criterion for the negotiation was there have to be at least a one-year break out time in terms of material for at least 10 years. we have a compass that with this agreement. our lab scientists are fully behind this, as are those of other countries. then that will roll off. after 15 years, at some point depending upon what they do, then we could revert to the current kinds of breakout times for the material. we still need to keep a lid on weaponization activities. make sure those aren't taken. that was a notable improvement. >> the agreement says they can't ever make the steps to weaponization. >> that is the point where we will be much better off at that time then today. we'll still have enhanced verification procedures that could point intelligence

agencies to any violations. >> after modifications in iraq, is her anyway you could reverse those modifications and make it a -- >> the iraq reactor in its redesign would provide us a breakout time of years. once it is online, they would need years of operations to get enough plutonium to be relevant. the iaea would detect their change of the operations in one or two months. >> what is the assessment there? did they want to breached the agreement and try to get it up and running again? >> first of all most of infrastructure will not only be strict out completely, but they won't even be -- they must be taken up.

secondly, we will have a major international daily presence and international presence. there are new science opportunities. if they kick everyone out, alarm bells will go off. >> do the military options become better or worse before or after the agreement? >> if the agreement is implemented, it becomes marginally better for the reason -- we learned more about them. many of them were dismantled. in that sense, the purely technical military sense. >> thank you. i want to discuss the two secret side deals between the iaea and

iran. i traveled to vienna to discover it. the administration has confirmed their existence. there is still a lack of clarity about the content. have you read either of these two side deals between iaea and iran? >> i haven't. >> have you read any previous drafts? >> i have it. that's have not. i have been -- i have not. i have been briefed. >> did anyone read the text of these agreements? >> i believe one person may have read it at the facility. >> is that person's name? -- what is that person's name? >> i don't know that for sure? >> have you read the text of these agreements? have you read any prior version?

on any medium? >> i'm not sure. i don't know. i could ask. maybe somebody saw something. >> to your knowledge, has anyone else reviewed the text of these agreements? >> not that i'm aware of. i don't think so. >> and he has read the text of these agreements, does that not undercut the claims of confidentiality between the iaea and iran? >> i have no idea. i'm not sure. i know she's leaving the senate. >> i perceive several briefings in the deal. i look forward to another one.

the text of the agreement is required by u.s. law. the content of this ideal that discusses the military base where nuclear devices have been tested will allow them to collect their own samples and cement those samples to the iaea . much like a player taking his own urine sample and sending it to roger goodell. >> what i can confirm is that secretary ponies -- in his discussions, he made recommendations to them and i believe they are satisfied that the process will be to provide the answers that we need. >> i would like to stick with secretary kerry. what can we not confirm or deny the content? why is it classified?

the ayatollahs know what they agreed to. >> we respect the process of the iaea. we don't have authorization to reveal what is an agreement between them in another country. >> so the ayatollahs know but not the american people? >> not exactly. we will share the classified roofing but we understand that contents to be. the iaea is an independent entity under the u.n. i don't even know this point what the law says about the united states requiring something of which another entity's laws prohibit. we'll have to see. >> they have to cement to congress. to the extent that the iaea says

it is unprecedented. i would like to move on to a second topic, specifically iran's support for terrorism. can i have chart one, please? this is a roadside bomb. are you familiar with what -- >> i am. >> could you explain what the bottom diagram shows? >> the cone is super high temperatures and burns its way through armored plate. >> the distro's at about 6000 -- it travels at about 6000 feet per second. let's see what happens to a humvee when it travels at 6000

feet per second. is that familiar to you? >> yes, it is. >> do you know how many american troops were killed by such devices? >> several hundred. >> was iran the supplier of these explosives? >> yes. >> secretary kerry, those entities will ultimately received sanctions relief from this deal from the united nations and the european union. what should we say to the gold star moms and dads of the american troops who were killed by these bombs that were traveling 6000 feet per second question -- per second? >> we are grateful for the service of their loved ones. we should make it clear under the u.s. initiative -- what we

intend to do is to push back against iran's behavior. we have a number of laws in place and requirements which we will be able to present. we have already engaged in very forward leaning initiatives to do that. we have specifically turned around a convoy that was bringing weapons to yemen. we have made crystal-clear and i will be more clear about our united efforts to hold them accountable. >> thank you all. my time is expired. [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] >> we will have live coverage tomorrow on the consequences of

the deal and what it means for regional and global security. that is from the heritage foundation here on c-span. on the next "washington journal " roger stone discusses the 2016 presidential race and his experience working for the gop candidates. then the human rights watch on the european migrant crisis. the role the u.s. is playing with it a relief. plus, your calls, facebook comments come and tweets. "washington journal" live every day on c-span. >> this sunday night and "q&a" the trouble with lawyers.

it takes a look at the legal profession in the u.s. and the high cost of law school and a lack of diversity in profession. i and we need a different model of -- when your programs are people doing routine work. to your programs is an option -- two year programs is an option for something specialized. it is crazy to train someone in the same way someone who does divorce is in a small town in the midwest and some who is doing mergers and acquisitions on wall street. it is a one size fits all process.

>> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a. mitch mcconnell took to the senate floor short after the iran nuclear agreement" >> was announced>> -- "q&a." >> mitch mcconnell took to the senate floor shortly after the iran nuclear agreement. >> the majority leader. >> two weeks ago i asked the obama administration to step back from the iran negotiations. re-examine the point of having the talks in the first place. that would have been the most rational and regional approach for the white house to take, especially considering it is all allies.

it is deeply swearing to describe the direction of the talks. but instead of taking the time to re-examine basic objectives with its partners and agree on the nonnegotiable elements of any deal, things like anytime anywhere -- complete disclosure of previous military research and the relief of sanctions tied to iranian compliance. the white house acquiesced instead on the unofficial deadline after artificial deadline and opportunity for them to press for additional concessions along the way. given what we do know so far, it appears republicans and democrats were right to be deeply worried about the direction of these talks.

americans of both parties were right to clear that a deal aimed by the white house would further the plot elements of april in a rum -- interim agreement. pending against nuclear program was supposed to be the point of these talks in the first place -- ending the numeral program was supposed to be the point of these talks in the first place. we are close to achieving that purpose. instead i read zipcar to have prevailed in this negotiation and maintaining -- instead iran appears to have prevailed in this negotiation. everything a multibillion-dollar windfall to spend freely on terrorism.

some of whom will now undoubtedly sell arms to iran and gaining legitimacy before the world. this is an entirely predictable result. the most predictable result given the administration's stance. as noted, back in 2012 here is what i said, the only way the iranian regime could be expected to negotiate and preserve its own survival to simply delay is a means of pursuing nuclear weapons is if administration opposes the strictest sanctions while at the same time enforcing a policy that reflects a commitment to use force. but know the ministration didn't do that. -- but no, the administration didn't do that.

resumed a drawdown based on timelines and not had a field conditions and executed a drawdown of the conventional and nuclear forces and a withdrawal of those forces by both attrition and redeployment. through actions like these and by a skewing any policy in iran, the president made clear to the world contrary to his rhetoric that all options were not on the table. all options were simply not on the table. knowing this, the iranians never feared for their survival. the survival of the regime is their number one goal. so we have the deal we have today. it appears we lost the chance to dismantle iran's nuclear program. that will become a challenge for the next president to confront regardless of political party. the senate has yet to receive

the final text of the agreement. you will not come to a final judgment until we do. the country deserves a thorough and fair review right here in the u.s. senate. that is just what we intend to pursue. committees will be holding hearings. witnesses will be coming to testify. congress will approve or disapprove the deal in accordance with iran nuclear review act. the test falling the agreement should be this -- will it lead our country and allies favor? will it leave us safer? there are several things we will be looking at as we way whether it will -- weigh whether it will. will it allow for inspections of

military installations and research and development facilities? will the agreement compelled the iranians to disclose the possible military dimensions of their nuclear program? will the agreement make any real impact on iran's ability to continue researching and developing advanced centrifuges? will the relief bit tied to the strict adherence to the terms of the deal? will we have any real way to verify its compliance? these parameters will help us confirm how successful the iranians have been in extracting concessions from the white house. we will be examining them very closely. i remind colleagues of the deadly seriousness of the issue at hand. the shouldn't be about some

political legacy project. this is not some game. it is not the time for untruth talking points. no serious person would believe that is true. even the people saying these things have to know it's not true. they probably know very option is more likely. the country does have time to waste and more white house exercises when the seriousness of the moment calls for intellectually honest debate. the choices made today are sure to affect our country for years, probably decades to come. the future we meet your children is an issue as well. that's relief leave for our children is an issue as well.

