to the two directions they are being pulled in is, on the one hand, there's this concern about this massive debt. you hear $1.5 trillion potentially this year. that really scares people and for proof -- and for a pretty good reason. at the same time, they go back to their districts -- he did not to sugarcoat his district. his district is struggling and if you have a county at 20% unemployment, that is a depression level. you look at that and you say, ok, maybe we need some stimulus. you have democrats saying, we need hundreds of billions of dollars, not just $50 billion for teachers. and we need to be putting these you will back to work, having massive road-building, whatever. all of these plans that president obama talked about in the state of the union address

when he laid ... -- laid out of this jobs agenda, most of that is out the window now because the democrats cannot get together and say, ok, we're going to support one last burst of deficit spending. they are out of gas. it is because they are pulled in these two different directions. and in the senate as well, you know. it is not just a house issue. in the senate they are having a hard time even passing unemployment benefits extension saw, things that two or three months ago they passed with road to adis -- relative peacease. part of it is that senate republicans as well as house republicans alike they are in a stronger position in dinardo they need to give the democrats much help. -- end of day and feel they do

not need to give the democrats much help. >> what are your thoughts on the cool stimulus spending? >> there has been -- your thoughts on the u.s. global stimulus spending? >> there has been an issue with not having much credibility here. it is hard for president obama to go and talk about that. they were able to find a deal on financial regulation reform and we have seen it obama out there and tout this as a breakthrough, as a place for the u.s. can show some leadership. maybe that will lead the way into broader economic issues.

maybe they can show the rest of these g-20 countries that they can take the lead on these issues. >> let me ask about process reform. is that something thht is even considered in an election year? >> i would be surprised to see something like line somethingrecision -- like line- item recision make it through the congress. sometimes when the actual substance is too hard, maybe you go for some process reform, even if it is a tiny tweak like line-

item recision. >> that is it for our time. thanks for being with us this week. >> here is our schedule. next, president obama replaces his top commander in afghanistan, firing general stanley mcchrystal after he criticized members of the administration in a rolling stone article. after that, reaction to the firing from senate armed service -- armed services committee leaders. and later, defense secretary gates and joint chiefs admiral mike local -- and admiral mike mullen discussed their thoughts on the decision to replace

general mcchrystal. starting monday, watch the confirmation hearing for supreme court nominee to elena kagan. she will testify before the senate judiciary committee as member's question her about her career experience as she aims to replace justice john paul stevens retiring. watch it live beginning at 12:30 p.m. eastern on c-span3, c-span radio and c-span.org. >> i want to say to the american people this is a change in personnel, but not a change in policy. general patraeus full report is a bit in our review last fall. and he both supported and helped design the strategy that we have in place. >> learn more about the president's choice to head forces in afghanistan. but general david patraeus has been on c-span more than 40

times. watch his hearings and briefings and other events on line. >> tonight on c-span2's "book tv" -- the author spent 45 days in a dark cell. he writes about it in open court captive." -- in a "captive." find the entire weekend schedule at booktv.org. >> earlier this week, president obama replace his top commander in afghanistan, firing general stanley mcchrystal after he and members of his staff criticize

the vice-president and members of the administration in a rolling stone magazine article. the president named general david patraeus as his replacement. from the white house, this is 10 minutes. >> good afternoon. today i accepted at general mcchrystal's resignation as commander for the u.s. forces in afghanistan. i did so with considerable regret, but also with certainty is the right thing for our mission in afghanistan, for our military, and for our country. i am also pleased to nominate general david patraeus to take command in afghanistan, which will allow us to maintain the

momentum and leadership that we need to succeed. i do not make this decision based on any difference in policy with general mcchrystal, as we are in full agreement about our strategy. nor do i make this decision about -- out of any sense of personal insult. stan mcchrystal has always shown great personal courtesy and carried out my orders faithfully. i have great admiration for him and for his long record of service in uniform. over the last nine years with america fighting wars in iraq and afghanistan he has earned a reputation as one of our nation's finest soldiers. that reputation is founded upon his extraordinary dedication to by his deep intelligence, and his love of country. i have relied on his service, particularly in helping to lead

in afghanistan. all americans should be grateful for general mcchrystal's remarkable career in uniform. but war is bigger than any one man or woman, whether a private, a general, or a president. as difficult because it is to lose general mcchrystal, i believe it is the right decision for our national security. the conduct represented in the recently published article does not need the standard that should be stick -- should be set by a commanding general. it undermines the control of the military that is at the core of our democratic system. and if he rose the trust necessary for our team -- if he rose to the trust necessary for our team to work together to meet the objective in afghanistan. first, i have a responsibility to the extraordinary men and women fighting this war, and to

the democratic institutions i have been elected to lead. i have no greater honor than serving as commander-in-chief of our men and women in uniform. it is my duty to ensure that no diversion complicates the riot -- a vital mission that they are carrying out. that includes adherence to a strict code of conduct. the strength and greatness of our military is rooted in the fact that this code applies equally to newly enlisted private and to the general officer that commands them. that allows us to come together as one. that is part of the reason that america has the finest fighting force in the history of the world. it is also true that our democracy depends upon institutions that are stronger than individuals. that includes strict adherence to the military chain of command and respect for civilian

control over the chain of command. that is why has commander in chief, i believe this decision is necessary to hold ourselves accountable to standards that are at the core of our democracy. second, i have a responsibility to do whatever is necessary to succeed in afghanistan and in our broader effort to disrupt, dismantling and defeating al qaeda. i do not think we can sustain the unity of effort and achieve our objectives in afghanistan without making this change. that, too, has guided my decision. i have just told my national security team that now was the time for all of us to come together. doing so is not an option, but an obligation. i welcome debate among my team, but i will not tolerate

division. all of us have personal interests. all of us have opinions. our politics often fuels conflict, but we have to renew our sense of common purpose and renew our responsibilities to one another and to our troops who are in harm's way, and to our country. we need to remember what this is all about. our nation is at war. we face a very tough fight in afghanistan. but americans do not flinch in the face of difficult truths or difficult tasks. we will not tolerate a safe haven for terrorists who want to destroy afghan society from within, and to launch attacks against innocent men, women and childrennin our country and around the world. make no mistake, we have a clear goal. we're going to break the taliban's momentum.

we're going to build afghan capacity. we're going to relentlessly applied pressure on al qaeda and its leadership, strengthening the ability of both afghanistan and pakistan to do the same. that is the strategy that we agreed to last fall. that is the policy that we are carrying out in afghanistan and pakistan. in that effort we are honored to be joined by our allies and partners who have stood by us and paid the ultimate price through the loss of their young people at war. they are with us because the interests and values that we share, and because this mission is fundamental to the ability of free people to live in peace and security in the 21st century. general patraeus and i were able to spend some time this morning discussing the way forward. i am extraordinarily grateful that he has agreed to serve in this new capacity.

it should be clear to everybody that he does so at great personal sacrifice to himself and to his family. he is setting an extraordinary example of patriotism by assuming this difficult post. this is a change in personnel, but it is not a change in policy. general patraeus fully participated in our review last fall and he both supported and helped design the strategy that we have in place. in his current post at central command he has worked closely with our forces in afghanistan. he has worked closely with congress. he has worked closely with the afghan and pakistani governments. and with all our partners in the region. he has my full confidence and i am urging the senate to confirm him for this new assignment as swiftly as possible. let me conclude by saying it was

a difficult decision to come to the conclusion that i have made today. indeed, it saddens me to lose the service of a soldier who i've come to respect and admire. but the reasons that have led me to this decision are the same principles that have supported the strength of our military and our nation since the founding. once again, i thank general mcchrystal for his enormous contributions to the security of this nation, and to the success of our mission in afghanistan. i look forward to working with general patraeus and our entire security team to succeed in our mission. and i reaffirmed that america stands as one in our support for the men and women who defend that. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> after the president fired general mcchrystal, senate armed services ranking member, john mccain spoke out about his decision. this is 20 minutes. >> good afternoon, senator lieberman and senator gramm and i are here as members of the armed services committee and as individuals who have traveled quite often to the region and have had involvement in the issues of iraq and afghanistan for a number of years. in fact, our involvement goes

all the way back to right after the fall of kabul and barbara air force base in the middle of the night -- bagram air force base in the middle of the night in leading the general mcchrystal for the very first time. we applaud the president's decision in defense of our nation. we think no one is more qualified than general patraeus to achieve a successful conclusion of the afghan conflict. we praise the seevice of general mcchrystal and thank him for his service to our nation and wish him well and every success in the future. we are confident that general patraeus' leadership will have a positive effect on the situation in the region. we still have concerns about the civilian side. in fact, it might -- you might

suggest that the consideration might be given to the reuniting the crocker-patraeus team. we still have concerns about the civilian side of it and the non- military side of these equations. relations between the ambassador and president karzai, whether there is a sufficient civilian side on the ground. the hearing for general patraeus' confirmation will probably be the fastest in the history of the armed services committee. it will be done very soon. the concern that we have and the issue that will be raised in'general confirmation -- raised in general patraeus' confirmation

hearings is the withdrawal of 2011 and whether that will be etched in stone or whether it will be conditioned space. obviously, we feel strongly that it needs to be conditions-based. because when you are telling everyone when you're leaving, obviously, it has an adverse affect on your ability to succeed. there's a great deal of ambiguity about that issue. i am convinced that we can succeed in afghanistan with the leadership and the talent of the young men and women who are serving, but we have to send a message that we will do whatever is necessary in order to achieve success. and if that means a longer time frame, or even an increase in troops, those actions will not be precluded in consideration of the facts on the ground at the time.

