capable of. we have seen what they have been doing. we have seen their animal behavior towards their fellow human beings in the name of so-called religion. and at some point we have to raise our game. if you're airstrike's -- a few airstrikes on ice is in iraq is not going to be enough because it is not giving the civilian population the security they require. -- and in iraq, we were able to achieve no-fly zones. we were able to achieve zones of safety so that people could live without fear in their own country. we are going to have to do something similar again. i know we don't want to do it and i know the public's opinion may not be in favor of doing it, but if we only want to have the policies that are already accepted by the public, why don't we just give up and let the pollsters run the country? politics is about leading, not

just reflecting public opinion. >> take the last two questions, actually. [indiscernible] >> when you -- [indiscernible] -- where can we go from here? what can we do about it? i mean, it would have to be approved by the u.s. senate. is ard the 34th senator great with the deal. -- how much the senate can do now? sec. fox: on the iranian deal, i think it is going through. that is it. it is going to happen. this deal is going to be a reality. and we are going to have to -- what room for maneuver we have within the terms of this agreement.

we just have to really hope that people like me are wrong. and very wrong. because if we are right, if we are even half right, we have not got a lot of levers to pull. should iran change its behavior. in a direction that doesn't suit our security interests. >> final question. >> thank you very much. i am coming -- [indiscernible] my question is in that the u.s. population center believed -- [indiscernible] pressure.ous but if they were allowed to contribute still, they were getting close to developing a nuclear device. and to stop them, you have to go in war. [indiscernible]

what is your take? sec. fox: well, i understand the desire to get the agreement. as i said at the very beginning, any agreement that genuinely stops iran being able to get access to a nuclear weapon capability would have to be welcomed because it would reduce these threats to the region and beyond. to go back tos -- an answer to your earlier question -- who got most of what they wanted until the agreement? is it closer to the armenians position in the negotiations or are starting position in negotiations? and i think in this one, the winter is pretty clear. -- the winner is pretty clear. >> i would like to thank liam fox for a traffic presentation -- a terrific presentation today

and a very, very engaging q&a session here. it has been a huge number of questions remaining with regards to iran nuclear deal, which this is an extremely dangerous deal that will hunt the security of the united states, great britain, and its allies across the world. we hope that you will rejoin us in the coming months. and we wish you all the best with the upcoming parliamentary and reconvening of the house of commons. thank you. >> [applause] >> [indistinct chatter] [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] >> [indistinct chatter]

>> [indistinct chatter]

>> [indistinct chatter]

announcer: couple of reminders. if you missed any of liam fox's presentation, you can see it at c-span.org. and you can see our british house of commons coverage weekdays every tuesday when they were 10 live at 7:00 a.m. eastern over on c-span -- when they return live at 7:00 a.m. eastern over on c-span2. yesterday, barbara mikulski became the 34th senator to proclaim her support of the iran nuclear agreement. the white house is trying to pick up support from an additional seven senators to prevent a vote on the measure from happening in the first place.

all this week, we are showing new hearings and speeches and comments from lawmakers and others regarding that proposed the deal. tonight's program will improve -- include remarks from wendy sherman, one of the leading negotiators. here is a preview. >> this agreement -- is that the choice? a simple yes or no. >> i don't think it is a simple yes or no. >> if you can't give me a simple yes or no, it is either this agreement or war. and since i don't have the unlimited time. if you had not struck agreement with iran, would we be at war with iran? >> i believe that the chances we would be down the road towards war -- to war would be up exponentially. >> you are saying compared to other witnesses who have served on the in ministration in the past, who support the agreement and have been asked this same question, they have unequivocally easy said, no, it is not this or war.

ms. sherman: i just said to you, it is not binary, senator. mr. menendez: two years from now, three years from now? ms. sherman: i don't think any of us can predict the future in that way. what i will say -- what i will say -- mr. menendez: the secretary of state has come before various members of the senate and said it is either this or. ms. sherman: and the reason, senator, is because sanctions have never gotten rid of their nuclear program. it has only brought them to the table. mr. menendez: that hasn't created war, either. ms. sherman: if we walk away from this deal, iran will begin marching forward with their programs further, as they have done over the years. and the president of the united states has said he will not allow them to obtain a nuclear weapon. mr. menendez: i think there is real doubt. i think there israel doubt that iran believes that incredible military threat of force is on the table. announcer: that is just a

portion of tonight programming on the iran nuclear agreement. it all gets underway at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. donald trump continuing to lead the polls among republican candidates. he will be speaking to reporters later today. we'll have that for you live at 2:00 p.m. eastern. and politico reports donald trump plans to send a loyalty pledge today that would bind him to the republican nominee and would preclude a third-party run. they write, made the stunning decision to avoid convocations in getting listed on primary ballots and to take away an attack line in the next debate. we will find out, live coverage at 2:00 here on c-span. with the sudden death of president harding, vice president calvin coolidge takes office. grace coolidge was an enormously popular first lady and influenced the taste of american

women by becoming a style icon. although, she married a man cal, ad -- known as silent she never spoke to the press. grace coolidge. this and a night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's original series, "first ladies." examining the public and private lives of the women who fill the position of first lady and their influence on the presidency. from the washington to michelle obama, sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on "american history tv" on c-span3. announcer: as we mentioned a few moments ago, barbara mikulski became the 34th senator to declare her support of the iran nuclear agreement, providing president obama a net votes to sustain an expected veto of a congressional disapproval resolution. now the white house saying it is trying to pick up support from an additional seven senators to prevent debate and vote on the measure from happening in the

first place. next up, senate leaders remarked on the deal. you'll hear speeches from majority leader mitch mcconnell, dick durbin, and also john cornyn. mr. mcconnell: two weeks ago, i asked the obama administration to step back from the iran negotiations, press pause, and re-examine the point of having the talks in the first place. that would have been the most rational and reasonable approach for the white house to take. especially considering that its own allies in the senate were using phrases like, deeply worrying, 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 element of any deal,-- elements of any

things like complete disclosure of previous military related nuclear research and relief of sanctions tied to a nanny and -- iranian compliance, the white house acquiesced and sat in artificial deadline after artificial deadline and opportunity after opportunity for iran to press for additional concessions along the way. the result is a comprehensive nuclear agreement announced today. given what we do know so far, it appears that republicans and democrats are right to be deeply worried about the direction of these talks. it seems americans and both parties were right to fear that a deal inked by the white house would further the flawed elements of april interim -- april's interim agreement. -- rather than one that might

actually end iran's nuclear program. remember, ending iran's nuclear program was supposed to be the point of these talks in the first place. what is already clear about this agreement is that it will not achieve, or even come close to achieving, that original purpose. instead, the iranians appear to have prevailed in this negotiation, maintaining thousands of centrifuges, enriching their threshold nuclear capability instead of ending it, reaping a multibillion-dollar windfall to spend freely on terrorism, dividing our western allies and negotiating partners, some of whom will now undoubtedly sell arms to iran, and getting legitimacy -- gaining legitimacy before the world. this was an entirely predictable result. in fact, 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 can be expected to negotiate to preserve its own survival rather than to simply delay as a means of pursuing nuclear weapons is if the administration imposes the strictest sanctions while at the same time and forcing a firm policy that reflects a commitment to the use of force. but, no, the administration never did that. instead, they relied upon train and equip programs instead of forward presence. emphasized special operations forces -- from iraq and again a andd. -- and afghanistan executed a drawdown of our conventional and nuclear forces and a withdrawal of those forces by both attrition and redeployment. through actions like these, and

by is skewing any declaratory policy towards 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. of course, the survival of the regime being there number one goal. and so we have the deal we have today. it appears we have lost the chance to dismantle iran's nuclear program. and that that will now become a challenge for the next president to confront, regardless of political party. but the senate has yet to receive the final text of the agreement. we will not come to a final judgment until we do. the country deserves a thorough and fair review right here in the united states senate. and that is just what we intend

to pursue. committees will be holding hearings, witnesses will be coming to testify, and then congress will approve or disapprove -- approve or disapprove -- the deal in accordance with the iran nuclear deal. the text of the agreement should be this. well it leave our countries -- our country and our allies -- safer? well this country leave our country and our allies safer? there are several things we will be looking at in particular as we way whether it will -- weigh whether it will. will the agreement allow for any time, anywhere inspections of military installations and research and development facilities? will the agreement compel the iranians to disclose a possible military dimension of the nuclear program?

