illinois, a member of the energy and commerce committee. later, republican punishment mike pompeo a member of the benghazi committee. host: at the white house, president obama is expected to make a deep -- speech momentarily about the deal with iran. it reportedly restricts access to equipment for 15 years and in return there would be sanctions relief. but the deal depends on the approval of congress. some republicans and democrats are skeptical. our focus this morning is this deal reached in the overnight hours. if you want to call and ask questions after the president makes his statement.

(202) 748-8000 four democrats. (202) 748-8001 for independents. and if you want to tweak your thoughts you can do so at @cspanwj. you can write to us at facebook.com/cspan. the president is set to momentarily make a statement. we will go to the president when he makes a statement. the new york times has a short summary of what to expect. that they will leave it in place with most of a run's infrastructure. much of it will be disassembled and put into storage. iran is likely to fight the fact -- site the fact as evidence that it never gave into west's demands that it dismantle critical facilities.

they now have 60 days to approve or reject the deal and those critics have already complained that the deal being discussed it only delay the day that iran would have the opportunity to build a nuclear weapon. if you go to the website of bloomberg news, they do have an analysis piece looking at congress. we will show a little bit more of that. under legislation it was mitch mcconnell. it will be a hard sell in congress. we said that president barack obama knows that the resolution of disapproval is likely to introduced, likely to pass and likely to get over 60 votes. we do have legislatures -- legislators joining us later to talk about the deal but first the president of the united

states. pres. obama: after two years of negotiations the knot estates together with our international partners has in -- achieved something that democracy has not. a deal with iran that will prevent it from attaining a nuclear weapon. this demonstrates that diplomacy can bring about real and meaningful change. change that makes our country safer and more secure. it is in line with a tradition of american leadership. it is now more than 50 years since resident kennedy stood before the american people and said let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate. he was speaking between the need for discussions between the night of state and the soviet union, which led to efforts to restrict the spread of nuclear weapons.

in those days the risk was a catastrophic nuclear war between superpowers. in our time the risk is that nuclear weapons will spread to more and more countries particularly in the middle east, the most volatile region and our world. because america negotiated from a position of strength, we have stopped the spread of nuclear weapons in this region. because of this deal, the international community will be able to verify that the islamic republic of iran will not develop a nuclear weapon. this deal meets every single one of the bottom lines we established when we achieved a framework this spring. every pathway is cut off. the inspection and transparency regime necessary to verify that objective will be put in place. because of this deal, iran will not produce the highly enriched uranium and weapons grade

plutonium for a nuclear bomb. iran will remove two thirds of its installed centrifuges, the machines as assyria to produce highly enriched uranium for the bob and -- for the bomb and's -- and store them under supervision. they run will also -- iran will also get rid of 98% of enriched uranium. they currently have a stockpile that could produce up to 10 nuclear weapons. because of this deal the stock while will be reduced to a fraction of what would be required for a single weapon. this limitation will last for 15 years. because of this deal, a will modify the core of its reactor in iraq but was not produce weapons grade plutonium and has agreed to ship the spent fuel

from the reactor out of the country for the lifetime of the reactor. for the next 15 years iran will not build any new heavywater reactors. because of this deal we will for the first time he in a position to verify all of these commitments. that means it is not built on trust. it is built on verification. inspectors will have 24/7 access. iran will have access to the entire nuclear supply -- supply chain with uranium mines mills and conversion facilities and manufacturing and storage facilities. this ensures they will not be able to divert materials from known facilities to covert ones. some will be in place for 25 years. inspectors will also you will to access any suspicious location -- put simply, the organization

responsible for the inspections the iaea, will have access when necessary where necessary. that arrangement is permanent. the iaea has also arranged to get access what it needs to complete investigation into that military dimensions of their past nuclear research. finally iran is currently prohibited from pursuing a weapon under the nonproliferation treaty which provided the basis for the international community's efforts to apply pressure to iran. it will receive relief from the sanctions we put in place because of the nuclear program. both america's own sections and sanctions imposed by the united nations security council. this relief will be phased in. iran must complete key nuclear steps before it begins to receive sanctions relief.

over the next decade, iran must abide by the deal before additional sanctions are lifted including five years for restrictions related to arms and eight years for restrictions related to missiles. all of these will be endorsed in the united nations security council resolution. if iran violates the deal all of these sanctions will snap into place. there is a clear incentive for iran to follow through and there are real consequences for a violation. that is the deal. it has the full backing of the international community. congress will now have the opportunity to view the details. will provide extensive briefings on how this will move forward. as american people in congress review the deal it will be important to consider the alternative. consider what happens in a world without this deal.

without this deal there is no scenario where the world joins us in sanctioning iran until it completely dismantles its nuclear program. nothing we know about the government suggests it would capitulate under that pressure and the world would not support an effort to permanently sanction iran into submission. we put sanctions in place to get a diplomatic resolution and that is what we have done. without this deal there would be no agreed-upon limitations for the nuclear program. iran could produce, operate and test centrifuges. they could fuel a reactor capable of producing plutonium for a bomb and we would not have any of the inspections that would allow us to detect the program. in other words, no deal means no lasting constraints on the nuclear program. such a scenario would make it more likely that other countries would feel compelled to pursue their own nuclear programs,

threatening a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region of the world. but under the united states they will have fewer effective options. i have been president for over six years now. time and again i have faced decisions about whether or not to use military force. the greatest decision that any president has to make. many times, in multiple countries, i have decided to use force. i will never hesitate to do so when it is in our national security interest. i strongly believe that our national security interest now depends upon preventing iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. which means that without a diplomatic resolution, neither i nor a future u.s. president would face a decision about whether or not to allow iran to

obtain them nuclear weapon or whether to use the military to stop it. no deal means a greater chance of more war in the middle east. we give nothing up by testing whether or not this problem can be solved peacefully. if iran violates the deal, the same options available to me today will be available to any u.s. president in the future and i have no doubt that 10 or 15 years from now, the person who holds this office will be in a far stronger position with iran further from a weapon and with the inspections and transparency that allow us to monitor the iranian program. for this reason, i believe it would be irresponsible to walk away from this deal. on such a tough issue, it is important that the american people and representatives in

congress get a full opportunity to review the deal. we have some of the finest nuclear scientists in the world working through those details. we are dealing with a country that has been a sworn adversary for over 35 years. i welcome a robust debate in congress and i welcome scrutiny of the details of this agreement, but i will remind congress that you don't make deals like this with your friends. we negotiated arms control agreements with the soviet union when they were committed to our destruction and they ultimately made us safer. i am confident that this deal will meet the national security interests of the united states and our allies. i will veto any legislation that prevents the successful implantation of the steel -- implementation of this deal. we do not have to accept inevitable spiral into conflict.

we should not seek it. because the stakes are so high is is not the time for politics and posturing. tough talk from washington does not solve problems. hard-nosed diplomacy leadership that has united the world's major powers offers a more effective way to verify that i ran is not pursuing -- that iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapon. that does not mean it will resolve all of our differences with iran. that is precisely why we are taking this step. an iran armed with a nuclear weapon would be far more destabilizing and dangerous to our friends. we will maintain our own

sentience related to their support for terrorism, the ballistic missile program and human rights violations. we will continue our unprecedented efforts to strengthen israel's security. we will continue the work we began at camp david, to elevate our partnership with the gulf states to counter terror threats with groups like isil. we must continue to test whether or not this region, which has known so much suffering and bloodshed, can move in a different direction. time and again i have made clear to the iranian people that we will always be open to engagement on the basis of mutual interest and mutual respect. our differences are real and the difficult history between our nations cannot be ignored. it is possible to change. the path of violence and rigid

ideology, a foreign policy based on threats to attack your neighbors or eradicate israel is a dead-end. a different path -- one of tolerance and peaceful revolution -- resolution of conflict leads to more innovation in the global economy, more engagement with the international community and the ability of the iranian people to thrive. this allows the opportunity to move in a new direction. we should seize it. we have come a long way to reach this point. decades of the iranian nuclear program,of sanctions and many months of intense negotiation. i want to thank the members of congress from both hardee's who helped us put in place the sanctions that have proven so -- from both parties who helped us put in place the sanctions that have proven so effective. members from france, germany

the united kingdom as well as the european union for the unity in this effort that shows the world can do remarkable things when the show a vision of peacefully addressing conflict. what we can do when we do not split apart. i want to thank the american negotiating team. we had a team of experts working for several weeks straight. and i want to thank john kerry our secretary of state who began his service to this country more than four decades ago. he is now making this country safer through his strong, principled american diplomacy. history shows that america must lead not just with our might but with our principles. it shows we are stronger not when we are alone, but when we bring the world together. today's announcement marks one

more chapter in the pursuit of a safer and more hopeful world. thank you. god bless you and god bless the united states of america. host: (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independents. your call on this deal reached in vienna. you heard the president speak about it just now emphasizing the process and role of diplomacy and talking to congress emphasizing them to pass the deal. we will take your calls on it and talk to legislators about this throughout the course of the morning.

you can also tweak us and -- tweet us and post on facebook as well. already responses from members of congress coming out. this is chris coons, a democrat from delaware releasing this statement -- the united states must not allow a run to develop nuclear weapons capabilities. a nuclear armed iran would threaten our stability of israel and the united -- the middle east. i will only support this deal if it prevents every iranian pathway to develop a nuclear weapons capability. he goes on with other statements and we will read as members of congress make their thoughts known. this is eve, what do you think? caller: based on -- there are

over 100 pages and the devil is in the details. the president said it is giving no dismantling of the nuclear facilities and nuclear research. but we do know that something will happen and that is that dismantling of the economic sanctions. the president said we gave nothing up but that is a dangerous thing to say because once you give something up like the economic sanctions, it will be difficult to put it back. the president is telling us that he is kicking the can down the road. once this is out -- we know the record of iran. they are not trustworthy and they have violated many agreements. we have to look at the details but it does not seem anything different than what people are speculating the agreement would be a four. -- before.

in my opinion there is nothing new here and i think we're in for a tough time. the president said this will prevent the nuclear arms race, i think it will only encourage it. host: lydia, go ahead. caller: i disagree with everything the republicans said before. this is the republican talking points. what is the alternative to this deal? do we want another iraq? another war in the middle east? where trying to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons throughout the middle east. if iran gets the bomb -- what if yemen had nuclear weapons with the mess it is in? if iran it's the bomb that saudi arabia and the united emirates -- all of those people will think they need one also. the middle east is supposed to be a nuclear-free zone.

