and in syria. and to the beth st of my knowle, this institution can't get the spine together to actually bring an authorization to the floor and do our constitutional job to take responsibility for what these men and women are now having to deal with. i mean, every day we are engaged in military actions bombing every day, i know the chairman agrees that we ought to have an authorization here. but, i mean, you know, at least on this vote, at least on this issue here, you can vote no. you know, if enough people vote no and the president doesn't get his way. then this can't go forward. we're at war right now, and we don't even talk about it. so i appreciate the concern for our troops, but i wish there was -- >> reclaiming my time, mr. mcgovern. the truth of the matter is this

will provide money to a regime that takes that money and gives it to terrorist groups that target u.s. military personnel and have killed them. and this will increase the likelihood of that, not decrease it. which is -- excuse me i have my time. which is exactly general dempsey's point. and the burden does fall on them. this is not about what's happening in syria right now, it's what's happening in iran and what iran intends to do throughout the middle east against the interests and the people of the united states of america. in 1938, england decided to go to munich and appease hitler. do you know what happened? we had world war ii. winston churchill wrote a book -- i did not give my time, mr. mcgovern i still have my time. he wrote a book called while

england slept. john f. kennedy wrote his senior thesis called why england slept. i can't imagine john f. kennedy agreeing to this agreement, knowing what we know from these non-partisan professionals who deal with the defense of our country. i was in the store the other day buying some groceries. a woman came up to me with tears in her eyes. because she was so worried about this, not because she was concerned about israel, she was concerned about herself. and i think it behooves us in this congress to understand that our main job here is to defend the american people. this deal based upon what we know from the non-partisan professionals that defend this country endangers the american people. and i will vote against it and i hope we will have a vigorous

debate on the floor about it. so we can make sure the people of america know what the truth is and so we can have a vote so everybody in america can know where we all stand as their representati representatives. and at the end of the day the american people can make a decision about whether we made the right decision. i have not given up my time. i have not given up my time. this deal was negotiated because somebody had a desire to get an agreement almost under any circumstance. because if you look at what general dempsey said, he said under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities. do you know what? under these circumstances, we did it. and why america would sleep in the middle of that, i don't understand. and i yield back, mr. chairman. >> i guess, you think you're in

the senate where you filibuster. yeah, i do, mr. chairman. one is to characterize this deal in those terms, i think, is irresponsible. to be honest with you. and i -- it goes to the motives of the people who have been working diligently to try to negotiate a deal to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon. i think it is in the interest of the united states of america to make sure iran does not get a nuclear weapon. this is our best opportunity to do so. the gentleman is against that, fine. for the gentleman to twist history is irresponsible. i get the administration a great deal of credit for coming up with an agreement. which has the support of major non-proliferation experts, national security experts, from colin powell, the way this has been characterized is like

nobody of any gravtas believes there is any disagreement on this is wrong. to go down that road to characterize it the way the gentleman is i don't think is appropriate. you know, he can vote against it and those of us who support it can vote for t. and we will have a vote on this. my point originally was that this congress is shirking its responsibility in a war that we involved with in iraq and syria right now. that this congress has just walked away from and totally turned its back on the american forces that are over there right now. and my constituents are wondering why is it we're putting more and more money and more american forces into iraq, a government that now is totally aligned with iran. maybe the gentleman, if he comes to massachusetts can answer that question. >> mr. chairman may i respond very briefly? >> one moment, please. does the gentleman seek further time or did you yield?

>> i yield. i believe in back and forth. >> well, you may believe in that. do you wish to entertain the gentleman? >> i do. i'm happy to yield to the gentleman. >> i have great respect for mr. mcgovern. he's a capable member of this house. i think this is the very heart of this matter. clear statements -- i think it would be irresponsible not to bring them up. yes, we need to have a vigorous debate. i'm not questioning people's motives. i'm questioning the rationale. and if we can't have a debate where we question the rationale of the single most important vote this congress has taken since we declared war on japan and germany, i think we would be shirking our responsibilities. i stand by my comments. i would be happy to come to the gentleman's district and i would be happy for you to come to my

district. i had 16 town halls in my district the last few weeks, i can guarantee you there wasn't a single person in any of my districts who was for this deal. you may talk about these great experts, but the people of america don't like this deal, nor should they h. thank you sir, i yield back. >> the gentleman from the state of washington, the gentleman, mr. newhouse is recognized. >> thank you chairman sessions, i appreciate that. i appreciate you having such patience for this important topic. chairman royce thank you for being with us. so much time given to this issue in iran. i've only been in the house for almost nine months now. i think i'll be able to say if i'm lucky enough to be here in another nine years, this is probably going to be the most important vote i take. all of us collectively will probably be able to say something similar. i read the agreement.

i went downstairs and availed myself and took the time to read what was in it. i've gone to israel to visit with people in that country to hear their concerns. their questions. things that i felt that i needed to understand. i've listened intently to chairman carey -- secretary carey, and secretary lew. i went into this process with as open a mind as possible because this is an important decision. it's not a republican versus a democrat decision. if it's a good deal, it's a good deal. if it's not, it's not. it shouldn't be just because we have a particular letter behind your name. i'm afraid it's turning into that. that's very, very unfortunate. but i have -- after all this process and very much enjoyed the conversation today, this has been very helpful. some of the new things have come out to me. and so that's been helpful to help solidify my decision.

i still have some grave concerns. and i wanted to ask you chairman royce, if you could help me get through some of these things. we've had, i think, a fairly long history, bipartisan history, of opposing a nuclear iran. the world has also been working hard to make sure that doesn't happen. and it seems to me that even if iran followed this agreement to a t, that within a very short time, within a decade, they would be on a path to having a nuclear weapon clearly with the blessing of the international community and the united states. it seems to me that gthis goes against what we've been trying to achieve. it goes against the stability of the region and the world. can you comment on that?

is that a correct assessment, chairman? >> i think that assessment is correct. mr. newhouse, i think that in ten plus years, between 10 and 15 years they are going to be on the threshold of having that capability. and that is if they do not cheat. if they cheat, it will be sooner. but it is the other consequences of this agreement, which are so concerning, because in releasing $100 billion or so into the hands of the government in iran, which actually controls the contracts, controls the iranian economy, controls the companies in iran which will be doing business with companies around the world, you give them the whe wherewi wherewithad to do something they have not been able to do. it is the largest terror network that we're dealing with on the planet. as we discussed previously, throughout the region, they have

big ambitions. when you talk about egypt, and you think about the fact that it was the iranian regime that was putting money into the hands of the muslim brotherhood or funding hamas. what do we think is going to happen when they have that kind of capability not just to transfer the resources but now they're talking about transferring weapons. i think it is going to be a huge challenge when you have the force and you have individuals like general suleimani out there in the region now with limitless resources virtually. what we're talking about is just the down payment with $100 billion. after that come the contracts. come the contracts that put the money further into the hands of the ayatollah and his allies in that regime. so every aspect of this, the

commitment to build ballistic missiles, when you have someone on the ropes, why give them the wherewithal to fund their ballistic missile program when you have the ayatollah on record saying it's every military man's responsibility to help mass produce icbm's? what do we think he means by that? unfortunately, i'll just conclude with this. for me, i believe he means this, when he says death to america, death to israel, i take him seriously. because in the past when people have talked like that, we've ignored their rhetoric at our peril. especially in cases with personalities that have already shown themselves willing to break international law and commit mayhem throughout the region. underwrite political assassinations, kill their own people, hold u.s. citizens as hostages. i take them at their word. therefore, i think it would

behoove us to defeat this deal and push for one that gives the iranian regime, you know, gives the international community a choice. either do business with the united states or you do business with iran, but you don't do both. so if you don't want to deal in the international market or in the international financial system with the united states, so be it. you're out. as i said, stewart levy over at treasury indicated to me, when he was there, that this ultimately is the way to force real compromise that you need in their nuclear program. so that's the conclusion i've reached. thanks. >> thank you mr. chairman. the -- i don't buy into the premise that it's this deal or a war that that's the only two options. i think there's a lot of things that are available to us. and we should exercise every one

