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 leadership,

otherwise things are going to get one hell of a lot worse in the next year and a half until we have a new president. look at a map of the world in today, and tell me how things are going. >> i think that this argument -- i agree with everything that my friend has just said but i want to add that there is no alternative, that seems demagoguic. the idea that there is no alternative, it would have been made for a deal that will gives a respite in seven years or 12 years. game.s some sort of if the deal is a bad deal it is a bad alternative. if the deal does not furnish the solution to the problem that it sets out to solve, and i don't understand how we can see it as an acceptable alternative.

the late thing that matters to me is that we get out of the strategic predicament of the arabian nuclear capability. i see no evidence in this agreement that that is what this agreement accomplishes. moreover, we get a band-aid and they get a banquet. i have to say, i have a very, very deep fear that we are being played fools, because i believe that this agreement, this negotiation, was not conducted in the spirit of tough leadership. toughness is exactly not the word i would describe. it was conducted in the spirit of reconciliation, and i have nothing against reconciliation. diplomats like to say that we should talk to our enemies -- >> we have talked to our enemies. >> in humility, we are going off track. this is becoming a debate about the obama and opennes administr.

i don't think there are a lot of people enthusiastic about his policies. that is what both of you want and you are doing a very good job of turning it into a debate. >> but this is supposed to be a debate about a particular initiative, which is the nuclear deal. suzanne said at the beginning -- this is not a deal to prevent iran from getting nuclear weapons in perpetuity. nobody said that. this is a deal to prevent iran from getting nuclear weapons for the next 15 years. does it do that? i think the biggest argument that has been made against that is the verification process is not tough enough, not stringent enough. i know a lot about verification and about intelligence correction tactics to verify a deal. it is, let me tell you, infinitely easier to work to verify if the other side is cheating if you have inspectors who can go inside and on the ground.

even if they can't go anytime anywhere, it is 10 million times easier if they are on the ground looking around. it is also a lot easier if you have an international agreement that says, here is the standards of behavior that it ran is going to have to -- that iran was going to have to hold to. anyhe end of the day, verification system depends upon the united states intelligence community and how good it can do its job. i think this deal significantly enhances the capacity of the american intelligence community to do that. it also depends on the ability of our allies, particularly israel, to be able to do that. here is where i go back to the point i made about my friend. it iss, quite rightly, better to be able to verify this deal than it is to be able to verify the current status quo. is it perfect? no. is it the perfect foreign policy in the middle east? no.

but this deal is worthy of dean voted in favor of. >> bruce, do you believe in snapback? given what we know and what we hear by defenders of the deal, and it is absolutely true, about the imminent collapse of the sanctions regime internationally, in the event that it were verified that they were cheating, do you believe that snap back or any serious -- has believe that this deal moved further toward snapback than we have ever seen before. it will come when the moment of violation occurs. the united states not only has the option of snapback, the united states will also have all these other options, including use of the military. we are not forgoing any options. >> this will be the last question i put for you and then we will go to closing remarks. au both have talked about lack of appetite within the international community to

continue economic sanctions, and that is the reason that which the negotiations had to reach a conclusion, and why the deal should be verified and upheld as written. but doesn't that suggest -- and this is one thing the critics aing up -- that if there is legitimate disagreement over verification and compliance, that the very same partners who are no longer interested in economic sanctions, and i believe they have run their course not only politically but no longer want to create economic dislocation with their very own populations for other reasons, will not, to use your phrase in different context, go the length to require verification? that iran can, by dragging this process out, keep going? going -- it isre going to test the alliance that we put together to bring us to the state.

i agree with some of the criticisms of the deal. i think it would be difficult if not impossible to ever achieve this level of international economic pressure on hiran. we never achieved it before. the simple reality is that is not going to stay if we disapprove the deal. if we don't sustain our alliances, -- we don't sustain our alliances if we terrapin agreement. >> with that, we are out of time for the back and forth. it has been an extraordinarily vibrant and lively back-and-forth, i think you would all oagree. [applause] the wordsmith is working. i said vibrant. [laughter] so we are going to have another vote, as i promised earlier. we are going to take one of the

options away from you. you can no longer say you were undecided. we want to know whether you think the congress should approve or disapprove. 1 if congress should approve, 2 if congress should disapprove. we will have closing statements from all four. of the polling will close as soon as senator mccain concludes his remarks. you can gather by that that he will be the last of the speakers even closing remarks. each speaker will have two minutes, and we will start with bruce. >> i encourage you all to continue to vote undecided and to throw this thing up in the air. [laughter] this really is a complicated issue. final point i would make is this. right now, the united states has allies that have successfully concluded an agreement in the middle east, the first in 17 years. iran inhas done is put the pariah box as the country

that has violated international norms and has failed to live up to its obligations after it signed the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. the congress of the united states has an norma's task in front of it, and it is very important that they do it. it is important that we hear how each and every congressman and senator votes. i don't end of the day, want the congress of the united states to put us as the outlier, to put the united states as the partner to this deal that was the first to renege on going forward. i think the congress has been put in an awkward position. frankly, i don't inc. he negotiated -- i don't think he negotiated it very well on the hill. it puts it in a position where if you vote no, you then become the problem and the united states because the problem. that would not be good for american leadership around the world. out we need is to now find

if this deal goes forward how can we better ensure that its implementation leads to all the outcomes we want. get a that iran does not nuclear weapon -- not now, not in 10 years. secondly, that we address those of themsues that both have rightly pointed out -- we need to put on the table for a multilateral and unilateral measures between the united states and iran. >> that was precisely two minutes, well done. leon. >> thank you. i think it is ironic that we begin -- that people will begin to be concerned about the consequences to american leadership in the region and the world in their attitude towards this deal when we have been witnessing an attrition of american leadership in the world for many years now. and as ihat this deal,

said earlier, i am not against it because i do not think it changes our strategic situation in kind but merely integrate. when it sinks hear my friends say we could use a military option. that is correct, by the way, but that means it has not advanced dust beyond a strategic situation that troubles us to begin with. dealry very much that this is the latest expression of a certain spirit in american foreign-policy that i regard as responsible for some of the disasters that we have been witnessing in the region and in the world. i think that it was not ipso facto the case, that the iranians came to the table under duress and not out of an idealistic desire, not because they read lieber, who came to thatable under duress,

