in order to resolve this nuclear issue, we had to take the necessary steps in different sectors. from the political point of view we had to make the necessary political arrangements. from the view of the public opinion in order to know that to negotiate does not mean to just read out text substatements. to negotiate means to bargain. it means you give money and you purchase your desired house.

after benefiting from charities, after negotiating we were after protecting our national interests and we were after engaging in a just bargaining process in order to maintain our national interests. we have always stressed that this is not going to be a win-lose negotiation. it's not -- i mean, it's not you see one side becoming a winner victorious, the other side becoming a loser. if it's a win-lose negotiation it's not going to be sustainable agreement. we do not come up with a sustainable agreement. in order to attain a sustainable agreement, they should be a win-win situation for both parties, both sides.

we did clarify that as our negotiators have been -- have started talks and negotiations 23 months ago in order to have an achievement in the course of negotiations, we were in need of domestic and national consensus. it is quite clear that politicians, associations, political factions, they do not share common views, but with respect to -- to items pertaining to our national interest and national security and national development such -- we see nuclear issues related to our national security, it's related to national development

and also it's related to our national interest, so you see that fortunately in this free democratic atmosphere prevailing in our society, we managed to reach a consensus in this regard. the path of negotiations before this, basically from the very beginning, imagine this problem, 12 years ago, i think it might be 12 years ago based on the view of the leader of the islamic revolution, the path of negotiations, from the very first day, and we have been negotiating since 2003 in tehran or the capital cities of neighboring countries or the european capitals. we have been witnessing these

negotiations and we continue the talks. the course of the 2013 presidential elections, our people expressed views and explicitly said that we want an administration that would actually protect the nuclear achievements of the country along with protecting peace and also contributing to the country's development and also obtaining public welfare. this was the path that the 11th administration pursued.

of course the great nation of iran is a symbol of courtesy and logic and rationality from the very first day on the day of the ceremony, i said the west can interact with us provided that it sets aside and eliminates the approach of intimidation and threats and instead the west should choose the path of dignity and respect. once we obtained today was a deal within the framework of that comprehensive joint plan of action, it has its roots in iran's interaction and also dignity shown by the people of the group.

in the case of the absence of these parameters, we would not have been able to come up with any achievement. in the meantime, in order to gain success in the course of negotiations, we had to be able to actually improve our economy under sanctions and in the condition of stagflation. when we started the negotiations, we had an inflation rate above 40% and our

economic growth rate was minus 6.8%. but in the course of negotiations by improving our economic conditions, we managed to contain inflation and we came up with a positive economic growth, this was the strongest message conveyed by the 11th administration. strongest message sent by us to the p-plus one group of countries. at the same time, what mattered the most was the steadfastness and patience and resistance shown by the courageous nation of iran. and today with the grace of god has been the year of steadfastness and resistance and at the same time brought about victory and success for us and this was an indication of people's steadfastness and resistance.

such a resistance, steadfastness brought the other party to the negotiating table. in the course of these negotiations we were pursuing four objectives. the first objective was to protect our nuclear capability and technology and even nuclear activities. to continue such activities inside the country. the second objective was to actually put an end to the inhumane and tyrannical sanctions. the third objective was to address all the resolutions that , from our point of view, those illegal resolutions we were after annulling all these illegal resolutions issued by the u.n. security council. and the fourth objective was to actually take the nuclear out of

chapter 7 and out of the u.n.c. and based on the deal reached today and based on the joint comprehensive plan of action all the four objectives have been obtained. of course in the past 23 months in order to observe the redline and at the same time gain our objectives, you are aware that an extraordinary effort was made by iranian diplomats, lawyers and the economists and also nuclear scientists continue. on the initial date of the negotiations, the other party told us that during the period of limitation based on the deal

has said that period of limitation could be eight years. the period of limitation they said that iran should have only 100 is centrifuges after continued discussion and debate, they came up with a figure of 1,000 centrifuges. after a great deal of resistance they said that they will agree with 4,000 centrifuges. something that cannot be changed anymore, but today the deal was reached and based on this deal we have 6,000 centrifuges, 5,000 will remain and all these centrifuges in that time will continue their enrichment activity. they said that your limitation

period must be set for 20 to 25 years. later they said 20-plus 10 years. and said that 20 years must be the final viewpoint, but this figure was reduced to 10 -- was reduced to 10 years and in the course of the final negotiations, the figure was reduced to eight years. concerning research and development, they said that research and development must be only about i.r. 1. only concerning i.r.1. it was a ridiculous statement. it was illogical because we already had i.r.1 and it was operating. the research and development did not make any sense.

later they said it's going to be maximum i.r.2 and eventually they said it must not go beyond i.r.8. and what islamic republic of iran, was seeking was i.r.6 and i.r.8 and we won a deal, so the deal, limitation of the deal the -- it would be injected into i.r.8 and today we have attained such a deal today. regarding our reactor can remain in iraq, but heavy water has no meaning there.

it is meaningless. but we have reached a deal today and based on this deal reference has been explicitly made to heavy water and that iraq reactor will be completed with heavy water based on the deal. they said it's really been difficult to hear the name of fordo, do not name it and we will -- we won't hear it. then they said that -- they said that there should be no centrifuges in fordo, and also it's going to be a resent sent

for sustainable isotopes. after several months of bargaining they said that one cascade should remain in fordo. 154. let me tell you that there will be centrifuges in fordo, and part of that will be allocated to r&d concerning sustainable isotopes. regarding the annulment or lifting of sanctions, they said that the sanction also not be lifted at once and they said that the sanctions several months -- we will gradually lift the -- they said we are not going to lift the sanctions. do not speak of lifting of sanctions. they said the sanctions have to be first suspended and then in years to come if the iaea gave a positive report then we -- the sanctions would be lifted step by step. today i announce to the great nation of iran that based on this deal on the day of implementation of the deal, all the sanctions even arms

embargoes and even missile sanctions as stipulated by the resolution, they will all be lifted. and all the financial and banking sanctions related to insurance, transportation, and sanctions related to refineries and valuable minerals, precious metals and all the economic sanctions will be fully lifted. they will be lifted. not suspended. and even the arms embargo will be eliminated and there will be a sort of limitation for five years, and it will be lifted and speaking of commodities or dual use commodities or goods, there will be a committee that will be looked into by the committee and in this way regarding the u.n.'s

resolution, they said that how can we annul a resolution that has not been implemented? they told us to implement the resolutions for six months and in this way the resolutions will be annulled. based on today's deal in the upcoming days when the deal has been endorsed by u.n.s.c., all the previous six resolutions will be annulled. and also regarding the nuclear dossier of iran, in order to take it out of the unsc, they said that the iaea should present a report that will include a 20-year period 15-year period, but today

without regard -- considering report by the iaea, after the implementation of the deal, that will be taken out of the unsc after 10 years. we may be asked whether this deal is based upon confidence and trust, and if it was the case, then we would -- there was no need for 23 months of negotiations and we had 18 nights of continuous negotiations. speaking of trust, the implementation of this deal will be the starting point for a test. if the deal precisely

implemented every step of the implementation of this deal can gradually eliminate mistrust and it's quite clear that based on -- we are going to start to proceed by closely monitoring the implementation of the deal and of course countries that have a very bad record.

