went back to school while i lived in seneca with a very special aunt and uncle, but lindsey came home every weekend, unlike most college kids that age the stay on campus and had fun. lindsey came home to check on his little sister. now that i have a daughter who is almost 21, i realized how young he was and how hard that had to be on him, what a huge responsibility it was, but he never made me feel like a word in. he always made me feel so loved and so's to work. lindsey also made sure i finished high school, went to college. he even legally adopted me. lindsey has been through my side through some wonderful times. he has been through many special events in my children's lives, emily and nicole, and he has been by my side during some very tough times.

the values we learned in this town, the work ethic instilled in us by our parents and the love we received from the people in this community are what got us through those tough times. those were the values he took to the statehouse and to the united states senate. with your support, i know he will take them to the white house. [cheers and applause] darline: we need that kind of leadership in the oval office today, and lindsey graham will provide that.

[cheers and applause] lindsey, i love you so much. you mean the world to me. i do not know what i would have done without you. and i am so proud of you, and i know our parents are looking down today, beaming with pride. ladies and gentlemen, it is truly my honor to present to you the next president of the united states, lindsey graham. [applause] ♪ senator lindsey graham: thank you. i am lucky to have darline as my

sister and my aunt and uncle who took care of me. to all of my friends, welcome to sensual south carolina. -- two central south carolina to central soutyh carolina. my hometown. many of you have known me for a long time. i am not aging that well, am i? some of you have known me since my family lived in the back of the bar in that building. but i am pretty sure no one here, including me, ever expected to hear me say, i am lindsey graham, and i am running for president of the united states. [applause] thank you.

ok, i will turn back there. i hope they hear that all over the world that i am running for president of the united states. it is because of you that i can make that statement. everything i am, everything i will be, i owe to the kindness and generosity and example of people of central clemson, seneca, wilhalla, and other small towns throughout south carolina. thank you. thank you for everything. [applause] senator graham: we want to protect our nation that we all love so much, so get ready. i am ready. i want to be president to defeat the enemies that are trying to kill us. not just penalize them. to defeat them.

ronald reagan's policy kept america safe during the cold war. remember those times? but i've come to believe we will never enjoy peaceful existence with radical islam. because it's followers intent to destroy our way of life. however, america will be secure only if we have strength. security through strength will protect us. i want to be president to meet our problems head on. for the purpose of solving them. and i want to be president to make government work for you

not the other way around. i want to make government keep its promises to you, to support your dreams, to embrace your values, and to reflect your character. i want to be president to help us build our future. greater than our amazing past, and i will work with anyone to do it. we made some dangerous mistakes in recent years. the obama administration and some of my colleagues and congress have substituted wishful thinking for sound national security. every day the headlines attest to the failures of the obama-clinton policies.

it is sad for me to report to you that barack obama has made us less safe. simply put, radical islam is running wild. they have more weapons, and they are entrenched. as president i will make them , small, poor, and on the run. i'm afraid some americans have grown tired fighting them. i have some bad news for you. the radical islamists are not tired of fighting you. in partnership with others, we must take the fight to them, building lines of defenses over there so they cannot come here. building up and supporting

regional forces to go after their safe havens that could be used to attack our homeland. the world is exploding in terror and violence. but the biggest threat of all is the nuclear ambitions of the radical islamists who control iran. ladies and gentlemen, there are no moderates in iran running their government. if the united states is not firm in our intention to deny them such weapons, iran will trigger a nuclear arms race in the least stable region on earth, making it more likely that the people who aspire to genocide will have the most effective means to commit it. our close ally israel is at risk.

with israel, we share values democracy. our friendship is unbreakable. to our friends in israel, i will never abandon you. [applause] i will always stand firm in supporting the one and only jewish state. i, too, have the judgment and the will to deny the most radical regimes the most dangerous weapons. but to defeat this enemy, it will require more than military might. the most powerful weapon in our arsenal is not a gun, it is an idea.

the terrorists are selling a glorious death. we must sell a hopeful life. [applause] senator graham: i have learned from my travels that a small schoolhouse in a remote region, educating a young girl, can do more damage to radical islam ban -- islam thenan any weapon we possess. however, radical islam is not the only threat we face. elsewhere, old adversaries are seizing opportunities to challenge our interest. putin seized the ukraine territory and threatens nato allies. china is building, literally building, their own island in resource-rich waters claimed by other nations and challenging free navigation through the seas.

our allies in the absence of american leadership, our adversaries are taking advantage. american weakness anywhere hurt us everywhere. -- anywhere hurts us everywhere. our enemies are in bold and, and our friends are going it alone. and both reactions are detrimental to our national security interests. it is time for america to come back. and come back, we will. and the way you come back is to make sure that the next president must be an informed and decisive commander in chief. ready immediately to deal with the threats i've just described. we have learned over the past six years that speeches alone will not make us safe. if that were true, we would be really safe.

superior power and resolve is the only way to be safe. i am running for president of the united states because i am ready to be commander-in-chief on day one. [applause] senator graham: i am ready on day one to defend our nation with sound strategy, a strong military, stable alliances, and a steady determination. i have been to the middle east more times than i can count. as a united states senator and a reserve officer in the united states air force, to all who have served our country, raise your hand. god bless each and every one of you. >> usa, usa, usa, usa! [applause] senator graham: i have got one

simple message. i have more experience with our national security than any other candidate in this race. that includes you, hillary. [laughter] we will have a reset with russia that sticks. i know the players. i know our friends, and i know our enemies alike, but most importantly, ladies and gentlemen, they know me. i have listened, learned, and prepared myself for the job of commander-in-chief. i have served in the air force for 33 years. [applause]

and it has been a true pleasure and honor. i have spent much of my adult life as part of a team committed to defending america, protecting our way of life, making sure that we are safe. politicians focus on elections. the military focuses on the mission. if given the privilege to serve as your president, i will focus on the mission, to defend america, to protect our way of life, and to leave the next generation a stronger, safer better nation than we inherited. [applause] senator graham: that will not be easy. it never has. there are dangers that must be faced, and as usual, the best of us will have to face the worst of them.

the best of us are the 1% of americans who are the men and women of the united states armed forces. [applause] i cannot promise as commander-in-chief that their dangers that they confront will be less. the risk they run, the sacrifices they make will be fewer or easier, but i can assure them they will have the leadership to defeat our enemies. i can promise that their sacrifices won't be wasted and they won't fight with their hands tied behind their backs. we will and this conflict on our terms. we will win.

