classifying somebody as an independent contractor and saying yeah, i butrol all of your work you're independent, i don't have to deal with you. so we're working on those. again, shouldge, be a living wage and indexed to inflation.

that will be debated and people will get a chance to say whether they're for it or against it and we will debate that and the more debate it, the better off it is. you'll see i think a lot of that in the coming year because workers understand how they get -- how they get it put to with the laws, like the uber people. they we had the change, were excluded from the laws. work in fields get excluded from the laws and our laws just are very, very archaic. when you look at government employees areeral state employees or county or

employees, it's all over the map. their rights are skewed back and forth. tot don't have the right collective bargaining of any sort, even though they paid a for bad decisions of elected leaders. andll see a lot of that there will be a good debate. the debate will decide. ask every candidate, you support it or don't support it. that do will be good and those that don't will tell them something. reporter: two things, one was that -- can you hear me? when you were talking you said two things that struck me. that hillary clinton needs to figure out a way to energize workers and that hillary clinton needs to do a c.s work to get

like she needs to do a-plus work only get graded as a c and i'm curious if you can talk a bit in are about those two things in the context of if it'sh warren and really gender -- mr. trumka: that's way beyond my pay grade to be able to put the deck together with hillary -- >> hillary -- thatter: but you're saying hillary is not energizing workers and in part because of that she has to work a-plus work-- the to get a c but you look at the landscape. elizabeth warren is energizing curious.and i'm mr. trumka: you're mixing apples and oranges with what i said. reporter: please clarify. mr. trumka: when i talked about hillary having to do a-plus work, i think over her career she's done extraordinary things

and they get minimized.

when you say i don't know whether it is good or bad and then you don't articulate what a good one would be, i think that lessens the energy that workers derive from that. they really had to speak to the wants in the needs of workers out there. and not just earners. they'll need a narrative peer-to-peer is how i'm going to solve your problem. here's what i'm going to do to create a real economy of shared disparity that changes the rules and really does make work pay. they will have to be specific about it. if they do that, i think that energizes workers. it elizabeth warren does mn

nixon job of articulating the needs of workers. people respond to it. i think bernie does a great job. i think hillary has done a good job. workers have responded at those times. here's the economy. here is where you fit in. here's what i'm willing to do. then they got to believe that that candidate is going to fight to make that vision a reality. in the last election when we analyze this, we spent a great deal analyzing this. they said that they heard no coherent economic message coming from the democrats. none. not from the republicans. 80% of those that we talk to you

said that bullet parties leave too much to wall street and too little for main street -- both parties leave too much for wall street and too little for main street. if it is unclear where you stand that residual knowledge takes over. >> i'm sorry. >> alex. sean. >> that is why they assign someone smart to me just to get across the street. >> during the fight there were some democrats on the hill who are frustrated that some of their colleagues who may not have voted how they would like, but they're still be targeted by outside allies. the democrats were be targeted by outside groups that are in general loyal to democrats over this one issue. do you expect the same intensity?

especially if it is closer to the election? do plan to put equal pressure on democrats who are per trade? -- portrayed? >> yes. >> you want to elaborate on how you plan to do that? >> you asked me by 10 to run a campaign, yes. will it be intense? yes. will a rollo everything we have? yes. we're still working to try to make it an acceptable agreement. i don't know how far we are getting, we are working. we will keep submitting information. we will keep rounding up people to talk about the issues. see what happens. we will run a campaign. we will run a campaign to pass it. i suspect that it will be a campaign to defeat us. what we have seen so far is not very exciting for workers. >> i got that one right.

[laughter] >> thanks. it leaves me to my question. maybe you just -- share your thoughts. the republican field is huge. i want to to talk a little that about donald trump and his relationship with workers and also maybe the comments about that middle-class that make them sound a little bit like hillary. i'm not sure what you think about that here. also,. -- and also, case it -- kasich. and working-class pennsylvania. >> i think what donald trump started with immigration is the interests. i think it is un-american.

i think it is racist. it is saying that one group of people is superior to another group of people. look at what it has done to the other candidates. chris christie starts talk about tracking immigrant workers like fedex packages. rick perry says that undocumented workers is a disease. jeb bush is talking about anchor babies and rings that go wrong with it. in one way that is horrible and a step backwards to the country. quite frankly on another level it shine to spotlight on that issue and it is letting us

talking about it and let american start to discuss it in earnest away from the spotlight. it has given us an opportunity to go out. the afl-cio has put together a race commission to go around the country talking to our members about race. i believe that the afl-cio movement has an obligation not to be ok on race. we have to be exemplary. we had to lead the way on that discussion. we're taking that seriously and we are working on it. the same with immigrant rights. we're taking that on your thing with black lives matter -- on the same thing with black lives matter.

if you are the center dot of workers, if you forgot we came from, it doesn't matter much to me. it is what your policies are. he helped pass more laws for workers and virtually anybody else. don't tell me your pedigree and that you forgot everything. if you remember it come it should show up in your policies. i'm the son and daughter -- i'm the son of immigrants. both my parents. i didn't forget where i came from. i was given speeches.

i didn't forget. i background molded me into that. somewhere along the line he gets separated you he does a like to talk about the fact that while his dad and mom may have been workers, he got a free ride with law street -- wall street. made a bunch of money on those deals. his dad's sweat and mom's sweat put him in a position week ago to wall street or go to work with the workers. he chose wall street. >> [inaudible] >> any thoughts on trump's comment on the need to help the middle class? >> was trump ever in the middle class? we will see.

we will see his policies. i would like to see him come out with policies that generally help the middle class. i would welcome that. i would welcome them talking about policies that help the middle class. that would be democracy at its finest. i haven't seen it yet. seeing democrats tried to talk about the economy and talking about it searcy. they're still tied down in the same tired old self. we have got to get rid of government. everything will be great. let's freeze the government out so they can't do anything. it bounces off of people now. inequality is the issue of the day. how are you going to address it? trickle-down economics. duh.