will the agreement make any real impact on iran's ability to continue researching and developing advanced centrifuges? will the agreement sanctions relief be tied to iran's strict adherence to the terms of the deal? and will we have any real way to verify its compliance? these parameters will also help us determine just how successful the iranians have been in extracting concessions from the white house. so we will be examining them very, very closely. i would remind colleagues of the deadly seriousness of the issue at hand. this should not be about some political legacy project. this is not some game, either. oris certainly not the time untrue talking points about the choice here between a bad deal and war.

no serious person would believe that is true. even the people saying these things have to know they are not true. and they are probably -- they probably know the exact opposite is likely. so the country doesn't have time to waste on more white house messaging 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. the future we leave to our children is at issue, as well. the senate so they engage in serious consideration of what faces us in the years ahead. i invite every democrat and every republican to join us in that critical conversation. our country deserves no less. ist we must decide now

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? forceeady know that the is capable of, under the -- of what the force is capable of under the sanctions regime. what -- iran iss not forget, pursuing a full spectrum campaign to expand its share of influence and undermine american security and standing in the region. iran's continued support of terrorism and his determination to expand ballistic missile and conventional military capabilities should be gravely concerning to each of us. they certainly are to me. they pose significant challenges to our country and president

obama's successor. now, this comes on top of the many other threats that challenge our country today and into the future. taliban,ats like the al qaeda, and isil to increasingly aggressive regimes in moscow and beijing. once make any of those threats go away. pretending otherwise isn't going to make us safer. a bad deal will only interact and has more funding to threaten -- will only ensure iran has more funding to threaten us with vigor. it will only ensure that iran strengthens its stockpiles of missiles. reuters here is a headline just from this morning. listen to this, mr. president. aside sees more iranian support after nuclear deal.

-- asaad sees more iranian support after nuclear deal. -- look, the white house needs to know that the congress elected by the people is prepared to do anything it can to make america safer. collaboratively with the president to advance that goal, but if we have to work against a bad agreement to do so. a flawed deal that threatens our country and our allies, i assure you we will. >> when president obama came to office, he looked out at the threats across america and there were four hard to target threats. russia, china, north korea, and iran. and the situation in iran was particularly worrisome. because there was a recurrent

believe that iran was developing nuclear weapons. i have heard critics say, what difference would it make? how full is would it be for a man to launch a nuclear weapon against -- foolish would it be for iran to launch a nuclear weapon against anyone? that country will pay dearly for a reckless decision such as that. but the fear that the president has and we shared was that if iran develops a nuclear weapon in the middle east, it would trigger an arms race in many other countries in that volatile region of the world and would then seek to develop their own nuclear weapons. and the potential conflagration was incredible. there was also a concern that one of the first targets of iran would be our close allies and friend, the nation of israel. it is easy to reach that conclusion when you read and hear the rhetoric of the

which willin iran, not even recognize israel's right to exist. so president obama set out to do something about it. it was clear from our expense in iraq and afghanistan that sending in american troops was something -- from our experience in iraq and afghanistan that sending in american troops was something we had to think about long and hard. what we faced in iraq, roadside bombs that killed and maimed so many american soldiers, that we realize this new world of asymmetric military confrontation didn't guarantee that the best military in the world would have an easy time with it. so we ended up with almost 5000 casualties in iraq, nearly 2000 and afghanistan. and afghanistan turn out to be the longest war in united states history. so this president and the american people were reluctant to face another military confrontation. and so this president made a decision.

i talked to him about it. he decided that every leader from every country that came into cm would be asked to join in an effort -- that came into s ee him would be asked to join in an effort. the president put together an incredible coalition because we have learned long ago unilateral sanctions aren't worth much, but if you can bring many nations around the world to a common purpose of putting the pressure on a country, it can have a positive impact. the coalition the president put together was amazing. i witnessed the negotiations themselves were china and russia were sitting at the same side of the table as the united states and the european union -- england, france -- and then the other countries join does in opposing these economic sanctions when they had little to gain and a lot to lose when it came to the oil resources of iran. so the president determination

-- president's determination to put the sanctions on iran -- that systematic gathering would literally have been the first meeting in 35 years between iran and the united states. of timeting that period 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 a nuclear weapon. 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 netanyahu, four years -- more than 10 years -- he has been warning that the iranians were close to developing a nuclear weapon. it was a matter of weeks, months, a year at the most by most of his estimates. and, of course, israel, more

concerned than most about the nuclear threat, warned the world about what would happen. after lengthy negotiations, the president and thed with iran others at the table, the p5+1 as they are known in shorthand, that we had reached an agreement with iran. it was interesting to watch the reaction of members of congress. there were some members of congress who condemned to agreement before it was released to the public. you see, 47 members of the other side in the senate here had sent a letter to the ayatollah in iran turn the coast -- course of negotiations warning him and his nation not to negotiate with this president of the united states. that was unprecedented. that has never happened before in american history. when a political party reached

out to a sworn enemy of the united states and give them advice not to speak to our leader, that letter went on to is a that even if you think you have reached an agreement, don't be misled. ultimately, congress would have the last word on that agreement. so it was no surprise in that environment that so many senators and congressmen from the other side of the aisle instantaneously condemned this agreement. some of us decided to take a little time and perhaps reflect on it, read it, and reach out to people who were involved in it. i took last week to read the 100 plus pages of this agreement. and to talk through -- to our includingop experts, ernie moneys, john kerry -- ernie moniz, john kerry, and

others, in hopes that i could come to an understanding about this agreement. i am under no illusions about the iranian regime. it supports terrorist groups like hezbollah and hamas. it's abysmal human rights record is well known. and it's repression of its own people during the 2009 elections is well documented. iran also continues to hold a number of americans on outrageous charges, including -- post"e "washington reporter. 2007ned a few years ago in with republican senator gordon smith in introducing the iran counter proliferation act. key components of which became the basis for a strict petroleum sanctions regime that helped to bring iran to the negotiating table.

i did it for all the key sanctions bills -- voted for all the key sanctions bills against iran and have tried to be a voice for increasing military defense for israel. i was proud to double the iron dome funding request of israel for their own defense of their nation. before us is a comprehensive solution to the nuclear weapons issue with iran. and without a nuclear weapon to embolden iran, the agreement allows the u.s. and its allies to better deter iran's destabilizing actions. now, let's take a reflective moment and look at the history. the recent history in the united states. strong leaders and nations, such as the united states, meet and talk to their enemies and negotiate when it is international interest. it was john kennedy who said we should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate.

negotiationsf aren't an example of weakness, but in most cases of strength. and sometimes the benefits aren't obvious immediately, but realized over time. it is simply common sense and it has been the practice of this nation, america, for generations, regardless of who is president, to meet and try to negotiate for a more peaceful world. throughout our history, american leaders has successfully and aggressively use diplomacy. presidents of both political parties. that can 62, the cuban missile crisis. we faced the prospect of a nuclear war. a standoff with the nation, where we know and they knew that they had the capacity to detonate a nuclear weapon in the united states. few realized how close we came to nuclear confrontation. there were many -- in washington who said let's take them on.

