar, pres. obama and i are convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that the framework that we have put forward will get the job

done, and in that assessment we have excellent company. lastcompany. last month's 29 of our nation's top nuclear physicist a nobel prize winners from one end of the country to the other congratulated the president for what they called a technically sound stringent and innovative deal that will provide the necessary assurance that iran is not developing nuclear weapons. the scientists praise the agreement for its creative approach to verification and for the rigorous safeguards that it will prevent iran from obtaining the fissile material for a bomb. today i will lay out the facts that causes scientists and many other experts to reach the favorable conclusions that they have. i will show why the agreed plan will make the united states, israel, the gulf states, and the world safer. i we will explain how it gives us the access that we

need to ensure that iran's nuclear program remains wholly peaceful while preserving every option to respond if iran fails to meet its commitments. commitments. i will make clear that the key element of the agreement will last not for ten or 15 years as some are trying to assert or for 20 or 25, but they will last for the lifetime of iran's nuclear, and i would dispel some of the false information that has been circulating about the proposal on which congress is going to vote. now, for this this discussion there is an inescapable starting., a place where every argument made against the agreement must confront aa stark reality, the reality of how

advanced iran's nuclear program has become and where he was headed when pres. obama and rani launched the diplomatic process that concluded this past july. two years ago in september 2013 we were facing and he ran that had already mastered the nuclear fuel cycle, already stockpiled enough enriched uranium that if further enriched good arm ten to 12 bombs, and a ran that was already enriching uranium to the level of 20 percent. that is just below weapons

grade. and he ran that had already installed 10,000+ centrifuges and in a ran that was moving rapidly to commission a heavy water reactor able to produce enough weapons grade plutonium for an additional bomb or two a year. that, my friends is where we already were when we began our negotiations. at a negotiations. at a well remembered moment during the un general assembly the previous fall israeli prime minister netanyahu held up a cartoon of a bomb to show just how dangerous iran's nuclear program have become. in 2013 he returns to thatthe podium to warn that iran was positioning itself to rush forward to build nuclear bombs before the international community can detected and much less prevented. the prime minister argued rightly that the so-called

breakout time, the interval required for iran to produce enough fissile material for one bomb had dwindled to as little as two months even though it would take significantly longer to actually build the bomb itself using that fissile material, the prime minister's message is clear. he ran had successfully transformed itself into a nuclear threshold state. in the obama administration we were well aware of that troubling fact and more important molly were already responding to it. the record it. the record is irrefutable that over the course of two american administrations it was the united states that led the world and assembling against tehran, one of of the toughest international sanctions regimes ever developed, but we also have to face an obvious fact, sanctions alone were not

getting the job done, not done, not even close. they were failing to slow let alone halt iran's relentless march toward a nuclear weapons capability. president obama acted reaffirming his vow that iran would absolutely not be permitted to have a nuclear weapon, marshaling support that this principle from every corner of the international community, making clear his determination to go beyond what sanctions could accomplish and find a way to not only stop but to throw into reverse iran's rapid expansion of its nuclear program. as we developed our strategy, we cast a wide net to enlist the broadest

expertise available. we sat down with the iaea and our own intelligence community to ensure the verification standards we sought on paper would be effective in reality. we consulted with congress and our international allies and friends, examined carefully every step that we might take to close off each of iran's potential pathways to a bomb and, of course, we were well aware that every proposal, every provision, every detail would have to withstand the most painstaking scrutiny. we knew that. and so we make clear from the outset that we would not settle for anything less than an agreement that was less than an agreement that was comprehensive, verifiable, effective, and of lasting duration. we beganwe began with an interim agreement reached in geneva, joint plan of action

that accomplice diplomatically what sanctions alone could never have done for did it all to the events of her as nuclear activities and it is critical to note that for more than 19 months now iran has complied with every requirement of the plan. this was just the 1st step from that moment we pushed ahead seeking a broad and enduring agreement, sticking to our core provisions, maintaining unity among a diverse negotiating group partners, and we arrived at the good and effective deal that we had sought. i ask you today and in the days ahead as we have asked members of congress over the course of these last months,

consider the facts of what we achieved and judge for yourself the difference between where we were two years ago, where we are now, and where we can be in the future. without this agreement iran's so-called breakout time was about two months. with this agreement and will increase by a factor of six to at least a year and will remain at that level for a decade or more continuing to expand with ever more efficient design reduced by two thirds for ten years. without this agreement he ran can continue expanding its stockpile of enriched uranium which is now more than 12,000 kilograms, enough if further enriched for multiple bombs. with

this agreement that stockpile will shrink and shrinks more my reaction of some 98 percent to no more than 300 kilograms. without this agreement iran's heavywater reactor was soon be able to produce enough weapons grade plutonium each year to feel one or two nuclear weapons. with this agreement the core of that reactor will be removed and filled with concrete, and he ran will never be permitted to produce any weapons grade plutonium. without this agreement the iaea would not have assured access to undeclared locations in iran were suspicious activities might be taking place. the agency could seek access, but if iran objected they would be no sure method

for resolving a dispute in a finite time, which is exactly what is that as to where we are today, the standoff. with this agreement the iaea can go wherever the evidence leads. no facility declare undeclared will be off limits, and there is a time certain for assuring access. there is no other country to which such aa requirement applies. this arrangement is both unprecedented and unique. in addition the iaea we will have more inspectors working in iran using modern technology such as real-time enrichment monitoring my tech electronic seals and cameras are always watching. further iran has agreed never to pursue key technologies that would be necessary to develop a nuclear explosive device.

