the risks too great for us to do otherwise. thank you mr. president. >> on the first day back from summer recess three previously undeclared senate democrats richard blumenthal of connecticut, ron wyden of oregon oregon and gary peterson of michigan announced their support for the iran nuclear agreement. that puts the number of supporters to the crucial 41 vote total that allows them to block the gop disapproval resolution with the filibuster filibuster and prevent its final vote there in the senate. senate minority leader harry reid spoke about on the senate floor along with majority leader mitch mcconnell urged democrats not to block disapproval resolution we will hear what was at the senate said about an hour from now.

.. 1:00 eastern on c-span3. now senator lindsay graham speaking against the iran nuclear accord in what "time" magazine said a scathing speech

blaming president obama for overlook festering international problem in order to get cooperation on the iranian agreement. senator says quote evil is doing well on his watch and he be a poor champion of freedom. from the national press club this is about an hour. >> welcome to the national press club. my name is john hughes. i am editor for bloomberg's breaking news desk and the president of the national press club. our guest today is republican presidential candidate and south carolina senator lindsay graham who will discuss the iran nuclear deal. but first, i want to introduce our distinguished head table.

this table includes club members and guest of the speaker. from the audience's right rachel oswald, online reporter for cq role call and covers foreign policy. rosey gray who covers politics and foreign policy for buzz feed. richard perry, senator graham's chief of staff. washington columnist for the dallas morning news. jennifer ruben, opinion writer for the "washington post." jerry, washington bureau chief for the buffalo news, a past president of the national press club and the chairman of the club's speakers committee. skipping over our speaker for a moment danny sellnic. senior prize president for business wires public policy wire and he is the member who organized today's luncheon -- thank you, danny.

christian ferry, senator graham's campaign manager. jen judson, land warfare reporter at defense news. frankie roota, editor and chief for yahoo politics. steve taylor, reporter for fox news radio. [applause] >> in addition to those in the room today, i want to welcome our c-span and public radio audiences. you can follow us on twitter with #npclive. while the agreement the u.s. and several nations struck, which is supposed to prevent iran from getting nuclear weapons, is one of the most important defense in foreign policy issues of the

day. senator graham will tell us why he thinks the deal is bad and how he has president could negotiate a better one. defense is a favorite topic of senator graham's. he spent six years on active duty as an air force attorney and served more than a quarter century in the air force reserves retiring as a colonel. he has been a strong voice in his caucus on foreign policy during his eight years in the house of representatives and 13 years in the senate. while his presidential campaign has yet to catch fire in the polls, senator graham has stood out for his criticisms of the gop frontrunner donald trump. he has called trump quote a fraud. and said his plan to combat isis is quote insanely dangerous. and those were some of the tamer comments he made.

[laughter] >> trump for his part, announced graham's cellphone number on national television. long before a life in politics, graham grew up one apartment behind his parent's liquor store. when both of his parents died at a young age he became the head of the family at 21 legally adopting his 13-year-old sister. he earned undergraduate and law degrees from the university of south carolina and launched a political career that brings him here today. ladies and gentlemen, please give a warm, national press club welcome to senator lindsay graham. [applause] >> thank you all very much. my new phone. [laughter] >> yeah, i went with the i-phone

so i am sure their stock -- the number is not part of the speech. to the press club, thanks a ton. a real in-depth analysis of iran is going to be held on the capital tomorrow when trump and cruz speak but i will bore you with what i think. i think i am lucky to be here to talk about something so important. there are so many people who jealously guard the first amend: it is in your care, use it wisely and i don't give many written speeches but this is too important. i cannot think of something more important than this week and next week in the senate. president obama's deal with iran could only be reached through a long series of mistakes and miscalculations. his biggest mistake was disassociate iran's destabilizing behavior from

their nuclear ambitions. obama opened up funding for the war machines for the word world's great greatest sponsor of terrorist. for israel, it provides their chief opposer with weapons. every single major political party in israel opposes this deal because they know it gives the ayatollah the ability to make his chance a death to israel a reality. if this agreement does not dramatically change it could very well become a death sentence to the state of israel. i believe the ayatollah is compelled by religious beliefs to do three things. purify the religion, destroy the

one and only jewish state and destroy countries like ours. peaceful descent is the selection of leaders by the people. some of the collateral damage from obama's fixation with an iranian deal at any cost has been the unchecked provocation of russia and china. in the face of russian intervention in ukraine and its support for assad and china's aggression against its neighbors, president obama has refused to push back because he needs moscow and beijing in order to reach a deal with iran. as a result, the losers of this deal include american businesses and government officials who have been cyber attacked by china, the good people of ukraine, and the overwhelming majority of syrians who have had

to suffer under assad's oppression all because obama has been unwilling to counter the provocations in a forceful manner for fear of jeopardizing his agreement. the biggest losers them all are the iranian people themselves. those who yearn for freedom, to see the end of oppression by the ayatollah, this agreement empowers the ayatollah and makes it difficult for the iranian people to unshackle themselves from this oppressive religious theocracy. when the history of the time has been written, unfortunately, i believe it will be said that president obama was a weak opponent of evil and a poor champion of freedom. the nuclear deal with iran shows

the administration is marked by failing policy here at home and around the world and this deal will be the most consequential failure. he went to the negotiating table without understanding who he is dealing with and as a weakened president who has been broadcasting to our enemies and the world at large that they will not be confronted. having withdrawn from iraq, drawing redlines in syria, and backing down and making it crystal clear a military option was not really on the table. he set the stage for a negotiation with an iran that could only go one way. just as this weakness was crystal clear it should be clear

watt we are dealing with. their hatred for the u.s. and israel and their support of terror and their religious fanatics are well known. even if president obama entered the office without undering the regime, history gave them a crash course in 2009. the people of iran began to revoke against the government. within hours of the announcement, the stolen election, hundreds of thousands of iranians poured into the streets demanding nothing more than their democratic rights. the spring revolution as it was called, made up of political and religion moderates, young, women, workers and anyone wanting a better life stood up

to demand a new kind of iran. at this point, iran reached a cross road, either the green revolution would succeed in bringing about change with the radical islamic government would succeed in squashing this movement. the united states was at a cross roads. president obama had a clear choice. stand with the people of iran, or remain on the sidelines during the brutal crack down. the religious nazis running iran face no consequences for their actions. the people of iran receive no support.

without the support of the world's greatest democracy their effort was doomed. the ayatollah and his henchmen, the revolution guard, killed, jailed or terrified into silence every iranian moderate and in the six years since there has been no signs of that resistance. the crack down was complete and the cost of protest too high. what happened in 2009 help sharpen the world's focus on this fanatical regime. in the years following, those of us who understood the threat of iran doubled the effort to step up the pressure. the united states cut off access to global markets and western financial institutions and our allies followed our lead. we built a national agreement on iran.