of those options. not only the future -- in the shirt te short term, maybe this helps me. ten years to me, it isn't very long. a decade from now -- i'm from the rural area the horse will be out of the barn and you will not be ail to put it back in. i think every effort we can utilize or exercise to get a better deal -- and i think we can. we need to. so i appreciate the time that we're taking today. i hope -- and i believe we will be taking a lot of time in the coming days to debate and discuss this. we need to vet this very carefully. i hope every member of the body votes their conscious and listens intently and makes as good a decision as they possibly can. with that, mr. chairman i'll

yield back. >> i want to thank you for taking the time to be here today and for your intention to detail and the things which you've done. i want to point out two staff members you have. they came by to brief me this morning. we spent about an hour. i found them most instructive to talk with me about the issues surrounding this entire matter to where we got closer folks. we will do our very best to get you on the floor here very quickly. with enough time for not only you, but the other relevant committees that would choose to speak about the various parts of this. i want to thank you for your leadership on behalf of your party and also this conference. >> thank you chairman sessions i want to thank the other members of the committee. >> i want to thank you mr. royce, and thank you for your staying power.

>> rachel oswald joins us from capitol hill reporting on the iran nuclear agreement. what can we expect as that debate it's underway in the senate? rachel: it's not clear that all senators will listen to this request for the august recess. said he only wanted them in their seats for the beginning of the debate. this is something that almost never happens, where you have

all 100 voters at their desks. can'tt think of -- i think of any reporter that knows that has happened in recent memory. thatur article in cq says senate democrats are on the verge of a blocking the iran vote, a final filibuster on that resolution. what are you hearing on a democratic lance? --democratic plans? rachel: it's not clear whether there is enough support. at least three senators supported the deal. senator wyden told me this evening that they are undecided on the issue. minority leader harry reid and minority leader durban will be looking on the subject. those three senators and all the

supported the deal will be facing a lot of pressure from a party leadership to support a filibuster. the argument they will be getting, you support the nuclear deal, you should filibuster -- if you support the nuclear deal, you should filibuster. for congress to disapprove of the deal, it was sent a confusing message about the long-term viability of the iran deal. >> let's go to the house for the committee taking up the resolution. what do we know of the schedule? hel: no amendments will be offered. it looks like there will be 11 hours of floor debate, with the debate divided among several committees of jurisdiction, which include financial services and foreign affairs. >> among the first words we

heard among the agreement. peter ruslan from illinois bringing up a privileged resolution on the house floor and talking about that earlier tuesday. what is his point? thatl: he is arguing act-- until congress has received all indexes to the iran accord. the international atomic agency energy and iran reached two separate site arrangements resolving long-standing issues in iran's suspected weapons research. that the house says iran deal began on july 19, when it transmitted all of the indexes and deals to congress, which means the deadline will be sucked ever 70. -- will be september 17.

i don't think his effort is going to gain much traction. i asked senate for relations chairman bob corker about the relations just a couple minutes ago and what he thought of it. he was the author of the iran review act. he thought the best way for lawmakers to register disapproval of not getting the iaea agreement would be to vote down the iran deal and not to raise these other issues. it sounds like he is considered it an issue. i don't see it at this point having legs, but you never know. >> as congress comes back from the lover recess, the white house wasting of time at issuing opposition to the resolution of disapproval. what can we expect in terms of library on -- in terms of lobbying on capitol hill and elsewhere?

rachel: so far we have not heard of any last-minute plans. that could still happen. kinds of things tend to be announced last-minute. i wouldn't be surprised if it happens because of how close the filibuster is looking. this is an issue that the obama administration has learned many resources as it can. >> rachel oswald, national security reporter with cq rollcall. thanks for the update. rachel: thank you.

>> each get two hours on the floor, and the house foreign affairs committee gets 3 hours. a vote on the resolution expected friday. coming up on c-span, we continue our programs looking at the iranian nuclear agreement. first, senate minority leader harry reid on the importance of the iran nuclear deal. after that, senator john mccain on why he opposes it. and later, remarks by former vice president dick cheney on what he describes as "the fail ures" of the agreement. >> on the next washington journal, senator ron johnson of wisconsin, chairman of the only security and governmental affairs committee on the iran nuclear deal. and a look at the iran nuclear deal disapproval resolution with david price of north carolina. magazinespotlight on faces the federalist over gay

marriage and the rule of law. washington journal is life 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. you can join a conversation with your calls and comments on facebook and twitter. former secretary of state hillary clinton gives a speech about the iran nuclear deal and the implications for u.s. foreign policy and national security. we have it live wednesday at the brookings institution starting at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span two. >> he was a nazi, he was a concentration camp commandant, and responsible for the murder of thousands of jews. >> this sunday night, on q&a, jennifer teege on her life altering discovery that the relative was a concentration

camp commandant. >> would see a tremendously wasl person, a person -- he capable -- he had dogs, he had two dogs and he trained them to tear humans apart. there was a pleasure that he when he killed people. this is something that when you are normal, if you don't have this aspect of your personality, it is very difficult to grasp. >> something night at 8:00 a.m. eastern and pacific on sunday -- on c-span's q&a. >> the number of democratic senators backing the president on the iran nuclear agreement increased to 42 tuesday, with announcements -.

senate minority leader harry reid spoke about the iran nuclear agreement at the carnegie endowment for international peace tuesday. his remarks are 35 minutes. >> it is my pleasure to welcome you all back from the end of summer, lamentably, and the beginning of your work here in washington. we have a great occasion which we are honored to present to you, that is an address by senate minority leader harry reid. reed, weuce senator have a dear friend and former colleague of his, congressman

howard berman, who is also a friend of ours. had the pleasure and honor of working together on a number of issues when he was chairman affairs committee. he is still very active in international affairs. now let me introduce senator reid. >> just before i introduce the speaker, i want to let our hosts carnegie really how incredibly valuable your work has been to me during the 40 years i was on the foreign house committee. issues like nonproliferation, arms control, u.s. soviet and russian relations. some any other issues.

testimony,ngs, your our conversations, really helped shape my own outlook on a lot of key foreign policy issues. iou a lot. -- i owe you a lot. a special shout out to the brief people running the moscow center. when i brought neighbors of congress with me, never went to russia without stopping there to get analysis on those issues. in any event, i am very honored to be asked to introduce your speaker, who has been my friend for 33 years. senate democratic leader harry reid. we have worked together since he and i came to the house in 1983, we sat next to each other for four years on the house foreign affairs committee before he was elected to the senate in 1986. as you know, the senators serve

as majority leader from 2007- 2014. he remains the democratic leader during this, his last term in congress. appreciate ist the skill that goes into garnering the mantle of leader and majority leader in the u.s. senate and holding onto it. senator reid's commitment to a progressive agenda, his knowledge of the issues, and the parliamentary rules -- his attention to detail and his ability to handle the outsized personalities of his colleagues are legendary. he fights tenaciously for that which he believes, and he produces the deft compromise when that is the only sensible course. relevant to the discussion this morning, senator reid, during

all of his years, and to this day, has given very special attention and focus to the u.s.-israel relationship, fighting as strongly as anyone in the congress for the survival and security of the state of israel. he, like i, believe that support for the joint company hence of plan of action is not only in america is a security interest, but it is in israel's security interest as well. what is not well-known is that the critical strategic work reidthen-majority leader played from 2009-2012 in ensuring that biting, far-reaching sanctions were enacted, and were done so in a way of that maximized president obama's ability to put together a far-reaching international coalition in support of

sanctions. he wasn't the author of these sanctions bill. his name doesn't appear in the newspapers or discussions about him. but he was seized with a critical importance of preventing iran from having a nuclear weapons capability.