i will remind you that during the bush administration the three of us stood up for an increase in troops that was proposed by secretary rumsfeld. we stood up for the surge that was proposed by president bush and secretary rumsfeld. it is an honest difference of opinion between us and the president that the withdrawal of troops has to be based on conditions at the time, not an arbitrary date. >> general stanley mcchrystal is a brief war fighter and has been a very strong leader of -- is a brave war fighter and has been a very strong leader of multinational forces in afghanistan. unfortunately, the comment in the article presented president obama with a hard decision and i think he dealt with it directly and strong yen made the right decision in accepting general

resignation. if there has ever been an example of somebody putting national interest ahead of personal interests, it is general david patraeus' willingness to except command over our forces in afghanistan. i hope the announcement today has taken a crisis and turned it into an expression by the president of the strong support of the strategy that he adopted the early last year and announced it at west point december 1.

to afghanistan is of vital national security interest to the united states. if it goes badly there provide will be bad for us here at home because that is the place from which we were attacked on 9/11. it is important to hear the president to restate his commitment to that strategy and to success in that strategy. i think we have a higher possibility of -- i think a probability now of achieving that. one other thing that the president said today that i thought was very important. he talked about how important it was that we be unified in pursuing the strategy that president obama has chosen for afghanistan. he said that he will always welcome internal debate, but will not countenance division publicly. i think the unfortunate comments

that appeared in the magazine article by general mcchrystal and his staff reveal what we have known, which is that there is not the kind of unity in afghanistan between our civilian and military leadership. in fact, there has been some unnecessary, and i think harmful, a public discussion in the u.s. over the central point of our strategy in afghanistan, including what the meaning is of -- what the u.s. troops in afghanistan will begin to do or will not begin to do in july of 2011. i hope we have turned a corner here and every member of the team, civilian and military, will now work with and behind the commander in chief in achieving the success that we

need to achieve in afghanistan. and after the announcements of today, i feel we will achieve in afghanistan. >> this is a sad day in many ways because a good man, general mcchrystal, his career is probably over. but the president of the united states, our commander in chief, had no other choice. there are lines you cannot cross. those lines were crossed. it was poor judgment, but beyond poor judgment. it made it virtually impossible for the general tuesday in his job, and as commander in chief, president obama -- to stay in his job, and as commander-in- chief, president obama made the right decision. we lost a good general, but the president, in my view, had no other choice because to keep him there will havwould have blurree

line that has served this country for a long time. and those of us that have served in the military understand these relationships. david patraeus is our best hope. ifv!9 if things do not change quickly, we cannot afford to lose. do i think we can win? yes, i do.

the july 2011 policy is confusing. it undercuts the war effort. it empowers our enemies. it confuses our friends. i think we need to reevaluate its. general patraeus said in an open hearing that he believed he had the ability to go to the president in july 2011 and -- or earlier and say, mr. president cannot -- mr. president, it is not wise to withdraw troops. we may actually need more. he told us he felt he had the ability to make that recommendation. my question for the country is, will the president listened to that recommendation? i would urge the president to keep on the table the ability to hear the general out and is the general recommended that we not withdraw, to keep that as an option. if the president says, no matter

the recommendation, we will leave in july 2011, we will lose this war. >> it sounds like you have the same sentiment that general mcchrystal has over the frustration with the civilian leadership. it is that accurate? >> i think some of the comments that were attributed to general mcchrystal and his staff were inappropriate. there is a goal for the military in our society and that goal is that you not only obey civilian leadership, but you respect civilian leadership. and if you do not, resigned. -- resign. this was authenticated, i think, by harry truman's firing of general macarthur a long time ago. but yes, there is discontent --

let me say, there is a lack of coordination and teamwork between the military and civilian side both at the embassy and other areas in afghanistan that needs to be repaired. i think that is very clear, but it is not the role of the members of the military to make those comments, except of through the chain of command. >> i do not agree with everything, to put it mildly, that was set in that article. but i think is important -- and i think the president made this point in what he said today. let me put it this way, the president went through a thorough review of afghanistan last fall. december 1 he announced our policy. there were clearly different camps in the in ministration about what the president should do in afghanistan -- in the administration about what the president should do in afghanistan. but the president is the

commander-in-chief and he decided that it is in the interest of the united states to win in afghanistan. and to do so by employing the same counterinsurgency strategy that general patraeus wrote and implemented for iraq. i am afraid there may be some in the administration who never fully accepted that decision by the president and have continued have suggested from policy.ns t- i think the president said today very clearly, everybody in my administration has now got to get with the program. it is the program and the strategy and the commitment to victory in afghanistan that the president announced on december 1. >> it was not just the military. according to the recent -- a recent book, the vice president said kamal whole lot of people are coming out in the middle of

2011 -- the vice president said, a whole lot of people are coming out in the middle of 2011, you can bet on it. >> it is not good when you have two leaders in the administration seeming to say different things. i do not know whether the vice president ever affirmed the truthfulness of in the book. -- of that statement in the book. >> when you say it is time to start over, does that mean it is time for eikenberry to go, and holbrook? anyone else? >> i will leave that up to the president. it is my advice that you want someone supportive -and makes the right decision. from my observations, not just from the "rolling stone" article, there is a lot of

tension on the civilian side that makes it hard to move forward in a coherent fashion. when it comes to why the president had to act, the statements of the general not only were outside the norm, they really did put in question military subordination to civilian control. how you think "rowlands doane" is a good group to follow your around -- how you think "rolaine stone" is a good group to follow you around for a month is a questionable judgment. [laughter] i understand you are warriors and you have been shot at and you are brave, but you have let yourselves and your country down. the attitude any disrespect is unacceptable. this is a low point, in my view, for the armed forces in a very

long time and i'm glad the president made this decision and some other officers need to be looked at and they need to be replaced. . . >> you have to remember the strategy we are falling in afghanistan today is general petraeus's basic counterinsurgency strategy. nafta give him some latitude to see if he wants to move troops

here or there, add this or that. >> are you convinced that the president is committed to doing what is necessary to makk the strategy work given the discussion of a timetable for withdrawal and the time he does not -- and given the fact it does not talk much about afghanistan? >> i believe the president is committed to success. whether we have the proper policy which means the commitment to begin a withdrawal in the middle of next year, regardless of the conditions on the ground, is a flawed policy. the strategy is not undercut by that. in this strategy we can have confidence in. >> i am not questioning the motives. i think he understands the consequences of failure.

if the policy of in the question enabling us to win, i would argue that when the caliban center around leaflets "-- when the taliban circulates leaflets saying the americans will leave you and they are using that uncertainty. the policy will fail he has the enemy is emboldened and as john mccain says, you cannot sound an uncertain trumpet in that part of the world. my concern is that the policy will lead to the freezing of momentum, people coming our way on defense, and it will give them a sense of purpose they did not have.

>> can we win in afghanistan with karzai? >> absolutely. some of the behavior we have seen as a lot to do with his uncertainty about the length of the commitment on the part of the united states of america. >> senator mccain's counterpart, on the senate armed forces committee, carl levin, announced the confirmation hearing for petraeus to resume in afghanistan. senator levin praised the president's decision to fire general mcchrystal following the staff criticism of the obama administration. this is 20 minutes. >> good afternoon everybody.

i support president obama's decision to accept general mcchrystal's resignation. general mcchrystal has made significant contributions to our nation's security during his long and very distinguished career in uniform. we just simply cannot afford distractions of this kind in the middle of a war. it has been clear in the last year days that there is no disagreement over policy between general mcchrystal and the civilian leadership and the administration. that is important. there has been disagreements over personnel and personality, not a disagreement over policy. for many reasons, general petraeus is a solid choice to take over in afghanistan. he provides the strength and he provides continuity.

he was the architect of the counterinsurgency strategy. he literally wrote the book to set that strategy. general petraeus also agreed with both key parts of the administration parks policy. -- administration's policy. he supported the surge of troops by the end of summer. he supports the policy and that the decision of the commander in chief that there will be reductions in our troop levels in afghanistan beginning in july 2011. he supports this because it is the essential way of getting the afghans to focus on the neede to transition on them the need for their own security. general petraeus made clear last

week before the senate armed services committee his agreement with that policy. he also made it clear and reiterated this to mean this afternoon that one of the conditions based is not whether reductions began in july 2011 but the pace of those reductions. as for the timing of the confirmation hearing, on general petraeus's nomination, and will be no later than next tuesday. we will try to make it as quickly as a possibly can. i spoke to general petraeus about that this afternoon. he felt that would be fine if it could be held no later than next tuesday. ok. let me open and up. >> senators mccain and gramm saying the civilian leadership is a problem. they strongly suggest you repair

the relationship between them and the karzai government. do you think the president should consider replacing the ambassadors? >> i do not think it would be helpful for me to be speculating on that kind of change. i think one change per day is enough. >> what about the criticism about the relationship with the civilian leadership? >> the afghan leadership or ours? i do not think it is dysfunctional, but obviously i think there has been some disagreement which has been pretty well known before the article between general mcchrystal and the ambassador. i think that was pretty well known before then. now there will be a different commander in the field than i do

not know what the relationship is or will be. i hope it will be much stronger. i have to hope the friction that did exist between mcchrystal and eikenberry will dissipate. >> last time there was some real criticism by fellow democrats in the senate. senator clinton, senator henry read both suggested he had been cooking the books. do you think he has overcome that? how broad support is there for general petraeus among the senate democrats? >> i think it is pretty strong. i think he has proven himself in the field. he's a supporter of the president's policy and he is the architect of the counterinsurgency strategy. i have not heard any of those comments you just made for mime