people never talk about the fact that israel has nuclear weapons and they are not supporting the president. i am not a scientist, but if all of the members of the security council signed off on this deal i appreciate the president's efforts and i support him. host: a call from new jersey jane on the independent line. caller: this is such an exciting day. i am having trouble with my emotions. i have been praying for peace and praying for this thing to go through. host: as far as the deal itself, what do you think about it and what you think about i run's -- iran's perspective? why do you trust iran? caller: they are a people that are ready to have peace in the

world. i am happy that we are getting peace by being peacemakers. they want their economy back and want to be part of the world. host: what do you think about members of congress? caller: we think it is time for them to learn how to be peacemakers, the way that the united states has historically been these maker in the world -- peacemakers in the world. host: alan, go ahead. caller: republicans who might oppose this after were reagan's position with the soviet union in the 1980's, before we were in a state of peace with the people trying to attack us with nuclear missiles. reagan didn't say i will not negotiate, he said he will not

trust but verify and that is exactly what obama's lan is doing. -- plan is doing. if we did the same thing with the germans and japanese can you imagine reaching a point where we could be trading partners and allies with them today. the idea that we are irrevocable he bound to be enemies of -- irrevocably bound to be enemies of iran for all time is strange. they have a terrible ability to give any credit to this president or to trust this president. host: there are significant democrats who disagree as well. caller: the attitude does not comport with history. reagan himself -- one russians were still a terrible threat to this country and have thousands of nuclear missiles aimed at us, was willing to make agreement based on verification and not blind trust. they should be as consistent with obama went reagan allowed

them to make agreements waste -- based ont he capacity to verify. host: the israeli prime minister posting a picture saying in vienna, world powers concede more and more to iran. in 10 ron, demonstrators burn american and israeli flags. earlier talking about the deal and the perspectives that iran has. we will play a little bit of that statement from the iranian foreign minister. >> i begin by expressing my appreciation to everybody to those who started this process and those who continued this process, in order to reach a win-win solution on what in our view was an unnecessary process.

i believe this is an historic moment. we are reaching an agreement that is not typical for anybody but is what we could accomplish. it is an important achievement for all of us. today could have been the end of hope, but now we are starting a new chapter of hope. let's consider this everybody's achievement and let's think all of our colleagues, particularly the political directors and deputy ministers who have done all of the work or most of the work. host: iran's president taking to twitter to talk about the deal just now saying iran and the inspectors agree to accelerate cooperation with aim to fully resolve all prior issues.

we will talk about the deal reached by the world leaders and iran over the nuclear program. brenda, good morning. caller: thank you america for listening to me. whether there were weapons of mass destruction in a rack, where we have rednecks running around with guns and confederate flags -- i. don't believe in any of it and i don't care the united states is the only nation in the world that ever used a nuclear weapon. no other nation has ever done that. all of this talk and posturing. whoever in the middle east has nuclear weapons -- who else? i think pakistan. i don't know what all those stan countries are and i don't care.

host: you are not concerned overall? caller: it don't affect me. the data states is the only nation in the world who has ever used a weapon of mass distraction. i am not concerned about what they do over there. i am retired military. i am female. i was in saudi arabia during the first iraq war and i never saw a woman over there, we are talking about the women were there getting raped -- i don't care. most americans don't care. it is the news media that pumps this up. host: nicole from fairfax virginia on the republican line. caller: first of all, i have two things. i am not short what the confederate flag has to do with iran at all, but i don't know why we even started discussion in the first place when they

have american property. they have prisoners for no reason. why aren't we working on that? we have no business to go shinning with them. host: that is nicole from fairfax, virginia. -- no business negotiating with them. host: that is nicole from fairfax, virginia. john kerry saying agreement is a step away from specter of conflict, towards possibility of peace. this is a good deal. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independents. paul is next on the independent line. caller: i have to say that first of all i agree with the previous

independent caller as far as the general idea that people don't seem to truly care about many things happening in the world today. as to this nuclear agreement with iran, i don't necessarily agree or disagree but i believe it was a necessary and -- end. the chessboard world that we are in currently. it was a necessary step to take. the thing is -- i remember a year and a half ago watching c-span with some congressional hearings and the panel of nuclear scientists were discussing iran and they conceded at that time -- this was over one year ago, that they

believed iran had enough -- they had the supplies to create one nuclear weapon within five six months of that point and they believed they could have three in 10 months. if they were correct -- more than likely iran is going to have a nuclear weapon if they don't already because of china and russia. the current economic deals going on worldwide. we pretty much had to make those agreements. host: that is paul from wisconsin giving his thoughts. the announcement today of an agreement with iran is now up to congress to work through every detail particularly given his likelihood to explore every ambiguity and loophole to its

benefit and to the detriment of our allies in the gulf. i have been very clear about what needs to be included and i will be examining the agreement today. bill is from florida. you are next. caller: i absolutely, positively don't believe any of it. you cannot deal with terrorists in good faith. i do believe that the ayatollah runs the show. any agreement made at the table -- i don't think they will honor it. they have had so many opportunities to deal with the united states in the past. but now they got what they wanted. if you do time in the united states, at the end you get $50 and a suit. they want theirs up front. host: ronald from illinois, democrats line. caller: i am so excited that

what this president and john kerry, along with the international community have been able to achieve. every single objective that they laid out was outstanding. host: what do you mean the objectives? what is the one you are concerned about most? caller: i like the fact that they can go any place at any time with inspections and the provisions -- if anything wrong happens, if anybody cheats, we can snap back and get the same conditions that we have right now. that is powerful. host: former u.s. ambassador to the united states under the george w. bush administration has a tweet saying -- the only thing we need to verify is what obama was thinking when he agreed to it. this deal is an absolute disaster.

from indiana, omar. caller: i have to say that i do support this agreement that has taken place. at the same time, i wonder how many american people even know that starting in 1979, no iranian president has ever claimed to want nuclear weapons. iran has always denied wanting nuclear weapons. for those americans call and say that they are not trustworthy they need to remember the 300 or more treaties that we made with american indians. my fear is this -- israel and its fifth column lobbyists are going to even more viciously attack this agreement through

their control of too many senators and congressmen. lastly i hope we don't have some type of major attack in this country done by israel and supporters to blame it on iran to drag it into the war that israel is wanting so desperately for us to do on her behalf. host: couple folks on twitter giving comment on this deal saying, i am relieved that is done. i personally think iran should have deals to keep israel terrorists in check. we supposedly had verification before and iran cheated, who is to say after they have money rolling in they cannot cheat than? the republican line. caller: i think this negotiation doesn't have any very professional strategic front. this is a deal to add to obama's enhanced administration, some

type of international leverage or progress. it is not progress at all. the iranians constantly criticize us and they harass our navy in the oceans off of their coast. this is very aggressive behavior, they have no effort -- interest in a cooperative effort. and why they invest billion's of dollars in nuclear research and then lock the doors. they are not going to do that. they are not stupid. they will continue developing nuclear weapons, they will be small atomic weapons, enough to do major damage in the middle east if they want. they will not lock the doors on that stuff. they will try to put a veil over it and mask it as best they can

and they will get away with it. 10 years down the road they will test a nuclear weapon and obama's administration will look like. . -- look like fools. host: the president spoke a lot about the verification process. what do you think about those statements he made? caller: i don't think the american people are going to be privy to how that is done. when you say verification process, that is a very broad generalization. i think that a lot of their nuclear research is being done secretly. i don't think for a second that they will allow complete oversight and verification. you would have to have a list of every site and how they will be verified.

you cannot have a generalized statement that we have verification of their facilities. they tried that with saddam -- we have bumbled around in the middle east for 15 years and have not come pushed anything. there hasn't been any kind of a military victory or diplomatic victory. we have not propped up anybody and all we are doing with the iranians is giving them a green light and they will start selling petroleum looks again and they will make billions of dollars within a couple of days and all we have is a piece of paper, that isn't worth the agreement it is written on. it is politics trying to prop up obama's image, to give the democrats some kind of valid international stance coming into the elections when they are traditionally weak. host: william from minnesota.

(202) 748-8000 for democrats (202) 748-8001 for republicans and for independents (202) 748-8002. caller: i would like to make a comment on the nuclear deal. when anybody tells you they are giving you a deal that is not a good sign. i think this "deal" should be made public to the american people and let us, to our representatives. this administration has been making deals for six years. we are $1 trillion in debt. here is another deal. host: so specifically, what would you say to your legislator? she has a ready left. from bloomberg eli writing today about the 60 day review process. they write from yesterday saying that if and when a deal is announced, the white house will

turn its attention to selling to congress and it will be dependent on one lawmaker to save his foreign-policy legacy -- matthew pelosi. the former house speaker has vowed to support any deal but her behind-the-scenes plan to with the votes has already begun. she has been having formal meetings with experts who support the negotiations and even helped gather lawmaker signatures expressing support for diplomacy with iran. they will disapprove of a final iran deal staving off political humiliation. let's hear from libya. -- lydia. caller: the people that are opposed to the deal don't know diddly about iran. they have already been signed onto the nuclear

nonproliferation treaty for a longtime. people whom the u.s. consider their allies are not signed on. iran has consistently said that it is against islam to have these nuclear weapons. i think it is a great deal and i am so glad to have it done. it makes the world safer. i wish people would dig deeper. iran has been made into a fake enemy. i am glad that the deal was set and i have no doubt that iran will keep its foot on this because it has been keeping its word. israel has 200 nuclear weapons. who knows what some of the other countries have. thank you so much for c-span, you are the first amendment in action. host: nancy pelosi bring out a statement saying this historic

agreement announced after years of tough and clear right leadership from president obama, i commend his strength in negotiations that led to this point. a nuclear armed iran is unacceptable united states and the world. aggressive restrictions often the best long-term plan to stop iran from building a nuclear weapon. we have no illusions about the iranian regime or the destabilizing influence they continue to have in the region and we must maintain our intelligence. -- maintain our vigilance. jerry from washington next on the democrat line. >> i agree with the last caller. we need to stop looking for our enemies and start trying to build to allies around the world.