we could not have gotten a better deal with the iranians. if it is the fact that this deal is in their interest, if it is the fact that they are hurting so badly economically, if it is the fact that they really do want to renounce nuclear weapons, and it seems perfectly obvious to me that it is wrong to rule out the possibility of a tougher negotiating position and more generally a tougher position regarding this repulsive regime int tehran. the united states is historically the only country that will ever create obstacles and impediments to certain evils in the world. there is no other country. without american leadership, their will not be the obstacles in the impediment -- the obstacles and the impediments, and it seems to me that with the adoption of this deal, which of course will be adopted, would be a very fine occasion to begin a new discussion of the first principles of american

foreign-policy after both bush and obama. >> thank you very much. suzanne. >> we can change the question for this debate because if we agree, perhaps, on more than we disagree. i share all the aspirations of senator mccain and leon for greater american leadership in the middle east, and the humanitarian tragedy that is unfolding before our eyes. i also share their abhorrence with iranian policy that are primarily responsible for many of these threats.that are unfolding in the region -- these threats that are unfolding in the region. that is not what this deal is -- is whether anree imperfect solution to the most urgent but certainly not the only part of thiran's threat is that we should move forward to test the possibility of whether we can after 36 years begin to mitigate some of the

challenges that iran poses to our interests to the region and around the world. i believe it is an imperfect solution for two reasons -- one, we have an international coalition. we could negotiated on our own. -- negotiate it on our own. two, simply because of the realities of negotiation, the bush administration originally imposed having iran nuclear energy, nuclear industry. by the time president bush moved into his second term, he recognized he had to come to the table and offer a deal that iran might see in its interest. we disagree is what the consequences of disapproving this deal would mean. walking away from this deal would leave washington with less influence, not more, at the very moment when the role of a global superpower is needed. we should be doubling down on the strategies and the bipartisanship that brought us

to this negotiation. to build ase it larger coalition on a broader range of concerns we have. >> thank you. that is something we can all agree on -- we are all opposed to nuclear dentistry. [laughter] senator mccain, before i give you the floor, i want to remind folks that the polls will close as soon as he wraps up his remarks. please take your time to vote now. >> 20 minutes. thank you, major, for some very excellent questions and conducting us. i want to thank bruce and suzanne for very articulate our presentations. amend gifted with poetry, as always, proud to be in his company. aboutends, i am concerned the verification aspects of this agreement, especially from where we began.

where we were at the beginning and where we ended up. i'm concerned about the relaxations and restrictions on icbms. you use icbms to deliver nuclear weapons. i'm concerned about the relaxation and prohibition of conventional weapons, which obviously are being used throughout the middle east today. the money is really something that bothers me as much as anything else. 230,000w there are syrians who have been slaughtered, millions fled, and we now see the consequences of it. we all know that bashar al-assad needs to fall, and the iranians brought in hezbollah. then they brought in weapons. then the barrel bombing started. now there is poison gas. someone needs to show me what the iranians are going to do

with these additional funds of $100 billion as they attempt to extend their hegemony throughout the region. has there been any indication of any slight change in iranian behavior? dealnk it is a very bad because i believe it puts the iranians on the path to nuclear weapons in 10 years, the blink of an i in the middle east. about theconcerned implications of this agreement, as we basically legitimize this regime, which is the world's greatest sponsor of terror. that, frankly, is what keeps me awake at night, and when i see all of us, when our hearts are broken, when we see a little baby wash up on the shore, it breaks our hearts. and a lot of those things do not have to happen.

this agreement, i'm afraid, may facilitate other crises. thank you. >> thank you very much. the polls are closed. it is rare in the city to have an assemblage as distinguished as this, rate still to see them engaged as directly as they have, to disagree agreeably. i want to give them a round of applause and they want to invite you to join me. [laughter] a great discussion. [applause] i just want to add this thought. there is a sense -- there could be a sense -- because the white house has secured the requisite votes, that this is anticlimactic. i don't think it is. i don't think it will be on the hill. i think everything said about what this deal is or isn't is important for historical record for the next administration, because this deal is going to survive, and everything that

everyone in the policy field says about this will resonate for many years. for that i want to thank the panel. with your indulgence i will ask the panelists to stay. i will go get the results of the poll and be right back. [chatter]

>> don't you feel the american idol tension? [laughter] i know i feel it. for those of you curious tonight, and i cap myself among those, 73% of you felt the congress should approve the deal before and 15% sure they should disapprove, 12% undecided. felt the debate, 85% congress should approve. that, ladies and gentlemen, is our final percentage. [laughter] of applause for our panelists. [applause]

the debate on the iran nuclear agreement is teed up in the house and senate. rachel house all of national security tweets about that, the last piece of the puzzle. maria cantwell says she will support the iran deal in any way she can but others say they are undecided on the filibuster. rachel oswalt joins us from capitol hill, reporting on the iran nuclear agreement. what can we expect as the debate gets underway? they is not as clear -- were not receptive and for the

august recess he said he wanted to terminate for the duration of the debate. now he says he only wants them in their seats for the beginning. this is something that almost never happens, where you have all 100 voters at the desk, listening to one another on a serious topic. i don't know of any reporter that can think of a time where that has happened in recent memory. says thatticle in cq senate democrats are on the verge of blocking the around the veto, talking about their ability to filibuster -- what are you hearing about democratic plans? >> we know they have 32 votes in favor, but it is not clear if there is enough support to filibuster the deal. at least three senators are supporting the deal, but three told me they were undecided on

the issue. we know that the minority leader and the deputy minority leader will be looking in on the subject. they have made it clear that the is important, so all senators who support it will be facing a lot of pressure from party leadership to support a filibuster. to support the nuclear deal and you should filibuster, because for the republican control of congress, to disapprove the nuclear deal, the democratic president approved it, it would send a confusing message to foreign countries and financial institutions about the long-term viability of the deal. >> let's turn to the house for a second. the house rules committee took up the disapproval resolution as debate began in the house on wednesday. but did we know the schedule? >> it doesn't look like it will be a closed vote.