some even suggested -- but john kennedy wisely pursued a careful balance of strength and diplomacy, using a blockade of negotiations to bring us back from the brink. few people knew that the kennedy was secretlyn negotiating with the soviets while the cuban missile crisis was unfolding. and ultimately, president kennedy agreed to remove nuclear arms from turkey and italy as part of an agreement to the soviet prime minister to remove nuclear missiles from cuba. in reflection, john kennedy should never have negotiated in crisis because the soviets were out to destabilize the world and to spread communism -- let's not forget, when john kennedy entered into this negotiation, the soviet union had not only placed nuclear missiles in cuba,

they were in the process of placing them, but they were occupying eastern europe and trying to spread communism around the world. the bloody korean war, where my two brothers served in the u.s. navy, was a war in which the soviets how the north -- helped the north koreans against the united states. and yet we sat down and negotiated with the soviet union. fast-forward a few years, in 1972, then-president nixon traveled to communist red china to begin establishing normalized relations. china wasn't a friend of the united states. it was a key supporter of the north vietnamese who were ruthlessly fighting and killing u.s. forces in vietnam at that same time. during nixon's visit, then said china was sending more weapons to north vietnamese. this was happening even while itit was asking china to and support of the north vietnamese.

there were also aiming commonest revolution movement at asia all against the u.s. interests. domestically in china, the chinese leader had persecuted millions of his own people as part of the brutal cultural revolution. i recognize, as president nixon did that, that it is hard to enter into negotiations with a regime as nefarious as china. and just as with iran today, many conservatives that announced republican president nixon for doing so. sphere ofs china's influence grew, many in both parties, including president nixon, recognized it was time to change. nelson rockefeller, president nixon's rival, called for more context and communications. and it was hubert humphreys, a democrat, that proposed building a bridge to the people of mainland china.

then senator ted kennedy recognize president nixon's diplomatic efforts towards china as a significant gesture. other members of the democratic-controlled congress agreed. you see, there was a time when foreign policy was bipartisan. there was a time when democrats would speak up, defending a republican president, even when the most conservative members of his own party were condemning him. over time, president nixon's decision play dividends in america's interest. are not perfect, but we know we made progress and we are in negotiation. and china set with us on the things out of the table, trying to stop iran from developing a nuclear weapon. in the late 1980's, president ronald reagan begin discussions with mikell go much of -- gorbachev. it was inconceivable when those

talks started in october of 1986 that they could really negotiate. who would imagine that these two countries, the united states and the soviet union, with thousands of nuclear warheads pointed at one another, could actually sit down and reach an agreement? the cold war was far from over at that time. in 1979, soviet forces invaded afghanistan in a continued attempt to spread communism. and lead president carter hold effort to negotiate. the list is lengthy. the soviet aggression at that moment in time. and yet, it was present ronald reagan who said he would sit down and negotiate with the soviet union. let me read an excerpt from the generally 17, 1988, "new york times" about the opposition ronald reagan faced in negotiating with the soviet union. it may sound familiar to what you're hearing today about

president obama's efforts in iran. and i quote, already, white -- right-wing groups have mounted a strong campaign. to have nailed up close to 300,000 letters -- mailed out close to 300,000 letters opposing it. the former supreme commander attacking it. and finally, they are preparing to run newspaper ads this month savaging ronald reagan as a new neville chamberlain, signing an accord with hitler, and protecting, quote, peace for our time. these were conservative republican critics of ronald reagan, who was negotiating with the soviet union to try to limit the spread of nuclear weapons being likened to neville chamberlain. sound familiar? the conservative national review magazine in may 1987 had a cover with the title, reagan's suicide

pact. president reagan eventually agreed within secretary of state schultz that arms control could and would improve u.s. national security. in 1987, reagan and gorbachev signed the treaty, committing the two superpowers to eliminate all their nuclear ground launch and ballistic cruise missiles with ranges of 500 to 5500 kilometers. this treaty, the reagan-gorbachev treaty, was one of the first to rely on expensive on-site negotiations for verification. you remember who coined the phrase, trust but verify? it was ronald reagan. it has negotiations with the soviet union. it took five months after ronald reagan reached this agreement 93-5 in favorvote of that treaty. i could go through a long list

of democratic senators who supported president ronald reagan and his efforts to try to create a more peaceful world. ultimately because of that agreement, more than 2000 short-medium and intermediate missiles were destroyed. our relationship and didn't improve overnight, and we certainly still have a problems with them today, but going back to what i said earlier, the russian sat on the same side that the table as the united states. to and the threat, or at least delay the threat, of nuclear power, nuclear weapons in iran. mr. president, imagine if 47 senators during the course of ronald reagan's negotiations with gorbachev, if 47 senators had written in the middle of those negotiations to mr. gorbachev and said ignore president ronald reagan. don't negotiate with him because we are not going to accept it hearing congress. they would have been -- there

would have been cries of treason. it didn't happen. those were the days when there was a bipartisan approach to foreign policy in the united states. so today, we have a chance and an opportunity with iran that hasn't presented itself for more than 30 years. it is not going to solve all those with iran overnight, but it does solve, i believe, one critical one. the agreement retains u.s. freemen of actions to -- didn'tll, ronald reagan stop tying to cover soviet actions after negotiating an arms treaty. president all of our -- president obama should not stop working to diminish iran's influence after this agreement. i am under no illusions that for some time, i landed pursue a nuclear bomb. i am under no

illusions that iran in the past about these efforts. i know they did. but the agreement reached last week provides unprecedented safeguards to prevent iran from building nuclear weapons now or in the future. the united states and its allies are strong enough to enter into this agreement not because iran is suddenly trustworthy or an open democracy, but because it serves our national security interests to do it. secretary of state john three, theohn kerry, ernie moniz go shaded this agreement with one purpose. stop iran from getting a nuclear weapon. they achieved this goal. and that is why i'm supporting this effort by the president to bring a more peaceful and stable situation to the middle east, to appreciate the magnitude of the challenge, let's step back and take stock of iran's nuclear weapons program as it is today

before this agreement goes in place. iran currently has enough nuclear material to make 10 nuclear weapons. it has mother 19,000 centrifuges , many of which are more advanced and powerful. iran wasely -- enriching its uranium to 20%. the breakout time, the time it would take iran to develop a nuclear weapon was estimated three months. it was an incredibly large and dangerous nuclear cap ability. growing at a significant rate, virtually i constrained. that is what this president inherited from the previous and ministration. but thanks to this effort, this agreement caps off every single one of iran's pathways to a bomb could it shrinks major portions of the nuclear infrastructure. it eliminates many parts of it. it extends the breakout time to at least one year. should iran renege on this and decide they are going for it with a nuclear weapon, we believe that under this --

forward with a nuclear weapon, we believe that under this agreement it would take them at least a year to achieve it. the agreement reduces iran's uranium stockpile by 98%, cuts its number of centrifuges by more than 2/3, and for the next 15 years, caps its enrichment. it prevents iran's underground facilities from being used for over uranium -- four uranium enrichment. how will we know? because we are helping to design and to monitor the fuel in an out of this facility. and verifying it every step of the way. all of us had deep suspicions about iran's nuclear conditions, which we should. what if they decide to build a secret facility? our team designed --

thought long and hard over the last two years about how we might be able to stop cheating. technique,otential the invented a countermeasure in the agreement. this week, secretary moniz explained it would be virtually impossible to hide nuclear activities under this agreement. it is the strongest nuclear verification system ever imposed. it's and result is that iran -- end result is that i ran will not be able to do -- is that iran will not be able to do -- >> the senator's time has expired. mr. cornyn: i ask for five additional minutes. >> without exception. -- objection. mr. cornyn: -- remote cameras, tamperproof seals, all the worlds most sophisticated detection technology.

as one nuclear expert commented last week, if iran enters a nuclear so the in iran, 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 covered it all in this agreement. i see the senator from south dakota is here and i will wrap up, but let me conclude, when i sat down to read this agreement, and i don't know how many of my colleagues have, i was struck on the third plate with this -- page with this. iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will iran ever seek, develop, or acquire any nuclear weapon. that is quite a statement. it was our goal of our negotiation. do i believe it? some. but i have my doubts. that is why we had to have an inspection regime. from the uranium mines right to the production facilities.