the german from minnesota, the longer he talks he makes the point that a lot of folks are just fishing for a reason to go against the agreement. it is not just about the agreement it is about trying to have a civil relationship with other people within the world. this deal has nothing to do with arms and aggression against israel and it has a lot to do with the energy needs of a nation. host: senator james lankford tweeting out that we must see the iran deal. ryan zinke he says potus is allowing a run to take control in iraq and out is making their

prayers come through with this bad deal. and a ron desantis saying it will 11 to foment more terrorism as they become the dominant power to the region. from corona delmar, this is wrong. >> listen, some thoughts here. >> this agreement was not done in -- by itself with the united states, it was done multilaterally with a variety of different players -- what about russia and china -- are they stupid too? the callers that colin and say the president made a bad deal are just voicing directly what the israeli lobbyists are all about. they want to keep the thing cranking. the bottom line in this story is for the first time since 1979 we

have a good relationship with iran. how can we say it is a good relationship because it is better than we had before. this president has done a sterling job of doing stuff that nobody else would have done. i don't care who we are talking about. you cannot be more proud about it. let's say it goes to hack in a handbasket next week. you don't think we can drop a bomb on toronto if we had to. of course we could. this is just nonsense and we should be very proud of the agreement we have with iran and it is like reagan said, believe but verify and as we go down the road we will make all kinds of good sense and it will be very obvious which side the agreement landed on. host: one more call, jerry from tennessee. caller: we cannot stick our heads in the sand and hope these

will be achieved by this deal. the same thing happened in 1938 -- we negotiated with the nazi regime, we had peace in our time like they thought and 50 million people died as a result. hitler called us little worms. we are negotiating with a terrorist regime now and we have a new chamberlain, it is barack obama. how many lives will it cost us? they cannot be trusted and they will not be trusted. they went away. and israel out. -- they want to wipe us out and israel out. host: two members of congress joining us this morning to talk about this and other issues. jan schakowsky from illinois to talk about the deal that has

been announced and later in the program, the republican from kansas here to talk about benghazi and other things. this marks the 60th anniversary of the capitol hill newspaper "rollcall." sitting down to talk about the coverage of major news events. the rollcall's reporting on the 1968 assassination of senator robert kennedy. [video clip] >> when "role call" went to press for the june 6 edition in 1968, they didn't yet know what would be the state of bobby kennedy. they knew he had been shot in a new he had been rushed to a hospital in los angeles but they went to press not yet knowing what the outcome would the. so the rollcall editorial staff at

the time actually went ahead with a front-page editorial in which they addressed the broader issues of the day regarding violence in particular as it came related to guns but also more generally which was a topic of concern for "rollcall throughout the 1960's. in those days the newspaper ran a regular series of editorial features and had an editorial column in each week's edition and one of the topics of concern on capitol hill and elsewhere was the more general violence of the era and that included the riots that were going on in the city and so when he was shot, it became an obvious time to once again returned to that topic and as it was happening, it turned out that the next edition of

rollcall would not be for another week. they had a situation they did not actually have an opportunity to support the news of the funeral itself or even bobby kennedy's death in print which is a reminder -- reminder of how different the media a rut from today that they were restricted to this situation with a could not be timely on the news. that is how they did that and they moved onto the next week. host: you will find out more about rollcall and its 60th anniversary at some of the stories and what it is doing currently. our first guest of the mortar is jankowski, the chief deputy whip of the house and a member of the energy and commerce committee. your thoughts right off the bat on the deal announced.

>> all that's in congress are going to want to look carefully at it and we will have the opportunity to review it, but as someone who has been pretty close to these negotiations, meeting with negotiators and leaders from the white house, it seems to me as if this is a very strong and very positive deal and i am looking forward to studying the details but my reaction is that the world is safer today than it was yesterday. host: why do you think they are committed? guest: the have a self interest but iran is not in any way our ally but they want some sanctions relief they want the economy to grow and that is the main reason that they came to the table because we had strong u.s. and international sanctions. that were pretty devastating to their economy that brought them

to the table and it brought them to a deal that i think is really good all around. that is the goal from our point of view to make sure that they don't have, never have a nuclear weapon. >> when it comes to verification do you think iran could put up roadblocks going forward? >> transparency that has been built into the agreement will make sure that we can see the full supply chain of the nuclear program from the mills in the minds all the way up to the centrifuges and their production and i feel confident. here is the thing. if iran decides to cheat, we can snap back those sanctions immediately and no options are off the table. if we eventually need to use military or suppress it has made

clear in his speech this morning that that is a possibility. we are hopeful that this will mean there is no nuclear arms race in the region and that the transparency will allow us to see everything we need to make sure that iran doesn't get that weapon. host: as chief deputy whip what is your job? guest: we will be having sessions, open and closed sessions, learning more about that. once we feel confident and once the leadership feels confident we will be seeking support from the democrats to stand behind the president and support his deal and if in the end it is needed to help sustain whatever the president may have to use. (202) 748-8000 for democrats.

(202) 748-8001 for republicans and (202) 748-8002 for independents. our guest is the chief deputy whip. how would you say democrats are about this deal, currently? do you have enough support? guest: i feel that the democrats are very open to looking at all of the details of this agreement. i think at the end of the day that we will have a majority among the democrats support for the agreement. >> there are stories about nancy pelosi holding a lot of events to lead up to this deal does that suggest skepticism? >> i think members of congress feel a certain responsibility to make sure that we know exactly guest they have heard the president this morning and having seen the lead up to this, i think that we will see democrats feel very confident. here is the main reason.

we have to ask ourselves what is the alternative. that is what the president was talking about at the very end after he described the way that iran has to freeze and dismantle its nuclear program right now. the consequence of not having a deal means that we have no visibility and there are no constraints on a rant and they can move quickly to building a nuclear weapon and we could have an arms race in the middle east where other countries went to develop nuclear weapons and ultimately, we could be forced to use military force in the region. we could have another war in the middle east. i don't think that is what americans want. we have to measure this agreement against the alternative. what happens if we don't have an agreement? we know iran.

we know they are a bad actor. so we are fearful that they would move right ahead and i think we're pretty confident that they would with a nuclear weapon. host: your first question is from charles. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my phone call. it's a great thing the people of america have to realize that over 80% of the kids in iran are under 30 and in spring 2009, the vote was about freedom and democracy and getting out of the sanctions and now we are actually boosting the president of iran. this is the greatest way to move iran into the 21st century. these are not arabs. they are persians and are completely different people and

if you knew them, they like valentine's day and they celebrated. they like michael jackson, this is the greatest way to upset those supreme leaders. >> i would have to agree with that. looking at the youth in iran they are anxious to be part of the rest of the world. they do like a lot of the western culture and i think will be the future leaders of their country. and i think you are right that the more moderate the forces in iran will be strengthened by this deal. host: (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independents. we're talking about the length

of time before we see the fullness of the steel come forward. what you think about future presidents going forward? guest: there is some time because the legislation that was passed in congress gives us 60 days to review this proposal on the table now that has been signed by our allies including -- signatures not only from the european countries but russia and china and then it will need to be phased in. that is iran will not see sanctions until the full deal is implemented. they will have to fully comply. they will have to dismantle the plutonium heavywater reactor and they will have to take and stop

all of their centrifuges from spinning. there are so many things that iran will have to put into place, so it will roll out. the president referred to future presidents saying that this will be a better situation for them because there are aspects of this agreement including the supply chain inspections that last 25 years. host: what is the role of the united nations going forward? guest: all of this will be ratified into a resolution with united nations. we expect that to happen quickly. the u.n. and our d5 plus one allies will be involved in this in monitoring and even those who are not supported -- let's say our close ally israel, will also

be watching very closely. all eyes will be on iran, not the next few years but the next few decades. host: when it comes to the actual process, who takes the lead? guest: the iaea will take the lead on those inspections. they will be meeting soon with all of their experts to make sure the have a total capacity to do the kind of intrusive and constant inspections. they are well aware and they have been part of these negotiations and they have signed on to the agreement. host: joe on the democrats line. caller: good morning congresswoman. it is a pleasure to see some of our representatives working well with the administration. i want to comment on the deal

that the president and the administration made. it is one of the most profound things, reaching out with compassion. that is good because we need that in the world. there are so many haters right here in the united states that hate the administration and the president, that they would do anything to downplay anything constructive. thank you congresswoman, for being representative of something that works and something that helps us as a people and a nation to go forward and reach out. israel is not the only person in the world that has the united states's test interests. there are other people in the world who have children and families who want to see that change, that international and global connection. thank god for the administration and the efforts. keep up the good work. you support what works because

it is about all of us, not just some of us. guest: i am certainly hoping that the reaction to the deal is based on the deal itself -- on the content. on the prospect of stopping iran from moving forward and not about feelings about the administration. like to stymie the president and that should not be the criteria moving forward. host: john from louisiana, good morning. caller: good morning. what if iran actually did develop a nuclear weapon and attempted to use it? i do not believe they could use it. and, the united states which is white them off the map, and there would be no more iran. i really do not feel that they want to self-destruct. i think it is just a lot of hype

, that is just my opinion. guest: we want to assure that. the proliferation of nuclear weapons is a danger in the world, and certainly iran has shown aggression towards its neighbors. the support of terrorism, and adding to that, if they were a nuclear power, i think the world is a more dangerous place. again, i think it could have set off other players in the region, saying if iran has nuclear weapons, we better have nuclear weapons. having this proof edition -- proliferation through this volatile region would have been extremely dangerous. i think we have been very cautious, and very sensible in signing this agreement. host: leaders in the region say this is always about their

energy needs. you agree with that? guest: i don't. we do not have evidence that they are developing a domestic use for nuclear energy. i think we do have enough evidence to say that iran was looking towards a bomb. again, this is not based on trust. in fact, it is the opposite of being based on trust. this will be based on inspections, based on the most intrusive verifiable strong inspections, doing exactly what iran is doing. host: on our independent line from california, here is mike. caller: good morning, covers woman. i have two observations regarding the credibility of some of the principal players in the middle east. iran supreme leader -- both of them -- have declared that all

weapons of mass destruction including chemical weapons are against islam. they could be lying. i am libertarian, and that is my default opinion of all politicians. we have sit saddam hussein who used chemical weapons, and iran's leadership wanted nuclear weapons to counteract the other weapons. they insisted, no weapons of mass destruction. to contrast that, the israeli prime minister, has come over the last 19 years, predicted the eminent breakout of nuclear weapons. he published a book with precision saying that within

three years, iran with would have nuclear weapons. it strikes me that terms of credibility of the major players in the middle east that would have overblown this threats. guest: what we do know now is the potential breakout time for iran developing a nuclear weapon would be to-three months. maybe you are right, maybe they wouldn't, but they do have the capacity and the fuel that at this moment could provide for what the president said in the morning, could be 6-8 nuclear weapons. it is no reason for us to take chances with iran. what this deal would do is make sure the breakout time is about one year. in terms of the credibility of iran, i think that most of the

world is not want to rely on that. the centrifuges have been spe spinning in iran. even from your point of view, i think this is a "make sure this does not happen" type of deal. host: from twitter, a question on how do we know that iran has a hidden their progress? guest: that is because the inspections we will have now will be the most expensive and intrusive. the iaea will be able to go anywhere and be able to see if there is any suspicion any place they will have access to those places. we feel, and the world, our allies and signers, feel confident that these kinds of intrusive inspection -- and if

there's any reason to think that iran has hidden something somewhere -- we will be able to look at it. host: when it comes to the process, will the inspectors always have a presence or will they be announced visits? guest: the inspectors will always have presence, but there also new technologies that allow for 20 47 surveillance of what is going on. we will be able to confidently be seeing what they are doing. if there's any suspicion, we can always snapback the sanctions and we always have the option of military force on the table. host: do you expect an american president or are these other members of the international community? guest: this will be the un's international agency for energy. they will be inspecteding.