>> as some of you may know, january 1. as senator mikulski said in the first meeting when i came back to the caucus, i've said it all my life, exercise will kill you. here is the deal. i can't see out of my right eye, but it does let light in. so i got some new glasses and we are going to try for the first time, i got a new pair of glass, we'll see how it works. the light here seems to be just about right. if i have to go back to my dark glasses you'll know why.

so, howard, thank you very much. we are friends, we always will be friends. we bonded as freshmen in a very large class that tip o'neill had to deal with way back in 1982. he's a superb legislator, he was noted as great legislator in the california legislature, but back here when history books arity -- when history books are written during these three decades he served, howard berman will be part of that conversation. i'm so grateful he came from california to introduce me. there's no one i would rather introduce me than my friend, howard berman. i sold -- i also want to thank the carnegie endowment and your president, burns, he has a remarkable career and record and i'm grateful that he is somebody

that i speak to and somebody that i like a great deal. he is, most of the time out of the public eye, i understand that. he's known around this city and around the world as someone that has worked really hard to keep the world safe from a nuclear armed iran. so thank you, bill, even though you aren't here. george, thank you for filling so ably in. when the senate is gaveled into session in just a few hours, a debate has ignited passion from tehran to tel aviv, from beijing to berlin and from coast to coast across our great country will take center stage in the world's greatest deliberative body. the question at hand is no small matter. is the agreement between iran and the international community led by the united states the best pathway to peace and

security for america, israel, our partners, and interests? i believe the answer is unquestionably yes. today i'm gratified to say to my fellow americans, our negotiating partners and allies all around the world, this agreement will stand, america will uphold its commitment and will seize this opportunity to stop iran from getting a nuclear weapon. while at the formal debate begins this afternoon, the private negotiations that brought us to this point have been going on for years. and the public's review of the agreement has been going on for months. and during that long period president obama and secretary kerry were clear in their goals. above all, the united states will not allow iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. the united states also would not sign any agreement that takes iran at its word or relies on trust iran has not earned.

at the most difficult crossroads of this time, concerning a technical negotiation, president obama and secretary kerry made clear that the hard choices belonged not to us, but to iran. now it is our turn. now the united states has a choice to make. we can enforce an agreement that forces iran to walk away from any nuclear weapons program, or walk away from that agreement. and assume responsibility for the consequences. we can take the strongest effort ever toward blocking iran from getting a nuclear weapon, or block the agreement. and ensure iran will have a fissile material it needs to make a bomb. in a matter of months they will be able to do that. but, we cannot have it both ways. make no mistake. blocking the bomb and blocking

the agreement are two distinct choices that lead to very different futures. i spent a lot of time talking, listening, thinking about the various elements of this agreement, so have my colleagues. i have heard from nuclear scientists, intelligence community, military leaders. i have listened to diplomats and experts. i have been briefed by secretary kerry and undersecretary sherman, by secretary moniz and secretary who -- secretary lou. who knows almost as anyone else the science behind the agreement and agreement itself. i heard from ardent supporters and passionate opponents. i talked with nevadans from all walks of life. i spoke with israel's leaders. prime minister netanyahu, ambassador dermer, and i have read the text of this long agreement and i have read it very carefully. and in my years i cannot think of another debate with so much expertise, passions, and good

faith on both sides. it's clear to me and to the overwhelming majority of my caucus that this agreement gives us the best chance to get rid of one of the worst threats in this world, a nuclear armed iran. in fact, i believe the agreement is not just our best chance to divert what we fear most, i fear it's our last best chance to do so. before i explain why, let me first acknowledge some of the people who helped us get to this historic moment. i mentioned president obama and his cabinet secretaries which achieved a remarkable diplomatic breakthrough. i also want to acknowledge my colleagues led by senator bob menendez who helped set the stage for those negotiations by rallying the senate and the world behind sanctions that brought iran to the negotiating table. i also acknowledge senators cardin and corker for their leadership.

they did a great job. the legislation they wrote created the process to review the agreement in congress. i support this agreement and the united states senate will support president obama for two simple reasons. number one, pp this agreement -- this agreement will do a tremendous amount of good. and number two, blocking this agreement would lead to a tremendous amount of bad outcomes. the bottom line then is this, enforcing this agreement will prevent the thugs -- the things we must dread. i'm sorry. [laughter] freudian slip. thugs, i'm sure of that. but undermining it would prevent these very same dreadful consequences. those consequences are, in fact, totally unacceptable.

we all recognize the threat iran poses to israel. powerful weapons, hateful words, anti-semitic smears, and pledges of jewish state's destruction. no one can underestimate this menace and no one should dismiss how much more dangerous iran would be in this regard if it were to have nuclear bomb. we also recognize the threat of iran revolutionary guard corps, the threat from iran's support for hezbollah, assad. iran's brazen and my little teleprompter friend is slow there. of iran's brazen human rights violations to its own people and americans it holds political prisoners, and those who disappeared. we recognize the danger that iran poses to our allies, our interests, and our own troops. and of course diplomats serving

around the world are a peril every day of their lives in the middle east, certainly. no one is blind to the threat iran poses. again, no one should forget that iran would become a threat of an entirely different magnitude if it were to ever have a nuclear weapon. i can't think a single challenge in the region that wouldn't get worse in that nightmare scenario. that's why our goal first and foremost, must be to keep iran from getting its hands on one of those nuclear weapons. or building one. we have no allusions about the iranian regime which is exactly why when we are presented with the best way to stop its nuclear ambitions, we must not let that chance slip through our fingers. we support and enforce the agreement we have reached. the agreement with congress now

assumes responsibility to review does a better job than any other proposal of reducing iran's chance to get a bomb. when our negotiators came to the table, they did so with andrew carnegie's advice in mind. the man who in 1910 gave his name and fortune to this institution once said, and i quote, our duty is with what is now practicable now, with the next step possible in our day and generation. in our day we know it's not practical to bomb away knowledge of how to build a nuclear weapon. or erase the knowledge with sanctions. so our negotiators said even though we cannot take away the way to build a bomb, we can take away the ingredients and use of equipment to cook one. that's what we are doing. not only if the united states upholds -- only if the united states upholds and enforces its agreement. the good news is this agreement does more than take away iran's ability to build a bomb. it gives us the ability to catch

-- the ability to watch every move through strict limits and intrusive inspections, the agreement takes away iran's material and iran's ability to make more of it. this agreement takes away iran's ability to build any facilities or fissile materials secretly and with impunity. the agreement iran signed prohibits from pursuing, building, or having a nuclear weapon ever. there is no expiration date on that commitment. it's not grounded in trust. this is isn't a peace treaty out of the goodness of our hearts. if we trusted iran we wouldn't need the video cameras and inspectors and all manner of technology to make sure iran supply complies. we are not asking iran to promise anything and taking it at its word. we are demanding prove to us it is complying with every last letter of this agreement. before it gets sanctions relief, iran has to take specific actions.

if it doesn't happen as some fear sanctions will be imposed on iran. we have done everything possible to make sure that if iran cheats we'll know quickly and we'll act immediately and with the international community behind us. that makes us safer. that makes israel safer. that makes the world safer. that's what nuclear experts around the world know, what diplomats know, and the overwhelming majority of my caucus knows. that's why this agreement will stand. and to make sure this agreement succeeds, congress must provide the oversight to ensure monitoring and enforce verification. at the same time, congress must continue to hold the line against iran and arms tracking, funding against terrorism, and demanding a return of americans who have been taken prisoners and those who have disappeared. parties that were never meant to be part of this negotiation must

never, ever be forgotten. this agreement offers a number of different ways to cut off iran's path to a bomb. there is on the other hand one sure-fire way to open iran's path to destruction and that is to reject this agreement. as i mentioned, the second reason i support this agreement is because of what happens if we walk away from ed. that would leave iran with no limitation on nuclear weapons program in the united states, with no leverage to do anything about it. if we walk away from the agreement we helped secure, think about what happens the very next day. iran gets to keep as many centrifuges as it wants and build as many more as it would like. iran gets to build its stockpile, the kind of uranium and plutonium you need to build a bomb. iran gets to test more advanced technologies, bring it closer to a bomb.