>> getting back to immigration in little bit. how close our workers paying attention to this? what do you see in this type of language having in six months -- grexit is dangerous. -- >> it is dangerous. it starts to become mainstream. racism can never become mainstream. the danger of it is if we believe as he does that one group of people is superior to another group, it tends to

govern them. i'm talking about trump. all of them are talking about it in the same way now. in order to pander to the right, they have to go so far to the right beyond what is probably most of them genuinely the leave -- believe. if the intent to govern that way, that is bad for this country. to say one group of people is better than another group of people is bad for this country. bad for democracy. i think it is dangerous. someone has to stand up and say, enough. walk it off. knock it off. talk about issues that matter. the system does drive down wages for everybody.

i get cheated out of wages. my we just get lowered. i have a lower standard to live in. gretchen at issue is important to raising wages. to not talk about people from the south of the border coming this way and only south of the border. he doesn't refer to white agreement -- white immigrants are can immigrants. he refers to people south of the border. six months from now, the country will suffer the scars from this unless somebody calls them out on it. >> we are out of time.

we need to stay on schedule. appreciate it, sir. >> thank you. [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] >> congress returns next week. one of the first items of this nest is a resolution of disapproval on the iranian nuclear agreement. coming up, key statements and hearing comment it present obama defends the agreement at american university. secretary of state kerry testified before the senate

foreign relations in house foreign affairs committee. tuesday, members of the federal communications commission and the federal trade commission talk about net neutrality of looking at whether the ftc authority. we have that for you live at 12:35 p.m. eastern on c-span 2. >>'s signature feature a book tv is our all-day coverage of book fairs and festivals from ross the country but top nonfiction authors. here is the schedule. we are live from the national book festival from our nations capital. the weekend after that, we're live from austin from the texas book festival.

will be coming to book festivals on the same weekend. we'll be in portland, oregon for a word stop. and at the end of november, we are for the at&t or no row from florida for the miami book fair international -- we are in florida for the miami book fair international. on c-span's book tv. >> congress returns from the summer recess to the number one item on their list is debate on the iranian nuclear deal. we are joined by the hills national security reporter julian haddam -- hattem. congress comes back, tell us about the timeframe for debate? >> mitch mcconnell has said this

is basically the first issue they will turn back to. the senate majority has asked that everyone sit at their desk on the senate floor, which is usually an issue reserve for the most important of issues. they overcome the filibuster. he is promised a veto that would promise to kill it. >> this process started with negotiations in march of 2013i believe. of the deadline -- why is there a deadline? >> there rain nuclear agreement review act -- it basically allowed for two months for congress to renew the deal. originally would be one month here at it was two months

because when the ink was dry on the piece of paper -- they are giving themselves the the august recess. then they turn to this legislation. >> your article -- the iran deal will survive the senate talking about the number of democrat supporting the iran deal. what about the whole process of a filibuster? >> that is certainly helped possibility. -- that is certainly a possibility. there's still a chance that they could filibuster did -- the deal from getting to the senate in the first place.

it could be a possibility. >> as our viewers watch the debate, a reminder that they could keep track of where members are they looking at the hills web count at thehill.com. what options do opponents have in case that india a vent that the president vetoes this resolution of disapproval? -- in the event that the president because this resolution of disapproval? >> there are sanctions on iran but don't necessarily deal with this nuclear program. they will try to punish the government for its support of terrorist groups throughout the region and the abuse of human rights appeared that is something lawmakers have said they will get started on as soon as they get act. you see people like marco rubio

who promised to effectively say if i was elected, i would not pursue this deal. i would back off. there's a lot of potential damage that could be done there. >> polls show the majority wants congress to approve the iranian deal would include the breakdown in congress. >> it became more of a partisan debate. republican say they don't like this deal. they think this will and power iran and terrorist groups in the region. many have disagreed and say that they support the deal. there are key democrats including chuck schumer in the house.

they are siding with republicans on this. there is some bipartisan opposition to this deal. the question is whether there is democratic support to keep it alive and what that looks like going forward. >> absolutely. >> they say it is an awful deal. they oppose it should they would like to appeal it and get rid of it. look at this in the congressional races. still be hammered one way or another. >> julian hattem.

read more at thehill.com. thanks for joining us. >> last month present obama defended that nuclear agreement at a speech at american university, saying the deal was the only way to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon other than war. this is about an hour. [applause] president obama: thank you. [applause] president obama: thank you so much. everybody, please have a seat. thank you very much. i apologize for the slight delay. even presidents have problems with toner. [laughter] president obama: it is a great

honor to be back at american university, which has prepared generations of young people for service in public life. i want to thank president kerwin and the american university family for hosting us here today. 52 years ago, president kennedy, at the height of the cold war, addressed this same university on the subject of peace. the berlin wall had just been built. the soviet union had tested the most powerful weapons ever developed. china was on the verge of acquiring a nuclear bomb. less than 20 years after the end of world war ii, the prospect of

nuclear war was all too real. with all of the threats that we face today, it's hard to appreciate how much more dangerous the world was at that time. in light of these mounting threats, a number of strategists here in the united states argued that we had to take military action against the soviets, to hasten what they saw as inevitable confrontation. but the young president offered a different vision. strength, in his view, included powerful armed forces and a willingness to stand up for our values around the world. but he rejected the prevailing attitude among some foreign policy circles that equated security with a perpetual war footing. instead, he promised strong, principled american leadership on behalf of what he called a "practical" and "attainable

peace" -- a peace "based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions -- on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements." such wisdom would help guide our ship of state through some of the most perilous moments in human history. with kennedy at the helm, the cuban missile crisis was resolved peacefully. under democratic and republican presidents, new agreements were forged -- a non-proliferation treaty that prohibited nations from acquiring nuclear weapons, while allowing them to access peaceful nuclear energy.

the salt and start treaties which bound the united states and soviet union to cooperation on arms control. not every conflict was averted, but the world avoided nuclear catastrophe, and we created the time and the space to win the cold war without firing a shot at the soviets. the agreement now reached between the international community and the islamic republic of iran builds on this tradition of strong, principled diplomacy. after two years of negotiations, we have achieved a detailed arrangement that permanently prohibits iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. it cuts off all of iran's pathways to a bomb. it contains the most comprehensive inspection and verification regime ever negotiated to monitor a nuclear program.

as was true in previous treaties, it does not resolve all problems. it certainly doesn't resolve all our problems with iran. it does not ensure a warming between our two countries. but it achieves one of our most critical security objectives. as such, it is a very good deal. today, i want to speak to you about this deal, and the most consequential foreign policy debate that our country has had since the invasion of iraq, as congress decides whether to support this historic diplomatic breakthrough, or instead blocks it over the objection of the vast majority of the world. between now and the congressional vote in september, you're going to hear a lot of arguments against this deal, backed by tens of millions of dollars in advertising.

and if the rhetoric in these ads, and the accompanying commentary, sounds familiar, it should -- for many of the same people who argued for the war in iraq are now making the case against the iran nuclear deal. now, when i ran for president eight years ago as a candidate who had opposed the decision to go to war in iraq, i said that america didn't just have to end that war -- we had to end the mindset that got us there in the first place. it was a mindset characterized by a preference for military action over diplomacy. a mindset that put a premium on unilateral u.s. action over the painstaking work of building international consensus.