the secretary of energy of the united states who has been at the table the whole time is a nuclear scientist. he will be monitoring all of that information that comes from the iaea. host: kate from dayton, ohio democrats line. you are next. caller: i would like to encourage the public to go to the international atomic agency website as well as the u.n. website and read the actual report, and really actually read the history of iran, in regard to signing the nonproliferation trad treaty years ago. they have the right to enrich up to 20%, and have really action compromise a great deal here. as the representative said this is not based on trust, that

would be the right attitude towards iran. what? we overthrew a democratically elected leader back in the 1950's. the media, you don't really hear them say that they have the legal right to enrich. they have many reasons not to trust us as well. i wanted to ask representative czajk chancellor calls jan schakowsky host:y -- what country will allow inspections of their military sites by another country? i think that is like breaking up residual issues. i also encourage viewers to go to the aipac website because they are just going to push hard to bust this deal. people need to call the reps and

support diplomacy, support p eace. guest: let me say, that is not true, we will have the possibility of look at military sites. the possible -- pmds -- we will have the opportunity by going to the iaea, they will get a vote of the p5 plus one and we will then be able to go in inspections in the possible military sites as well. that really is not true. you're right that this is not based on trust. this is not based on -- this is based on self-interest on both sides. i believe iran believes this is a good deal because they will get some economic sanctions

relief, which is why they are willing to sign the agreement, and i feel the united states and the rest of the world feels that we will stop iran from having a nuclear weapon or enriching to anything above 3.7%, not 20% exporting all of their highly enriched uranium, or getting rid of it, in any case. i think people ought to look and go to the website as you suggest, look at the deal yourself, and decide whether or not the kind of enforcement inspections oversight is not sufficient. host: gene in indiana, good morning. caller: thank you. i just wanted to as the lady about something i just heard on one of the other stations where they said that this agreement to inspect -- for some side, they are requiring a request, written

request, and a 14 day delay before the inspection occurs. who knows what they can do in two weeks. my point is how can you trust a dictator jacked? ddictators have notoriously light in the past. they have sworn to destroy israel, don't you think they will do that? the devil is in the details, and i think people are not looking at the details. guest: of course we will look at the details. there may be a process for getting access to certain sites, but two weeks is not going to be enough time, if that is what it is, for iran to have a nuclear weapon. let me say regarding israel -- as a jew, i feel certainly very concerned about the security of israel.

the president, by the way, has said there would be even more efforts going forward to protect the security of israel. it seems to me that iran, who has declared "death to israel come code "death to the united states," better that they not be a nuclear r declarations. i think this will prevent iran from being as much of a threat to its neighbors, including for me especially israel. host: can you be out how the process works with congress now that this to? what are the steps? guest: i believe first after looking at this -- and they have 60 days until mid-september to look at it -- then, vote on

approval or disapproval. the house will vote approval or disapproval. if it is disapproval, then there will be efforts to sustain the veto of the president of the united states. i believe that in the house of representatives, we have a very good chance of sustaining the veto. that will be one of the things that after looking at this feeling secure with that, i will be working on. host: i know you do not speak for house republicans, but how do you think they will go forward on this deal? guest: i am hopeful that there will be some, maybe not the majority of republicans, who would support this deal. i really truly believe that if it is based on the document itself without interference of

all kinds of politics, and feelings about the president of the united states, and perhaps wanting to snatch a victory from him, i hope that is not part of the equation, that we will have support for giving diplomacy a serious chance here, rather than the prospect of having to engage in another war in the middle east. american people's early do not want that, and that could be the likely alternative. host: paul is in massachusetts independent line. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. i have a concern and a question. my concern is the clinton administration had an agreement with north korea that was supposed to prevent with korea from getting nuclear weapons. i think we all know how that turned out. what is different here that makes you think the results are going to be any different with iran that we got with north korea?

guest: that is a very important question and i really appreciate that. a lot of lessons were learned from the north korea situation. we did not have these kinds of intrusive inspections. the inspection regime was really absent from north korea. before we knew it, we woke up one day where they were testing a nuclear weapon. now, they are a nuclear country. i think we learned from that. that was a guidepost for how to proceed with the kind of detailed agreement and inspections regime that we will have, and the enforcement we will have in iran. as you say, what makes us different -- that is where we learned the lessons that are now being applied to iran.

thanks for that. host: our next caller is in las vegas, go ahead. caller: good morning, congresswoman. thank you for your time. i have a question regarding sanctions. with sanctions lifted, willie economically be stabilized, as i ran will be allowed to sell oil on the world market instead of just exchanging it? guest: it is interesting. i thought today that the price of oil dropped because of the agreement. in addition to the sanctions something that has really hurt iran over time. iran has been a bad player in the region. there is no question. i do not know that they will necessarily stop being a bad player. they will not be a nuclear player, which is a good thing. understand this. the sanctions, other than the

nuclear sanctions, that have been in place, will stay in place. in other words, the sanctions that deal with their support of terrorism, the sanctions the deal with human rights violations of iran are all going to stay in place. the united states resolution and the un's resolution, all those others will stay in place. iran will not overnight turn into a friend to the rest of the region, or to the rest of the world. at the very least, they will not have the power of the nuclear weapon behind them. host: democrats line, here is keith. caller: yes. my, to the lady is netanyahu said he would go alone is the united states reach this agreement with iran. i was just wondering what you thought about that? that is my comment. guest: i actually had not heard

of the prime minister of israel said he would go alone. obviously, the country of israel, the state of israel has its choices to make, and can make them as they see fit. my hope is that they will find they are in a better situation than they were, making sure that iran does not have a nuclear weapon and that creating more war in that region will not be to the advantage of israel. certainly, we will be working of the country, the united states, to make israel feel more secure. the president said that. my hope is that the united states can play a part in making sure that the state of israel not only feels, but is more secure.

host: how do we work together? what is the role of other countries? guest: all of them will sign on to the deal. let me just say this -- it was a tremendous achievement to put together the p5 plus one, to get not only the european countries, but china and russia, to agree. no one wants to see iran as a nuclear power. all of them will be playing a role in making sure the deal is adhered to. host: if there is resistance, do you expect resistance from russia and china as well? guest: i do not see that. they are signatories. one of the outstanding issues with the issue of being able to sell arms to iran.

that will not be able to happen, at least for five years. no missiles for eight years. that is explicitly now britain into the agreement. -- written into the agreement. host: bill, you are on. caller: good morning. i wanted to us this congresswoman, how come it was not done as a treaty? how come it was done as a deal? if it was done as a treaty wouldn't that be better? guest: i think it treaty implies perhaps a bilateral agreement. the united states signing a treaty with iran. this is certainly an agreement that i think has as much power as a treaty, a multilateral treaty, if you will, that is now the united states and each individual country and the iaea

as well. i think we will have assurances that any treaty would offer. host: that was built in pennsylvania. our guest is representative jan schakowsky, deputy whip. will there be hearings, specific hearings? and who handles the hearings on this deal? guest: i understand there may be a hearing today in the foreign relations committee in the house of representatives. i think there will be many hearings. there will be all kinds of meetings and all kinds of hearings. there will be lots of discussions official and unofficial, throughout the congress and the country. i look forward to that, and i think the president does too. by the way, polling is showing that a majority of americans do support this effort.

host: bill from pennsylvania, go ahead. caller: the other question i want to know is it said this morning that there is now a roadmap between the iaea and iran on inspections. how come our military people are not doing the inspections. the iaea, they said they have a roadmap for inspections. what does a roadmap mean? how come our generals are not going to do the inspections. geoeye would feel a lot better if it were americans in their 24/7 doing in actions, by do not see that happening. guest: the international atomic energy agency is, as you know part of the united nations. but, the united states is going to have complete oversight of everything that the iaea does, and not only that, but directing

what the inspection regime will look at. what ever it roadmap, i'm not familiar with that term, but i assure you the united states has the main hand interesting this agreement. going forward, we will continue to have the main hand. you are right that the inspections is the most important part of the agreement and i assure you that the united states -- i feel real secure not only talk about the generals, but having one of the most premier nuclear experts the secretary of energy as part of this oversight regime. host: do you have a sense of how often inspections will take place? how long they will last? guest: all of that is laid out. i think they are 15-20 years

depending on what we are inspecting. all that can be in the documents that we can look at now. everyone will get an opportunity to see it. inspections, i think the lowest amount will be 15 years of to 25 years. host: once every 15 years? guest: no, no, no. ongoing. it depends on certain aspects. there may be some for a decade i'm not sure, having not seen the final document. this will be ongoing. we are going to be able to inspect anywhere at any time. there may be some process that will have a slight delay to getting to somewhere, i'm not sure. we will look. this is an ongoing inspections program. host: let's hear from fred. caller: i'm going to sound

ignorant on this, or civil minded, but the american people, and the vast majority of us that were under the believe the iraqis were try to get a nuclear bomb or were working on it, we were all gung ho to go into iraq. with iran, we know that there in goal is to make every and all attempts to someday develop a nuclear bomb. i just do not understand -- well, i just don't think -- since we went into iraq and opened up this beehive. we took the lid off the devil over there. it is not over with.

the war is not over with. there is a good possibility that we need to go ahead and make sure militarily the at iran, that we take out all of their nuclear program. they want the bomb. that is what this is all about. guest: let me say that the very same people who urged us to go into iraq, that they had weapons of mass destruction, that we would be greeted as heroes, that it would take just a couple of weeks, that iraqi oil would pay for the whole thing -- i think it is one of the motivations for us to say, let's try diplomacy. let's try a way to avoid another war in the middle east that could last decades. and, let me say this to you.

experts are saying that even if we were to bomb the nuclear sites now in iran, that would only set back their nuclear program for 2-3 years. this deal goes much longer and will not require the lost of treasure by the united states, investing in a war, and more importantly, the loss of precious lives. i think we have learned a lot from iraq. let's figure out a better way to stop any kind of aggression. host: joe from miami, hello, go ahead. caller: let me tell you, iran hates us and we do not like iran. the only way this deal gets done is with the five other countries.

