minute speaking about the serious concerns that israel leaders have about this deal. israel has every reason to be alarmed by a regime that both denies its existence and seeks its destruction. . i would not support this agreement for one second if i thought it put israel in greater danger. i believe in my core that israel and america must stand side by side and i will always stand by israel's right to defend itself as i always have. i believe this deal and a joint strategy for enforcing it makes israel safer. i say that with humility. i am not israeli. i don't know what it's like to live under constant threat from your neighbors in a country where the margin for error is so thin. i know that my saying this deal makes you safer won't alleviate

the very real fears of the israeli people, but i have stood for israeli security for a very long time. it was one of my bedrock principles as secretary of state. it's why i supported stronger defense systems like the iron dome anti-rocket defense system which proved so effective in protecting israeli lives during the conflicts of 2012 and last summer. it's why i worked closely with israel to advance the two-state vision of a jewish and democratic israel with secure and recognized borders, and it's why i believe we should gotiate -- expedited negotiations with israel. let's not wait until 2016 until the -- when the current deal expires. let's get it done this year. i invite the prime minister of israel during my first month in august to talk about all of these issues and to set us on a course of close, frequent

consultation right from the start. because we both rely on each other for support as partners, allies and friends. this isn't just about policy for me. it is personal. as president i'm committed to shoring up and strengthening the relationship between our countries. we have had honest disagreements about this deal. now is the time to come together. now is the time to remember what unites us and build upon it it. and so i know well that the same forces that threaten israel, threatens the united states, and the people of israel, let me say you'll never have to question whether we're with you. the united states will always be with you. there have also been honest disagreements about the nuclear deal here at home. smart, serious people can see issues like these differently. like my friend, chuck shumer, who is going to be an excellent

leader in the senate. i respect the skepticism that he and others feel, and i respect differences of opinion and people who advocate vigorously for their beliefs. but i have a harder time respecting those who approach an issue as serious as this with unserious talk, especially anyone running to be president of the united states. several republican candidates boast they'll tear up this agreement in 2017, more than a year after it's been implemented. that's not leadership. that's recklessness. it would set us right down the very dangerous path we've worked so hard to avoid. i'm looking forward to a robust debate about foreign policy in this campaign. where we have disagreements we should lay them out. like american ground forces in

iraq should engage in direct combat, as scott walker wants. r if we should keep cuba closed, as marco rubio and jeb bush wants. let's debate these issues but let's debate them on facts, not fear. let's resist denigrating the patriotism or loyalty of those who disagree with us, and let's avoid at all costs undermining america's credibility abroad. that only makes us weaker, and i'm going to call it out whenever i see it. i spent four years representing america abroad as america's secretary of state. it was one of the greatest privileges of my life, and knowing that my fellow americans were counting on me and rooting for me, not as democrats, not as republicans but as americans, meant a great deal. we are all one team. the american team. and that doesn't change no matter how much we might

disagree. and i can tell you from personal experience we are stronger overseas when we are united at home. so we simply have to find a way to work together better than we have been doing. there's a lot that democrats and republicans can and should agree on. the united states should lead in the middle east. we can agree on that. we should stand by our friends against iranian aggression. we can agree on that too. i believe that the plan i've laid out today is one that all americans could endorse, and i hope they will. the next president will face threats from many corridors. from those we see today like terrorism from isis, aggressiveness from putin, pandemics like ebola to all those we can't predict yet. we need a leader who has a strong vision for the future and skill and determination to get us there. we can't stop the world from changing, but we can help to shape those changes, and we can

do that by leading with strength, smarts and unyielding commitment to our values. you know, i saw that when i was first lady, senator, secretary of state that when america leads with principle and purpose, other people and governments are eager to join us. no country comes close to matching our advantages, the strength of our economy, the skill of our work force, our tradition of innovation, our unmatched net worth of alliances and partnerships. so we are poised to remain the world's most admired and powerful nation for a long time if we make the smart choices and practice smart leadership. that's what i will try to do as your president, and i believe as strongly as ever that our best days are ahead of us and that america's greatest contributions to the world are yet to come. thank you, all, very much. [applause]