colleagues. obviously these events happen quickly but i have not heard anything like that today. [inaudible] i would give the perhaps two or three reasons. he knows counterinsurgency strategy better than anyone. he wrote the book. the strategy that has been put into effect in afghanistan. he has proven that he can successfully carrying out legislative strategy. it is still basically a counterinsurgency strategy which depends less on force and less on the so-called kinetic force

and winning the support of the people in protecting the people. to do that, not just with security forces but by winning your support through governments as well. he is a proven entity. i think the fact that he reflects a kind of experience and strength is critically important. there cannot be a gap here in the middle of a war. the thing we want the least as far there's been -- is for there to be one general to leave without the next not being ready to take over. >> republicans today were very complimentary of the president of decision in hiring petraeus to take over. the dates certain for the beginning of the withdrawal will undermine the entire effort and that the taliban will wait them out. >> that has been their position

from the beginning. they oppose setting a date. secretary gates and it general petraeus has supported that decision. they feel it is the only way you can get the afghans to focus on the need to take responsibility for the security of their own country. they understand that a leadership level that this is not an open-ended commitment. there is a long-term commitment, by the way, to afghanistan. it is not an open-ended commitment. we will continue year after year to be able to rely on american troops to provide the principal source of their security. and has to change. the afghan army is the most respected national institution in afghanistan. this is not true of the afghan police. it is not true with the afghan government. it is true with the afghan army. there is no reason given the size of that army and the

percentage of that army that is able to take the lead, according to anyone's analysis, that they should not be in the lead in kandahar. i have made that point repeatedly. i have made that point from the beginning. i was not one that favored the surge of troops. i thought we should send in trainers, mentors, and equipment to get the army there right from the beginning. i understand the decision and now we will be supporting the troops and trying to do everything we can to have the policies succeed. the only way we can succeed in afghanistan is if the afghans understand that the principal responsibility for their own security is theirs and not ours. that is why that july 2011 date is critically important. as a matter of fact, after the speech in west point last december, according to general cold well, the head of the training efforts in afghanistan,

there was an awareness when the president set that date to begin reductions. there was an awareness in the afghan leadership that they better get going. there was an increase, indeed a surge, in recruitment in the afghan army according to general caldwell. he said the reason for that is that the afghan leaders understood that this was not open-ended. they got on the phone and they started to work out all the different ways in which they could stimulate recruitment. recruitment jumped dramatically in the afghan army. we have pressed general caldwell. was he saying the men in the countryside and the afghanistan listening to the speech in west point? he said, no, that is not my point.

if the leaders of afghanistan got the point that they better get moving. they did. it had an impact right than in terms of recruitment. is very, very important, first, that we have a long-term commitment to afghanistan and i very much support that. it not be the principal source of their security is the continuing large presence of american church. that is why the july 2011 date is a critical part of this policy. it is critical they have a commander who supports the policy and we do with general petraeus and general mcchrystal by the way whom i asked specifically whether it was his own personal opinion that it was the correct policy, not just that he supported it but that he agreed with it. general petraeus also agrees with this policy. now, the question will be asked, what happens if you change your mind and down the road you think

more troops are needed. then he said, "of course than it would be my obligation to tell the president i changed my mind." that is not aware general petraeus is, where mcchrystal has been, or were secretary gates has been. is it etched in stone? nothing is etched in stone. the president could change his mind. that is the decision of the commander in chief. it is agreed on by the commander in the field. that policy is key, not the personality which we have seen some rough edges in the last few days, but the policy is critically important. yes? >> it sounds like you are saying kind of what republicans are saying and you are agreeing that conditions on the ground could dictate a change in that july 2011 date. >> it is not conditions based.

a decision is made. we will start reductions in july of 2011. can the president change his mind for whatever reason? -- he might decide to go in a different direction. they agree with that decision. this is based on the projection of what the conditions will be in july 2011. it is a decision, not a goal. it is a decision. can anyone change their mind? of course. that does not mean they do not support that policy. it is as clear as you can make a decision. the commander in chief has made a decision. can he change it? yes. could someone disagree? yes. could someone persuaded it is wrong five months from now? yes. that does not mean it is not the

decision. it is an order. ok. i give is critically important everyone understands that. the republicans, most of them, have never agreed with that. they do not accept what i believe which is the reality that the only way we will succeed in afghanistan is it the afghans take responsibility for their own security is the people of afghanistan respect their army and number two, most of them do not want us there. at the group of elders told us, we were sitting in a dusty room in kandahar, i asked them what we wanted us to do. they said we would need to train our army and leave. that is what they want. >> senator mccain said he thought it may be the fastest confirmation hearing in the

armed forces committee history. how long do you think the confirmation hearing will last? when the think he will vote on petraeus? hopefully we will have a quorum, which i expect we will, and we could take a vote theoretically the same day we have a hearing. we do not have to wait for this -- for the nomination papers. there is a precedent on more that you have a hearing before you actually get the papers, but the senate cannot technically confirm without the nomination papers being here. if we are ready to go by, say, next monday and the papers are not here, we will go no later than tuesday. >> the whole senate could not confirm? >> technically they have to have the papers. >> what issues may come up at the hearing? what do you expect from the rest of the members that they want to address? >> the issue that i raised with

general petraeus with the last hearing and the issue which i am very much interested in is to what extent the afghan army and their units will be in the lead in kandahar? that is critically important. there's a greater success if the people in afghanistan see it is their army in control and taking the lead rather than outsiders taking the lead. i have been pressing hard barrels -- pressing our generals on this issue. it is something i have been folk rock refocused on street from the beginning that will be the main point i will be worried about. i will want to hear his statement relative to this strategy involved. when will the troops be going in?

anything he can share with us on plans for kandahar. again, i will try to give specific numbers for how many afgani units will be in the lead in kandahar because the more units in the lead, the greater chance of success to have the with acceptance by the people against the taliban. >> this debate has been thrust upon you, but is it an inopportune time to be reopening debate on afghanistan in the middle of the summer before november? >> it is a democratic body. and as always appropriate to debate policy, i believe. our troops are owed everything. they are owed the best training, equipment, support. they are also owed it the best device that we can possibly

give, the best thoughts that we can possibly have that will lead to success. they are entitled to that and i have no problem with that kind of debate next week as i did not have a problem last week. i think we know that to our troops and they expected. they know the american people support them. this is a huge difference from vietnam. the troops know that the american people regardless of their position on policies support them. the differences on policy will be argued with our policy makers and we will support the troops as long as they continue to feel that and a sense that, i have no problem whatsoever debating over this issue at this time or any time. who has not had a chance? >> do you this is a board of --

do you think it is important for the senate to vote? >> i very much hope we can get this done. i'm confident we will get this done before recess. i have a high degree of ccnfidence that we can get this done in committee the same day we have the hearing. we on the general petraeus. he been just in front of us a week ago. we all know him. i do not think there will be anyone who will say they want to hold up to vote. you want continuity, but secondly we know general petraeus. i cannot believe there is anyone who will take the position that we have not had enough time. we know him so well and we know how essential it is that we have a continuity in the field and they're not be a gap. >> and mcshane wanted to have the hearings this week. any chance that will happen? is the timing due to the all

indicated hearings? >> this does not relate. -- is the timing due to the elena kagan hearings? >> anyone who wants to answer questions in advance given 24-48 hours in advance. i hope i colleagues will not insist on that, but typically we do have advance questions for the record. and is a purely logistical issue. anytime tuesday or before will be fine. i have not had a chance to talk to secretary gates, but i am sure that would be adequate. >> could you describe the general's mood? did you get any sense on how he feels about this assignment and how unexpected this is? >> he feels a very keen sense of duty. the president of the united states asked to take over responsibility. i did not want to probe inside his inner thoughts as to what

complexities or difficulties there might be in accepting this. i am sure that this represents a significant change in his life and i admire him and others respond to that kind of call from the president. i do not think he even had a chance to talk to his wife. he knows she is such a trouper, as well. he knew what the answer would be there. the illusion is respond -- it was just responding. it is just what he needs to do and it is being asked by the commander-in-chief. when he is as comfortable as he is with the policy, he responded very positively. i did the earliest time we could do it would probably be monday,

but we will do in as quickly as we plan -- as quickly as we can. that is fine with general petraeus. thank you. >> finally, defense secretary robert gates and the joint chiefs of staff chairman admiral mollen held a briefing at explaining why they agree with the decision to replace general mcchrystal. they spoke with reporters at the pentagon for 40 minutes. devoted, devoted themselves to clean and fair elections, support this legislation because they understand that the american voter has a rig

to know who is spending all these moneys on these ads and they don't want foreign controlled corporations dumping millions o >> general mcchrystal is one of the finest warriors of this generation who has an extraordinary record of fighting some of this country proxy most lethal enemies in iraq and afghanistan. it was these and other qualities that led me to recommend him for the command last year. like the president, i believe the poor judgment exercised by general mcchrystal with regard to the "rolling stone" profile has made his continuing presence unacceptable. his attitudes are unacceptable. they are inconsistent with the high standards expected of military leaders. as i said on tuesday, our troops

and coalition partners are making extraordinary sacrifices in the fight against al qaeda and its extremist allies. our singular focus must be on succeeding in this fashion without distraction or division. and confident we will be able to achieve this goal and in afghanistan under the control of general david petraeus. the president will nominate him to become the new commander. as i've said before, general petraeus has established a self is one of the great battle captains in american history. his judgment, intellect, and proven record of success in iraq make him the right choice to lead the military coalition in afghanistan. his mission is, of course, an international effort. we continue to value the contributions of our nato allies and partners and support the appointment of general petraeus. no one, be they adversaries, france, or our troops, should

misinterpret this as a slackening of the government's commitment to afghanistan. we remain committed to the mission and to the comprehensive civil-military strategy ordered by the president to achieve our goals. my primary concern over the past few days has been to minimize the impact of these developments on the conduct of the war in afghanistan. the president's decisions reflect a concern. this is the best possible outcome to a -- to an awful situation. general mcchrystal and many of his immediate staff has served in projected this country in combat with great courage, valor, skill, and devotion for many years. there are standing record of service remains in tact for prosperity and is deserving of our lasting recognition before -- and profound gratitude.