that's the thing. they don't trust us either. they got for the other five countries being there. if we do not back this deal, the other five countries are not backing us. guest: that is a really good point. if the united states were to walk away from the table -- if the deal was flushed by congress and it didn't happen, the other countries involved in sanctions with iran would probably walk away, and the entire sanctions regime that exists right now would fall apart. in terms of we do not like iran and iran does not like us listen, you do not make deals with your friends. you make the tough deals with your enemies to get the outcome that you want, and the outcome they want as well. host: ed is saying, as i

have said, no deal is better than a bad deal. guest: no deal is better than a bad deal, and that is why you kept getting extended. the united states was not about to side, even though several deadlines had passed. we were sticking to make sure the agreement was a tough one. i think what we have is a good deal. no deal could in fact lead to some really bad consequences like more, for instance. if we have a good deal, we ought to accept it. no deal is better than a bad deal but a good deal is better than no deal. host: one more call from michigan, republican line. caller: i would like to know how much money america is going to be giving to iran for this deal.

we did so well monitoring the border that we have a mexican problem. what makes it that this will be any different? guest: the money is uranium money that we have stopped allowing the iranians to have. it is lost in bank accounts, etc. (202) 748-8000 by reducing sanctions, the united states will not be country leading to iran. this is not about taxpayer dollars. because it is not just a u.s. order, we are talking about all of the major nations in the world wanted monitoring this agreement.

i think we can have confidence because it is now the international community that is involved in making sure the iran sticks to its part of the deal. if not, we always have the option of military force. host: representative jan schakowsky, thank you very much. another perspective coming up on the deal with iran. representative mike thepompeo from kansas, a member of the intelligence committee. he joins us with his thoughts as "washington journal" continues. ♪ >> booktv is television for

serious readers. join us this saturday, starting at 11:00 eastern for our all day live coverage of the harlem book fair, the nations flagship african-american literary events. on sunday, august 2, author and code pink cofounder on "in-depth." on sunday, our live "in-depth" program, lynne cheney. those are a few of the upcoming live programs on c-span two 's booktv period of this week and on c-span's road to the white house, two major political evidence from iowa. we are the only place we can

watch or listen to these events in their and tidy. on friday, we will be live from cedar rapids. it will be the first time that all five democratic candidates share the stage. on saturday, we will be live from the family leadership summit where nine of the republican candidates are scheduled to peak. -- speak. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our guest, representative mike pompeo, number of the intelligence committee, and also the energy committee. you put out a tweet saying that the deal is historic, but a mistake. it is time for congress to step up. why is it a mistake? guest: while we do not know the

exact details of a deal, we know iranians will be able to continue enriching. when we see the details of the verification regime, we will find that it is a joke. this is serious is this. iranians are the largest state sponsor of terror, and our president just struck a deal that will allow them to have $50 million-$100 million. this is a historic mistake. it is time for congress to take it's appropriate role and respond by killing this deal. host: our previous guest talked about the verification regime, saying it is an instance one. -- intense one. you do not agree, why? guest: there is a long history of failing.

these are people who are intent on the destruction of the west. to think that they are not capable of hiding something from us, history has shown that they will. it is not enough to say we have worked really hard. now to say, we will go to these really deep inspections. it is not about working hard, it is about outcome. there is no reason to believe -- we will find that the verification regime fails to do what the president has said it will do. host: the sanctions relief that will happen if certain qualifications are met, what do you think about that? do you think i read can hold up to the qualifications? guest: they have been avoiding the rules of the game for decades. they killed friends of mine in iraq by building ied's. these are people who are intent on the destruction of the west. to think that they will play by

rules that the wet imposes on them is ludicrous. i'm confident that congress will be able to look at this agreement, make good decisions not fall prey to the strongmen agreement that the administration is pushing which is that there are just two options, a deal or a war. that is a fallacy. we will disapprove this deal. we will do good for the israeli people, the american people, and i will tell you, the iranian people will benefit greatly too if we kill this deal. host: if it is not a deal or war, what are the other options that could be considered? guest: we had great sanctions. in fact, we are putting great sanctions over the president. we put these sanctions in place

and they were on desk doorstep, and then we let our foot off the table. we release sections, letting iran limp upon, and now we are giving them the fuel to their power to extend their network throughout the world. there are a lot of options besides this deal. a good deal was possible to have if we decided the iranians would not be our friends and we would do business with the regime that to the day shout, "death to america." host: (202) 748-8000 democrats,. republicans, (202) 748-8001. for independents, (202) 745-8002 . where is house leadership on this currently? guest: i have not seen anything this morning, the over the past month, leaders have made clear that a deal is something they will work hard to get the house

of representatives to disapprove. host: what you have a hearing on this deal? guest: we will have a number of hearings. we see this administration continue to refuse to knowledge that iranians spread terror throughout the world. somehow sitting down at a table for months is victory. they measured not outcome but hard work. they did not get what america needed in this deal. host: first of this deed in indiana. go ahead, please. caller: good morning, gentlemen. can you hear me? host: yes, go ahead. caller: i see the stomach here made his opinion. he already made his opinion he is a simple republican. he has no answers. we make deals with the russians back in the 1980's.

you have to deal with your enemies. i cannot believe you are risking a big thing like this because it is political. that's all it is, political. guest: this is not political at all. this is about your safety, the safety of her children. i'm sure you have friends and family members serving in america's armed services today. it will be less safe as a result of this deal. this is not about who is the president, or which party. we are now going to hand $100 million to the largest state sponsor of terror and think that they are not going to use it for terror. i do not think i have heard a single person in the months of this going on talk about going to war with iran.

i'm confident that congress will get it right -- by the way democrats and republicans will get this right, and we will commence the president to go back on this deal. host: pittsburgh, pennsylvania herman, your next. caller: good morning. i would like to know if this is not a good deal, what is a good deal? what would you suggest? what are the alternatives? guest: great question. the first thing, it would contain -- it would prevent iran from an enriching uranium. i have heard people say that is crazy, but that was the president's position 26 months ago. we would get them to commit to stopping the spread of terror. we would force them to allow any time anywhere inspections inside

iran to make sure that their historic nuclear program could be verified. we could find out what the baseline is so we could conduct inspections that have value. we could ensure that they did not spend any money that they received on terrorism throughout the world. our half a dozen metrics frankly metrics that former secretary of state clinton it carry, and obama said they wanted. host: from twitter, a viewer says, even if congress votes the deal will remain in place and the u.n. will lift sanctions. is that true? guest: i hope not. the president already said he would veto are disapproval resolution. we would have to override the veto. the ability of the president to waive economic sanctions and weapons sanctions on iran will stay in place if congress overturns what has been done

this morning. host: how healthy are the sanctions versus other countries? guest: they are very powerful. to the extent that america decides that it will continue its leadership, it will continue its role in preventing iran from wreaking havoc around the world the sanctions will work. host: from turner in texas, independent line. caller: good morning. i disagree with the congressman's position. the united states -- put it like this, the republican party cannot just sit there and disregard the rest of the world community, just to appease israel. it just seems that it is more partyline politics, and to continue labeling iran as a terrorist state, without taking into consideration what the cia did theirre in 1953 shows the

disingenuousness of this propaganda scheme that your party keeps regurgitating again and again. guest: this will not be a partisan vote to overturn this deal. i assure you that. there will be a number of democrats. it will not follow along the lines of republican half-democrat. this is not about partisanship. your first comment that this is mike pompeo against the world does not reflect reality either. i have not seen statements from the goal states, the united arab emirates, who have deep interests regarding iran getting a nuclear weapon. they have said for months that if they get a nuclear weapon, they would pursue a similar outcome.

this will be a stain on american foreign-policy for decades to come. and far worse, it will present risks to us to live in the united states. host: thomas in texas, your next. guest: good morning. i noticed that in the talks this morning by john kerry, as well as president obama there was no mention whatsoever of the classes of submarines that could be nuclear bearing missile power. in other words, the missiles on the submarines themselves. one type was a new class that was built in germany, and the german parliament got upset about it when they found out

that one of the towers is able to deliver a low range, short range missile. they were very upset about that. i believe is really got three -- israel got three. there is also report of russians that gave them, or sold them the typhoon class submarines. guest: i can go into some detail about what you mentioned, by can share this month hear your point is well taken. to the extent that sanctions are lifted tehran will be flooded by people who want to sell weapons and goods to the iranians. our capacity to monitor this will be greatly diminished. it will be done against the

background of permission of iran to develop enhanced capacity to spend centrifuges -- spin centrifuges. at the beginning of negotiations, the president said there will be no enrichment. then, he said, we will not let them have centrifuges, and now, we will give them 5000. i understand that now they will be allowed to advance centrifuges. you lay that against the weapons bazaar that will happen and determine the risk. host: house speaker boehner releasing a tweet on the deal -- instead of making iran less dangerous, it will embolden iran, the world's largest

sponsor of terror, by helping stabilize and legitimize its regime as it spreads even more violence and instability in the region. guest: he and i think about this just about the same. this risk is very very real. this is not something that has been made up. we need only watch what president rouhani said this morning. he said that the prayers of the iranian people have been answered. the truth is he has that wrong. it is not the iranian people that benefit, it is the most terrorist elements within the iranian regime. they have funded hezbollah, they have funded hamas, and they have had a real struggle over the last three years to find resources for that. we have now just taken that money and handed it -- the leader of the iranian special forces -- and said, here you go, knock yourself out.

this is tragic. i think speaker boehner's remarks, restatement, reflect that. i'm very hopeful that republicans and democrats can join together to get this right. host: if the senate rejects this or the house rejects this and the president overrides it, is there enough support to override that? guest: i don't know. i think we will hear from leaders around the world, and the american people will coalesce around understanding that this was not a good deal, and their representatives will vote, regardless of their party, to undo the deal. host: our next caller from mississippi, go ahead. caller: i was just -- i just wanted to chime in as far as if this is not a good deal, and we

are over there trying to dismantle their nuclear abilities, i'm having a hard time understanding why would that not be good on the actions of america so they will not have the capabilities to build and possibly use nuclear arms. i'm pretty sure that if they wanted to use nuclear arms, then they probably would have done it already. i think this is a good way to where we can have world peace. the issue is that we do not have enough pieace in this world. there's too much fighting and tried to instill fear in people that something will happen. i honestly think that a lot of americans are terrorists. we are so worried about iran but i think we need to also look

at ourselves. i think this is a great step towards having peace. this is what we all need. if we don't step in, who is? eventually, they will come for america if that is the case. i think this is great. guest: thank you for your comments. we cannot disagree more. i do not believe that america is a terrorist nation. i think that is in a sense a statement -- offensive statement. i was a soldier, not too terribly long ago -- so looking at me, you would say, a little bit. these are not men and women who are terrorists. these are people who are out there trying to create a stable middle east so that people will use can also live in peace. this deal goes backwards. it keeps in regime -- the

ayatollah is the real casinos he is secure in his power. it is the capacity to threaten the world. we have seen they have ability and content. we need to go back to place where america will not allow them to have a nuclear weapon, we will not allow them to have a pathway, and we will not surrender to terrorists who have done so much harm in the middle east and the world. host: the president said that no deal means a greater chance of war in the middle east. guest: that is crazy talk. the president knows this. we will hear this for the neck 50 days -- no deal means war. and fax cover we have not had a deal, and we managed to put them