strobe: well, thank you very much, madam secretary. i was wondering what we could call this speech. from hard choices to smart choices. the yes and speech. ladies and gentlemen, welcome this second part of the event with secretary clinton which is a little conversation that i'll have with her and then we'll take questions from the audience. martin: i wanted to start by

saying number one, it's very clear, very strong speech and if i had to summarize the basic elements of it, it's a message to iran is we will enforce, we will confront you when you try to destabilize the region and we will deter you if you try to go for a nuclear weapon sometime down the line. and i wonder how you navigate unspoken certain -- tension between the effect that you are going to be taking a very hard line against some of the destabilizing and nefarious activities of the iranians and at the same time this agreement puts the united states into a partnership with iran in terms of implementing it. so how do you deal with that tension? the iranians may feel like, hey, we are giving up all these things to deal with our nuclear

program and this is what we're going to get into return is a very tough american response. secretary clinton: i believe that iran is the subject of the agreement. that it now faces obligations that frankly in many instances it faced before the agreement and that they have a -- signed an agreement where they are committing themselves to fulfill the terms of the agreement. the agreement will be enforced, not by iran. the agreement will be enforced by the rest of the negotiators, the other countries plus the iaea and it will be and is intended to be quite burdensome and intrusive into iran. now, maybe they believe that having signed the agreement they can somehow avoid the

consequences of the inspections and the other requirements, but i think they understand very well they're at the starting line. there are these demands that they are supposed to fulfill. there is a sequencing of lifting of sanctions and other kinds of benefits that they receive in return for their having taken the action required. i think if they are counting on the world led by the united states being distracted, getting diverted, getting tired, not having the staying power to consistently enforce the agreement and hold iran accountable and i for one want to make clear to them that that is not going to happen, that we will take seriously every aspect of this agreement and we will expect them to comply and there will be consequences if they do not. martin: when you called for a

regional strategy and outlined the elements of it, it really ems to come down to when you -- what happens in syria where iran is very invested in the assad regime. does a regional strategy on your watch mean taking down the assad regime? secretary clinton: well, you know, martin, it's not iran that we're invested, it's now becoming public, we're learning about russian investment, russian troops on the ground. it may very well be opening the door to greater russian involvement. there's no doubt that russia has been a principal funder and supplier throughout this entire terrible episode. so we are facing the collapse of syria, the survival thus far of the assad regime, although

it clearly has much less to govern than it did when this started. the open, ungoverned areas that are hosting terrorist groups and the continuing commitment from iran and russia to propping up assad. so i was the principal negotiator on the geneva 2012 agreement which russia signed onto, which laid out a pathway to a political solution. it wasn't very long until russia reneged on what they had signed, but i think it still provides a very credible framework for us to keep doing everything we can to, you know, try to push the iranians and the russians in that direction. now, what i do believe is this. you know, the potential threat from the terrorist groups and e chaos in syria can

destabilize the region in ways that are bad for iran, and therefore, the higher the pressure is for some kind of reaction to what is going on inside syria and certainly the efforts that isis is making to take even more and hold territory in iraq directly gainst what iran sees as its interests, the continued destabilize along the lebanese border, there are all kinds of reasons why iran is going to have to confront this instability. my view on this is we have to be, you know, talking and pushing on and raising the costs for iran and for russia all the time. now, if putin were sitting here, which it's sort of hard to imagine, but if he were -- i

should ask strobe. strobe is the expert. he would say, we're fighting terrorism, that's what we're doing. so we may find a way to begin to join those -- martin: so the -- i remember well a speech you gave when you were secretary of state in the gulf in which you warned the gulf leaders about policies that were based on sand. and president obama in talking about the concerns of iran's destabilizing activity in the region said, look, we can help protect our allies from external threats. the problem is it's hard to protect them from internal threats. and you've been clear again that you will do that in terms of protecting them from the external threats. with onder how you deal

that continuing challenge. secretary clinton: well, you know very well it's a difficult one. i apologize for my voice. suffering under massive allergy assault. republican histamines are everywhere. [laughter] you know, martin, this someone of the biggest problems we face. no one can deny much of the extremism in the world is the direct result of policies and funding undertaken by the saudi government and individuals. we would be foolish not to recognize that. i think increasingly they would be mistaken not to recognize that. you can never be more extreme than the next extremist, and i think they face some very