the agreement deals not only with the production of fissile material but with the critical issue of weaponization. because ofbecause of these limitations and guarantees we can sum up by saying that without disagreement the iranians would have several potential pathways to a bomb with that they won't have any. the plutonium path i will be blocked because it won't have a reactor producing the time for a weapon and won't build any new heavywater reactors are engaged in reprocessing for at least 15 years and after that we have the ability to watch and no precisely what they're doing the iranian pathway will be blocked and because for 15 years the country will not enrich uranium to a level higher than 3.67 percent.

let me belet me be clear. no one can build a bomb from the stockpile of 300 kg kg300 kilograms in uranium enriched only to 3.67 percent. it is just not possible. finally, iran's covert pathway to a bomb will also be blocked. under our plan there will be 247 monitoring of iran's key nuclear facilities. as soon as we start the implementation inspectors will be able to track iran's uranium as it is mind and meld and turned in the yellowcake and in the gas and eventually in the waste. this means that for a quarter of a century at least every activity throughout the nuclear fuel chain will receive added scrutiny.

and for 20 years the iaea will be monitoring the production of key centrifuge components and herein in order to assure that none are diverted to a covert program. so if iran did decide, its technicians would have to do more than barry a processing facility deep beneath the ground. they would have to come up with a complete, complete and completely secret nuclear supply chain, a secret source of uranium, a secret milling facility, a secret conversion facility, secret enrichment facility, and our intelligence community and energy department which manages our nuclear program and nuclear weapons both agree iran could never get away with such a deception. and if we have even a shadow of doubt that illegal

activities are going on either the iaea will be given access required to uncover the truth are iran will be in violation and the nuclear related sanctions can snap back into place. we will also have other options to assure compliance it necessary. given all of these requirements it is no wonder that this plan has been endorsed by so many leading american scientists, experts on nuclear nonproliferation dollars. more than 60 former top national security officials, 100, more than 100 retired ambassadors, people who served under democratic and republican presidents alike are backing the proposal, as are retired generals and admirals from all five of our uniformed services. one of the great names in american security endeavors of the last century and now served as national security advisor to two republican

presidents. he is also among the many respected figure supporting it. internationally the agreement is being backed with one exception by each of the more than 100 countries that have taken a formal position. the agreement was also endorsed by the united nations security council on a vote of 15 to nothing. this not only says something significant about the quality of the plan, particularly when you consider five of those countries are permanent members and nuclear powers, but it should also invite reflection from those who believe the united states can walk away from this without causing great harm to our population. because of the power of our banks all we americans have

to do is return to the bargaining table, puff on our chests and demand a better deal. he would use critic -- sanctions to give a ran a choice. that's a punchy sound bite that has no basis in reality. our nation came together to enact round after round of economic sanctions. remember, even the toughest restrictions did not stop the iranian nuclear program speeding ahead. ..

but it was a start of the negotiating process and negotiations themselves recently concluded in vienna that actually stopped it. only with those negotiations did iran begin to get rid of it is stockpile of 20% enriched-uranium. only with those negotiations did it stop installing more centrifuges and cease advancing the iraq reactor. only then did it commit to be more forthcoming about iaea

access and negotiate a special arrangement to break the deadlock. just apply your common sense. what do you think will happen, if we say to iran now, hey, forget it, the deal's off, let's go back to square one? how do you think our negotiating partners, all of whom who have embraced this deal will react, all of whom are prepared to go forward wit, how will they react? what do you think will happen to that multilateral sanctions regime that brought iran to the bargaining table in the first place? the answer is pretty simple. the answer is straightforward. not only will we lose momentum we built up in pressing iran to limit its nuclear activities, we will also surely start moving in the opposite direction. we need to remember. sanctions don't just sting in one direction, my friends. they also impose costs on those who forgo the commercial

opportunities in order to abide by them. it's a tribute to president obama's diplomacy. before that to president george w. bush. that we were able to convince countries to accept economic difficulties and sacrifices and put together the comprehensive sanctions regime that we did. many nations that would like to do business with iran agreed to hold back because of the sanctions. and, and this is vital. and because they wanted to prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. they had as much interest in it as we do. that's why they hope the negotiations will succeed and that's why they will join us in insisting that iran live up to its obligations. but they will not join us if we unilaterally walk away from the very deal the sanctions were designed to bring about.

they will not join us if we're demanding even greater sacrifices and threatening their businesses and banks because of a choice we made and they opposed. so while it may not happen all at once, it is clear that if we reject this plan, the multilateral sipping shuns regime will start to unafter vail, pressure on iran will lessen and. that is not obviously the path as some critics would head us to believe to a so-called better deal. it's a path to a much weaker position for the united states of america and to a much dangerous middle east. this is by no means a partisan point of view that just expressed. henry paulsen, was secretary of treasury under president george w. bush. he helped design the early

stages of the iran sanctions regime but just the other day he said, quote, it would be totally unrealistic to believe if we backed out of this deal the multilateral sanctions would remain in place. paul volcker, who chaired the federal reserve under president reagan said, quote, this agreement is as good as you are going to get to think that we can unilaterally maintain sanctions doesn't make any sense. we should pause for a minute, to contemplate what voting down this agreement might mean for iran's cadre of hard-liners. for those people in iran who lead the chants of death to america, death to israel and even death to rouhani. and who prosecute journalists simply for doing their jobs. the evidence documents that among those who most fervently

want this agreement to fall apart are the most extreme factions in iran. and their opposition should tell you all you need to know. from the very beginning these extremists have warned that negotiating with the united states would be a waste of time. why on earth would we now take a step that proves them right? let me be clear. rejecting this agreement would not be sending a signal of resolve to iran. it would be broadcasting a message so puzzling, most people across the globe would find it impossible to comprehend. after all, they have listened, as we warned over and over again about the dangers of iran's nuclear program. they have watched as we spent two years forging a broadly accepted agreement to rein that program in. they have nodded their heads in support as we have explained how the plan that we have developed will make the world safer.

