it's a dangerous outcome, not just for the united states and our allies like israel, but the entire world. the president has walked back from his own commitments. when we started down the path he said the goal was to stop iran from getting a nuclear weapon. now we're content to maintain a balance of power with the nuclear iran or delay their nuclear status. he said iran doesn't need a four to five underground bunker for the program. we're willing to give them a bunker. he said they don't need stockpile stockpiles, which we're allowing them to keep them. i'm focused on stopping iran from getting nuclear arms today, tomorrow and a year from now, but also 10 and 13 years from now. >> how would you do that, considering that sanctions so far have not stopped progress? >> we shouldn't have started down the path where we granted sanctions relief in exchange for iran doing little more than coming to the table. almost two years ago i voted

with 400 members of the house of representatives, including most democrats, to impose new and tougher sanctions on iran to give us a better negotiating position. and i were to keep the credible threat of force on the table the way obama has not. not just in the dealings with iran but all countries around the world. >> -- sell missiles to iran? >> russia announced they'd transfer surface-to-air missiles to iran. that shows how misguided the proposal is that we'd let iran continue to keep its nuclear capabilities and potentially be able to impose new sanctions once the regime that took years to put in place, began to unravel. >> senator, wanted to ask you as a freshman lawmaker how are you received when talking about these issues? did you ask any questions yourself of kerry? >> i think this question is not a matter of how long someone has

been in the senate or congress how long someone has been serving the government, but who is right and wrong about this matter. many senators and congressman, democrats and republicans alike, have concerns about the path the president has taken us down. we're focused on doing everything we can to stop iran from getting a nuclear weapon. sorry. >> what was your reaction to the briefing? >> it was, i think an extremely valuable briefing for all of us. i learned an awful lot. it was technical. we asked every question that we could think of. i walk away you know that i want to make sure that every member of congress is going to have input. we're going to have our say. i want to make sure of that. there's some members that want their say quicker than others. i'd like to see the finished product. i know where we are today. i have spoken to three of the five p5 countries.

i'm going to speak to the other two so i get a complete understanding of -- so we're all five on the same page with the united states. our sanctions are sanctions we voted on, and we'll have to vote to take them off, if we get to that point. i have said this before that being a super power that we are in the world is a lot more than just having super military might. you have to have super diplomatic skills, and you have to use them all. i like to see this team that i have confidence in, use their super diplomatic skills to see a final product. for that, i'd like to wait until the deal june 30th to see if we have something we can live with. if we don't, we'll double down the sanctions. i signed on to the bill and feel strong about it. i want to see what the outcome is. >> what about corker menendez? >> i can sign on to it but i don't think it gives the ability

for peace and opportunity. if it changes substantially, i'll look at it differently. if it doesn't change as it is i will not be signing it. >> are you aware of this agreement today between -- >> i'm aware they've worked on an agreement. we'll see what the outcome is. that could change my support, if you will. i just believe strongly that we have proven -- if you look back at hindsight 20/20, 2003 when we had a hard line stand no centrifuge, we took a hard stand and walked away. no negotiations. we know that didn't work. until we really got serious in 2012 and started negotiating, after 2010, 2012, and we are where we are today. i think that we have a chance. they're telling me that they have complied with all of the agreement up to date. it's a very difficult thing, but i like to negotiate peace before declaring war. >> if this bill passes would

you want congress to hold off after final agreement is reached? >> it depends on what they adjust it to. if they make it more tolerable, that's what it would be anyway. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> i'll just say something very briefly. i think this was the best briefing we've had. i think it's been very helpful to have seca nuclear scientist, who understands the aspects of the nuclear agreement, to run through them. this was a classified briefing so i'm not going to tell you very much other than that. i thought it was a very good briefing. >> senator, still spectacles still skeptical of the bill? >> you'll have to talk to them. i am in support of this. this is the one opportunity we have to make a serious and good

change in the middle east. i think this nuclear agreement is important to the security of israel. i do not believe it jeopardizes that security. i believe it protects that security. >> do you think the corker menendez bill helps? >> i haven't seen it. >> should there be congressional review generally in. >> this is an interesting thing. >> can you -- >> hand back the camera -- >> i have my staff running all of the agreements that presidents have made historically. as you know there are many. i don't like to lean away from presidential authority. to the extent this does that i don't like it. but i do know that the congress is intimately involved now. the horse has left the barn in that sense. thank you.