those who believe we can disengage from the world at large and be safe by leaving -- by meeting from behind,leading from behind, vote for someone else. i am not your man. those who believe the best way to defend ourselves is to lead the world, to make history rather than be overwhelmed by it, i ask for your support. [applause] join me if you want to tackle the problems at home that have been kicked down the road because they are too hard to fix or too easy to demagogue. washington's failure to do the hard but right thing has put social security and medicare in serious jeopardy. anybody on social security and medicare? anybody want to be on social security and medicare one day? all of us.

as my generation retires, both programs are on track to go bust. we are living longer with fewer workers supporting more retirees. that is unsustainable. everybody knows it, but not everybody will admit it. we have to fix entitlement programs to make sure people who need the benefits the most receive them. that is going to require determined presidential leadership. i know from personal experience how important these programs are to the lives of millions of americans. as darline mentioned, we lost our parents when i was a young man and she was in middle school. we depended on social security benefits to survive. i have been fortunate.

i have done better than i ever dreamed. if i and others like me have to take a little bit less and pay a little more to help those who need it most, so be it. [applause] senator graham: and younger people, you might just have to work a little bit longer. as president, i will gladly do what it takes to save a program that once saved my family. [applause] now, to those of you who yearn for a healthy and safe environment, i will join your cause. to those who seek energy independence, i will be your champion. i am tired of sending hundreds of billion dollars a year overseas to buy oil from people who hate us. [applause]

we must have energy independence. i believe in the process is possible to produce a safe environment. create new paying jobs for americans of all generations. to my fellow republicans, i will be a champion for limited and effective government. i will be a voice for social conservative values. [applause] i love my party. i am committed to see it grow and prosper. to my friends in the other party, on the big things we share a common faith here it i will work with you to strengthen the country we both love.

our differences are real, and we will debate them. you are not my enemy, you are my fellow countrymen. [applause] my enemies are those who despise our shared values. the enemies of enlightenment culture of death that seeks to destroy the dignity of life. we will fight them together and we will win. two americans who trust neither party, i will seek the political common ground our nation desperately needs to find. [applause] that is what i have done before, do not take my word for it. examine my record. i've got the scores to prove it. i intended to be a president

not of a single party, but of a nation -- i intend to be a president, not of a single party, but of a nation. i want to do more than make a big government smaller. i want to make a great nation greater. i have traveled the world. had experiences i have never dreamed of. i have been lucky so much of my life, but never luckier tahan the people and place i come from. those of you who'd have known me for a look -- those of you who have known me for a long time, no i have had some ups and downs. as a young man, i lost my parents, struggled financially and emotionally. i would not have made it through those times without you. the example that my parents set

for me. there are a lot of so-called self-made people in this world. i am not one of them. my family, my friends, neighbors and my faith picked me up when i was down. believed in me when i had doubts. you made me the man i am today. [applause] i am a man with many debts. to my family, my friends, to you , to south carolina. i am running for president to repay those debts. the fight is hard for you. [applause]

in the end, that is the only promise i can make. that is the only place i will sign. the only one that matters. if you make me president, i will fight each day harder than i thought the day before to keep this country safe, prosperous and as good as the people who make it great. i humbly ask for your support and your vote. i will work every day to make you proud. bless. [applause] ♪ i feel good ♪

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] this week we will have more candidates announcing their intention to seek the presidency. lincoln chafee makes his announcement in a speech at the george mason center in arlington, virginia. a former republican, turned independent, is running as a democrat. you can see live starting at 5:30 p.m. eastern on c-span3. on thursday former texas governor, rick perry, announces his presidential run from dallas. that is live at 12:30 p.m. eastern on c-span3.

>> this summer, book tv will cover book festivals from around the country. this weekend, we are live for the chicago tribune, including our live in-depth program. with lawrence wright and your phone calls. new the end of june, watch for the annual was about reading physical -- reading festival. where life at the harlem book festival with author interviews and panel discussions. at the beginning of september, we are live a bit nation's capital. that is a few of the events this summer on c-span twos books tv that's c-span2's book tv. >> the u.s. senate failed to extend certain provisions of the patriot act.

the senate returns at 9:30 eastern. at 10:30, members will hold a vote on the usa freedom act. a program that limits certain surveillance powers. the vote will decide if members move forward with the legislation. you can see live coverage when members return on c-span2. monday, the supreme court ruled it to one in favor of a muslim woman who filed a discrimination lawsuit against abercrombie & fitch p she was denied a job for wearing a headscarf for religious reasons. next, from february, the argument. this is one hour.

>> the applicant herself -- did the employer know the need for a combination? >> what is the difference between knowing and collectively understanding? >> it is a fair question. the testimony was that ms. cook assumed that she needed to wear the headscarf. it signifies that it was a religious headscarf. she figured it was a religious headscarf. the 10th circuit said it was insufficient. what was needed was actual knowledge. our position is that when you assume a religious a combination

is needed -- religious accommodation is needed -- >> is that subjective? or relevant? meaning, the issue is whether they failed to hire her because of a religious practice. what the person thinks it is is the issue. that is why they acted. >> that is right or honor. that is why we think this is a straightforward case. what the employer did his act upon the assumption that miss you loft needed to wear the headscarf for religious reasons. a claims that -- initiated the process that congress wanted. >> getting back to justice scalia's question, i think there is some central force to your argument. the employer -- the employee

does not have to mention this first. why do we have to import the term "understand," rather than "know." why are you making it so confusing? >> it is our understanding is the 10th circuit -- sign >> your statement is that you must understand. i cannot understand your answer. >> the answer, we think there is sufficient knowledge noticed when somebody understands the practice is religious and ask upon it. what the 10th circuit said was is that is not sufficient. what is needed is something approaching certainty. >> that raises the question, if it is less than certainty, how much is it?

if i am an employer, if i say i do not know -- it is two out of 3 -- is that sufficient? >> i think the best way to answer your question. the answer in a situation like this, in which an napkin is applying for a position, and the employer suspects that there is a religious conflict. the employer has a option. they can assume there is no conflict which in that case, they make the higher decision on the merit. in the case, ms. e loft would of been hired. alternatively the employer figures there's enough concern they can start a dialogue. that is what congress intended. what they cannot do is what they did here. and assume a stereotype, that there would be a need for an accommodation.