who could blame them not understanding if we switch course and reject the very outcome we worked so hard to obtain? and not by offering some new and viable alternative. but by offering no alternative at all. it is hard to conceive of a quicker, or more self-destructive blow to our nation's credibility and leadership. not only would respect for this one issue, but i'm telling you, across the board. economically, politically, militarily, and even morally. we would pay immeasurable price for this unilateral reversal. friends, as dick mentioned in his introduction, i have been in public service for many years and i've been called on to make some difficult choices in that course of time.

there are those who believe, deciding whether or not to support the iran agreement is just such a choice. and i respect that. and i respect them. because of stringent limitations in iran's program, that included in the agreement i just described, because of where that program was headed before our negotiations began and will head again, if we walk away, because of utter absence of a viable alternative to this plan that we have devised, the benefits of this agreement far outweigh any potential dow backs. certainly, the preventing iran from having a nuclear weapon is supported across our political spectrum. and it has the backing of countries on every continent. what then explains the controversy that has persisted in this debate?

a big part of the answer, i think, is that even before the incoming ink was dry, we started being bombarded by myths and on what the agreement will or won't do and that bombardment continues today. the first of these myths is that the deal is somehow based on trust or a naive expectation that iran is going to reverse course on many of the policies it has been pursuing internationally. critics tell us, over and over again, you can't trust iran. well, guess what? there is not a single sentence, not a single paragraph in this whole agreement that depends on promises or trust, not one. the arrangement that we worked out with tehran is based exclusively on verification and proof. that's why the agreement is structured the way it is. that is why sanctions relief is

tied strictly to performance. and it is why we have formulated the most far-reaching monitoring and transparency regime ever negotiated. those same critics point to the fact that two decades ago, the united states reached a nuclear framework with north korea, that didn't accomplish what it set out to do. and we're told, we should have learned a lesson from that. well, the truth is, we did learn a lesson. the agreement with north korea was four pages and only dealt with plutonium. our agreement with iran runs 159 detailed pages, applies to all of tehran's potential pathways to a bomb, and is specifically grounded in the transparency rules of the iaea's additional protocol which didn't even exist two decades ago when the

north korea deal was made because it was developed specifically with the north korea experience in mind. lesson learned. the reality is, that if we trusted iran or thought that it was about to become more moderate this agreement would be less necessary than it is. but we don't. we would like nothing more than to see iran act differently. but not for a minute are we counting on it. iran's support of terrorist groups and sectarian violence are not recent policies. they reflect a perception of its leaders about iran's long-term national interests and there are no grounds for expecting those calculations to change in the near future. that is why we believe so strongly, that every problem in the middle east, effort threat to israel and our friends in the

region would be more dangerous if iran were permit have an nuclear weapon. that is inescapable bottom line. that is why we're working so hard and so proactively to protect our interests and those of our allies. in part, because of the challenge posed by iran, we have engaged in an unprecedented level military, intelligence, and security cooperation with our friend and ally, israel. we are determined to help our ally address new and complex security threats and to insure its qualitative military edge. we worked with israel every day to enforce sanctions and prevent terrorist organizations such as hamas and hezbollah from obtaining financing and weapons they seek, whether from iran or from any other source. and we will stand with israel to stop its adversaries from once again launching deadly and unprovoked attacks against the israeli people.

since 2009 which have provided $20 billion in foreign military financing to israel. more than half of what we have given to nations worldwide. over and above that, we have invested some 3 billion in the production and deployment of iron dome batteries, and other missile defense programs and systems and we saw how in the last gaza war lives were saved in israel because of it. we have given privileged access to advanced military recruitment such as f-35 joint strike fighter. israel is the only nation in the middle east where the united states sold this fifth generation aircraft. the president recently authorized a massive arms resupply package, featuring penetrating munitions and air-to-air missiles. we hope soon to conclude a new memorandum of understanding, a military assistance plan that will guide our intensive security cooperation through the

next decade. diplomatically, our support for israel remains rock solid. as we continue to oppose every effort to delegitimatize the jewish state or to pass biased resolutions against it in international bodies. now, i understand, i understand personally to overstate in israel the concern with iran or the consequences accepting or rejecting this agreement might have on israel's security. the fragility of israel's position has been brought home to me on everyone of the many trips i have made to that country. in fact as secretary of state i have already traveled to israel more than a dozen times.

spending the equivalent of a full month there. even ordering my plane to land at ben-gurion airport when commercial air traffic had been halted during the last gaza war. doing so specifically as a sign of support. over the years i have walked through yadashem, a living memorial to the six million lost and i have felt in my bones the unfathomable evil of the holocaust and the undying reminder, never to forget. i have climbed inside of a shelter where children were forced to leave their homes and classrooms to seek shelter from katusha rockets. i visited a city and witnessed shredded remains of homemade missiles from gaza, missiles fired with no other purpose than to sow fear in the hearts of israeli families. i piloted israeli jet out of

uvda airbase and observed first-hand tininess of israel airspace where it is possible to see all of the country's neighbors and the same time. i have bowedded my head at the western wall and offered my prayer for peace, peace for israel, for the region and for the world. i take a back seat to no one in my commitment to security of israel. a commitment i demonstrated through my 28 plus years in the senate. and as secretary of state i am fully conscious of the existential nature of the choice israel must make. i understand that the conviction that israel, even more than any other country simply can not afford a mistake in defending its security. and while i respectfully disagree with prime minister netanyahu about the benefits of the iran agreement, i do not question for an instant the basis of his concern for that -- or that of any israeli but i am

also convinced, as is president obama, our senior defense and military leaders and even many former israeli military and intelligence officials, that this agreement puts us on the right path to prevent iran from ever getting a nuclear weapon. the people of israel will be safer with this deal and the same is true for the people throughout the region. and to fully insure that, we are also taking specific and far-reaching steps to coordinate with our friends from the gulf states. president obama hosted their leaders at camp david earlier this year. i visited with them in doha last month and later this week we will welcome salam of saudi arabia to washington. gulf leaders share our profound concerns about iran's policies in the middle east but they're as alarmed by iran's nuclear