to do so as quickly as it wants. when those weapons are ready, iran gets to point them at israel or worse, on its threat to wipe israel off the map. iran also gets to kick out the inspectors and hide all this from the world. forget worries about 15 years or 20 years from now. all of this would happen tomorrow. if we walk away from this agreement, the international sanctions regime will fall apart, meeting the congress impose to bring iran to the table disappears from our arsenal. sanctions don't work if it's our ideal law. the world has to be on the same page. here's why. america doesn't do business with iran. we haven't for decades. but other countries made their own economic sacrifices in the name of pressuring iran and now they want to buy iran's oil and trade with it. so as much as we like for sanctions that brought iran to the table to also bring iran to its knees, it's only with international cooperation that

sanctions actually work. like it or not, we need our partners in this effort. and our partners have told us in no uncertain terms that the united states walks away or walk away alone. sanctions have isolated iran and brought us to this moment, but if we squander it and turn our backs on international partners, it is we, the united states, who will be isolated. we will surrender our leverage in the future. put it all together, what does it mean if america blocks this agreement instead of iran's pathway to a bomb? it means iran gets more money and more impunity to develop a nuclear weapon. it means we get far less scrutiny and far less secure. it means we'll have to put ourselves at a disadvantage at the very moment we let iran become more dangerous.

of course we still have a , military option. president obama has made crystal clear that's a fact. but military strikes cannot solve this problem nearly as effectively as the solution before us today. clearly a military option could also come with significant costs and risks for both israel and the united states. after all, that's why diplomacy is our first resort and military option our last resort. that's why i believe blocking the away would actually achieve -- blocking the agreement would actually achieve the opposite of what opponents intend. instead of being tougher on iran, voting yes on the agreement is voting on a smart international sanctions regime against inspections, against international requirement that iran backs the nuclear weapon in any -- backs off the program in any way. blocking this agreement pushes iran closer to a bomb than farther away. that's a fact.

general scowcroft, national security expertise who served four republican presidents, said we would be sowing further turmoil in the middle east rather than seizing a chance and , responsibility to stabilize it. that would be a tragedy of our own making. one we cannot allow. i respect greatly the concerns i have heard about what this agreement means for israel. i believe this agreement makes israel safer and in no small part that's why i support it. over my decades in the senate, my support for the safety and security of the israeli people has been at the corps of my views on the middle east. national security of the united states. from dinners i attended 50 years ago with my girlfriend to the history of my own wife's family,

my support for the state of israel and the jewish people has been personal and unimpeachable, and i have not been afraid to disagree with the president of the united states when it comes to israel. when the administration opposes congress passing specific sanctions. nor on semblance. we must build on our firm commitment to make sure israel can defend itself, take more money, more military support, but we must provide the one true democracy in the region and one and only jewish state in the whole world with resources it needs. the united states must also maintain staunch support of israel. including a veto in the united nations for a resolution that isolate israel and make it less secure. i read closely the letter that secretary kerry sent to the senate in early september.

that letter leaves out a number of important steps that the united states would take for israel's security. one of those steps is take israel's military edge. another is negotiating a nuclear iran understanding on military systems. and another step is continuing to work with israel on joint efforts to deal with shared threats as well as confronting , conventional and asymmetric threats. also closely reviewed, which is why additional security systems and assurances to israel. after looking at the letter and the legislation, i plan to work with the white house and with both democrats and republicans to guarantee that the united states is doing everything possible to protect the safety and security of israel. the administration's promise, we'll continue funding the missile defense that has already saved so many israeli civilian lives. to destroy the tunnels that have

been used to terrorize israeli citizens. now, after all good this agreement will do in blocking iran's pathway to a bomb. after all the dangers by letting iran go more dangerous. after all the assurance that is our commitment to israel's security is stronger than ever, after all that, some will say they want a better deal. but there is no such thing as a better deal. there is no plausible alternative. there is no better deal. opponents of this agreement talk often about how very real the iranian threat is to israel and the region. it absolutely is. but for all the talk about what is real, the idea that we can somehow get a better deal is imaginary. diplomats, science, counterparts

tell us it's fantasy. the agreement before us is a result of many years of hard work. we live in the real world and in the real world this really is the best option to keep iran from a nuclear bomb. let me say a little about the details getting this done. the senate has an important oversight. we voted to give the senate that role. we voted to consider three positive outcomes. no action at all. a resolution of approval. or resolution of disapproval. it's absurd to argue as some are doing now that by voting for process with three possible and very different outcomes, the senate somehow obligated themselves to vote to advance a specific outcome. we did no such thing. i hope we request avoid the usual and unnecessary procedural hurdles.

i have offered senator mcconnell the chance to go straight to a vote on passage of the resolution, but of course as he's done many times in the past, everything of importance in the senate requires 60 votes. so passage will require 60 votes. there is no precedent in recent history for an issue of this magnitude giving consideration of the senate without having to secure 60 votes. this is not about how one is flawed. this is precedent dating back for decades now. finally, what are the many important things at stake here? american leadership is one of them. after convening our international partners in a common calls, rallying the world behind tough sanctions after negotiating, negotiating, and negotiating some more, the way america acts now will inform the way we are viewed on the world stage and the credibility with which we can negotiate in the future. if america reneges on this

agreement, we'll lose more than the compliance adversary. we can lose the confidence of our allies. america led the negotiations to stop the iranian nuclear program. now it's time for congress to reaffirm america's leadership by supporting this agreement. we cannot and will not allow iran to have a nuclear weapon. neither the united states, israel, or volatile middle east or anyone in the world can take that risk, that danger. i believe it's our responsibility to avoid that threat. so let's heed andrew carnegie's remind every of our duty to respect what is practical and respond with pragmatic solutions. solutions like the one before us. as he said, when a statesman has in his keeping the position and interest of his country, it is not with things as they are to be in the future, but with things as they are in the present, right now, close quote.

the agreement on the table at present is a good one. it is our best chance to ensure iran never builds the worst weapon on earth. i'll do informing my power to -- i will do everything in my power to make sure it is enforced and effective. to make sure we are safer and more secure in our day and generation and days and generations to come. thanks, everybody. [applause] we have to get better glasses here. george: don't worry about those glasses. these work well. you have time for brief conversation? senator reid: yeah. thanks. george: that was a very powerful

, brief for the agreement and description of the process. if you now look out over the next few days, do you have a sense that ultimately it's going to work out in terms of when the congress has its say that the deal must be blocked at least at this point? senator reid: as i said in my remarks, it's clear that the senate's going to reject this agreement. there are a few dissenting votes. we'll find out how many we have. four senators have not made a public decision. may have already done it. so we expect development very soon where everybody stands. we as everyone knows, we have votes to make sure that the president's veto, if necessary, will not be overridden. george: you alluded to this but i want to draw it out a little bit.

i think a lot of us who worked on this have been puzzled about what the theory is that if the congress were to block this deal, what positive effects over time would come from that. you suggested that the arguments -- you deal with a lot of your colleagues. do they articulate why blocking it would lead to some kind of better outcome? or is it just an assertion they don't argue? senator reid: your question is, is blocking -- george: do people who want to block -- senator reid: this is a resolution of disapproval. so -- we will block that. george: right. but the argument of and the whole process is basically for those who want to block the agreement going forward. the jpcoa.