i helped to lead this effort because i believe then and i believe now the single greatest threat to our security as a nation is the prospect of a nuclear iran. iran in return felt the deep pain inflicted on the approach and agreed to come to the negotiating table. this was a critical moment. we backed iran into a corner. what we needed was then more than ever a tough american president. someone who wanted a deal but not so badly they would take a bad one. a president who put all options on the table so iran knew we meant business, a president who laid out negotiating objectives and stuck to them, a president who about a shred of doubt would do whatever it took to defend america. that is not the president we had. we had a president who projected

weakness and clearly didn't understand who he is dealing with. but believe me, they knew exactly who they were dealing with. they saw president obama's weakness and they took every possible advantage of it. while john kerry was giving away the farm at the negotiating table, this own state department was writing a report detailing iran's terror campaign to the middle east and it outlined the money, arms and training iran was providing to terrorist groups like hezbollah and hamas who attacked the state of israel and hezbollah holds the government hostage. iran was propping up assad and prolonging the syrian conflict and giving rise to isil, the world's most devastating human

crisis unfolds under our eyes. iran was destabilizing iraq and paving the way for isil to move in and undo the gains made by american troops. while president obama was backing down from every single negotiating objective it laid out, iran was taking down the government of yemen through their proxy and they toppled the pro-u.s. government and crippled our ability to monitor al-qaeda in the arabian peninsula. in short, iran set the entire middle east on fire, taking over four arab capitals for creating conditions for the most devastating ask sophisticated attacks against our homeland all while negotiating with the obama administration. what did they get at the end of the negotiation? a deal that gives them a nuclear bomb, a missile to deliver it,

and the money to pay are it. the failures of this agreement will harm us. it gives the ayatollah immediate cash of $100 billion without any requirement to change its behavior. it allows the iranians, even if they abide by the agreement, to arrive at a threshold of being a nuclear arm state in just a few years and of course we know now they will not abide by the agreement. they have lied and cheated from day one about their nuclear weapons program from day one. and at the end of the day, the verification systems and disagreement, a little more than a joke, this agreement lifts bans on ballistic missiles and weapons. it hings on a secret deal between the iaea and iran regarding the possible military dimensions of their program.

so far, congress, the american people have been barred from seeing the people. but we know at the very least, thanks to the press, it leaves inspections in the hands of the iranians themselves. today the senate begins the debate on this deal. i have spent every day since this deal analyzing it, talking with experts in the region and trying to make the case to the american people as to why this is so dangerous. i will continue to make the case on the senate floor, encouraging by democratic colleagues to provide security above politics. i will not stop until our

detainees are released. i am block funding for the iaea until they come clean about their side deal with iran. i will not let up until we change the course, force iran back to the table and get a better deal, president obama says there are choices between this deal and war. he said there is no better deal to be had. he is half right. there is no better deal to be had from a president who negotiates it. you will abandon support for terror, inspections any time

anywhere, until we know you complied and changed your behavior. that is the deal. if you reject those terms and walk away that is your choice. if iran tries to breakout they will be stopped. to achieve this better deal i will work with the congress to impose new sanctions that would put off limits american banking system to any company that would do business with iran. having the choice between the iranian economy and the american banking system would provide leverage i would use wisely. i am running for president because this is deal we need.

i have spent months on the ground in iran as a senator and in the air force. i know the key players and more importantly they know me. as president i will get us a better deal, to what it takes to make sure iran never achieves the ability to hit us at home. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, senator, you can stay right here. there is not a lot of room to maneuver up here. can you tell us the latest on the state of play with the legislative situation?

before you came here today, you had information about senator reid and maybe a simple majority. what is going up on the hill? >> we have 58 no votes, all republicans and four democrats who i appreciate their support and their political courage. we need 60 to proceed the bill, a simple majority to get the bill to the president's desk. the motion to disapprove needs a simple majority once closure is invoked the president can veto and we will have to override it but i don't think we will have the votes. will two democrats step forward who oppose the delta allow the debate. i cannot believe the united states will not debate the most important deal of our life time. if you like the deal, tell me why, give me a chance to tell you why i don't. to deny discussion on this deal will be one of the low points in the history of the united states senate. what the hell are we here for if

not to talk about this? their fear is obama will have to veto it. that is the price of being president. >> in your seat in the appropriation committee you have authority overseeing state department funding. you mentioned that you would block funding for the iaea would you take steps in other ways to thwart this agreement by blocking funding if the veto override is not successful? >> we will give them $88 million of your money. i will not give the organization funding until i see a component of the deal that i think is important. the possible military dimensions of the problem was one of the key objectives to find out how far they have gone to test nuclear weapons. as i understand this side deal, it really allows the irairaniano

inspect themselves. when the ayatollah drew the red line of not coming on our military bases he won. so they found a way to outsource this to the iaea and gave iran a veto. so i am looking forward to the debate of if he should fund the iaea until we the congress gets a chance to see if the side agreement is as bad as i think it is. as to other aspects of implementing the deal i will do what i can to stop and give the next president a chance to get a better deal. there is no way president obama can get a better deal. he is too week in the eyes of them. everyone in the room could get a better deal because the

iranians have sized up obama and found him lacking in terms of being a forceful advocate for his position. assad crossed his red line and he will be standing when obama leaves. that set in motion bad behavior by iran, china and russia. the only way to reset the table is to get a new president and whatever i can do to give leverage to that new president, if i am not the new president, i will do between now and january 2017. >> would that include the cr? would you be willing to risk a government over iaea funding or other parts to implement this plan? >> if my colleagues insist we give money to them without looking at the deal that would be their decisions to make. i will advocate to my leadership that the congress should not buy into this concept. there have been other occasions

where they shared agreements with the congress. this is a test for the congress. this should be bipartisan in nature. to have something this important to the nuclear ambitions of the ir iranians not understood and i cannot believe my colleagues will allow this to happen. you will have a un agency being able to negotiate one of the most difficult aspects of the past behavior of the iranians without us understanding what the negotiate looks like and the outcome is like. yes, i will dig in on this. >> this questioner says by threatening to block funds for the iaea don't you play into iran's hands by undercutting the inspections required by the agreement? >> i think i didn't play into iran's hands at all. i think the iranians have taken us to the cleaners and we will

see what happens if the congress pushes back. at the end of the day, we have some leverage in the congress. this is one area of leverage. i hope i am making myself clear. i find it offensive that my government, this administration, my president, would negotiate can deal with the united states nation and iran that the congress can't see or the administration can't see. that has consequences far beyond this deal. >> this deal goes for ten years and of course there could be many years that we would see the affects of whatever happens. -- effects -- how soon do you think you will know if the deal goes through whether it is working or not and what are you looking for if it is working? >> i can tell you already you can feel the effects of the deal. everybody in the region is worried. israel, regardless of party, is against this. i think you see russia going

into help assad which is an afront to john kerry and president obama. you see a se -- resetting where iran is stronger, not weaker and the opposition is going to be difficult to guarder and one affect is a destabilizing in the middle east. if assad is left in power you never fix syria. our european allies, understand what is happening inside syria. the syrian people want two things. they want isil destroyed and assad, their oppressor, out. what you see from the deal is the russians sensed we were weak iran and didn't do anything when putin went into crimea and crane

and his effort to reinforce assad is the first sign of how the russians view the deal. if you told me part of the deal included lifted the arms embargo i would think you were crazy. what does that have to deal with their nuclear program? we got there because russia sided with the iranians and put it on the table in the last couple weeks and we folded like a cheap suit. the one thing i can tell you for $100 billion i could get four people out of jail. isn't it stunning? >> it was reported last month that quote open secret for decade end quote is an israeli stockpile of 80-100 nuclear war heads. what do you say about that supposed stockpile and could that deter iran from cheating on

their agreement? >> if i were the iranian ayatollah i may not worry about obama but i would worry about israel. and some people say israel is believed to have nuclear weapons why not the iranians? i can give you 400 reasons. the american regime has blood on their hands. israel's ability to use nuclear weapons against iran deterring them? all i can say is why did they want a nuclear weapon? what is the difference between the cold war and this war? what is the ayatollah trying to accomplish? merely regime survival, to be a stronger member of the family of nations, or does he have an agenda? i think it is clear he's got an agenda. i think he is driven by his faith to do several things. to purify the faith of the