a mindset that exaggerated threats beyond what the intelligence supported. leaders did not level with the american people about the costs of war, insisting that we could easily impose our will on a part of the world with a profoundly different culture and history. and, of course, those calling for war labeled themselves strong and decisive, while dismissing those who disagreed as weak -- even appeasers of a malevolent adversary. more than a decade later, we still live with the consequences of the decision to invade iraq. our troops achieved every mission they were given. but thousands of lives were

lost, tens of thousands wounded. that doesn't count the lives lost among iraqis. nearly a trillion dollars was spent. today, iraq remains gripped by sectarian conflict, and the emergence of al qaeda in iraq has now evolved into isil. and ironically, the single greatest beneficiary in the region of that war was the islamic republic of iran, which saw its strategic position strengthened by the removal of its long-standing enemy, saddam hussein. i raise this recent history because now more than ever we need clear thinking in our foreign policy. and i raise this history because it bears directly on how we respond to the iranian nuclear program.

that program has been around for decades, dating back to the shah's efforts -- with u.s. support -- in the 1960's and 1970's to develop nuclear power. the theocracy that overthrew the shah accelerated the program after the iran-iraq war in the 1980's, a war in which saddam hussein used chemical weapons to brutal effect, and iran's nuclear program advanced steadily through the 1990's, despite unilateral u.s. sanctions. when the bush administration took office, iran had no centrifuges -- the machines necessary to produce material for a bomb -- that were spinning to enrich uranium. but despite repeated warnings from the united states government, by the time i took office, iran had installed

several thousand centrifuges, and showed no inclination to slow, much less halt, its program. among u.s. policymakers, there's never been disagreement on the danger posed by an iranian nuclear bomb. democrats and republicans alike have recognized that it would spark an arms race in the world's most unstable region, and turn every crisis into a potential nuclear showdown. it would embolden terrorist groups, like hezbollah, and pose an unacceptable risk to israel, which iranian leaders have repeatedly threatened to destroy. more broadly, it could unravel the global commitment to

non-proliferation that the world has done so much to defend. the question, then, is not whether to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, but how. even before taking office, i made clear that iran would not be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon on my watch, and it's been my policy throughout my presidency to keep all options -- including possible military options -- on the table to achieve that objective. but i have also made clear my preference for a peaceful, diplomatic resolution of the issue -- not just because of the costs of war, but also because a negotiated agreement offered a more effective, verifiable and durable resolution. and so, in 2009, we let the iranians know that a diplomatic path was available. iran failed to take that path, and our intelligence community exposed the existence of a covert nuclear facility at fordow.

now, some have argued that iran's intransigence showed the futility of negotiations. in fact, it was our very willingness to negotiate that helped america rally the world to our cause, and secured international participation in an unprecedented framework of commercial and financial sanctions. keep in mind unilateral u.s. sanctions against iran had been in place for decades, but had failed to pressure iran to the negotiating table. what made our new approach more effective was our ability to draw upon new u.n. security council resolutions, combining strong enforcement with voluntary agreements from nations like china and india, japan and south korea to reduce their purchases of iranian oil, as well as the imposition by our european allies of a total oil embargo. winning this global buy-in was not easy. i know. i was there.

in some cases, our partners lost billions of dollars in trade because of their decision to cooperate. but we were able to convince them that absent a diplomatic resolution, the result could be war, with major disruptions to the global economy, and even greater instability in the middle east. in other words, it was diplomacy -- hard, painstaking diplomacy -- not saber-rattling, not tough talk that ratcheted up the pressure on iran. with the world now unified beside us, iran's economy contracted severely, and remains about 20% smaller today than it would have otherwise been. no doubt this hardship played a role in iran's 2013 elections, when the iranian people elected

a new government that promised to improve the economy through engagement with the world. a window had cracked open. iran came back to the nuclear talks. and after a series of negotiations, iran agreed with the international community to an interim deal -- a deal that rolled back iran's stockpile of near 20% enriched uranium, and froze the progress of its program so that the p5+1 -- the united states, china, russia, the united kingdom, germany, france, and the european union -- could negotiate a comprehensive deal without the fear that iran might be stalling for time. now, let me pause here just to remind everybody that when the interim deal was announced, critics -- the same critics

we're hearing from now -- called it "a historic mistake." they insisted iran would ignore its obligations. they warned that sanctions would unravel. they warned that iran would receive a windfall to support terrorism. the critics were wrong. the progress of iran's nuclear program was halted for the first time in a decade.

in fact, the interim deal worked so well that the same people who criticized it so fiercely now cite it as an excuse not to support the broader accord. think about that. what was once proclaimed as a historic mistake is now held up as a success and a reason to not sign the comprehensive deal. so, keep that in mind when you assess the credibility of the arguments being made against diplomacy today. despite the criticism, we moved ahead to negotiate a more lasting, comprehensive deal. our diplomats, led by secretary of state john kerry, kept our coalition united. our nuclear experts, including one of the best in the world, secretary of energy ernie moniz, worked tirelessly on the technical details. in july, we reached a comprehensive plan of action that meets our objectives. under its terms, iran is never allowed to build a nuclear weapon. and while iran, like any party to the nuclear non-proliferation

treaty, is allowed to access peaceful nuclear energy, the agreement strictly defines the manner in which its nuclear program can proceed, ensuring that all pathways to a bomb are cut off. here's how. under this deal, iran cannot acquire the plutonium needed for a bomb. the core of its heavy-water reactor at arak will be pulled out, filled with concrete, and replaced with one that will not produce plutonium for a weapon. the spent fuel from that reactor will be shipped out of the country, and iran will not build any new heavy-water reactors for at least 15 years. iran will also not be able to acquire the enriched uranium that could be used for a bomb. as soon as this deal is implemented, iran will remove two-thirds of its centrifuges.