some of these countries have a very bad record concerning iran. and some do not have a good record concerning iran. of course this is a mutual deal, reciprocal deal. we have already examined such deals that was actually of interim agreement reached in geneva, and regarding the final deal, today implementation of the deal is reciprocal. if they abide -- adhere to this deal we will also comply with it. the iranian nation has always shown that, always fulfilled its promise. in the course of history and we will fulfill our promise provided that the other party would also fulfill its promises. of course several stages and steps with respect to the deal today was actually the first stage. that means only seven countries have agreed. and they have actually agreed

with full text and the annexes of the deal. speaking of the implementation in the days to come, the text of the deal and also the text that has been prepared for the unsc has to be endorsed by the u.n. security council, based on -- not chapter 7 and in case annulment of previous resolutions based on article 41. later, there are stages in other countries and stages to continue and after determination of these stages on a day, that is the day known as the day of agreement, in fact the day was the day of joint statement, several days later when the u.n. or the unsc endorses the statement that will be the day of finalizing the agreement after approximately two months we will reach that day of agreement and the day of

agreement is a day when e.u. and the u.s. will openly and now and declare the lifting of all sanctions and then will announce the decisions. from that day iran's measures will begin and these measures will be accompanied with their executive actions for the lifting of the sanctions. that's going to take up some time. that may also take two months. that will be the day of the implementation of the deal. so several months from now we

will have the day for the full implementation of the deal. we have these stages before us and of course this is the most important day in the past 12 years. today is a day that historically speaking major world countries and powers have recognized iran's nuclear program. today's the day that after 12 years the world powers have announced that regarding nuclear technology and modern technology they will help iran. today's the day that world powers have announced that all sanctions will be lifted and all

tyrannical resolutions will be annulled and a normal situation will prevail in relations with iran. today is an end, today marks an end to acts of tyranny and operation against the great nation of iran. at the same time it's the starting point for a new trend in order to commend nuclear operation at a global level. speaking of the tehran, terman and other cities they are witnessing that the chains of sanctions have been torn apart and they are happy for this.

and the people of gaza and the west bank and the people of lebanon, they are also happy because -- made futile efforts made futile efforts in the past 23 months. all these futile efforts have been crushed and defeated and the originations are also

pleased because many baseless pretext for act of tyranny against the region claiming that iran is after manufacturing a nuclear weapon. a nuclear bomb. they will all be pretext will come to an end if some of the countries want to announce that we prevented iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. the whole world knows very well that manufacturing of a nuclear bomb based on a fatwa by the leader is considered -- forbidden by religion and also a wrong action. iran has never sought to manufacture a nuclear weapon and

will never seek manufacturing of a nuclear weapon. in case of an agreement or absence of an agreement. so if they want to speak of any achievement, they should speak of a real achievement. the real achievement is that a new atmosphere has been created in the region for the sake of cooperation at the regional and global levels.

i deem it necessary to send all those people who have played a role in order to attain this historic deal i wish to appreciate the great nation of iran for its steadfastness and resistance in the past 12 years in the face of pressure and which wish to thank the leader of the islamic revolution who guided us during hardships and he guided the nation and the administration through his prudence and provides us guidelines and he also shouldered a heavy burden.

i also wish to thank the parliament, the speaker of the parliament, the judiciary, the judiciary chief, the armed forces, and support the nation and the government anti-establishment, the assembly of experts, the seminaries, the emulation, academicians, young people, women, and all the people from different walks of life, i wish to appreciate them of and their smiles always giving us hope and their decisions have always empowered us. we declare this that in case of criticism, everyone is free to criticize, but i will not allow anyone to destroy people's hope people's hope for economic prosperity. people's hope for peace and security.

i will not -- peace and security in the region of the world. i will not allow anyone to destroy such a hope through lying, belying or leveling allegations. i will not allow anyone to harm people's trust. today is not the end day actually. today is the day of -- day that marks the starting point. the starting point for a new move, a new dynamism and exuberance. starting day for a new hope of better future for our young people. and starting point for a more rapid move for the country -- for our great country of iran with development and progress. and in conclusion, i wish to

address the regional and neighboring countries do not be deceived by the propaganda of the regime and the ill wishers of this nation. the iran and iran's power is your power and might. we consider regional security as our own security. we consider stability of regional state our own stability. we consider science, knowledge and our development, these are -- scientific progress, these are all to the benefit of neighboring and regional states. iran has not been after wmds and is not after wmds. will not be after wmds. iran has not been and is not after and will not be after putting pressure on regional states. the country -- speaking of our

-- we see a new chapter has been opened in our relations with you. we call for greater cordiality greater brotherhood, more unity. and further expansion of relations. thank you very much. the great nation of iran, we look forward to your further progress and dynamism and we will tread this path successfully to attend with your help. >> now, we will get reactions from capitol hill.

senator mcconnell: good afternoon, everyone. obviously the big news of the day is the proposed agreement with the iranians. i've asked chairman corker and chairman mccain to join us today to give you their take on what this agreement appears to involve. senator corker: thank you. today at about 10:05, we received 159 pages of a portion of the agreement. there are other portions that are yet to come. we still have the classified annexes, we have the certifications from the director of national intelligence and secretary of state. so we expect to receive those materials over the next several days and at that point in time the 60-day review process will begin.

i have to say that when we passed over with the interim agreement from dismantling their program, to moving towards agreeing that there would be enrichment, then over time moving to what i would call managed proliferation, we really crossed the rubicon and i think numbers of people have been looking at the qualitative issues what have remains. the issues of previous military dimensions and making sure we fully understand how that's dealt with. the issue of any time, anywhere inspections and how that's dealt with. the issue of ballistic missiles and how that's dealt with. the issue of research and development and how that is dealt with and the entire issue of sanctions relief. i will say that right now, based on our staff going through the agreement for a couple of hours and meeting with me prior to this, i would say the agreement has taken a downward trend, a

downward trend. the arms embargo issue, the conventional arms are going to be -- embargo will be lifted in five years. missile defense, missile development in eight years. we're going to have shoot of the -- to have the issue of anytime, anywhere is not anytime, anywhere. and so there's numbers of issues that are going to be of great concern. but here's what we're going to do. over the next 60 days, we're going to go through this in great detail, we're going to have a thoughtful and deliberate process. my guess is, based on timing we'll have hearings that will be in the next two or three weeks and likely what we'll do is vote on this when we return from recess. i'm very skeptical, but i don't -- i want to go through this process and make sure we fully understand what it is that we're voting on.