i invite every one to join us in this critical conversation. our country deserves no less. what we must decide now is whether this is really the right time to be reducing pressure on the world's leading state sponsor of terror? and for what in return? we already know that they are capable under the sanctions regime. what will terrorism look like with additional funding obtained from sanctions relief? and let's not forget iran is pursuing a full spectrum campaign to expand its influence and undermine american security and standing in that region.

iran is determined. issue be greatly concerning each of us. it certainly is to me. it poses cigna can challenge to our countries -- country and president obama successor. from groups like the taliban and come al qaeda, and -- like the taliban and, al qaeda, and isil. a bad deal will make any of those threats go away. iran has more funding to threaten us with renewed vigor. it strengthens terrorism.

here is a routers headline. syria's assad is more support after the nuclear deal. that is a reaction from the syrian regime. assad sees more support after the nuclear deal. look at the white house needs to know the congress elected by the people is due -- willing to do anything they can to make america safer. the world -- want to work collaboratively. if we had worked against -- a fly deal that threatens our country and our allies -- flawed deal that threatens our country and allies -- >> senate majority whip john cornyn delivered remarks and

opposition to the iran nuclear agreement on july 22. he accused secretary of state john kerry every nesting on promises and the nature of inspection inside a man -- on reneging on promises and the nature of inspection inside iran. >> mr. president, head of tomorrow's hearing, the foreign relations committee on the president announced nuclear deal with iran, i want to take a few minutes to i just just how far the ministration has moved its own goalposts in terms of these purported deals.

i think it is important to have a good understanding of where the president and his team did not meet their own expectations. before the house foreign affairs committee, secretary kerry noted that in december of 2013, he said the whole point of the sanctions regime was to help iran dismantle its nuclear program.

we demand that it do so. that has been overstated policy as the u.s. government. was in the and secretary kerry's own words, -- was that not secretary kerry's own words, the whole point? a threat to the safety and stability of the middle east. this deal legitimizes pdip paves the way for the nuclear program and its enrichment capabilities. the time this deal expires, the rogue regime in tehran have an industrial sized nuclear program . for the duration of the agreement, iran will be to

conduct research and development on several centrifuges. that is hardly dismantlement. that is the opposite of dismantlement. i want to address another important point that has been made concerning inspections. iran will cheat. inspections take on an important role in enforcing any agreement that is made. i want to just this issue that anytime anywhere inspections -- as obama announced that a good deal had been struck between world powers and iran and know that the deal was "prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon." this is the framework deal peter precursor to what was announced

last week. a few weeks after this announcement, secretary moniz was at the table with secretary kerry and negotiating this deal said we expect to have any time, anywhere -- anywhere, anytime access. he said on april 20, 2015. this is a clear statement from someone intimately familiar with the negotiations. it was well received. this is at minimum what needs to be done in order to keep iran from cheating. the ministration was singing a different tune. this is what secretary kerry said when he began to back track from what was said by secretary

moneys on april the 20th -- secretary moniz. inspections -- i never heard in the four years we were negotiating. it wasn't on the table. i don't know whether secretary moniz and kerry talk to each other or not. they spent a lot of time in vienna. supposedly should be on the same page. for secretary kerry to say this incredible statement that he never heard of this idea and it wasn't on the table, it is simply incredible. were they ever on the table? if not, why did they tell us they were? including the secretary of energy. if it wasn't on the table, why is this deal a good deal?

why -- how can we have any sense of conviction or a believe that iran won't cheat, especially given this contraption involving notice and process that would lead up to it 24 day delay between inspections requested before inspections could be done? we know from our express with saddam hussein in iraq that it is easy to move things around and avoid the inspectors at the iaea. this deal provides inspectors will have managed access whatever that means. it allows up to 24 days for iran -- this is another way of saying that iran will be able to cheat with near impunity. the ministration has led us

astray on a third item. that is a man -- iran's ballistic capability. the gallant a nuclear weapon to hit people in the region even further. whitney sherman testified before the senate foreign relations committee. while her man had "not shut down -- while iran had "not shut down missiles, the issue was indeed going to be part of something that has to be addressed as part of the comprehensive agreement." ballistic missiles could be used to deliver a nuclear weapon. the arms embargo would be completely lifted in just eight years time, including ballistic missiles. i don't think the administration simply changed their minds and decided this was not an important issue.