that is why we have dramatically cut back on their capacity to build weapons grade fuel. and that is why this agreement is now -- most countries believe -- moving us in the right direction in iran. there are critics. a lot of them here in the senate. there isn't a single critic who stepped up with a better idea. let's go back to the sanctions regime. the countries that joined us and that sanctions regime give it to bring iran to the negotiating table and it worked. they now have an agreement that they believe in, and we should believe in, too. and 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 to the american people. given a choice between the

invasion of iran or working in a diplomatic fashion towards a negotiation so that we can lessen this that in the world, i think president obama made the right choice. i support this administration's decision to go forward with this agreement. i will be adding my vote too many in the senate and house that we can see a new day dawning, in the hopes, too, that like as the next in, like president reagan, even -- like president nixon, like president reagan, even others would have sat down before us to negotiate at the end of the day we will be a stronger and safer nation because of it. president, ahead of tomorrow's hearing, the foreign relations committee with secretaries carry, -- lkerry, mo niz, and lew, i want to address just how far the administration has moved its own

goalpost in terms of this purported deal. over the last three years, the administration has made extensive public statement about what would and would not be acceptable in a final do with iran. it isoday, the it is -- clear that the final deal falls short not short of other people's expectations, but of their own standards. so as senators consider this proposed deal and whether it should be approved or disapproved, i think it is important to have a good understanding of where the president and his team did not meet their own expectations. stages of the obama administration made clear that a key part of any good deal would be dismantling iran's nuclear infrastructure. the floor of the house foreign affairs committee, secretary kerry noted back in 2013, he

the whole point of the sanctions regime was to help iran dismantle its nuclear program. previewingbama, in the deal, essentially admitted it would fall short of this standard, saying iran is not simply going to dismantle its program because we demand that it do so. negotiators demanding that iran dismantle it iran -- nuclear program? kerry'shat in secretary own words, the whole point? so as prime minister netanyahu pointed out, instead of dismantling the nuclear infrastructure of iran, the number one state sponsor of international terrorism and

threat to the safety and stability of the middle east, this deal legitimizes, it paves the way for their nuclear program and its enrichment capabilities. in fact, by the time this deal expires, the rogue regime and tehran will have an industrial sized nuclear program. for the duration of the agreement, iran will be able to conduct research and development on several types of advanced centrifuges. in the year eight, iran can resume testing is most advanced centrifuges, and in year nine, it can start manufacturing more of them. that is hardly dismantlement. that is the opposite of dismantlement. so i also want to address another important point that has been made concerning inspections because, as we know, iran will cheat. and so inspections take on an especially important role in enforcing any agreements that is made.

and in particular, i want to address this issue of anytime, anywhere inspections. in april, president obama announced that a good deal had been shark between world powers and iran and noted -- had been struck between world powers and iran. this is now known as the framework deal. a precursor to what was announced last week. a few weeks after this ,nnouncement, secretary moniz the energy secretary, who was at the table with secretary kerry in negotiating this deal, he said we expect a anytime, anywhere access. -- i should say anywhere, anytime access. he said that on april 20, 2015. this is a particularly clear statement from someone intimately familiar with the negotiations process. and, of course, it was well-received because this is,

at minimum, what needs to be done in order to keep iran from cheating. but by the weekend, the administration was singing a different tune. this is what secretary kerry said when he began to backtrack from what was said by secretary moneys -- moniz. he said, anytime -- anywhere, anytime inspections was, quote, a term that honestly i never heard in the four years that we were negotiating. it was not on the table. i don't know whether secretary moniz and secretary kerry actually talk to each other or not. they spent an awful lot of time together in vienna. and supposedly would be on the same page. but for secretary kerry to say this really incredible statement that he never heard of this idea and this is not on the table is

simply incredible. of course, my question is will go -- were those inspections ever on a table? and if not, why did the administration tell us they were? including the secretary of energy. and if they were not on the table, why is this deal a good deal? what can we have -- have any sense of conviction that a van want cheat and specially -- cheat especially considering this process that will basically lead up to a 24 day delay between inspections requested before inspections actually can be done? we know, from our experience with saddam hussein in iraq, that it is easy to move things around and avoid the inspectors of the iaea. so this deal today provides

inspectors will have, quote, managed access to whatever that means. managed -- access, whatever that meant managed -- managed access, whatever that means. the administration has also led us astray, mr. president, on a third item. and that is iran's ballistic missile capability. this is the vehicle by which iran could launch a nuclear weapon to hit people in the region or even further. in february of laughter, the chief u.s. negotiator testified before the senate foreign relations committee that while iran had, quote, not shut down all their production of any ballistic missile, the issue was, and she said, quote, indeed going to be part of something that has to be addressed as part of the comprehensive agreement.

ballistic missiles, as we know, can be used to deliver a nuclear weapon. under the current deal, the arms embargo on iran will be completely lifted in just eight years time, including on ballistic missiles. administrationhe simply changed their minds and decided this wasn't an important issue, i think they simply caved toyet another important item our national security. and that of our allies. example,his month, for the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, martin dempsey, testified that, quote, under no circumstances should the united states relieve pressure on iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking. so with this purported deal that the administration apparently has caved once again on something that the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, who is the number one military advisor to the president of the united states said should be off

under this-- negotiation, apparently it is on the table and part of the deal that we will have an opportunity to vote on in september. one more example. the president has repeatedly said that from the beginning, no deal is better than a bad deal. and i agree with that. and 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 is either this deal or war. there is a third choice. there are tougher sanctions that will bring iran to the table for a better deal and a good deal. unacceptable for the president to be misrepresenting what the options are to congress and the american people by saying it is either this deal or war. ,s bad as this deal is

obviously no one wants war. but we do know that iran is an exit stench of threat to our number one ally in the middle east, the nation of israel. and iran has been engaged in proxy wars against the united states and its allies since at least the early 1980's. well, the president is supposed to be commander in chief of the armed forces and the number one person in the united states government when it comes to national security. he took office with a promise to restore america's relationship with our allies around the world and clearly has promise has not come true. instead, what the president has delivered during his time in office has been that our allies increasingly do not trust us and our adversaries no longer fear us, as evidenced by the core version and intimidation engaged by -- by mr. putin in eastern europe.

mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent for two more minutes. >> without objection. mr. cornyn: even president carter in a recent interview admitted that the united states is influenced in prestige -- influence and prestige and respect in the world is probably lower now. 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 and prestige and respect in the world 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 an awful lot of national security issues, but i'm afraid he is right on that one. so now congress has an important role to play. and i can't think of a single more important national security issue we will have an

opportunity to act on than iran's aspirations for a nuclear weapon. this is a true game changer in terms of the stability and peace in the middle east. and our own safety and security. and i know that i and the rest of our colleagues will take full advantage of this opportunity, given to us for 60 days, to review this agreement, to put it under a microscope, and we will have no trouble putting it down if we conclude, as many of us are now starting to do, that it jeopardizes american security and paves the way for a nuclear armed iran. debateer: the senate from a few months ago was the iran agreement was announced. the president now having to 34 senators needed to sustain the toeal -- -- seuss -- . -- sustain the deal. there is richard blumenthal of

connecticut, cory booker of new maryland,en cardin of senator heidi heitkamp from north dakota, and gary peters of michigan, mark warner of my -- of virginia. the house and senate returning next week for debate as they come back from their center -- summer recess. and we get a preview of that from a capitol hill reporter. as congress returns, the number one item on their list is the nuclear agreement, the so-called joint plan of action. we are joined by julian adam, joining us from capitol hill. they will take up a resolution of disapproval. tell us about the timeframe for debates.