program. we must and we will respond on both fronts. we will make certain that iran lives up to its commitments under the nuclear agreement and we will continue strengthening our security partnerships. we're determined that our gulf friends will have the political and the military support that they need. to that end, we are working with them to develop a ballistic missile defense for the arabian peninsula, provide special operations training, authorize urgently-required arms transfers, strengthen cybersecurity, engage in large-scale military exercises and enhance maritime interdiction of illegal iranian arms shipments. we're also deepening our cooperation and support in the fight begins the threat posed to them, to us, and to all civilization by the forces of international terror including their surrogates and their proxies. through these steps and others we will maintain international

pressure on iran. united states sanctions impoised because of tehran's support for terrorism and human rights record, those will remain in place. as will our sanctions aimed at preventing the proliferation of ballistic missiles and transfer of conventional arms. the u.n. security council prohibitions on shipping weapons to hezbollah, the shiite militias in iraq, the houthi rebels in yemen, all of those will remain as well. we will urge tehran to provide information regarding an american who disappeared in iran several years ago, and, to release the u.s. citizens, its government has unjustly imprisoned. we'll do everything we can to see that our citizens are able to safely return to where they belong, at home, and with their families. have no doubt. the united states will oppose iran's destablizing policies

with every national security tool available. and disregard the myth, the iran agreement is based on proof, not trust. and in a letter that i am sending to all the members of congress today, i make clear the administration's willingness to work with them on legislation to address shared concerns about regional security, consistent with the agreement that we have worked out with our international partners. this brings us to the second piece of fiction. that this deal would somehow legitimatize iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon. i keep hearing this. well, yes, for years, iran has had a civilian nuclear program. under the nonproliferation treat you can do that. it was never realistic option to change that. but recognizing this reality is not the same as legitimatizing

the pursuit of a nuclear weapon. in fact, this agreement does the exact opposite. under iaea safeguards, iran is prohibited from ever pursuing a nuclear weapon. this is a important point. so i want to be sure that everyone understands the international community is not telling iran that it can't have a nuclear weapon for 15 years. we are telling iran that it can't have a nuclear weapon period. there is no magic moment 15, 20, or 25 years from now, where iran will suddenly get a pass from the mandates of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. doesn't happen. in fact, iran is required by this agreement to sign up to and abide by the iaea additional protocol that i mentioned earlier, that came out out of te north korea experience and that requires inspects of all nuclear

facilities. when does this mean? it means that ira ran's nuclear program will remain subject to regular inspections forever. iran will have to provide access to all of its nuclear facilities, forever. iran will have to respond promptly to request for access to any suspicious site forever. and if iran at anytime, at anytime, embarks on nuclear activities that are incompatable with a wholly peaceful program, it will be in violation of the agreement forever. we will no of that violation right away and we will retain every option we now have to respond, whether diplomatically, or through a return to sanctions, or by other means. in short, this agreement gives us unprecedented tools and all the time we need to hold iran

accountable for its choices and actions. now it's true, some of the special additional restrictions that we successfully negotiated, those begin to ease after a period. in some cases 10 or 15, in others 20, or others, 20 or 25. but it would defy logic to voight to kill the whole agreement, with all of the permanent npt restrictions which iran has to live for that reason. after all, if your house is on fire, if it is going up in flames, would you refuse to extinguish it because of the chance that it might be another fire in 15 years? obviously not. you would put out the fire and you would take advantage of the extra time to prepare for the future. my friends, it just doesn't make sense to conclude we should vote no now because of what might happen in 15 years, thereby

guaranteeing what might happen in 15 years will begin to happen now. because if this agreement is rejected, every possible reason for worry in the future would have to be confronted now, immediately. in the months ahead. once again and soon, iran would begin advancing its nuclear program. we would lose the benefit of the agreement that contains all of these restrictions and it would give a green light to everything that we're trying to prevent. needless to say, that is not the outcome that we want. it is not an outcome that would be good for our country, nor for our allies or for the world. there is a third myth, quickly. a more technical one. that iran could in fact get away with building a covert nuclear facility because the deal allows maximum of 24 days to obtain access to suspicious site. in truth there is no way in 20 four days or 24 months, 24

years, for that matter to destroy all of the evidence of illegal activity that has been taking place regarding fissile material because of the fissile materials and their relevant precursors. you can't eliminate the evidence by shoving it under a mattress, flushing it down a toilet, carting it off in the middle confident night. the materials may go, but the telltale traces remain year after year after year and the 24 days is the outside period of time during which they must allow access. under the agreement, if there is a dispute over access to any location, the united states and our european allies have the votes to decide the issue. so once we have identified a site that raises questions, we will be watching it continuously until inspectors are allowed in. let me underscore that.

the united states and international community will be monitoring iran, non-stop. and you can bet that if we see something, we will do something. the agreement gives us a wide range of enforcement tools and we will use them. and the standard we will apply can be summed up in two words, zero tolerance. there is no way to guarranty that iran will keep its word. that is why this isn't based on a promise or trust. but we can guarranty if iran decides to break the agreement, it will regret breaking any promise that it has made. now there are many other myths circulating about the agreement. but the last one that i'm going to highlight is just economic. and it is important. the myth that sanctions relief, that iran will receive somehow, both too generous and too dangerous. now obviously the discussions

that concluded in vienna like any serious negotiation involved a quid pro quo. iran wanted sanctions relief. the world wanted to insure a wholly peaceful nature of iran's program. so without the tradeoff, there could have been no deal. and no agreement by iran to the constraints that it has accepted. very important constraints. but there are some who point to sanctions relief as grounds to oppose the agreement. and the logic is faulty for several reasons. first, the most important is, that absent new violations by iran, the sanctions will' road regardless what we do. it is illusion for members of the congress to think they can vote this plan down and turn around and still persuade countries like china, japan, south korea, turkey, india, iran's major oil customers.