>> is that true, even if it is under 50%? the employer says i really do not know, but i think there is a 50-50 chance? or even 40% chance that this person has a religious -- this practice is religious? i do not feel like getting into this accommodation stuff. i am not going to hire this person. >> i think that is what they cannot do. >> what is -- what the present is just what the percentage chance is. as long as the employer says there is some chance, and i am not going to hire, promote or fire because of that chance. >> i would like to separate out to different situations -- separate out two different

situations. one is the employer has a work role and is concerned the applicant will not be able to comply in the future after being hired, because they perceive the person is religious here it i think that the lemon -- i think the dilemma you are imposing is a false one. if the employer has a small understanding or thinks it is unlikely that the desk the right thing is to assume there is not a religious problem. to not engage in a stereotype and assume the person could comply. as they would, as someone who would be wearing a headscarf or something for naught. >> i am sure why you are fighting justice kagan's question. isn't the issue the reason why they acted. they refused to hire someone

because they had a 1% believe that they had a religious belief that they would not accommodate? >> i do not intend to fight for justice kagan's -- the reason i'm trying to separate, the situation here is the easy case. i will get to the heart case and why i am fighting justice kagan. next you are confusing me enormously. can you tell me what it is you want? you say he understands. that does not do anything for me. understands? knows? suspects? what other verbs do you need? >> detested the courts of appeals have adopted that the test that the court of appeals has adopted -- about the employee or applicants

religious needs -- sign >> i do not care. that does not make sense to me. >> the reason i think it makes sense in this case, if it is sufficient knowledge for you to act upon it, -- the critical point is if they had not assumed this was religious. had not ruled -- had not believed it, they would have hired her. the default rule for i am not sure is higher. >> did she -- the person responsible for hiring, did she say to the district manager "i think she is wearing this headscarf for religious reasons and that is why i am checking it out with you?"

the issa she got back is it does not matter whether or not she is wearing it for religious reasons. we do not accommodate. the district manager's point of view is this place scarf or out. we do not accommodate headscarf. >> that is exactly what congress said. she did not want to happen. >> there is no law against such a role. any employer could say we do not allow headscarves. until someone applies for a job who for a religious reason wants to wear a headscarf, and the employer knows it is for a religious reason, there has been

no violation of the law. you can have that role. we do not allow our employees to wear a head scarf. there is nothing wrong with that role. if the supervisor said that, does not prove -- >> i do not agree with that your honor. once it is clear that the employee needs an accommodation that is what article seven requires. it was a neutral ruled that you had to work on the sabbath. >> the supervisor did not have that knowledge. >> oh no, your honor, that is not correct. that is not a question that we believe to be the case. the clerk conveyed to her supervisor johnson that it was for a religious reason. there is a dispute in testimony about this. summary judgment has been

granted against us. cook said, i told johnson that it was for religious reasons and johnson said if we allow this, then someone will paint themselves green and call it a religion, and we cannot allow this. >> the solution you suggest, is some debts is the employer should start some dialogue. that promotes stereotypes to a far degree. -- the employer did not like beards. they do not want their models having beards. he does not know if the bid is there for religious reasons are not. do you think it is better for him to ask this applicant questions he would not ask anyone else? what are you wearing a beard? it seems your solution causes more problems. >> your honor, i have two responses. first, i do not think it is

right -- i do think congress would have preferred that the person did not get hired. if those are the two options, i think congress would have wanted the calm edition for religious practice. i think your hypothetical points out nicely, it is a somewhat artificial situation. the employer is saying i do not want a beard when a person is on the floor. that is not a reason to not hire someone if someone walks in with a beer. the yankees had a no facial hair policy. they assumed their free agents could shave. >> the player says i do not want to buy into some problem with the guy who has a beard. i do not care if it is religious or not, the guy shows up with a beard, i am not going to hire him. >> that is the hard question

that justice kagan was asking. if your policy is i have a work rule that i'm concerned that you will not be up to comply with in the future, i think if the question is if someone comes to my office with a beard, i think it is unkempt. i do not like it. i'm not going to hire them whether or not they can comply. that is the situation that is presented. that is a hard question. that is not the one that is presented here. those are not the kind of cases we see. >> you can avoid those hard questions by adopting the role that the court of appeals adopted. if you want to sue me for denying you a job for a religious reason, the burden is on you to say i am wearing a headscarf for a religious reason, or i am wearing the beard for a religious reason. that avoids all problems. what you notify the employer

that is for religious reasons you got them. >> did the employer tell her that this policy would violate? how could she ask for something -- [indiscernible] >> the reason it is insufficient, the superior knowledge is with the app can. the applicant is not unnoticed -- missed you love did not know that there was a look policy that prohibited the headscarf. corrects this is not the place to get into it. i thought her friends told her to wear a colored scarf. the subject came up. >> i understand, but it is important. that supports our position. what her friends said was there

is no problem with a headscarf it should not be black. if anything, she was on notice that there was no problem with the headscarf. i think it cuts the other way. just as skins are, what makes it inappropriate to put the burden on the applicant is it is the employer who gets to structure the interview. the employer here read some version of the look policy but did not mention the headscarf. actually, this is a situation where the employer itself could have put you off on notice. then it is a different situation. if the employer says we do not allow headscarves, then the employee does not say anything, that is a very different situation. >> to get back to my beard case if there is someone with a middle eastern appearance with a beer, you want the debts with a beard, you want the employer to start some sort of dialogue.

he is going to be asking religious questions. can you ask us can you answer my question please? >> i do not think the employer does. i think the right approach for the employer could wants to avoid the subject is to assume the person of middle eastern descent has a beard for personal preference and would be happy to shave if he got the job, and ordered to comply. that is what is critical. that is what congress -- >> like it the employer say we have a look policy that does not permit beards? can you comply? >> absolutely, your honor. >> it does not matter why it >> -- does not matter why. >> you can assume the person does not wear it for religious

reasons. or if you're concerned about it, you can ask a specific question. the eeoc has made it clear that the person -- prohibits facial hair on the floor. >> that does not cover anything that is not immediately apparent. they could have a coda conduct that would go for several pages -- a coda of conduct that could go for several pages. >> your honor, i think the employer is at no risk of liability. if he asks no questions and it makes no assumptions. i do not think what you are hypothesizing turned up to be a problem in practice. what is going on is that in the cases the eeoc brings up in these cases, you are walking about and look policy. you're talking about you must

wear pants at work. you are talking about the no long hair policy. you are talking about groom and guard. the employer does not have to run down those questions. you can avoid the stereotype. however, if the employer wishes is if a -- is a bilateral dialogue can be a compass. you could raise the policy. this is not a crazy idea. >> he can ask can you do it? is it the only religious preference that has to be honored? i can but i would like not to for religious reasons. i guess i could take off my headscarf, but it would be

inappropriate religiously uncomfortable. are you acknowledging that the only accommodation that has to be made is an accommodation for someone who has to for some -- someone for religious reasons -- you cannot ask that question you are telling them to ask. can you do it? yes, i guess i could. >> that is the exact dialogue that is supposed to happen. that is what this court said should happen. what congress wanted when it passed the accommodation requirement is for the employer and employee -- >> and then later says i could but it is uncomfortable for me to do that for religious reasons. which he still have a lawsuit? >> to not have a lawsuit -- she would not have a lawsuit. she says now it is quite

uncomfortable, that is a request for an accommodation. she and the employer need to go into a discussion. just like you would if you were to say i need this time off to attend a religious ceremony. that is the back and forth of an everyday employee -- >> why does it have to be phrased could you do it? would you be willing to do it? >> i think what title vii is about is the actual accommodation back-and-forth is a flexible process. it is designed to be collaborative. there isn't a fixed role you have to phrase it this way or that way. the point is to initiate the dialogue. as if that happens here, then we would be talking about different point in the process. whether it could be done without undue hardship.