for the next decade, iran will not enrich uranium with its more advanced centrifuges. iran will not enrich uranium at the previously undisclosed fordow facility, which is buried deep underground, for at least 15 years. iran will get rid of 98% of its stockpile of enriched uranium, which is currently enough for up to 10 nuclear bombs, for the next 15 years. even after those 15 years have passed, iran will never have the right to use a peaceful program as cover to pursue a weapon. and, in fact, this deal shuts off the type of covert path iran pursued in the past. there will be 24/7 monitoring of iran's key nuclear facilities. for decades, inspectors will have access to iran's entire nuclear supply chain -- from the uranium mines and mills where they get raw materials, to the centrifuge production facilities

where they make machines to enrich it. and understand why this is so important, for iran to cheat, it has to build a lot more than just one building or a covert facility like fordow. it would need a secret source for every single aspect of its program. no nation in history has been able to pull off such subterfuge when subjected to such rigorous inspections. and under the terms of the deal, inspectors will have the permanent ability to inspect any suspicious sites in iran. and finally, iran has powerful incentives to keep its commitments. before getting sanctions relief, iran has to take significant, concrete steps like removing centrifuges and getting rid of its stockpile. if iran violates the agreement over the next decade, all of the sanctions can snap back into place. we won't need the support of other members of the u.n. security council.

america can trigger snapback on our own. on the other hand, if iran abides by the deal and its economy begins to reintegrate with the world, the incentive to avoid snapback will only grow. so, this deal is not just the best choice among alternatives. this is the strongest non-proliferation agreement ever negotiated. and because this is such a strong deal, every nation in the world that has commented publicly, with the exception of the israeli government, has expressed support. the united nations security council has unanimously supported it. the majority of arms control and non-proliferation experts support it.

over 100 former ambassadors -- who served under republican and democratic presidents -- support it. i've had to make a lot of tough calls as president, but whether or not this deal is good for american security is not one of those calls. it's not even close. unfortunately, we're living through a time in american politics where every foreign policy decision is viewed through a partisan prism, evaluated by headline-grabbing sound bites. and so before the ink was even dry on this deal, before congress even read it, a majority of republicans declared their virulent opposition. lobbyists and pundits were suddenly transformed into

arm-chair nuclear scientists, disputing the assessments of experts like secretary moniz, challenging his findings, offering multiple and sometimes contradictory arguments about why congress should reject this deal. but if you repeat these arguments long enough, they can get some traction. so, let me address just a few of the arguments that have been made so far in opposition to this deal. first, there are those who say the inspections are not strong enough because inspectors can't go anywhere in iran at any time with no notice. well, here's the truth, inspectors will be allowed daily access to iran's key nuclear sites. if there is a reason for inspecting a suspicious,

undeclared site anywhere in iran, inspectors will get that access, even if iran objects. this access can be with as little as 24 hours' notice. and while the process for resolving a dispute about access can take up to 24 days, once we've identified a site that raises suspicion, we will be watching it continuously until inspectors get in. and by the way, nuclear material isn't something you hide in the closet. it can leave a trace for years. the bottom line is, if iran cheats, we can catch them and we will. second, there are those who argue that the deal isn't strong enough because some of the limitations on iran's civilian nuclear program expire in 15 years. let me repeat, the prohibition

on iran having a nuclear weapon is permanent. the ban on weapons-related research is permanent. inspections are permanent. it is true that some of the limitations regarding iran's peaceful program last only 15 years. but that's how arms control agreements work. the first salt treaty with the soviet union lasted five years. the first start treaty lasted 15 years. and in our current situation, if 15 or 20 years from now, iran tries to build a bomb, this deal ensures that the united states will have better tools to detect it, a stronger basis under international law to respond, and the same options available to stop a weapons program as we have today, including, if necessary, military options. on the other hand, without this deal, the scenarios that critics

warn about happening in 15 years could happen six months from now. by killing this deal, congress would not merely pave iran's pathway to a bomb, it would accelerate it. third, a number of critics say the deal isn't worth it because iran will get billions of dollars in sanctions relief. now, let's be clear, the international sanctions were put in place precisely to get iran to agree to constraints on its program. that's the point of sanctions. any negotiated agreement with iran would involve sanctions relief. so, an argument against sanctions relief is effectively an argument against any diplomatic resolution of this issue. it is true that if iran lives up

to its commitments, it will gain access to roughly $56 billion of its own money -- revenue frozen overseas by other countries. but the notion that this will be a game-changer, with all this money funneled into iran's pernicious activities, misses the reality of iran's current situation. partly because of our sanctions, the iranian government has over half a trillion dollars in urgent requirements -- from funding pensions and salaries, to paying for crumbling infrastructure. iran's leaders have raised the expectations of their people that sanctions relief will improve their lives. even a repressive regime like

now, this is not to say that sanctions relief will provide no benefit to iran's military. let's stipulate that some of that money will flow to activities that we object to. we have no illusions about the iranian government, or the significance of the revolutionary guard and the quds force. iran supports terrorist organizations like hezbollah. it supports proxy groups that threaten our interests and the interests of our allies, including proxy groups who

killed our troops in iraq. they try to destabilize our gulf partners. but iran has been engaged in these activities for decades. they engaged in them before sanctions and while sanctions were in place. in fact, iran even engaged in these activities in the middle of the iran-iraq war -- a war that cost them nearly a million lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. the truth is that iran has always found a way to fund these efforts, and whatever benefit iran may claim from sanctions relief pales in comparison to the danger it could pose with a nuclear weapon. moreover, there's no scenario where sanctions relief turns iran into the region's dominant power. iran's defense budget is eight times smaller than the combined budget of our gulf allies. their conventional capabilities

will never compare with israel's, and our commitment to israel's qualitative military edge helps guarantee that. over the last several years, iran has had to spend billions of dollars to support its only ally in the arab world -- bashar al-assad, even as he's lost control of huge chunks of his country. and hezbollah has suffered significant blows on the same battlefield. and iran, like the rest of the region, is being forced to respond to the threat of isil in iraq. so, contrary to the alarmists who claim that iran is on the brink of taking over the middle east, or even the world, iran will remain a regional power with its own set of challenges. the ruling regime is dangerous and it is repressive.