guest: the question is whether they can overcome a filibuster led mainly by democrats. if it passes, it will go back to count gross. this is an issue the president is really supportive of, really wants to see this deal go through and he has promised to the toe legislation that would seek to kill it as congressional republicans -- to veto legislation that would seek to kill it as congressional republicans want to do. is septemberdline 17. why is there a deadline in there? guest: this is the enron nuclear of -- the iran nuclear agreement review act. it agrees to two months. it originally was one month. giving themselves through the august recess, which we are coming back from right

now, and then they turn to this legislation, to vote to kill the deal or not and then it will be off to the races. there will be a long series of debates about how we go forward. host: your article in "the hill" -- ben cardin, the iran deal will survive the senate. talking about the democrats supporting the deal. are there enough votes to prevent this from getting to the president's desk? that is certainly a possibility. and republicans have said this will probably be enacted because of the inability to override the presidential veto. there is the chance that they may filibuster the bill from getting through the senate in the first place. they need 41 votes to do that. quite that yet. but it could be a possibility. the: as our viewers watch

debate in congress, when congress returns, a reminder they can keep track of where members are by looking at the ill.com for more information. what option do opponents have in the event, the likely event the president vetoes this resolution of disapproval? if the president does beat oh it and it is upheld, there are a couple of things. they can vote to renew sanctions. government, the punish the government for its support of terrorist groups throughout the region as well as abuse of human rights. that is something lawmakers have said they will get started on soon after they get back. but this is an agreement that ultimately could be largely undone by the next president. you see people like marco rubio who promise, if elected to the white house i would not fulfill the obligations of this deal. i would back off and they it

does not count anymore. there's a lot of damage that could be done there for this agreement, depending on what happens next november. also writing about a university of maryland poll majority once congress to approve the deal. guest: it has become a generally more and more partisan debate as we have gone forward, although not exclusively. pretty much as a bloc, republicans say they do not like this deal. there is the chance of one or two republicans to vote for this deal. they think this will empower iran and terrorist groups in the region. many democrats have disagreed rating they support the deal. , there are a couple of others, including chuck schumer in the house, -- chuck schumer in the senate rather, who are

siding with republicans on this. there is some bipartisan opposition to the deal. the question is whether there are enough democrats to keep it alive and what that looks like going forward. host: is the iran deal becoming a campaign issue early in the 2016 race? absolutely. republicans running for the white house have uniformly come out and said this is an awful deal. they oppose it or they would like to repeal it. democrats have supported it. it is a key issue playing out on the campaign drill right now and we will see a little bit of this and the congressional races. there is rusher on purple states democrats up for -- pressure on purple state democrats up for reelection, and what they say will be very closely watched and it will be hammered, one way or another until next november. host: julian adam, national security reporter at the hill. follow him on twitter @jnadam.

the debate on the iran nuclear deal next week in the house and senate. of the house on c-span, the senate on c-span2. we have been showing you speeches and hearings on that deal. tonight, we have remarks from the undersecretary for state who was one of the leading negotiators. also roy blunt and senator ben nelson. that gets underway at 8:00 eastern. a reminder, too, later today we onl show you a program medicare prescription drug program fraud. we will have that for you at 3:45 eastern. and the c-span cities tour visits historic and literary sites across the country. every other week and on c-span two's book tv and during the congressional summer recess, the tour is on c-span each day at

6:00 p.m. eastern. today the focus is saint augustine, florida. we will visit constantly on -- ponce de leon park and the sent augustine lighthouse. the cities tour tonight at 6:00 on c-span. tour, c-span cities working with our cable affiliates and visiting cities across the country. this weekend, we are joined by charter communications to learn more about grand junction, colorado. the mining of a certain mineral had a long-term important in this part of colorado. >> especially here in mesa county, outside of grand junction, we are surrounded by morrison rock. there are a lot of dinosaur bones and fossils. that has intrigued scientists for a long time. the other thing we find in

morrison rock is a mineral called carnage site -- ca rnitite. ntains radium. it contains an element that strengthens steel. during the build up to world war ii and world war ii itself, that was of extreme value. it also contains uranium, and uranium, as we know, is one of the best sources for atomic power in atomic weapons. >> colorado congressman wayne known --was largely wayne aspinall-- -- he wanted to make sure we got our fair share. he climbed up the ladder of seniority and was able to

exercise, i think, more power than you might normally have, certainly in the united states, make sureas able to that colorado and western colorado would be treated fairly in any allocations of water. his first major success with the passage of the colorado river storage product -- project in 1956. >> see all of our programs from grand jury on c-span 2 and an american history tv on c-span3. at 2:00g up live today p.m. eastern, we will take you to trump tower in new york city. donald trump holding a campaign news conference. he will be talking, according to toitico, that he is going sign a loyalty pledge that will

bind him to endorse the republican nominee. we will have that at 2:00 eastern or when it gets underway. until then, we hear from a former truck campaign advisor from this morning's washington journal. stone, ais roger veteran of the reagan and nixon administrations and former adviser to donald trump. thank you for being with us. it. having me.u for host: politico reporting that there is a meeting scheduled etween donald trump and the chair of the national committee. the headline is that the want loyalty pledge signed by all the candidates. move s being viewed as a to box in donald trump. will say u think he today? >> first of all, i think it's mportant to understand why donald trump has left the option a third party candidate open. ine new york times" reported

a very important piece that three of the major candidates, just behind hree trump in the polls that would be ubio, bush and walker, were engaged in talks regarding debate in the fox event that trump was in the debate. 15 or 19 states the republican bosses and establishment can keep him off primary ballot with the stroke of a pen. would only id he anticipate running as a third party candidate if he didn't get a fair shake from the republican party. the fact that he was in the fox cnn e and he'll be in the debate and the national party coming to see him today that indicates that he has which is a he wanted level playing field. the logistics f of running as a third party

honesty, in all within less than 60 days trump to change his new york state voter registration in order to be ligible in a number of states part as a third candidate. actually enormously expensive and time consuming process. now.would have to start the truth is i think trump has and given he wants up nothing and strong frontrunner. sign the hat he'll pledge today. host: you called donald trump, bold, progressive and interesting. but is he presidential? is.eah, i think he i mean, he is different than your other presidents, but the have now is different than our other presidents. life figure than and i think voters are passion, his his

patriotism and can-do spirit. we can build a administration and have a boom economy and have again. he's very much like ronald kennedy.nd jack is he an eccentric, on some things he is. had a number who are eccentric. greatest presidents of my lifetime were the two that of politics those being dwight eisenhower and ronald reagan. is not a career politician. he's not part of the washington system. he's not beholden to any special interests. host: when did you first meet donald trump and how long did for him? >> let's see. 1979 when d trump in

i sent to new york to organize ronald mer governor reagan's campaign for president. from given a card file nancy reagan, one of those recipe box that's had index cards of the reagan's friends in new york. the people in the cards were dead and the others were those prominent but among a a card for mr. cone ixture in the legal profession and major power broker so i made appointment to see him. one of the first things i told finance to set up a committee. and he said do you know fred and donald trump. donald trump.of of the fred was one original gold water financiers. developery successful

of housing in the outer burrows and built a ght substantial fortune as a line per, was a real hard conservative republican and personal friend of barry goldwater's and son donald was in on manhattan real estate. o i had the fortunate to meet them both. he joined our finance committee he was helpful to the campaign. company told us there would be a delay in phones and he made a hone call and those delays disappeared. it was very last minute effort from all over ns the new york westchester, long area, and trump lent us petitions o file the

reagan y less ronald would not be on the ballot. i was founder of our irm, trump was among first clients. i handled some currency ransaction issues that pertained to his casino empire dredging permits for the bay f f.a.f a. a. in e height of his sky scrapers. host: what happened when you campaign. you said you left and he said were fired and you continued real port him what's the story? >> well "the new york times" and

politico both confirmed with three separate individuals that my d confided in them decision to resign and i had letter.y resignation i have enormous affection for donald trump. to run for d him president literally since 1988 for the chamber to theerce to invite him luncheon speech. he crowd was huge and he got enormous press and i think george h.w. bush had been at the same forum two weeks before and 2400d 400 and we had about people or 2500 people. it was a smashing discuss. friends of mine very nthusiastically organized a trump for president committee the first known. but it was too early in his career. he was still focused on building his empire. 2000 i was the chairman of the exploratory

looked at n which he the possibility of seeking the part nomination. e was not very impressed with george w. bush or al gore. hey were qualified for federal matching funds so it was an opportunity to run a campaign on money.people's and i'm glad to say that he did at the ard look at it conventiony national in michigan that year. 2000 he won that and run.mately did not thr three years ago, he looked again for running and he did not think much of the republican field. decided to endorse mitt romney which he regrets. think trump would have been a better candidate than mitt romney and that brings us.