religion of islam, to destroy isra israel -- when you are dealing with someone who embraces an end of days attitude toward life what makes you think death is a deterant. if i was in israel i would be worried my chief antagonist on the planet has the capability to do what they chant continuously. you can say about at least hitler lied and told them this is all i want. you cannot say that about this deal. the ink is not even dry yet and they still chant death to america, death to israel. so what i would suggest, ladies and gentlemen, that if you are looking for israel to defend us and create a deterent for us you

made a mistake. -- deterant -- why should we put that burden on our friend israel? that is not the answer to the delima. the answer to this delima is to make sure america reascerts herself. not one arab state filled the need to go down the nuclear road because of israel's possession of nuclear weapons. it is widely believed that israel has a stockpile of nuclear weapons. every arab leader believes that but not one felt the need to require acquire one because they

know israel will not wake up and wipe them off the map one day. what do they think about the ayatollah? if he had, he would use it. >> what specifics can you provide on increased aid and assurance to israel in the light of the iran deal? >> the fact we promise to more weapons to everyone in the region tells you everything you need to know about the deal. if it is such a good deal, why would you need to replenish everyone's stockpile? why spend billions to give billi billions in weapons to the arabs. all i could say is there is going to be an effort by republicans and democrats to reinforce israeli's ability to redefend itsseelf. the israel state will beat every army in the region. they have military superiority

over the opponents. they can deal with every terrorist group in the region. but the one thing they cannot deal with is a radical islamic regime with a weapon of mass destruction. this is the game-changer of all game changers. this is the marriage from hell. this is what i fear the most. the only reason 3,000 of us died on 9/11 and not 3 million and they could not get the weapon to fill three million of us. anything iran develops now and in the future will be shared with terrorist. as to israel, she cannot survive a nuclear armed iran, containment won't work. israel is going to be put in a bad spot if there is any

indication they are going to break out israel has to attack. >> if you were president, would you see war against iran as an option? >> i would see iran loosing a war of the united states if they wanted one. and they would see it, too. as i told you i would try to have leverage to get a better deal starting with denying access to american financial institutions if you do business with iran. i would wait for the phone to ring, it would, a $450 billion economy versus a $17 trillion economy. to those worried about isolating america, what are you thinking? how do you isolate us? that kind of thinking led to this bad deal. so as to a war with iran.

no body wants it. but if there is one, i can tell you how it ends. we win, they lose. and in the process of trying to get a better deal, i would give them what they claim they wanted; a peaceful nuclear power program. canada and mexico have power plants but don't enrich. how many of you here think they have been trying to build a nuclear weapons program not a power plant? if you think they have been trying to build a nuclear power plant you should not be allowed to drive home. these people are lying. so what would i do? take their nuclear ambitions and propel them to the point they have a power plant but not make a bomb. they would be on the top of the people i would not trust because you can't put north korea

because they have one. i would not give them a penny or allow them to buy a bullet until they stopped being the largest sponsor of state sponsored terrorism. i would tell them there is a better way, but you have to chose it it and you have try to break out we will stop you. if there was military engagement it would be more than bombs dropped on the nuclear sites. i would go after their offensive capability. they have a small navy and an old air force. we would probably get hit in response to an altercaation in ray n. suicide cells all over the world would be activated. they could launch rockets to allies in the region. they could do a lot for a short period of time but it would end.

it would end on our terms. >> as president, would you commit combat troops to fight isis or isil? if so, how many, how long, and how many american deaths would you consider justifiable in such a situation? >> as to degrading and destroying isis whatever it takes until they are destroyed period. we have 3500 american forces on the ground, apparently they are not wearing boots but they are on the ground. we need about 10,000 according to people i trust. the people who formulated the search that did work. what would that give you you don't have today? aviation and attack helicopters that could do damage, air controllers so we can drop bombs as 75% come become with the bomb

on the right. people that would hunt isis morning, noon and night and wouldn't get in a car or on the phone without risking being killed. and trainers and advisors at the battalion level so the iraqi army would be lessly to cut and run. if we don't destroy them we will get hit and hit hard and the next launching point is probably in syria. ramadi and mosul are two different operations. if you think the kurds will solve the problems you don't understand the problem. they are not going to ramadi or ambar province. more american troops on the ground would neutralize the shiite militia advantage they

enjoy today. i think the 10,000 would get you to where you need to be but if you need more we will send more. i think our national security interest is directly affected by what happens in iraq and syria. as to syria, the great disappointment in this debate to me is that no one our side is addressing syria in a coherent fashion. there is no one left to destroy isil and push them out. the free syrian army has been decimated. that window closed three years ago. spent $500 million training 60 people. so how do you destroy isil without a ground component in iraq and eventually syria? who makes up the ground forces? there is no bodyli left in syri

with the ability to destroy isis and assad. if you leave assad in power it will never end and the syrian people will not tolerate him being in power after he slaughtered their family. i think that ground force comes from the region. if i were president here is what i would do: i would go to the region and i would ask them to make up a very large army of which will be a small part. saudi arabia, egypt, turkey, jordan, those with military capability, form a regional force with two objectives to destroy isil by going in and pulling them up by the roots, destroying their head quarter and the caliphate in its capital, holding the ground until syria can repair itself and pushing assad out. you are probably looking at 80-100,000 person army because there is 30-40,000 isis fighters

inside syria alone. if we are not about 10% of the regional force i worry we might lose and it might come apart so it is in our interest to have the regional army succeed. so boots on the ground. if you can destroy isil without more american ground forces being part of the regional effort, dramatically different than what we have going on, i am dying to hear you how do it. if you are not willing to say that, that we need more american ground forces as part of the new regional strategy, then i don't think you are ready to be commander and chief. doing what obama is doing plus a little gets you nothing. you have to have another approach. >> the world has been riveted

with the images of thousands of syrian refuges streaming in the europe and the photo of a dead three year old refuge boy who washed up on the shore of turkey. several european nations agreed to take in tens of thousands of the refuges but the united states has been silent. what should be the response to the crisis? >> we should take our fair shirr. we are good people. i don't think the average american has any idea what it is like to live in the middle east right now. the one thing that is missing with president obama is a sense of us leading from the front. i said something and i thought it was very compelling. president obama has been a weak opponent of evil. evil is doing very well on his watch and he has been a poor champion of freedom. if i am president, it isn't

about accepting refuges. it is about destroying the reason they leave. it is about sending them back to syria with hope. it is about destroying a radical islamic movement that would killed everybody into the room. this is 2015 and women are being raped and sold into slavery, used as sex slaves because of a twisted understanding of the koran, gay people being thrown off roofs, christians are being annihilated and decimated and we are not doing a damn thing about it. this is a blight on our honor and to your european friends, up your game. it wasn't that long ago you needed somebody's help. the response i see in europe is appalling. democracies have become too comfortable with their own freedom. the french and germans are telling the ukraines.

france and germany have turned a blind eye and the conversation in europe is not about how many they will take but xenophobia. what you see happening in syria, if left unattend, the worst to come. the king of jordan and lebanon are hanging by a thread. if assad becomes stronger, not weaker, the king of jordan is going to be in a bad spot and the refuges continue to flow and i understand among them can be terrorist and we have to watch that. but the vast majority of little boys and little girls and good people who have been kicked out of their homes by the most

radical movement since the nazis. this is a big st. louis for people floating out into the ocean trying to flee the nazi and 70 years later we are having the same response. we should take our fair share but the goal is not to take refuges but to destroy the evil from which they flee. >> what number would that fair share be? >> talk with the department of homeland see and make sure we are vetting people i don't see how we can lead the free world and turn our backs on people. we should take the statue of liberty and tear it down if this is the response because we don't mean it anymore. >> colleague handed me a follow up question to your earlier answer on isis/isil.