that dialogue never happens here. that is the problem with the case. >> you started out with the refusal to accommodate theory. then you abandon that. >> that is not, justice ginsburg? on the very beginning, the response has been the violate this has been they violated title vii by refusing to accommodate ms. e law. it is the theory we have proceeded under all of our cases here. there has been a switch. the reason for the of religious a common nation has appeared 14 times. there seized upon the word -- if i could explain our position.

the phrase used in the brief was a started to accommodate is the kind of treatment that title vii was designed to prevent. covers meant to do -- what congress meant to do is to put people who need an accommodation on the same footing who do not need to wear headgear. however, we recognize the lower courts have used it in a another way. a failure to accommodate. we did not. to hide the difference if this treatment were you allow hats but not religious hats. we did not at any point in this case abandon or change our theory from a failure to accommodate.

what the other side has done is a certain that we did that, but we did it for some motive. we wished to avoid some 1981 a question. no court has adopted that theory. at no point has they raised -- have they raised. it was the only source of damages. they never raised it. the district court's listed 1981a >> i am sorry. i am a little confused. i did not know. i read your complaint and it says, the respondent refused to hire ms. e law because she wears aig. -- she wears a hafjjib. i looked at your briefs.

i looked at the jury charge. it seems like the two were always tied. a failure to hire was because they refused to accommodate her. >> that's correct. that is been our theory from the beginning. the idea that 1981a magically became a part of this case is not credible. that has been the theory. that is where the damages were done. they never raised on appeal. >> their argument is -- four intention. >> our position is that this is intentional disconnection under 1981a although it is not a question that is before this court. 1981a distinctions between -- 1981 a distinguishes between

unlawful intentional discrimination, not an employment practices. failure to accommodate is not a disparate impact plan. it is the intentional refusal to hire because of the religious practice you could accommodate. this is not -- exide >> i am sorry -- >> i am sorry. you do accommodate. i do not accommodate because of religion, that is disparate treatment. >> i want to distinguish the different theories because under a disparate treatment approach. as of the lower courts have used it, you would have to show that it was because of the religious

nature of the practice that you did not accommodate. i allow hats for everyone, but not if you have a religious hat. that is what the lower courts would call disparate treatment. >> mr. chief justice and may it please the court. in premise of the eeoc's argument today as i understand it is that abercrombie acted because the religious basis of her headscarf. that is not correct. the eeoc's theory does not depend -- anytime an employer suspects a dental conflict or correctly understands such conflict, at that point it is on notice and must offer and a situation -- exide >> there's

the offering of religious accommodation, you follow the statute. you only have to accommodate if it is not convert -- if it is on do burden. >> they must depart from a religious neutral policy. >> no, we go back to their position. very simple, because you aren't mischaracterizing it. their position is if you believe that someone will need a religious accommodation and will not comply with your policy, just ask them. we do not permit facial hair on the floor, you have a problem with that? >> as an initial

matter, their theory does not depend on any assumption about whether the applicant would be able to comply with the work rules or not. under the theory expressed in their brief, even if an employer like abercrombie had a policy you are being assessed at the interview. >> do think the employee has to say i am dressed the way i am for religious reasons? >> not necessarily however the employer's knowledge has to be traced to the employee to some way -- employee in some way. >> let us say four people show up for a job interview at abercrombie. this is going to sound like a joke. but it is not. first there is a sick man wearing a turban. next there is a -- there is a

muslim woman wearing a hit,. do you think the employer has to say we have to tell you we are just this way for a religious reason? where not try to make a fashion statement. >> one aspect of your hypothetical is not a jump. many of these interviews at abercrombie our group interviews. -- at abercrombie our group are group interviews. going to your point about those sort of religious outfits. one can imagine cases where it is more obvious than others that a particular garb is born for religious purposes. however, joint appendix 130 and 131 which convened pictures that

-- pictures of scarves that ms. e law was wearing in this case. whether a particular outward symbol is religious in nature are not -- like slide >> i want to know the answer to the question whether the employee has to say i have -- i'm wearing this or a religious reason. are you willing to admit that there are some circumstances that the employer is charged with the knowledge, based on what the employer observes? >> no, your honor. there are some circumstances that are more likely than others. the question before the court is to defies a rule that is going to -- is to devise a role that is going to apply across the board. >> it said the employer, less you know, and -- that you know of the moment he is applying.

unless you receive correct explicit notice from her, you are home free. do what you want. and the question presented, they say in the last few words in describing it, we think that is wrong. i agree that we have to say whether that is wrong and if it is wrong, it will be helpful to say what they have to do. the sg says here is what it is. if the employer correctly infers , correctly understands, i would add, or correctly believes that the practice of religious accommodation is necessary, that is it. he has to accommodate unless he has one of those listed under the statute. what is wrong with that? >> i think what you just described is a role for all cases. it is one that is an

administrable. -- one that is on administrab unadministrable. >> this woman needs in a common nation and he is right. why is that unadministrable? >> the eeoc did not explain -- >> you have to prove that he has a belief. we probably into a 50,000 cases a year, 80,000 of those go to trial, proving that someone has a belief or other -- i am making that up, that number. i do not think it is uncommon in the law that you have to prove that someone believes something. went to say that the standard of

proof is just like in any of -- we have to say that the standard of proof is just like in any other case. >> i do not think it is just like any other case. to charge employers with liability and require them to come to an understanding of whether a particular practice is religious or not -- >> suppose an employer does not want to hire any jews and someone walks in and his name is noah goldberg and he looks jewish. he does not know he is jewish here it -- he is jewish. he doesn't say anything about being jewish. the employer operates on it -- operates on an assumption. is that the violation? >> that is a violation of article seven. >> that has to be against the law, right? and does not matter if the employer knows it to an absolute certainty, right? >> absolutely.