they ought to continue supporting sanctions that are costing them billions of dollars every year. it is not going to happen. and don't forget that the money that has been locked up as the result of sanctions is not sitting in some american bank under u.s. control. the money is frozen and being held in escrow by countries with which iran has had commercial dealings. we don't have the money. we can't control it. it will begin to be released. anyway, if we walk away from this agreement. remember as well, that the bulk of the funds iran will receive under the sanctions relief are already spoken for. and they are dwarfed by the countries unmet economic needs. iran has a crippled infrastructure. , income infrastructure. it has to rebuild it to pump oil. it has agriculture segment starved for investment. massive pension obligations.

significant foreign reserves already allocated to foreign-led projects. and a civilian population sitting there, expecting that the lifting of sanctions is going to result in a tangible improvement in the quality of their lives. the sanctions relief is not going to make a significant difference in what iran can do internationally, never been based on money. make no mistake, the important thing about this agreement is not what it will enable iran to do, but it will stop iran from doing and that is, the building of a nuclear weapon. before closing i want to comment on the nature of the debate which we are currently engaged in. some have accused advocates of the iran agreement, including me, of conjuring up frightening scenarios to scare listeners into supporting it. curiously this allegation comes most often from the very folks

who have been raising alarms about one thing or another for years. the truth is that if this plan is voted down, we can not predict with certainty what iran will do. but we do know what iran says it will do. and that is, begin again to expand its nuclear activities. and we know that the strict limitations that iran has accepted will no longer apply because they will no longer be any agreement. iran will then be free to begin operating thousands of other advanced and other centrifuges, that would otherwise have been mothballed. they will be free to expand their stockpile of low-enriched uranium, rebuild their stockpile of 20% enriched-uranium. free to move ahead with the production of weapons-grade plutonium. free to go forward with weaponnization research. and just who do you think will

be held responsible for all of this? not iran. because iran was preparing to implement the agreement and will have no reason whatsoever to return to the bargaining table. no, the world will hold accountable the people who broke with the consensus, turned their backs on our negotiating partners and ignored counsel of top scientists and military leaders. the world will blame the united states. so when those same voices accuse of scaremongering now, begin suddenly to warn, oh, wow, iran's nuclear activities once again are out of control, and must at all costs be stopped, what do you think is going to happen? the pressure will build, my friends. the pressure will build for military action. the pressure will build for the united states to use its unique military capabilities to disrupt iran's nuclear program. because negotiating isn't going to work because we just tried

it. president obama has been crystal clear we will do whatever is necessary to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon, but the big difference is at that point, we won't have the world behind us the way we do today. the because we rejected the fruits of diplomacy, we will be held accountable for a crisis that could have been avoided but instead we will be deemed to have created. so my question is, why in the world will we want to put ourselves in that position of having to make that choice especially when there is a better choice, a much more broadly-sported choice, a choice that sets us on the road to greater stability or security, but that doesn't require us to give up any option at all today? so here's the decision that we are called on to make. to vote down this agreement is to solve nothing because none of

the problems we are concerned about will be made easier, if it is rejected. none of them. not iran's nuclear program. not iran's sport for terrorism or sectarian activities. not its human rights record and not its opposition to israel. to oppose this agreement is whether intended or not, to recommend in its policy a policy of national paralysis. it is to take us backpack, directly to the very dangerous spot that we were in two years ago, only to go back there, devoid of any realistic plan or option. by contrast, the adoption and implementation of this agreement, will cement the support of the international community behind a plan to insure that iran does not ever acquire or possess a nuclear weapon. in doing so it removes a looming threat, from a uniquely fragile

region, discourage others from trying to develop nuclear arms, make our citizens and our allies safer, and reassure the world that the hardest problems can be addressed successfully by diplomatic means. at its best, american foreign policy, the policy of the united states, combines immense power with clarity of purpose, relying on reason and persuasion whenever possible. as has been demonstrated many times, our country does not shy from the necessary use of force but our hopes and our values, push us to explore every avenue for peace. the iran deal reflects our determination to protect the interests of our citizens, and to shield the world from greater harm, but it reflects as well, our knowledge that the firmest foundation for security is built

on mobilizing countries across the globe, to defend, actively and bravely the rule of law. in september, 228 years ago, benjamin franklin rose in the great city of philadelphia, right down there, to close debate on the proposed draft of the constitution of the united states. he told a rapt audience, when people of opposing views and passions are brought together, compromise is essential and perfection, from the perspective of any single participant is not possible. he said that after weighing carefully the pros and cons of that most historic debate, he said the following. i consent, sir, to this constitution because i expect no better and because i am not sure

the best. my fellow citizens, i have had the privilege of serving our country in times of pace and times of war and peace is better i've seen our leaders act with incredible foresight and seen them commit tragic errors by plunging into conflicts without sufficient thought about the consequences. like old ben franklin, i can claim and do claim no monopoly on wisdom and certainly nothing can compare to the gravity of the debate of our founding fathers. over our nation's founding documents. but i believe that based on a lifetime's experience that the iran nuclear agreement is a hugely-positive step at a time when problem-solving and danger reduction have rarely been so urgent, especially in the middle east. the iran agreement is not a

panacea, for the sectarian and extremist violence that has been ripping that region apart. but history may judge it a turning point, a moment when the builders of stability sized the initiative, from the destroyers of hope and we were, when we were able to show, as have generations before us, that when we demand the best from ourselves, and insist that others adhere to a similar high standard, when we do that, we have immense power to shape a safer and a more humane world. that is what this is b that is what i hope we will dot in days ahead. thank you very much. [applause] >> congress returns next week to begin consideration of a resolution of disapproval to that iranian nuclear deal. the senate gaveling in tuesday. they have until thursday, september 17th, to vote on the measure.