how do you persuade the other gulf states to participate in the force after never being willing in the past? >> i just got back about three months ago and the young leader of qutar said i will pay for the war. one of the top officials in saudi arabia says you can have my army to me and senator mccain. it is not a lack of will. they are just not following a certain trumpet and going to go in syria, destroy isil and leave assad in power. the reason you cannot get anyone to move is because assad has to be part of the mix. no arab army is going to go into syria, destroy isil and turn half the county over to iranians. it is not a question of will they go it is the question will we lead. if we don't lead they are not

going. if part of the deal is we have to leave assad in power they will not go in. this is one of the collateral damages not talked about enough by president about the deal. he needed the russians. the reason we are not going after assad more aggressively and he worried if iaea would walk away. don't blame the arabs. they are not the problem. the problem is barack obama. >> mentioned in the introduction that you are running for president. couple questioners asked why are you not doing better in the polls and why is your campaign going so badly? >> that was from my campaign manager.

how many believe that the campaign is over? i think it just started. i am in the middle of this car wreck called 2016. it amazes me and i am glad i used to be a lawyer. i am confident over time the republican primary electorate will start looking for us. if it were not for iowa, new hampshire and south carolina i would not have a chance in hell. but national polling is being misused and i blame the republican national committee for starting the process. you are rewarding celebrity people from big states. the difference between third and last in iowa is within the

margin of error. here is what is i think will happen to my campaign. i am going to work really hard. ask me how well i am doing in new hampshire after the 50th town hall meeting. john mccain is coming up to campaign with me this weekend. we will be together a lot. john won new hampshire by wide margins. he is a beloved figure there. he is going to tell people why he believes lindsay graham is not only his friend but the best qualified person to be commander and chief. here is what i think. experience seems to be a detriment in september. and i think in a few months from now it will be an asset; what kind of experience? the experience that it takes to be a commander and chief on day one who understand our enemies and our who is prepared to lead, who has a vision of america that

the world desperately needs. i have been to iraq and afghanistan 35 times. i have learned from my mistakes, bush' mistakes and obama's mistakes. it is not about the mistakes but how you handle them. i think i am best qualified to be commander and chief in 2017 at a time we need somebody who knows what the hell they are doing and i earned the right to say that. in terms of electability, i am called lindsey gomez because i worked with democrats to try to solve problems like immigration. i offer the republican party political courage, if there is such a thing left, to work with the other side on something that is hard and the undering of the

national security interest of this county is second to none. when it comes to a debate between me and hillary, her definition of flat broke and mine are a bit different. >> this question says you are a legislature are no management experience. both senators who became president, john f kennedy and barack obama found the transition difficult. why wouldn't you have the same problem? >> i made the case just now i am qualified to be the most commander and chief. that is the most important president of the united states i think particularly in 2017. i think my background and experience from learning the hard way of what works and what doesn't is exactly what the next president needs. to those who believe they are the same in the middle east you have no idea. i have been to iraq and

afghanistan 35 times, i have worked with people on the rule of law who have been killed in the process of changing their country to only be replaced by somebody else. here is what i learned. there are two things going on in the middle east at the same time. a fight for the heart and soul of islam between the minority of radicals and most. and i can assure you the average mom and dad in the middle east doesn't want to turn their son or daughter over the isil. to say that is is true is an a front to them and stereotyair o stairy oh -- a stereotype in the worst way. and there is a fight between young people, women, and the disallusioned who will no longer

grow up in a dictatorship, live in their world and see what you would want. the military part of destroying radical islam is actually a small part. in my goal as your president would be to achieve victory in the war on terror. that we win, they lose, and we just not the american people, but the humanity. if the next american president doesn't understand this is a generational struggle then you are not ready for the job. here is what i learned on many travels. that building a small school house in a remote region for a young, poor girl will do more damage to radical islam than any bomb we could drop. giving her a say about her

children is the ultimate to combating radical islam. creating opportunity over time. standing with young people who are asking for a better life, not abandoning them. the enemy officer -- offers a glorius death and our goal in working with the region is to offer a better life. here is my belief: the hope of a better life trumps watt the terrorist are selling and that better life over there will make our lives better over here. the last time we ignored radical islam to our detriment was in afghanistan. in september of 2001 we didn't have any foreign aid going to iran.

to those who believe ignoring them will make us safe here just remember 9/11. the one thing i have come to conclude is this is a religious war with the people who are motivated by the idea of god as a teaching of their religion that doesn't have a place whether christian, jew, moderate muslim, vegetarian, libertarian. and we are talking about a lot but this is one thing we need to understand: radical islam would kill the gay couple and the wedding cake baker just as quickly. >> before i ask the last question i have some housekeeping. the national press club is the word's leading professional organization for journalist and we fight for a free press worldwide. for more information on the club visit press.org.

to donate to the non-profit journalism institute visit press.org/institute. i would like to remind you about upcoming programs. september 14th we will have a live press conference from space with astronaut scott kelly answering questions via video link from the international space station while mark kelly and terry burr take questions here at the club. that program will start at 9 a.m. on the 14th. at lunch on september 21st, big 12 commissioner will discuss college athletics and jane chew chair of the national endowment for the arts will discuss new initiatives at a breakfast on the 28th. i would like to present our speaker with the national press club mug.

>> thank you. >> in new hampshire, tom brady was getting a raw deal. i am glad the judge -- i can pander with the best of them. >> final question: donald trump staked out a position on immigration early in the campaign and several of your fellow candidates for president followed suit. how difficult has the positions of some of these candidates made it for the gop to attract latino voters? and how will you overcome that as you campaign? ...

i would be attracted to do republican government of limited military but i do have a hard time getting there if i believed you were going to support -- not support my mother. the 11 plus million illegal immigrants many of them here for decades, one quick vignette, a young woman came 20 years ago with one child who was illegal. she and her husband are illegal and they have had two more since then. both illegal under the 14th amendment.

one, joined the marine corps has been to iraq once and afghanistan once fighting for all of us. i'm very proud of it. they have lived in the shadows but he doesn't have to. he comes home and says hey where his mom? you haven't heard? she is walking back to mexico. do you think that young man is going to listen to our agenda? and now in 2015 it's not enough to drive all of them out. we are also apparently according to mr. trump going to drive out their american citizens children they have the same legal standing as everybody in this room. we have an opportunity to win the white house and do much good for this country.

to my party, you are driving away the fastest growing demographic in this country. as to me, when they write history at these times lindsay graham is from a red state conceived the following. i know what it's like to have your family destroyed. i hope the party wakes up and we have a more sensible approach to immigration. if we don't we will lose and we will deserve it. >> how about a round of applause for speaker. [applause] [applause] >> thank you for being here senator and i hope you come back

soon but i'd also like to thank the national press club staff including the journalism institute for organizing today's event. if you would like a copy of today's program or to learn more about the club go to the web site press.org. thank you. we are adjourned. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> he was a nazi. he was a concentration camp commandant and he was responsible for the murder of thousands of jewish. >> we would see a person who was , i mean he was capable, he had two dogs. he trained them to tear humans apart. i think this sums it up really good. he was a person, it was a pleasure he felt when he killed people and this is something

that when you are normal if you don't have this in your personality it's very difficult to grasp. >> in the morning on c-span3 hearing on planned parenthood and secretly recorded videos of fetal tissue and whether the group violated the law by harvesting fetal organ -- organs from partial earth abortions.