we will continue to have sanctions in place on iran's support for terrorism and violation of human rights. we will continue to insist upon the release of americans detained unjustly. we will have a lot of differences with the iranian regime. but if we're serious about confronting iran's destabilizing activities, it is hard to imagine a worse approach than blocking this deal. instead, we need to check the behavior that we're concerned about directly, by helping our allies in the region strengthen their own capabilities to counter a cyber-attack or a ballistic missile. by improving the interdiction of weapons shipments that go to groups like hezbollah. by training our allies' special forces so that they can more effectively respond to situations like yemen. all these capabilities will make a difference. we will be in a stronger position to implement them with this deal. and, by the way, such a strategy also helps us effectively

confront the immediate and lethal threat posed by isil. now, the final criticism -- this sort of a catch-all that you may hear -- is the notion that there's a better deal to be had. "we should get a better deal" -- that's repeated over and over again. "it's a bad deal, need a better deal" -- [laughter] pres. obama: one that relies on vague promises of toughness, and, more recently, the argument that we can apply a broader and indefinite set of sanctions to squeeze the iranian regime harder. those making this argument are either ignorant of iranian society, or they're just not

being straight with the american people. sanctions alone are not going to force iran to completely dismantle all vestiges of its nuclear infrastructure, even those aspects that are consistent with peaceful programs. that oftentimes is what the critics are calling "a better deal." neither the iranian government, or the iranian opposition, or the iranian people would agree to what they would view as a total surrender of their sovereignty. moreover, our closest allies in europe, or in asia, much less china or russia, certainly are not going to agree to enforce existing sanctions for another five, 10, 15 years according to the dictates of the u.s. congress. because their willingness to

support sanctions in the first place was based on iran ending its pursuit of nuclear weapons. it was not based on the belief that iran cannot have peaceful nuclear power. and it certainly wasn't based on a desire for regime change in iran. as a result, those who say we can just walk away from this deal and maintain sanctions are selling a fantasy. instead of strengthening our position as some have suggested, congress's rejection would almost certainly result in multilateral sanctions unraveling. if, as has also been suggested, we tried to maintain unilateral sanctions, beefen them up, we would be standing alone. we cannot dictate the foreign, economic and energy policies of every major power in the world.

in order to even try to do that, we would have to sanction, for example, some of the world's largest banks. we'd have to cut off countries like china from the american financial system. and since they happen to be major purchasers of or our debt, such actions could trigger severe disruptions in our own economy and, by the way, raise questions internationally about the dollar's role as the world's reserve currency. that's part of the reason why many of the previous unilateral sanctions were waived. what's more likely to happen, should congress reject this deal, is that iran would end up

with some form of sanctions relief without having to accept any of the constraints or inspections required by this deal. so, in that sense, the critics are right, walk away from this agreement and you will get a better deal -- for iran. [applause] pres. obama: now, because more sanctions won't produce the results that the critics want, we have to be honest. congressional rejection of this deal leaves any u.s. administration that is absolutely committed to preventing iran from getting a nuclear weapon with one option -- another war in the middle east. i say this not to be provocative. i am stating a fact.

without this deal, iran will be in a position -- however tough our rhetoric may be -- to steadily advance its capabilities. its breakout time, which is already fairly small, could shrink to near zero. does anyone really doubt that the same voices now raised against this deal will be demanding that whoever is president bomb those nuclear facilities? and as someone who does firmly believes that iran must not get a nuclear weapon, and who has wrestled with this issue since the beginning of my presidency, i can tell you that alternatives to military action will have been exhausted once we reject a hard-won diplomatic solution that the world almost unanimously supports. so, let's not mince words.

the choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy or some form of war -- maybe not tomorrow, maybe not three months from now, but soon. and here's the irony. as i said before, military action would be far less effective than this deal in preventing iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. that's not just my supposition. every estimate, including those from israeli analysts, suggest military action would only set back iran's program by a few years at best, which is a fraction of the limitations imposed by this deal. it would likely guarantee that inspectors are kicked out of iran. it is probable that it would drive iran's program deeper

underground. it would certainly destroy the international unity that we've spent so many years building. now, there are some opponents -- i have to give them credit. there are opponents of this deal who accept the choice of war. in fact, they argue that surgical strikes against iran's facilities will be quick and painless. but if we've learned anything from the last decade, it's that wars in general and wars in the middle east in particular are anything but simple. [applause] pres. obama: the only certainty in war is human suffering, uncertain costs, unintended consequences. we can also be sure that the americans who bear the heaviest

burden are the less than 1% of us, the outstanding men and women who serve in uniform, and not those of us who send them to war. as commander-in-chief, i have not shied away from using force when necessary. i have ordered tens of thousands of young americans into combat. i have sat by their bedside sometimes when they come home. i've ordered military action in seven countries. there are times when force is necessary, and if iran does not abide by this deal, it's possible that we don't have an alternative. but how can we in good conscience justify war before we've tested a diplomatic agreement that achieves our

objectives. that has been agreed to by iran. that is supported by the rest of the world. and that preserves our options if the deal falls short? how could we justify that to our troops? how could we justify that to the world or to future generations? in the end, that should be a lesson that we've learned from over a decade of war. on the front end, ask tough questions. subject our own assumptions to evidence and analysis. resist the conventional wisdom and the drumbeat of war. worry less about being labeled weak. worry more about getting it right. i recognize that resorting to force may be tempting in the face of the rhetoric and behavior that emanates from

parts of iran. it is offensive. it is incendiary. we do take it seriously. but superpowers should not act impulsively in response to taunts, or even provocations that can be addressed short of war. just because iranian hardliners chant "death to america" does not mean that that's what all iranians believe. [applause] pres. obama: in fact, it's those hardliners who are most comfortable with the status quo. it's those hardliners chanting "death to america" who have been most opposed to the deal. they're making common cause with the republican caucus. [laughter and applause]

pres. obama: the majority of the iranian people have powerful incentives to urge their government to move in a different, less provocative direction -- incentives that are strengthened by this deal. we should offer them that chance. we should give them that opportunity. it's not guaranteed to succeed. but if they take it, that would be good for iran, it would be good for the united states. it would be good for a region that has known too much conflict. it would be good for the world. and if iran does not move in that direction, if iran violates this deal, we will have ample ability to respond. the agreements pursued by kennedy and reagan with the

soviet union, those agreements, those treaties involved america accepting significant constraints on our arsenal. as such, they were riskier. this agreement involves no such constraints. the defense budget of the united states is more than $600 billion. to repeat, iran's is about $15 billion. our military remains the ultimate backstop to any security agreement that we make. i have stated that iran will never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. i have done what is necessary to make sure our military options are real. and i have no doubt that any president who follows me will take the same position. so, let me sum up here.

when we carefully examine the arguments against this deal, none of them stand up to scrutiny. that may be why the rhetoric on the other side is so strident. i suppose some of it can be ascribed to knee-jerk partisanship that has become all too familiar. rhetoric that renders every decision that's made a disaster, a surrender -- "you're aiding terrorists. you're endangering freedom." on the other hand, i do think it's important to acknowledge another, more understandable motivation behind the opposition to this deal, or at least skepticism to this deal, and that is a sincere affinity for our friend and ally, israel -- an affinity that, as someone who has been a stalwart friend to israel throughout my career, i deeply share.