i think they simply caved on yet another important item to our national security and that of our allies. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff martin dempsey testified that under no circumstances should the u.s. from the pressure on iran related to ballistic missile cases. with this purported deal that the administration has caved once again on something that the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff is the number one military pfizer to the president of the u.s. said should be off the table. it is apparently part of the deal that we will have an opportunity to vote on in september. president's repeatedly said from the beginning no deal is better than a bad deal and i agree with that. yet right now he and the rest of

the administration are telling members of congress and the american people that there is no other option on the table, and it's either this deal or war. there is a third choice, mr. president. there are tougher sanctions that will bring iran to the table for a better deal and a good deal. it's simply unacceptable for the president to be misrepresenting what the options are to congress and the american people by of the american people by saying it's either this deal or war, as bad as this deal is. no one wants war. but we do know that iran is a threat to our number one alley in the middle east, the nation of israel and iran has been engaged in proxy wars against united states since the 80's.

well, the president's supposed to be commander in chief and the number one person when it comes to national security. he took office with a promise to restore america's relationship and his promise has not come true. what the president has delivered has been that our alleys increasingly do not trust us and our adversaries no longer fear us, as evidence by the coercion engaged in by mr. putin in eastern europe. i ask for two more minutes. even president carter, president jimmy carter admitted that the united states influence is probably lower now than it was six or seven years ago. this isn't some republican

criticizing a democrat president. this is jimmy carter, former president of the united states and a member of the democratic party who is saying, the united states influence is probably lower now than it was six or seven years ago. this is a difficult statement to take in and president carter has been wrong about national security issues but he's right on that one. congress has an important role to play. i can't think of a single more important national security issue than iran's aspirations for a nuclear weapon. this is a true game-changer in terms of stability and peace in the middle east and our own safety and security. and i know that iran and the rest of our colleagues will --

and i know that i and the rest of our colleagues would like to put it on a microscope and have no trouble voting it down because it jeopardizes american society and paves the way for a nuclear iran. >> more tomorrow night on c-span. then, speeches from the senate floor. we'll hear from roy blunt and florida democratic bill nelson. >> he said the agreement was the best way to prevent iran from

building a nuclear weapon. this is about 25 minutes. >> madam president, when president obama came to office, he looked out at the threats across america and there were four hard-target threats. russia, china, north korea and iran. and the situation in iran was particial rly worrisome because there was a recurrent belief that iran was developing nuclear weapons. i've heard critics say, well, what difference would it make? how foolish would it be for them to launch a weapon. that country will pay dearly for a wreckless decision. but the fear that the president had, and we shared, was that if

iran developed a nuclear weapon in the middle east, it would trigger an arms race and many other countries in that volatile region on the world would seek to develop their own nuclear weapons and it was incredible. there was also a concern that one of the first targets of iran would be our close alley and friend, the nation of israel. it's easy to reach that conclusion when you read and hear the rhetoric of the right wing in iran, which will not recognize israel's right to exist. so president obama set out to do something about it. it was clear from our experience that sending in american troops was some thing that had to be thought about long and hard. we have the best military in the world but what we face in iraq with road-side bombs that have

killed so many american soldiers, we realize this asymmetric confrontation didn't guarantee that the best military in the world would have a good time with it. afghanistan turned out to be the longest war in history. people were reluctants to face another military confrontation. he decided that every leader would be asked to join in an effort to post sanctions over the issue of their nuclear capability. the president put together an incredible coalition because we learned long ago, unilateral sanctions aren't worth much but if you can bring many nations around the world into a common purpose of putting the pressure

on a country, it can have a positive impact. the coalition the president put together was amazing, the negotiations, china and russia were sitting on the same side as the united states and many other countries joined us when they had little to gain and a lot to lose when it came to oil resources of iran. so the president's determination to put the sanctions to iran was to put them on the table. that gathering would literally have been the first meeting in 35 years between iran and the united states, representing that period of time when our relationship with iran had reached its lowest possible point. and, at this point, the goal of the negotiation was very clear:

stop iran from developing nuclear weapons. how real was the threat of their developing such a weapon? if you go back in time and read the quotes from the prime minister of israel, benjamin neten yeahue, he has been warning that the iranians were close to developing a nuclear weapon. it was a matter of weeks, months, years at the most. of course, israel, more concerned than most about the nuclear threat, warned the world of what would happen if iran devel developed a nuclear weapon. so, last week after lengthy negotiations, the president announced, with iran and the others that set at the table, that we had reached an agreement with iran. it was interesting to watch the reaction that members of