relevant is the employer's intent. if the if the employer intends to discriminate but is a title vii violation. -- that is a title vii violation. what is going on here is that they are attempting to imply -- apply a religious neutral dress code. justice ginsburg: that would be right if that was all title vii did but it makes a religious practice, a refusal to accommodate a religious practice, is itself a violation of title vii. and that was done deliberately was it not? so that religious practices would have to be accommodated. shay: two points in response to that. we are not contending that religious practices do not have to be accommodated.

what we are contending as an initial matter is that an employer does not intentionally discriminate for religious practice by enforcing a religion neutral dress code. >> the thing about my question is that what the statute does is to say but if you are wearing a headscarf for religious reasons -- that if you are running a headscarf for religious reasons your policy does not matter. except for that, it really does not matter, you just have to hire me, even if i am wearing a headscarf. the fact that you do not know i am worried it for religious reasons, if you only assume that because people do, it should not make any more difference than in the hypothetical i gave. shay: on that logic it would make no difference if the employer had absolutely no idea that the headscarf was born for religious reasons because it would still be a religious headscarf and a religious practice.

not even the eeoc is claiming there is a duty to accommodate in that situation. the question before the court is, what level of knowledge does the employer have to have? for 40 years, guidance has put burden to initiate on the employee. justice ginsburg: the employee knows the rule. but the employee had no reason to think there was anything offensive. how can she say, by the way, i have a religious reason for wearing the headscarf? the employer has not given her notice of the policy so how is she supposed to include the question went as far as she knows it is fine she is wearing a headscarf, there is no look policy she knows they are violating. shay: i respectfully disagree with that description.

she knew enough to understand that it had a dress code, knew enough in advance to ask -- justice ginsburg: i was not aware of that. shay: she testified that she knew she would have to wear that style of clothes, that they did not sell headscarves. justice ginsburg: she came in with a shirt. shay: she knew they did not sell headscarves. justice sotomayor: she asked her friend whether the headscarf was a problem and the friend said no. so why would she suspect that if she is qualified and has the

personality they are looking for and is dressed appropriately that the company would fail to hire her because they refused to accommodate? shay: she asked a friend who in turn asked another employee not involved in the hiring process. justice sotomayor: i think it was the store manager. shay: but not one involved in the hiring process. she had the opportunity to ask questions about the look policy. justice ginsburg: did not mention the headscarf? shay: the interviews are scripted interviews. justice sotomayor: show me in the script because i remember reading this and she in fact said we do not discuss the look policy at the interview. shay: if you look at joint

appendix 33 and joint appendix 100 to 101, that is cook's testimony that she read the summary of the policy. justice ginsburg: there was no mention of the headscarf. shay: and did not specifically mention the headscarf that it describes the look policy in general -- but it describes the look policy in general. it is a matter of common sense that the company requires them to where clothing in the style -- wear clothing in the style. justice alito: someone comes in for an interview and i have the look -- they have the look. looks like this mythical preppie. [laughter] justice alito: only one problem, this person is wearing a black blouse which is against the rules. would they not hire that person on the assumption that this person likes black so much this person is going to wear black every single day?

shay: i do not think abercrombie needs to make that assumption about what the person would do later to make a judgment based on the appearance at the interview. if i walked into an abercrombie interview wearing a suit presumably they could tell me when you come to work, please do not wear the suit. but it would also be equally rational for abercrombie to say, this person is coming in wearing a suit and that is not compatible with our style. likewise with the headscarf. johnson's testimony which they did not challenges that he would have taken the same action for someone who came in with a headscarf, a baseball cap, a helmet, or another religious symbol. justice ginsburg: somebody comes in and applies for a job with a yarmulke, no question, that violates the policy. that is the testimony. shay: what it shows is that religion is not the basis for the action.

abercrombie was at most completely indifferent. justice roberts: it is not a question of if you are treating everybody the same, you have an obligation to accommodate people with a particular belief. that it would have treated somebody with a baseball cap the same way, that is not responsive. shay: for purposes of an intentional discrimination claim, it does matter and that is the theory the eeoc is pursuing. justice roberts: it is intentional dissemination because you failed to accommodate. shay: that is a misunderstanding. justice breyer: it seems we are in minutia. what is wrong with saying that if he correctly believes that she is religious, fine, that is the end of it, you are in the statute. is correct police can arise in a

thousand context -- a correct belief can arise in a thousand contexts. did he correctly believe the drug was heroine? did the manager you are trying to fire, did he correctly believe that this applicant graduated from princeton? that is abercrombie. [laughter] justice breyer: did he correctly believe that he had authority under the delegation of agency to sign a check? there are thousands of things. why is it our job here to say the right way of proving belief? i mean we can say something is wrong. does not have to formulate the correct believe just because she told you, you can argue that

one. i am open to that. once we are beyond that, why do we have to say? shay: in this context suspecting a possible conflict will inevitably lead employers -- justice breyer: i am with you with respect. i am with you only where they correctly believe that. or understand. or know. those three things seem good enough for me. i have repeated this three times but i want to hear the answer why they are not good enough. shay: the reason, justice breyer, is that there is no way the employer can no about a religious practice -- know about a religious practice unless the information is traceable to the employee and having the standard will inevitably lead employers to stereotype because a factfinder might later --

justice sotomayor: isn't that what cook says she did? she saw her in a scarf and she assumed that it was worn because of religious beliefs so she acted on a stereotype. that if you wear a black scarf it is because of a religious belief. shay: johnson instructed her to not hire her because of the book -- look policy. justice sotomayor: no, it is because they believed they could not accommodate that religious belief. that religious practice. shay: i think the reason that he did not hire her, joint appendix 134, is that she was not compliant with the look policy.