42 senate democrats have agreed to support they ran nuclear agreement and block the resolution currently being demanded in the senate. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell took to the floor to urge democrats to let the debate on the approval proceeded we will watch what he said ballot by democratic leader harry reid who called on a the vote on the nuclear agreement himself. >> today we will begin consideration of the resolution to disapprove the joint comprehensive plan of action negotiated by china, france, germany the russian federation, the united kingdom the islamic republic of i ran and the united states. this resolution seeks to

constrain iran's nuclear weapons program. i will ask all senators to be present in the chamber beginning tomorrow afternoon to commence debate on this important issue. let me extend my appreciation for the time and research many of our colleagues have given to understanding the details, the strengths and weaknesses of this agreement. for many this has been a very difficult decision. for some, it was made even more difficult by assertions from the administration that the only choice was between this agreement and war. of course that was never, never true. all such political statements really say is that the administration lacks the will and the leadership to pursue a stronger agreement additional sanctions and policies intended to end iran's enrichment program if they cannot obtain congressional agreement on the

presidents deal with i ran. the i ran nuclear agreement act passed the senate by a vote of 98-1 earlier this year. it provided each of us with the opportunity to truly represent our constituents on this important issue. i expect that every senator who voted for that measure is now entitled to an up-or-down vote, not a filibuster or artificial limits on passage but an important vote on this resolution. along with americans we were sent there to represent, countries businesses and proliferation network seeking to expand ties with i ran have a simple question answered. all of the people involved in this around the world deserve to have a simple question answered. does the senate disapprove of this deal with i ran and?

does the senate disapprove of this deal with i ran and? the senate should not hide behind procedural obfuscation to shield the president on our own individual views. is that they not be about a president who will leave -- office in 16 months. should be about where our country will be in 16 years. the democratic leader said his party wants to preserve the corcoran cardin bill and it was in agreement with the thoughtful levelheaded process of agreement of this magnitude deserves. i agree this is what is needed right now. i know that's exactly what nearly every senator in this body voted for. i called on every senator rick to resist attempts to obstruct a final vote and deny the american people and congress to say they deserve on this extremely important matter.

the top democrat on the foreign relations committee in the senate and affairs committee in the house as well as the likely next leader of the democratic party of the senate to come out in opposition to this agreement. certainly these were not easy decisions for them. the democrats are joined in their skepticism by americans of every political persuasion that believe this deal would make our country less safe. even lawmakers have come out in favor of the president's agreement use terms like quote deeply flawed to describe it. so let's remember why that is. the american people were led to believe that negotiations with iran would be about ending its nuclear program but that's not what the deal before us would do. we know that the presidents deal with iran will not end its nuclear program but would

instead leave iran with a threshold nuclear capability recognized as legitimate by the international community. quite the opposite of the original goals. we know that the presidents deal with iran will leave a thousand centrifuges at an advanced research and development programs and access to billions of dollars at least some of which the president himself has acknowledged would be used to support terrorism. we know the presidents deal with iran will allow it to further ballistic missile research and strengthen its economy. in short by almost any measure we know that iran will emerge stronger from this deal in nearly every aspect of its national power and better positioned to expand its sphere of influence. the iranian nuclear program was never intended to produce nuclear energy for peaceful civilian purposes. that is never what they had in mind. certainly iran does not need an

underground enrichment facility for those purposes are long-range ballistic missiles. iran has employed every aspect of national power to her defend the regime and islamic revolution to include support for terrorism, unconventional warfare public diplomacy, cyber warfare, suppression of internal dissent and poor support for proxies and terrorist groups. so we had enough that iran is undertaking many activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device. as the international atomic energy agency revealed in a november 2011 report it has attempted to number one, are cured nuclear related equipment and materials through individuals and entities related to the military. number two developed pathways for the production of nuclear serial. number 3a choir nuclear weapons

development information and documentation from a clandestine nuclear supply network. number four develop an indigenous design of a nuclear weapon as well as test components. all about has been done according to the iaea. moreover as secretary of state henry kissinger and george shultz recently observed the final stages of the nuclear talks have coincided with iran's intensified efforts to expand and entrench its power in neighboring states. uranium or uranium forces are the preeminent political element in multiple multiple arab countries. unless political restraint is linked to nuclear restraint and agreement freeing iran from sanctions risk in power iran's hegemonic efforts. i will have more to say later in the week concerning my opposition of this agreement and i expect every senator will wish to explain his or her respective

vote but i would ask every senator to keep this in mind as well. the president has said no deal is better than a bad deal and while he will be out of office in a few months the rest of the country in the world will have to deal with the predictable consequences in the presidents deal for far longer than the next year and a half. if lawmakers determined that this deal is indeed a bad one then they have a duty to vote that way. we can work together to prepare suitable sanctions legislation and other measures required to maintain our capability to deal with the threat from iran. no matter what we should conduct a respectful and serious debate that is consistent with the serious ramifications of this agreement. >> mr. president today we face

one of most critical national security problems and whether you support the iran agreement which would stop iran from getting nuclear weapons, that's what the agreement is. stop iran from getting nuclear weapons. in the beginning senate democrats did everything to move the debate forward in the quickest way possible. we agree to skip the procedural rules of the senate again the debate on the resolution itself. today proposing the senate move forward in the most efficient way possible. i'm proposing after the senate completes today's debate a serious debate on this issue we move directly to a vote on passage of the resolution. of course there is a 60 vote threshold. republicans are insisting the senate go through all the procedural steps including cloture on their own build. as the republican leader mcconnell stated numerous times that a few times, not many

times, numerous times requiring 60 votes on matters of enormous importance is simply quote the way the senate operates" but here are a few examples of the statement is made. mr. president i can spend literally all afternoon here talking about quotes that are similar to what i'm going to give you. july 30, 2011, now look this is senator mcconnell talking. outlook we know controversial matters in the senate have for quite some time requires 60 votes. it is pretty hard to make a credible case for denying a vote on your own proposal is anything other than a filibuster. listen everybody that's what he said. again just a few days later quote i wish to make clear to the american people senator

mcconnell talking senate republicans are ready to vote on cloture on the lead proposal in 30 minutes, and in our comments and as we can get her colleagues over to the floor. we are ready to go. by requiring 60 votes particularly on a matter of this enormous importance it's not at all unusual. it's the way the senate operates. again he came back a few months later quote mr. president i can only quote my good friend, that's made the majority leader, who has repeatedly said most recently in 2007 and in the senate it's always been the case we need 60 votes. this is my good friend of majority leader when he was the leader of the majority in march 2007 and he said it repeatedly. the minority leader or majority and it required 60 votes

certainly on matters that are controversial. he also said a short time later and here's another quote, so who gets to decide who's wasting time around here? none of us. none of us gets to decide who is wasting time at the way you make things happen is you get 60 votes at some point and you move a matter to conclusion and the best way and offer an amendment process. this is the way they place operates" says senator mcconnell. a few months later quote madam president, reserving the right to object. we are talking about a perpetual debt ceiling grants, matters of congress always requires 60 votes so i would ask my friend, that's me, if he would modify his consent request to set this