congress. there were some members of congress who condemned that agreement before it was released to the public. 47 members of the other side had sent a letter to iran during the course of negotiations before any agreement was reached, warning him and his nation not to negotiate with this president. madam president, that was unprecedented, that had never happened before in american history. when a political party reached out to a sworn enemy of the united states and gave them advice not to speak to our leader. that letter went on to say, even if your think you've reached an agreement between iran and the united states, don't be mislead. ultimately, congress would have the last word. so many senators and congressmen

didn't want this agreement. some of us decided to take time and reflect -- reflect on it and read it. i took last week to read the 100-plus pages of this agreement and to talk further to our nation's top people, secretary of state john kerry and others about this agreement, hoping i could come to understand exactly what was being offered by way of stopping iran from a nuclear weapon. i'm under new illusions. they are well-documented. its brittle suppression of its own people during the 2009 election in iran is documented. iran holds a number of americans

on outrageous charges. i joined, a few years ago, in 2007, with republican senator gordon smith. key components were the basis for strict petroleum sanctions that helped bring iran to the table. i've tried to be a consistent voice. i chaired the defense subcommittee. i doubled the fund request for israel for the own defense of their nation. it is a comprehensive solution to the nuclear weapons issue with iran. without a nuclear weapon, it

allows the u.s. and alleys to detour iran's de-stabilizing actions. let's take a reflective moment and look at the recent history in the united states. strong leaders, such as the united states, meet and talk and negotiate when it's in their interest. it was john kennedy who said we should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate. these kinds of negotiations aren't an example of weakness, but in most cases, of strength. sometimes the benefits aren't obvious immediately. it's been the practice of american for generations to meet and try to negotiate for a more peaceful world. to honor history, american

leaders have used diplomacy. presidents of both political parties. 1962, the cuban missile crisis, we faced the prospect of a nuclear war, a standoff with the station where we knew and they knew that they had the capacity to detonate a nuclear weapon in the united states. they said let's take a moment, somebody suggested a full invasion of cuba. john kennedy wisely pursued strength and diplomacy, using a blockade of negotiations. few people knew that the kennedy administration was secretly negotiations with the soviets and that president kennedy agreed to remove jupiter

missiles from turkey and italy as part of an agreement to remove missiles from cuba. in reflection, john kennedy should have never negotiated during this crisis because the soviets were out to destabilize the world and to spread communism? let's not forget he entered into this negotiation, the soviet union not only placed missiles, but it was occupying eastern europe and trying to spread communism around the world. the bloody korean war, where my two brother served, they helped the north koreans against the united states and we negotiated with the soviet union. in 1972, president nixon traveled to communist china to

begin establishing normalized relations. china wasn't a friends of the united states. it was a key supporter for ruthlessly fighting and killing. during nixon's visit, they said that china was sending more weapons to north vietnamese. china's regime has stuff in malaysia and thailand all against the u.s. interest. people were persecuted as part of the cultural revolution. i recognize, as president nixon did then, that it's hard to enter into negotiations with china. just as with iran today, many

conservatives denounced president nixon for doing so. however, as china's influence grew, many in both parties, including president nixon recognized it was time to change. preside president nixon's rival called for more contact and communication. it was a democrat that proposed building a bridge to the people of china. senator ted kennedy recognized the diplomatic gestures. there was a time when foreign policy was bipartgen -- bipartisan. over time, president nixon's decision paid dividends.

these relations aren't perfect, but we know we made progress. china sat with us, trying to stop iran from developing a nuclear weapon. in the late 1980's, reagan started negotiations about nuclear reductions. it was in conceivably that that could really negotiate. who would imagine that these two countries, the united states and the soviet union could sit down and reach an agreement, limiting the use of nuclear weapons? the cold war was far from over. in 1979, they invaded afghanistan to spread communism and led president carter to halt

efforts. the list is lengthy, the soviet aggression at that moment in time and yet it was president ronald reagan who said he would sit down and negotiate with the soviet union. let me read a letter about the opposition reagan faced with the soviet union. it may sound familiar to what you're hearing today about president obama's efforts in iran. already, right wing groups have mounted a strong campaign. they have close to 300,000 letters opposing it and have 5, 000 cassette recordings. they're preparing to run news paper ads this month, savageing

reagan and signing in accord with hitler and predicting peace for our time, end of quote. these were conserveative republican critics of president ronald reagan who was negotiating with the soviet union to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. being likened to chamberlain. the national review magazine, in may, had a cover with the title, reagan's suicide pact. president reagan agreed that arms control could and would improve u.s. national security. in 1987, reagan signed the intermediate forces treaty, committing the two superpowers to eliminate all their missiles with ranges of 500 to 5,500