justice breyer: now you have me interested in this. when you mean traceable with the woman, it is pretty hard to think of a case where it would not be. i can imagine a case if you found out about this woman from an fbi agent who was making it up but that seems unlikely. shay: the case the government gives as an example is one where the employer learned from the applicant's reference. justice breyer: they did not know the applicant? shay: they did know the applicant and that was traceable to the applicant. justice sotomayor: i am still confused. you do not think that there could ever be discrimination based on a neutral policy because what does it matter if she told him that this was because of religious belief? if he is only firing her or not hiring her because of the look

policy, then he has not discriminated. shay: if you had told him this is for religious belief -- she had told him this is for religious belief there would be a duty to accommodate but the question here -- justice sotomayor: i am confused. he hears it from ms. cook and that is not enough? shay: she testified that she did not know that she wore the headscarf for religious reasons. what we want to avoid as a rule that leads employers to avoid liability stereotype about whether they suspect that somebody is doing something -- justice ginsburg: all they have to do is say this is what they look policy is, do you have a

problem with this? when he said, i would do the same thing with a man who came in with a yarmulke, became in with the yarmulke, he got the same treatment -- he came in with the yarmulke, he got the same treatment. sorry, i would want to hire you but i cannot. that was the answer that you gave so there is no difference between a headscarf or a yarmulke or a turban. shay: that's right. to answer one of the policy, that is not a solution because it is asking employers to treat applicants differently based on stereotypes or assumptions. justice ginsburg: it could be a requirement for the job, doesn't the employer have an obligation to tell the employee what the

job requirements are? shay: no, not under title vii. title vii is not a civil service statute that requires applicants or employees to violate rules to have a chance to explain themselves before adverse action is taken. justice alito: this is what i do not understand about your position for this case. as i understand it, abercrombie does not have a policy that the interviewee needs to comply to the look policy? shay: that is correct. justice alito: there would be no reason for not hiring the individual unless you assumed that she was going to wear a scarf everyday. just because she wore a headscarf on that one day would not mean that she was going to wear it every day. maybe she was just having a bad hair day so she comes in with a headscarf. but she does not have a religious reason.

would you reject her for that? the reason she was rejected is because you assume that she would do it every day because of a religious reason. shay: that has not been the eeoc theory of the case and if it had been, there would have been ways to prove that. we could have questioned johnson specifically about that -- very good have questioned johnson specifically about that -- they could have questioned johnson specifically about that. the theory has not been that johnson. justice ginsburg: it does not say anything about nonreligious. it does not require accommodating based all caps. -- baseball caps. that is a discrete requirement. shay: the premise of the

question as i understood it is that abercrombie only did not hire this person because you have the scarf that's religious and what i am suggesting is that abercrombie might well have not hired anyone who wore any head cover. if the eeoc wanted to prove that -- justice ginsburg: you just said they do not require people at the interview stage to conform to the look policy. shay: on its face the look policy does not require that but johnson in effect was judging people. justice scalia: you were about to tell us would be eeoc theory of the case was. -- what the eeoc theory of the case was. i am eager to hear that.

shay: there is duty to accommodate a religious practice anytime the employer has a correct understanding or suspicion of that practice. the theory has not been that abercrombie acted based on assumptions about the religion. i think one way that we know that it is, let's assume that the policy did apply at the interview. under the eeoc theory, if the interviewer suspected that the applicant or correctly understood as justice breyer prefers, that the applicant wore it for religious purposes, there would be a duty to accommodate. regardless of whether abercrombie did or did not make assumptions. if the policy apply to the interview, there would be a duty to accommodate based on that understanding. the problem with that rule is that employers to protect themselves in the future from having a jury find that they must have correctly understood that a particular -- justice sotomayor: what is the

difference between that? justice scalia: could you finish your thought? shay: the only way that employers could protect themselves is by training managers to stereotype about possible religious beliefs because a judge or jury might later find that abercrombie correctly understood or must have correctly understood under an objective test that they do not disclaim. justice kagan: you are essentially saying that the problem with the rule is that requires abercrombie to engage in an awkward conversation. people can disagree about whether one can ask those questions in a way that is not awkward but you were saying we should structure of the legal system to make sure there is no possibility of that taking place. the alternative to that rule is one where abercrombie gets to say, we are going to stereotype people and prevent them from getting jobs. we will never have the awkward conversation because we will cut these people at and make sure

they never become employees. between these options, never getting the job and having the conversation, which is the worst problem in the statute? shay: the problem is not having awkward conversations, the problem is that the eeoc rule would lead employers to treat people differently based on religion which is precisely the opposite of title vii. justice ginsburg: title vii would want them to treat people with religious practices differently. you do not have to accommodate a baseball cap, you do have to accommodate yarmulke. shay: only after the employee puts religion on the table. title vii does not want employers to make the judgment before the employee raises the issue. the concern the eeoc raises fear -- here is that we will have

applicants completely in the dark has not been borne out. justice breyer: i have your argument. it may be odd to look for a special rule with believers. there are millions of people who are practicing one religion or another, you get a clue of that from the name or the dress or whatever it is. whatever we have such a person applying, and they do not say anything, we will get sued. and we do not want all of those lawsuits. it isn't that big a burden, if you want the accommodation, tell us. we get to administrative issues, tell us. we will be in an administrative mess getting sued. shay: even asking the neutral sounding sort of questions, can

you comply with the work rule, that is trading applicants differently. justice breyer: i just want to be sure i have the argument. shay: that is the essence of it but part of why doesn't it is significant is that under eeoc regulations, -- why i think it is significant is that under eeoc regulation, if they ask and then hire them for a different reason, the eeoc will infer. justice sotomayor: this is unusual because it is rare when you have an interviewer like mrs. cook who is honest. [laughter] the only reason there is a suit is that she was honest and came in and told somebody else. this young woman was not about to sue until she heard this information. if you have a policy that

conflicts with religious practice and the person knows that you will wear a yarmulke, you might get sued. shay: many, if not all, title vii cases do originate without any sort of admission by the employer about what the reason was for not hiring the individual. and i think that the rule that places a burden on employers to stereotype and raise these issues is one that will undermine the purposes of title vii. >> you have five minutes left. >> thank you mr. chief justice. i would like to make two quick factual points to clear up the record. first of all there was discussion about whether you needed to comply with policy. i point the court to 94a, the policy applies to all store employees but applicants are not required to be in compliance at the time of the interview. there was some question about

whether cook knew, it is crystal clear that she did not know. -- that eloth did or did not know. it is undisputed that cook did not tell her. the look policy is exhibit four. it quotes what the look policy is. consistent with the testimony, it does not mention headscarves. justice breyer: the administrative argument? ian: i think that cuts in our favor. first of all, the suggestion that there are problems is not plausible, this has been the

rule for two decades. it is the 10th circuit that for the first time has imposed new requirements. second, i do not think it is unadministerable. the employer can make no assumptions about religion. justice sotomayor, why we think the case is important is precisely that it is unusual. what is unusual is that the found out why she was not hired. that is what is strange. most of the time, the person just never finds out. it is precisely why -- >> in a lawsuit, of course. ian: they certainly could. justice scalia: and it happens

often. ian: i am not certain it does and that is why this is the case. applicants are at a serious informational disadvantage. they do not know the work rules and in this case it is undisputed that she did not. if i could close with something that justice kagan was pointing out, that the background of title vii is that belief is sufficient. what makes this case strong is that this is belief plus an assumption acted on that belief , and assume she would need an accommodation. >> the case is submitted. >> of weekend, the u.s. field to extend certain provisions of the -- failed to extend certain provisions of the patriot act.