my guess is, i'll close with this, those who believe that this truly is going to keep iran from getting a nuclear weapon will vote for it. those who believe that that is not the case, and the world is not going to be safer, and in some ways it may paving the way for them to get a nuclear weapon, will vote against it. that's our responsibility and i look forward to carrying out those responsibilities with other members of the senate and house. senator mccain: we intend to review the provisions of this agreement thoroughly, the armed services committee will hold hearings on it, especially the verification regime and the effect on the regional military balance. we know that this agreement went from the initial objective of iran never having a nuclear weapon to a period of time where iran will be able to behave with impunity and without restraint. there is no addressing in this agreement that we've seen that addresses iran's role as a chief

sponsor of terror throughout the region, there is no addressing of their continued aggression and basically controlling four countries. iraq, syria, iran and lebanon. i recently came back from afghanistan and learned that the iranians are now providing weapons to the taliban. there's no provisions for the terrorist activities of iran the chief sponsor of terrorism in the region. apparently, there are sanctions lifted on various institutions that have been involved in the arms business and in particular there's allegations that the sanctions are lifted against the head of the iranian revolutionary guard, who was responsible for the deaths according to general dunford before the armed services committee, the copper-tipped

i.d.s were sent into iraq by him, that are responsible for the death of 500 marines and soldiers. this deal, as far as i can tell, has gone from preventing iran from ever having a nuclear weapon to now lifting restrictions on iran, including on conventional weapons within five years, which secretary kerry assured us there would be no connection between conventional weapons and nuclear weapons. i predicted that in their desperation, that the president and john kerry would make a bad deal. it looks very much like they made a worse deal than even we had feared. questioner: what would have been an acceptable deal in your mind? senator mcconnell: this appears to be, again, we're going to take a look at it, as senator

corker and mccain have said, it appears to fall well short of what the goal we all thought was trying to be achieved, which was that iran would not be a nuclear state. so describing the perfect deal i guess, would be a deal under which iran would not be able to acquire nuclear weapons. questioner: the white house says that any deal when you're negotiating with your enemies is not going to be perfect. do they have a point? senator mcconnell: this is considerably short of perfection, apparently. we knew what was working. sanctions. imagine what we might have now if we'd spent the last two years ratcheting up the sanctions as opposed to this. questioner: in the past few days, many of your colleagues, including some of the senators standing here have been putting public pressure on secretary clinton, saying she owns this deal, she should repudiate it, that would put pressure on democrats to vote with you on an override. that didn't happen today. she all but endorsed the deal.

how does that complicate your efforts that are going to be coming up to override what's likely to be a presidential veto? senator mcconnell: the president is the most important democrat in the country and he's obviously in favor of this. he negotiated it. he's going to work hard to get the 34 votes that i know he knows he needs in order to sustain it. so, it will be a real challenge for him because i think it falls short in a lot of ways. questioner: secretary clinton -- [inaudible] senator mcconnell: i'm sure he's going to work hard to get his 34 votes. questioner: on the issue of budget reconciliation, how do you plan to use it? do you plan to use it to repeal the affordable care act? and when will the authorizing committees report budget reconciliations? senator mcconnell: i don't have a time to give you but we're certainly going to consider using budget reconciliation for repealing as much of obamacare as is reconcilable.

there are certain rules that have to be applied to what is reconcilable. and that's an active consideration, as you can imagine. questioner: on the highway bill, how long do you intend to move the highway bill for and do you have, from senator hatch and others, the kind of offsets that you need? senator mcconnell: let me say there's bipartisan enthusiasm for a multiyear highway bill. we've had some conversations inside our conference about a way to pay for that. and i've also had conversations with prominent democrats who are involved in this issue and we are hoping to be able to come together in some way to get a multiyear highway bill. i'm fairly optimistic that we can do that. thanks a lot.

senator bernie sanders: let me be very brief. the president and secretary john kerry in a very crazy and dangerous world, they created an agreement with iran that prevents them from acquiring a nuclear weapon. this is huge, obviously the devil is in the details. we are going to study those details. this is clearly a major step forward. let me also welcome secretary clinton acted the united states sentate, where she served for eight years. i very much look forward in this campaign was serious debate about the very serious crises facing our country. i don't like negative campaigns i have never run a negative advertisement in my life.

i believe the american people are entitled to serious discussion about serious issues. secretary clinton and i disagree on a number of issues. there are issues where we come from the same place. some of the areas we disagree are on trade. i happen to believe the trade agreements that have been passed here over the last three decades, the chinese trade agreements they have been disastrous for american workers. and may have led to the loss of millions of jobs. secretary clinton, i believe, is a very different view on that position. i strongly opposed the war in iraq. and if you go to the remarks i made as a member of the house sadly and tragically, it took place. i voted against the so-called usa patriot act, because i feared very much that while we have to be vigorous and

protecting this country against terrorism, we could do it without undermining the constitutional rights or the privacy rights of the american people. i happen to agree very strongly with pope francis that climate change is a great planetary and environmental crisis we face. i have helped lead the opposition against the keystone pipeline. i do not think we should be excavating or transporting some of the dirtiest fuel on this planet. i think that secretary clinton has not been clear on that issue. when i was a member of the house, i helped lead the effort in opposition to the deregulation of wall street. i happen to believe that wall street has far too much power much too much concentration of ownership. i believe we should break up the major institutions of finance go forward with restoring glass-steagall regulations. those are ideas that secretary clinton on agree with.

i have been very specific in saying that we have millions of people in this country who are working for low wages the $7.25 wages to raise it to $15 an hour. we need to build infrastructure to create 30 million jobs, those are very specific ideas i have. the secretary has not been so clear on this issue. lastly, i believe that if we are going to rebuild the american middle class, we need to make public colleges and universities free -- pay for it through a transaction tax on wall street. a position i think the secretary is unclear. >> what do you think of the iran deal? senator sanders: clearly in an unstable and dangerous world, i think this is a significant step forward. i congratulate the president and

secretary kerry for their incredible he card work on this. >> what is the relationship between the current laws of campaign finance and the opposition we're hearing from many candidates? senator sanders: i think one would be naive not to understand that of all the issues i have talked about, that face the american people -- from climate change to health care to the iranian agreement -- this disastrous and corrupt campaign-finance system that we have impacts all of them. i was specifically talk about climate change. i do not believe that my republican friends do not understand the science. i think they're afraid to come out and take on the koch brothers, exxon mobil, and say maybe climate change is real. maybe we have to do something. if they say that, the next day they will be challenged in primaries with huge amounts of money coming from the big energy

companies and from the koch brothers. >> how did it go today with your discussion with secretary clinton? senator sanders: i have known her for 25 years. i knew her as first lady. i like her, i respect her. i hope we can run a campaign where we can express the differences of opinion that we have. and we do it in a way that is both straightforward, it is not necessary, i think, for people to dislike or attack each other because they are running for office. one more question. >> [inaudible] >> now, we will get reaction from house gop leaders to the iran nuclear deal.

they also talk about a republican water measure in this 10 minute briefing. speaker boehner: at the outset of the iran negotiations, the obama administration said that a good deal would affirm that iran does not have the right to enrich. they also said that keeping sanctions in place until iran met concrete verifiable standards. and they believed that they had to stop iran's drive for a nuclear bomb. the president has abandoned all of those goals and that's why the deal that we have out there, in my view, from what i know thus far, is unacceptable. it's going to hand a dangerous regime billions of dollars in sanctions relief while paving the way for a nuclear iran. this isn't about democrats or republicans. it's not a partisan issue at all. it's about right versus wrong.

and we're going to do everything we can to get to the details and if in fact it's as bad a deal as i think it is at this moment we'll do everything we can to stop it. mr. mccarthy: the president announced this morning an agreement with nuclear weapons with iran. history has always proven peace without freedom is meaningless. congress will have a role. we'll look at every detail. we'll look at the future. we'll look at the criteria. and we will have a say. there's another bill that will be on the floor this week, it brings a great interest to many throughout the country. it deals with the water issue through the west. i want to congratulate david valadao. one thing you have to look at, if you're from california, the challenge that we have. the challenge does not have to be as great as it is. the last two congresses, with republicans in control, we passed the bill that would give

us greater reserves to be able to deal with the drought. unfortunately, the senate never took it up. the president felt this issue was so great that he took air force one and he flew to california. he walked the arid land, the dry land, with the farmers and he said he would do something about it. but nothing has been done. now is their moment, that they can come to an agreement dealing with an issue that affects all. in california, this bill is very simple. it does four things. it allows water to flow through the delta, provides greater storage from those that we have promised for years in the past that have just stayed in a stalemate. increased the reservoirs that we have today. for the last 30 years, you have built no new ones but the population has continued to grow in california. protect the water rights and the state project. it's simple, it's commonsense and david valadao has led the charge to make a real difference. mr. scalise: it's clear that the

administration wanted to deal with iran at any cost and unfortunately they got a deal with iran at a dangerously high cost. i think history will look back if this is able to go forward, on this bad deal as the sanctions beginning of iran's paths to a nuclear weapon. and that's dangerous not only for america, but for all of our allies throughout the middle east, especially israel. we will fight hard to reject this deal using every tool we have. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: we are a little over six months into america's new congress and on issue after issue, what you have seen is we are promoting solutions, 21st century solutions to the challenges that americans face all across the country. we trust people to make better decisions for themselves than the federal government ever will and our goal is to empower people, empower families empower communities to be able to make those best decisions. just look at the student success

act. which is about empowering local leaders, parents, teachers and students. last week we passed by big bipartisan support the 21st century cures act which is giving hope to millions of americans for life-saving innovation. we passed the resilient federal forest act which is a bipartisan, collaborative approach to ensuring better management of our forests in reducing the likelihood of catastrophic fire. we passed the u.s. freedom act which ended bulk collection of america's phone data. and we've made veterans a priority. unanimously passing the clay hunt suicide prevention act and the hire more heroes act. i'm proud of the work that we've done over the first six months and confident that we will continue to do more work to improve people's lives in eastern washington and all across this country. ms. jenkins: over the past six months the house has stripped

away needless regulations, passed a budget that achieves balance, passed new tools to fight human trafficking, reformed s.g.r. so our doctors can continue to afford to provide services to medicare patients, pushed for job-creating policies like the keystone x.l. pipeline, and protected college savings plans for hardworking families trying to ensure a better life for their kids. and this week the house will advance more regulations to help our veterans with the veterans entrepreneurship act so that our veterans have the support they deserve to start their own business and succeed. it's amazing what we can do in congress when we put the priorities of the american people first, not the priorities of bureaucrats in washington. this is just a start. house republicans will continue our work to pass solutions that bring increased prosperity

promote achievement and build the opportunity economy the american people deserve. mr. valadao: so this week my bill comes up. 2898. this bill is something that's very personal to me because i'm a farm. i grew up in the central valley. decided to run for congress. but my background is still agriculture, i still farm to this day. and watching all my friends and neighbors, the people living in my community, suffer because of the regulations that are passed by this building, we're trying to change that. we've got a new piece of legislation that really makes a difference but to the folks who live in the valley, when you look around to all the folks who have now lost their jobs, i mean, we've got people living in shacks alongside of the road and it's gotten to that point where we're trucking water to some of these homes. it's a real dire situation. and for most people around the nation, they think this doesn't affect them, you've got to remember that we grow food. we grow food for everybody around the nation. this is having a real impact.

i know every mother, every father out there, when they're budgeting what money they have to spend, they look at what they spend on groceries and this has had a real impact. food prices have risen. this has a direct effect on that side of it. this is a bill that affects the nation as a whole. it's very important that we get this legislation passed, very important that the senate takes it up and it's very important that the president signs this. because there's water that we did have this year. we are in a drought and the excuse of being in a drought does not work anymore. we had opportunities this past winter, even in a dry year where there was water that was going through the delta and we had an opportunity to pump some of that water and actually help alleviate the situation we have in the valley and that wasn't taken up because of bad policy that we can fix in this house this week. so thank you. questioner: do you intend to pressure democrats -- [inaudible]

to use the message, will you guys work to override that? speaker boehner: once the agreement is submitted formally, congress will have 60 days to review it and then to pass judgment on it. we haven't made any decisions in terms of how we will proceed or when we will proceed. but i think it's pretty clear it should be clear that we do intend to act. >> if you threaten to veto, in his opening statement are you guys going to stick to your guns? speaker boehner: there will be a lot of time for people to look at the details of this agreement and come to a decision. questioner: it sounds like you've already rejected it.

speaker boehner: based on what i know now it doesn't look like a very good deal. i want to review all the facts. but based on what i know, i'm highly skeptical at best. >> what is the prognosis for getting the president -- mr. valadao: in the last few congresses we've passed legislation but this past election cycle things have changed. we have new leadership there and i do believe there's a real opportunity to get it done. the bill's going to pass the way it passes in its current form off the house floor. what happens in the senate is still up in the air. we do believe we have some support over there. >> hillary clinton and the house democrats --

speaker boehner: i wonder if she brought her emails with her. >> if you could sit down and talk with her, what would your message be? for a bipartisan compromise? speaker boehner: there were an awful lot of if's and and's and but's there so i think i'll pass on that. welcome to the capitol. if hillary clinton wants the benghazi committee to finish their work, she could help them by turning over all of her emails sooner rather than later. >> last week, you and the chairman created a mandatory program on the issue of funding earlier this year. how do you describe the relationship at this point? speaker boehner: we had a very good meeting with the chairman last week and frankly the week before. there's a lot of issues that -- a lot of moving parts around here. i think he understands that it

may not have been his preference, but it's clearly the congress' preference in terms of how we proceed. spending was offset by other reductions in mandatory spending and we have a good relationship but we keep working on it. questioner: did obama or anyone from the administration tell you that -- speaker boehner: the president called me last night and told me i should expect an agreement in his words, was imminent. i said i was skeptical. thank you. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> now reaction from residential -- from presidential candidate hillary clinton. she met with house democrats on

capitol hill and is introduced i minority leader nancy pelosi -- introduced by minority leader nancy pelosi. ms. pelosi: good morning everyone. today as you can imagine a very special occasion for the house ms. pelosi: good morning, everyone. today as you can imagine a very special occasion for the house democratic caucus. we were pleased to welcome to the full extent of that word secretary hillary clinton, to our caucus for discussion of how we go forward. a good deal of time in the caucus was spent on the economy, the creation of jobs entrepreneurship, and all that goes into making that a success for our country. the secretary pleased the members with her discussion about fairness and growth. growth and fairness, how they are connected.

always with our caucus, was very -- members are knowledgeable about their issues and relationship between investing in our children and their education and the success of our economy. the success of women when women succeed, america succeeds. very important. it won't surprise you to know that the subject of iran also came up during the discussion as part of it. but overwhelmingly our discussion was about the economy. so again in gratitude and most welcoming spirit, it is my honor to present to you the secretary of -- former secretary of state, candidate for president of the united states, and many of you heard me say over and over again, when she enters the oval office, she'll be one of the most prepared people to do so in recent history. with that i present hillary clinton. thank you. secretary clinton: i want to thank leader pelosi and the entire caucus for welcoming you me so warmly and having such a positive, robust discussion about the issues that people around the country are talking to me about and in particular

giving me a chance to talk further about the economic speech with the agenda that i laid out yesterday for strong growth, for fair growth, and for long-term growth. as the leader said, iran did obviously come up. this is a very important moment. the president called me late last night to tell me that agreement had been reached. i applaud him and both secretary kerry and secretary moniz for their extraordinary efforts in bringing about this conclusion. based on what i know now, and i will be being briefed as soon as i finish addressing you, this is an important step in putting the lid on iran's nuclear program. there will be a number of issues

that have to be addressed. i want to just mention two. the first is enforcement. this agreement will have to be enforced vigorously, relentlessly. we have in the agreement the access for inspections and the transparency that was absolutely necessary. but we have to treat this as an ongoing enforcement effort which i certainly strongly support, and as president would be absolutely devoted to ensuring that the agreement is followed. and secondly, this does put a lid on the nuclear program, but we still have a lot of concern about the bad behavior and the actions by iran which remains the largest state sponsor of

terrorism, which does go after and undermine governments in the region, that poses an existential threat to israel that tries americans on trumped up charges, that bad behavior is something we have to address. having been part of building the coalition that brought us to the point of this agreement, i think we will have to immediately upon completion of this agreement and its rigorous enforcement look to see how we build a coalition to try to prevent and undermine iran's bad behaviors in other arenas. i will be talking as soon as i leave here you with other secretaries of state and other

national security advisors to get more details. but as i say, i think this is an important step that puts the lid on iran's nuclear program. and it will enable us, then, to turn our attention, as it must to doing what we can with other partners in the region and beyond to try to prevent and contain iran's other bad actions. all in all i think we have to look at this seriously. evaluate it carefully. but i believe based on what i know now this is an important step. thank you all very much. >> do you support the deal? does it embolden iran? >> more about the iran nuclear

deal tonight. up next, the house foreign affairs looks at the agreement. and then, president obama. >> now that the deal is signed the question is what is next. we will talk to capitol hill lawmakers about this. including darrell issa's, a member of the sub committee. and ben cardin of maryland. washington journal is live every morning at 7:00 a.m.. this weekend on c-span's road to the white house two events from iowa. we are the only place you can watch or listen to them in their entirety. we will be live in cedar rapids for the hall of fame dinner. it will be the first time all

five democratic presidential candidates share the same stage. and all they live saturday, we will be live where nine republican candidates are scheduled to speak. c-span's wrote to the white house. we take you there. >> former senator joe lieberman and cia director hayden testified about the iran agreement. we will also hear from nicholas burns who served. this is a two our portion of the foreign affairs committee hearing. >> this hearing will come to order. today, the committee continues to examine the obama

administration's nuclear diplomacy with iran. the administration just announced a hugely consequential agreement. secretary kerry told us these agreements would allow iran to dismantle its program. instead, it allows a vast capacity. the president told us iran does not need to have an underground fortified facility in order to have a peaceful nuclear program. and yet the military complex will stay open. while the obama administration

officials first told us the missile program would have to be addressed as part of a final agreement, they failed to mention addressing the program means taking restrictions off. we are talking about the icbm program that iran has. taking them off in eight years. as secretary of defense carter testified, the reason we want to stop iran from having the program is because the eye and icbm -- teh ic inhe i in icbm means intercontinental. countries build these two deliver weapons. recently, at the end of the negotiation, this is what iran

and russia pushed for. the ability to transfer this technology. this is what russia would like to do. transfer this technology to the regime. at the same hearing, our top military official gave his best military advice. under no circumstances should we believe the pressure on iran. but that in just five years. on the critical issue of inspections, a few months ago the secretary of energy said we expect to have anywhere anytime access. but anywhere any time has weakened to something called managed access. managed access, more accurately should be called manipulated access. any process with china, russia, and iran at the table will be treated exactly that way.

it will be managed. manipulated. the inspection regime will be manipulated by those with something to hide this has been the past experience with iran which has treated -- cheated on every agreement so far. we might feel better if the u.s. was able to permanently restrain the nuclear program. but the restriction begins to expire in as few as 10 years. most americans will take three times longer to pay off their mortgage. once the restrictions expire iran could enrich on industrial scale. iran could enrich uranium to levels near weapons grade, claiming the desire to power a nuclear navy as brazil is doing. all these are permissible under the agreement and would be

endorsed. the president himself, president obama said, of his own agreement, in your 13, 14 15, iran's breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero. as a result, the u.s. and its allies will be left with no effective measures to prevent iran from initiating an accelerated program. iran surely would be able to move towards an international -- a newsletter with faster than international sanctions would be placed. one nonproliferation expert told the committee, this sunset clause is in his words a disaster. the essence of this agreement is permanent concessions in exchange for temporary benefits.

that is only if iran does not cheat like it has in the past and like north korea cheated. as one witness described, the deal is in many ways a bet. the bet the administration is taking is that in 10-15 years we will have a kinder, gentler iran. a few days ago, the iranian president joined a crowd, which if you followed the piece in the new york times, they were chanting death to america. the posters read, death to zionism. ezra honey was walking, the reporter asked a question -- as the president was walking, the reporter asked a question about

the negotiations. he said, the future is bright as people chanted death to america. president obama has decided to place his chips on the fact chance will disappear. the committee has to decide whether we are willing to roll the dice, too. i will turn to our ranking member for any comments he may have. >> thank you. i appreciate the focus on making sure the committee is able to debate the merits. as we move forward toward a vote on the deal. in the 18 months since the p5 plus one begin negotiating we have had a lot of discussions about centrifuges and stockpiles and breakout times.

we know what the agreement looks like in terms of infrastructure. we await details in terms of what kind of access investigators will be ge ranted and what a new resolution will look like. secretary kerry has spent an enormous amount of time and energy. i applauded their diplomacy and appreciate their ability to negotiate limitations on enrichment. i hesitate to speculate on the deal until we receive all the details. i have serious concerns about various aspects of the deal which were reported from vienna. in particular, the need to come clean on past nuclear activities. the timing of sanctions relief in the impact on the region. inserting an arms embargo remains in place. along with my colleagues, i have been clear iran must come clear

on past nuclear weapons work, a demand made by the administration. iran has been unwilling to cooperate with the iaea on its parallel investigation into the possible military dimensions of its program. intransigence has made it difficult to imagine how we can expect them to comply with a deal. if they have stonewalled the iaea will they find ways to do that under a comprehensive deal? that is why upholding the integrity of the iaea investigation is so vital. i will await details of the roadmap. i'm concerned about access. we are told the agreement is not based on trust, it is based on transparency and verification. i would to see in greater detail of the agreement deals

with that. if media reports are correct and one visit is granted, will that be enough to gather the information needed? how far have we strayed? i remain concerned about the timing of sanctions relief. how will stonewalling or suspected cheating be dealt with? well iran have access to its frozen assets all at once and by what date? where does the money go? i know this was touched on earlier. the behavior is not going to change as part of the agreement. that is acknowledged. iran's support for nefarious actors has the potential to grow. while some relief will have to fix domestic problems, one can

imagine the have a terror proxies could reach. this is something we have to understand better. that brings up my fourth concern, a sticky point. the lifting of the arms embargo. i understand international sanctions aren't wind and complex. i understand there is a disagreement as to what constitutes a nuclear sanction. it is difficult to imagine the security council resolution will result from the comprehensive agreement and not continue the continuing restrictions on -- it is in some ways baffling. why do we believe the dangerous support for terror groups will change?

finally, i want to again raise the issue of the four citizens. the longest held american in history. regardless of what happened, iran must know the u.s. will never stop working for the release of our citizens. i applaud the committee. i appreciate the efforts of our negotiators to raise the issue. members of this committee and congress should have these americans and their thoughts. mr. chairman, i look forward to receiving the details. the agreement cannot just be judged on what happens in the absence of a deal today or tomorrow.

it must also be an lysed by what happens under agreement in five years, 10 years, and beyond. the measure is whether our national security interests are strengthened. i look forward to a meaningful analysis in the days and weeks ahead. mr. royce: we are pleased to be joined by a distinguished panel. senator lieberman represented connecticut for 24 years. he is a cochair of the iran task force. he is senior counsel at a firm in new york. general michael hayden is the former director of an intelligence agency. he served as director of the national security agency.

ambassador nick and burns is a professor at the harvard kennedy school of government can read he served in the foreign service for 27 years. any investor to multiple posts. dr. ray talkkei is a senior counsel. he has authored two books on iran. without objection, the full prepared statements will be made part of the record. witnesses will have five days to submit materials. we will begin with senator lieberman, if you would like to summarize. we will go to questions after your opening testimony.

senator lieberman: i am grateful for the opportunity to testify before you. the negotiations between iran and the p5 plus one has reduced an agreement which will come before you. each of you will have to decide whether to endorse or reject it. looking back at my 24 years of service, i cannot inc. of a more consequential vote that each of you will cast in congress for the future of the u.s. and indeed, the world. i cannot give a better committee to leave the house in its review. this committee, under the leadership of chairman royce and congressman deutsch has built a strong record of nonpartisanship, putting the interests of america ahead of

the political party. if there was ever a time for that leadership, it was on this agreement. your opening statements give me confidence that is exactly the way you will go at this. before i get to my reaction to what happened today, i want to thank president obama and other staff for the extraordinary effort they put into these negotiations. you will hear i have very serious questions about the agreement these negotiations have produced but i have no questions about the sincerity and good motivation of the administration and pursuing negotiations. in the time i have had since the agreement was announced, and based on the framework agreement that came out in april i have reached a conclusion which is there is much more risk for

america and reward for iran then should be in this agreement. it is not a good deal with iran that we all wanted. let me explain why i reached that conclusion based on what i know now. i was a member of the senate when the first sanctions legislation was passed 20 years ago. i played a role in the drafting and passage of each bill. they were adopted by overwhelming bipartisan majorities. in each case, democrats and republicans came together despite persistent and opposition from the executive branch. there is no question in my mind, when we united across party lines in congress to pass these

sanctions bills, it was with a clear and simple purpose. it was to prevent iran from ever possessing a nuclear weapons capability. keep provisions of the legislation we adapted, to specifically state this goal. this is not with the agreement announced today does. what began as an admirable diplomatic effort to prevent iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability -- the agreement announced today temporarily delays but ultimately allows iran to become a nuclear weapons state. indeed legitimizes iran's position of the nuclear capability it has built up

covertly in violation of international laws and breach of its obligations under the nonproliferation treaty. mr. chairman, this is precisely the outcome that for years we and congress fought to prevent. this is precisely what we enacted legislation bipartisan sanctions, to stop. this is the reason why i respectfully ask you to vote against this proposed agreement. under it, iran will be granted permanent and total relief in exchange for temporary and partial limitations on its nuclear projects. that is the essence of why i believe this is a bad deal for america, a bad deal for iran's neighbors, and a bad deal for the world. the anti-american anti-israel

and a sunni muslim republic of iran will have nuclear weapons. this takes iran's nuclear is asian, which was previously unacceptable. you talked about the bet congressman deutsch also, that this will moderate the regime. this is a bet not based on fact. it is based on hope over the experience we have had with iran. we have to judge the country not just by what the representatives have said but i what its government has done. well the foreign minister has been negotiating with the p5 plus one and charming the

international media, the regime has continued to build up its nuclear weapons capabilities. expanded support for radical proxies. improved icbm capacity so it's weapons one day reach europe and the u.s.. skew of the most vile and violent rhetoric towards america, israel, britain, and lately, saudi arabia. the iranian government has acted on its rhetoric, sponsoring terrorist attacks that have killed americans and israelis. arabs. muslims, christians, jews. from saudi arabia to syria and a lot of places in between. you mentioned the rally last week.

around the same time, a tehran newspaper was selected by iran's supreme leader wrote the u.s., which terrorizes humanity as the sole superpower will cease to be visible on the map of the world. how can we have any confidence in an agreement made with such a government? the answer is, it is hard. the only way we can have confidence is if the inspections and verification provisions are airtight. this is based on the history of iran deceiving and a delaying the iaea. claiming inspectors are spies. even though, as we know, it is an agency of the united nations.

at first look, the inspections provisions announced today fall far short of the anywhere anytime access needed to have confidence this deal will actually be carried out. president obama, use the term, where necessary, when necessary career that is a long way from a time anywhere. the specific language creates a process that can go on for at least two weeks of negotiation with iran when the iaea think sid has a reason to inspect something. and then has a appeal process to a higher board. the iaea will have to negotiate to gain access for inspectors even know iran has a consistent record of refusing timely and

reliable access to international monitors in the past. summing up, distinguished members of the committee in the days and weeks ahead, you will review the agreement in detail. he will have different opinions about it. based on what i know, now, i have personally concluded it falls far short of what is needed. in agreement that reliably and permanently ends iran's nuclear weapons capability in exchange for ending the sanctions. i know there will be some who try to convince members of congress that if congress rejects the deal, the result will be catastrophic. some may try to say -- those are false

arguments. i encourage you to reject them. effectively barring its sale of international markets, was undertaken this bite explicit warnings by administration officials at the time that it would collapse the global economy. in fact, it opened the door to diplomacy previously proven in possible. rejecting this bad deal will not result in war or the collapse of diplomacy, it will give the administration a new opportunity to pursue a better deal. i will say as a former member of congress, i know how difficult the following groups will be for you. you will be pushed and pulled by supporters and opponents of this agreement. all i can see, and you all know it already, in the end the best you can do is decide in the

privacy of your own conscience that you believe is best for the security of the american people, including, of course, your constituents. because this is a decision you and you and we will live with for the rest of our lives. this is a vote to use consequences will reverberate in the lives of our children, grandchildren, and beyond. i think you mr. chairman, and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you mr. chairman, mr. deutsch. this is an important topic. i will add to be allowed to be in the company of such distinguished witnesses. when i was at the agency, iran was the second most discussed the hind only terrorism. we discussed a variety of aspects. the nuclear program was a central issue. i mention that to remind us all

that as important as the arabian nuclear -- the iranian nuclear items are we still have to decide whether it is a country or a cause. we have been negotiating on the past year and one half on the premise that it wants to be a country. iran's options suggested still believes it to be a cause. maybe even it's domestic survival has to be drawn from the narrative of hostility between itself as a legitimate agent of shia islam to the rest of the world. if we put all of these issues aside two years ago when we decided to isolate and focus on iran's nuclear ambitions. i get that. i understand that decision. diplomacy wherever possible and not the art of the ideal. we focused on iran's nuclear efforts.