finally, general petraeus's willingness with virtually no events notice to accept this new challenge is a testimony to his extraordinary patriotism and character. it would have been easy to remain a central command commander and reston is well deserved record of success in iraq. he once again saluted and accepted this new challenge. three years ago, general petraeus described our efforts in iraq as hard but not impossible. this also describes the challenge facing us in afghanistan and i am personally deeply grateful to him for agreeing to return to the battlefield. chairman. >> thank you, mr. secretary. i, too, fully support the president's decision yesterday to accept general mcchrystal's resignation and nominate general petraeus as the next commander of the u.s. and nato forces in

afghanistan. general mcchrystal is a friend. he is a fine soldier and a good man. he has served his country nobly and with great distinction for more than three decades. much of that last decade was at war. he led men in the places the rest of us could not follow and he has fought in ways the rest of us could not fathom. i was proud one year ago to support him for the afghanistan command. i think it is worth noting his strong leadership in the foundation he has laid for future success there. the cannot excuse his lack of judgment with respect to the article in "rolling stone." the climate he permitted was at best to disrespectful of civilian authority. we do not have that luxury, those of us in uniform. we do not have the right nor should we assume the prerogative to cast doubt on the ability

ormoc the motives of our civilian leaders. -- or mocks the motives of our civilian leaders. we must remain a neutral instrument of the state. we are accountable to and respectful of leaders. a matter which party holds sway or which person is in a given office, i think it is vital for us to remember that if we lose their trust and confidence, for any reason, it is time to go. the jobs we were called upon to do for the nation is too important. the lives of their sworn to protect are too precious. we do not to permit any doubt or uncertainty in that regard. john mcchrystal did the right thing by offering to resign. i think it is critically important for us to remember the mission yet before us. there is still a war to be one. as the secretary indicated, our focus must be on succeeded in this mission, especially if we

complete the fourthhbuildup in afghanistan and continue our efforts in kandahar. i travel tonight to afghanistan and on to pakistan. i will go with military and civilian leaders in both countries and spend time with their church. my message will be clear -- nothing changes about our strategy, nothing changes about the mission, and nothing changes about the resources we are dedicating were the commitments we are making to defeat of qaeda and their extremist allies in the region. we cannot lose the momentum we have together with our partners, alice, and friends who have worked so hard to achieve it. -- we cannot lose the momentum we have together with our partners, allies, and friends. as we go to the nomination process he is prepared to lead from -- leave for kabul. >> each of you has a

responsibility for the town of civilian-military relations. he was your hand-picked choice. was this a failure of management and oversight on your parts? >> i do not feel so. first of all, i would say in the 3.5 years that i have been in this position that i have not felt any tension or issues with respect to my relationship with our uniformed leaders are people in the ranks. this was the first time, i think in this kind of way, we had seen this kind of problem. there were concerns about general mcchrystal's comments in

london last fall. that was discussed with him at the time. i think, from my standpoint, this is an anomaly, not a systemic problem. >> i strongly recommended general mcchrystal to be separate -- to assume this job. certainly from my vantage point, i feel some responsibility here. with that being said, general mcchrystal has been given guidance from here, from centcom, and certainly from the president that has been very clear. i have an expectation that a commander is someone with this kind of responsibility follow that guidance. as it in my statement, i think it has been evident in the last few days that he really

committed a significant error in judgment. the president, rightfully so, relieved him for that. i am, not just now, but part of but i have been focused on since i've been chairman is to make sure there's no question about the neutrality of the military, the political aspect of the military, and the need to keep that in mind in absolutely everything we do. he is a friend. he is an extraordinary officer. he made a severe mistake and i think the actions that were taken were appropriate. >> was mcchrystal able to explain to either of you what he was thinking when he did this? what was his purpose in allowing a reporter that access and

making those kinds of comments in front of them? >> we can address that and i think we have the same answer. that is that he really, in my meeting with him, did not try to explain it. he just acknowledged he had made a terrible decision. >> can you talk about what you think the breakdown was? can you explain why a four-star general would make comments like that? you both know him so well and people keep asking, "what was he thinking"? >> i would limit my comments to what the secretary said. i have spoken to him many times since the article came out. it really is in the category of someone who knows he made a grave mistake. there is no one feels worse and

understand the gravity and the responsibility, the accountability better than stanley mcchrystal. in terms of the details, he knew it was done. the president held accountable and we need to move on. the most important part of this whole issue is the mission. >> can i follow up on an's question and address your role. you have recommended two gentlemen for afghanistan who had to be relieved. can you address your judgment in this manner and whether you think you should reevaluate the way you select officers for command? >> first of all, this is primarily my responsibility

because i made these recommendations for the president. i think the decision i made one year ago, or two years ago to recommend mckinnon -- mckiernon was at a time when the seriousness of the situation in afghanistan was not yet as clear. by last summer, one year ago, it was clear that we were in a very difficult fight. i came to have concerns that we did not have the right strategy going forward and therefore the decision to recommend that general mitterrand -- mckiernon

be relieved. it seemed that general mcchrystal's background in counter-terrorism operations and his familiarity with counterinsurgency doctrine made him a logical choice in terms of the kind of the fight that we are a lean in afghanistan. personally, i believe that had it not been for this article and the serious lapse in judgment, general mcchrystal would still be there executing the strategy and the campaign plan, the strategy the president decided on and the campaign plan to implement this. i think this unfortunate circumstance this week as

virtually nothing to do with the conduct of the campaign in afghanistan on the part of general mcchrystal but rather exactly the reasons that the president articulated and that we both articulated today. >> one of the most difficult things i do, and i am fairly comfortable including the secretary in this, is picking people. it is not anything we take lightly. we spend an extraordinary amount of time on it. it is not by any means our personal opinion. obviously i knew stanley mcchrystal very well because he worked for me here. i had known him in combat in iraq. i knew his background and his focus. that is the reason i recommended him strongly. certainly, as i said earlier, i

have responsibility in that regard as well. there is also part of this that once elected, when put in a position, there is an expectation in terms of execution along the times and it every area of your responsibility. i think general mcchrystal certainly understood that and understand that. again, it is back to a significant error in judgment. as far as i'm concerned it was the appropriate outcome. >> for both of you, what does this say about the strength of the general officer corps now that you could only turn to general petraeus and essentially demote him because he was the only one really capable of doing this job? you have two generals now, mcchrystal and petraeus, who have been out in the field for years continuously for more than anyone else.

are they being kept out there too long? do you need to strengthen your bench? in terms of general petraeus, does he have any flexibility to make any changes with the strategy on the ground? >> first of all, i would add general odierno to those who have served a long time. i go back to my opening statement in terms of why general mcchrystal -- why general petraeus was asked to do this. my greatest concern was that somebody who came new to this fight in a leadership role he did not have a personal relationship with key afghan

figures, not just karzai but the minister of defense, the head of their military, and so on who did not have the kind of relationships with the pakistan leadership, someone who did not have familiarity with the campaign plan and the operations going on in afghanistan, who did not know the brigade commanders and the generals who are in charge of training and so on. someone who did not have those assets, i worried it would take months to get them up to speed. of course there are other generals and it could have chosen and we talked about other generals, but my concern was that we not lose time and we not lose focus during a transitional period. it was evident there was only one officer who was in the position to move in with hardly a missed a beat and take on this

campaign. the president has established the strategy. from my perspective, general petraeus will have the flexibility to look at the campaign plan, the approach, and all manner of things. >> the only thing i would add is bench strength is something that a lot of attention to. when you look at the number of general officers who have now commanded in combat over the course of the last several years, it is much deeper and stronger than it was. i think it has a very positive strength in the future. >> you both know that some troops in afghanistan are concerned with the rules of engagement, feel they are out

there with one hand tied behind their back given the rules of engagement on the ground and in the air. are you satisfied that those rules should stay in place? should petraeus have the flexibility to change them? >> any new commander, petraeus included, will go in, assess his command, and what it will take to succeed in the mission. he has the flexibility to make changes that he feels are necessary. my expectation is that is what he will be widely and make adjustments. specifically he is very aware of the issues. he is very aware of the tactical directive he was involved in approving it. now he will be on the ground to see how it is being executed and make decisions or make changes that he feel would be appropriate.