so -- senator reid: as i said. we have three choices, do nothing, to approve it, or to disapprove it. those are the choices. i think those of us who believe that we should not approve this proposal is one that recognizes that as -- if we do, as i said in my remarks, we are alone. in the world community, we are alone. sanction also no longer be effective. we'll be able to have some sanctions, but we learned a long time ago that going it alone doesn't work. that is why we made some , sacrifices in blocking this agreement, economically, but other countries made significant sacrifices also. as i indicated here, they want to begin trade relations with iran. it's a country of 50 million people. there is potential there. and that doesn't take away from

the fact we got a lot of work to do. this agreement that we have, the opportunity to affirm, does nothing but stop iran from getting a nuclear weapon. that's the purpose of it. it doesn't stop other things. we will continue to assert our influence and power to make sure that their meddling in other places will be at a relative minimal. but we and our allies agree on that. what our allies don't agree on is the fact that if we reject this agreement, they are out the door. think about this. china, russia. they are with us on this. i think that we should quit while we are way ahead. george: there is a theory, this has to do in leverage, there is a theory some way which is, ok, even if the rest of the world starts doing trade with iran, because the u.s. economy is so important, we have national

sanctions that can block other companies from other countries from doing financing through the u.s. with that leverage that's the is the u.s.'alone, we can somehow impose our will on others to go -- i guess my question is -- senator reid: we tried that. we tried that. didn't work. why do you think it was important that we got -- had the countries involved in the negotiations, we needed them. otherwise it's meaningless to us. a lot of this money's held up in banks. not all our banks. other banks around the world. and we try that alone, i repeat, it didn't work. it helped a little bit, but certainly didn't bring them to their knees. it they didn't even bend at the waist. george: we have to cut it off now. i'm seeing you have to get back to do the urgent business we were alluding to here as things are happening.

so we are very grateful. senator reid: i appreciate very much i don't have to answer questions about the pope coming. i don't have to answer questions about the budget deal, highways, about cybersecurity. i'm glad to leave also. thank you very much. [laughter] [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015\] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org\] >> the house takes a he iran nuclear disapproval wednesday. after that, members begin 11 hours of a general debate divided between five committees. financial services, ways and means, oversight, and government reform and judiciary. each gets two hours on the floor and the house foreign affairs committee gets three hours. a vote on the resolution is expected on friday.

on the next "washington journal" governmental affairs committee on the iran nuclear deal. that is with ron johnson. then, a look at the iran nuclear deal resolution with david price. then, we had the debate over gay marriage. "washington journal" is live every morning on c-span. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. >> presidential candidate senator ted cruz and donald trump are among the speakers on wednesday at a tea party rally against the nuclear agreement. we have live coverage at capitol hill starting at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 3. >> he was a nazi.

he was a concentration camp commandant and was responsible for the murder of thousands of jews. >> this sunday night, jennifer teege on her life altering discovery that her grandfather was the nazi commandant. >> he was a tremendously cruel person. a person that -- i mean, he was capable. he trained his two dogs to tear humans apart. this sums it up very well. there was a pleasure that he felt when he killed people. this is something that, when you

are normal, and you don't have this aspect in your personality, it is difficult to grasp. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a." >> john mccain spoke about his opposition to the iran nuclear agreement at the brookings institution. he spoke about the politics of the deal and acknowledge that the president had enough votes to sustain a be deal of a disapproval resolution and the senate. this is one hour and 15 minutes will sto. >> ladies and gentlemen, welcome to brookings. this is our second brookings debate. my name is bruce jones. it is my honor to welcome all of you here in the room, and online. thank you for coming in and spending the evening with us. a convening debate has long been

a essential part at brookings. we are approaching our 100th year. we are innovating and finding new ways for generating debate and serious conversation among policy experts and decision-makers. tonight, we are can -- we are continuing this new series. it combines serious policy debate and alcohol. that is not a bad way to go. you'll also generate serious conversation on some of the most important issues on the day. the issue at hand is perhaps the biggest foreign-policy question at the moment. whether or not we should move forward with the iran nuclear deal and what happens beyond. congress will be voting on this issue as early as this week. this is an issue that will continue to occupy foreign policy for a long time to come. we want to hear what you have to think, both in the room and online.

if you have not already voted on our poll, please do so now. there are instructions on the screen and on the handout. we have opportunities to listen to discussion and debate among some of the biggest thinkers on foreign policy in washington. i am particularly delighted to welcome senator john mccain back to brookings. when you were here sometime back and spoke about syria i wrote at the time that i thought your statement was bound to become the rallying point for conservative opposition to the policy. i was wrong. it was without question, the most clearly articulated position on the policy on syria. i appreciate your willingness to engage with us here and offer your view. imd lighted to welcome the rest of my colleagues at brookings to the stage. on both sides of the debate. without further i do, i will get off the stage and handed over to a professional.

that is major garrett who will monitor the debate. he was named to be cbs'chief like -- chief white house correspondent. you have all seen him on tv. while covering the white house for cbs, he is traveled extensively with the president to the middle east and asia. he is reported on presidential actions to confront isis and ebola. he is well qualified to lead the to brett -- lead the debate today. thank you for joining us. [applause] major garrett: welcome to everyone who is here. it is great to be invited to participate in this important debate. we will get to some of the news that was made today. in addition to what happened in

the senate with the announcement of support for the deal. the white house issued a veto threat for the motion disapproval. we'll get into all of that. but before, as bruce suggested, what we want to do here is capture the thoughts in the room and online, and in the overflow room, about what you think about the iran deal now, before you have a chance to hear the panelists. and, we want to know what to think after you have heard the panelists. there is a process and i will walk you through that. we've a predebate poll that will close in five minutes. if you want to participate and let us know what you are thinking about the merits of the deal, whether you are in favor or not, here is what you do. you text the word "brookings" to 22333. if you are in favor of the deal,, text 1.

if you think congress should disapprove the deal, text 2. if you are undecided, text 3. we added that element to great a space for those who are undecided, as many are. that way, we can find out after you have heard the presenters of any minds have been changed. that is true here of the room and for those of you who are choosing to vote on mine. the voting information is on your screen and the streaming video you are watching. we encourage of course, because this is a twitter happy nation and city, to engage on twitter. the #is #brookingsdebate. i am told this will be a very structured and fast-moving debate. that is my obligation. it is oxford-style. i don't know what that means because i have never been to oxford. [laughter]

it sounds great, don't you think? oxford-style debate. five minutes from the presenters. then, i will conduct an question those after they make their presentations. and then, closings of two minutes. those are timed precisely. there will be lights and if the lights tell me, i will jump in. not literally, but i will encourage those who are speaking to wrap it up. then, we will have, as i suggested earlier, a second vote on what you think on what you have heard and the underlying merits of the iran deal. i don't need to explain the iran deal to those here in the room for those watching online, or in the overflow room. a couple things happen today. the senate and the white house secured 41 votes. the motion is now subject to a

successful filibuster, if that is in fact, what the democrats have decided to do. the white house encouraged them to do that today. the foreign relations committee said it is on -- it is implied. the democratic senator of virginia. the republican said, why would you filibuster something if you supported. why not have a vote. that is part of the debate. this usually, it is an umbrella over the underlying merit to the deal. you will get into that. as i mentioned, the white house issued its veto threat with a lengthy list of objections to the motion of disapproval. we will get into that as well. you have about 30 seconds more in the predebate poll, if you want to register your opinion. one last thing i will say before i invite the panelists appear is i have been covering the obama white house for the better part of six years. if there is one brief that the president has carried throughout his presidency, one thing he has

constantly monitored, and deeply involved himself in the underlying details of, it has been first, the method to obtain a nuclear deal with iran, its underlying specifics, the verification regime. he believes he knows this issue cold and therefore, describes his support for it and his curiosity regarding opposition to it in very stark ways. it is sometimes left republicans a bit annoyed. that is the political reality. the president does believe he has achieved the best deal imaginable. will now get into the merits of what the deal is, and what it is not, and what the future holds. the predebate survey polls are c losed. i will invite all four panelists up to the stage and will begin. here we go.