threshold vote at 60" and we could fill in month by month but let's go to august 6 just a short time ago of this year. quote, well as you all know take 60 votes to do everything except the budget process. we have a vote to proceed to the 20 week bill sometime before the end of the year as well. recently republican leader told his own senators and conservative news outlets that any attempt to defend planned parenthood or repeal obamacare would need at least 60 votes. so, why is the iran agreement any different? it isn't. even more perplexing some have argued because the senate passed the iran review act all senators would be obligated to vote for in a cloture vote. the review act was about to vote

for the agreement not to vote for or against it. the morning before they act did not commit any senator to take a position on the iran agreement. voting for the iran review act was simply a vote to review the iran agreement and that is what we have done. there was a vote for three plus a resolution of approval of resolution of disapproval or no action at all. it did not and does not obligate senators to advance. the iran review act clearly concluded, i'm sorry the iran review act clearly included the 60 vote threshold for a resolution for approval or disapproval, that's it right every senator knew that. ran into senator to suggest otherwise is absurd and factually wrong. no senator who voted for the

iran review act would give up the 60 vote threshold. in fact everyone who voted for it voted for the 60 vote threshold. in fact one republican member said the reason he didn't vote for it is because it would require a 60 vote threshold. that's the junior senator from arkansas. if however we are for us to have have -- force have a vote on cloture is because the republican leader has rejected democrats responsible requests. there is not on either side of this aisle and more respected united states senator ben senator from virginia tim kaine. he was co-author of the iran nuclear agreement. referred to properly as the iran nuclear agreement with the u.n. review act. he said this and he said it this morning and i quote directly. i was co-author of the iran

nuclear agreement review act which congress is considering. i'm sorry i was co-author of the iran nuclear agreement review act under which congress was considering an international agreement to prohibit iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. the bipartisan bill to give congress and to deliver constructive review of the final nuclear agreement was drafted so 60 votes would be required in the senate to either pass or reject the proposal. so let me read this again. one of the people that helps write this bill a respected member of this body said that i quote i was co-author of the iran nuclear agreement review act which congress is considering an international agreement to prohibit iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. the bipartisan bill would give congress a review of the final nuclear agreement with iran was drafted so that 60 votes would be required in the senate to

pass either a motion of approval or a motion of disapproval. he continued, we should follow the procedure explicitly discussed and agreed to would be voted on this act which passed the senate 98-1. that is a direct quote from one of the authors of this legislation. it was never any senator's intention to a bhargava 60 vote threshold. republicans are trying to pull a bait and switch out of desperation. they haven't had a good august, let's face it. our republican stalling on this issue so they won't have to work with democrats to keep our government-funded? there was the day they went by during recess we didn't have someone talk about closing the government and every time that happened the republican leader would say we are not going to do that. so there is a lot of talk on

republican circles about the republicans doing everything they can to force votes on things that have nothing to do with funding this government long-term. so our republican stalling on this issue so they don't have to work with democrats to keep our government open and do they want to wait until the last minute to jam us with something? our republican stalling so they don't have to craft a vibe partisan bill? everyday that goes goes by without legislation in this body is a day the bad guys are doing bad things to our businesses and to our country, stealing our names, addresses, trade secrets come everything that they can is what they are doing so mr. president or perhaps our republican stalling this critical legislation so we don't

have to talk about our distressed infrastructure, insolvent highway system, crumbling roads and bridges? mr. president i hope that instead of forcing the senate to jump through unnecessary procedural hurdles republicans will join senate democrats and agreed to vote on final passage. it takes a lot of nerve for the republican leader after the numerous speeches that he has given about the 60 vote threshold on everything important is he suggesting the iran agreement is not important? mr. president lets hope instead of forcing the senate to jump through unnecessary procedural hurdles and the republicans filibustering their own resolution i hope they will join senate democrats and agreed to vote on final passage.

more debate from the senate floor now. senators durbin corker cardin and collins weigh in on the iran nuclear accord. >> the assistant democratic leader. >> thank you very much mr. president. mr. president to suspend one of the most extraordinary measures that is come before the senate in the time that i've served here. it is rare to have an issue of this historic moment, that this importance, one that literally raises a question about ward and peace in the middle east and one that has been considered so carefully by both sides of the aisle for such a long period of

time. when i left for the august recess here in the senate most of the members of my side of the aisle on the democratic side were still processing and reviewing the proposed agreement and over the course of august these members announce their public positions on the matter. as of today there are 41 of these 46 democratic senators who have announced that they will support the iran agreement. there are another four crew are opposed to it and one who has yet to announce her position. we expect that to happen shortly. this is a unique matter. i asked my staff and others to research one particular aspect of this debate. the aspect i asked them to research was a letter sent on march 9 of this year by 47 republican senators, 47

republican senators sent a letter to the leader of the islamic republic of iran, the ayatollah. to take you back in history at that point in time when 47 republican senators sent that letter the united states of america was in negotiations with iran to see whether or not we could come to any kind of an agreement or understanding when it came to limit iran's development of nuclear weapons, something that i'm sure all of us in both parties want to stop from happening. but in the midst of this delicate negotiation going on in switzerland, 47 republican senators including every member of the senate republican leadership sent a letter to the ayatollah in iran. here's what it said. it has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government

that you may not fully understand our constitutional system the 47 senators wrote. thus we are working to bring your attention to features of our constitution. the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices which you should seriously consider as the negotiations progress. 47 republican senators riding the ayatollah in the midst of these delicate negotiations. he went on to say first under our constitution with the president negotiates international agreements congress plays a significant role of ratifying them. in the case of a treaty the senate must ratify by two-thirds vote. his so-called congressional executive agreement requires a majority vote both in the house and the senate, which because of procedural rules effectively means a three-fifths vote in the senate.

the 47 republican senators are advising the ayatollah in iran iran -- iran in march that he should know more about our constitutional form of government and understand that it will take senate approval which they say effectively means a three-fifths vote. they go on to write to the ayatollah anything not approved by congress is a mere executive agreement. second the 47 republican senators advise the ayatollah of the officers of our constitution have different characteristics. for example the president may serve only two, four-year terms were senators may serve an unlimited number of six-year terms. president obama will leave office in january 2017 while most of us the right will remain in office well beyond them, perhaps decades they write. then the 47 republican senators in march in a letter to the ayatollah sayed with these two

constitutional provisions mean is that they will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear weapons program not approved by the congress is nothing more than an executive agreement between president obama and ayatollah khamenei. the next president could evoke such an agreement with the stroke of a pen and future congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time. we hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress. 47 republican senators in march of this year writing to the ayatollah basically telling him don't get your hopes up if you are negotiating with the united states. reminding them that they will have the last word as members of congress and also stipulating that it will be a three-fifths vote required in the united states senate and then going on to say and keep in mind we are

going to be your lot longer than any president. we may be the last group to make a decision on the future of these agreements and basically reminding him that presidents come and go and don't assume the next president will honor an agreement reached by this president. mr. president go back 12 years ago. what a 47 democratic senators in the midst of our negotiation as to whether or not we should invade iraq, 47 democratic senators have sent a letter to saddam hussein saying don't negotiate with president bush, don't pay any attention to his negotiations. we are the congress. we will have the last word. i cannot imagine what the public response would have been but that is exactly what happened here. 47 republican senators intervening in a negotiation process with iran basically

telling those sitting at the table don't worry about reaching an agreement with the united states of america and this president. i know what would have happened if that would have come out when dick cheney was vice president of the united states. we would have had 47 democrats up on charges of treason. in this circumstance this was not good judgment. i would like to stipulate that the chairman of the foreign relations committee did not sign this letter. i want to make sure that it's clear on the floor. the 47 who did have to answer question, why? when we are in delicate negotiations as soon as its american we don't have the final agreement why would 47 republican senators want to intervene in those negotiations? why would they want to say to the ayatollah don't waste your time negotiating with this president. it's troublesome. many of them have reached the conclusion before the agreement was written that they would