in a place where they had to sit down with us. instead of doing what makes sense, to make sure they have no capacity to enrich nuclear material, this president surrendered. he folded, he gave in. he will say, absent this, we will have war. the iranians are at war today, they are fighting in iraq. they are intent on controlling baghdad. they control as they say, their words, for middle eastern capitals. to think that they will wa walk away from this because president obama writes a few words on a piece of paper is a fallacy. host: he added this --

guest: this is a regime that came to the table to give up their nuclear capacity. instead, we selby will join the negotiation, give you between $20 billion-$50 million per month. we have given them life support we have given the meals. now, we will hand them even more money. this is poor foreign policy. we have seen this before with tyrants and dictators, appease them. i have every believe that the ayatollah intends to take the hundred first -- 101st yard. caller: hi, mike. i really believe and what you are saying. i just have two things i want to

talk about. i see no difference between the deal with iran and what we had going with iraq. we had sanctions. we had the united nations, and all these countries were pressing on iraq to let our inspectors in, and they kept crossing the line. i really feel that we will wind up doing the same thing with iran. i do not have any faith that they will honor their agreement. once you join the line in the sand, what is the alternative? yes, we will press more sanctions, but i think this is a terrible deal. i do not see this going anywhere in the future. another thing -- why didn't senator kerry get the prisoners

that are in iran as a good faith initiative for the deal? that should have been part of the deal. we should have gotten our guys out of there. i really of said they didn't do anything about that. they are giving iran too much power in this deal. host: we will let our guest respond. guest: thank you. at least this morning, there was no announcement about the americans being held in prison in iran. it is shameful that we did not do more. i hope we will here in the coming days that we did better. i do not know the details of all the internal discussions. we will have to wait and see precisely how hard they pressed. host: for those not following who are those americans juggle guest:? guest: there are for americans. they range from journalists to people giving humanitarian

assistance. the mistress and has had discussions -- they have worked on this matter. i would have hoped that at the very least, in a deal of this magnitude where the iranians benefited so greatly that we could have received those prisoners. host: patricia from michigan, go ahead. caller: i have been listening to all of these talking points. i'm so tired of these politicians trying to sell us a bunch of garbage. as far as saying, we can slap the sanctions on as fast as we can, everybody knows that it took years to get them in place to begin with. once they are listed, they are never going back.

do you think they will ever slap it back on? as far as the republican party they are horrible. they gave up their power knowing that obama will be to anything -- veto anything that they try to stop. you will never get anybody in the democratic party to go against this president. he has given up this country to the evil terrorists. iran will get the nuclear weapon. saudi arabia i guarantee you is probably already making a deal with pakistan to get a nuclear bomb. they are not going to let iran, and anybody that runs israel down. they are going to help us in the long run. that is all i have to say. thanks a lot. guest: i agree with most of what you said. we have had not had a chance to

talk about this provision of the president, secretary kerry, and frankly, former secretary of state clinton propose. it is not going to happen. we can visit the united nations security council, russia, china, folks who do not always agree with america put in place these sanctions. now that they have been relieved, the chances -- even under the next president -- to put these sections back in place is not -- look, it is one thing to say you can do verification, barlett seven the iaea identifies that there may have been a potential cheat, they did something wrong, it will take months to verify. then, it will come to the white house, the white house will have to do its own review to find out if it is true. althoughall the while, the iranians

will be laughing their way to the bank and continue to spin centrifuges. i guess the last thing, as you talked about corporate -- i voted against it. i knew it would be a big tall order. the proper process for this would have been for it to be treated as a treaty and have two thirds of the united states and actually have to ratify the agreement, instead of having a huge number of senators and representatives having to vote to against it. host: i guess, mike pompeo, republican from kansas. he is member of the house select committee, talking about the deal with

caller: yes congressmen you are very heavily invested in foreign policy that has really failed this country very badly. look, we have shown the iranians that sanctions are costly and hurtful and you are probably right that is the only reason they will talk to us and they know that. that is the stick. let's try the caret. let's be a little bit more friendly and accommodating. we have 10-15 years to convince them. maybe we can move this state of world geopolitics and a helpful direction. guest: it would be a glorious thing if that were to take place. i want peace in the middle east, i want the threat to our soldiers eliminated. there is no evidence that iran

shares that view. none. no evidence. they continue to support terrorism around the world, as we speak. they continue to create havoc in yemen, lebanon, syria. at the end of the day, that is the ultimate block in any deal you have to have a willing partner and the iranians have not been held to account. they show no indication that they are going to change their intent and they will continue to expand their caliphate. i wish you were right and i hope it turns out your way. i will be the first of come back on the show and say, it turns at ayatollah khomeini was a friend of the show. caller: i just want to say i am for this deal.

i believe iran, there are many reasons not to trust them, but i think we need to limit their capabilities to get a nuclear bomb and to make it so that instead of taking the months that it would take for them to get the bomb, that we need to roll it back as far as possible. i believe that the deal is a good deal. guest: i have a different view. host: maryland, michael is next. caller: good morning, pedro and representative pompeo. what gives the right the -- the u.s. the right to dictate what another sovereign country does? there are another -- a number of other countries in the middle east that have a nuclear bomb. haven't we spend millions of

dollars on missile defense systems? every other day, i hear how great our military is. if they want to bring it, bring it, just go for it. that is my question. guest: yes, there are many countries with a nuclear capability. we don't have a right to dictate what another country does, but we have an obligation to conduct american foreign-policy and make decisions about what america will do. we are talking about what the american relationship will be with the islamic republic of iran. it is our role that we ensure that the folks do not behave in a way that is harmful to the united states. one of the ways you do that is say, we are not going to provide you with the tools, money, resources, wealth to create weapons to turn on the american people. our capacity to influence what other nations do is set through have americans behave.

what we have seen in iranian expansion over the last 36 months, where they have put thousands of forces into iraq is a direct result of failed leadership in the west and the united states. this deal is another step toward that capitulation and will be enormously harmful to all of us, in kansas and all across the united states. caller: good morning. i think it is time for the american people to understand that the people in the nation of iran are a potential natural ally if we were to negotiate with them in an enlightened firm, and honest manner. the only state that has threatened the use of nuclear weapons and has recognized nuclear weapons is israel.

as a jewish american, i can see that what is going on here is that for the last 15 years, it is every half-year that the israeli state is claiming that iran is six months away from a nuclear weapon. this is terrorism to threaten the american people psychologically with a nonexistent existential threat. to have said that he was going to wipe israel off the map, that was a dishonest representation of what he said. he said that there would be a change in the zionist regime. he said that there would be change in history. i think it is time for the american people to realize that the threats to the contribution

-- constitution are much closer to home. we have representative pompeo and senator pat roberts who support the evisceration of the fourth amendment to the constitution in terms of their support for nsa treason. pat roberts specifically was partially responsible for making the snowden leaks necessary by not allowing nsa whistleblowers -- host: finish up. i want to let the representative comment on what you said. caller: ok. host: representative. guest: thanks for coming on the show, jeremy. a lot in there. let me take two points. i find it offensive that you talk about the zionist controlled media. i don't think pedro would tell you that he is controlled by a zionist member of the media. i find that he deeply troubling statement.

you talked about the iranian people and the potential for them to be part of a world of peace. i think there are enormous members of the ordinary citizenry that would be prepared to do this. that is one of the mistakes the president made, when we had the opportunity to support an upstart group of people in iran who would be prepared to overthrow a regime that has threatened to destroy israel and care everyone in the united states, in lawrence, kansas, and wichita, kansas, and everywhere across the united states. had we done that had we rewarded folks inside iran who were willing to overthrow this regime from inside, not from outside, not imposed upon them by the west or anyone else we would have developed a much more effective set of policies and we

would have a much better outcome than we have sitting here. host: new jersey, this is mark. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to guest's comment on this. president obama has used to the cold war ones to say that sanctions against cuba were not effective, when, in fact, they prevented cuba from spreading communism throughout south america and now he is using it in relation to the iranians and saying that the cold war was essentially to mutually assured destruction was the desired end but it was not, it was a deterrent to prevent the russians from expanding into europe and other such things like that. neither side really wanted to see those bombs go off. there is a threat that if you go

too far, yes, it will happen. they iranians are all over the world killing innocent people at the behest of their religious leaders. guest: i appreciate those comments. i think you got it right. there is also the fallacy of moral equivalence between states. comparing the moral state of israel and iran could not be further from the truth. i was part of the cold war. i was a soldier in the late 1980's and early 1990's. i was last of one of the cold warriors along the german boarder patrolling.

we wanted nothing more than peace. it was a narrow deep self-interest to see that that happened. it is not going to happen when you strengthen a regime. it puts too many lives in america and the middle east and israel at risk. host: give me your thoughts on the iaea. guest: i will be traveling this weekend to visit with them. if we are not able to overturn this deal, we will be able to conduct these inspections. they are bright folks. but they are up against a

determined foe. they are up against someone who intends to cheat. when they signed this deal, the iranians have no intention on following through. you don't have to take my word for it. take the word of the iranian regime. tomorrow, they will be talking about the destruction of the west. it is not about what mike pompeo is saying. the task we will be handing to the iaea will fail, not because of the unwillingness for them to work hard, but because it is always much easier to hide something then it is to find it. we want to understand precisely the technical terms, the timing the technical terms that have been put in place to understand what the scope of that regime is so that we can make more important decisions. this deal could get better. imagine of congress was on the

cusp of overturning this arrangement. rejection of this deal prevents -- understanding the scope of the regime up close and the capacity to interview scientists and all of the things critical to understanding the scale and scope of the iranian nuclear program is something every member of congress needs to learn and understand. host: do you have a sense of how expansive this team will be? guest: i don't. i don't know the scope or scale. the corker card and requires the president to deliver a deal to congress and its relevant committees, one of which will be the intelligence committee within five days. i have been told the deal is around 100 pages, but we will work our way through it, so we

can understand what we are working with. host: here is don in tennessee. caller: i just have a comment to make. i think this is really, really a bad deal when you are dealing with the iranians. every time i see mr. kerry, i think of neville chamberlain and it just irks me to no end. how can we send somebody up there negotiating that cannot even ride a bicycle? that is all of got to say about that. guest: this is something that president obama has been working on for quite some time. he went to cairo and made a speech that he was going to turn the page. i applaud his effort and his

mission and his idealism. we talk about neville chamberlain. we can all hearken back to leaders in american believing or leaders in the western world believing that they can negotiate with a tyrant. i have not seen the at a statement from former secretary clinton and i am anxious to see that. i think that a number of the folks who are running for president now have made clear that where they to become president, they would take a very different approach, not only to iran and the middle east but also to this deal in particular. i hope that former secretary clinton will also come out against this deal. if she will do that, we have a good chance to overturn this. host: one more call. this is collin in virginia. caller: good morning.

i was wondering, there has been software developed that has been used to destroy iranian nuclear centrifuges. we are not sure who developed it. we are pretty sure it was a country of some kind. are you or is anybody in congress actively worried about whether or not this software could be turned to be used against american manufacturing our nuclear centrifuges? guest: that is a great question. without commenting specifically on particular programs, there is always the risk that cyber warfare can be turned against the state that executed the cyber warfare. you should know that our cyber warriors are out there working hard to do precisely that against folks who have made cyber attacks against the united states.

it is very complicated. there is always risk. you can rest assured that our leadership on the cyber issues is strong. they are responding in a way that minimizes the risk. host: representative mike pompeo , thank you for your time. guest: thank you very much pedro. host: we will continue on with your thoughts on the deal that was reached this morning. if you want to give us a call in the last 45 minutes and give your thoughts (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 784-8001 four republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independents.