it looks like there will be 11 hours of debate, with debate time divided among several committees, which includes financial services and foreign affairs. >> among the first words we heard about the agreement were the disapproval resolutions. ofer roskam brought up privilege revolution on the floor, talking about it earlier tuesday -- what is his point? >> he is arguing that the iran nuclear deal doesn't begin until congress has received all indexes and related signed deals. the international energy agency in thiran has to deal with resolving long-standing issues. the white house says that the iran clock begin on july 19 when

it transferred all the indexes to congress, which would mean the deadline would be september 17. validitys of what the of what he is saying, when you consider that the iran deal is to constitute a side deal under the terms of the iran review act, i don't think his effort is going to gain much traction. i asked bob corker about the resolution just a couple minutes ago, what he thought of it, and he was the author of the iran review act. he said he thought the best way approval ofs to get not getting the agreement would be to vote down the iran deal and not to raise other issues. it sounds like he has considered the issue. as congress comes back from

their summer recess, the white house is wasting no time in issuing their opposition to this resolution of disapproval. termslse can we expect in of lobbying on capitol hill or elsewhere from the white house? heard of, we have not any last-minute plans by this administrations officials, like vice president biden, to come to th it this week but they tend to be announced last minute. i would be surprised if it happens, because of how close the filibuster is looking. that is an issue that the admin's has thrown as many resources as anything. the health care overhaul act. >> rachel oswald, national security reporter. you can follow her reports on twitter. thanks for the update. irane house takes up the nuclear agreement disapproval

resolution on wednesday. members begin 11 hours of general debate divided between five committees -- financial services, oversight, government reform, judiciary. hours on the floor before the house foreign affairs committee gets three hours. a vote on the resolution is expected on friday. coming up on c-span, our program sunday iran nuclear deal continue. next, remarks from former vice president dick cheney and what he sees as the failures of the agreement. then harry reid on his support, followed by the house rules committee debate on the iran nuclear agreement disapproval resolution. the director of national intelligence, james clapper, was

a featured speaker wednesday at the intelligence and national security summit. watch live starting at: 30 a.m. eastern on c-span3. later, we join the house judiciary committee, looking into practices at planned parenthood and allegations of federal violations. that is live at 10:30 a.m. eastern, also on c-span3. >> he was a nazi. he was a concentration camp commandant. he was responsible for the murder of thousands of jews. >> this sunday night on "q&a," the life altering discovery that a nazi concentration camp commandant, also known as the butcher of plasaow. >> he was a tremendously cruel herson, a person who was --

had two dogs, and he trained them to tear people apart. person -- there was a pleasure he felt when he killed people. that, if youhing don't have this aspect of your personality, it is very difficult to grasp. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a." >> former vice president dick cheney called the iran nuclear agreement and intricately crafted capitulation. he spoke at the american enterprise institute tuesday about his disapproval of the obama administration handling its negotiation's. is 45 minutes.

>> good morning, everyone. welcome to the american enterprise institute. i'm scholar here. just over a week congress will vote on a resolution of disapproval for the nuclear deal that president obama negotiated with iran. president obama says that the vote is a choice between war and peace and that there is no alternative to this deal and those who oppose it are making common cause with the hardliners in iran. that group is in league with the ayatollah khomeini includes chuck schumer, former democratic chairman of the relations committee, bob menendez, ben cardin, and includes our speaker tonight, today, vice president dick cheney. he's the author with his daughter, liz, of a wonderful new book called "exceptional, were the world needs a powerful america." he says president obama has few accomplishments but there is one he has. this iran deal is so bad has into the only united arabs and israelis he's united chuck

schumer and dick cheney. ladies and gentlemen, the vice president. vice president cheney: well, thank you very much, mark. i hadn't thought of that. probably the first time chuck schumer and i agreed on anything. he's welcomed to the club. i'm delighted to be here today. ai's been a home of sorts going back to the ford administration. i'm proud to serve on the board of trustees now and on occasion they provide a forum where we can discuss important issues. i come before you today not as a candidate for any office. my years in elective office are over. i come before you as a citizen who has also spent the better part of 40 years in public service. white house chief of staff, congressman, secretary of

defense, and vice president. focused much of that time on national security issues facing our nation. i'm here because i have deep concerns about the iranian nuclear agreement that congress begins considering today. it will be up to members of the house and senate to vote yes or no on the joint comprehensive plan of action that president obama has signed with the government of iran. for every member of congress, no matter how many years they serve or how many votes they cast, this will be a vote that will be remembered. so much is in the balance for our own security and that of our allies. it's not a moment for appeals to party loyalty, for whip calls, or returning favors, or lining up against the president for its own sake or lining up with the president for its own sake. every man and woman in congress will have to stand alone on this issue.

and they should choose with nothing else in mind but the america and the interest of their country, big their own best judgment to a decision that -- that is of theirs alone to make. i have come in that spirit today setting aside for now any broader disagreements with the obama administration, any stake in past debates, any concern of electoral politics. this vote in congress will have profound consequences. approval of this agreement will not prevent a nuclear iran. along with a pathway to a nuclear arsenal, president obama's agreement will provide iran with funds and weapons the regime will use for the support of terror, the dominance of the middle east, and the furtherance of tehran's effort to destroy israel, threaten arab regimes, and prevent the united states from defending our allies and our interest in the persian gulf and beyond.