resigned because i didn't feel i was having the impact on the campaign that i could have. campaigns are about ssues and broad ideas and not sha and i minute tphaourb felt like i could have a rofound impact working as i have pro bono. i'm entitled to be in touch with trump. we have been friends for 35 years. he wept to my wedding when i wife and i went to two of his weddings. father a funeral funeral and mother's and wake. so i resigned. and.e is no hard feelings spoken to did ndonald trump. i think he's the only figure independence cial and guts and passion and the

hands on can-do spirit to take i believe is a corrupt system. i want to get your reaction to this. ikki haley making a reference to donald trump and his approach to the voters and on the issues. here's what she had to say. >> what i will say about mr. smart s he's a businessman. during omplished a lot his career. it accomplishes nothing to get criticizes dy who you. very time someone criticizeds him he makes an attack back. my south what i want carolinaians to do. that's the part -- yesterday i think they actually were talking issues and i got excited because they were talking about policy. that's what americans want to here is policy. theyn't it want to hear how offended you. they want to know they're

up to the white house who is calm and cool mad at and not get someone because they criticize them. we would really have a world war happens. host: how would you respond to that. your reaction. >> yeah, i think the american people want toughness in their president. tired of get e rolled at the negotiation table by the chinese and by the and by a number of other countries. donald trump's anger as it were a controlled anger. he does it for effect. a piece that to they wrote in the weekly standard where trump was enormous group in orange california, california, punches you mebody you punch them back only harder. that is his mantra. from the very, very tough world of manhattan real

estate. real ople of manhattan the idea that trump is somehow out of control or that he does not do these things for affect idea is wrong. above all right now, we need justice. who will not be rolled by our adversaries around the world. when he leadership. all of this talk about party unity is great but george bush attacked ronald reagan and ronald reagan attacked george bush. very, very tough competitor. host: let us get to our phone calls. gary from new york outside of buffalo, good morning. caller: good morning. mr. stone, i am a democrat that happens to support donald trump. here is the way i see mr. trump's problem.

his most difficult achievement will be to get the gop nomination. hehe a, which is that -- if accomplishes that, i see a tremendous amount of support for trump on a national ticket with democrats like me. what is your assessment? host: before we get roger stone's response, can i ask you questions? did you support barack obama in 2008 and 2012? caller: yes i did. host: what changed your thinking about the democratic party and moved into donald trump's camp. caller: one of the most important was the fact that like a lot of people, we are waking up to the fact that candidates are bought and sold through this campaign finance system. donald trump is a billionaire.

he is financing his own campaign . as far as i know, nobody has bought him yet. i could go on with two or three other items. host: that is one of the big ones, the fact that he is funding his own campaign is a big one for you. caller: absolutely. i am sick and tired, like a lot of my friends, with candidates being bought and sold. host: thank you. roger stone. guest: i agree with gary. i think one of the mistakes analysts make is they look at the republican primary electorate as monolithic. it is not monolithic. there are all different types of republicans. trump has said a number of things that would appear to violate the republican orthodoxy, but i think he appeals to a populist conservative within the republican ranks, the same that

reagan appealed to. trump is the candidate of main street, not wall street. he is not the candidate of the financial or political elite. he does have a fight on his hands for the republican nominations because the republican establishment is quaking in their boots. here is a guy that cannot be bought by the lobbyist, special interests, the billionaires, the super pac's, or the special pleaders. he is financially independent.donald trump cannot be bought and believe he cannot be bullie. it is interesting to me that each one of these candidates that has come out and attacked graham,k perry, lindsey and others, is that as soon as they attacked trump, they dropped like a stone. that tells us a lot.

he has the ability to assemble the old reagan coalition in a general election, meaning the republicans as a base. a recent poll showed he is getting 79% of the republicans in a two-way race against hillary clinton. he was only trailing hillary clinton by six points, which is extraordinary. that 79% of republicans has to go to the 80's for him to win, but it is clearly headed there. he has to break out to the so-called reagan democrat, the white catholic conservative democrat, and independents. that coalition can be reassembled, but only trunk and reassemble it. host: the also has to get a fair amount of the hispanic vote. something that mitt romney failed to do in 2012. when he criticizes jeb bush for speaking in spanish, does that help or hurt if he is the nominee in trying to secure a significant portion of the

hispanic vote next fall? guest: i think the key to the hispanic vote is going to be economic opportunity, job opportunity, prosperity. those who are here as legal immigrants are just as upset about illegal immigrants as all americans. trump has to make and will make an extraordinary appeal based on his ability to write this economy -- right this economy. he is a job creator. he is a businessman. he knows how to look at the bottom line. if you think there is no fact and federal government, then your smoking something. like trumpe summary with trum to streamline the government and cut out hundreds of millions if not trillions of dollars worth of waste to get the economy moving. hispanic voters want the same thing the all voters want. they want economic

opportunities, jobs, a solid future for their children, good schools, safe neighborhoods. donald trump can and will appeal to hispanic voters on that basis. host: this tweet from a viewer. would you serve? guest: i do not think i am cut out for government.i will pass on the opportunity . very much like president eisenhower, trump does not intend to be an expert on every subject. what he does is he finds very good people, he gets educated, and then he hires good people, and then he supports them. this is one of the secrets to his business. he is an extra array i've for an extraordinary eye for talent.

to send jack wells with the chinese, maybe we come back with a win for a change. maybe america can start winning again in a donald trump administration. host: from nebraska, then is next -- ben is next. good morning. caller: good morning. because he waser the one that watched out for the military complex. as far as reagan, he was a disaster. andot 250 marines killed, we went to hundred years before we ever knew what a trillion dollar debt was. reagan was irresponsible. when he left, he had a trillion dollar debt. there are too many stupid people in the united states. they don't even know what stupid means evidently and they vote for the wrong people and listen

to all of the baloney. if you want to respond, i will listen. guest: i don't think we have ever had a perfect president. ronald reagan won the cold war, which costed hundreds of millions of dollars he restored our. confidence abroad. eisenhower was the greatest president in my lifetime. it would be hard to pick a president who did everything perfectly. ronald reagan certainly made mistakes. just a member, one man's baloney is another man's filet mignon. next. host: i would love to see a leader cut waste in the tweet.ent, from a book, two things are outlined that i think

interesting. there is approximately $1 trillion sitting in federal bank accounts that every president up until barack obama has swept into the general fund. obama is the first president who has not touched those funds. before you talk about cutting social security or medicaid, let us we've all of the funds that are already in the federal hands and use them for these programs. secondarily, trump identifies in his book 122 inspector general reports about waste or fraud, which could be a savings of hundreds of millions of dollars approaching one billion. it would take someone with a sharp scalpel and someone not afraid to gore oxes. trump has the guts to take on the status quo.