already 34 senators have it committed to support the deal. that is a veto-proof number. follow the senate live here on c-span2. the house plans to begin their debate on resolution of disapproval as early as wednesday, september 9th. a final vote on that would be expected before the end of that week. so far 92 democrats have voiced support while 14 say they oppose it. follow the house live on c-span. reminder, if you missed any of secretary kerry's speech on the iranian nuclear deal we individual again tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. and that's followed by other statements and hearings on the issue. on c-span2 it is booktv programming with authors who had recent best-selling books. and on c-span3, american history tv, with events looking at the end of the pacific war and world war ii. tomorrow's thursday and on

"washington journal" tomorrow, former donald trump campaign advisor roger stone discusses the 2016 presidential race, and his experience working with donald trump. then bill fralick of human rights watch on the cause of the european migrant crisis. and role u.s. is playing with aid and relief. . .

the other thing we find in the morrison is a mineral or rock called karnik tight. it contains three elements, radium which is radioactive which was used to help celebrate cancer, it also contains an element to help strengthen steel. it was of extreme value. it also contains uranium, it is one of the best sources of atomic power and atomic weapons. >> keep up the battle to reserve a water for western colorado, by

making sure we got our fair share. how did he do that? beginning in his state career and then going onto his federal career he climbed up the ladder of seniority and was able to exercise more power than what you might normally have. certainly in the united states congress where he was able to make sure colorado and western colorado would be treated fairly. his first major success was the passage of the colorado river storage project in 1956. >> see all of our programs from grand junction, saturday on book tv. sunday afternoon at two pm on american history to be on c-span three.

>> and about half an hour the 2016 presidential race and what we can expect to be for the early primaries. nbc chuck dodd moderate the panel, it is live at 7:00 p.m. eastern right here on c-span2. until then a "washington journal" segment with senator mark warner.ne >> we are back with senator mark w warner, you are here to talk about this big economy. what is and how big is it. >> is not something that wh th everybody agrees with the term, it's called the big economy, the on-demand economy, think of someone who is an uber driver part of the time, and it consultant they might be renting out their home it's this combination of home of two or three different revenue streams

to form a type oosfd employmen. some of this is coming after the recession because people lost their traditional 9-to-5 jobs and had to cobble together income sources. grong millennial's, they bumped the baby boomers offoup the st, they are doing this by choice area and they don't want to work nine to five they like the idea of putting together these new type of employment sources, it'e the fastest growing part of the whole economy. there's some good things about it but there are some big policy questions, a lot of these folks do very well but there issocial safety net. there's no workmen's comp., or disability comp., or disability so they can go to t doing well ? if they run into a bump going on public assistance with nothing to catch them. spee1 why is this a big big deal that they don't have this traditional safety

net? guest: there's not good data bua most folks estimate there is a d third of the economy. are some of that is working full-time and are traditional independent contractors, some folks may be scientists, many yo journalists, this is clearly a phenomenal. when you think about uber has more than 200,000 drivers, this is really something that hasal been driven by, your smart phone and gps technology which has allowed you to disaggregate between traditional employer and employee and basically monetizeo the past, your spare time, yourb spare room.ecen it's a big factor in terms of lifestyle choices. host: you spend time talking

about this, with we work which is the company in washingtontaku d.c. there also baby boomers in thats audience that were taking their questions and asking questions. your concern is because there's not a safety net, the taxpayerst could be on the hook, right q mark. guest: my. guest: my concern is how do you make sure youno don't spike innovation and right now washington things about this in three categories. you're you are either employed, unemployed, or an independent contractor. each of those carry different sets of legal requirements.to te i don't want to try to fit this new economy into these old classifications but i realize if there is no on employment,ump workmen's comp., disability, someone might have a bump in their life as we all do and

no abilityup being put back on the taxpayer time.t cisi there is no ability to catch you on the way. health care, in light of supreme court decision, they still have access to healthcare. i'm not saying i have the solution to this but i think we should think about options. maybe maybe there could be on's employment exchange model, there's a model the old buildinr trade models used to use. a carpenter in the 50s orf the n 60s may have worked for ten different contractors, the contractor and the carpenter would contribute into a social welfare bond based upon the number of hours worked and that would be administered by a third-party, and it would pay out if someone became unemployed. there may be other models outato there. you put a tip that goes into ats

social insurance fund, i'm not sure of the right answer but it know it's the fastest growing area of our economy. we need to think about this. so we are not in a circumstance where we have maybe millions of people in t aalhis economy who i an economic downturn and have to turn to his welfare programs has the option.my or host: why is this something new, otherwise it being called gig sayiomy or shared economy q mark. guest: people and say this is called getting by with folks who have had to put together jobs in the past. is different is this new type of employment is it because you were completely on your own hours, because you have no setsh schedule, because you choose to work wheion you want there is nt the kind of direct supervision,

it is a different kind of frame and how you monetize some of your spare time and monetize any u have.o oftentimes you're dealing directly with who is paying you and there is no intermediary at all. from talking to these companies and politicians are not talking to them at this point, 25 people are running for president right now and nobody has talked about the sector of the economy. many want to do the right thing bute trying to figure that out in a way that continues to allow the innovation, and the innovation, and allow the freedom of choice and make sure that we get this right is something what we needc toeo start this conversation.e'. ceos, how isgsto government hurting them q mark. guest: you often see lots of