the santa returns at 9:30 a.m.. -- the senate returns and 9:30 a.m. the vote will decide if members move forward with the legislation stop you can see live coverage of the senate when members return on c-span2. >> the house transportation infrastructure hold a hearing on the amtrak derailment that killed eight passengers. witnesses include the chair of the national transportation safety board and ceo of amtrak. see it live on c-span3. crooks of the new congressional directory is a handy guide for the 114 congress plus a bio and

contact information and twitter handles. also district maps, a foldout map of capitol hill and they look a congressional agencies and state governments. order your copy today. it is $13.95 plus shipping and handling at c-span.org. next, iran task force cochairs, former u.s. senators jorn former cia director general michael hayden to discuss the iran nuclear deal reached in switzerland. the u.s., china, france, united kingdom, russia, and germany known as p5+1 have set a deadline to reach a final nuclear deal. this is one hour, 20 minutes.

>> thanks for coming today. good afternoon. my name is ray and i want to walking to the first meeting of the iran task force. it's hard to introduce you to an inaugural group that has been around for a year now. deal on how to get a good deal. during the period of intervening, with released 10 memos and the copies are back there. it is a distinguished group of

members of the task force. it is codirected by me and mark. the best way to introduce the market is to have a boxing analogy. muhammad ali once said about joe frazier, if god called me to holy war, i was a joe frazier went to me. you would want to mark there with you. other members of the task force john and i will introduce john in a second. he is a member of the task force and will preside over today's meeting with the tax -- task force cochairs. and the distinction is they are much more distinguished. i will turn it over to john for the rest of this conversation. john: thank you. >>thank you to everyone for

coming. it is a testament to the subject matter and the panel we have assembled today. if a final deal is reached over the next month, it will constitute the single-most national agreement that the united states has concluded since the end of the cold war. it touches issues that many of our closest allies in the middle east you as nothing less than axis -- oh, questions of life and death for the security and well-being for their nations. a question has been the leading role that the u.s. congress has played over the last 10 years in the development of that policy absent bipartisan -- that pushed

under the economic pressure to get iran to negotiate seriously. i doubt we would establish the sanctions regime we have now. without that, achieving any kind of satisfactory resolution to this problem would have been close to zero. as someone who worked in a former administration that did actively resist the push against iran, there is no doubt that congress got this issue more right than a lot of people in the executive branch and consistently so. it better understood what it would take in terms of u.s. leverage to make serious diplomacy possible and was a better judge of what the international traffic would bear

. with that history in mind, i hope we will be able to talk about the role of congress in the crucial days, weeks, and months. another feature of the issue is the role of intelligence, our ability to figure out what is happening in the program has been vital. under this deal with iran, it looks as if it will become more so. an agreement that a lot of us hoped would have the dismantlement of much, if not all of the nuclear infrastructure has evolved into an agreement that looks like it will be about monitoring that infrastructure. that is going to impose a big burden on the u.s. intelligence community to act as the early

warning system to detect iranian violations with high confidence and in a way that provides decision-makers with time to mount an effective response. let me introduce our panel. most everybody here knows them well. we are very honored to call all of them cochairs. senator evan byah. he sat on several key committees concerned with the iranian nuclear issue and intelligence committees. it is great to have you. senator joseph lieberman from connecticut, served in the u.s. senate.

he was a pivotal voice and all of the major national security and foreign-policy debates that the united states engaged in since the end of the cold war. finally, we are pleased to be joined by general mike hayden at the pinnacle of his career. he served as they head of the nsa for almost 10 years. then, as director of the cia for nearly three years. he was a major player at the highest levels of the u.s. government. i was lucky to have a friend or a c to watch him at work in those days -- i was lucky to

have a front seat to watch him at work in those days. the panel will go for about 35 to 40 minutes and then we will open it up to the floor for another 30 minutes for questions from the audience. i am asking you for initial thoughts about the emerging deal. what we know of it, coming out of the framework announced in the beginning of april, assuming the deal gets done, i would be interested to hear your thoughts on how likely you think that is. what is your assessment? good, bad, too soon to tell? senator lieberman: good to be part of this task force and honored to be cochair with senator bayh. everything i have heard about

what has happened in the negotiations tells me this will be a bad deal for the united states of america and for our allies. if it comes out otherwise i will be surprised. the odds of that happening are remote. you touched on this john, in your opening comments, what i thought began as an attempt -- i am not against negotiations. you want to negotiate to reconcile differences. what started out as a negotiation intended to remove step-by-step a difficult economic sanction on iran in return for iran essentially terminating its nuclear weapons development program has now

become something different. we would enter the negotiations with the advantage that the iranians or suffering from the sanctions. what we seem to be talking about now is a serial suspension of most of the economic sanctions in return for -- not the elimination of the nuclear weapons program, but dialing down temporarily with some monitoring. on every level, this is a disaster. we are dealing with a repressive regime that states its antipathy for the united states, israel, and not so openly expresses its antipathy for most of our closest allies in the arab

world. they know it. they are going to end up having an enormous flow of capital come back into them, with which -- what is startling to me, these negotiations have been going on as if they were in a bubble and there was no -- the negotiat ors had no awareness as to what was going on outside. they put this reporter on trial. we used to talk about the republic as an expansionist hegemonic power. it has expanded during the time of these negotiations throughout the region, to the detriment of our values, our allies, and of ourselves.

i am pessimistic about this. only two things can save us from a bad consequential agreement. john, i want to pick out something you said. it is important. this is the most serious consequential international agreement that the united states has entered since the end of the cold war. it has that much of an impact on us. there are only two things that i think can save us from this agreement. one is the intransigence of the islamic republic of iran who may not allow robust inspections. i do not know how we can accept an agreement without that. the second is the congress of the united states. i am going to stop there.

i am happy to come back to congress' role. it is unique and critically important in the days ahead. john: thank you. . senator bayh: let me echo joe leiberman's remarks and say it's a pleasure to serve with them. so i think it's likely get a deal. i think it's likely in the senate to get a significant level of skepticism. it will be difficult to verify their compliance and to have sanctions, quote, snap back, close quote, into place following their loosening. i think you'll even get interpretive differences.