i have no doubt he can trim the federal budget and a way that no president has ever been able to do because he is not beholden to anybody other than the american people. in the new york times, a look at what to expect when donald trump releases his own tax proposal. it is called a things to watch for in donald trump's tax plan. ralph joining us from battle creek, michigan, on the democrat line. caller: maybe you can to me more about this deportation plan of donald trump. i hear the number is anywhere between 11 million illegal aliens. donald seems to think in his mind that there are 30 million. dispute. bit of a would be to port 30 million people -- would he do port 30

million people? would they be rounded up by police door to door and put into holding places like camps and orn run them to the border to the guatemala border or to the nicaragua border? the revoking of the citizenship. he seems to think the 14th amendment does not apply anymore. it does not apply so the birthright citizenship is not accurate or not enforced. deport -- how do por much money would it cost to hire agents to deport millions of people and tearing up families. explain to me how that would work. guest: there are at least four questions there.

let us take them one at a time. there is nothing in the 14th amendment that guarantees with my citizenship. that is done statutorily. legal scholars have profound disagreements about exactly what the 14th amendment. it is absolutely clear however that el chapo, the mexican drug lord, his wife was struggled into the united states to have her baby so that baby can be an american citizen and later be eligible for all of the social services we guarantee americans. we have an epidemic of this. the cost will ultimately break us if it is not breaking is already, so it has to be dealt with. this is typical boldness by trump. in terms of expelling people, the most fundamental piece of trump's immigration reform is to seal our border. our border is porous. there are people coming over it every day. some people like jeb bush say it cannot be done.

trump has built some architectural masterpieces and he says it can be done. i believe trump. how you go about deporting 11 million people? i think this is really more of a question of using our computer technology to track people. as chris christie pointed out, we can track federal express packages through drivers licenses and other databases. we can find people. the average businessperson in his country is paying a high tax rate. why should this special niche of financial operators making millions not pay? that violates the party,xy. he has hit a very important cord. the logistics of actually doing this, that is something that will have to unfold in the campaign. todaya contributor to usa

and also a fox news channel analyst has a piece this morning in usa today, and i want to share a portion of what she wrote. basically, she says religious voters need to wise up. votersi think religious who take jesus christ as their personal savior believe in redemption, and they believe in change. donald trump is what he is today. he believes what he believes today. he is completely forthright about the fact that there was a time he supported abortion, but a very close friend of his late

in life had a child, thought about aborting a child, did not abort that child, and now that child is thriving and is the absolute centerpiece of this family. he changed his mind. people are entitled to change their mind. ronald reagan was a divorced president. divorce is a common day thing. no american is perfect. no christian thinks any individual is perfect. i take trouble at face value in terms of what he believes today. i am not sure what she is driving at in terms of criticism butnd the pro-life issue, trump did in iowa bring a photo of his first communion. trumps have always been religious people. i will not question another man's faith. host: robert from brooklyn, new york, on the independent line. good morning.

go ahead. caller: i am calling to correct a statement made by mr. stone. he said ronald reagan came from outside politics. it was governor of california became he became president. terms,yes, he served two but a majority of his life he spent as an actor and union leader. that is where he came from. two-termeing a governor of california, donald trump has run a billion-dollar , probably asrprise challenging as running the state of california. i am talking about where these individuals originate. it would be foolish to say eisenhower was not political. his politics in the army. one does not become a five-star general overnight. they still came from a discipline outside of politics. they were good at politics when they got there. i still believe eisenhower and

reagan were the two greatest presidents in my lifetime. host: ralph is joining us from hartwell, georgia, on the democrats line. caller: good morning. i just want to say that i have talked to a lot of democrats in georgia, and i went to see trump in greenville. i think the democratic party is very solid with trump. it is time we get a business plan into the white house that will run our government like a business. on the immigration situation, if someone broke into your house them, wouldught you call a contractor and build a room for them to live in the rest of their life? let us do something about making this country great again. host: thanks for the call. renewed speculation on joe biden. what is your sense? will he jump in or stay on the sidelines? guest: i do not think it matters.

he is in a credibly weak candidate. last time he garnered 1% and dropped out. i think he appeals to exactly the same people that hillary clinton appeals to. hillary clinton's vulnerability lies to her left, although there is not a lot of room there the way she is moving. in a matchup with elizabeth warren, she comes out on the bottom. i still think there will be another candidate for the democratic nomination. mrs. clinton is very severely damaged and getting worse every day. every day, there seems to be a new revelation, a new development regarding her e-mail scandal. watergate.ough the difference between the and and hillary clinton is hillary clinton destroyed the evidence. and did not and have brought him down. host: anthony on the republican line, good morning. caller: please let me get everything out. first i want to commend and

congratulate mr. stone on being employee of the year. he is certainly disconnected from mr. trump but did it in a classy way, did it with respect, and space favorably of his former employee. i think we need more stories like this in america. on trump, you can argue with your delivery, you can argue with his sense of humor, you can argue with whatever you can argue, but you cannot argue with his poll numbers. you cannot argue with his wealth. you cannot argue with being politically correct. it is time in this country to call anchor babies for what they are, undocumented illegals. indiaina, mexico, outsourcing for what it is. that brings me to c-span. i am watching c-span all the time. i see everybody gets republican

coverage, and i don't see much trump on c-span. i want to visit a challenge to c-span. back in 2008, hillary clinton went on c-span and said iowa picks corn and new hampshire picks presidents. if there is the next hillary clinton debate, i would like this to be played by c-span and see how that could be addressed. thank you. host: thank you for the call. i will let roger stone responded to your first point. clearly, if you have been watching this network over the last few months, we have been covering donald trump. we were with him in alabama and we are covering him today with a news conference at 2:00 eastern time. you can check out all of our event coverage with all of our candidates on our website c-span.org. we have been providing the most comprehensive unfiltered coverage of this campaign and will continue to do so over the next months and years. nobody else will provide you the depth and breadth of coverage

that we do. i take umbrage at your one point because we have and will continue to cover donald trump and the rest of the candidates. your thoughts? guest: i appreciate the caller's sentiments. i do not believe in getting paid and then trashing your client. i think it is exceedingly unprofessional. i have not changed my views whatsoever on donald trump. i was honored to work on his book in 2000. i was honored to be the chairman of his presidential exploratory committee that year. i was very honored to work on his current book "time to get tough." i think i have a strong institutional knowledge and where he is on his issues. i think he has evolved.

as i look at this crop of establishment politicians, i do not see anybody who is bold. i see people operating on the basis of polling and focus groups and careful calculations. donald trump is a man working without a net. what you see is what you get. he is completely spontaneous. he is unscripted, unhandled, unmanaged. he is the strategist in his campaign. this has always been the case. he is a voracious reader. if you have something you feel strongly about, write him a memo. keep it short and to the point. sometimes he will agree with you and sometimes he will disagree with you. there is no doubt in my mind that were he president, he would be the boss. host: let us go back to your expertise working with richard nixon and ronald reagan. this is a piece by bill kristol in the weekly standard. let me just share with you a portion of what he says.

politicalld trump's appeal a cartoon version of richard nixon? the current candidates are understandably struggling with coming to group with the phenomenon of trump. none has put together the pieces as reagan did. your response. guest: i read that piece yesterday and tweeted bill kristol gets with the program. i think what he is saying is trump is a pragmatic conservative. he is not a purist. he believes we should tax hedge fund managers who are currently avoiding millions of dollars worth of taxes. trump gets no advantages.he pays an enormous amount in taxes. the average businessperson in his country is paying a high tax rate. why should this special niche of financial operators making millions not pay? that violates the orthodoxy.

i went to a very nice dinner this past saturday and many people there were aghast at this idea. i think this idea will sell to the american people and populist republicans. i think it will sell in a general election. i will give you another example. he did propose in 2000 that there would be a one time surtax dedicatingr wealthy, all that money to deficit reduction. knock out the entire deficit one fell swoop, one time. that violated the public orthodoxy because he was taxing the super rich. rich.e wealthy, the super from would have owed an additional $450 million in additional taxes under his own plan. he was prepared to play it. had we done so, we would be in stronger shape today. the deficit has ballooned since that time.