that does not necessarily bring about changes. i just do not know. >> general petraeus is credited with a successful search operation in iraq. does the strategy in iraq translate at all to the operation in afghanistan? for you, admiral, you said the change in leadership signaled no change in strategy, but given the fact that the operations already under way have been bogged down and the offensive in qana are has been put off, should there be a change in strategy? -- the offensive in kandahar has been put off. >> strategy has not changed in any way, nor has policy. we clearly are at an enormously difficult time in the execution of the strategy. at the same time and, one for

the forces approved are not there yet. we have made some progress and it has not been unopposed. we recognize that. there are things going on there that were not going on there chervil years ago. local leaders are coming out. that does not mean they are not being intimidated, but this is classic counterinsurgency. we have not tough the operation in kandahar. those shipping of there, it is an enormous the complex operation. we understand that. we need to make sure we get the forces there in which a significant part of his last 10,000 zero be included in that. you make adjustments. i have felt for many months it would be the end of the year before we really knew where we

were in kandahar. there is work going on now to execute that operation that involves not just the security side in the military side, but it also has the government's peace. we're putting that in place. i do not to underestimate or understate the challenge. >> i would say this. i do not believe we are bogged down. i believe we are making some progress. it is slower and harder than we anticipated. for all of the reasons, i think we are moving forward. the kandahar campaign has been under way for several weeks. what general mcchrystal was talking about when he mentioned it delay was to take more time to set the political framework

around kandahar before proceeding. i spent probably 35 minutes along with the president tuesday afternoon discussing the situation with general mcchrystal. one of the central themes there was in that conversation when i described in my opening statement that my concern that however we can -- however we perceive that we minimize the impact of any change on the conduct of the war. i will say it is the president's idea. he first raised petraeus's name. immediately, to me, it answered concerns that i had. the admiral and i talked about it further tuesday night. we spoke more about it yesterday

morning. i think we are heading in the right direction. like the chairman, i would not underestimate the challenge in front of us. i use his phrase, "hard but not impossible." the key was that we not lose our focus and the further distracted for a period of months krahn and that is why the selection of general petraeus was so important in my view. >> is there an inherent contradiction between no changes at all and bringing in a commander with the right to make changes? what message does this send to the caliban -- taliban about a major change in the command? >> they will be making a very serious mistake if they draw that conclusion from this.

what we have had is a decision that challenged the civilian leadership of the military and the president's decision to address that. we have followed it literally within hours with the selection of a successor commander. the overall strategy stays the same. obviously a new commander will look to see if there are tactical things and approaches that he may want to adjust. that does not change the strategy. the president was very clear about that yesterday. >> when you first read the piece, and you immediately conclude that it was an subordination the required relieving of a commander announced most of these quotes are from aids. there's maybe the one "about -- the one quote about eikenberry.

what about this was something general mcchrystal did that was so bad to warren being relieved from office stocks -- to warrant being relieved from office? >> i honestly, when i first read it i was nearly sick. it made me sick literally and figuratively. i was stunned. secondly, general mcchrystal is responsible for his people. he has every bit as much responsibility for what was in that and what his people said as the individuals who said it. the accountability that goes along with the that, general mcchrystal understands that completely and it is reflected by the fact that he offered his resignation. the essence of this, it was clear that a challenged and in

its totality and challenges civilian control which is a fundamental principle for us that is not challenge will. that is why the action was taken. crus are you worried about the fallout from the mcchrystal controversy that military-media relations which is already kind of tenuous to begin with will deteriorated? officers will not want to engage. what do you tell the kind of mindset about the need to engage the press? is depressed to blame? >> not at all in my view. general mcchrystal has responsibility for this. to lead its impact the

relationship i have with the press would be a mistake. i have communicated the message ever since i got to this job to both civilian and military leaders that the press is not the enemy. when there is a story that is critical, the first thing is to go out and find if it is true. if it is, do something. it is not coming gather the data to show is not true. do not get into a defensive crouch. i hope the people will not do that. i think people clearly need to make smart decisions about how they engaged the circumstances. there is, in my view, and need for greater discipline. someone giving an interview in

europe may not understand something they are saying will have an impact in asia. we need to be a little smarter how we approach this. i would say those are improvements that are needed on our part. >> he said that this episode had virtually nothing to do with strategy. some people have suggested the tension that came out from this episode may have something to do with the fact that the generals on the ground feel enormous pressure to show progress quickly. we talk about the july 2011 date for the beginning of the withdrawal. carriages urgency -- counter insurgency is long term. there is some inherent tension in the strategy itself. >> the position i've taken all

along is that we want to make sure that we in fact have the right strategy. and also requires giving the effort enough time to demonstrate whether or not it is working. we are not asking for victory by july 2011. we are not asking that afghanistan be stabilized 13 months from now. what we are asking is that by december we have enough evidence to demonstrate, if you will, the proof of concept, that the approach we're taking is trying progress and we're headed in the right direction. i think the expectations on the civilian side are unrealistic. i will let the chairman speak to this, but the reality is that every step of the way, the military was deeply involved in

the development of the president's strategy. >> completely. from the standpoint of july 2011, the need to make progress by december and in that review look at the strategy and really evaluate -- and really validate it is the right strategy. if not, from the military perspective, make recommendations that it might change. we are not there. we are not to july 2010 yet. there is a lot to do between now and the end of this year. to get to a point where we start to return some of the surge troops based on conditions on the ground, numbers, places we

are not even close to understanding that at this point. it is too early. getting there using the strategy, with everything we understand right now, is still the right decision. >> mindful of the chain of command, my boss is going to have a press conference with president medvedev and about 10 minutes. we have to dance out of here. . mr. chairman, i find it instructihat one of the members on the other side of the aisle, when she got down here to talk about the constitution, said, i have this version of the constitution. fars i know, there's one version of the constitution. except youpen to be on

>> first of all, those were written better than six months ago, nearly seven months ago. a lot of water has gone under the bridge since that time. with respect to the civilian side, that is out of our lane here. but i would tell you that my view all along is that the opportunity for a political solution in afghanistan for reconciliation will only come when the momentum from the taliban has been reversed, and they see that the chances of there been successful are diminishing day by day. so, i think that in that context, we are all cognizant of the importance of reintegration and reconciliation as part of the end of this process. my view is the taliban need to

suffer more reverses before that can happen. last question? ducking about timons, general david petraeus says he has serious concerns about the mines, as many do. do you question his commitment about that? when he says that we need more troops? -- about the will both take a crack addict -- timelines. --we will both take a crack at it. david petraeus agrees with the strategy, and with the timeline for the drawdown in 2011. when he gets on the ground, he will dassess the situation for

himself, and at some time make recommendations for the president. that is what in the military commander should do. the president will welcome those recommendations, but at the end of the day the president will decide whether changes are to be made in the strategy, but i would tell you as a going in the proposition, we are all on board. not because we disagree on legislation, because we do that often. but the fact of the matter is, we are so cavalierly dealing with the first amendment, we're so cavalierly dealing with free speech, we're so cavalierly dealing with essential that is the president's decision. and that is everyone's, as far as we're concerned. >> today, stephen harper holds a news conference at the g-20

summit in canada. the leaders of france, germany, china, india, the 19 them, and the u.s., among others are attending. it is focusing on the financial crisis and ways to cut the high debt levels of countries. -pwatch it live this afternoon t 5:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. after that, live coverage of president obama's news conference as he leaves the summit in canada. you can see his remarks beginning today at 6:00 p.m. eastern. >> this is a change in the personnel, but not in policy. general david petraeus participated in the review last fall, and helped and supported to design a strategy in place. >> learn more about the

president's choice to have david petraeus said the troops in afghanistan. watch the generals appearances at hearings in briefings on line, any time at the video library of c-span. >> tonight on "book tv," these authors. this author writes about spending time in a dark cell. your questions live on the show. the first drug czar is the author of more than 20 books for adults into them. find the whole schedule on the website. join us on twitter. >> last week congress sent a midget to the president imposing

new sanctions on tehran. over the next couple of hours we will show you debate on the bill, starting in the senate, and in about one hour, debate on the house floor. >> three decades ago when i was serving in the other body with a full head of black hair, going back in time, the house international relations committee collaborated with the senate banking committee to produce will recall landmark legislation. it was called the international emergency economic powers act, in 1977, which i will refer to by the acronym. its proper name was that. the five letters represent the words in that title. to this day, iefeefa, asks for

strong sanctions against any person or country that poses a. an unusual or extraordinary" threat. they have effectively been forced to trade embargoes against in this case iran, imports and exports. . ieefa the of 47 of the u.s. businesses from entering iran, years ago it became abundantly clear that more would be needed to be done, not only in the case of beer ron, but in other cases as well. that is why in 1996 the several committees once again collaborated to develop new sanctions of non-u.s. businesses investing in iran's energy sector. all in gas was providing the regime with key sources of revenue. the resulting iran, called the

iran-libya sanctions act, later just the iran-sanctions act, because libya comply with the concerns we had at the time, and as a result of stepping ford and disarming themselves of nuclear weapons, we were able to drop libya from the title of the bill. as i just heard senator bennett say, and colleagues were joined -- this is no great joy in the crafting this bill. we're doing so out of defense of our nation, and the threat being posed by the government of iran, but would help it would understand the seriousness of this endeavor. the club of neighbor of efforts in the national income and helps the would see the light as libya did in leadership -- in hopes, and that it would take the proper steps removed the threat they are currently opposing. despite a clear mandate, they have failed to comply with the

legislation adopted from 1996. despite billions of dollars in oil and gas investments, they have avoided complying with the loss for 1996. that has been the subject of considerable discourse within the banking committee over the last number of years. first, when the iran sections act mandates the president shall "impose two of the menu of penalties on foreign companies" and only says the president should investigate credible evidence and should make determinations. that they have, and in fact engaged in sentience. thus, administrations since 1996 have simply avoided launch investigations, and thus making those determinations.