with the removal of restrictions on iran's ballistic missile program, this agreement will give iran a means to launch a nuclear attack on the u.s. homeland. a week before the deal was announced, president obama's own secretary of defense, carter, declared this should not happen. quote, the i in icbm, ashton carter noted, stands for intercontinental, which means having the capability to fly from iran to the united states, and we don't want that. that was a week before he knew what was in the agreement. i know of no nation in history that has agreed to guarantee that the means of its own destruction will be in the hands of another nation, particularly one that is hostile. what president obama is asking the united states congress to do is unique. historically and dangerously unique. the results could well be catastrophic. the claims made by president obama, secretary kerry, and other members of the obama administration about this

agreement have been robust. this deal will, they have said, and i quote, prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. cut off all iran's pathways to boom, including the covert pathway. provide us in a certainty we will know what they are doing in the nuclear arena. prevent nuclear proliferation. encourage stability across the middle east and prevent war. these assertions are simply false. take the president's assurance that the agreement will prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. in a more candid moment a few months ago, he admitted that under this deal the iranians in 13 years or so will have, and i quote, advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point the breakout times would have shrunk to zero. the president's own words make

clear this agreement does not keep iran from nuclear capability. quite the opposite, it guarantees that in less time than has past since 9/11, a regime with death to america as a pillar of its national policy will have the ability and the material to produce an arsenal of nuclear weapons. and at that point what is to prevent them from doing so? well, president obama tells us they promise they won't. we are asked to rely on the word of a country that has cheated on every nuclear agreement to which they have been a party. once they have the means in place to become a nuclear power, they will do it. president obama came into office determined to engage the iranians without preconditions. beginning with his inaugural address offering them an open hand if they unclenched their fist. through his letters to the iranian supreme leader, through the secret negotiation established by secretary clinton

with the iranians in oman in 2011. president obama's guiding principle has been convincing the iranians they can trust us f we walk away from this deal, secretary kerry recently claimed, the regime in tehran will learn, quote, you can't trust the west. a negotiation based on the premise that the united states had to gain the trust of the world's worst state sponsor of terror was never going to end well. the secret talks before the actual negotiations even began, the u.s. side appears to have made three key concessions. they agree to drop the long-standing demand of the international community that iran halt uranium enrichment. they agree to provide immediate sanctions relief and they agree to pay the iranians to negotiate by releasing $12 billion in frozen assets. these were just the concessions made prior to the negotiations. so much for negotiations without

preconditions. there were, in fact, preconditions. they just weren't ours. the iranians are reputed to be excellent negotiators. for the american side that is not an auspicious beginning. it set the pattern of one concession to iran after another. hard deadlines declared and then ignored. a general air of desperation to get a deal. not on our part but on ours. not on our terms but theirs. the cave on enrichment wasn't just any concession. under the nuclear nonproliferation treaty signed by 120 nations, 190 nations, including iran, countries with peaceful nuclear programs do not have a right to enrich. agreeing to the demand that the united states recognize such a right for iran guts the fundamental principle at the heart of the m.p.t. and makes it

much more difficult for the international community to deny such a right to any other state. it also in one swell swoop neutered six united nations security council resolutions passed to stop iran's nuclear program, including its uranium enrichment activities. president obama, who says he is submit committed to the international arms control regime to the united nations, and nuclear nonproliferation, it is now urging that the united states accept an agreement that will undercut the most effective multilateral arms control treaty in history and negate the previous demands of the international community expressed in those u.n. security council resolutions. the president says this deal will, quote, stop the spread of nuclear weapons in this region. in fact, by legitimatizing the iranian enrichment program, for

the first time ever, the deal will likely accelerate nuclear proliferation as other nations demand the same right. america's friends and allies in the middle east including the gulf states know that their own security hangs in the balance. as the united states enables iran to acquire nuclear weapons. they have watched iranians get the better of us in these negotiations. >> [inaudible]

vice president cheney: thank you very much. [laughter] [applause] vice president cheney: they nowhere simultaneously withdraw from the region in making cuts to our own nuclear arsenal and defense budget. they are already assessing that the security guarantees long provided by the united states are increasingly meaningless. and that announced redlines are more likely to be abandoned than defended by the united states today. they are more likely in this environment and in the aftermath of this deal to determine that their own security requires that they possess their own nuclear weapons. the president says this deal will ensure the international community will be able to verify that iran will not develop a

nuclear weapon. he has said the inspections regime is historic. that the agreement cuts off every one of iran's pathways to a bomb, including, magically, the covert pathway. let's look at the facts. after we were assured repeatedly by members of his administration, a disagreement would include any time, anywhere inspections, president obama has accepted a deal that gives the iranians anywhere from 24 days to many months to delay inspections at suspicious sites. inspections at military sites where the iranians have concealed suspect elements of their nuclear weapons program in the past are not covered by this agreement. the american people have been told not to concern themselves with this. there are secret side agreements between iran and the uaea which our elected representatives in congress cannot see it, either.

that reportedly cover inspections at these sites. it's not clear any obama administration officials have seen the final of these side deals, either. the iranians continue to insist, and i quote, there will be no access to any military sites and in at least some crucial cases, relating to past activities, the regime will be inspecting itself. that is historically misguided. the value of this agreement and the veracity of the president's claims about it rest on the inspections regime contained within it. inspectors need to know what iran has done in the past so they have a base line against which to assess whether the country is cheating in the future. secretary kerry seemed to understand this in april of 2015 when he said, the iranians would have to disclose past activity. quote, they have to do it, he said. it will be done.

if there's going to be a deal, it will be done. that was john kerry in april. two months later in july of this year, secretary -- secretary kerry's position changed dramatically, quote. we are not fixated on iran specifically accounting for what they did at one time or another, he said, because, and i quote, we have absolute knowledge with respect to iran's past activities. if you're looking for a quick summary of secretary kerry's position on the need for iran to completely disclose all its past nuclear activity, you could say he was for it before he was against it. [applause] vice president cheney: the former director of the c.i.a. and the n.s.a. said he knows of no american intelligence official who would claim, as secretary kerry does, that we have complete knowledge of what iran has done in the past.

detecting elements of a country's nuclear program and predicting lou howe close it is to breakout is a notoriously difficult intelligence task. it is one that we have failed at time and time again. the united states failed to predict the first soviet atomic test in 1949. the first chinese test in 1964. the first indian test in 1974. the first pakistani test in 1998. and the first north korean test in 2006. all of this should raise serious concerns about the claims president obama has made that the agreement guarantees a breakout time of at least one year. accurately assessing how far the iranians are from obtaining a nuclear weapon would require a full and complete disclosure of their past activity. inspectors need a baseline. if we don't know how much progress iran has made towards obtaining a nuclear weapon, we

cannot accurately assess how much farther they need to go or how long it will take them. iranians were unwilling to make such a disclosure which tells us something in and of itself. and president obama and secretary kerry dropped this essential requirement. under president obama's agreement, there will be no anywhere, any time inspections, and no inspections of military sites. those are covered in the secret deals that we cannot see. there will be no access to the regime's nuclear scientists, no full disclosure of past activity, no full access to documents pertaining to iran's nuclear program. and iran will be doing some of the inspections themselves. we are essentially leaving it up to iran to let us know when and where they might have engaged in illicit nuclear weapons activity. the president also expressed firm resolve on a matter of sanctions.