conflict with the traditional hotel industry and with folks with when you're an apartment building, do you want a series of other people coming in and staying overnight. there are there are those kind of local zoning issues. when you think about a taskba rabbit as having a party and yog need dog food and maybe there ie someone in the neighborhood would go get the dog food if i can figure this out.e they have 30,000+ folks doing this now. some of those task rabbits have college educations that are doing this. a mom who has kids and want to c do things in her spare time. what i find from these in the millennial's, the good news about millennial's is that that they want to work for, and buyng from companies who have social responsibilities. i i think they want to do the right thing it's just trying to think about

having a classification that doesn't fit into the regular models. i think they want to do the right thing. host: were talking with mark warner about this gig economy. o it's nearly one third of americans who are stringing together jobs to make a living. we want your your questions and comments on this. we'll begin with mark inth virginia, a democrat. >> hi, i wanted to ask the senator about the pipeline that the are trying to build through virginia. it's totally unnecessary and that should be used for other things so easily, we could develop wind energy and solar energy, and these pipelines are beautifu be obsolete no time at all.ve they're going to diss dry dispute will canopy i live in.

guest: i'm very familiar with what's going on in terms of the challenges. one of the things i have said is i want to make sure all citizens in the counties get their sayd n and are called upon to have a hs second hearing. the first hearing is a little skewed toward the advocates in favor, i believe we have seen t this enormous growth particularly in natural gas.ause this has allowed america to become more energy independent and allowed america because it lowers our footprint, were one of the few nations in the world that have hit the kyoto even though we have not signed it. i think there's challenges to natural gas and how it shipped him piped, one of the things to

make sure this proceeding goes forward. i want to make sure any of these proposed pipelines, if they are put in place they are done in the most environmentally conscious way possible. i know they've already moved it a few times and i'm looking at whether they can use some of the existing right of ways. this issue is continuing to play out through the process. stand top of it.ior yo >> good morning, i have a question for you senator.ightse is eta overreach in last night's congressional hearings on voting amendments q mark is it am wha overreach q?ne gae eta regulations and states rights.riety guest: there is a lot of

controversy about variety of eta watcwaters of the usa regulations that have been put out. there is contribution percy, about carbon regulations that are being reviewed and will, out sometime in the fall. i think we need to deal with real challenges around carbon, we need to deal with climate i change, i accept the fact that 98% plus of the scientists say it's a enormous challenge. to speaking specifically about regulations in virginia, i want to make sure regulationsthat a acknowledge the fact that a stater like virginia, that has nuclear power, you could argue pro or con that nuclear on to be

part of the mix, but nuclear power does not create a carbon footprint. we need virginia to get credit for what we have already done. states need to look at the regulations on an individual basis. those are the 2i know that folks are talking about at this point. host: back to the gate economy. twenty-five people are running lawmakers ent, what about lawmakers on capitol hill?esnecs are they talking about it? does the nest really have to be a solution to these problems? spee2 i don't think this is going to cry out for a bill tomorrow in congress. if we don't come out with s.,idc going to cry out for a billthatr the companies engaged in this sector, not for the individuals working in this growing sector. there are traditional firms. i talked to the ceo of kelly services. there used to be a temp firm -- when i was a kid, there was the notion of somebody who was a

technical role. now kelly is replacing people as but she was a secretarial role, now they are placing people as top-level scientists in fortune 100 companies. they place people and contingent work base across the whole framework.lk the looking at this issue very k thely as well. how today make sure they are providing benefits to the folks that work for them. there will be ag t some point aa crying out from these companies to say hey, give us a set of rules, give us a framework orti framework or at least a series of options. if not, you could look at court. cases being litigated on the local level across the companies. there's a case in california about overtime pay for an uber driver.

that has no precedents beyond the individual case, were doing this on a one-on-one basis doesn't make sense if we believe this is a sector of the economy iat will grow, and that people like working in choose to work because of the flexibility it has. how do you do it in a way that makes her the tax paired isn't making sure holding the bag if you hit a rough patch.ea most of the companies and folks who work in the sector understands that if there is a way there could be a collaborative contribution to create a workman's comp disability or an easier platform and to healthcare that would actually allow it to grow. spee1 so in that uber court case they were deciding whether or not th: uber driver was an employee or independent contractor. what's the difference with the tax code? guest: if you're an employeee oa there's a different set of rules that come in. what do you have to pay overrlyh

time, clearly there are some firms like janitorial services that are making an effort to get away from pain benefits.ey stilh they classify all their employees as independentbut if a contractors. they still have to show up at a certain time, wear uniform, i have no simply for those companies because there tried to skirt the law in terms of benefits they have to pay.nd if you're an individual that might drive twice a month and rent out your apartment once a month, maybe you do some crafts they sell on at the couple times a month, are you really an employee for each of those three firms? how much of that definition works as well. there may be a hybrid model here or in exchange model that may be well-suited in this 21st century employment. threeferent host: that's our topic thinks it people who are doing two or three types of jobs to have

income coming in. >> i have a two-part question, i have watched democrats and republicans agree into things that are kind of rare. the trade agreements and on nsa. and when democrats and republicans agree on anything i must doubt there is something there. my question is specifically, do you think there's something in the trade agreements that could be donema differently, that maye companies would have to produce acts amount of their goods theyd are producing, cars whatever it is, in the united states and

then they can go offshore and dt the other 50%, or something to help maintain what would beent lotraditional employment? the gig employment looks likeke they are turning to. maybe you can talk about that. guest: would take us in reverse order. there are some folks in the gig economy, certain friends my age who in the recession lost their jobs, many of the financet world and now are in the gigeeto economy not by choice but because that's how they have to put a living together. i know there are folks i meet with who are millennial who don't want to work in a traditional nine to five job. o they have a completely different mindset and owning a house andic owning a car is the key to the american dream. they have anhe idea that maybe they will share a car, or share experiences andy