♪ >> this weekend, the c-span cities to her across the country with time warner cable to learn more about the literary life of lexington kentucky. edward prichard had a to mold to his political career. in the mid-1940's, if you had us to is the bright shining star in politics, a lot of people would have said ed prichard of kentucky. he was one of the people who worked in the white house in his early 20's. he came back to kentucky in the 1940's and was indicted for stuffing a ballot box. he went to prison. that incredible promise just

flamed out. we also visit ashland, the former home of speaker of the house henry clay. >> the mansion at ashland is a unique situation. his original home had to be torn down. it could not be saved. he was over on the original foundation. what we have is a home that is essentially a five-part federal style home with details architectural elements, etc. and an added layer of aesthetic details added by his granddaughter and great-granddaughter. >> see all of our programs from lexington saturday evening at 6:30 eastern had sunday afternoon. >> "washington journal" continues. host: if you want to give us

your thoughts on this deal that was reached, (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 784-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independents. president obama gave his thoughts after the deal. [video clip] >> this deal demonstrates that american diplomacy can bring about real and meaningful change, change that makes our country and the world safer and more secure. this deal is also in line with a tradition of american leadership . it is now more than 50 years since president kennedy stood before the american people and said, let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate. he was speaking about the need for discussions between the united states and the soviet union which led to efforts to restrict the spread of nuclear weapons. in those days, the risks were of

a catastrophic nuclear war. and our time, the risk is that nuclear weapons will spread to more and more countries, particularly in the middle east, the most volatile region and our world. today, because america negotiated from a position of strength and principle, we have stopped the spread of nuclear weapons in this region. because of this deal, the international community will be able to verify that the islamic republic of iran will not develop a nuclear weapon. this deal meets every single one of the bottom lines we established when we achieved a framework earlier this spring. every pathway to a nuclear weapon is cut off. the inspection and transparency regime necessary to verify that objective will be put in place. iran will not produce the highly enriched uranium and plutonium

necessary for a nuclear bomb. because of this deal, iran will remove two thirds of its installed centrifuges, the machines necessary to produce highly enriched uranium for a bomb and store them under constant international supervision. iran will not use its advanced centrifuges to produce enriched uranium for the next decade. they will also get rid of 98% of its stockpile of enriched uranium. host: those are some of the details. (202) 748-8000, democrats. (202) 784-8001, republicans. (202) 748-8002 independents. joining us on the phone is matthew lee with the associated press. he is a diplomatic writer. what is your sense of a final agreement that has come out? what has been the reaction from the world community? guest: so far, i think the action is as you would expect.

the p5 plus one countries negotiating including the united states are all in favor of it. they all think it is a great deal. then the row the congressional republicans, israel, and some of the gulf states that are not happy about it and do not see it as closing off iran's pathways to a nuclear weapon. they see it as a temporary diversion that will allow iran to go ahead and continue its work. host: as far as the specifics you laid out it would stop the spread of nuclear weapons. it would increase verification. what are the hurdles that this agreement faces. guest: the main thing, the main issue that the critics have with that and the main issue that the u.s. and its partners would

agree is that iran has to comply with the. if you are going to cheat on a deal, you were going to try to do so stealthily. what is very important is the verification that the international atomic energy agency will be able to do and what kind of access they have. will they have the kind of intrusive access that the u.s. and its partners claim that they have under this deal. will that be the reality or will it not be and will iran find a way to do so without anyone noticing. i think that is one of the big fears for countries in iran's neighborhood. host: matthew lee how automatic are these inspection processes? what is the timeframe and could

iran give resistance. guest: yes, they could. that is actually allowed. what iran is going to be signing up for is the additional protocol, plus one other separate agreement, which allows the iaea to visit. those inspections are done under what is called managed access. you can't just show up any time any place and demand to get in. there is a process for doing this. it is what a lot of people think is a significant amount of time between when a request is made to go someplace and when that request might be granted particularly if there is a disagreement. during that time period, the argument is that iran could get in and clean up any kind of

nefarious activity they have been conducting. that is a big issue for people who do not trust iran and think that iran is bent on regional hegemony in the middle east and trying to wipe israel off the map. host: if the united states does reject this deal through congress, what is left for the other nations to do and can the deal remain in place? guest: i think it is very difficult for congress to reject the deal. to make it no and void. what they can do is they can stall some things. they cannot agree to lift sanctions. the president has the authority to suspend them under his a consecutive orders. i think what you will be seeing in the next days and weeks is a

huge selling job by the administration to members of congress about why they should oppose this deal. the administration clearly thanks and has the argument to be able to win that. i'm not sure that that is exactly true, but it will be hard for congress, even given its current composition, to come up with a veto majority. if congress decides that we want to reject it unless -- the president said today that he would veto the bill -- unless congress can come up with the veto-proof majority, which would be hard, i think it will be tough for them to crater the deal. host: matthew lee joining us on the phone, the diplomatic writer for the associated press. thanks. guest: thank you. host: to your thoughts on this deal. caller: yes, thank you for taking my call.

thank you for c-span. i spoke to her republican earlier and he spoke on the fact that president obama had a certain statement that he would not allow the iranians to have this or that. i'm sure that the congressman or senator's, i'm sure he is aware of the negotiating tactics and that is to get what you really want by going above and beyond certain demands. he is looking at the initial demands of not allowing them to enrich what they are really looking for and i think you should consider that. host: what do you think of the deal overall? caller: i think it is a good deal. host: why? caller: number one, i think that the experts who are going and have the capability to monitor

the iranian progress on the centrifuges and other things. that is something that we cannot do at all at the present. we had experts that would have done the same in iraq, but the politicians went beyond and above what the inspectors were doing to declare war. i think we have the experts who can monitor that and we don't have anyone to monitor it right now. host: let's hear from jim bo in alabama. caller: good morning. my original question for representative pompeo, my question for him is too many of the republicans going against the deal is how many of them have read the deal?

there is an old proverb from king of solomon that says woe unto him who answers a matter before he hears it. we need to read the deal. the sheet of paper with a few words from obama that was put out -- it baffles me that people have made up their minds before they have read the deal. host: tempe, arizona, gary. democrat line. caller: supremacy clause of article six of the constitution says that the president has the right to negotiate trainees with foreign countries -- treaties with the foreign countries and the last thing i want are the yahoos in congress deciding whether it is a good deal or not.

there is preventing iran from having a nuclear weapon was the goal and it appears that's what has been accomplished. they should began --be glad that the president and the negotiators have brought it about. host: if congress ultimately has a say in the deal, would you be telling your legislators? caller: i would tell them to give it a chance and take a look at it. they are criticizing it before they even know how or when or how it is going to be implemented. i don't understand why. i would advise congress to give this an opportunity to work. host: from willy in new jersey, republican line. caller: i am pushing the opportunity to speak on nuclear

politics and i thanked "washington journal" for bringing me on the show, which is very good. i think for the opportunity to be heard. nuclear politics is a very difficult situation. in 1944 or thereabouts, when the nuclear weapon was developed, we know that the scientists that developed the nuclear weapon were well aware of its chain reaction, that it was not going to be contained. soon after the united states developed the nuclear weapon and used it it went to england, great britain, france consequently, the same scientists that developed the nuclear weapon to soviet russia, who developed it, who gave it to the chinese. the british and the americans

countered it by giving it to the indians and the pakistanis. host: with all of that history what do you think about the deal today that is announced. caller: iran already is a nuclear power and they already have a nuclear weapon. kerry said earlier that this is going to bring peace. of course, we have not been at war with iran. we have been in economic war, but we have not been at war with them. we have been in conflict, but not at war. this is not about peace. this is not about containment. we saw fukushima hiroshima, not sake. we saw chernobyl. host: we appreciate it.

arthur from new orleans. caller: good morning, pedro. i get up every morning to watch the washington journal. 95% of the calls that come in, no matter what, they are so far out on the left and it is a shame. this deal with the iranians, you have six other countries involved in that. why are they trying to drop this on obama. it is a good thing we don't have all of our soldiers dying all over the place for nothing. it was us to destabilize the area by going in there killing folks. what do they expect? this thing about republican politicians coming on, we have some ignorant people with this country and we have a lot of smart people. somewhere down the line, the

smart people are going to get the message. we don't need the people who was like that guy who was on earlier. he seemed like he was reading from his script. let him take his whatever and go wherever he came from and go back. this is a country that believes in peace and peace for all and we are tired of letting our young men go over and die for something that these politicians should not have done. host: members of congress and people running for office making their thoughts known by tweet. nancy pelosi commending the president. we also hear from vice president joe biden. then also, the republican presidential candidate carly fiorina. jake from winston-salem, north carolina.