serious internal problems, as do the other regimes. i'm not sure they're yet convinced of that. i'm not sure they yet believe that they have to figure out different ways of dealing with their own population and cooperating with each other. and cutting off funding and exporting, you know, troublesome emans to elsewhere, but i think you need to be constantly beating that drum with them. now given the rise of isis and the very clear threat they feel from iranian activities in the gulf that maybe there's an openness there. i know that the king was here last week, had a chance to meet with the president, so perhaps there's more of an opportunity for a dialogue than we've had in the past. however, having said that, i

think we need to do to defend them because the alternatives are hardly more promising. martin: israel. effort in very clear your speech to say it's time for healing, it's time to come together. when you're president that you would have the prime minister there in your first month. and that's very consistent, as i think you said in your speech, with your approach which has always been to put your arm around prime minister netanyahu rather than -- secretary clinton: or any prime minister. [laughter] martin: and as you know, that's a policy that i support too, but some of my friends in israel recently have said that's not the way to deal with us. we need tough love which is the alternative. instead of rewarding bad

behavior, you should be really speaking tough -- more toughly to us. how do you respond to that? secretary clinton: well, i think there is a lot of room for tough love, particularly in private and behind, you know, closed doors. as i write in my book, certainly prime minister netanyahu and i had very vigorous conversations that have gone on in person and over the phone. but i just don't think it's a particularly productive approach for the united states to take because in large measure it opens the door to everybody else to delegitimize israel, to pile on in ways that are not good for the strength and stability, not just of israel, obviously, but of the region. and so in the absence of, you know, some kind of greater goal that we were trying to achieve

by doing that, i just don't think that is the smartest approach. martin: let's go to your questions. would ask you please to identify yourself and make sure there's a question mark at the nd of your question. robin: robin wright, former brookings scholar. madam secretary, you talked about how you would use american muscle to contain iran. can you tell us how you might use the new diplomatic channel to engage iran on issues, whether it's support for extremist groups or specifically dealing with the crisis in syria? would unwilling to use that diplomatic channel to engage iran? secretary clinton: yes, i

would, robin. i think we have to attempt to do that. when i first went to oman in january of 2011, we didn't know whether any effort at some kind of secret channel would pay off. we still have the p-5 plus 1 that was going on. and we knew that eventually whatever the united states did would have to merge into the international approach. but we had to begin to explore if and we did. and we explored it over that summer. that's when we had the first, you know, visit to discuss whether anything could be possible. it takes a while, as you know so well, being such an expert in this region, to figure out who's at the table, what the conversation's about, how seriously you'll be taken, who's backing you up. so when the talks actually started just in the iranian-american channel with

bill byrnes and jake sullivan it was ihorn, exploratory and laid down the ground rules we were looking for and then eventually was lurged into the p-5 plus 1 once there was a change of government in iran and there was serious effort. so with respect to the other issues, i have very clearly in the public arena seen the iranians at the highest levels reject any such discussion. they don't want to talk about yemen. they don't want to talk about anything other than the nuclear agreement. now, that was a strategic decision we made back then. you know, number one, it appeared to us in the early discussions with them trying to figure out how to proceed, they wanted to talk about everything as a way to get some items on the table to trade off for the

nuclear agreements so they would not have to make perhaps as many concessions as we were expecting them to make. that's why we kept very focus on just the nuclear program. we also had the continuing challenge, and it would be, even in this instance, of our friends in the gulf not wanting us to talk about anything that affected them in a bilateral channel with the iranians. and you can understand why. if they weren't going to be at the table, they didn't want the united states to be talking about yemen or talking about anything else of vital interest in their views to them. so if there were a way to construct such a channel, i would be open to it but i'm just laying out some of the difficulties of us being able to to do that on this sweet of other i shall -- sweep of other issues that touches many of the regions of vital interest. and i think when it comes to

syria, we have historically not wanted to talk to iran about syria because we knew iran was basically the principal supporter, propper up, if you will, of assad and we wanted to get the rest of the international community in harness to have a set of expectations and demands before we brought iran in. so we have to readjust this all the time. just as i said diplomacy is a balancing of risk, it's also the constant evaluation of where the opportunities are, where the openings are, what possibly could happen now that didn't happen before. so i'm open but i am very sober about how it would have to be constructed and what it would actually cover and who would have to be either at the table or, you know, in the first chair behind so they didn't feel that they were being left ut or negotiated over.