>> well, they briefed us, and i still have concerns that there is no framework agreement. i have basic differences between iran and the united states that seem to be unresolved. the meeting there did not really deal with the differences between iran and the united states. i'm concerned, especially on the issue of sanctions, the iranians say that sanctions will be immediately lifted with the agreement. the united states only gradually. in that sense, it does not appear that there is an agreement at all here. any questions? >> regarding the deal between democrats and republicans, the corker legislation, do you know anything about it? >> i think that bob has been working with ben quite a bit. we should move forward. with the way the legislation is wrirn written, you will have substantial time for

congressional review. that would give more time to the administration as they asked. >> there's been harsh words for secretary kerry's work in negotiations here. how would you assess it? >> i was very happy to hear that secretary kerry calling the north korean negotiations under clinton a failure. when i met with wendy sherman in the past, she's claimed there was a success, that we have had four nuclear debttonations claimed by north korea. i'm glad that kerry admitted that clinton policy was a failure in north korea. >> he admitted that? >> he said the failure in north korea. obviously because there was nuclear detonation, the north korean effort under clinton failed. under wenty tydy sherman, it failed. >> how would you assess his negotiations in terms of iran? >> he claims to have -- in the case, he talks about the iran reactor, about having no weapons

grade plutonium. on that point, as a guy that represented the south side of chicago where nuclear power was invented i'd say it is all weapons grade. >> does the report that russia is going to -- >> it was a stab in the back. by selling the s300 to iran means that we have a substantial air defense issue against the s300. that israel and the united states will have to really take that into account. >> as it relates to the negotiations? >> i would say the bush administration did manage to halt that transfer of technology quite well. the russians knew just how bad it would be to turn. you see major portions of the negotiation, where they were relying on the russians to take custody of some of the missile

material. now, the russians are selling the s300 back. any solution that involves trust with the russians does not appear to be valid at all. >> what was kerry's pitch, as far as congressional restraint? he was not moving ahead, and was it convincing? >> i think in general, he -- his general point, like all executive branches, they want congress to just go away. in this case, congress can't go away. the one thing that my colleague asked, what happens when the majority of the american people don't trust the iranians? i think that was a well-worded question. because we know that 61% of the american people think the iranians will chaeteat on this agreement. it's a valid concern. >> what does i didthe secretary say about the lifting of the sanctions, whether it's immediate or -- >> they actually -- he did -- the people didn't ask about the

discrepancies between the iranian story and the american story. >> did he address at all the bill the corker bill? did he talk about that? >> he asked us to hold off. he didn't give a firm date. talking about very long times 15 years and 25 years. times that -- obviously they want to get it through the presidential election so they can get a democrat elected to the white house. that's clear what they wanted to have. >> what was the concern he voiced about the corker menendez bill specifically? >> the concern -- he didn't really address the corker menendez too much. i would say menendez corker, since i was there first. >> was the threat reiterated? >> no there was no veto threat in the room. >> is that a multiplication of the previous position? i

>> i would expect the president is so emotionally invested in this, he would issue a veto on legislation that came to his desk. it's a mistake. it's clear that the iranians are delaying because they haven't finished their nuclear weapon yet. we should not give them unlimited time to complete their arsenal. >> senator, is it an initial review period of 30 days enough for you? >> i think the corker legislation is adequate, is the way to go. it has congressional response times of about 30 and 60 days, which is going to give more than enough time for the administration to work out the various problems with the iranians. >> you have the votes to override a veto? >> on the amendment, we just voted it with 100-0 on a recorded vote. more than enough for an override. >> what about the corker bill? >> i think the administration worked very hard to make sure we didn't have veto for a majority.

when the senate has been called to vote it voted 100-0 twice. we have been unanimous, not agreeing with the strategy. >> the amendment to just do away with the terrorism certification and to shorten the review period from 60 days to 30 days, what's your view on that? >> my hope is that they -- we know that iran is a stateof terror. they've killed through their proxies in hezbollah a couple hundred americans. i've issued a list of all those american names by state. >> did secretary kerry make a point that the administration could do quite a bit by itself? >> he -- under the law, he does have a lot of leeway. that's true. >> did he make that point? >> he did not. >> how would you characterize

the mood in there? >> it was skeptical and quiet. they didn't understand there is no agreed framework. >> was there discussion about how to keep the sanctions on iran's terrorist activities -- >> no, there wasn't. nobody asked the question. one problem is secretary moniz went on for a while and members were up set there wasn't enough time for questions. there was only a few questions in there. >> was it over? >> i left when the questions had finished yeah. >> senator how did the administration address the discrepancy between the iranian statements and the -- >> they just glossed over it. >> what do you mean? >> i produced a chart for everybody that you can get from my office. it shows the differences of opinion between iran and the

united states. that iran doesn't want access to military facilities. that they want immediate sanctions relief. we want gradual. in that sense i'd say it was probably premature to declare the agreement was available. >> you said the corker bill is adequate. is there bipartisan consensus? >> i think there is. i think bob is sticking with the corker legislation. that means it is now menendez corker. several members seem to be skeptical in the room there. led by ben. >> he's skeptical? >> seems to me. yes. >> thank you. >> thanks guys. >> beat that horse to death, yeah. comments from members of the senate foreign relations committee earlier toda