oppose it, witness this letter but others took time to consider , to measure and to announce their position when it came to this matter. i respect them for doing that even if they came to a different conclusion than i did. i know what happened on our democratic side because i was in contact with every member of our democratic caucus during the month of august talking to them about this. real soul-searching here, real serious consideration. some of them of course went to the source with their state department, department of defense and came back to washington when we were in recess. one senator sat down for five hours in closed meetings with our intelligence agencies to ask questions that were on his mind about this agreement. others met with their

constituents, talked about it, found differences of opinion within their own state. they thought about it long and hard, prayed over it. i talked to them always wanted to hear where they were but never pushing it because i knew this was serious and they took it seriously. and that is where we find ourselves today. i want to salute the senator from tennessee is chairman of the foreign relations committee. we may disagree but i respect him very much and so do my colleagues. he is a man of honor and of man of integrity and he brings to this process a kind of attitude towards the senate as an institution which i respect and i will continue to respect. i also believe my colleague from maryland a close personal friend senator cardin though we see this issue differently has really thought long and hard about it. we have been on the phone together many many times during the course of august. i wrote a lot of his vacation

trying to figure where he was and what his thought process was. he took it very seriously and i respect him. though we came out to different positions on this matter. that's the way should be in but they american people expect now is that the debate be fitting to this great institution of a high state. they expect us to come here conscientiously consider this matter on its merits and express their points of view and virtually every senator has done that publicly. in the course of this debate the american people can follow it because it's a critical debate. what is at issue here is whether iran will develop and their weapon. we believe that they have the capacity now to create as many as 10 nuclear weapons. we don't want that to happen. it would be disastrous, disastrous or the world and certainly disastrous for the middle east and israel and that's where the leaders from around the world of 100 different nations support with president obama is striving to

do. but the president is trying to do is something that i believe should be a starting point in every critical foreign-policy decision, use diplomacy, use negotiation, try to solve our problems in a thoughtful diplomatic way and if that fails then we move to other possibilities that start with diplomacy and that is what the president has done. during the course of his presidency his organizations around the world to join us in this effort. if this were just united states versus iran we wouldn't be where we are today but the president engage countries which is darkly had recently have not been our allies picked up where we left for the august recess we sat down with the five ambassadors from nations that joined us in the negotiations. i looked across the table there to see the ambassador from china , from russia, from the united kingdom and representatives of the embassies of german and -- germany france

about the myth of the viewer student of history this is an amazing coalition. all working together and we brought in the sanctions regime from other countries that didn't have the same direct involvement in negotiations that were with us to south korea's a good example, to ban another good example joined us in this effort to put pressure on iran per person obama lead this effort and he was successful in this effort. the iranians came to the negotiating table because we put the pressure on them, economic pressure. now we have before us disagreement. some of said you can never trust iran no matter what they say and i would just hearken back to the days of ronald reagan, who said of our enemies around the world when it came to agreement trust but verify, trust but verify. just recently we had an

announcement made by colin powell a man i respect very much in support of this agreement. it was an announcement which surprised me in a way. i didn't know if he was going to take a position on this matter by former secretary of state colin powell expressed support for the obama nuclear agreement with iran calling the various -- iranian leaders accepted for marco and dismissing critics concerned about its implementation. to pretty good deal colin powell said on "meet the press" that critics concerned the deal will expedite iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons powell added for getting the reality that iran is a been a superhighway for 10 years to create a nuclear weapon or weapons program with no speed limit end of quote. he said the reduction in centrifuges iran's uranium stockpile and agreement to shut

down the reactor for all quote remarkable. these are remarkable changes powell said and so we stop this highway race we are going down and i think that's very very important. colin powell also pushback on skeptics have expressed worries about the ability of independent inspectors to verify that iran is following the agreement. powell said with respect to the iranians don't trust, never trust and always verify. quote and i think a very vigorous or vacation regime has been put in place he said. i say we have a deal. let's see how they implement the deal and they don't implement it it -- none of our options are gone poll said. i think he hit the nail on the head. general colin powell to serve served their country in the military as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff then the secretary of state rings a perspective to this which very few can. a man who risked his life in the battlefield a man who knows the true cost of war but a man who

is empowered by another republican president to lead us in diplomatic negotiations. this is the kind of clear-eyed approach that we need and want when it comes to the issue of this gravity. i will have other things to say on this matter as others will. at this point i yield the floor to my colleagues. >> the senator from tennessee. >> thank you mr. president and i will have more lengthy comments to make on this topic a little bit later but i did want to first of all thank the distinguished senator from illinois for his comments and i certainly want to thank senator cardin and i will do so more fully in just a moment but i would like to remind the body that yes we went through several steps along the way to getting where we are today. they created certainly consternation on both sides of the aisle. there were lots of things that occurred. a letter was referred to a draft

to the joint congress. there have been numbers of things along the way that calls people to concern themselves that maybe this debate would end up eating something that was partisan on a low-level but i think what we have done is we have ended up with the iran review act in short terms that gives us the opportunity as the distinguished senator mentioned to actually review this. we have had 12 hearings on this topic, extensive hearings in the foreign relations committee and many other committees have done the same and what we ended up putting in place with 98 votes in the senate, 98-1. we had one senator that was absent, we created a process for all senators could review this, could have the documents at their disposal to go through it and to go classified briefings and could understand fully what

the agreement said and then have the right to vote. certainly some things happened along the way that is i mentioned created consternation but as a body in the united states senate fashion in lieu of letting that divide us and letting that create a scenario where we would review it and not vote on it we have created a process where we would review it and vote on it and it's my hope and i know i've had a very nice conversation with the distinguished senator from illinois certainly multiple conversations with the distinguished senator from maryland and i hope over the process of this week that is what continues. i know that is what all of us want to see happen. i do think the american people deserve to know where senators and house members stand on this piece of policy, foreign policy that is before us and i want to thank everyone for their role in

getting here and as a matter of fact i will move on if i could. i want to thank senator mcconnell and senator reid for allowing this debate today take places week without having a motion to proceed. i couldn't thank senator cardin more for being a colleague who really works to try to figure out a way for the senate to play an appropriate role in foreign policy. it's been nothing but outstanding in dealing with him since he assumed this role and i want to thank him for the way he has conducted himself. i would like to remind people that without the iran nuclear agreement review act they would be no role for congress. one of the things that i think is confused a lot of american people and their a lot of people that would preferred this to have been a treaty but the fact is under our form of government the president is able to decide whether he is going to submit an agreement as a treaty or an

executive agreement. an executive at agreement stays in place during the duration of the president of the presence 10 yankee delta by the next president. a treaty is binding on future presidents of this president as we know decided to go directly to the u.n. security council and by the way left some mandated sanctions do we help to put in place that brought iran to the table and so with the knowledge of that congress stepped in and pass this piece of legislation that now gives us the right to review what the president is negotiating and to prevent him from lifting congressionally mandated sanctions should we decide we disapprove of this deal. so this is a place where congress came together and said no they want to play world even though a role is not contemplated under the executive agreement. i know that this has been confusing to numbers of people