everyone has taken their seats, just so you know. john mccain. will argue for disapproval of the iran deal. maloney will argue in favor of its approval. we will begin the conversation of the debate with suzanne maloney. she is the deputy director of foreign policy at brookings and a senior fellow in the center for middle east policy. suzanne, the podium is yours. suzanne maloney: thank you and

good evening. i am honored to be here, sharing the stage with senator mccain and my distinguished brookings colleagues. on this night, on this issue, i am eager to lead the discussion. unless i am convinced congress has an obligation to vote to approve thing recently concluded nuclear deal between iran, the united states, and five other powers. it is not just a strategic one, but a moral one. first, by any messer -- by any measure, this is a good arms-control deal. that means the deal extends the breakout timeline. the time it will take the rent to rush toward a bomb without a deal from a matter of weeks to at least a year, or at least a decade. it includes strict limits on research and development for one

decade. it blocks the plutonium pathway to weapons capability for the foreseeable future. it institutes advanced verification and monitoring for the full range of nuclear related activities, from mining, to manufacturing, and beyond. until and unless it fulfills its major, potentially irreversible actions, to curb its own nuclear program. that is plenty else to like about the deal. its level of detail. even his planning for failure through clever procedures for snapping back united nations sanctions. even if you don't like the deal, consider the alternative. there are no renegotiations. if somehow, congress manages to kill the joint comprehensive plan of action, we go back to the bargaining table alone. our partners at the negotiating table, the powerful states of russia, china, and the european three, have made it clear.

many in congress will not be satisfied with the deal and many in the country will not be satisfied, but the rest of the world have indicated that they are. there is no scenario in which sanctions will be strengthened. examine the track record of the past 36 years in which we failed repeatedly, even after horrific provocations to generate sufficient political will among even our closest allies or our adversaries to adhere to any sanctions at all on iran. washington can try to up the ante. given the reach and weight of the u.s. system, we might even see compliance for a little while. ultimately, however, without the coalition we will fail. there will be a small cost to the american economy. russia and china have their own experience with sanctions as targets of u.s. economic pressure. the rest of the national community seized of interest in

perpetual economic pressure on iran. there is no military solution. we cannot bomb away their nuclear infrastructure and know-how. even the most ambitious scenarios would at best, said back their program by one year, or two, or three. it would no doubt, incite a much more determined effort by iran to require nuclear efforts capabilities. there is no reaching change. i have spent time in tehran and nobody has illusions about -- nobody has bigger worries than i do. if you do not believe that, there are a few bridges to sell you. the realistic alternative to the deal is not a better deal. it is also not war, as the administration has argued sometimes. it is simply, a much less

attractive deal. the last time america turned its back on the possibility of resolving the nuclear issue, wee lost the chance to curtail their nuclear progress. third, let me get to the heart of what i believe motivates some of the opposition. many of the criticisms of the deal are not about the terms, or even about the alternative, but simply because critics up or the fact of striking a deal. the outrage that iran will be let out of the international penalty box without conclusively terminating its entire nuclear program, or any of the other offenses that have attributed to their pariah status. i understand that and sympathize with it. we tried maximalist some on iran. it got us nowhere. it forced iran to capitulate on their nuclear program. our partners signed on to an

agreement process. it was restricted by the bush administration as the paramount concern about iran foreign policy. this was the only viable construct for the talks. all of the countries we have been negotiating with have had very different approaches to the other concerns we have with iranian policy. the only party that fought to broaden the talks with iran have been is as certain -- have been as efforts to stop their nuclear efforts. the nuclear deal is not the sum total of the was policy with tehran. we cannot renegotiate the deal, but we construct a better iran policy. one that does begin to curtail their alignment influence -- their malignant influence. >> it is time to wrap it up. susan maloney: washington can

continue to lead the broadest and most effective coalition in implementing an agreement that sets back to run'-- tehran's proximity to nuclear capabilities for at least a decade. reconstruct back on our own -- or we can strike back on our own and alienate ourselves. major garrett: thank you very much. senator john mccain? john mccain: i would like to thank all of you for coming. when i come back to brookings lay always mention it is always wonderful to see old friends and enemies. [laughter] those in the overflow room, i have noticed there is quite a bit of alcohol back there. thank you, it is great to be back. i had some prepared remarks, but i think maybe, i just will

mention the scenario in which we are considering. the debate will start tomorrow after noon. first of all, as major garrett just pointed out, the president probably has enough votes to sustain a veto. i am sure that that is a great triumph for those who greatly favor this agreement. it would also like to point out, that i am a student of history. it is the first time in history that an agreement will be voted on on a strict partyline basis. a strict partyline basis. not a single republican senator will be voting in favor of this agreement. you can draw your own conclusions as to what the rim of that are. they are not good. either somebody failed and outreach, or somebody failed

somewhere to at least, obtain a degree of bipartisanship. that has characterized every other treaty an agreement throughout history. including the one that i remember that was so controversial. at least there were some republicans that voted for that. i think also, we are talking about iran here, as if it were on another planet somewhere. and that we were just discussing the virtues, or the downsides of this agreement. i don't know how you do that. i don't know how you do that. they are in control in four countries at least. in yemen, syria, iraq, they have been giving weapons to the taliban in afghanistan. they are still the world single most important sponsor of

terrorism. they tried to assassinate the saudi ambassador here in washington dc. they are on the move, my friends. they are on the march. they are not relenting, nor has there been any indication whatsoever about a change in their behavior. they are now going to get $100 billion, whatever it is. is there any belief whatsoever, please raise your hand if you think they are not going to use a hell of a lot of a lot of that money to pursue their hegemonic ambitions in the region? we are handing them tens of billions of dollars that they can now freely support terrorism , extent their influence in lebanon, to continue in yemen. whatever activities that they want to continue. motivated by their of course,

who takes selfies outside of baghdad as he leads the shiite militias and there attends to regain control of iraq for uranium purposes. and by the way, also the individual who is responsible for the deaths of at least 500, count them, 500 soldiers and marines deaths. so many will have a blank check right now to continue his activities. the world is in chaos, my friends. we are seeing something we have not seen since the end of world war ii. anyone who disagrees with that, of course not. why did this happen? it is because of the pale

policies of this president and administration. the guy he would not speak up as president, who would not speak up in 2009 when iranians were demonstrating in the streets of tehran. a young woman led to death. they were chanting, argue with us, or are you with them? not a word was spoken on their behalf. now we see the middle east is in chaos. we are going to treat his agreement as if it took place in some more sterile and less interesting environment. let me just say, i have seen some bad deals in my time. i take particular exception to the president telling the american people there are only two options. war or this agreement. i can tell you we have a range of options. i always present them.

june 29, 2015. i think there are other options besides going to war. john richardson, the obama nominee. i am upset about, this intellectual dishonesty here, that we only have two choices. there are many others and that is according to our military leadership. my friends, this is a seminal moment in we need to engage and discuss this entire situation in the middle east. not just this, but the deteriorating chaos that is developing in the entirety of the middle east. we need to have that conversation with the american people. thank you. major garrett: thank you, senator mccain. we now turn to bruce riddell. you can have the table or the podium, as you prefer, bruce.