inaudible] >> you said that you would press the assad regime. how do you increase the cost for russia, a russia that has indiscernible] secretary clinton: well, it's an important question. i don't know if you could hear the question but it was, you know, aimed at what you could do to up the cost on russia, for example, to be a more productive partner in seeking a

solution and how would we do more to, as i understood what you said, you know, work with our european partners on the security issues that are challenging europe and we see that every day with the refugees because it's humanitarian but it's also a security challenge as well. well, i have been, i remain convinced that we need a concerted effort to really up the cost on russia and in particular on putin. i think we have not done enough. i am in the category of people who wanted us to do more in response to the annexation of crimea and the continuing destabilization of ukraine. i understand the hesitation, not only in our country, but most importantly in europe. the sanctions came out of all of the discussions and, you

know, maybe to some extent they have had, you know, some impact. i think the falling oil prices have had more impact and we got to figure out how we combine both in looking at ways to put more -- to up the cost, to put more pressure on putin. i think it's one of the long-term security challenges that the united states, europe, especially nato, face. and i don't think we can dance around it very much longer. i mean, we all wish it wasn't the case. e all wish it would go away. we all wish that putin would modernize his country and move west instead of sinking himself into historical roots of czar-like behavior and intimidation along borders and rojecting russian power in places like russia and elsewhere. i think he continues to do what he's doing and go as far as he can get away with. and i believe we got to regroup

and we got to regroup quickly because i worry very much about what's happening in syria right now. troops on the ground to allegedly protect, you know, military supplies. what is russia's real objective? you know, the stated objective, the public objective to fight terrorism has always been their rationale. why did they support assad? after assad there would be terrorism. now, obviously if we had a different approach from the beginning working together we might have avoided that. we might have actually, you now, helped to a political transition. i think we got to spend a lot more time. all the russian experts that, you know, thought that their work was done off the fall of the berlin wall, i hope they will be dusting off their materials and i'm looking right at you, strobe talbott, and get

back in the game with us because i think russia's objectives are to stymie and to confront and to undermine american power whenever and wherever they can. and i don't think there's much to be surprised about that. so where we can work with them, that's one of the criticisms that sometimes comes from the right, the republicans. what did the reset ever accomplish? well, actually quite a lot. we did the new start agreement. we got cooperation on iran because when we got the security council to pass the sanctions that we had been working so hard on, that was under medved he have in 2010, we got support to ship lethal material and equipment across russia to resupply our troofments we got a lot. now, that all changed once putin announced he was going to be president again. i don't admire very much about

mr. putin but the idea you can stand up and say i will be your next president, that does have a certain attraction to it. [laughter] so i think we got -- we are not spending the time, we're not thinking, we're not digging deep into what are we going to do. so to answer the question of the woman who asked, we have to do more to get back talking about how we try to confine, contain, deter russian aggression in europe and beyond and try to figure out what are the best tools for doing that. don't lose sight because we are going to have a lot of issues up there as well. i was always of that opinion, expressed it vokely within the administration and nothing that has happened since in any way persuaded me otherwise. martin: just a quick follow-up which is more generally.

you got a take on the russians and putin. you got to deal with a very comprehensive strategy for a very complicated power called the middle east. how do you do the rebalancing to asia on top of all of this? secretary clinton: well, i do think we're capable of doing more than one thing. although sometimes it appears difficult. and i think we've got to be much more global in our thinking and globally present. the rebalancing to asia, otherwise known as the pivot, was in response to the very real sense of abandonment that asian leaders expressed to me and my phone calls to them before i went to the region in february of 2009, you know, they believed that because we were so focused in afghanistan and we were so focused in iraq and obviously had to be given all that we had invested there

that we were just not paying attention to the developments in asia. i think we've come some ways in trying to rewal balance, -- rebalance, but we have a long way to go. there's much at stake in how we deal with all the players in asia. i'm hoping that upcoming trip with president ping produces positive outcomes. i thought the climate agreement was quite consequential, having been in copenhagen in 2009 when we had to literally break into a meeting where the chinese were consolidating india, south africa, brazil against any kind of movement toward the nonadvanced economies taking responsibility. so i think we got some good stakes in the ground but we don't have a strategy yet that will be consistent.