when the israeli government is opposed to something, people in the united states take notice. and they should. no one can blame israelis for having a deep skepticism about any dealings with a government like iran's -- which includes leaders who have denied the holocaust, embrace an ideology of anti-semitism, facilitate the flow of rockets that are arrayed on israel's borders, are pointed at tel aviv. in such a dangerous neighborhood, israel has to be vigilant, and it rightly insists that it cannot depend on any other country -- even its great friend the united states -- for its own security.

so, we have to take seriously concerns in israel. but the fact is, partly due to american military and intelligence assistance, which my administration has provided at unprecedented levels, israel can defend itself against any conventional danger -- whether from iran directly or from its proxies. on the other hand, a nuclear-armed iran changes that equation. and that's why this deal ultimately must be judged by what it achieves on the central goal of preventing iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. this deal does exactly that. i say this as someone who has done more than any other president to strengthen israel's security.

and i have made clear to the israeli government that we are prepared to discuss how we can deepen that cooperation even further. already we've held talks with israel on concluding another 10-year plan for u.s. security assistance to israel. we can enhance support for areas like missile defense, information sharing, interdiction -- all to help meet israel's pressing security needs, and to provide a hedge against any additional activities that iran may engage in as a consequence of sanctions relief. but i have also listened to the israeli security establishment, which warned of the danger posed by a nuclear-armed iran for decades. in fact, they helped develop many of the ideas that ultimately led to this deal. so, to friends of israel, and to the israeli people, i say this, a nuclear-armed iran is far more

dangerous to israel, to america, and to the world than an iran that benefits from sanctions relief. i recognize that prime minister netanyahu disagrees -- disagrees strongly. i do not doubt his sincerity. but i believe he is wrong. i believe the facts support this deal. i believe they are in america's interest and israel's interest. and as president of the united states, it would be an abrogation of my constitutional duty to act against my best judgment simply because it causes temporary friction with a dear friend and ally. i do not believe that would be the right thing to do for the united states. i do not believe it would be the right thing to do for israel.

[applause] pres. obama: over the last couple weeks, i have repeatedly challenged anyone opposed to this deal to put forward a better, plausible alternative. i have yet to hear one. what i've heard instead are the same types of arguments that we heard in the run-up to the iraq war, iran cannot be dealt with diplomatically. we can take military strikes without significant consequences. we shouldn't worry about what the rest of the world thinks, because once we act, everyone will fall in line. tougher talk, more military threats will force iran into submission.

we can get a better deal. i know it's easy to play on people's fears, to magnify threats, to compare any attempt at diplomacy to munich. but none of these arguments hold up. they didn't back in 2002 and 2003. they shouldn't now. [applause] pres. obama: the same mindset, in many cases offered by the same people who seem to have no compunction with being repeatedly wrong, led to a war

that did more to strengthen iran, more to isolate the united states than anything we have done in the decades before or since. it's a mindset out of step with the traditions of american foreign policy, where we exhaust diplomacy before war, and debate matters of war and peace in the cold light of truth. "peace is not the absence of conflict," president reagan once said. it is "the ability to cope with conflict by peaceful means." president kennedy warned americans "not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than the exchange of threats." it is time to apply such wisdom.

the deal before us doesn't bet on iran changing, it doesn't require trust. it verifies and requires iran to forsake a nuclear weapon, just as we struck agreements with the soviet union at a time when they were threatening our allies, arming proxies against us, proclaiming their commitment to destroy our way of life, and had nuclear weapons pointed at all of our major cities -- a genuine existential threat. we live in a complicated world -- a world in which the forces unleashed by human innovation are creating opportunities for our children that were unimaginable for most of human history. it is also a world of persistent

threats, a world in which mass violence and cruelty is all too common, and human innovation risks the destruction of all that we hold dear. in this world, the united states of america remains the most powerful nation on earth, and i believe that we will remain such for decades to come. but we are one nation among many. and what separates us from the empires of old, what has made us exceptional, is not the mere fact of our military might. since world war ii, the deadliest war in human history, we have used our power to try to bind nations together in a system of international law.

we have led an evolution of those human institutions president kennedy spoke about -- to prevent the spread of deadly weapons, to uphold peace and security, and promote human progress. we now have the opportunity to build on that progress. we built a coalition and held it together through sanctions and negotiations, and now we have before us a solution that prevents iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, without resorting to war. as americans, we should be proud of this achievement. and as members of congress reflect on their pending decision, i urge them to set aside political concerns, shut out the noise, consider the stakes involved with the vote

that you will cast. if congress kills this deal, we will lose more than just constraints on iran's nuclear program, or the sanctions we have painstakingly built. we will have lost something more precious, america's credibility as a leader of diplomacy. america's credibility as the anchor of the international system. john f. kennedy cautioned here, more than 50 years ago, at this university, that "the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war." but it's so very important. it is surely the pursuit of peace that is most needed in this world so full of strife.

my fellow americans, contact your representatives in congress. remind them of who we are. remind them of what is best in us and what we stand for, so that we can leave behind a world that is more secure and more peaceful for our children. thank you very much. [applause] [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] announcer: ahead of the house adame, representative smith has come out in support of the deal. he released a statement tuesday saying in part, i believe it ends the otherwise unmonitored and unrestricted continua nation -- continuation of the iranian

nuclear program and it halts the surely destructive effects of nuclear iran and the middle -- middle east. we will have more of that when the numbers return. -- members return. coming up on c-span, our special programming on the iran nuclear deal continues with a look at hearings on the negotiations print first, secretary of state .erry, and treasury secretary that is followed by a testimony before the house foreign affairs committee. secretary of state john kerry speaks about the iran nuclear agreement wednesday at the philadelphia constitution center . you can see it live on 11 -- 11:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> a signature feature of book tv is our all-day coverage of

book fairs and festivals from across the country with top nonfiction authors. here is the schedule, this weekend we are live from the 15th annual national book fest from the nations capital. near the end of september we are in new york for the brooklyn book festival created an early october, the southern festival of books in national -- nashville, tennessee. the next week we are live from austin for the texas book festival. the we will be covering wisconsin book festival in medicine. and then -- in madison. and then we will be in boston. we will be in portland, oregon. .nd then new york city in november, live from florida for the miami book fair international. those are some of the book fairs and festivals on c-span2 book tv. defenser: former

department robert hill is that commission live on c-span2. now a portion of a july senate hearing on the iran nuclear deal . in the first hearing, secretary of state john kerry, energy secretary ernest moneys and treasury secretary jack lew discuss negotiations. this is an hour into minute -- and 10 minutes. [applause]