they would be lifted when and only when the iranians had first met their obligations. it worked out a little differently, of course. they got that $12 billion and other sanctions relief right away. soon, the regime will be a player again in the financial markets. finally something on the order of $150 billion will be coming their way in the assets released under this deal. we were told and are still being told that at the first sign of cheating sanctions will suddenly snap back on the regime. in reality, the deal makes it very difficult to reimpose sanctions or impose new ones. it enables iran to walk away from the agreement completely if any attempt is made to sanction them anew. discoveries of violations by the iranians would be followed by long international debates over every last technical point. and who doubts what the refrain would be from the obama administration when confronted

with obvious violations. we would hear that it's better to overlook the offense than to risk losing the agreement. that's how we came to this point in the first place. it's the same week acquiescing and ultimately dangerous mindset that led us so far down the wrong road to a deal so completely tailored to the demands of the iranians. president obama has agreed to iranian demands to remove restrictions on key elements of the infrastructure tehran uses to support global terrorism, including the irgc force. he agreed to lift restrictions on iran's icbm program and on its ability to impose and export to -- to import and export conventional weapons. in this agreement, if it's approved, these concessions will further iran's efforts to achieve one of its main objectives in the middle east to drive the united states out.

former undersecretary of defense ambassador eric adelman recently testified that under the jcpoa, quote, the united states will not be able to rely as it has for the past 30 years. on the assumption that it will have unimpeded access and control other all domains of warfare in the persian gulf. a recent study co-chaired by marine commandant james conway and former general charles waled put it this way. the jcpoa will allow iran to improve its unconventional capability, challenge the strategic position of the united states and its allies in the middle east. iran will be able to revitalize its defense and industrial base in the short-term even if it devotes nl only a fraction of the $100 billion or more that will be unfrozen as part of the agreement.

more than the iranian government's entire budget for the current fiscal year on military spending. other the medium term, the removal of economic sanctions and the united states arms embargo will allow the regime to acquire other advanced technologies and weapons from ibroad. and once sanctions against its ballistic missile program sunset, iran could more easily develop weapons capable of reaching targets in the middle east and beyond, including europe and the united states, end quote. this agreement will enable iran to mornedize and expand its military capabilities while the united states military suffers from the devastating obama-era defense cuts and the effects of sequestration. contrary to claims made by the president and secretary of state, the united states will be in a far worse position to defend our interests and prevent a nuclear armed iran when the

obama agreement sunsets than we are today. in addition to facile taiing iranian access to advanced weapons, aiding the development of its icbm program, providing cash wind fall and tremendous economic benefits to the regime and tehran oba ha-iran agreement lifts sanctions on the iranian revolutionary guard corps, the irgc force and the force commander suleimani. under his command the force has been responsible for terror, fomenting violence, advancing iran's goals of regional dominance and killing of american service members in iraq and afghanistan. by lifting sanctions on these entities and on suleiman himself, the obama iran deal aids the efforts of america's enemies. imagine for a moment a world in which this deal has been implemented. iranian-backed forces will receive additional aid and support as they work to ensure that yemen remains a failed state, a theater in which al qaeda in the arabian pens laz

has effectively operated. and they've operated in the sharia province. iraq will see an influx of weapons and resources for iran's proxies, leading to increased violence and bloodshed as isis is able to recruit more sunni to their cause. conflict will intensify in syria as iran floods its most important ashe foothold with weapons and fighters. the european refugee crisis will likely grow as thousands more flee the rising terror and chaos. hezbollah, iran's main proxy, will also benefit in its operationses across the middle east and particularly in its ongoing attacks on israel. in the meantime, the removal of restrictions on the irgc force will give that group the ability to move freely throughout the middle east as they oversee this

brave new world. it isn't just hezbollah and the hue tees and assad who will benefit from the lifts of restrictions on iran. iran's ties to terrorist groups are extensive. that's why republican and democratic administrations alike have identified them as the world's leading state sponsor of terror. in 2011, president obama's own treasury department designated six al qaeda terrorists for their involvement in a network that moves money and terrorists across the middle east including into iraq and afghanistan. that network was headquartered in iran. in the words of david cohen then undersecretary of treasury and today deputy director of the c.i.a., quote there is an agreement between the iranian government and al qaeda to allow

this network to operate. there is no dispute in the intelligence community on this point. former director of the defense intelligence agency general michael flynn has said that documents captured with osama bin laden incruded, quote, letters about iran's role, influence and acknowledgment of enabling al qaeda operatives to pass through iran as long as al qaeda did its dirty work against americans in iraq and afghanistan. since that initial designation, president obama's own treasury and state departments have repeatedly pointed to iran's agreement with al qaeda, noting that iran is, quote a critical transit point for funding to support al qaeda's activities in afghanistan and pakistan and home to a quote corps pineline through which al qaeda moves money and operatives from across the middle east to south asia this pipeline exists, corkt the obama treasury department, as part of a formerly secret deal

between iran and al qaeda. as recently as last year, while the nuclear talks were under way, treasury staid that iran had let al suri, identified as the leaders of the network in july of 2011, let him out of his temporary detention so he could resume control of the network. the president said he understands that iran's support for terror continues. he has said that should not stop congress from approving his nuclear deal he seems willfully blind to the fact that the benefits conveyed to iran in this agreement, the money, the conventional weapons, the sanctions relief, facilitate and enable the iranian regime's support for terror and terrorist groups. including those who have attacked the united states and are today threatening our security, our allies and our interests.