we saw this after the announcement of the agreement when both sides to differing interpretations about what the words meant. it is difficult to verify and enforce a deal where they may have papered over issues and retreated to their respective positions. i think it will come to a vote in the senate. my own guess is the senate has to act affirmatively. there may be a filibuster against that. my guess is there would be 60 votes to break a filibuster. two thirds of the american congress, a clear majority,

would have expressed significant reservations about the agreement. that is a very difficult position from which to be operating internationally. the iranians will wonder what this means. do we go forward and try to push the envelope? our allies in the region, we would have a risk of this touching off nuclear proliferation in saudi arabia possibly in egypt. that could be an unintended consequence of this. the other thing, it is difficult to disaggregate. the other behavior iran is engaged and outside of the context of their new year program. they fund hezbollah.

they are involved in the civil war in syria and destabilizing yemen. they are going to be pushing for sanctions relief, as much as they can get. some of that will find its way into things that would not be in the national security interest of the united states. you have to balance that against any potential good the agreement might accomplish. the mullahs -- the ballistic missile program, those could only hit western europe or the united states eventually. when you grill down through all of this, we have to have a debate about what is the nature of the iranian regime? are they normal nationstate? we have difficult relations with

the former soviet union, but they were not suicidal. we could deal with them. is there something about the iranian nature, short of committing suicide, that will have them be an aggressive regional power working against the security interest of the united states, undermining our allies and not living up to the agreement they signed, and getting nuclear capability? after 10 years under the agreement, is that something as a country, we think is consistent with our security interest? my own view is that would not be consistent with our national security interests. answering that question, what is the nature of their regime, how are they likely to move forward there is evidence to suggest what they are doing is getting what they want and paying a small price for it.

that is not good for us or our allies. >> let me take a narrow view. i agree with senator bayh's characterization. we are focused by the national debate. the problem with iran is with nuclear weapons to it i would suggest the problem is iran. nuclear weapons is important but a subset of the broader question of iran. we need to be careful that a resolution to the nuclear question allows us to mislead ourselves and we suddenly saw the iran question. i need to mention that in the

executive branch in the last administration we left this as an ugly baby for the new guys. i recognize how difficult this is. all of that said, i think we are trending towards a deal. the dynamics have created its own energy in the direction of a deal. the dynamics being so strong, we have gone, no deal is better than a bad deal. any deal is better than no deal and i fear that is what we will get. i would call your attention as we go forward. we cannot allow either

government to -- for what has been agreed. i got asked, the four-page white paper that we put out, what did i think about what it contained? i do not know that we have agreed to anything. one needs to be careful about this. the intelligence line, the verification line, we have got to hammer unarguable verification procedures into any agreement because unilateral american intelligence will be insufficient to build up enough confidence in my view. american intelligence is good.

it is going to tell you a lot. to get to the confidence you will need to legitimate action will require an invasive inspection regime that must be negotiated for we agree to any treaty or arrangement. let me stop there. >> let me follow up with you on this question. when you put on your ci director's hat, could you sketch out for us -- do you need what everybody has called any time

anywhere snap inspections that include military? what kind of interviews? how far would you want to go into the bureaucracy to get answers to your questions? it seems to me to president is asking our intelligence community to have an ability to instantaneously detect iranian violations. >> i think any time inspections are essential. the president said general, how much do they have? i said to the president -- i do not know the answers to those questions.

let me give you a different way of thinking about this issue. i said i do not think anybody in my community thinks there is an electron or neutron that will end up in a nuclear weapon, but they are building up facilities and confidence in technology. to move to heu requires them to cheat so badly that it would be detected or would kick inspectors out. what we would believe what happened in a breakout, they would take the technology and replicate it at a secret facility and in that facility, the weapon would be enriched. i told the president we knew secret facility. they did not know that we knew. that is the scenario we always pictured.

i am an american intelligence officer. i am going to go to the president with really bad news. we call this the dynamic of the unpleasant fact. they go in and say remember the war that you promised to start in the persian gulf? today's the day. to come to that judgment, to get the american political leadership to accept that judgment and to sell that judgment one way or another without giving up critical sources, this is really hard. the presence of inspectors, the

ability to go anywhere, it is essential. >> even with all that, how do you think about that one-year time that the administration has put so much focus on. not only the ability to detect but also the ability to mobilize an effective and quick response within the scope of a year. getting something that could include a military attack. based on your experience? >> all of you have written about this. we try to show how you can use up a year pretty easily actually. first of all, you know, the clock doesn't -- the clock doesn't start when you detect it. the one-year clock starts when they begin to violate the agreement. do you think about that one-year time that the administration has put so much focus on. not only the ability to detect but also the ability to mobilize an effective and quick response within the scope of a year. getting something that could

include a military attack. based on your experience? >> all of you have written act this. we try to show how you can use up a year pretty easily actually. first of all, you know the clock doesn't -- the clock doesn't start when you detect it. the one-year clock starts when they begin to violate the agreement. so there's a gap between the violation and the detection and then all that dynamic i suggest has to take place before you get to a meaningful political decision. so number one, i think our estimate that we have more than a year has an awful lot of kentucky windage in the estimate and even if it was provable it may prove insufficient. >> okay. senator --

>> is that a technical term, kentucky windage? >> yes. >> the senator will define that for you. >> senator, one of the other big issues outstanding in the talks appears to be this issue of the pace and scope of sanctions that iran is going to get under this deal and there's also a related questions of how quickly you could revive these sanctions, snap back sanctions. you and senator leiberman watched how long it took to actually get in place the kind of effective sanctions architecture sanctions that we have now. so looking at this how realistic do you find this idea of snapback. >> as i indicated, i think, you know it would be very difficult to achieve a snap back once

you've significantly reduced the sanctions regime. as you pointed out, it took time and effort to put it into effect. we made them for

the constitution invites the

president and congress to compete forever for the privilege of determining american foreign and defense policy. in this case, first with the sanctions and then with this extraordinary requirement that this agreement come to congress for review and possible rejection, congress has done something really significant which is a measure of the broad bipartisan anxiety about the direction of these negotiations and i think what members of congress and both parties are hearing which is also anxiety about what's happening in the negotiations with the iranians. so coming back to the rhythm of congress. it's the natural way in which congress will now step back and wait for the agreement to occur, i wish as a logical corollary or

, i do not know if that would happen. >> the difference is that i referenced. it is important that there be a meaningful period for verification. if we allow the iranians to get sanctions and relief, until we can assure ourselves that we have an agreement, that both sides have a consensus on what the words on the documents mean,

you would be granting relief to discover that you do not have a meeting of the minds. you need some meaningful period two verifies you have an agreement. the second point or the french being hard-nosed? it should be a matter of some concern to us if the french are being more hard nosed than we are in the course of negotiations. >> senator leiberman, i want to come back to that in a second but first i want to probe you on this. kind of the anomaly we face is two of our rivals for power and influence, china and russia seem