bruce: i have a broken toe. it will be easier to sit here. i want to say what did honor it is to be here with you, senator. it is an honor to be here with an american hero. particularly one who has had encouraged to speak out against torture. i only wish more of my colleagues have spoke out and follow his path. we have a big agenda here. suzanne set the stage. first of all, is there a better deal available? i don't think there is. i think it is built into the inherent structure in these negotiations. it is not a six party agreement with iran. it is an eight party agreement with iran. the european union and the un security council. all of those other parties have already announced that intend to implement this resolution, no matter what congress does. they have indicated they are not going back to the negotiating

table. if you think there is another alternative where we go back to negotiations, there is not. is that a good thing? mabye not. it was demonstrated last friday when the king of saudi arabia came here and despite everyone knowing he does not really like this deal, he moved on. it is time to accept the fact that it is here and he reluctantly, and somewhat solemnly, endorsed it. add this to my second point about the regional reaction. the region has already moved on and accepted that this deal is going to be the reality that we have to deal with. i agree completely with the senator. the middle east is in flames, as we have never seen it before. this is one of the most dangerous moments in the history of the middle east and the iranian regime is up to no good. it is better to have a deal with iran that keeps it from being a nuclear weapon state and building an arsenal than it is to allow it to move to that stage next. if the congress of the united

states votes against this deal, and somehow overturns the presidential veto, the regional reaction will be confusion. people will not understand how the american system works. they will only know that the american system does not speak with one voice. they will react in a consequent matter. they let confusion and doubt about what america stands for. and where america stands in this deal. i have no illusions about the iranians. i have buried colleagues that have been murdered and tortured to death by iranians. i know what they are going to do with additional money. it is still better to find a path to keep them from developing nuclear weapons. the third issue i want to look at briefly is, does this deal put israel at risk? we hear from a lot of commentators today that this deal is the equivalent of the munich agreement of 1938. that this deal somehow, will create in israel that is czechoslovakia in 1939.

thrown under the bus. i do not believe that for a minute. the state of israel is a very powerful and strong state. it is fully capable of defending itself. thanks in large part, but not only in large part to american assistance over the past four decades. israel has strategicall sapir your ready.

war. it seems perfectly

uncontroversial to me to insist that this deal does not do that. it provides a respite for about 10 years and a partial respite for another five years. release, wee is not have not been emancipated. we have only been given some help and anxiety management. if during that 10-year. period, the rest that is not consumed by controversy, which is a very big if, we will have accomplished only a very successful postponement to another presidency of excruciating questions which this presidency is clearly despaired of finding a genuine solution. the most significant fact is that the iranian regime never made a strategic decision to renounce nuclear weapons. instead, make a tactical decision to deferred them. it is true that the agreement

agreestwice that iran they will never see, develop, or require a nuclear weapon. but the refusal to provide an account, and the very structure which legitimizes and the civilian use of nuclear energy, it indicates that no iranian renunciation of his willary nuclear industrial occur as long the process. one of my old friends and colleagues says we cannot sanction or bomb iran out of the bomb. but there are other states in possession of the same knowledge, and we are not losing any sleep about their plans for the obligation of what they know. the strategic decision that the islamic republic did make my contrast was to find a way out sanctions.ly

so for me to join comprehensive plan represents a change in time. it is true that they conspired only to that, but not all arms control -- from the standpoint of iran's interest, the renunciation of nuclear weapons would be a perfect the rational course. and as the ministration likes to assure us, this regime is indeed rational. it pointedly chose no course of action. and the reason surely is that us, maderlocutors, a prior assessment of what is and is not possible in terms of its ability. good and honest people can disagree about that assessment. that it wasll agree decisive for determining the outcome of the negotiation. good and honest people can also disagree about the deal itself. it is not hard to understand an

argument for respite in all situations of tremendous pressure. that is why do not oppose the deal apocalyptically, since i do not believe it is permanently or even for a long time altered our strategic circumstances. i regarded as having only mitigated a threat that continues on the region and the world. all of the on this options must remain on the table. the other ground for my opposition is that in exchange sed such a limited and pas amelioration, it will still be a regime. in so far as this deal represents a rapprochement of detente,inning of a acknowledges a goal that is in imicable.

many people these days regard values or at least some of them as a slippery slope to shock and all. but it is not always the case that conflict is based on an misunderstanding or mistake. sometimes conflict is assigned the fundamental differences have been accurately understood. our previous hostility to the islamic republic was not based on a misreading of the islamic republic in its conduct within its borders or beyond its borders. the text of the agreement mentions, "a desire to build a new relation with iran." not a new relationship with iran, but this iran -- a bellicose, misogynistic, homophobic regime. that escorted american purposes and allies and terrorism. what democrat, pluralist,

conservative, believer, nonbeliever would want this iran for a friend? what constructive role can this iran play in the community of nations? it is important to note that in the. of negotiations among iran was intervening ferociously to inflame the shia in a rock to prop up assad in syria, and to arm hamas in gaza. unlike us and our policies in the same conflict, iran was not inhibited in interventions during delicate negotiation. nor should the islamic republic allow for the disruption of esrael the treated as a foilbl ible or eccentricity. the vile behavior of iran is germane.

vial is a nonprofessional term, i know, but it seems precise for the patron of the syrian slaughterhouse. iran, one mays be referring either to his regime or its people. but not to both, because they are not on the same side. the obama administration has not granted this. irano it's overtures to have had the effect of engaging and invigorating only the regime. >> i needed to wrap it up. >> i'm almost done. the idea that it will be significantly opened up by the economic windfall is absurd. a great deal of saddening but serious evidence exists that economic liberalization need not entail political liberalization. and others have not opened up society until now, it is not because they lack the cash. thank you. >> ok, we will get to the stage of the debate where i will

encourage our four panelists to engage each other directly. and will start here. suzanne ambriz. cain not a single republican vote for this. and it will be a bad sign for history and a failure for the ministration. would you say it is a problem with the deal? or the republicans? [laughter] senator mccain: i think i know the answer to that one. >> let me jump in first. i would hope that bruce would follow in my way. i think it is a sad statement on the character of politics today in washington. it was truly unfortunate, and so much of our policy has been bipartisan. ed,t we have constructor what made this effective was both what congress and is adents from two part

really coherent coalition that impose the kind of pressure that brought iran back to the table. it had an impact on the mystic politics. and yet, despite that bipartisan agreement about the objectives of the policy, the need to engage in negotiations that decision,not an obama to understand that maxwell is him was not going to be effective. we have lost bipartisanship today. and i think that says less about the deal than it is about quality of politics today in washington. >> bruce? ok, i agree with suzanne. the promise of the republican party. although the republican party have many problems today. as the economist has brilliantly shown this week. the problem is american politics. senator mccain: the democratic

party is in great shape. [laughter] bruce: no it's not. that is a reason why we're having trouble. >> this is a point of debate, by the way. bruce: the middle east today we are living with is an incredibly confusing and gray area. we've already heard some of the contents about the iranian regime. the iranian regime is a regime trying to subvert our closest allies in the region. israel, saudi arabia, and others. it is also our significant partner in the war against isis in the defense of baghdad. it is not a statement of opinion. that is a fact of what is going on in iraq today. i'm not advocating rapprochement for iran. that would be a foll's errand. unlike the black and white we see in washington, the real situation is filled with grace. a lot of black, very little

white. that is why the situation ought to be evaluated in the context of. >> the suggestion is that the bipartisanship that led to the formation of this policy is somehow now instantly being subverted early for politics. that is the allegation i want you to respond to. senator mccain: let me say, thanks, bruce. i mean that. to have some kind of equivalency between israel having nuclear weapons and iran having nuclear weapons, i mean, that is not intellectually honest. bruce: i never suggested and morally -- senator kaine goa you pointed mccain: you pointed out that israel has never had demonstrations of death iran. death to america. surrounded country

by countries minute to its extension. that is why we are overjoyed than their weapons. i was wanted to clear that up. voted thing is, that i for sanctions and saw sanctions so much because of the path towards nuclear weapons, but because their aggression in the entire region. by the way, the fact that there are iranians in baghdad today that are orchestrating isis is no greater example of the collapse of american influence. of what happens when you withdraw, when you leave. there is a vacuum, my friends, others fill it. i am deeply alarmed it is iranians that are our friends in baghdad. so i voted for sanctions against iran because of the long record theegemonic behavior of

atrocious treatment of their own people. the four americans who are still being held hostage, one reporter for the washington post. why wasn't that in a negotiation, for god's sake? their entire behavior throughout the region, anti-democratic. hegemonic, and trying to realize the ambitions that they are obviously pretty successful now. now that the united states have briefly left the region, i take that back, we have trained 60 people. 54, a number of them capture. i take it back. we are doing a lot there. so the point is, i think, that the iranians are about to receive a crowning victory. and if there is the slightest indication that that is going to change their behavior in the region, i would be glad to see what the indication is. >> leo, please jump in.