the united states congress stood ready to approve a strong, serious agreement to prevent the threat of nuclear armed iran. instead, it has been handed as i wantry -- handed an intricately crafted ka pitlation. though president oba -- capitulation. though president obama has spoken of, the said the consequences are on me, that is beside the point. what happens after the deal is not on him. it's on all of us. this deal gives us a chance to launch an attack on the homeland that threatens the security of our allies across the northeast, threatens the security of europe and should not be forgotten this deal has vast implications for the future security of the jewish people. charles krauthammer has written that it took nazi germany six years to kill a million jews, it would take a nuclear weapon one day.

every president has been committed to no nuclear arms in the middle east until now. the president is saying you can enrich uranium, you can have icbm's, and here's $150 billion which we implore you, please do not share wit your terrorist friends. the bill -- to build a deliverable nuclear weapon is a mercifully difficult enterprise but when the world wakes up one day to find the news that iranian radicals have done it, new lines of force come into view with all further terms to worked out under the threat of the first use of a nuclear weapon since nagasaki. when a former ranking democrat on senate foreign relations says he fears that iran will gain

such a weapon and he doesn't want his name on it, his colleagues should pay very close attention. that man is dealing with reality. the best assurance against these things coming to pass is a decisive, bipartisan majority in congress that will vote against this deal and gather still more strength to override a veto. some have suggested the white house recognizes the difficulty members of the president's own party are facing as they are pressured to cast a vote in opposition to the interest and views of their own constituents, not to mention the nation. to avoid this a filibuster has been discussed. that way no member need be on the record supporting this shameful deal. anyone unwilling to stand up and

be counted on this deal should not be serving in elected office. the truth of the matter is that such momentous issues as national security should not be decided by a filibuster, a veto or by one third of the members of the united states senate. least of all by a president who justifies his actions with a false choice, deal or war. now as at other fateful turns in our history, the alternative to the nightmarish scenarios we all wish to avoid is not to make concession after concession after concession. the moment president obama conceded that the iranian regime had any right to ebb rich uranium he lost the possibility of securing a good deal. the moment he let up on sanctions, which were constricting the regime's power and influence, would only have gotten worse for them. pressure was lifted from the mullahs in tehran and they no

longer needed a deal more than we did. a far better deal is still possible and it begins with reasserting our original objective on each of these matters. iran must halt its enrichment and reprocessing active thes. it must halt its ballistic missile activities. it must provide a full and complete accounting of its past nuclear activities. it must allow complete, go anywhere, any time access including at military sites. there should be no sanctions relief until iran has fulfilled these obligations. if iran chooses not to do so, they must understand that the united states stands ready to take military action to ensure they do not acquire a nuclear weapon.

vice president cheney: preventing nuclear weapons is one of the most strategic challenges we face but there are lessons from the past on which we can draw. for decades, rogue regimes have been attempting to acquire nuclear technology and weapons. in 1981, the israelis launched an air attack against the iraqi nuclear facility out of syria, setting back saddam hussein's nuclear program. by 1991, he had reconstituted large portions of it which the united states destroyed with our military action in desert storm. in 2003, when we liberated iraq, the libyan leader muammar gaddafi contacted us days after u.s. forces captured saddam hussein he told us he wanted to turn over his nuclear program he had watched the fate we delivered to saddam and he didn't want to be next. gaddafi's nuclear materials are now in the united states.

gaddafi's decision had two listening-lasting and important respects. first because he turned over his material they did not fall into the hands of militant islamic terrorists who today control territory inside libya. second, his cooperation enabled us to unravel the black market nuclear pr live ration network of pakistani scientist a.q. khan who sold to rogue regimes around the globe. we put him and his network out of business. there's also evidence that iranians halted a force of their program in 2003 in the aftermath of the u.s.invasion of iraq hoping to protect themselves from suffering saddam's fate. in 2007, we learned that the north koreans were build agnew clear reactor in syria's eastern desert. territory now governed by isis. when the israelis brought this information to us, president bush told them he would not take military action. the israelis decided to take action on their own. and destroyed reactor.

in each of these cases, it was either military action or the credible threat of military action that persuaded these rogue regimes to abandon their weapons programs. iran will not be convinced to abandon its program peacefully unless it knows it will face military action if it refuses to do so. that's how a serious negotiation plays out. that's how a self-respecting power with with everything in the balance must serve its vital interests. insisting on key, nonnegotiable points and maintaining a credible threat of military force are the indir spenceable -- are the indispensable elements of serious diplomacy over the iranian nuclear program. that's what the administration should have done all along. instead, they have presented us with a deal that strengthens our adversaries, threaten ours allies, and puts our own security at risk. they have placed on the table for congressional review a deal that provides weapons and funds to a regime that has pledged to

destroy israel and maintains death to america as a central pillar of its policies. arming and funding iran while simultaneously providing them a pathway to a nuclear arsenal is not an act of peace. it's not, as president obama claims, the only alternative to war. it is madness. the vote on the iran deal, on the nuclear agreement, is ahead. and the stakes are very high. every member of congress swears to defend the constitution from enemies outside our shores. i took that oath 10 times and every time i put my hand on the bible, i understood that we were also pledging to defend this great and good nation. a vote to reject this agreement will do that. [applause]

a vote to reject this agreement will do that, approving it will not. thank you very much. [applause] i think we're going to take a couple of questions. mark: absolutely. can everyone hear me? the vice president has to leave but he's agreed to take a few questions. some of you have sent them up. the first question is from general david detwa. mr. vice president do you , believe the timid approach to the assad regime is a reflection of the degree they were willing to assuage iran to change their nuclear agreement and has that approach spilled over to the current anemic effort against the islamic state which is averaging 18 air strikes addai compared to desert storm's average of 1,200 a day.