kilometers. this treaty, soviet union arms treaty relied on expensive on-site negotiations. do you remember, trust but verify? it was ronald reagan in his negotiations with the soviet union. it took fiveing month -- it took 5 months to agree. because of that agreement, more than 2,000 missiles were destroyed. our relationship with the soviet union didn't improve overnight and we still have our problems with them today. going back to what i said earlier, the russian's sat on the same side of the table in this negotiation, to end or

delay the threat of nuclear power in iran. imagine if 47 senators with reagan had written, in the middle of those negotiations and said, ignore president reagan. don't negotiate with him because we're not going to accept it here in congress. there would have been cries of treason for sending that kind of letter. there was a bipartisan approach to form policy in the united states. today, we have a chance and an opportunity with iran that hasn't presented itself for more than 30 years, to prevent iran from developing nuclear weapons. it's not going to solve all the problems with iran overnight, but it does solve, i believe,

one critical one, action to counter iran any part of the world. after all, ronald reagan didn't try to -- president obama will not and should not stop working to diminish iran's influence after this agreement. mr. president, i'm under no illusions, but iran did pursue a nuclear bomb. it would have been disastrous. i'm under no illutions that -- i'm under no illusions that iran lied about this in the past. it puts inspections to prevent iran from building nuclear weapons. the united states are strong enough to enter into this agreement, not because iran is truth worthy, but because it serves our national security to

do it. they negotiated this to prevent iran to getting any closer to obtaining a nuclear weapon. they achieved this goal and that's why i'm supporting this effort by the president, to bring a more stable and peaceful situation to the middle east. to appreciate the mag -- to appreciate the magnitude, iran has enough nuclear material to make ten nuclear weapons, it has a lot of centrifuges that are advanced and powerful. iran was enriching its uranium to 20%. the breakout time was estimated three months. it was an incredibly large and

dangerous nuclear capability. virtually unconstrained, that's what this president inherited from the previous administration. thanks to this effort, this agreement cuts off every single one of iran's pathways to a bomb. it makes it smaller and breaks it down to one year. should iran renege on this and decide they're going forward with a nuclear weapon, with this agreement, we believe it will take a year and we can put more pressure on them. iran is required to change its heavy water reactor so that it

can no longer produce weapons grade plutonian -- plutonium. we are helping to design and monitor the fuel in and out of this facility and verifying it every step of the way. all of us have deep suspicions about iran's nuclear suspicions, as we should. what if they try to build a secret facility? well, our negotiating team developed a plan with no escapes. our team thought long and hard over the last two years about how we might be able to stop cheating. for every potential technique, they encountered a counter for it. if the strongest nuclear -- it's the strongest nuclear bill imposed on a nation and iran

won't be able to do anything of significance without being caught. our inspectors will be on the ground. >> time has expired. >> i would like five additional minutes. >> without objection. >> this agreement requires 24/7 access to the nuclear facility, in-person inspectors, remote cameras, all the world's most significant detection technology. if iran enters a nuclear facility, we will know it. critically, this intrusive monitoring goes all the way in to the nuclear supply chain from uranium mines to centrifuge production. we cover this all in this agreement. the senator from south dakota is here so i'll wrap this up. i sat down to read this agreement.

i was struck on the third page, with this statement, in the agreement with iran: iran, reaffirms that under no circumstances will iran seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapon. that's quite a statement. it was our goal with this negotiation. do i believe it? some. but i have my doubts. that's why we had to have an inspection regime. that's why we had to dramatically cut back under capacity to build weapons, great fuel. and that's why this agreement is now most of the country's belief moving into the right direction in iran. there are critics. a lot of them are here in the senate. there isn't a single critic who has stepped up with a better idea. so let's go back to the sanctions regime, they want to bring iran to the negotiating

table and it worked. to think we're going to renew sanctions or unilateral sanctions. that, to me, is not something that is likely to occur. let me add the other alternative, we know the cost of war, we know it in human lives, we know it in the casualties that return. we know it in the cost of the american people. given a choice between the invasion of iran or working in a diplomatic fashion toward a negotiation so we can lessen this threat, i think president obama made the right choice. i support the decision to go forward with this agreement. i'll be adding my vote to the senate in hopes we can see a new day dawning.

at the end of the day, we'll be a safer and stronger nation because of it. >> we'll look at how sank sanctions of iran will work and speeches from the senate floor and hear from roy blunt and florida democratic bill nelson tomorrow night. >> he thought tho

rerv