executive-branch officials of both parties have conceded that they did not even want to waive sanctions. sanctionsanctions. they have contended that is an admission after foreign company'company's guilt. if we impose a sanction and then relieve them of u.s. penalties we're impinging on the companies' reputations and implying that the companies outside of the united states' jurisdiction are nonetheless in violation of our laws. such extraterritorial provocation might be grounds for retribution either through recy procal actions or trade barriers. thus, administrations, both democrats and republicans have, avoided even launching these investigations called for in 1996 or of course making any determinations so as not to resort to sanction waivers. administrations have certainly used the threat of imposing these sanctions to some effect, but as multiple reports by the

congressional research service and the government accountability office have indicated, investments in iran's energy sector have continued and the regime in iran has benefited from those revenues. madam president, this measure that i'm today managing hoing within with -- today managing along with owes, marks a long chapter in confronting the iranian threat. far more importantly, the conference report which we'll be voting on later this afternoon, we're considering makes profound changes to the law which if implemented correctly will bring about strong precedent to bear on tehran in order to battle its proliferation of mass destruction, support international terrorism and gross human rights abuses. the act says, in no uncertain terms, madam president, that presidents shall be required that they have established that credible evidence of a firm

engaging in activity exists to launch investigations, make determinations, and ultimately impose sanctions on those companies investing in iran's energy sector. moreover, the conference report imposes new sanctions on companies providing refined petroleum products or helping to build iran's domestic refineries. in response to tehran's terrible abuse of its own people, i heard my colleague, senator lieberman, go on at some length about this and he's absolutely correct, and thus a major part of this report focuses on the iranian people and what they are being subjected to on an hourly basis by a government which the majority of people in that country abhor. so in the wake of iran's fraudulent election, the conference report imposes visas, property, and financial sanctions on iranians, serious

in human rights abuses against the iranian people or on or after the date of iran's election. the conference report and the act imposes a government security ban on foreign companies doing energy business in iran or helping the iranian government monitor and jam communications among its people. no longer will the u.s. taxpayers' money be used to support corporate sponsors. it codified trade restrictions in law and ends the few iranian imports allowed into the united states. similarly, madam president, the legislation also allows states and local governments and private investors to exercise their own rights to divest from companies investing in irng's energy sector -- in iran's energy sec term of the act explicitly states the sense of congress that the united states should support the decisions of state and local governments to divest from these firms and

clearly authorizes divestment decisions made consistent with the standards of the act. elsewhere, madam president, in the act and the conference report, the legislation, is a provision cracking down on the international black market weapons trade which rogue countries such as north korea and iran have long exploited. under this act, the united states will identify countries that are allowing sensitive u.s. technology that can be used for weapons of mass destruction or terrorism to be transshipped into iran, and it will force these countries to cooperate in establishing appropriate customs, intelligence gathering, and trade restrictions. if they refuse to cooperate with the united states, the act requires the imposition of very severe export restrictions on those countries. the act establishes a very strong, new banking section to be undertaken by the under secretary of the treasury for terrorism and financial

intelligence, stewart levy and its colleagues. stewart levy should be highly commended for the remarkable work he has done over the years. this is an official in the treasury department who is so knowledgeable on this subject matter and was invaluable in helping us craft in legislation, and i want to especially mention him and thank him for his contribution. this new section takes aim squarely at iran's powerful revolutionary guard corps, the irg crnchts as it is noang -- irgc, as it is known, and attempts to choke it off from an increasingly important source of power in international financial investment. section 104 of the act has two principal parts, madam president. first, t -- the treasury will direct american banks to prohibit or impose strict conditions on correspondent or payable through account of any foreign financial institution working with key iranian entities.

for example, foreign banks conducting substantial business with the irgc, its front companies or affiliates, will be cut off from its american accounts. hypothetically then, if an agent or latin american bank were to provide services to an irgc-owned construction company, for instance, building a major gas pipeline, that bank would be shut off from u.s. correspondent banking. in addition, foreign bank servicing, the various iranian banks blacklisted by the treasury department and the u.n. security council will also be targeted under this section. and section 104 directs the treasury to restrict correspondent banking of foreign banks directly involved in iran's weapons of mass destruction proliferation and terrorist financing, as well as money laundering towards those aims. in the end, mr. president, the act presents foreign banks doing business with blacklisted

iranian entities a very stark choice: cease your activities or be denied critical access to america's financial system. the second part of section 104, mr. president, would hold u.s. banks accountable for actions by their foreign subsidiaries. under ieepa which i described earlier, u.s. companies have long been banned from doing business with iran. now under this act, this conference repprt, foreign entities owned or controlled by u.s. banks will also be prohibited from doing business with the irgc. if their foreign subsidiaries continue to do so, the u.s. parent companies will be subjected to severe penalties, civil fines amount to go twice the value of the transaction or or $250,000 and criminal fines if there is proven willful intent up to $1 million or 20 years in jail. to be sure, we have included

waivers in the act. we believe that the president of the united states must have flexibility in executing foreign policy. we all agree with that. as i have mentioned before, foreign nations consider i.s.a. waivers to have extra territorial impact on companies in their jurisdiction. for the most part, however, waivers of the sanctions in this act may only be exercised if they are deemed necessary to the national interest or in the case of the energy investment and refined petroleum sanctions if the companies are from nations cooperating in multilateral efforts against iran. efforts -- reports, rather, to congress are to be detailed about the particular investments or transactions considered sanctionable, as well as why these waivers are invoked. only in the case of refined petroleum sanctions do we allow for some additional flexibility. in that case, the president of the united states may delay

making determinations about the sanctionability of specific transactions every six months. if the president can demonstrate progressively greater reductions in refined petroleum transactions in iran. mr. president, these are very tough unilateral measures. congress does not expect them to effect change in a vacuum. unilateral sanctions are but one tool of stagecraft available to american president's to effect such change. in my view, they are much less likely to be effective than tough multilateral sanctions. we recognize acting alone we may achieve some results. acting together, we have the opportunity to truly bring about the desired change we all see. these multilateral sangs must be exercised -- as part of our sanctions, unilateral sanctions must be exercised as a part of a comprehensive, coordinated, diplomatic and political effort conducted in cooperation with our allies and designed to

achieve the real results that we all seek. mr. president, i believe that our president, president obama, has been both thoughtful and deliberate in his approach to pressuring iran to change its conduct, having just this month achieved u.n. security council approval of resolution 1929 and european union endorsement of additional energy and financial measures on iraq. the president of the united states is clearly setting the stage for what we all hope are strong, targeted and effective multilateral and multilayered pressure on tehran. these measures are not ends but merely a means to an end. first and foremost, to suspend iran's illicit nuclear program to protect israel and our other friends and allies, to combat tehran's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and express support for human rights in their country. i see my colleague from arizona.

i believe it was his suggestion that the human rights effort be a part of this revolution. i thank my colleague from arizona insisting that this sanction's proposal includes very strong language and a message to the iranian people. this is not about them. this is about their government. it's very important, i think, in all of us with our remarks here today to make it clear that we are tremendously sympathetic to what they are going through, and therefore part of our proposal here has strong language that allows us to address or at least to address the issue -- try to address the issue of human rights abuses in tehran. again, mr. president, i appreciate all the hard work. i've mentioned the conferees earlier. my colleague from connecticut, senator lieberman, senator menendez, senator kerry, senator shelby, bennett and lugar from the senate perspective who are part of drafting this bill along with our house conferees led by howard berman of california. i want to extend a special thank you to all of them for their leadership and also senator

reid, the majority leader, senator mcconnell. none of this ever happens without the majority leader of the senate taking a leadership role and insisting that this matter move forward, that it be addressed before we break for the july fourth recess period coming up next week, and in the midst of all the other things we're involved in -- as my colleagues know, we have been involved in a very lengthy conference regarding financial reform, but i'm delighted to take some time out from that effort to address this particular proposal and urge our colleagues to be supportive of this proposal. i also want to support what i mentioned earlier, president obama's approach and appreciate his team's work in helping us approve this important legislation. i mentioned earlier our secretary of state and former colleague, we had extensive meetings with her. national security advisor general jones. deputy secretary of state steinberg, under secretary of the state levy as i mentioned, tremendous work he has done,

stewart levy, assistant secretary of state berman, assistant secretary of state cohen. all of these people and many others along with our staffs -- and i'm particularly grateful to my staff, mr. president, for the work that they have done here led by colin mcinnis in my office did a remarkable job of pulling this together to see to it that we work with our counterparts and many others of my staff as well i should be mentioned. neil from my office here of course deserves great credit as well for his work. it has been a great pleasure to work with rick kessler, shannon winters, allen mikulski, ranking member richard shelby along with his talented counsel john o'hara, margaret roth warren, a brilliant detail-oriented legislative counsel who spent weeks on end here working with my staff and us to make this

hopefully the most comprehensive and effective sanctions legislation that we can -- that we can include. i believe i have hopefully mentioned all of the appropriate members of the staff. if i have left anyone out, i will ask permission to revise these comments to include others. there is always the danger of leaving someone out,, and i dont want to do that. they have worked very, very hard. again, these are the unknown people that we don't often get to recognize, but they spent countless hours on this, mr. president, to pull this most comprehensive sanctions conference report together, and we're very, very grateful to all of them and the tremendous work they do every single day. so with that, mr. president, i know my colleague from maryland wishes to be heard, so i will yield the floor. ms. mikulski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i rise to support the passage of the statement on the comprehensive iran sanctions conference report. mr. president, you know me, i'm

a plain talker and a straight talker, so i'm not going to use the flowery language of diplomacy or senatespeak on a lot of the language here. i'm just going to say this in plain english. today, if you want to improve the safety and security of the united states of america, you want to pass this bill. if you want to make sure we insure the -- ensure the safety and security of our allies in the middle east, you want to pass this bill. if you really want to identify who are the enemy -- who is one of the major eeemies of the united states and our allies, it is iran. if one looks at the world, peace in the middle east lies not through jerusalem but lies through tehran. so what does tehran do? tehran funds hamas, which is causing untold heartbreak and bloodshed in the -- in gaza.