vice president cheney: i think -- this is speculation on my part -- but i do think the administration's concern with respect to getting the nuclear deal led directly to the , president's decision to stand down after he established the red line, said that if syria used chemical weapons he would take military action, and of course they used chemical weapons and he didn't. my own personal view is he was in that phase of the process where he did not want to offend iranians who are closely tied to syrians so i think it had -- the deal had a direct result of limiting the administration's actions with respect to syria. marc: this is from the iraqi ambassador to the united states. we sometimes hear some people say the contain. of saddam hussein would have been better than the policy of toppling him. what do you think about the people who talk about the

containment of iso-? -- containment of isil? vice president chaney: first of i disagree with the first assumption. we never would have issued or delivered the warning in terms of our military action against saddam, against libya, gaddafi. you can imagine what would have happened if, when isis took over or the radicals took over in libya, if they had inherited a nuclear program. i don't buy into the initial proposition and i can't remember what your question was. marc: the people who say we can contain isil. vice president cheney: i don't see any way to contain isis. it seems they are work very aggressively to recruit and grow in size, include regular cruting -- including recruiting people

in the united states here. i think they've already made remarkable progress for a terrorist organization, more success occupying, creating the caliphate, and occupying thousands of square miles of syria and iraq. they have continued to spread their influence and activities, we have seen them in libya, north africa, boko haram and nigeria has agreed to align itself with isis. i think their prospect for growth and development is remarkable. and i don't think -- i'm not sure how you would contain them. i think ultimately they have to be defeated, they have to be destroyed. supposedly that's the objective the president's laid out but his military activity so far, i think, falls short of what's necessary. marc: this question from linda sachs. they surrendered treaty power to

the president what do you think will get us back to the american exceptionalism of the constitution? vice president cheney: as i mentioned in my remarks, i think this should have been treated as a treaty. if it is that important. rather than the way it is being treated. of course if we'd handled it as a treaty, it would take a 2/3 vote of the senate to ratify it the traditional way of doing business. we've done a lot of executive agreements over the years this one is so important work such -- this one is so important, with such important ramifications. the failure to follow that regular procedure strikes me as -- it was a mistake. a negotiated arrangement, i guess, but as we look at it now you don't need a 2/3 vote of the senate to ratify it. they only need one third. one third plus one system of i think it was serious procedural mistake. marc: one last question. i ask everybody to please remain

seated as the vice president exits as he has to catch a plane. to go to the west coast. this is from tom cotton. the president has said he will confront iran's regional aggression after this deal is implemented. what steps should be take ton reassure israel and our sunni partners? vice president cheney: i'll believe it when i see it. i have serious reservations after you pour over $100 billion back into iran, you lift sanctions and embargos on things like conventional weapons and icbm's, you take off the embargos on doing business, for example, with the irdc, i think you've given them an enormous shot in the arm in terms of their ability to pursue their terrorist activities and support for ill list regimes and then you're going to turn around and mount military operations somehow to take them down. it doesn't fit.

to mount military operations to take them down. it doesn't calculate in my mind. i think if the -- if the problems we have with the nuclear agreement in and of itself weren't enough, when you add to that the last-minute addition of lifting the sanctions and the embar goes -- and the embargoes on ballistic missiles and conventional weapons, that in in on itself does enormous damage. i'm afraid that the idea that somehow we can contain iran afterwards is going to take an awful lot of effort, major effort. we may have no choice but to do that. as i mentioned in here, the state of the defense department's budget these days is significantly depressed, ray odierno who just stepped down as

army chief of staff said the readiness level in the army of the united states is the lowest it's been in the history of the army. that's over 200 years. we've got a situation where we badly need to rebuild our military capability, especially if we're going to be in the business of trying to contain the damage that iran is going to do with all of the relief that we've given them in terms of funds, in materials of lifting sanctions, in terms of reversing course on limiting their icbm force and so on. so i -- if you look down the road and think about where we're going to be once this is implemented, once we see the iranians exercise their part of it, given especially the continued iranian assertion that we're never going to see their military sites, the secretary of defense, the equivalent in iran, just in the last day or two held a press conference, i guess this

week new york which he said the united states will always be the great satan for us. -- it will always be the great thing for us. we'll continue to do everything we can to support their opponents. and to support those people who were hostile to israel. this doesn't mean any withdrawal or change in behavior on the part of iran. it's a statement of their defense minister. marc: this president is unlikely to do any of these things, what would your advice be if there's a republican president to succeed him in 500 or so days? vice president cheney: first of all irk hope it happens. -- first of all, i hope it happens. [applause] i think that most significant thing we have to do, before we do anything else, excuse me, is rebuild our military. you've had every single member of the joint chiefs of staff in testimony before the congress

over the last year or so testify that we no longer have the capacity or we're nearly to the point where we no longer have the capacity to execute the nation's national security strategy. the air force chief of staff recently said that the air force today has fewer aircraft and older aircraft than any time in the history of the air force, which was created right after world war ii in 1947-1948. you can go down chapter and verse. we've got to rebuild that capacity. we had a technological edge in every area, since world war ii. whether it's stealth or others, that gap is rapidly close, we've got the chinese and russians actively and aggressively working hard to close the gap, you see what happens to the whole area of cyberwarfare here at home. at the same time, congress is

debating and adopting the measure to in effect, take all of the data that we collected in the nsa program and turn it back to the companies without any limits are restrictions on what they are to do with it. that same week the debate was going forward in congress and being passed, it was disclosed the chinese had hacked into our personnel database here and all of us who had ever worked for the federal government, and i do not need to take this personally, all of us, including members of congress, their security background checks and so forth, their personnel records are in the hands of the chinese. the chinese were ripping us off as we were wringing our hands saying, oh, my gosh, we can't have the n.s.a. collecting call data on american citizens. nobody to my dell at has yet produced one single instance where a civil liberty of an american citizen have been violated by that program. not but we spent enormous amount

one. of time in the end shifted all the data back to the phone companies and significantly weakened our capacity to use that capability to intercept and block actions by al qaeda, isis, our enemies. marc: mr. vice president, thank you for joining us here today. [applause] if everyone could remain seated please. [applause] >> please remain seated while the vice president exits. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015]