go ahead. caller: thank you. i think it is kind of enlightening and a little troubling that with the discourse we have now in presidential politics, we are already in a two-year cycle for a popularity contest. i think anything that would have came out, you hear from the other side that it would have been terrible. you switch between the known channels right and left, where is the discourse now? i don't know if it has always been this bad, maybe some other callers can comment on it. we see a posturing for peace talks. we see this huge vitriol. host: sharon from arizona. caller: good morning. i just had a comment that i just find it really disheartening and

maybe i don't know all of the aspects of it, but i have been listening all morning to everybody's comments, but i find it very disheartening that are prisoners over there, why they weren't, why it was not wrapped up or at least talked about into negotiating for some of those guys. that is really disheartening to me. disheartening that that was not done. another comment is that it seemed very quickly that the ayatollah khomeini changed his mind about allowing inspections on his land. there are conditions now that seem like that does not sound very good. i just find it very

disheartening that are prisoners , our americans over there, some of the others, prisoners of four, some of the others, it was not talked about to allow them to return home. that should have been done. host: from the president's statement just after 7:00. he spoke about the role congress played in examining the deal. [video clip] >> i have been president and commander in chief for over six years now. time and again, i have faced decisions about whether or not to use military force. the bravest decision any president has to make. many times in multiple countries, i have decided to use force. i will never hate to do so when it is in our national security interest. i strongly believe that our national security interest now depends upon preventing iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

which means that without a diplomatic resolution, either i or a future u.s. president would face the decision about whether or not to obtain a nuclear weapon or use our military to stop it. put simply, no deal means a greater chance of more war in the middle east. moreover, we give nothing up by testing whether or not this problem can be solved peacefully. if, in a worst-case scenario iran violates the deal, the same options that are available to me today will be available to any u.s. president in the future. i have no doubt the 10 or 15 years from now, the person who holds this office will be in a far stronger position with iran further away from a weapon and with the inspections entrance parent see that allow us to monitor the iranian program. for this reason, i believe it

would be irresponsible to walk away from this deal. but on such a tough issue, it is important that the american people and the representatives in congress get a full opportunity to review the deal. host: let's hear from sharon in sierra vista. caller: um yeah. what about the prisoners we have still there? host: dennis is next. caller: i was just going to mention that when i look at both sides of the situation, it seems to me that iran has the same argument the nra uses for handguns. they need a gun that is a gun for the country which is a nuclear weapon and those guns

this everybody has got to have one. sooner or later how are we going to be able to stop it? we are never going to be able to stop it. i think that the nra argument is the same as iran's argument. host: the main benchmark by which the analysts gauge is breakout time. the time needed for a wrong to enrich -- iran to enrich enough uranium to create an atomic bomb. now they have one year, which gives world powers enough time to mobilize action to interrupt iran's pathway to a bomb. when it comes to the facilities it self, the deal focuses on limiting the ability to produce and maintain physical materials to build nuclear weapons.

iran will cut its number of centrifuges to 6000. the stockpile of enriched uranium will be reduced to 300 kilograms. lew is up next in greenville, tennessee. caller: my comment would be that i think anything is better than war right now. i think we need to be thinking about peace and peaceful ways to solve these problems. my other thought is that if we had not gone into iraq, who had nothing to do with 9/11, may the middle east would not be like this. host: what about this deal specifically? caller: what about it? i like it that we have more time in order to stave off this

nuclear weapons deal. also, i kind of believe the people in iran seem a little more civilized. it might change the whole dynamics. and we can still be allies with israel and all of the other countries that we are allies with. we put in a shiite government. we never should have gone into iraq. i don't care what anybody says. we created this mess and it will continue to be a mess because of that. host: democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 784-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. more tweets from members of congress. we are also hearing from the

israeli prime minister in vienna. he added that this is the result , that the deal is a historic mistake. we also have represented a barbara lee in california. senator tim kaine applauded the u.s. negotiating team. those are just some of the comments this morning from members of congress, the israeli prime minister, we are hearing from you as well. david in silver springs, nevada. caller: the problem i have is that i think we have a serious trust issue. these people have not been trusted before. i think that is the big problem.

i don't know what they are going to do. host: how do you resolve the trust issue? caller: there is stuff they can always hide. you cannot be everywhere in that country. they are going to do that. i don't know how that is going to be prevented. host: that is dave in silver spring, nevada. comments about the deal reached today in vienna about the iran nuclear program. (202) 748-8000, democrats. (202) 784-8001, republicans. (202) 748-8002 independents. the front page of "the jerusalem post" takes a look at the deal.

they indicated that a military option is not off the table. it will render iran a legitimate nuclear threshold country. dolores from massachusetts. go ahead. caller: yes, i think it is a terrible mistake. we are going to release these sanctions and they will be able to build up and we won't be able to really inspect all of the areas that they would have underground. i just wonder whether or not when a nuclear happens in the united states or israel, is obama going to claim the next

nuclear war as his personal achievement? host: fran, from florida. caller: fran, you say? i'm calling to say that i trust our president and the people actually involved in creating the deal and i don't trust congress at all. host: the people involved? caller: yes, the people in the room who made the deal. i trust that they are looking out for the united states and the other western interests. congress does not know a thing and i don't trust them at all. host: because why? caller: because they prove themselves untrustworthy every single day. all they want to do is bash the government, bash the president support the wealthy. i feel like our president has the american people, their

interests at heart. host: senator lindsey graham was saying this was a terrible deal i really feel like we set in motion a decade of chaos. senator tom cotton said, terrible dangerous mistake. i believe congress will kill the deal. we also hear from representative gregory weeks. also, representative john conyers. you can make your thoughts on twitter known and facebook known. (202) 748-8000, democrats. (202) 784-8001, republicans. (202) 748-8002, independents. congress is scheduled to come in at 10:00.

let's hear from joe. caller: i heard a number of people calling about the negotiations for the prisoners in iran. those prisoners are jewish prisoners that were there and i think israelis should try to negotiate to get them out. as far as the nuclear deal i am 100% supporting obama that he is trying to stop another word -- war started by the neocon. host: that is joe in florida. (202) 748-8000, democrats. (202) 784-8001, republicans. (202) 748-8002 independents. give us a call or post online or send us a tweet. this takes a look at the iranian deal. the iranian president weighing in this morning, giving his thoughts on the deal. iran and the iaea agreed to

accelerate cooperation with aim to full or resolve all prior issues. the secretary of state showing a picture of all of those at the negotiating table. agreement is a step away from the specter of conflict, toward the possibility of peace. this is a good deal that we have sought. then, marco rubio on his twitter page. he said, it will be left to the next president to return us to a position of american strength and reimpose sanctions on this despicable regime. speaker john boehner saying that the deal will hand iran billions in aid while giving it time and space to produce a nuclear bomb. that is all from the twitter pages this morning. the front pages are taking a look at aspects of the deal. those pages just coming out before the deal was announced. the president also commuted the sentences of 46 drug offenders.

"the los angeles times" takes a look at that. there is also a probe that will show pictures of pluto. leroy in california, independent line. caller: i think our president is doing a good deal with these guys and congress does not care about the country. you have people like tom cotton, you cannot trust this guy. they are as bad. they are on the side of iran. host: before you leave, why is it a good deal? caller: because there is no war. you want to get these guys killed? we just got her soldiers killed for no reason. this is a good deal for our country. thank you. host: representative gerry connolly adding to the thoughts this morning via twitter.

verification transparency, and compliance are the foundation of any acceptable agreement. democrats line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i just wanted to reflect that this should have happened a long time ago. we should come to realization that supporting continuously the state of israel with the congress that we have and every aspect of our lives, the medical sciences, the culture everything has to be according to what the jewish and lobbyists would dictate and that is not going to be beneficial for american lives. iran has been a good friend, even during this last 30 some

odd years. they want to have a deal with the u.s. host: one more statement from the president this morning. [video clip] >> i will remind congress that you do not make deals like this with your friend. we negotiated arms controls with the soviet union when that nation was committed to our destruction. those agreements ultimately made us stable. i am confident that this deal will meet the national security interests of the united states and our allies. i will veto any legislation that prevents the successful implementation of this deal. we do not have to accept an inevitable spiral into conflict. we certainly should not seek it. precisely because the stakes are so high, this is not the time for politics or posturing.

tough talk from washington does not solve problems. hard-nosed diplomacy, leadership that has united the world's major powers offers a more effective way to verify iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapon. host: tim is next from california. caller: my name is mr. spencer. host: you are on. what do you think about the deal? caller: i think people are missing an interesting position or point on this. i don't think many people know that iran, cuba, china, are part of the same oil group and when this deal goes through especially with the relationship of cuba, that iran will be able to export oil right over to china and china will be the biggest benefactor of this deal.

the ability to reinstall sanctions will be impossible. china will never go against it because they need the resources. iran has the radical parties which are in charge. the ayatollahs are not much different from the terrorists that exist over there, the isis people. the ideology and the belief and the caliphate is basically the same. the main goal is more religious. they want the new coming of the new mohammed. they want the great muslim state. their deep-seated belief that this must happen would not be a very good thing if this does happen.

we look at isis wanting to have peace, we are fooling ourselves. we don't understand history, we don't understand the religion, we don't understand what their goals are. the goals are politics -- a worldwide caliphate. isis and the other terrorist organizations, they support them because they have the same goals. host: let's hear from beverly in tyler, texas. caller: good morning. this is beverly in texas. i think this is the worst thing that our children will ever see. i think that the country will turn to regret it. it is either fight them now or fight them with ballistic missiles. host: why do you think the deal is the worst thing you will ever see? caller: because i am 72 years old and i have been through jimmy carter and i believe they

said were such a good friend, if it was such a good friend, why did they capture all of our people and hold them until reagan became president? host: that is beverly in texas, let's hear from dave in illinois. caller: i think probably this deal we have right now is the best available under the circumstances. all we can do is just slow the program down, slow the progress of it and by time. buying time, best case scenario that regime will be overthrown from within. the other alternative is to attack and open up another theater of war in the middle east. host: what do you think about the congressional involvement? caller: the congressional involvement? it is a lot of theater. it is a lot of playing for the constituents. we are about a year out of

another election. i don't think it is productive and i don't think it helps. host: that is dave in illinois. the washington post is reporting that the deal will be sent to the un security council. iran's negotiating partners include all of the security council members plus germany. the security council will drop its wide reaching sanctions on the iranian regime. if it violates terms of the deal, sanctions can be snapped back on tehran within 65 days. in the last few heated days of talks russia was pushing aggressively for an and to the arms embargo, but both sides of met halfway. good morning. caller: good morning.

i just want to say that obama is doing a great job. he is always seeking peace. he is seeking negotiations unlike his predecessors. they put us in the deficit with all of their wars that they start with iraq. obama is trying to do something peaceful. we are already in a position where we don't know what they are doing. if iran is willing to negotiate and let us in, it gives the the opportunity to find out what is going on inside and come at the same time, we are developing a positive rapport with them. i know a lot of people don't want that because they are not really thinking, they are thinking that the republicans have all the answers and all they have done is put us in a deficit. we need to start looking at the positive aspects of working

deals with cuba, with iran, those kind of countries. they could be helpful to our country, as well. they have things that we need and they have things that we need. we need to start looking at peace instead of trying to put these other countries down. many of the republicans and their supporters are always trying to push their agenda and not really the american public's agenda, which is to strive for peace and bring harmony across the nation. host: a couple of tweets from viewers saying why do so many colors think the deal or war is only the two choices? it isn't an either or proposition. you don't have to make a deal.

congress about to come in for its daily session. i suspect discussion about the deal will be a large part of the discussions on the house floor. stay close to c-span for action. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] the speaker pro tempore: