conventional capabilities, maybe less, but could potentially drive us out of the persian gulf and the strathes of hormuth because the price of being there will be too high. they can develop capabilities to kill ships, add to fast swift boats, things that can threaten an aircraft carrier, they'll build long-range rockets. why are you building a lock-range rocket? are you going to put a man on the moon? no. they say north korea has a long range rocket. we don't know whether it's going -- where it's going to hit. it'll hit somewhere. that alone has made north korea bigger. i would argue even now before sanctions relief they've given iran tremendous leverage over u.s. policy. . iran has laid out clear red

lines. they are going to hold back the shiia militia in iraq from protecting american troops or going after americans. they'll agree to hole them back if we don't cross certain red lines they have made very clear. what are the red lines? for starters they don't want to see u.s. combat troops in iraq f we make any moves towards any sort of permanent presence in iraq in the future, we'll get attacked by shiia militias at their orders. they don't want to see you take any concrete steps to remove assad from power. if they see us move toward getting assad out of power, we get hit by their surrogate groups in the region including hezbollah and shiia militia. if we take steps to try to help put in place an iraqi government that actually unifies that country and isn't it a puppet of iran, not to mention one that may be hostile towards iran's ambitions in the region, they'll attack us. they already have leverage over ourpolicy. extrapolate that eight to 10 years from now when their groups are better armed. when they don't have just rockets, but guided rockets,

missiles, that don't hit somewhere in israel, hit exactly what they want to hit. imagine a world in 10 years where iran decides or eight years or 12 years where they decide, you know what? we are building a nuclear weapon because we believe israel has one or because we think someone else is going to threaten us. what can the world do then? then, then reimposing sanctions won't be an option because all these companies that are deeply invested in that economy just won't let their nations governments do anything about t we have seen that in the case of the europeans. what will the price be of actually going after their systems? it will be worse than going after the price of north korea now? do we have a credible military option today to target the north koreans' program? we do not. we do not because we know that the price of going after the north korean program through credible military option, the price of that is tokyo. the price of that is seoul. the price of that is hawaii. they'll hit us back. imagine iran where the price of going after the iranian program

in 10 years if they decide to break out will be watching, d.c., or new york sitty, not to mention tel aviv and jerusalem and any number of places in the region that are our allies. my argument is in fact what i think we have done here is walked right into the situation they wanted to lay out. they didn't want a nuclear weapon next week anyway. we have created a system where in eight to 10 years he they will have the capability to quickly become, walk into the nuclear weapons club, not sneak in, walk in to the nuclear weapons club with a world class industrial enrichment capability, much more powerful conventional force, capable of actually asymmetrically driving our navy from the region or further out and immune from any credible military action because if we attack them the price will be a nuclear devastating strike, foningsly even on the -- potentially even on the continental united states. my point is that when people vote on the deal in a few weeks i'll live with this for the rest

of your life. 10 years, 12 years when iran has a nuclear weapon and we can't target them, people are going to remember this vote that's coming up and this deal is what laid the groundwork for t i keep hearing this notion there is no other alternative or way forward. i disagree. i believe u.s. sanctions are the most important part of all the sanctions. i believe that these are banks and europe, german banks, whatever banks, if they were forced to choose between having access to the american economy and access to the iranian economy, that's not going to be a hard choice. i know there's not a question embeded in this other than mr. zarate in the 30 seconds i have left i would ask you do you have any doubt that when the sanctions are removed and the billions of dollars flow in that a significant percentage of that money will be used for the things i just outlined? develop long-range rockets, develop oiler conventional capabilities, and better equip their surrogate groups in the region? chairman zarate: i don't know what the percentage will be, this is a regime that's already investing in those capabilities. has already increased its budget allocation for the irgc that

could force another element of its security infrastructure. there's no doubt in my mind that they are going to use some of the relief and actual flow of capital to support their proxies. as i said my testimony from the golan to yemen. there is no doubt in my mind. i don't know what the percentage will be. but it's going to be significant. senator corker: i don't have additional questions but i think other members may and we would be glad to entertain those for a moment. i don't want to let the war thing hang. i hope you are not trying to indicate that there's some of us who would like to see a war. chairman zarate: no. let me be real clear what i meant about that. you are -- mr. chair, if you don't mind you are absolutely right, the inspections in iraq were the gold standard. this deal is not at that level. but the inspections in iraq flowed from our winning gulf war one. there was a war we won. and then it set a pattern of an

inspections regime in iraq that we used the inspections to bomb iraq in the late 1990's. but there was a war that led to this super comprehensive greem. that's not a comment about what anybody -- senator corker: i would say just in response that i think we all know from the meetings that we have that iran has never thought that the threat of force was real in recent times. and i might say, i hope we don't get to that, i think that's what we are all trying to assess right now, is this an agreement that keeps us from that. but i might say because they never thought that to be a threat, maybe that's the reason they purchased something that is certainly at a minimum not near as good as what we had in the past, maybe. but senator shaheen. senator shaheen: thank you, mr. chairman. when i passed to senator kaine it wasn't because i didn't have questions. it was because he was first and having started out at the end of

the row here i appreciate how challenging it is when somebody comes in with more seniority and bumps your questioning. thank you both for being here. senator rubio presented a fairly stark, doomsday scenario in his time. and i just want to go back and see if i can clarify a couple things with respect to what he said. first of all, does this agreement in any way affect our ability to take any military action in iran should we choose to do so? mr. nephew? mr. nephew: no, it does not. senator sha lean: do you agree with that? chairman zarate: i do. senator sha lean: are you both in agreement with what i understand to be the intelligence assessment that today before we enter into this agreement that iran is two to three months away from breakout

to build a nuclear weapon should they choose to do that? mr. nephew? mr. nephew: that's my understanding, two to three minutes. senator shaheen: mr. zaratea? chairman zarate: that's my understanding. senator shaheen: it's my understanding again based on estimates i have seen that should we enter into this agreement at the end of the 10-year time period that iran will be between eight and 12 months away from building a nuclear weapon? is that your understanding? mr. nephew: yes, senator that's my understanding. chairman zarate: yes, senator. at the end of the restrictions can quickly shrink that timetable back to two months. senator shaheen: they'll be able to shrink that timetable because they already have an enrichment program and they have built or in the process of building a plutonium program at the iraq

site because of the work they are doing right now not because of what they are going to be able to do over the next 10-year time period, is that your understanding? chairman zarate: it is. but also the case they'll likely accelerate their activities given the modernization in particular around the centrifuge program and the enrich. . senator shaheen: that's not my understanding based on secretary moniz. mr. nephew: from years 10 to 15, the iranans are -- iranians will be constrained as well as the iranian stockpile. further the iraq plutonium path will be more closed down because they can't do any of that. my understanding as of year 15 we'll still be in that six to eight months time frame for uranium breakout. but years and years away from a plutonium base bomb. senator shaheen: you agree? chairman zarate: i was referring

to uranium enrichment. not plutonium. senator shaheen: there has been some suggestion that one of the challenges with relying on the iaea is that the u.s. wouldn't have inspectors on the ground as part of those activities. are there other adreams that we have entered into where we have -- agreements that we have entered into where we have inspectors on the ground and can you describe those, mr. nephew? mr. nephew: i am aware of some. things for instance bilateral arms control with the soviet union. had inspectors of the united states and soviet inspectors came here and when it became russia, russian. there were constriction and restraints placed upon those inspections because there were national security interests involved here. from the iranian perspective, my understanding is they have concerns with americans tromping around their military sites. i think from their perspective there is reason to be concerned.

i don't think that should imply we won't have access from information from those inspections. the iaea will be asked to provide reports and information both to the members of p5+1 and the iaea governors which we are one. senator shaheen: with respect to our activities in russia, since you gave that example, and with respect to iran we will also continue to have intelligence assessments about activities going on there, is that correct? mr. nephew: i think it will be one of the most watched targets in u.s. intelligence community. senator shaheen: i want to go now to the sanctions question because you-all have testified and i think i heard this every hearing that i have been in, that it's more likely that if we agree to the negotiated, the

jcpoa, that iran would most likely violate that in an incremental way rather than in a flagrant way. and that therefore as you testified, mr. nephew, that the situational challenge will be how we respond to that and how do we get the international community to go along with this in our response. you both mentioned several other incremental options with respect to sanctions and other disincentives that we could engage in with iran. and i wonder if i could get you to talk a little bit more about that. mr. nephew, do you want to start and then mr. zarate. mr. nephew: i believe the base principles we still have the ability to impose sanctions with respect to particular bad conduct. now, the terms of the deal require us to go through this dispute process to engage iran on the terms of its violation. if it is a valve that's out of

place, we may not wish to impose draconian sanctions for that or at all. there may be other restrictions imposed on iran as a result that have violation. senator shaheen: like what? mr. nephew: additional monitoring. if a valve is found out of place it might be because the monitoring regime is not sufficient. in my opinion you can use the dispute process to tailor further the deal to make sure you don't have those problems in the future. overall, if you have violation upon violation it's ticky-tack there are lots of little ones that add up. frankly, then you can go down the path of iran is trying to systematically undermine the deal, which may push in you a direction of more aggressive sanctions response option. senator shaheen: i think there are a variety of things you could do. certainly unilaterally you could impose different type of sanctions if the -- if an element of tailored snapback as opposed to blunt snapback, that's one way of dealing with relatively minor yet material

infractions. i think the bigger question is going to be systematically how infractions are viewed. will they be viewed as iran really trying to cheat? or is it simply iran being iran pushing the envelope? i think that will be the biggest challenge because i think those who don't want the deal to fail, and certainly may have commercial interest, etc., will make the assumption that these are forgivable offenses. those that are more suspicious of iran will see these as just the tip of the iceberg reflecting what iran may or may not be doing covertly, for example. i think how all those infractions are viewed in toto becomes important. senator shaheen: if you're going to divide -- can i continue? my time -- senator courter: you are already having an impact with the intel briefing. go ahead. senator shaheen: if you're going to divide the p5+1 so negotiators who are party to this agreement would you put

certain of them in one camp, people who think iran is looking to violate the deal and people who think, well, we want to give them some slack on these things? and how would you divide that out? then what options would we have as we are looking at those partners and negotiation to try to bring them around to our point of view? chairman zarate: i would say this, i think every party to the p5+1 wants to see the deal work. i think that they would treat any violation as being a potentially serious one. now, if, on the one hand, if it's a valid issue we'll probably react more seriously to that than russia. mr. nephew: i think a real very substantial significant violation of the deal would be as big a problem for the russians and the chinese as it would be for the p5+1. ultimately again it will come down to the context of the violation and what we are suggesting in response. if we are able to be

proportional and reasonable and serious about how we are handling this, i think the p5+1 will stay together. senator shaheen: do you agree? chairman zarate: i have a slightly different view in part because i think there is a question of how the nuclear program and iran is viewed in the context of the negotiation. and richard's right. everyone wants the deal to work. then there are other geopolitical factors that i think create gradations among the negotiating parties. one of the gradations is actually is how willing the parties had to allow sanctions to be used effectively is the way i would put it. i would put china and russia in the camp where they certainly do not want to see the effective use of sanctions wantonly. and they certainly don't want to encourage the u.s. to use these powers effectively. and i think that's a real challenge in terms of the sanction framework. senator shaheen: excuse me. on the other hand, they have been effectively working with

the u.s. in terms of imposing those sanctions on iran, is that not the case? chairman zarate: because they had to. not overwhelm because of u.n. chapter 7 obligations but because of the market implications. the rest of the regime imposed by the u.s. government has really forced the choice. are you going to do business in the u.s. or are you going to do business in iran? i think that choice has been fairly stark for most market actors to include russian and chinese actors. senator shaheen: thank you both. senator corker: are we good? i do want to say we, because of the chinese relations, we did grant some significant flexibilitys to them. to say that they have held firm to this would be a little bit of an exaggeration because we -- they were not going to hold firm so we granted them some flexibility. senator menendez. senator menendez: just a quick question. and a comment f it's true that

sanctions did not -- comment. in it's true that sanctions did not stop the program, neither did this agreement. it may delay it but it doesn't stop t let's look at the standard we are trying to look at. i have a concern that people think of snapback as an instantaneous reality. and yet in page 6 of your testimony talking about how we got to the point you say this approach took time, patience, and coordination within the u.s. government with allies. it would not be a financial shock and awe campaign using a series of coordinated steps to isolate key elements of the iranian economy. so my question is, how instantaneous is, assuming we have all the laws in place, which is still a question, how

instantaneous is snapback in terms of both its actual -- you have to give notice to the world, companies, that you're now in violated space in sanction space, we used to give people at least six months' notice of that. i'm trying -- this idea that it's a instantaneous, give me a sense of that. chairman zarate: two different answers. one is the mens -- mechanics. the implication of a snapback would have legal and mechanical implications and you have to allow for contracts to be unwound. investments to be rejiggered and moved, etc. mechanics of that will take months, potentially. the second part which is perhaps the most important is, as we get further along in the implementation of this deal, and the erosion of the sanctions architecture you begin to lose the ability to affect the marketplace and its risk aversion to doing business with iran. that would take even longer to reinstitute. even though the snapback would

certainly help. i think that would depend on enforcement. that would depend on expansion of sanctions list. that would depend on a whole set of other measures. with the market understanding that iran is being not only punished for its violations, but also being isolated from elements of the financial and commercial system. that in some way would be in violation of the current reading of the jcpoa which is in part why i have such grave concerns. in any event i think those are the two elements that do add delay to any snapback. mr. nephew: i generally agree with juan this won't be instantaneous. there would be some wind-up. some of this will be in the dispute resolution process i don't anticipate the dispute process itself will be a secret. i think there is going to be publicity about there being violations. certainly when a security

counsel consideration an consultation begins, there is going to be attention paid to this. to my mind that is part of the warning time and preparation time that companies and banks and businesses are going to have to build into their snapback calculation. they will see this coming and that 30, 50, 60, 80 days period is a lot of time for them to start preparing tore response to snapback. that doesn't mean on day 80 i think you are going to have zero economic activity with iran. it does mean, i don't think, it's three months plus six months. i think if there is a six-month wind-up period, some of that is in the process. the second point i would make in reaction to juan's comment, i think it's true that over time the market is going to normalize its expectations. our secondary saxes are still in effect. banks and companies are still going to have to be screening against the treasure will be

endless. they still have to treat iran has different. otherwise they run the risk of being cut off from the united states. senator menendez: we are calculating here the sense of instantaneousness. there will be months involved. months involved. which means that this whole breakout period, months involved, to have an effect before you try to move the iranians into changing their courses they are violating is a lot less. so when you take the totality of the consideration even in the case of snapback, you're talking about a limited window in the future. and that has a real consequence to judgment at the end of the day. thank you. senator corker: certainly, yourself and the two people at the table, as a man of experience and how long it takes for these things to kick in, no question. i want to thank our witnesses. it's been an outstanding

hearing. we'll leave the record open for questions if it's ok through close of business monday. and hope that you would respond. but we thank you both for your service to our country. it's been an important service. we thank you for being here today. and again, it's been an outstanding hearing, thank you. adjourned. [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]

>> join the conversation at facebook.com/c spap. here's what some of you have posted. deb writes, i support the iran agreement as i supported the i.n.f. treaty between the u.s. and communist russia signed in 1987 by president reagan. brad says absolutely not. no one in the right mind should support nuking up iran and funding their plot to destroy us infidels. rhonda has this comment, she says, yes, i agree to make a deal with iran, but it could have been a much better deal and should have included the prisoners. and finally this from shirley, she says, no i don't. it's only the people of america would read the fine print they would see how dangerous this would be for our beloved contry. your facebook comments at facebook.com/c-span. the select committee on benghazi communications director has announced former secretary of state hillary clinton will

appear before the committee on october 22. members of the committee will question the former secretary about libya benghazi, and her email arrangement. it was laid out in the house resolution. specific details for that hearing which will be opened to the public will be announced at a later date. c-span is partnering with the new hampshire union leader and other media organizations in early primary states, including wgiram in manchester, new hampshire. the cedar rapids gazette post and coror in charleston, south carolina, and that will take place at 7:00 p.m. eastern in manchester, new hampshire. we'll have it live on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org.

this weekend on the c-span networks. politics, books, and american history. saturday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span, host as discussion on illegal immigrants and the enforcement of arizona's immigration laws. and sunday evening at 6:30, new jersey new jersey governor and republican presidential candidate chris christie on national security. he speaks at the university of new hampshire at manchester. on c-span2, saturday night, at 10:00 eastern, on book tv's afterwards, michael tanner p.m. eastern in manchester, new hampshire. we'll have it live on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. this weekend on the c-span networks. politics, talks about the growing national debt and looks at restructural entitlement programs as a solution. and sunday afternoon at 3:00, glen beckfrents his thoughts on islamic extremism. heroin history tv on c-span3, sunday more at 10:00 eastern, we commemorate the 50th anniversary of president lyndon johnson's signing of the 1965 voting rights act. our coverage includes white house phone conversations between johnson and his aides. civil rights leader dr. martin luther king jr. and congressional members about strategy on how to enact and enforce the law. l.b.j.'s 1965 speech at the u.s.

capitol and signing of the bill. also this weekend, saturday night at 7:10, university of california at berkeley history professor brian delay looks at the history of gun production in europe and how arms trading contributed to an american victory during the revolution. get our complete schedule at c-span.org. a live picture of the u.s. capitol national debt and here in washington. the house not in session today but the senate is. senators have been debating heightway funding bill. right now lawmakers voting on their own negotiated six-year bill it includes re-authorization of the export-import bank. this afternoon they'll be turning their attention to the house's short-term highway funding measure, that includes money to keep mass transit programs funding for three months. current funding runs out .

to final passage vote on the house bill is set for 1:45 eastern. can you see the vote right now on the senate bill as it's taking place on c-span2. by the way, majority leader mitch mcconnell is expected to talk about the highway funding vote. we are planning live coverage of that as soon as the vote wraps up. we'll have it here for you on c-span. until that time, a discussion on the overhaul of toxic chemical regulations from this morning's "washington journal." continues. host: our first guest, tom udall. first of all why this topic and who are you working with? guest: i have been working with senator vitter. and the reason i'm working on this is because the law is broken. everybody thinks you have a top cop when you -- it comes to chemicals, but you don't. we have a strong bill and we think it fixes the problem. host: so chemicals, specifically, what type of chemicals? guest: these are chemicals that

are all out in our society, in our products. the examples are from aldehyde, asbestos -- formaldehyde asbestos, some pretty dangerous chemicals. and we have 85,000 existing chemicals out in society, most of them have not been tested for safety even though people probably believe there is kind of a top cop on the job that does that. so what we are tied to do is update this law, which was completely gutted and the agency was crippled in 1991 by a court ruling which basically set a standard that was so tough that they could not move forward. host: so if there is not a top cop, who does the regulating and enforcing? guest: right a we'll leave this now. here's majority leader mitch

mcon. senator mcconnell: we are just about to wrap up a multiyear highway bill. as you know, at the beginning of this new majority i said we need to put the senate back to work. we need to look for areas where there is some potential for bipartisan agreement. even though it didn't ultimately get a presidential signature, we started with the keystone pipeline. we then passed a budget. that's typically not a bipartisan exercise and it wasn't this year. then we did the iran nuclear review act which we'll be dealing with in september. we have done trade. we have done education. this week highways. if we are unable to get on the defund planned parenthood vote on monday, hopefully we will get on it, but if we don't we'll turn to cybersecurity next week and see if we can achieve

something additionally for the american people before the august recess. be happy to throw it open for a few minutes. >> voted for the law -- [inaudible] senator mcconnell: i have had a long-standing opposition to funding of planned parenthood. frequently in the legislative process things come up that you can't entirely dictate every aspect of. but my record on life issues and planned parenthood is 100%. [inaudible] senator mcconnell: i think i just said we are going to try to move to that bill on monday. we haven't even begun to talk about the c.r. yet. we are going to discuss how to fund the government after the august recess. for the moment we are still

trying to move bills that have bipartisan support. >> are you worried that a lot of these things seem to be piling up within a couple weeks of each other? the highway bill, debt ceiling, probably the spending bills, probably get a c.r. into the fall. senator mcconnell: highway bill hopefully won't be piling up. the house indicated as rault of our passing a bill they'll do it in september and go to conference. and the goal of the conference would be to get a result. i think it's unfortunate that senate democrats have prevented us from taking up a single appropriation bill. that was obviously designed to force some discussion in the fall about how to fund the government. i think that's unfortunate because appropriations committee for the first time in six years actually marked up and reported out all 12 appropriation bills.

so senate republicans are ready to have a normal appropriation process. it was prevented -- that was prevented by the fact that democrats have made it clear they won't let any of them be taken up on the floor of the senate. we are not talking about negotiation today. we'll come back after august. we'll discuss the way forward on getting the government funded. >> give the senate voted to re-authorize the export-import bank, do you believe that could be part of the concerns report? senator mcconnell: i can't understand what you're saying. >> given ex-imwas re-authorized by the senate -- senator mcconnell: first i have to have a conference of the as i indicated the house apparently will pass a multiyear highway bill in early september. we'll go to conference and see what the conference produces.

i think we have had quite a good week here in the senate. thanks a lot, everybody. [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] >> senate minority leader mitch mcconnell there laying out the senate's agenda now that they have just approved the six-year highway funding bill. a simple majority is needed to pass the bill. right now the vote is 65 yeas to 34 nays. you can see that vote as it comes in on our companion network c-span2. this afternoon, senators will be turning their attention to the house's short-term highway and mass transit bill. that is three months. and keeps those programs running past tomorrow midnight. when funding runs out.

that vote on the house bill again set for this afternoon at 1:45 eastern. see live coverage of the senate on our companion network c-span2. right now we'll go back to this morning's "washington journal" for that discussion on the overhaul of toxic chemical regulations. continues host:. -- our -- first -- current -- continues. host: our first guest, tom udall. first of all why this topic and who are you working with? guest: i have been working with senator vitter. and the reason i'm working on this is because the law is broken. everybody thinks you have a top cop when you -- it comes to chemicals, but you don't. we have a strong bill and we think it fixes the problem. host: so chemicals, specifically, what type of chemicals? guest: these are chemicals that are all out in our society, in

our products. the examples are from aldehyde, asbestos -- formaldehyde asbestos, some pretty dangerous chemicals. and we have 85,000 existing chemicals out in society, most of them have not been tested for safety even though people probably believe there is kind of a top cop on the job that does that. so what we are tied to do is update this law, which was completely gutted and the agency was crippled in 1991 by a court ruling which basically set a standard that was so tough that they could not move forward. host: so if there is not a top cop, who does the regulating and enforcing? guest: right now, the epa has been crippled, so the states have moved in. but they don't have the resources, except for the larger states, to do much of anything. when you add up all the things the states have done, they have

maybe wade into about -- weighed into about 12 chemicals. host: so the effort that you and senator vitter would make, what kind of support have you got in and will you see a vote on this before you go to recess? guest: i hope we are going to see a vote. we are working hard to get it on the schedule. i am confident we have the strong bipartisan support to get this through the senate. it has already gone through the house with a very significant vote. senator vitter and i started working after the death of senator frank lautenberg. i have to say at the beginning that he was the one that worked early on with senator vitter to craft the law. it was at the time endorsed by the "new york times." that was a couple of years ago. we have worked very hard to make those changes.

we have a strong bill. we have 52 senators on this piece of legislation. very bipartisan. and it is something that the american people, if they truly understood this issue about the dangers that are out there, the body burden we carry of chemicals today that 75 years ago we didn't have in our bodies, they would realize we have to do this now, we need to get to work on this. host: even as you try to push this legislation through senator barbara boxer has resisted this legislation. what are their concerns and what would you say to them? guest: first of all, we are trying to work with everybody. we have taken suggestions to heart when they say improve the bill. one of the areas of improvement is to look at a better public health safety environmental standard. we believe we have done that. compared to the house, i think we have a much better -- a much

better bill in terms of the safety standards. there are some differences with the house bill, but the important stiff -- thing is that i think we can resolve those differences. we have worked with all parties. and that is why i think we have gained support overtime and why we are up to 52 senators representing 32 states. it is almost evenly split, democrats and republicans. we have been getting bipartisan support every day. so what i would encourage any senators or house members that want to weigh in, make constructive suggestions. we are still in the process of working this through and massaging it. we can improve this bill and make it better, but the main thing, let's protect the american people. host: our guest with us until 8:45, if you want to ask them questions, it is (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 745-8002 fors independent.

-- for independents. the first call for you is from texas on our democrats line. you are on what the senator, go ahead. caller: good morning. good morning senator udall. guest: -- good morning. how are you doing? caller: i'm doing great. i don't know why, it seems like to meet the epa and other bodies that have been used to protect us as far as food, as far as chemicals, they are losing strength. what is -- we don't even know -- we can't even find out from the grocery stores whether we are getting cloned food or regular food. it seems like all of the guidelines have been made so they help the big production companies and the big companies like this, and there is less pay

done to help us the american people. what can we do to help you? guest: one of the thinks you can do is speak up to your representatives, your senators and talk about needing stronger laws. participate in the local community. if you are a shareholder in a company, you can advocate for that company to do full disclosure like you're talking about. i am one that really believes and labeling. i believe that consumers should have the information they need when they are purchasing food or when they are out shopping. that is something that is very important to them. and we shouldn't be afraid of labels. you asked the question, why don't we have stronger laws? in the case, we put him law on the books in 1976. that law works for a while. it banned five chemicals. but basically what has happened in 1991, we had a court ruling with the fifth circuit court of appeals.

and what they ended up doing is really gutting the statutes. they hurt the ability of the epa to really do its job. so what we are doing with this bill, we fixed that situation. we put the epa back as the top cop when it comes to dangerous chemicals. they can do the evaluations, they can feed in the ideas in terms of environment, public health, and really take a strong look at the chemicals that are on the market and the new chemicals that are coming onto the market. people don't realize it, but every year, we probably have 750 to 1500 new chemicals making it onto the market. we are not able to do the kind of safety analysis that we need to do. and that is what this bill does. but you have to look i'm -- look to all the different areas to see why it isn't stronger. sometimes it is resources. unfortunately, some of our republican friends don't give

the resources to the federal regulators that we need. we are seeing a real's rollback in some areas. -- a real rollback in some areas. and that is not to make it a partisan issue, it is to make sure the resources are there. host: albert from tennessee, go ahead. caller: hay. i am really -- hey. i'm really upset about these trade deals. every time one is made, the standard of living in this country drops. why do you guys keep supporting these trade deals? thank you. guest: thank you, albert, and i'm with you. i voted against tpa and i'm very, very worried about this agreement and terms of what it does in terms of shipping jobs overseas. this is pretty extraordinary what we have done with the trade promotion authority and what we have done their as we have given six years of authority to several presidents.

we don't even know who they are going to be in addition to president obama. i would much prefer it would have been very narrow. we would have said to obama present this transpacific trade agreement to us, we will give you authority to that, but we didn't do that. and so i -- i really liked the days when i came in the congress and one of the things we did is congress was much more involved in the trade agreements. we were at the table. we travel to countries. we asked the tough questions. and then we're pushing for our people here back home to get some of these jobs. unfortunately, i think we have handed it over to president to negotiate the deal -- presidents to negotiate a deal. i am with you on trade, albert. host: from las vegas, nevada. hello. caller: good morning, senator. guest: how are you this morning? caller: oh, pretty good.

i just want to applaud you for your bill. i supported and if we can get a vote on it, which i doubt, i know that my senator here in nevada will vote on it. the reason i have doubts about that is because we cannot even get anything bipartisan as a highway bill through. and that is, like, the most bipartisan thing in the country and we can get that done. so i i'm a little skeptical about that. and i just want to ask you one question. you have a long institutional memory. the other day when ted cruz was on the floor and calling the majority leader a liar, i was just wondering isn't he supposed to be gaveled down and supposed to be told he is out of order? guest: the very, very good question. to me, this is a very, very saturday in the history of the senate when you have a senator using terms that really attacks

the character, attacks the integrity of another senator. and you are absolutely right. there is a provision in the senate rules that says you shouldn't do that. the next morning, or the tradition is in the senate, they reread that provision so that all senators see you are not supposed to attack character integrity, you are not supposed to -- it is basically a golden rule. don't do something to somebody that you wouldn't want done to yourself. so i think we need to tone it down back here. my uncle used to have a thing he called a politician's prayer. and he would say, say those words very gentle because the next day you may have to eat them. and that is really true. we should deal with each other in more gentle ways rather than these big accusations one way or another. that hurts our ability to do bipartisanship.

and let me just say a word because you have raised the issue about where we are heading on this. this is even more bipartisan than the highway bill. i mean, we have worked over two years, senator vitter and i. we have moved to this along in a very bipartisan way. we have been completely open transparent, put it out on the table saying, give us your suggestions. at this point, we have 33 states that are aboard, 52 senators. i think if we had a vote, it would be much bigger than the highway bill in terms of the 65 votes they got to shut off debate and before. host: so on the highway bill, the senate was looking for six years. what do you think you'll get in the and? -- end? guest: i would first notes that i think it needs to be stronger and i haven't voted to move it forward, but only three years

are funded. some of the pain force have been taken out, so now we are down to about 2.8 years of funding. this is a very difficult trade-off. one of the big issues is, are we going to have enough money to do a ryan-murray budget to deal? we may have taken all the pay force and put it over with transportation and not have any in the budget area. i think our first responsibility is to put the budget together for the government. for my state, tremendously important. the federal government in terms of military bases, air force bases, national laboratories national parks, we need a budget every year. as you know, you have been here observing this for many years, we have not done the job we need to. host: so if it comes down to a two-month extension, is that something you will support? guest: oh, yeah. i will support the extension.

they say they have jammed desk. they left town yesterday. they sent us a three-month extension. they did not vote on our six-year bill. so if we don't pass this extension, tomorrow this expires. so that is not what we have -- what we want to have happen. host: so do you think issues could be resolved come october? guest: i think the interesting thing, if you look at the legislative process at this point, the house has some good ideas. have worked a bill and the senate, we also have a bill with significant support. we need to put those together and conference them. we will have a timeout with this three-month extension to get that done. i'm hoping will get a much longer bill and it will be a real credit to mitch mcconnell senator boxer, others that have worked on this to get a long-term extension. what i'm still worried about

though, is those trade-offs. is it all going into transportation? we need to have that discussion. host: let's hear from jim in ohio. caller: good morning. every chance i get, i think my local cable provider for c-span. guest: i totally agree with you there, jim. i am a c-span junkie. i will sometimes get up in the middle of the night and watched c-span if i can't sleep. caller: i am trying to get them to get c-span3. i'm a science teacher of over 30 years. i've got something caught in the ringer during the 1980's in the 1990's when i was informing my students about the hazards of long chemicals -- lung chemicals. i asked one of the

superintendence of the school to sit on me about the hazards of lung chemicals. first of all, if you could get -- give the numbers of the senate and house bills we could follow the progress of this. and the second thing i would like you to, please, comment on -- there is a lot of confusion about chemicals. imagine 85,000. a lot of confusion about when a chemical is registered with the epa that it is somehow approved for use. in other words, some of the lawn chemicals are approved for use on residential lots, but you cannot put them on a golf course because they are too dangerous. and in ohio, of course the chemicals that are proprietary and that listed in the fracking solutions. so if you could talk about the numbers of the bills and also the difference between being registered by the epa and being approved.

thank you. guest: ok. i don't have the house number. i believe the senate number is 692, but we will get those numbers and get them into pedro. what you have demonstrated here and you have talked about this chemicals that are in daily use on people's -- putting it on their lawns they have green and feel good about their homes and neighborhoods. people think today if you go and buy a product in a grocery store, in a hardware store, they think, oh, somebody in the government has tested at to make sure that chemical is safe. and if it is used in the way it is recommended to be used, it is not going to be hurt -- it is not going to hurt anybody. unfortunately, since 1991, that is not true. there has been a court case. a crippled the environmental protection agency states have weighed in, but most states like my small state of new mexico, we don't have the ability to have a regulatory agency.

even large states don't have a regulatory agency to deal with dangerous chemicals. so we, as a result of that, the last 75 years, we have seen the buildup of chemicals in our body, in our blood. you can go out and get a blood test today and many industrial chemicals are in our bodies. the real point here is that our bill is bipartisan. we have worked on it to fix the problem. it is not a perfect bill, but i would tell you that this is something that can really make a difference in people's lives and it is a good solid piece of legislation. host: i a big told it is senate bill 697. guest: there you go. host: 2576 for the house. from texas, hello, you are on. caller: i keep hearing all this stuff about infrastructure.

all that has done -- and you talk about it making us more money, putting the middle class back to work. i go up and down i-20 down here in texas all the time. all that is putting together making money for the illegal aliens. there is not anybody out there working on these roads but these illegal aliens. they come over here with work he says. they let them expire and they stay over here and work. and nobody is paying attention to that. i have been in the concrete business 44 years and went out of business because of illegal aliens over here. that is all they do is concrete. they are taking over everything in construction. all the epa has done this costing us more money. that is all i have to say. guest: thank you very much. you have raised two really important issues. one is immigration and i cannot agree with you more at we need comprehensive reform.

i have fought for that in all the years that i have been in the congress and i'm going to keep fighting for that. what is -- does cap hands of are four main? first of all, the 12 million people who are here, we need to pass citizenship for them and we need to bring them out of the shadows. obviously, if there are criminals here, we don't want them to be able to stay. so we are going to end up supporting them and shipping them back to their -- deporting them and shipping them back to their home countries. but many are a fabric of our society. so that is a part of comprehensive reform. we need to look at a number of aspects to make it better in terms of this situation that we have. the other thing you hit on is transportation. and infrastructure. i don't have the situation that you have done in texas.

i don't know the specifics, but i really believe that about a third of our construction workers -- these are americans , hard workers, they are out of work and they need a highway bill. and if we don't do that, we are really shortchanging future generations. the path in the 20% to is to have good, solid infrastructure. we are being passed by china and india and other countries. there was a piece yesterday on high-speed rail in japan. these are trains that are moving on a magnet system of 300 miles and hour. -- an hour. the fast as go between washington dc and new york is 80 miles an hour on amtrak. it is important that this transportation bill that is before us, we get it done. it is important that look at the big infrastructure projects in our states and get those done.

and that will put people back to work. i am convinced that we could lower the -- the unemployment rate by a percentage or two if we did all the big projects we needed to be doing now. host: next is josh from indianapolis, indiana. caller: good morning, senator. guest: good morning. how are you this morning? caller: i'm doing fine. thanks for taking my call. i had a comet and a question. here in indiana, i sell industrial pumps. so i go to different factories and agriculture distributors and i'm touching equipment that i'm not sure what is on it, tanks, labels, so i guess in my line of work, i guess i sort of trust that these chemicals are safe for me to be around unless i'm told otherwise. you know, i can't say i have any health issues or anything like

that. everything seems to be pretty safe all in all, but i think about things like asbestos and how everybody was handling it and it seemed to be justified to be breathing and working around. then we found oh, man, the stuff is really bad for you. recently there was a toothpaste that had a certain chemicals that i brush my teeth with and now i'm told, hey, that can cause cancer. are there any chemicals that you know, has raised this concern with you that is out in society now? guest: josh, thank you very much. there are. asbestos is one of them. formaldehyde arsenic. these are all chemicals that the epa has not been able to regulate because it was crippled by this court case back in 1991. that is where senator vitter and i have fixed that issue. when thing i would just recommend in working in your industry is our companies really

try, in many cases, to protect workers. they are out there giving your recommendations. if they say you are working around the chemical to wear a mask or a breathing respirator everybody should do that. you should follow the safety procedures that have been set down by your company and that is going to help with overall health. but in order to make sure that these chemicals we are using all across our society are tested for safety, we are going to have to update this law. that is why senator vitter and i have been working so hard to make sure that the toxic substances l passes the senate, passes the house, and gets signed into law. host: from wyoming, carol is up next. caller: hi. i was calling to find out about senator udall's bill hr 994, the amendment to the radiation competition act. and it seems like it has stalled

at the workforce committee. guest: yes. caller: could you help me with that? guest: you bet. what this piece of legislation is about, we are trying to up to the -- update the radiation compensation act. what happened during the cold war years in the united states is many americans were sprinkled with radioactive chemicals from aboveground testing. we exploded a number of atomic bombs in the 1940's and the 1950's. and people all across the united states, but more intensely in western states, were sprinkled with radioactive debris. what we have discovered from the sides is that people -- science is that people are getting cancers. those have been identified scientifically. we have a law on the books that

has an apology from the federal government to these people because in many cases the government lied or didn't tell the truth or failed a warrant. and they also have compassionate compensation. it is not a huge amount, but i think about $2 billion has been paid out to thousands of claims over the last couple of years. the bill that i'm pushing right now is to update the areas where people have suffered that haven't been compensated. and i believe have a right to get into the system. one of the biggest areas is the trinity explosion. that was the very first atomic explosion in new mexico. people were not warned. they are now having severe health problems. and i believe the trinity site down winters -- downwinders should be in this legislation. and the way minors -- miers got

-- miners got into this to build the atomic bomb. the post 1971 miers were also not protected -- miners were also not protected. i have written a letter to ask for a hearing. it is a big issue. it has been around for a long time. i first learned as a young lawyer with my father, who was the champion of these radiation victims, or many would call them in guinea pigs during those cold war era's. host: the obama administration is set to release its rules for climate change. what are you expecting? what would you say the state to ultimately have to deal with not only plans on how to reduce it, but also implement those plans? guest: the really important thing here is that the administration was very sensitive as to the fact that

states all over the country have different energy mixes. and so what they did is craft a plan that basically said meet these targets, but do it very specifically with regards to your energy mix. so i would advise all states and i think new mexico is going to do this and many of the western states are familiar with they are going to look at their energy mix, they are going to look at the target, they are going to put a plan together and limited to the epa and begin working on this. this is not always should be doing, but it is going to significantly move us in a direction where we can be a leader in the world, where we can work with china and india and these other big countries. the only way to tackle this problem is on a worldwide basis. this is a planetary problem, not just the united states. so we have to show leadership and work with the other countries to get this resolved. host: implementation by 2022, something like that.

some would say that is maybe too short of a time to not only make a plan but implemented. guest: i think that the first thing to do is let's get the plants in. -- plans in. if it is apparent, what always happens in this case is you can come to congress as a there isn't enough time. but let's not at the outset where we have set this down, where most of the experts are saying we can get this done in that time, let's take a good stab at it in and take a look a couple of years down the line to see if it is too aggressive. host: what you think it does for industries like coal? guest: i think the same thing when we try to work through how we have less of a carbon footprint. if cole can come up in the research -- coal can come up in the research area with cleaner more efficient ways to use coal -- the big push in the marketplace, the less coal is

being used, the cheaper and cleaner natural gas is. so there is going to be a lot of research. how do you get coal cleaner? how do you get other fossil fuels cleaner? and then how do you wrap up in a significant way the renewables? we need, as a country, to use all forms of energy. do it all, do it right. a lot of what is doing it right means lowering our carbon footprint, being aggressive about moving into a new area let some of the other countries around the world are. we ask the have a state in the united states that is going for 100% renewable energy, hawaii, by a think 2045. we can do these kinds of things if you put your mind to it. i think we have to have the political will to just formulate those plans and put them in. host: great falls, virginia bob, you are next. caller: good morning, senator.

guest: good morning, bob. how are you? caller: very well, sir. i have another topic which i would like to raise with you. i saw the recent senate foreign relations committee hearings regarding the iran deal. i want to thank you very much for your very fine and thoughtful questions in that hearing. i'm glad to see you are keeping an open mind on the deal. sir, i have a couple questions regarding that, which i hope you can answer here. first of all, it is my understanding that bradley the existing sanctions on iran all into four broad categories -- eu sanctions, u.n. sanctions congressionally enacted sanctions, and executive lee connected sanctions. so i'm wondering if you can tell us which of those are most onerous for iran's present economy and what do you think the effectiveness of only congressional sanctions would be

on iran's performance in the future? guest: what really -- and this goes to the heart of your question -- what brought iran to the table was all of the sanctions. if you just had congressional sanctions, or just had executive sanctions, that would not have done it. and that is what is remarkable about this process is that we have had to be p5+1 and countries like japan, south korea, china forgoing purchases of energy from iran in order to force iran to the table. so it was the combination of all of the sanctions that did it. and that is why we need to take seriously the idea that we have a deal. it may not be a perfect deal and it may have flaws, but a lot of those things that people are arguing about now can be corrected over time. we can have aggressive oversight, in terms of congress. we can take a look at additional

legislation down the line. but the important thing to remember is that they have gone from, right now ,two months to get a nuclear bomb -- now, two months to get a nuclear bomb. we are going to be in a one-year break out period and that will run for 15 years. so that puts us in a much different situation to kind of change the dialogue in the middle east, working with other countries to make sure we have a more peaceful and less valid situation over there. host: orlando, florida, here is mark. caller: hey, senator, i want to let you know that i support you on the bill, especially after the water contamination back in the latter portion of the last century. can you tell me if -- if you can't get it to a vote before you adjourn, does that bill still have to go back to the

house before the president signs it? guest: no. and we are pushing to get it before the adjournment. we may get one vote on a motion to proceed, but we still have an entire next year for this congress. so this bill is still alive. for another 18 months. and that is why we are going to work hard early on in this particular year to get it done because we need to conference it with the house. the house has already passed the bill. as you know the process you bring it together in a conference committee, you have an agreement, then it goes back to both houses for a vote and then up to the president. so that is -- that is why we want to move forward now while we have 52 senators, 33 states in the senate. represented in saying this is a good bill because the sooner we get this done, the more protective measures --

protective measures we can put in place for the american public. host: there is a story today saying that republicans in the senate next week plan to call for a vote to defund planned parenthood. guest: well, i -- you know -- it is difficult looking at those tapes and seeing them, but the thing that really is -- is so central to this issue is a woman's right to choose, a woman's right to have health care. planned parenthood does a remarkable job in terms of wellness visits, birth control cancer screenings, mammograms, all these kinds of things. and i think the idea that that significant amount of funding would be taken away would really hurt women's health in this country. so i'm going to vote against the bill that is coming before the congress. i wish we could put this aside. this is a more partisan kind of

social issue that is going to split everybody. we are going to have some real fights over this. i would prefer that we -- if there -- there are allegations that they are violating state law. at the process work out in the congress to the oversight, but let's keep funding planned parenthood. host: the "washington times" says that it would redirect those moneys to community health centers. went to think of that approach? guest: i think what would happen is the transition would be devastating to women's health. i think planned parenthood does a very good job. i would keep the money's right where they are -- monieys -- moneys right where they are so they can continue doing a very very effective women's health measures. and the one thing people are to realize, and a lot of what is to having this is the whole issue

around abortion. what people need to realize birth control makes it so you don't have to go into an abortion situation. and that is what is a central part of planned parenthood. so you should be funding birth control and family planning because then you don't get yourself into the situation where a woman has to make a choice on an abortion situation. host: do you see this issue affecting other bills or being attached to other bills? could that be problematic? guest: it could be. these other kinds of issues we get bogged down in. we end up getting very partisan, divisive issues, attach them to a larger bill and then that kills the larger bill. so i think having this as an isolated vote is fine. but let's not try to attach it.

i don't think it is going to get the 60 votes. but then let's move down the road after that. i don't begrudge people who want to that to this issue and get it out there, but let's not drag on the rest of the legislative process. host: let's hear from tiny shop in seattle washington -- tenis ha in seattle, washington. caller: yes i have some issues with what the senator is talking about. what we really need to do is do an overhaul and get rid of all of -- [indiscernible] because for whatever reason, you guys are up in there and you guys have our lives in our hands. you can't seem to get it together. and we don't understand why. because if it is left up to us, to get rid of you all -- [indiscernible] you all consider new officers

and do what you do, but we go through a struggle every day. you people don't understand what the american people go through. you talk about planned parenthood and child welfare. [indiscernible] you have a prison system right now that i could pay for my system if i could play for my bills. but if i can't pave my bills i'm not getting out of jail. i had to sit there and wait for you to decide what you're going to do. we have been out of work for 14 years. -- at war for 14 years. we are always dark and in the blind. and the government is deceitful. [indiscernible] they go over there and fight for us and when they come here they cannot even get rightful benefits. they have to prove that they are going through a disability the phase.

they have to prove they have ptsd. they have to prove they are in need of this, that, and the other. the first objective that we have -- [indiscernible] -- sent out children to a school with a committee competent in order to do something with their lives. you guys care about us enough to where one in every four child in the united states goes hungry. host: ok. guest: thank you very much. on your comments about us staying in touch, tremendously important. i travel back to my state an eight and a half hour commute. i visit with citizens all the time, read my mail, to everything i can to stay in touch. one of the reasons i love the c-span program with pedro is a get collins -- call ins.

i think that is important and we need to carry on his can of activity tuesday in touch. your frustration, i feel it, too. you can imagine being here, wanting to come here, wanting to do big things, wanting to do good things and seeing that we are locked down in many cases. so i am just as frustrated and angry as you are about that. and i'm trying to do whatever i can to break the logjam, as you have probably seen with the toxic substances control act and other pieces of legislation. without incurring due to do is do not give up on our democracy. get out there. vote at the local level, the state level, participate in campaigns. participate draw society to try and influence the policies you believe would make a difference. thank you for your comment. host: clyde from oklahoma, go ahead. go ahead. guest: clyde, how are you this

morning? caller: all right. how are you? guest: good, good. caller: i'm going to comment on that guy that called in about immigration and stuff. here a while back on the show. i'm 75 years old and on disability. i have served my country, by golly. anyway, they need to do something about this immigration. it is just getting out of hand. you know, you have the jugs over here and stuff and the disease. other foreign countries coming over here. the concrete work that i worked on in construction, that is one job i worked on, by golly, they had -- they had a lot of white guys working on their, you know operators on equipment.

and there is one company that went down there and they brought back a bunch of mexicans down there in mexico. they come up there and i don't know how they did it, but anyway, they finally got rid of some people on the construction work there and they put all the mexicans to work. they did that. and these truck drivers driving these trucks across the country i don't know what nationality them are. there are also some mexicans driving trucks and everything. they are taking jobs away from our truck drivers. i know a lot of guys who used to drive trucks and they got laid off and this and that. that is my comment on it. tom, we need to get something done in this country and we need to downsize this government. guest: clyde, one of the issues

you have raised is if you have a job opening here, the american should have the first chance to get that job. one of the provisions i have always insisted on that his income grant of immigration reform is that you should have a provision that says companies need to go out they need to try and find americans to do these jobs, and then if they can't find them, only then get into a foreign workers situation. but i can tell you, many of the company is back home that i visit with tell me they cannot find american workers to do the job. so they are in the situation of then they want a program, they want to be legal, and there is not a good comprehensive immigration reform system in place so that they can get the labor they need to do the job. the important thing you are talking about, or its again, construction jobs and jobs that people can make a good living on.

these are the type of people we need to put back to work. these other people who have been out of work for six years or so now. and is an important -- mr. earnest: if you indulge me i have a statement before we go to your questions. you have often me stand at this podium and express frustration about the tendency of house republicans to wait until the last minute before doing something. we had these conversations about funding the department of homeland security, the need to confirm the president's nominee for attorney general or when it came to making sure our intelligence professionals have the tools they need to keep us safe. time and again, republicans have waited until the last minute and in some cases even past the last

minute before acting. well, the good news is, last night they agreed to do something ahead of schedule. unfortunately they decided to start their august recess. setting aside that the so-called august recess is poorly named and starts at the end of july and starts until september -- >> district work period. mr. earnest: they have skipped town and started their vacation. first they left town without re-authorizing the export-import bank. this is work they failed to do before the last vacation and first time in history that the authorization for the bank lapsed, even though it enjoys strong bipartisan support. thousands of small and medium-sized businesses will be spending the rest of the summer at a significant disadvantage as they try to do business

overseas. house republicans merely kicked the can down the road again on the transportation bill. these repeated short-term extensions makes it very hard for local officials to coordinate the planning and funding for large multi year infrastructure projects when they are only being funded for one, two, three months at a time. that means our economy and workers are missing out. despite having been in session since january, republicans in congress will return in september without a plan on the stalled budget process and to keep the government open. republican leaders who wrote a wall street journal op ed vowing to never shut down the government again will be a few weeks away from doing it the second time. they refuse to negotiate with democrats who along with the president have laid out a specific proposal and waiting to

find common ground and make sure we are focused on investing in our economy and national security. i do hope republicans will do more than just rest and relax during the 39 days because when they show up in september, there won't be a lot of patience or sympathy for the claim that they don't have time to do their job. with that, i will start with questions. reporter: the white house confirmed that democrats did not come out in support of the iran nuclear deal? mr. earnest: you will recall that originally the period that congress had set out for themselves to resue the agreement was 30 days but in order to take a month-long vacation, that period was extended to 60 days. we are less than -- only about 10 days into that review period now. and we have not been surprised to see some of the criticism

that we have seen from republicans about the deal. after all, many of them actually were criticizing the agreement even before it was announced. certainly the republican leader in the senate and republican leader in the house were on television on the sunday before the agreement was rolled out on tuesday saying that it was a bad deal. so their responses has not been particularly surprising. but you have seen the president spending a lot of time talking to members of congress, principally democrats to consider what is included in the agreement before announcing their support for it or opposition to it. and we have been pleased that members on the democratic side have taken their responsibilities when it comes to this matter seriously and you have seen a willingness on the part of this administration to engage with members of congress and to answer their questions about this agreement.

and from open congressional hearings to closed classified briefings to members of congress, to personal meetings that the president himself has convened with members of congress, this administration has taken seriously the responsibility we have to make sure members of congress understand the agreement. as we communicate that information, it becomes clear to more members of congress how and why the president believes that this agreement is clearly the best way for us to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. reporter: would you like to see more members coming out publicly giving the full court press you are doing. private commitments, for the record. mr. earnest: i don't have any private comments to anouns we have confidence that members of congress that many members of congress will carefully consider the terms of the agreement and

when they do, we are confident that many of them will arrive at the same conclusion as the president, that is the best agreement to prevent iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. [inaudible question] mr. earnest: at this point what i can tell you is, i have a piece of paper on this, we have seen press reports that some leaders had been detained but for questions about the specific training and equip program, i defer you to the department of defense. some of the reports indicate a linkage between those two things and that's not something i can confirm. the only aspect i can acknowledge that we have seen is that some opposition leaders have been detained. reporter: speaker boehner says he supports legislation that lifts the ban on u.s. crude oil

exports and the senate energy committee voted to lift the ban. i'm wondering if the white house has looked at that issue and how the white house feels in general about the ban on crude oil exports. mr. earnest: i don't have any specific change in our position to announce. this is a specific regulation that is managed at the commerce department. for any follow-up questions about the review or any conclusions they have drawn, i refer you to them. reporter: the administration looking at the legislation that is lifting the ban? mr. earnest: i'm not sure. you could ask them that. this is something that the commerce department would be responsible for. reporter: official campaign is expected to launch as early as sunday.

i know you talked before from the podium about the principle of not wanting to be seen as influencing or having any undue influence on elections in foreign countries. given that general principle -- [inaudible] mr. earnest: that is creative way to ask that question. i know. i know. i don't have any update on that process. but anybody who is going to be sensitive to the way that decisions are made in the united states are received overseas, it will be the professionals at the state department. so they can give you the best sense about whether or not this specific upcoming election would have an impact on the policy process that they are running over there. so you can ask them and find out. reporter: would president obama veto any bill that would defund

planned parenthood -- to defund it in whole or part? mr. earnest: i know there has been an effort on the part of some republicans to try to -- play politics with some selected edited videos. this is a tactic we have seen used before. the president obviously does not support that ongoing effort. and i don't have a blanket principle to share with you, but i can tell you on balance the president would not be supportive of any sort of congressional act. reporter: would he veto any effort that would include that? mr. earnest: republicans are just getting started in that effort and it's an effort that we oppose. reporter: conference call on the

nuclear deal, a remarkable number of professional organizations only a handful of them. would you release a comprehensive list of the organizations you are going to be speaking to today? mr. earnest: i can tell you there have been thousands of people representing a large number of groups have been invited. hard for me to give you a comprehensive list for that reason but the thing -- so i don't think i can give you that list but i think if you consider the groups that have previously worked with the white house or would be inclined to work with the white house on this issue, i think there's a very high degree of likelihood they are invited to that call. reporter: you are more concerned than letting on about the willingness of democrats to back the president on the iran nuclear deal.

so i mean -- is that an incorrect diagnosis? are you more concerned than you suggest? mr. earnest: the way you should read the demeanor is we take pretty seriously the responsibility we have to communicate the facts of this agreement to members of congress who will have to vote on it and it's a responsibility we take seriously and we have acknowledged this a very detailed complicated agreement and that's an indication of how serious we are about making sure iran complies with it. so again, i don't have a lot of concern to express to you, but i think i have a lot of seriousness of purpose when it comes to making sure that members of congress have access to the information they need to fairly evaluate the agreement. what's also true is that there

are a large number of republicans in congress, not all of them, but a large number, who, as i mentioned earlier before the agreement was announced, came out against it. we have concluded that we are not going to spend a whole lot of time trying to persuade them. we will answer their questions and you have seen john kerry and jack lew and ash carter and general dempsey spend a lot of time answering questions of members of congress and even from members who announced their opposition to the deal. so, i think that is an indication that the administration takes very seriously the responsibility we have to communicate with congress about this matter, but we are most interested in communicating with those who have indicated a willingness to take seriously their responsibility to evaluate the

agreement. reporter: you talked about a new plan to close guantanamo bay. yesterday, i saw a statement from an energy person saying there is an overstatement that there is no plan to close guantanamo bay. >> i didn't see the statement you are referring to. mr. earnest: what i can tell you is that the president has long identified closing the prison at guantanamo bay as a top national security priority. and to continue to operate it is a waste of taxpayer money and is not the best way for us to protect our interests around the world. we know that many extremists use the continued operation as a recruiting tool and effective one at that. so that's why the president has made closing the prison a

priority. unfortunately, we haven't gotten cooperation from congress in closing that prison. so what we have decided to do at the request of some members of congress who have indicated the desire to work with us is to put forward specifics about how we would like to proceed and that's a process that is under way and has been under way for some time. and when we have more information about that process and more details about that process to share with you, we'll do that probably after we've shared that information with congress. cheryl. reporter: could you give us a readout of the meeting last night with the house democrats and what their thoughts and concerns were? mr. earnest: there was some scheduling complexities that interfered with the meeting.

my understanding -- and i attended part of the meeting, is that the members of congress were called to vote, not too long after they arrived at the white house. there was a.m. will time for the president to do a couple of things. one is to lay out a familiar case to all of you about why the iran agreement is the best way for us to prevent iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. he took time taking on the criticisms of the agreement. and after doing so, he didn't have time to take questions or members of congress didn't have time to ask questions. what the president did though, he made an offer to any member of congress that if they have questions, we will answer them. and a couple dozen members of congress took him up on that offer and after the votes were

completed in the house last night returned to the white house and spent nearly two hours with the president talking through the different elements of the agreement and giving the president the opportunity to respond to some of the criticisms that have been leveled against the agreement in public. all of you in this room have been following this pretty closely and the president has been spending time talking about this. i don't know there is a lot of details that were shared in private that all of you haven't heard but spending time with individual members of congress and answering their questions again, i think it's an indication that the president feels a personal responsibility to engage with members of congress who are keeping an open mind and evaluating this agreement and i would expect that the president will continue to have many of those conversations -- many other conversations like that over the next several weeks. reporter: is there a similar senate democrats' plan?

mr. earnest:ion of any caucus-wide meetings that are scheduled but i would anticipate that the president will have conversations like this with other -- with democrats in the senate, including even today. reporter: the president and you have frequently made the case that the choice when it comes to iran's nuclear program is the deal that has been negotiated or a march towards war. we now have heard from two top military officials that that is the choice but there are a range of options. martin dempsey said we have a range of operations the chief of naval operations said there are other options besides going to war. what do you say to that. that seems in could tra discs to what you have been saying for months. mr. earnest: we have heard critics say suggest there are

alternatives. reporter: there are top military personnel saying there are other options. mr. earnest: general dempsey said leaving the risk of a nuclear risk is superior trying to do it militarily. reporter: -- directly whether or not there are other options besides this deal and war and both of them said there are a range of options between those two that you kind of presented as the two options. mr. earnest: i didn't see every minute of the testimony and i didn't see any specific plan anyone has put forward. let me explain the case why there is no other viable alternative and it's this. since the deal has been announced a couple of weeks ago now, 86 countries have issued public statements in support of

the agreement. that is an illustration of how isolated the united states would be if the congress were to kill this deal. and let me explain to you -- i know there have been some who have suggested well, the united states could merely re-impose sanctions. let me explain why that isn't a viable option. 86 countries who have issued public support for the agreement include not just the other countries who are involved in negotiating, the members of the p-5 plus one it includes the six countries that are currently allowed to import iranian oil at restricted lower levels. so you'll recall there are a lot of countries who when these sanctions were initially announced, expressed some reservations about whether they are able or willing to go along with them and that's because

their economies relied significantly on the ability to import iranian oil. certainly those six countries did eventually go along with the sanctions because they thought it was the best way to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. it's hard to imagine those six countries will re-impose sanctions unilaterally just because the congress isn't satisfied with the agreement. reporter: you have democrats who are critical of this deal who are either opposed to it or undecided. bernie sanders was undecided. do you think as bernie sanders is weighing options and whether or not to support war or support this deal. are you saying those are the two options? do you think it rubs people the wrong way who are trying to take a thoughtful look at this and saying there are reasons to be critical of this deal.