and i know this was the only vehicle capable of winning a veto proof majority to provide congress with a chance for the american people to have us on their behalf to review this agreement and then vote. as i mentioned we have had more than a dozen hearings. i've spent a great deal of time as is the ranking member as have all of the committee members and presiding officers, so many people going through this agreement and i oppose implementation of this deal. i oppose its implementation. when the president first stated his goal, his goal of ending iran's nuclear program, that was nothing that could have achieved tremendous bipartisan support in this body. as a matter of fact there were discussions of dismantling the program and as we all know today and i'm going to speak more on this tomorrow rather than ending it this agreement allows the

industrialization of the program of the world's leading state sponsor of terror and it does so with our approval. that is a large step from where we begin these negotiations. and have the president achieved the goal i think what you have in this body is 100 senator standing up and supporting what he said he wished to do with these negotiations that we ended up with something that certainly is a far cry from that. instead of having anytime anywhere inspections i think everyone understands there's a manners inspection process and certainly there are issues relative to the iaea that have given many members tremendous concern and i think the thing that is one of the most troubling aspects of this is only after nine months to leverage right now where basically the world community has had its boot on a rogue

nations throughout. what has happened to the course of these negotiations is that in nine months to leverage shifts from these nations, our nation being one of those, having them any position where we might negotiate something that ends the program. instead what happens is the leverage shifts to iran. the leverage shifts to iran. they're going to receive as we know billions of dollars. most people think the numbers around 100 by the way they have a 406 billion-dollar gross mastic product. that is the size of their economy. we are going to release them over the next nine months about $100 billion. 25% of their economy in nine months. the president and surely others have said some of this is going to be used to sponsor terrorism. we know that. think about if we had 25% of our

gdp given to us over the next nine months. we have an 18 trillion-dollar gdp, four or $5 trillion given to us over the next nine months. certainly this is going to have an impact on what they are able to do. what iran is going to be able to say in nine months when we push back on violations of the agreement and we push back on terrorism we push back on human rights violations they are going to be able to say because most of the sanctions will be lifted at that moment they will have their money. their economy will be growing and what are they going to say? look if you push back we think this is unfair and they are only making the statements in iran. we will just resume our nuclear program so instead of us having leverage over them they are going to have leverage over us. they were have leverage over us. this is in the vacuum of having no middle eastern policy.

i don't say this to be pejorative but we know we have no policy in the middle east to push back against iran. we know that so this agreement is going to end up being our de facto policy and everything is going to be measured by what will iran do if we push back? what if we push back against the fact that there giving hamas rockets to fire into israel? what if we push back against what hezbollah is doing in lebanon and what they are doing in syria? what if we push back against what the irgc the arm of the supreme leader what if we push back against what he is doing right now to protect the sad? we know that right now in prisons in syria we know people are being tortured. we saw it first-hand. the ranking member and i went over to see what was happening

at the holocaust museum presentation where someone working for the assad regime took over that and as we stand in these comfortable settings in the chamber of the united states senate people's are being removed and tortured and iran is supporting that. we know that. so the fact that they are going to have some recourse to do more of that, to do the same thing with the houthis in yemen to support terrorists and people who are trying to disrupt the government of bahrain so look the leverage shifts to them. all they can say is we have pushed back against those activities and what they are going to be able to say is likely think you are being unfair. we are just going to resume our program. i don't understand. this is beyond me. i know the senator from illinois

has the diplomats from the other countries come in. i have no idea why this last meeting in geneva we read too with the conventional weapons ban after five years. what does that have to do with the nuclear bomb and then the ballistic missile technology in eight years paid what was that about and as you know some really weird language in the agreement we immediately lifted the ban on plastic missile teste here the people sitting in the audience, the people watching, everyone knows that iran has no need whatsoever for this program, none. let me say that what more time. as a country with 19,000 centrifuges, 10,000 of them operating. they have an ability in a facility that produces

plutonium. they have got all kinds of research and development by the way this agreement, this agreement approves further research and development of their centrifuges. as a matter of fact it paves the way for them and times out perfectly for them to be in a position to be at zero breakout time which is exactly what the president said they would be added in 13 years. they could agree to this agreement and continue to implement this agreement and be in that position. but they have no need, none. some people have said if they really want to pursue the technology of medical isotopes, maybe, maybe they could use 500 centrifuges. so think about this. we have a country with one nuclear reactor, a country that could buy the enriched uranium

to provide energy. they could buy it cheaply on the market but instead they put their entire society through grinding sanctions that harm families. they have been doing that for years. for something that they have no practical need for. there is only one need and we all know that and that is because they want to be in a position to be a nuclear-armed country. so let you say it one more time, every senate to your here supported this process except for one. the american people deserve to know where our elected officials and where we stand on this consequential agreement. i hope that people on both sides will cause this to be a sober debate. i know it will be passionate and people will certainly be speaking strongly about the pros and cons of this agreement but i do hope at the end of the day --

while i was gone there were discussions about a filibuster. filibustering the right to vote on this iran agreement. apparently i read about it and then some magazines here that instead of this being about, instead of this being about people expressing themselves relative to a policy that felt was important to the country, all of a sudden it became about something else. i would just say to my colleagues i don't know how -- i don't know how we can be in a place where we have said to her constituents that we want to

review and vote on this agreement and then over some revisionist statement were thought, but they process this is nowhere going to filibuster it and we don't want people to vote. it's my hope that over the course of the next several days that cooler heads will prevail, that we of course will have i believe a very sober debate. i think my friends on the other side of the aisle have seen what the leader just did to try to ensure that we keep the debate about approval or disapproval, in this case disapproval of this particular deal, and i hope that very soon we will all be able to express ourselves with a boat on the deal itself. whether we believe it's in our nation's interests. i do not -- have that debate in a sober way and without i want to return to my friend.

>> would the senator yield for a question? >> the senator from texas. >> mr. president i want to say to the chairman of the foreign relations committee how much i appreciate his good work together with the ranking member senator cardin who he alluded to earlier. the senator from tennessee just said something which i think every american should find troubling and that is perhaps the single most important national security issue facing the country since the authorization for use of force in iraq in 2002 that there might be a partisan filibuster of our ability to have that up-or-down vote on the resolution of disapproval. i would just ask the senator from tennessee is he aware of reports that the supreme leader ayatollah khamenei has said that the iranian parliament will have the final word on this deal and they ran and i just wonder how

the senator would characterize a partisan filibuster in united states senate preventing such an up-or-down vote in the united states senate while the iranian parliament would have the ability for that up-or-down vote in that institution. >> i did read those reports and as i said to my friend from illinois earlier look, there has been so much that has occurred from the very beginning that has call people on each side to in some cases raised the flag or think that this is a debate that could evolve into something that was of that orientation. what we have done as you mentioned, we have risen above that and we pass something that allows us to debate and to vote. i read with interest with the supreme leader has said. i think he is hedging his bets

and no doubt he is going to take it to their parliament and allow them to vote and debate and i hope here the citizens of our country will be shown that same respect and expect that their senators and house members will have the opportunity to vote on the actual policy that has been negotiated and agreed to bye-bye these various countries. i hope that will be the case and i was very aware of that and with that, without objection i would like to turn the floor over, yield the floor to my great friend the ranking member on the foreign relations committee, who together, together we have marched through some incredible hearings. i think all of us have studied

this dutifully and that could not have occurred without the incredible corporation and that of the staff and i thank him for his leadership and i thank him for his willingness to seek a place where the senate can deal with this in the appropriate way and with that i yield the floor. >> the senator from maryland. >> mr. president let me first thank my friend senator corker for his leadership but more importantly thank him on behalf of the senate for standing up for i think the appropriate world in the united states senate in reviewing a major foreign-policy issue. .. its appropriate role