today, trump's proposal would not just equate or financially be possible. it was able proposal at its time -- a bold proposal at its time. he wants to do what will work. i think this comes from being in business. host: a preview of the next debate will take place in less than two weeks at the reagan presidential library in california. kathleen parker yesterday in herpes in the "washington post" telling republicans it is time to take the gloves off and go after trump. karen is next from norman, oklahoma. good morning. i keep hearing them say the women that come over and comebabies or people that over a legally have to wait five years before they can get any benefits. that is not so. all they have to do is be pregnant or get pregnant as soon as they get here.

then they are available for everything. that is one reason we cannot afford to build roads and bridges and take care of our events and own people. we have to stop rewarding people .rom having baby after baby then they say they cannot afford and we have the taxpayers pay for them. host: thank you. did you want to respond to that? guest: it was more of a statement than a question but i think she put a finger on is that they would telling the trump campaign. let us take the issue of veterans health care. nobody suggested this to donald trump.did not come out of some poll or focus group. as he has moved around the country, everywhere he goes, he is besieged by veterans. they are telling him horror stories of other inability to get health care. they are very angry. they are angry at barack obama, but they are particularly angry

at john mccain. he has been a member of the veterans affairs committee in the u.s. senate 30 years. 1000 veterans died waiting for medical care. the administration tried to hide that. to this day, nobody has been held responsible. is a lot like benghazi. so many screws up, some americans die, but nobody is held responsible. donald trump hit upon this issue based upon talking to average americans. were veterans health care in this country is a disgrace. does anybody think donald trump could not build the greatest veterans health care hospital system in the world? i believe he can. host: next is clipped from maryland. good morning. and yeti am a democrat, i am very excited about donald trump. i think it stands for a couple of reasons.

first of all, i loathe the thought of hillary clinton. i voted democrat my entire life but i could never vote for her. i am excited about trump. may be your guest will want to comment. i read a number of articles uneducated angry white man. i have a graduate degree from an ivy league university. i have been working for 30 something years. i am not going to sit there and say i am angry. i am probably more angry at the democratic party. eight years of barack obama and office, and what do we have? we have hillary clinton as the lead nominee. i am very excited about trump. i do not take all of his rhetoric seriously. this is the politician coming out. how many politicians promise this and that and then they do

not do it when they get in and face reality? i do resent the idea that because i am some kind of ignoramus supporting trump. i think he is tapping into something. i hope you can take it all the way. thank you, cliff. roger stone. guest: there is a growing trend in the mainstream media to try aslampoon trump's supporters white supremacists, rednecks, angry white males, yahoos. it is false. it is a caricature. interviewi did an with talking points memo, and about several was a premises to came forward and said positive things about trump. i have met people

at across the country -- across the country who are from supporters and our college graduated. they tend to be employed, the quiet people, the forgotten americans, the silent majority. they are angry. they are angry because they do not like what is happening to america. they do not like the direction we are headed. they realize we are headed to fiscal calamity. we have a looming debt. we are falling behind militarily. inare being made a fool of trade negotiations with countries like china and mexico and others. trump sums this up saying when is the last time we won? when will america go back to winning. trumpet is a winner above all. in the real estate world, he is associated with excellent. i think he would return excellence to government. i want somebody who is looking out for the united states. who is looking out for our bottom line.

trump has made himself an enormous amount of money, whether it is $9 billion or $11 billion, it is a moving target because he is a moving target. he can now make the american people rich. he can make your family rich. he can make my family rich. he can restore the american dream. opportunity will be the key to this election. i think people are ready to return to this being a prosperous and productive country. only donald trump can do that. host: in that talking points memo article, it indicated you are still advising donald trump. wanted to reconfirm that is the case. guest: that is not really what it says. it says i still talk to donald trump. we have been friends for 35 years. cordial.rsation the cornea i have no formal or informal role in his campaign. i know him uniquely.

i have known him for 35 years.i have huge affection for him come and i know his strengths. i really want to educate people as to why i think, having worked closely with him, he has the potential to be a great president and save the country. i have no role in his campaign. host: the great thing about the video library is you can check many past appearances. in 1992. [video clip] >> it was here at wharton in the 1980's that the students the named the banking club the unindicted. [laughter] keptall of fame pictures of donald trump, glorified the art of deal without relatively. and michael melton.

on display until one went bankrupt and the other was on his way to jail. host: that was from 1992. your comment? guest: bill clinton is a last person in the world who should talk about unindicted. anyone who read peter schweitzer's book will realize the clintons have been lining their pockets using the state department and the clinton foundation, which is a fund for grifters to enrich themselves and create a luxury travel service for themselves. secondarily, donald trump never went bankrupt. he used to bankruptcy laws in atlantic city. companies into bankruptcy, which is a completely legitimate financial technique. in all honesty, he saved himself hundreds of millions of dollars. that is the guy i want running the federal budget. somebody who is tough and smart and knows how to save money. i think it is not dumb.

i think it is smart. bill clinton really is the last person in the world that should be commenting on responsibility. host: karen is next on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. nice to talk to you mr. stone.i am a strong supporter of donald trump . what caught my attention was making america great again. some of us have lived in the america where we could do everything. there was not anything we could not do. unfortunately, either people have forgotten our america or they never lived in the can-do. all they hear is they cannot do this or cannot do that. it is too long or too confusing. everything is a down. we cannot do anything. what i admire about mr. trump and i pray he does get elected is because finally, we have somebody who loves america and

wants to make her great again. go to the say we can moon and we went to the moon. we want to integrate and we integrated. we want to win world war i and world war ii and we won. we want to take care of our vets when they came out, and we did it. we built housing in hospitals and everything that we wanted to do. unfortunately, today people have to come to certain places. they are too used to being told we cannot do anything. we are getting that again from even the republican party when they talk against trump. it is too expensive. how dare he think of a dream. how dare he have a dream to make america great again. this is exactly what the american heart wants. we want america again. we want to be able to be proud. we want to not make excuses for what we do.

donald trump embodies everything that the american spirit is. i am so proud to be supporting him. i voted i am ashamed and embarrassed to say that i voted for obama. i do not vote already people. i vote for the person. i vote for the issue. at that time, i was blind and i thought we needed obama to straighten out the bush problems. host: thank you for the call. we will respond. guest: the sad truth is the policies of the clintons and bushes and obamas are identical. i have come to the conclusion that after many years as a republican and a former republican national chairman, i had the privilege of working for three republican presidents, but the truth is the two parties have morphed into one party. it is a big government party. it is a big war party.

it is the erosion of civil liberties party. it is the big debt party. it is the big spending party. , they try to rhetorically sound different, but they are jointly responsible for the decline of america. personally, i always wanted donald trump to run as an independent candidate so he can criticize both parties. i am happy he is running now as a republican, although he is running against the republican establishment. he is still the outsider in this race.he puts his finger on it when he says our leaders are weak. we are in the position we are in because our leaders have been weak. they have made bad deals for the united states. they bought into the idea that we are a country in decline and things can only get worse. things cannot get better. no president has disagreed with that since the ronald reagan. i appreciate the caller's sentiments. i think she is typical of americans who are fed up and want this country to be great again. host: do think he has staying

power moving into the fall and winter? caller: i do -- guest: i do. i think that is up to him. that it's been for the discussion of his economic plan. i am very optimistic about that. he will have to ultimately talk about his worldview. he has only laid out one set of policy and that is on immigration, and that has dominated the political debate so far. the great thing about trump is he is always interesting. you never know what he is going to say. he is not scripted. as long as he is interesting to the voters, as long as he is engaging the voters in a way otherf the candidates can, he has staying power. this is a $100 million endeavor at a minimum in my opinion. when he files his financial disclosure