mr. earnest: there are some people who are in favor of war, but i haven't said that everybody who opposes the deal is in favor of war. i have observed and the president has as well, if you are not in favor of war, that's why you shut -- should support this agreement. killing this agreement makes war more likely and that is the case. there are a lot of details in this agreement that we have spent a lot of time explaining to members of congress. but that is the choice facing members of congress. they can either follow the president's lead who did rally the international community around an agreement that will through diplomacy prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon or sabotage that effort and leave the united states standing apart from the international community, maybe along side israel and without a specific

plan for preventing iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. international unity will crumble and iran will get sanctions released because the agreement is no longer in force. they would try to pursue a nuclear weapon and try to obtain it. the breakout time is only two to three months. when the president took office that the international community was not united in trying to figure out how to confront iran over the nuclear weapons program and has been an effort the last five six years congress has played an important role. sanctions have played an important role in applying pressure to iran. but congress, at least some members of congress are advocating they use their authority to shatter that coalition, isolate the united states and pressure iran economically and almost

assuredly results in iran getting billions of sanctions released even as they pursue a nuclear weapons program and reduce our ability to get insight into exactly what they are doing. reporter: senator ted cruz, said in light of this agreement and frees up assets for the iranian government that president obama has quote the leading global finance year of international global terrorism. mr. earnest: the first thing that is important to understand that i was trying to convey earlier. if congress kills this deal iran will still get sanctions relief. the countries who have indicated support are not going to make the economic sacrifice. that means iran is getting sanctions relief. so the question for members of congress including for senator cruz is the united states going

to get something for that sanctions relief? under the agreement that the president and the p-5 plus one has crafted, we will prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. they will have to unplug 13,000 centrifuges and will have inspections to verify their compliance with the agreement. and iran will pledge to cooperate with those inspections and to make sure that they will permanently agree not to pursue a nuclear weapon. reporter: forget the kind of substance, this language appropriate? he's calling the president of the united states the leader financier of terrorism. mr. earnest: there are people who are interested in playing politics with this.

we are focused on the substance and for that reason, senator cruz's outrageous claim does not stand up to any factual scrutiny at all. reporter: earlier planned parenthood you didn't take a direct position on whether the president would veto a bill to defund planned parenthood. has the president seen the latest video that came out today on planned parenthood? mr. earnest: i don't know. reporter: do you know if he has seen the other videos and does the white house have any reaction? mr. earnest: i know he has been following the story in the news. again, as you have heard me say before, there are -- there's a.m. will reason to think that

this is merely the tried and true tactic that we have seen from extremists on the right to edit this video and selectively release it that grossly distorts the position of the person who is actually speaking on the video. planned parenthood has indicated that's what has occurred here. and any resue of the policy that planned parenthood says they implement indicates that the views expressed on the videos or at least the way they are pictured on the videos is entirely inaccurate. for the policies and the way planned parenthood implements them contact planned parenthood. but the president will not support another effort by republicans to try to defund an organization that offers important and needed health care services for millions of women across the country. reporter: you haven't talked to

the president about the videos? mr. earnest: i don't know if he has seen the videos, but i can assure you he is following this news story. reporter: is this a new phase in the selling of the iran deal. you said the president is taking a personal responsibility and there are two one-on-one meetings with members of the congress. is this indicative of anxiety as they head home? mr. earnest: no. i think this is the phase we have been in since this agreement was announced a couple of weeks ago. at that point, you will recall this agreement was announced when the president spoke on live national television at 7:00 in the morning to announce this agreement. since then, he has taken it upon himself to make sure that the members of congress are keenly aware of what's in this agreement and why we believe

it's the best way for us to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. members of congress are prepared to leave town for several weeks and so we want to use the opportunity while they're in town to spend time with the president so he can talk to them face to face about what's included in the agreement. but that's a desire on our part to make sure members of congress are informed. and that's why we are pursuing this approach. and also why members of congress in the house and senate have asked for classified briefings, those are briefings that have been offered to every member of the house and senate and it's why you have seen the secretary of state, secretary of dens, secretary of energy, secretary of the treasury, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff all spending time on capitol hill all testifying under oath. we have been forthright about

what's in this agreement but there are members of congress who are less interested in understanding the agreement and more interested in playing politics with it. reporter: the american public -- [inaudible] 52% of the american people want congress to reject the deal. what is your response? mr. earnest: there is polling data to indicate the more they understand the agreement and consequences and more likely they will support it and urge members of congress to support it. we are going to make an extensive effort to make sure that the american people and members of congress who have an open mind here get the facts that they need to evaluate what we believe is the best way for us to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. [inaudible question]

reporter: what role do they play ? mr. earnest: ntsb is a worldwide leader when it comes to investigations and there have been earlier stages in the investigation where they offer advice to those who are responsible for this investigation and leading the search. so the ntsb will be involved in that way. but specifics i refer you to the agency. [inaudible question] mr. earnest: i'm confident department of defense assets at least in general in the area. i wouldn't be surprised to hear that they are. a specific request has been made for their assistance. reporter: a quick follow-up on the joint conference call.

americans are being bombarded with ads against this agreement. aside from using the bully pulpit is the president going to ask these groups to come up with more media money to help support the agreement? i heard maybe one radio ad in support of it. mr. earnest: i'm not aware of any specific requests the president has made for financial support. i think the kind of support that the president is looking for is for those americans who are concerned about the best way to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. we are making sure they are armed with the facts and details to make the case. members of communities all across the country who are going to go to work, go to church, who are going to -- spend time in their neighborhoods talking to their friends and neighbors about this agreement. i know sometimes there is

skepticism about whether or not that is an actual strategy. the fact that the president was successfully elected in 2008 and 2012 despite the opposition against him is an indication is the strategy that has worked well in the past and looking to employ this time as well. [inaudible question] reporter: would it be useful to focus more on -- [inaudible] mr. earnest: what we have agreed to with the turks is deepen our cooperation in our counter-isil campaign. and the ways they can contribute to that efforts. that includes some military

facilities inside of turkey that can be helpful to our coalition's efforts. what we know is that turkey is legitimately concerned about the way that isil forces along the turkey-syria border has had an impact on the national security on the nation of turkey. they have their own legitimate national interests in getting engaged and we welcome their active participation. in particular, there is the stretch of the turkey-syria border. about 68 miles long that is the remaining corridor that isil can use to access money supplies and even ser upon -- personnel along the turkish border and what the focus of our efforts will be is that intensifying our efforts around that region of

syria to shut off the access that isil has to the border right now. and there is obviously a clear national security interests that turkey has in the successful completion of that effort. but also would be important to the broader strategic success of our campaign against isil to try to further isolate them and shut off the flow of weapons and equipment and money and material and personnel that we know that they are in need of. reporter: given your support for them, what does that mean for your relationship and kurdish troops in northern iraq? mr. earnest: there is a coalition of fighters that have operated on the ground in northern syria and they have

operated quite effectstively against isil forces. they have been actively backed by u.s. and coalition military air strikes that has improved their performance on the battlefield and has been part of their success. and what the turks have committed to doing is contributing to that success even further. so we certainly welcome their willingness and desire to do that. there is a separate question related to the ongoing conflict between the turks and some kurds and turkey has for a number of years pursuing a peaceful solution process and we encourage them to do that. reporter: over in scotland today, donald trump made the statement that vladimir putin hates president obama and president obama hates vladimir putin. could you offer an assessment of

that? mr. earnest: i have not heard those comments and president obama has described his relationship with president putin and described their relationship as business-like and indicated an ability and willingness on the part of president putin to speak bluntly. and that includes when there are areas of differences and there are a number of areas where president obama and president putin have pretty significant differences. there have been some areas where we have been able to coordinate quite effectively with the russians and this international effort to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. reporter: one was said that hillary clinton was the worst secretary of state in american history. mr. earnest: we could spend hours responding to presidential

candidates. i'll let others do that. reporter: one of the biggest hangups that republicans have about the nuclear agreement is the side letter that senator cotton learned of last week i believe it was. yesterday, it was said there is no side letter. when senator kerry and mr. moniz were testifying, they said they had not read it but briefed on it. mr. earnest: well, the documents that senator cotton claims to have learned of during his trip to vienna were documents that were previously discussed in material that we put forward sometime earlier. so the fact is senator cotton didn't really learn of anything in vienna that wasn't already available to be learned and this

is information that was disclosed on the iaea website. so i hope senator cotton had a pleasant trip but it wasn't necessary to learn the information he claims to have obtained. and again, we have taken on this quite a bit. iran's effort to obtain sanctions relief is predicated on them following through on a promise to give the iaea the access and information that they need to write their report about the dimensions of iran's nuclear program. and no sanctions relief will be given to iran until they fulfill that commitment. and that's why you have heard me say previously that this isn't some sort of side deal, the whole deal won't go forward, none of it will go forward

unless iran complies with the requests put forward by the iaea for accessing information to write their report. the last thing i will say is we have put a time line on this. we set a deadline we have put a deadline for the iranians. they for years have fought, refused to provide we insisted they need to provide that information in 90 days. that's an indication of how serious the united states and our coalition partners are about iran giving, cooperating with iaea inspections. if they do that, and again, they're going to have to do that if they're going to get sanctions relief, but if they do that, that would bode well for the ability of iaea inspectors in the future to make sure to verify iran's compliance with the agreement mov