we need to understand that nuclear focus does not make those other realities go away and that even if we get to a successful conclusion of nuclear negotiation, those others remain in and indeed there is a possibility that the nuclear result will make those other issues even more difficult to deal with. to oversimplify just a little bit, the issue is not just iran's nuclear program. the issue is iran. we must be careful that our efforts to resolve this issue does not worsen the dimensions of the problem. now let me focus on the nuclear portfolio per se. if i were to use paper to develop a chart as to how you get from here to there with they are being the nuclear weapon on the part of iranians, i would have three critical paths. one path would be the delivery date -- vehicle.

another path would be making a device small enough and reliable enough that you actually put it in a nose cone. the third path is material. the things you actually need to have a bomb. we have chosen to bet the farm on blocking one path. we have chosen to bet our future here on blocking the path towards the creation of the material. the other two paths missiles, delivery systems, weaponization, are effectively off the table. and even here, the material, we have reduced our margin for error. mr. royce, mr. chairman, senator lieberman, secretary kerry is saying that we have not conceded the right of enrichment to the

iranians. and of course, we have. that was to get the iranians to the negotiating table. the iranians claim they need this nuclear program for the eventual production of a electricity. coming from a nation so rich and fossil fuels, i think we have a right to question that. let me concede that. even conceding that point does not create a prima fighting case for iran to be able to create iranian. there are countries that rely on nuclear power that do not produce their own material. to drive from this point, we have put considerable pressure on our responsible and trusted government and south korea. not to do what this nuclear agreement allows the iranians to do.

similarly, mr. chairman, as you already mentioned, the president did say they did not need the heavy reactor in iraq for a peaceful nuclear program. although the agreement suggests these facilities have been modified, we need to have seen the fine print. a continued to exist. they keep 5000 such infusions of the same type. the administration says it is part of a package that always keeps them 12 months away from having enough fissile material. how much will they be able to do on centrifuge technology? we'll have to look at the fine print of the agreement. the last public agreement by our side has been limited are in the which could mean a lot of things to many people. i am also concerned about our ability to access the many

dimensions of the iranian program. this has special conditions. it is not just what they have done in the past two condition -- to position themselves in regard to weaponization. they have been stiffing the iaea for years on this issue. and now we are going to rely on the iaea for verification of this new agreement, after seemingly having talked to the iranians -- talked the iranians that if used if these guys enough, the requirement to concede will go away. given past iranian behavior and deception, will the agency be able to conduct anywhere-anytime inspections. that is always a concern and already been well-handled. i know you have to look at the fine print to see what managed inspections are like, mr. chairman. but let me give you a way i

begun to think about this. inspections should have been at the technical level. inspection should have been driven by an iaea decision. a technical reason for visiting facility a b, or see. at the political level. i just do not see a happy outcome that would be evolved out of that kind of arrangement. >> there is an awful lot to talk about, mr. chairman. i don't want to belabor all of these issues, some of which of already been raised. but i do want to bring up one point. in discussing the new agreement, many have tried to bring in the pattern of inspections that we agreed the soviets, under the start treaty and the salt treaty. one of the administration officials said that we do not

insist on being able to get into every military site, because the united states of america would not let -- allow anybody to get into every site. that is just not appropriate will stop that includes an equivalency here. the kind of equivalency we did have the soviets, because after all we were entering into a voluntary arms control agreement with them. this is iran trying to get out of the penalty box form violating multiple un security council resolutions. this is not a neutral playing field. the burden of proof should be on the iranians. that they are adhering to an agreement. not on us to prove that they are not. so again, as i said, inspections, managed looks at the inspections and the sense of equivalency i do not think is inadequate reflection of what is really going on here.

thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. hayden. mr. burns? >> thank you. i am here with friends and people i respect very much. we'll start from the presumption that all of us have looked at this issue for a very long time. it is in the interest of the united states to deny iran a nuclear weapon. with president bush and president obama have indicated they will use any means at our disposal to accomplish that. the route taken by both the bush and obama administration do not stop there. the bush administration sought negotiations with iran, iran turned us down. that lead to sanctions. the obama administration, with the leadership of the congress, post stronger sanctions that really made a difference on the iranians. the obama administration has now come back with an agreement for your consideration. i say two things about it.

this is among the most difficult, complex agreements that any of us could hope to judge. it is filled with very painful trade-offs. there are risks in acting and following this agreement and there are risks and not acting. i certainly agree with senator lieberman, from my perspective this will be one of the most consequential and important votes than any member takes in your time of office. i was trying to think this morning, our diplomatic agency you might have to go back to the league of nation votes and 1924 congress to have such a central and directing role in whether we go forward or don't go forward. i worked on iran policy for president bush and secretary rice as undersecretary of state. i helped to sanction iran. i think we have to contain their threat any middle east and we have to stop them. but i also believe that president obama's policy is worthy of your support.

i am going to support it because i think it is the best alternative. if i could of designed a perfect alternative, it would've been for a submission of iran. that alternative is not available to the united states. in whether we oppose it or whether we supported, we have got to think in the real world about what the alternatives have been. here is the alternative to president obama and secretary kerry. they think this agreement will effectively frees iran's nuclear program for the next decade. it will deny the nuclear weapon because they will not have the fissile material that general hayden talked about, for the next decade. it closes out the route towards the material. iran's plutonium reactor will be effectively put off-line. the core will be dismantled. the spent fuel will be taken out of the country. they won't be able to develop a

nuclear weapon through plutonium. the enrichment program will be closed. one will be closed completely. the other will have 5000-6000 centrifuges, but at a lower power they are in the next 10 years. but their store of enriched the -- iranian will be -- at 300 kilograms, their store of iranian, not weapons grade. they will not have the weapons grade uranium to make a nuclear device because of the restrictions. right now, the obama administration has said that iran might need to-three months away from the development of a nuclear weapon. there is no dispute about this, for the next 10 years as their program is rosen, iran will be one year away from a nuclear weapon. so i think the admission -- the administration can make a case whether you agree or not, that the program will be frozen.

the plutonium and uranium enrichment programs. that is important. second, iran will be subjected to inspections it has never been subjected to before. 25 years of protocol by the iaea inspections. third, should iran cheat, and i assume they will try given their past record were they have lied to us, to the united nations, in the past, then we have the ability to reimpose sanctions. congress would. the united states would have the opportunity, any future president, to form a coalition to sanction them. fourth, this does give the united states a chance to resolve this program diplomatically -- this problem diplomatically peacefully, through a tough-minded negotiation. i do not say that lightly, because i think we should keep the threat of force on the table and that any american president

would be justified using it if we felt like iran was close to break out, close to a nuclear weapon. but we're not at that point. no one says they are not close to a nuclear weapon, so the use of force right now is not learned to this discussion, although it is an option in the future. if we have a chance to avoid a third major conflict since 9/11, and if we can stop iran in the process, that is a good course for the united states. mr. chairman, let me tell you i do not think this is a perfect deal. i have had trouble is a private citizen trying to wave the risks on both sides and weighed the pros and cons. if i were a member i would want to focus on some of the questions that senator lieberman has already focus on. i agree with the skepticism. i believe iran's program will be frozen in mothballs for 10 years, but when that 10 years is

over, the superstructure of the program will be intact. iran would have that their article right to build back up a plutonium or uranium route to a nuclear weapon. that is the weakness of this agreement. that is a trade-off. this was a real-world negotiation where we received some benefit, the freezing of the program for 10 years, but that program is not entirely dismantled and we have two understand that. second, i think it is important that the ie ae will have 25 years of insight into iran's program, but will they have a clear line of sight? will they have unfettered access? what, in practice, does managed access to a nuclear plant mean? i think it means iran will write some of the rules about how its plants aren't spec did. certainly we have to ask that about military dimensions. third, would we really be able to to play sanctions should iran

she or violate sanctions? -- should iran she or violate sanctions? it will affect whoever we elect in 2016. i think the europeans will be with us. i think the russians and chinese will. these are real trade-offs. this is not a perfectly designed agreement. we had to compromise and give. that is where, as general hayden has described, and i agree with him, that is where we made the compromises. the only way to look at this is not what is the ideal solution, because the ideal solution is not available to us, is this the best alternative? resident obama and secretary kerry's route. i can't think of two other art candidates. -- i can't think of two other alternatives. should we have just walked away?