be micro- entrepreneurs. the notion that they are putting together different things gives them a set of freedoms that frankly my generation and my folks generation didn't have. they're doing this by choice. i don't think it's all scraping the bottom of the barrel. many of the workers in thed e -called gigg t economy are graduates doing this by choice. on trade, i support the trade deal. when i look at our economy it's in a mature economy, 95% of the future, customers are going to be abroad. i want want to make sure we can sell them are self our stuff, and our services.t want to look at asia and were setting the roles not china. china always goes to the lowest common denominator and i'll bert looking to make sure the country like vietnam, malaysia, and other sort of countries have strong labor standards and they

are actually human rights t so-l standards. this is going to have to be a better agreement than what we had in the '90s. this notion of domestic content, that's part of what a trade a agreement should look at. at the end the end of the day, where america is going to be, add the most value, it will be around high skilled jobs, advanced manufacturing, some assembly jobs are on the lower end of thn skill will probably go elsewhere. if if we can do the basic research, thethis manufacturing components, and wa see industrial nations do this, if we can have that and sell those materials to countries all over the world, people want to host:r goods that will be not good for american jobs.

host: another caller in virginia's. >> i would like to thank you for your service to the commonwealth. i met you you in the 1990s in lynchburg. virginia, you are first campaigning and later on through the virginia education association i met you several times. thank you for your service. listening to talk about theseyse strings of income, i was a teacher but i worked three or four jobs until i was 50 years old. i worked for one company for 13 years straight, i never could i never could get the 900 hours i was required for me towe become part of the retiremenrit system and get any of those kind of incentives. to me, i was wondering the importance of social securitynkt for people who retire. i neveroi worried about rolling it over or having to contact anyone, or, or

anything. i would like to know do you think keeping that strong for these strings of income or do s you have a possible plan forhos: separate where people could contribute when you get all like itcritic guest: i think we have to maintain the integrity of social security. it is critically important. it is important for folks who are qualifying, i just hit 60 this year so i'm only a fewryon years away. i think i think we i have to be honest about social cure. when i was a kid there was today there's three people working foi everybody who was each person who is retired. and and one who denies that the math aroundt. social security is stillbelieven working, can't read a balance sheet. i do believe that we need to

make sure the promise of social security, the people in their 20s and 30s, none of them believe they will have social security, we have to make changes now so we don't have the kind of 20% cut in social security benefits that will hit about 2032. that sounds a long way away but it's not that fpoar away. suppo, whether it's raising the cap on the amount of income that ismerr taxed, or this change cpi, they0 are a variety of knobs you can turn, social security is relatively easy to sell. the sooner we start the process to shoreeneo up social securityd it will be here 50 years from now, the better we will be and making sure we are keeping that promise to our young people. at the at the same time we need to realize the changes, my dad's generation he worked for the d same company for 40 years. heit was guaranteed was guaranteed a pension, good benefits,

healthcare, my generation we kind it had defined benefit and contribution plans. where the 4o1k generation. safetye some level of backing guaranty but it's much smaller. this next generation, outside, outside of social security has very little.is when you look at the social safety net, you you should look at not only unemployment, workmen's comp., you have tothee think about 21st century pension plans will look like so some of these millennial's whoeg are cobbling together and living high and enjoy this gig economyg are out also putting away resources for anotherci time.an. depending on social security alone is not a long-term fiscalt plan. host: a caller asked our people working multiple jobs as part oi this glamorous gig economy, do do you think all workers deserve living wage? guest: not everyone who isn

working in this gig economy are working these jobs. contractual jobs are high-paying, i think of someone who is renting out an apartment once a month is getting aboutone $7000 of income over a year. there's still some questionoran about whether these cities and uber drivers are making more than cabdrivers. not t y i think there's still a debate of the level and pay for some of these jobs out there. do i don't think you can categorizn them one way or the other. another issue i've been working on is we need to think about how to make capitalism work in the 21st-century. i was a business business guy before i got into politics. i was blessed to do very well. i worry about an economy today where somebody can be working 40

or 50 hours and still be dependent upon government assistance to get by. what is happening, and i say this is a proud capitalist. with enormous focus on profits over long-term i worried the focus on short-term is going to destroy capitalism. the traditional kind of macro economic model that says we have an abundance of and shortage ofa capital, and nothing in our tax code promotes capital over labor, that was switched around in america, you have lots of capital, we don't have a lot of qualified labor. how you can reset the tax code to incentive investments and pay and quality labor and upscaling of labor is something we need tt look at. you could have a more trained ae

workforce, higher pay and the government less obligation to pay out benefits. host: another caller says if companies desire solutions to what you're talking about it waf only because they fear unions. unions would help here in this gig economy. spee2 there is aner actually a woman who has put together something called freeholders union in new york. it has been very successful. she is looking at different models and cobbling together the freelancers economy. first of all we need to come up with a common term. she is saying how can people come together and pool theirvi resources and try to make sure some level of benefits are provided. that would be another model to be looked w at.this i've sat down with the labor unions and said what are your ideas? they may have looked a lot at

this notion of our banks where if somebody is putting together revenues from different souporc, different types of employment you may have four differentay employers but if everyone contributed a little to theeed social welfare fund, that might right.y to get itto we will need to look at a series of models and probably try different models to get thistalt right. not having policymakers talk about this is a huge mistake. spee1 there is no legislation pending. guest: there is no legislation pending and i don't think we want to have washington rush to a solution before we have raought through ther problem. for some folks, my age theyma

scratch their head when we talk about this. you talk to someone in the 20s y and they absolutely understandg. it. >> we go to harvey and for a question. >> i met you in the early 60s when he first ran for office. it's a pleasure speaking with you. this gig economy you're speakins of, is this what you term a faif false economy, is this an contrt economy that is paying their fair share of taxes? are they actually contributing the countrybeing of you mentioned a second service about kelly service and the product they make i work for them.