>> [applause] >> i want to thank the witnesses for being here today. we look forward to a full committee hearing. i want to thank all of you also , there wasattendance an outbreak prior to us convening, we thank you for being here. we do hope you'll respect that

now the meeting is in order, outbursts of any kind are unwarranted and we respect the democratic process. we thank you for being here, we also thank you for courtesy as a move ahead. the witnesses have agreed to be here as long as we wish. we will start with seven minute questions. i do know based on last night's presentation there is a tendency for witnesses to want to interject. i would say obviously we conduct our meetings with respect and courtesy. i would like to tell the witnesses to respond directly to the questions from senators on both aisles. if someone else wants to doerject, they can and --

so, but senators should feel free to say no, i just wanted that witness and move on to make sure we do not end up in a filibuster situation. i want to start by thanking our committee. we would not be here today, we would not have the information that we have today if we had not pass the iran nuclear agreement review act. this would not be taking place. i think the american people now understand what this debate was all about. when congress put in place sanctions to bring iran successfully to the table as we -- granted the executive branch something called a national security waiver. what that meant was the executive branch had the ability to waive our mandated sanctions

to suspend them until such a time as we permanently waive them down the road. as you know, unfortunately over the objections of senator cardin and myself, unfortunately the executive branch went directly to the united nations this monday morning. something that certainly would not this was not in the spirit of this. it was what was intended. i do want to say that while secretary kenneth -- kerry health -- has often said that congress will have the ability to weigh in at some point in wee fire to this happening, now read the agreement and realize what he meant was eight years from now we would have the opportunity to weigh in, because that is what is stated in the agreement. to thank everyone, all 19 members for coming together unanimously making that happen and giving us a role.

it was a role that did not exist prior to that passing. we had a briefing last night and i talked to members on both sides, i was depressed after last night. with every detail of the deal witnessesaid out, our successfully batted them away was the hype -- hyperbole that it was either this deal or war. therefore we were never able to appropriately question or get into details because every time we did it was either this deal or war. i believe that to be hyperbole. i know the secretary last night pulled out a letter written in 2008 by the prior administration. as i thought about it last night in bed i realized what he was

pointing out was that letter -- with that letter was, unless we ,x.e iran what they want that is what the letter was used for. we have been through an incredible journey. months or so ago with a country that was a rogue nation. they had a boot on its next -- neck. our goal was to dismantle the program. we have ended up in a situation where the deal on the table basically codifies the industrialization of their nuclear program. amazing transition. not a personhere, in this room, including our witnesses, everyone here knows there is not one practical need for the program that their billing, not one. we have not had a single

scientist, not a single witness can lay out any reasoning. not a single reason for iran to be developing the program from a standpoint of, what it means to them, not one. nine months after this agreement goes into effect we realize that unlessondays adoption hungers intervenes, it will be inlemented, six months later a total of nine months from now, all of the sanctions that exists against iran will be lifted. incredible. there will be a few remaining sanctions, but the big ones that matter will be lifted. access tohave billions and billions dollars. economy will be growing, they will be shipping oil around the world. it is amazing. what happens, i think all of us figured this out, right now we

have some leverage. nine months from no leverage shifts to them, because we have a sanctions that back -- snap back. if we ever try to apply that we have a nuclear snap back. it is structured so they can immediately say if you add sanctions we're out of a deal. --leverage shifts to them the leverage shifts to them. within the previous military dimension, because we know they were involved, basically that has no bearing, no bearing per the agreement. i know the witnesses will say, well, if they don't deal it will not be properly implemented. but according to the agreement, it has no bearing whatsoever on whether the sanctions are remember not. yet that was such an important piece for everyone to know. anytime, anywhere, inspections. last night we had witnesses say,

i never said that. it has been a part of it since day one. inspections.time, now we have a process that they are declaring is 24 days, but we all know that is not right. days begins after, by the way, the iaea has found violations they are concerned about, and then you give iran time to respond, and then by the time it kicks and there is a toy for new process -- there is a 20 -- 24 day process. we all know it is this big, that it is easy to cover things up like that. on the focus has been on finding uranium, other aspects of this that are difficult to find. although they have said this is the most conference of introspection -- inspection regime we have had, this is not true.

we had a far more cover handsome and rapid inspection program in iraq. far more. that certainly did not serve us particularly well. a letter have written asking for additional materials that we do not have now. one of the items we do not have. is regarding the agreement between iran and the iaea. my sense is we'll never get that letter. the inspection entity that we are relying upon to find out whether iran is cheating, we will not have access to it. we do know one of the characteristics is very interesting. we have a professional athlete in chattanooga that spent about a month there. he is incredibly -- the role model. he has incredible integrity.

he is a role model to the world. i was talking to him a couple of weeks ago about the program that professional athletes go through for drug testing. it is incredible, that is anytime, anywhere. there are qualities to this that unfortunately i am told i cannot get into. there are qualities to this program that would not be unlike having athletes mail in their own urine test -- specimen. whereieving that that is -- it came in them -- from them. i want to talk who we are dealing with. most of us have been to iraq many times. i will never forget the visiting general in baghdad. every time we would invite him

-- visit him he would have on isps.ffee table the maim and kill to americans. they were laying out. the ied's. coffee,e laying on the best table, what they did next was developed in efta, explosively formed penetrator. ant they do is they have explosion, it heats up copper to go through a piece of machinery to maim and dismember americans. this was all iran, everything a bit of it -- every single bit of it. we also visited these heroes at walter reed that have lost in some cases, two arms and a leg,

in some cases two legs and two arms. we see them all over the country. they're living with us today. this is the country that we are dealing with. we country that created some of the most disturbing types and methods of maiming americans. they tried to kill and in bassett are in washington dc not long ago -- and ambassador in washington dc not long ago. ben and i went to go see the holocaust museum -- something the holocaust museum the together. a young man had taken photographs of the syrian prisons. syrian prisons which by the way iran supports. al-assad would not be in office today if it were not for iran.

we went over and saw the torture. it is amazing. , bys happening right now the way as we sit here. some people might say that is iraq. this is happening this very second with the support of iran, do you understand that? genitals are being amputated. people are being electrocuted. this is happening the second in a prison in iran -- i mean syria that iran is supporting. some would say we have not done as much as we could to stop it because of these negotiations. i was not in college a particularly good student. first part of college i was in -- interested in sports, the latter part i was interested in working.