not sure what suzanne says when she says maximalist. we certainly have a minimalist. we have gone from overreach to under, without stopping and reach. as far as i can tell. i am not prepared to look the iranian people in the eyes and tell them there is no possibility of regime change. mean, i mean, i do not do not mean, the iraq war. i want to say that 50,000 times. not the iraq war, not the iraq war, not the iraq war. we can move on. [laughter] in iraq, there was no indigenous democratic movement. when you scornfully mentioned, i scared heshare your scorn. with western sympathies in a to includet the need a significantly western oriented

iniety, it is a country -- tehran as far as i can tell, it is not only a moral obligation not to change the regime, but the helpless people in tehran who want to change the regime. there strategically no greater prize in the reason that i can --nk of then and eventual not the iraq war, not the iraq war, not the iraq war. but a change of regime. suzanne: i see absolutely no possibility in the last x years o 60 years of policy -- senator mccain: how about demonstrating industry? leon: it was even worse than that. suzanne: they were demonstrating in the street today, many leaders in the movement have come out publicly in favor of this deal. they do not believe further sanctions, further securitization of iranian politics are in the interest of a democratic movement in iran. they have people who are

on the ground best. not people here in ivory towers. leon: we all sit where he said. [applause] senato have you been to mccain: have you been to syria lately? how may times even to iraq? i have been there 20 times. when you say i'm sitting in --ry tower, >> go-ahead senator. [laughter] senator mccain: i to go back. ance: i never suggested equivalency. we are better off israel having nuclear weapons. israel is not a weak

czechoslovakia in the aftermath of the munich agreement. that is consistent with the facts. i do not want to fight the iraq war over again. let's not fight that war again. i agree with you. i do remember what the late saudi prince said, the bush and ministration handed iraq to iran on a silver platter. that was the mortal sin of letting the iranians get into iraq, because i agree with you completely -- the obama administration does help them come in further. if we're going to debate all of the errors of the administration's tonight, we will never have time to talk about the iran nuclear deal. on: i think it is very important, and we have learned this, arms control cannot only be evaluating its own term. s. .n these to b any to be assessed in terms larger. the president's first inaugural

address since his first pronouncement, he has dreamed for good reason for bad, i'm speaking now as a matter of fact -- he has dreamed of a new relationship with iran. view isng 2009, my own that many people want a new relationship with iran. separate from this feeling that the united states comes to iran is some sort of prior disqualifying guilt of helping in advance to democratic society. in 2009, when those astonishingly valiant people were in the streets in tehran and we turned our back on them, they were screaming obamas name. he was in the white house meetings someone else's name. most kids in the street were too young to even know who he was. suzanne: they understand that history far better than most people in washington do. the simple reality is that we do not have the leverage to influence iranian politics.

we will did not leave the streets in 2009 because of what we fail to do. they left the streets because they do not have a leadership in the opposition movement that was prepared to go with a very repressive regime. leon: we did not have the leverage -- raisene: since you the question of moral responsibly, what happens when we walk off? this is proof of american leadership on tough issues. we did this. not just one administration, but congress working with president bush and obama built the strategy and came up with a solution. it is not a perfect solution, not comprehensive, because none of our allies are signing on to a conference of solution. but in fact, it'salso one piece of the iranian puzzle for a less optimal. of time and gives us more leverage and more leeway to address the other issues. if we walk away now, how does that help syria? how does that help i rock?

>i wanraq? >> i want to ask you about the evolving metrics for the deal itself. as someone who is been the white house for many years, or the president saying the original proof of concept was to block all original iranian paths to and. and among other things, to have a verified and confidence of accounting for previous military dimensions of what they were doing subversively. lying to the international community, the iea about was going on. the critics would say it only delays, does not block. and there is apparently no requirement in any way that is consistent with the underlying language about their of fine and accounting for the previous -- - verifying and

accounting for the previous. administration engaged in negotiations come in as adjusted its bar overtime. i'm not shocked. that's what happens. let's look at the iranian side of the bargain for a minute. they went into the saying, we do not have any aspirations for a nuclear weapons program. we never had them. where do they send a question mark they have identified facility after facility which needs to be changed in a fundamental and significant way. and the number of centrifuges reduce, all of which is an omission they were lined up front. the historical replay of the intricacies other line? no. did anyone seriously think that? they do not know how negotiations work. the key to the deal here is not whether we go back to find out

what happened in 2004. 2007, but is it are we in a position now to have reasonable confidence that if they start to cheat, we will know it. and i think every expert who has look at arms control inspection agrees that this agreement has more teeth than we have seen before. is it perfect? no. we have put it ultimately in the hands of the international atomic agency. and i have a great deal of confidence in that organization because it's track record in the past has been good. i promise not to fight the iraq war again. but i will fight one part of again. had it dead right, there were no nuclear weapons program and i rock. i trust there their vacations because they have done it before. ofo not trust those critics this deal which of said,oh, the

next thing you will here is a must-read cloud. cloud.m thetor mccain: to say iranian people would not go to the mattresses while the revolutionary guard was slaughtering them in the streets, you know, i have heard some revisions of history. anyone who her, and we all did i hope, see young women bleed to death in the square, that is just really quite remarkable to me. they did not have weapons, i don't know how they would have gone to mattresses. but they sure what did the president of the united states, the leader of the free world, to speak up on their half. and he refused to do so. that is historical fact. april 6, 2015, under this deal you have 24-7 access as it

relates to the nuclear facility that iran has. the deputy national security 2015 we expectl, to have access with a suspecteded access, out of bounds activities. that was our energy secretary. 24 daysnow the deal was before they can visit the site. a majority of the eight members of the joint commission have to request until theron is obliged to require. ehran is obliged to require. iran fails to comply, the other states can invoke it

snapped back provision. and we know how ludicrous that is. of course, the deal concedes that iran will convert the facility into nuclear physics and technology center. they have to have a technology center inside of a mountain. yes, sure. but they will not be able to enrich uranium or have any nuclear material. finally, i just want to get back to the conventional weapons embargo if i could, real quick, that is it will be listed in five years. and both our secretary of defense, ashton carter, says no we want iran to be continued isolated. in terms of the equipment and material they will have. that embargo leaves in five years. and of course under no

circumstances should we relieve pressure on iran relative to ballistic missiles and arms trafficking. that was chairman of the joint chiefs of the military. that was his recordation to the commerce. neither of those statements are valid. >> i want to put to you gentlemen, both susanna bruce have said there is no bette r deal. still, it is a position to defend. describe his audience -- give --mccain: i will why did the iranians come to the table to start with? they found themselves on the road to damascus? they did that, too. [laughter] but the point is they came to the table because their economy was hurt terribly by the sanctions. course, have had that

leverage -- although we have given it up now in this agreement. but they did not come because they wanted to see a new middle east. the came because of incredible punishment that was inflicted by the sanctions. i don't think is more complicated. suzanne: can i jump in here? what made them effective was their appearance by much of the international community, particularly high the traditional major trading partners in europe. these are countries that did not agree to the sanctions in 1979. the do not agree to sanctions after iran sponsored terrorist activities against americans and europeans all across the middle east. they only agree to sanctions as result of the fairly unprecedented level of urgency around the iranian nuclear issue. the rest of their disturbing policies. and they're not prepared to sustain them. they will not continue to adhere

to them. and the russians, chinese, turks, all of the major purchasers of iranian energy are not interested. senator mccain: there is no no deal that we canorthere is say, that we should, that if we're going to do business with iran then they don't do business with us. and we can do that. that is where america leads. but america doesn't lead anymore. >> are you prepared to tell the american people that there will be no further business between the united states and europe? >> i am prepared to tell the american people as to what this deal is and what its implications are, that there are millions of refugees now flowing into europe, and probably the united states, because of an abject failure of american leadership, and we have to restore that lrs