>> the house takes up the nuclear agreement disapproval resolution wednesday. then, we have one hour of debate considering the bill. after that, members begin 11 hours of a general debate, divided between five committees. financial services, ways and means, oversight, government perform, and judiciary. then, the foreign affairs committee gets three hours. a vote on the resolution is expected on friday. coming up on c-span, we have programs on the nuclear deal that continues. next, we have harry reid on his support of the agreement. that is followed by the house rules debate disapproval

resolution. former secretary of state hillary clinton gives a speech about the iran nuclear deal. and its implications for u.s. foreign policy and national security. we will be live this morning from the brooking institution at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 2. presidential candidates ted cruz and donald trump are among the speakers today at a tea party rally against the iran nuclear agreement and we have live coverage from the event from capitol hill starting at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 3. a signature feature of book tv is the all-day coverage of the book there's and festivals across the country. with top nonfiction offers -- authors. at the end of september we are in new york for the brooklyn

book festival. an early october, it is the southern festival of books in nashville. the weekend after that we are live from austin for the texas book festival. at the end of the month, we will cover to book festivals from the same weekend. from the nation's heartland it is the festival and medicine. and then, the boston book festival. at the start of november, we will be in portland, oregon. followed by the national book awards for new york city. then, we are live from florida for the miami book fair international. that is a purely fairs and festivals this fall on c-span 2's book tv. >> the number of democratic senators backing the president on the iran nuclear agreement increased to 42 tuesday with announcements from richard blum in connecticut, maria cantwell, and ron wyden from oregon.

harry reid spoke about the nuclear agreement at the carnegie endowment. his remarks are 35 minutes. george: good morning, a few people settling in. my name is george, vice president for studies here at the carnegie endowment. it's my pleasure to welcome all of you back from the end of summer, lamentably, and the beginning of the work year here in washington, but we have a great occasion which we are honored to present to you to start it off. and that is an address by senate minority leader harry reid. and to introduce senator reid we have a dear friend and former colleague of his, congressman howard berman, who is also a friend of ours. we had the pleasure and honor of working together on a number of issues when he was chairman of

the house foreign affairs committee. he's still very active in international affairs. so it gives us extra pleasure to ask congressman berman to come up and introduce senator reid. congressman berman: thank you very much, george. just before i introduce the speaker, i just want to let our host know that, host of carnegie, that really how incredibly valuable your work has been to me during the 30 years that i was on the house foreign affairs committee. issues like nonproliferation, arms control, u.s.-soviet, and the u.s.-russian relationship. so many other issues.

your writings, it testimony, and our conversations helped shape my own outlook on a lot of key foreign-policy issues. iou a lot. a special shout out to the great people these days who are -- at the moscow center. whenever i brought a group of members of congress with me, i never went to russia without stopping there to get analysis on those issues. in any event, i am honored today to be asked to introduce your's baker who has been my friend for 33 years -- your speaker who has been my friend of 433 years. senate democratic leader, harry reid, we 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. and as you know, the senator served as majority leader from 2007 through 2014.

he remains the democratic leader during this, his last term in congress. what most do not appreciate is the skill that goes into garnering the mantle of leader and majority leader in the u.s. 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. they are legendary. he fights tenaciously for that in which he believes and he produces the compromise when that is the only sensible course. relevant to discussion this morning, senator reid during all 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 comprehensive plan of action is not only in america's security interest, but it is in israel's security interest as well. what is not well known, is that the critical strategic work that then majority leader reid played from 2009 through 2012 in ensuring that binding far reaching sanctions were enacted and done so in a way that maximized president obama's ability to put together a far-reaching international coalition in support of sanctions. it was not the author of the sanctions bills.

his name does not appear and the newspapers and discussions about him, but he was seized with the critical importance of preventing iran from having a nuclear weapons capability and devoted great time and leadership to making this happen. it is not often a house member gets a call from the senate majority leader to discuss legislative strategy on a bill not authored by that senator, or makes himself readily and easily accessible to a house member to ensure positive outcome. on this issue senator harry reid led not in name but in taking the steps that only a majority leader can take to ensure that the effort was successful. i'm very proud to introduce senator harry reid. [applause]

senator reid: as some of you may know i hurt myself on january 1 is it and basically blinded myself in one eye. doing my exercise. as senator mikulski said in our first meeting when i came back to the congress, she said to -- came back to the caucus, she said to everyone there, i told you i said it all my life, , exercise will kill you. [laughter] so anyway here's 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 also want to thank the carnegie endowment and your president, deputy secretary 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. a formal debate begins this afternoon. the private negotiation 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. 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. but now it's our turn. now the united states has a choice to make. we can in force in agreement that forces iran to walk away from any nuclear weapons program, or we can walk away from the agreement. and assume responsibility for the consequences. 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\] >> debate is teed up in the senate. she says she will support any run deal anyway that you can. what can we expect as the debate get underway in the senate?

>> it is not clear if all the senators will listen to senator mcconnell. he said he wanted to remain for the duration of the debate. ben it appears he would only there for the beginning of the debate. this is something that almost never happens where you have all 100 voters listening to one another. i don't know of any reporter second think of a time with that happened in recent memory. >> your article says that senate democrats are on the verge of iran vote.d -- an what are you hearing undemocratic plans? we know they have 42 votes. it is not clear if there is enough support to filibuster.

at least three senators supported the deal told me this evening that they were undecided on the issue. and theharry reid making it clear this is important to them. they will be facing a lot of pressure from party leadership to support the filibuster. , a visa for the nuclear deal, you should filibuster. the republican-controlled congress to take over the nuclear deal, it would send a confusing message to foreign countries and financial institutions above a long-term by ability of the iran deal committee taking

of a debate. what we know the schedule? >> no amendments will be allowed to be offered. it looks like it will be 11 hours of floor debate divided amongst the several committees. that includes financial services, and foreign affairs. >> one of the first words we heard, peter from illinois bringing up a privileged resolution on the house floor and talking about that earlier tuesday. what is his point? >> rachel oswald: he is arguing that the iran nuclear agreement does not begin the 60 day congressional review clock until congress has received all indexes and related deals to the court. the international atomic energy agency in iran reached two separate side arrangements having to do with resolving long-standing issues about the nuclear weapons research. the white house says the iran

clock began on july 19, when it transmitted all of the indexes and the deals to congress. that means, the deadline would be september 17. regardless of what representative ruskin is saying, whether you consider the iaea constitutes a side deal under the terms of the review act, i do not think his effort is going to gain much traction. i spoke with bob corker a couple minutes ago about what he thought of it. was the author of the review act. he said he thought the best way for lawmakers to register the disapproval of not getting the iaea agreement would be to vote down the iran deal and not to raise the other issues. he does not consider it an issue.