i learned one thing, i learned about the critical path method. i learned you can start with something like this and you lay out a vision and you told it out -- build it out. you begin with the end in mind. what i have seen our secretary developed ae tremendous warrant with iran's foreign ministers. what i think you've actually done in these negotiations is codify a perfectly aligned pathway for iran to get a nuclear weapon just by abiding this agreement. i look at the things that they need to do, the way it is laid out, and i don't think you can more perfectly laid out. -- lay it out. from my perspective, mr. , not unlike'm sorry

a hotel guest that leaves only with a hotel bathrobe on its back, i believe you have been fleeced. fleecedrocess of being what you have done here is you have turned iran from being a nowah to know congress -- congress being a pariah. a few weeks ago you are saying that no deal is better than a bad deal. . i know that there is no way you could have possibly been taking about more -- war if you weeks ago, no way. yet what you say to us now and he said it yesterday and on television, that if somehow congress were to turn the stone, if congress were to turn this option is war,

where as if you weeks ago for you to turn it down, the only option is war. i don't think you can have it both ways. if congress were to say these sanctions cannot be lifted, it would not be any different than snapback weback -- now have in where the united states on its own can implement is theck but my guess other countries waited so long for we have to decide which way it is. corker: i know you speak with a degree of disdain when you described the reaction to this deal. one of the things we have to remember is, if we had actually dealt with dismantling their nuclear program, they would not be responding in the way that they have.

-- has this not occurred, in addition we are lifting the ballistic missile embargo in eight years. i have no idea how that even entered in the equation, but it did. we are lifting conventional weapons embargo in five years. in a very acute way. unbelievably we are immediately listing -- lifting the ballistic missile testing programs. we are lifting the ban. i have to say that based on my that youand i believe have crossed a new threshold in u.s. foreign-policy. where now it is the policy of the united states to enable --ed state sponsor of terror enable a state sponsor of terror to enable a nuclear develop a program that has only one real

practical need. that is what you are here today s toscus to support -- ask u support. i look forward to your comments. >> thank you for having us meeting. thank your entire negotiating team and the secretaries who have devoted the last two years to negotiating with iran. incredible service to our country. incredible sacrifice to the families. we thank you very much for your dedicated service, your hard work, and your service to america. the iranian nuclear agreement review act that senator corker referred to passed earlier this year was an effort to set up the

appropriate review for potential -- a potential deal with iran. thate extremely pleased after an difficult negotiations we were able to get a unanimous vote from this committee. we got the support of the white house, we believe we accomplished two major objectives in passing that statute. first of course we set up the appropriate review for congress. it allows us to take action, or we don't have to. it recognizes the fact that the sanction regime was passed by congress, and that we have a role to play in regards to implementing the agreement as we now see in the a. seo pay a -- j c.o.p. the securing as part of the process. it took you two years to negotiate this agreement. it took you two months indiana

to get to the final details. we are on day four of our review of 60 days. i have not reached a conclusion, i would hope that the members of the congress would want to get all of the information, allow those who are directly involved to make the case. we have hearing set of the next week and a following one and we will get outside experts. many of us have taken advantage of that opportunity in the past. would allpe that we use that opportunity before drawing a conclusion. this is an important agreement from the point of view of u.s. foreign-policy. iran and the region is critically important to the united states security. there is a second objective to the iran nuclear review act. that is to concentrate all of our efforts on a bad guy, iran. and speak with unity as much as we could in the united states.

so that negotiators could and not in on vienna washington, in dealing with getting the best possible agreement. i must tell you, mr. chairman, i have looked at the framework agreed to in april, and looking at the final agreement we got today, our negotiators got off a lot -- an awful lot. there weregs that many rumors during these last couple of months of what would be in this agreement, and how it would be weekend from the april framework that in fact have been strengthened. i want to applaud our negotiators for taking the strength of our unity, and turning it into results in vienna. we will be talking about that as we go forward. the objective.

-- is clearly to prevent iran from ever becoming a nuclear weapon power. that is our simple objective, we know who we are dealing with. --s is a state-sponsored sponsor of terrorism. it is a country who abuses human rights. we know all that. we singularly are trying to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear weapon power because we know that is a game changer in the region. that is the objective of this agreement. a standard that we have to use, because there is no trust in iran with us and iran. the supremely the year -- the supreme leader on friday said we will trample upon america. we do not trust iran, but we have to leave emotion out. we have to look at the agreements.

theave to determine whether disagreement will put us on a path that will make it less or more likely for iran to become a nuclear weapon power. that has got to be the test we use. mr. chairman i have many questions that i hope we will get answered today. i hope those answers will provoke a debate among us in congress and the american people , and help us make the right decisions. since there is a trust, the inspection enforcement regime is particularly important. we need to understand how it works. do we have sufficient time to discover if iran is violating the terms of this agreement in order to take action in order for iran to become a nuclear power. we need to know the breakout. we need to know what happens after the time. --period.

do we have sufficient opportunity to prevent iran because -- from becoming a nuclear weapon state. are the inspections robust enough to deter iran from cheating. if they do, we will -- will we discover it and take action? mr. chairman, you raised the 24 hour window. i think all of us recognize that would be a protocol for inspection. we need to know whether the on for our delay, knowing what iran is likely to do, does that copper mines our ability to have its -- executive inspections? i hope our witnesses deal with that today because that is a matter of concern. .e need to know the answer that0 cut off allhave we pathways for iran to obtain a nuclear weapon comer particularly those covert weapon. operations -- particularly those covert

military operations. inspectors have great credit ability in this area -- credibility in this area. we need to know about their expertise iny order to maintain we contain any activity they use. these are questions that we are going to ask. we still have questions, we hope we will get answers as if we have effectively prevented iran from developing a nuclear weapon. will this agreement provide us with -- iaea with sufficient access to the people's come up -- people, places, and documents so we know their prior military dimension?

back provisions, that is an issue i hope we will have an -- a chance to talk about. at the end of the time limits in the agreement, iran will have the capacity to expand. they can get through their and nuclear enrichment. that they can do. do we have sufficient capacity knowing the requirements for protocols. do we have a sufficient enough breakout time that if iran tries to become a nuclear weapon state after the time. that we have sufficient to prev. becoming a power? these are questions we need to have the answer to before we can make judgment. there are other areas. i want to be reassured the united states still has the

possibility to impose nonnuclear sanctions on a rant for support of terrorism, human rights abuses and against the ballistic missile pressed -- program. no one expects their bad behavior to change. we know who we are dealing with. the we be able to use powers we have used in the past, and build upon them to take action against iran, particularly in light that they will have additional resources. can we do that? and can congress work with the administration to strengthen those tools without violating the jc poa? i want to know how the administration is updating its regional deterrence strategy against the stabilizing iranian activities and how we can work with partners to build capacity to counter iran, especially israel. the chairman mentioned the lifting of the international arms embargo. that is a great concern, as to how low