number two, it funds hezbollah, funding untold terrorism activity in -- in -- north of israel, in lebanon, and number three, it's also working to develop nuclear weapons. we don't want iran to have nuclear weapons. and what has iran been doing while we have been -- over the last several years? they have had a record of denial and deception in developing nuclear weapons, in processing weapons grade uranium. they have also been developing the method for delivering nuclear weapons, the so-called shahab-3 ballistic missile. that's capable of striking

israel, u.s. troops in zack and afghanistan, and even parts of -- in iraq and afghanistan, and even parts of europe. we don't want iran to continue to develop nuclear weapons. now, we have been down this road before and people say right, let's stop them. let's go to the u.n. hoohah for the u.n. well, we've done hoohah for the u.n. we have had over -- we have had several sanctions. we have had one most recently passed that our administration worked very hard on and we thank our allies for that. but the u.n. sanctions, although a good first step, are quite tepid and they're tepid because there are other members of the security council who want to keep doing that business, that business with iran. well, i think iran -- you might want to do business with iran, but iran has no business developing nuclear weapons.

so the united states therefore has to pass these unilateral sangs. that's why i support them. it's the -- it's the united states, the indispensable nation that can come up with the muscle to be able to do this. this is a very serious matter. if iran continues to develop these weapons, it's going to destabilize the world. first of all, it emboldens the regime that's currently in power. that regime is no friend to peace, it is no friend to stability, it is no friend to us or our allies. second, a nuclear iran would destabilize pro-western arab states. those states with strong ties to the united states are really apprehensive about iran continuing to develop nuclear weapons capability. also, nuclear arms and missiles could pose a major threat to the

united states. the nuclear iran would spur in the region a nuclear arms race and it would just end a lot of our antiproliferation efforts. so these sanctions are absolutely, absolutely important. i think they are very creative, and i think they go right to the heart of the iranian leadership's pocketbook. i think one of the most creative aspects of this is the sanctions on iran's petroleum industry. you know, iran has oil wells but it doesn't have a major refining capacity. it imports over 40% of its gasoline. so the legislation in this bill that really targets refined petroleum products i believe could have a crippling effect. with the importation of 40%

gasoline, the need for them toffee norm us subsidies to keep gasoline low with their population, it will be very effective. it also targets iran's banking system, and essentially it says it requires foreign financial institutions to choose between doing business with iran or doing business with u.s. banks. make your choice. if you think the future lies with doing business with iran, that's one view, but if you see your future doing business with u.s. banks, i think the path is clear and they will choose the safety and security of the -- and reliability of doing business in the united states. i also like the fact that it strengthens the prohibitions on activities on the nuclear program. but what was also talked about -- and i thank my colleague from arizona for also insisting on this -- is the

support for human rights in iran. we all remember that awful day when this wonderful, heroic young woman who wanted to engage in the civic activities in her own country, nadia, was gunned down in her own country by her own people. recently i watched a very poignant documentary about nadia. what a wonderful group of young people in that country. wow, wouldn't we like to see them flourish? wouldn't we like to see a modern iran joining the community of nations promoting peace, stability, increased literacy and opportunity in that country? i'm for those human rights people. i not only want to mourn nadia as a symbol but i think the way you honor nadia is to back the people who are like her in iran. and i really do support this

human rights activity by imposing travel restrictions and financial penalties on those who crack down on human rights on iran. some countries on the security council are, as i said, more concerned about their relationships with iran for investment purposes. we have to start thinking about investing in the safety and stability of the world. i urge the passage of this comprehensive iran sanctions act and i say that this is a good, important step. but then we also who vote for it -- and we're going to do it on a bipartisan basis, because when we do it, we govern the best but we also have to stand ready to really have a very muscular and aggressive approach to the enforcement of these sanctions. and i look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to minimize the opportunity for iran to continue to get its nuclear weapons, to

practice its denial and deception, to promote a free and open iran, stand with the dissidents, promote human rights and let's look for a more modern iran in the 21st century. they have a great history. i want them to have a great future and join the community of nations in a nonproliferation environment and work for the good of us all. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president, i'd like to congratulate the senator from maryland for her good remarks and for her continued advocacy for human rights throughout the world. and i rise also to speak in behalf of the legislation before us, the iran sanctions accountability and divestment act. it's been a long time in the works and a lot of members and staff have put a tremendous amount of work into it, and i appreciate that commitment. this is an important piece of

legislation. it comes at a critically important time. despite a year and a half of engagement, the iranian government continues to respond to the president's outstretched hand with an unclenched fist. the regime continues to support terrorism and violent islamist extremist groups that are destabilizing governments and societies in the region. it continues to race towards a nuclear weapons capability in full violation of its international agreements and contrary to the repeated demands of the community of civilized nations. and beyond all of this, the iranian regime now more than ever continues to brutalize and oppress its own people, denying them their most basic human rights. this bill represents the most powerful sanctions ever imposed by the congress on the government of iran. it will target the industries,

especially iran's energy sector, that help to sustain the regim regime's quest for nuclear weapons. because of this legislation, we will be posing a choice to companies around the world: do you want to do business with iran or do you want to do business with the united states? we don't think that's much of a choice but we will force companies to make it. they can't have it both ways. i didn't wish to confine our sanctions efforts tom those persons in iran who threaten our security and that of our allies. i also want to bring the full force of america's economic power to bear against those in iran who threaten that country's peaceful human rights and democracy advocates. that's why earlier this year my good friend, senator joe lieberman, and i joined with a broad bipartisan words of senators to cosponsor

legislation to create a new regime of targeted sanctions against human rights abusers in iran. the provisions of our legislation have been included in this comprehensive sanctions legislation and i'd like to thank the conferees and the leaders of both parties for agreeing to include it. our part of this comprehensive sanctions bill has two parts. first, it will require the president to compile a list, a public list, of individuals in iran who, starting with it is fraudulent presidential -- with the fraudulent presidential election last june, are responsible for or are complicit in human rights violations against iranian citizens and their families no matter where in the world those abuses occur. it doesn't matter whether these individuals are officials in the iranian government or serving as their agents in paramilitary groups and other bands of thugs. we will find and uncover them

all. i want to stress, this will be a public list posted for all the world to see on the web sites of the state department and treasury department. we will shine a light on iran's human rights abusers, we will publish their names and their faces, and we will make them famous for their crimes. second, this bill will then ban these iranian human rights abusers from receiving visas and impose on them the full battery of sanctions under the international emergency economic powers act. that means freezing any assets and blocking any property they hold under u.s. jurisdiction and ending all of their financial transactions with u.s. banks and other entities. these provisions mark the first time that the united states government has ever imposed punitive measures against

persons in iran because of their human rights violations. in short, under this legislation, iranian human rights abusers will be completely cut off from the global reach of the u.s. financial system and that will send a powerful system to every country, company, and bank in the world that they should think twice about doing business with the oppressors of the iranian people. it also sends an unequivocal and powerful message to the people in iran who are demonstrating and working peacefully for their human rights, that we share their interests and their struggle. we resident simply focused on the regime's nuclear program, although that remains a key concern, nor are we solely focused on the regime's support for terrorism, though that, too, remains a high priority, we're also making the human rights of iran's people an equal priority of our government.

now more than ever, it is urgent and essential that we support the peaceful aspirations of the iranian people. one year ago, the conventional wisdom in the west held that the prospect for political evolution in iran was dim and distant. but as it often is, that conventional wisdom was utterly wrong. after the iranian people were denied their right to a free and fair election, the world watched in awe as a sea of protesters -- by some estimates as many as 3 million iranians -- swelled into streets all around the country. ordinary iranians realized that they could not remain neutral in the struggle for human rights in their country and they became part of it. as a result, history was made before our very eyes. one year ago, democratic change in iran looked rather

improbable. just one week later, it looked virtually inevitable. unfortunately, the ensuing crackdown has been and continues to be as swift as it is brutal. peaceful protesters have been attacked in the streets by masked agents of the iranian regime then dragged away to the ddrkest corners of cruelty. many have been raped and worse. many of iran's best and brightest have been forced to flee in fear from the land they love and to seek asigh flum places like iraq -- asylum in places like iraq and turkey, where they remain today as refugees. we've all read the desperate lees of terrorize -- desperate pleas of terrorized iranians as they shout for help trough whatever cracks they continue to try to make in iran's government-censored internet. and, of course, on june 20 of last year, the entire world watched as a young woman named

nadia bled to death in the streets of tehran and on that day, i believe we witnessed the beginning of the end of this offensive ghoft ira government . the past year's events have demonstrated the true character of iran's people: proud, talented, the stewards of a great culture, eager to engage with the world and relentless in their quest for justice. a nation that should be a natural ally of the united states. the past year's events have also highlighted the true character of the iranian regime: a violent and militarized tyranny, self-serving and unconcerned for the welfare of iran's people, with no shred of legitimacy left to justify its rule. any more, we cannot separate the behavior of iran's government from its character.