said this is not good enough? left the negotiations? withdrawn the united states support for these negotiations? we could've done that. but as someone who put the p5 together -- helped put the p5 together, i think i know what would've happened. our coalition, which is global, which contains every major country in the world, would have frayed and dissolved. countries would have gone their own way without the leadership of the united states. i know what would've happened to the sanctions regime. it would dissipated or dissolved over time. because the chinese would want to go for energy contracts. the indian government would want to import more oil from iran. even our friends in east asia, our allies, would've wanted to go back to a normal trading agreement. so, the united states can sanction all at once and i

respect what congress is done and it was very important. but what ought i to the table was the global sanctions. japan, south korea, india not buying as much oil and gas. it was the european arms embargo and sanctions. if it walked away and the coalition dissolved, there goes the leverage of these sections. so for me, if i have to weigh that walking out no-deal option versus president obama's option, i favor president obama's option. what more options available to the united states? we could've gone directly to the use of knitter -- military force. general hayden would be a much better judge of that, but i believe we have the capacity to effectively destroy iran's nuclear facilities. that might bias 3-4 years. that you cannot bomb the scientific knowledge that their engineers and scientists have.

they know how to mine uranium. they know how to convert it. they know how to enrich it. they know how to assemble a nuclear warhead, we think. we fear. so it is a tactical option. it is you time. president obama's option buys us 10 years where we can be reasonably assured that their program is frozen. i don't think these other options work for the united states in the real world of international politics and international diplomacy. that is why looking at the alternatives, president obama's option is worthy of your support and i certainly support him. two points, at the same time the obama administration will pursue this very difficult agreement with a iran on the nuclear issues, i think we will have to push back against the iranians in the middle east. because they are on a tear. they have become the kingmaker in syria.

they are, unfortunately, the most influential country in iraq. they are running arms to hamas gaza hezbollah in lebanon, and they are supporting the revolt of the hutu tribes in yemen that have torn that country apart. they are making a big play for power and the heart of the sunni world. that is against the heart of all of our arab friends. we are in the position of supporting a nuclear deal and yet hoping and believing that president obama needs to push back through a strong coalition with the arab countries against iranian power. i would hope that president obama and the obama administration in general would make up with israel. and the war of words with the israeli prime minister. reinforce our military position with israel as well as the gulf states so that we can contain iranian power in the middle

east. that is a very important imperative racing alongside the nuclear issue as we speak. finally i am saying, as someone who is served in both republican and democratic organizations, i hope we can have a bipartisan debate in our country among citizens and on capitol hill. there are obvious differences between the bush and obama administrations, but both sought negotiations. that is what we are aiming for in 2006 and 2007. when iran denied it to us, we turn to congress. thanks to congress for the sanctions. that we need bipartisan unity in support of our president if we are going to contain and ultimately defeat this threat from iran. >> thank you. >> thank you, chairman royce ranking member. for inviting me back to this particular forum. as junior man on the table i

will stay within my allotted time. [laughter] since i don't, the judge would usually cut me off, although he is not here right now. the ever-vigilant judge. since the advent of the iranian nuclear crisis in 2000 2, 2, to principles of guided the united states negotiating position. from 2002-2013, this positions were, what kind of nuclear program iran is entitled to. iran has no practical needs for in richmond. it should be allowed only a symbolic nuclear program. that would allow iranians leadership to save face meanwhile there would be assurances that such a symbolic program would not be used for military purposes. the second position that guided the united states policy from 2002-2013 was that iran can

rejoin the npt community wants it established the trust and con -- confidence of the party. this is what was embraced. it is precisely these two principles that the administration has jettisoned in 2013. it was codified in the recent -- the notion of practical means has been replaced by something -- that one year is not static and will -- 20 in the concluding stages of this agreement. the trust and confidence of the international community has been replaced by subterfuge, where -- would determine --. japan can be trusted with such

technologies. iran should not. all the significant issues aside, this deal has to be articulated in the context of the foreign policy. it is important to note that the supreme leader stands as the most successful persian empire list in the history of iran. at the height of his power, the sean never had control of a rock . lebanese politics eluded him. the gulf states rebuffed his attentions. today, as suggested, the islamic republic has attention and. it is the most external in syria. it can apply not just in lebanese politics but in very is of the middle east and of course, in the gulf and other areas given ample opportunity.

the rest of the debate, a curious one, what will the islamic republic spend its money on? and imperialism has its costs, and some of the money undoubtedly will go into imperial opportunity. i believe the administration has this. some will be spent on domestic needs. a winged of iranian politics that have already been interested in the china model. you can purchase dissent by offering economic opportunity. in that particular sense, you can make a case, and i think a rather plausible one that the iranian administration has been one of the most repressive in the post-revolutionary state. iran's burdens citizens would require some kind of relief, and the china model would grant them a measure of economic rewards, and with that you can purchase domestic consent.

in this particular case, because the islamic republic continues to be haunted by the revolution of 2009, they need an arms agreement as much as islamist and imperialism. in the end, this deal may not rest on trust. but it does rest on hope. the hope that a decade from now the islamic republic will be at a different point. inclined to live at peace with its neighbor. a power that is no longer fueled by anti-americanism and anti-zionism that has so long fueled it. it's own idiom and its own language it is a hope i have difficulty sharing. thank you. >> thank you. i would like to just go to the question of the arms embargo. this was -- dr., this was a

last-minute addendum. a demand in the negotiation. that the u.n. lift the arms embargo as it related not just to conventional weapons. that iran could better arm a sod and his bolo with. it also goes to this issue of iran's capability to get access to the international technical systems that it seeks to improve their icbm program. last week, secretary of defense carter and chairman of the joint juices staff dempsey both sounded the alarm about what this would mean if they get this capability to have an icbm reach the united states. nearly, the russian stepped in. the last-minute negotiations, clearly, russia wants to transfer this technical

assistance to iran. this is the most recent issue that i think caught us by surprise. and i think the other element of surprise was the discovery that in the middle of this negotiation, one month ago, that iran had committed to transfer to hamas not just the funding to rebuild the 35 tunnels that had been built before under israel but also a new generation of rockets and weapons and most recently, the additional discovery or announcement that iran was going to transfer precision guidance systems to the 100,000 rockets and missiles that hezbollah has had it's just those all aimed right now at israel but not quite as effective, obviously, because of the iran dome.