after all, is it any wonder that a regime that has no regard whatsoever for the rights, the dignity, the very lives of its own people would also show the same blatant disregard for its own international agreements for the sovereignty and security of its neighbors, and for the responsibilities of all civilized nations? and is it any wonder that this iranian regime has been and will always be you be uncompromising in its pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability. not just because it would be a source of power in the world but, perhaps more importantly, because it would be a source of safety and survival for its corrupt, unjust system at home. my friends, i believe that when we consider the many threats and crimes of iran's government, we are led to one inescapable conclusion: it is the character

of this regime -- iranian regime, not just its behavior, that is the deeper threat to peace and freedom in our world and in iran. furthermore, i believe that there will only be a change in the iranian regime itself, a peaceful change, chosen by and led by the people of iran that could finally produce the changes we seek in iran's policies. even now, though we hear it said again that iran's democratic opposition has been beaten into submission -- and i would not deny that a regime like this one, which knows no limits to its routelessness -- ruthlessness, will achieve many of its goals for now -- but when iran's rulers are too afraid of their own people to tolerate even routine public demonstrations on regime holidays, as they recently have been, that's not a government that's succeeding.

it's a cabal of criminals who understand that their morally bankrupt regime is now on the wrong side of iranian history. the question we must answer is: what side of iranian history are we on? we must also ask ourselves another question: is the goal of our sanctions and those of our friends and allies to persuade iran's rulers to finally sit down and negotiate in god fait d faith to stop pursuing nuclear weapons, supporting terrorism and abusing their own people? i truly hope this is possible but that assumption seems totally at odds with the character of this iranian regime. for that reason, i would suggest a different goal, to mobilize our friends and allies and like-minded countries, both in the public's fear and the private sector -- both in the

public sphere and the private sector, to challenge the legitimacy of this iranian regime and to support iran's people in changing the character of their government peacefully, politically on their own terms and in their own ways. of course the united states should never provide its support where it is unrequested and unwanted, but when a young iranian or demonstrators write their banners of protest in english, when they chant 'obama, obama, are you with us or are you with them?" that's a pretty good indication that we can do more and should do more to support their just cause. we need to stand up for the iranian people. we need to make their goals our goals. their interests our interests, their work our work. we need a grand national

undertaking to broadcast information freely into iran and to help iranians access the tools to evade their government censorship of the internet. we need to we need to -- we need to name and change and even penalize any company that sells iran's government the tools it uses to oppress its people and block their access to information. we need to let the political prisoners in iran's gruesome gulags know that they are not alone. that the names of their cases are known to us, that we will hold their torturers and tormentors accountable for their crimes. finally, we need the administration to use the new authorities that this bill creates to impose crippling sanctions on iranian human rights abusers, to go after their assets, their ability to

travel, and their access to the international financial system. my friends, if there were ever any doubt, the binch of the green movement over -- the birth of the green movement over the past year should convince us that iran will have a democratic future. that future may be delayed for a while, but it will not be denied. and now is the time for the united states to position ourselves squarely on the right side of iranian history. the green movement lives on. its struggle endures, and i am confident that eventually -- maybe not tomorrow or next year or even the year after that -- but eventually iranians will achieve the democratic changes they seek for their country. the iranian regime may appear intimidating now, but it is rotting inside. it has only brute force and fear to sustain it, and iranians

won't be afraid forever. mr. president, i'm pleased that we've finally finished this important piece of legislation. i'll pleased it contains tough, targeted human rights sanctions, and i urge my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to pass this bill. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president, let me first ask unanimous consent that the privileges of the floor be granted to the following member of my staff: heidi bronky fulton, during the pendency of the conference report to accompany the iran refined petroleum sanctions act and for each dhai measure is pendinpendingpending. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: thank you, mr. president. i rise today in suppor strong st of this conference report for rebust sanctions against iran. i was proud to serve with, among

other of my colleagues, senator dodd on the conference committee, and i want to recognize the hard work he has done to create a strong sanctions bill. these sanctions, i believe, will deter the threat iran poses to u.s. national security because of its suspected nuclear weapons program, a country that has huge oil reserves, clearly doesn't need nuclear power for nuclear energy. and, therefore, between its stated goals and its actions, creates, i believe, a threat to the national security of the united states. i've been eager for today's vote, and during the process of the conference committee have advocated for the strongest sanctions possible. i believe deeply that we must apply maximum pressure to the

iranian regime, that it is a growing threat to the region, the world, and a threat to its own people. in my view, tightening the screws on the iranian regime generally advances the cause of stability and peace in the middle east, as well as our own national security. these sanctions are an essential means to that end. now, i've seen what the united nations has done -- and i'm glad we got some multilateral response, but in my response they're not strong enough. and therefore, i think it's essential that we continue to lead many of our allies who will be more rebust in their actions -- robust in their actions if we take this legislation and pass it today. in my view, it's essential that we freeze the assets of iranian officials who have supported terrorism, and with that legislation, we will do that. -- and with this legislation, we

will do that. that we impose sanctions against companies that engauge in oil-related business with the iranian regime and with that legislation we will do that. that we monitor iran's usage of energy-related resources other than refined petroleum, especially ethanol, to ensure iran is not allowed to replace its current petroleum needs with ethanol, which would in essence severely undercut the intent behind these sanctions. so i'm glad that we have pushed for language that will follow that. we need the ban on trade with iran to be strong, to be significant, and to be airtight. we need to press the iranian government to respect its citizens' human rights and freedoms, to identify iranian officials responsible for violating those rights, and impose financial penalties and travel restrictions on these human rights abusers. we need to prohibit the u.s.

government from contracting with those companies that export communication-jamming or monitoring technology to iran. we simply cannot allow the regime to restrict communications between iranians and between iran and the outside world, as happened during the postelection protests. we clearly she that there is a desire among average iranians to be able to change the nature of their lives. we saw that those willing to risk their freedom, willing to risk their life, and we cannot have u.s. -- the u.s. government contracting with those companies that export communication-jamming or monitoring techmology to iran, that in essence allows the -- monitoring technology to iran, that in essence allows the regime to be able to do that.

something that i included in the senate bill before it went to conference and i'm glad to see is largely still in the legislation we will vote on today, we needed targeted sanctions against the iranian revolutionary guard corps, its supporters, and affiliates, and any foreign governments that provide the iranian revolutionary guard corps with support. i'm pleased to see that this conference report will ban u.s. banks from engaging in financial transactions with foreign banks that do business the revolutionary guard or facilitating iran's illicit nuclear program. the revolutionary guard is has now spread like a cancer throughout iranian society and it is involved in almost everything in iran. and we need to specifically target the irgc, the range revolutionary guard corps, and

this legislation does that. so, mada mr. president, the sans that i will vote for today and that i helped fashion are a positive and necessary step to increase pressure on iran so the regime fully understands that the world will not only coul rate its deceit -- will not only tolerate interdeceit and deception any longer, but it cannot tolerate its march to nuclear power and ultimately nuclear weapons. i'll vote for these sanctions because they're robust, because they're in our national security interest, and in the interests of the region and the world. and i hope my colleagues on a strong bipartisan basis will join together in casting similar votes because when we do, we send a message, one, to the administration, that there is i hope near-unanimous support for the type of sanctions we're advocating here; that

strengthenings the hand of the president, as he deals with other countries in the world, as he deals in this international forums, and it sends a very clear message to ahmadinejad and the iranian regime that the united states is serious about stopping its march to nuclear weaponry. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today to share my concerns as well about iran and to express my support for tough sanctions against iran. iran poses a threat to the united states as well as to the international community. it continues to support terrorist organizations around the world including hamas and hezbollah. iran has also called for the destruction of the democratic state of israel. mr. president, these actions

illustrate iran's destructive intentions. iran continues to pursue nuclear capabilities. while iran claims that its nuclear programs are intended for civilian use only, this is very difficult to believe. in fact, reports from the international atomic energy agency, february of 2008, may of 2010, question iran's claim of pursuing nuclear capabilities for purely peaceful purposes. nuclear capabilities and proper management of these capabilities is a serious responsibility. iran has neither earned the right nor the trust for this nuclear responsibility. iran continues to develop its nuclear programs without giving the international atomic energy agency sufficient access, access to and information regarding its

nuclear program. i understand that the need for energy and the complexities surrounding the dual-use nature of nuclear technology. however, iran placed itself under obligations to the international community and agreed to comply with international safeguards and inspections. iran has not fulfilled its commitments. it has not fulfilled its commitments to be transparent with the international atomic energy ration or to maintain obligations under the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. mr. president, iran does not want to join the international community efforts of curbing the development of nuclear weapons. now, i believe that without serious consequences for the proliferation bein activities, e is little, if any, incentive for iran or any other country considering nuclear

weapon-related activities to refrain from doing so. and so, mr. president, i believe that it is imperative that the united states work to increase comprehensive economic sanctions on iran. the united states and the international community continue to threaten iran with more sanctions. on june 9, the united nations security council adopted resolution 1929. this represents the fourth round of sanctions against iran from the international community. it is past time that this congress act, act to put teeth into our threats of additional sanctions. i believe it is time today to implement economic sanctions to the full extent possible. iran's leaders must be forced to realize that while they may be able to survive political isolation, they cannot ignore the adverse consequences to

their ability to function in a global economy. and so, mr. president, i believe that the status quo is not working in our dealings with iran. i do not believe that iran is a country that we can quietly watch and hope that nothing serious is happening behind closed doors. terrorism -- terrorism does not allow anyone to do so. it is time to act, mr. president, and i call upon this congress to support economic sanctions against iran. thank you, >> live senate passed the iran sections bill 99-0. it was also approved in the house. here's a look prior to that vote in the house, a little over on