the last thing i will say, martin, and i eluded in my remarks, one of our real problems right now is we don't have a consistent foreign policy that is bipartisan. let alone nonpartisan. and i think that's a problem. i was appalled when those republican senators wrote to the ayatollah. i thought it was incredibly, ou know, short-sighted and just wrong-headed. i don't think -- i don't know how we rebuild a consistent foreign policy from administration to administration regardless of republican or democrat. you know, it was a lot easier in a bipolar world us against the so much yet union. we can't work at it if we don't have a set of strategic pillars and organizing principles that we can present to our own people and present to the congress and present to the

world. i think we have work to do. artin: andrea. andrea: madam secretary, when you talk about the policies with syria and putin, was it in retrospect a mistake for the administration when you left office to pull back on labor day a couple years ago, make the deal with russia on the chemical weapons? yes, the weapons were disposed of, but that created a different partnership, if you will, on diplomacy. and secondly, with reference to our colleague from germany, what should america do to step up to the crisis of migration even if it's not on our front door, it is a moral issue, is it not, for the world? thank you. secretary clinton: well, as to the first one, it's always difficult in hindsight to say what could have happened if something different had been done. if we remember back to that

time, prime minister cameron had lost the vote in the parliament. he wanted to show support for the president's policy of taking some limited military action in light of syria's use of chemical weapons. so it became clearer there was going to be a difficult vote in the congress. not clear at all that it would be successful which would have left the president with authority, certainly, with executive authority to act but since it had become a public debate it would have been a much more difficult decision for him to make. i do think that not being able to follow through on it cost us. i am certain of that. that still comes back in conversations that people have with me, both here at home and people from other countries. but i do think it was a net positive to get as much of the chemical weapons out as we

could and there was no way we could have done that without russian cooperation. i think there was hope after that kind of cooperation produced positive results that then we could go back to talking more broadly with the russians about what needed to be done in syria and what needed to be done with assad. they did not reciprocate on that. i think it's like much in international relations. it's a mixed picture. some positive. some negative. with respect to the refugees, i have said i think we're coming up on the u.n. general assembly, i think there should be an emergency global gathering where the u.n. literally drives to get commitments. we did that with haiti. after the haiti earthquake, we had a huge gathering at the

u.n. where literally it was like a pledging conference where we said, what are you going to do? what can you contribute? and little countries to big countries all stepped up, and it was a great show of support in the face of a terrible natural disaster. we need to do something similar, and i publicly called on the u.n. to convene such a gathering. do it again today in front of all of you. the united states has to be at the table. has to be leading. we were in a strong position to do that on haiti. even though it's not on our doorstep, we have a real interest in working, not just with our european friends -- i believe this is a global responsibility, and if you're too far away or for whatever reason you don't think you can take refugees, then you have to contribute money. you should be supporting, not only those refugees fleeing but the incredible work that jordan and lebanon and turkey have been doing and they have not

gotten the financial support they need. in fact, the last i checked the u.n. appeal had only reached 37%. so there is both financial work and contributions that need to be forthcoming and countries need to be more open and willing to take refugees. i obviously want the united states to do our part, but i also want this to be a global response and so i hope with all these leaders gathered, with pope francis addressing the united nations general assembly in two about two weeks, we can see something visible with people making their commitments nation by nation or in the case of the e.u. or other organizations as well. martin: i think we're going to have to close it up. i see two hands going up. do you mind taking two ogether?

>> madam secretary, i also want to add my thanks for a very forceful, unequivocal and clear speech, laying out a position that seems imminently defensible. one of the principles of the iran deal is an alignment of interest in the region between israel and the moderate arab countries -- egypt, saudi arabia, jordan, etc., the gulf states. if you agree with that, how would you see capitalizing on those shared interests, the concerns about iran going forward, how would you promote the shared interests as a way of bringing more peace to the egion? martin: joe, quick question. joe: thank you for your measured and fact-based approach to this. let me bring you to the

politics of the issue. what explains we don't have a single republican senator in support of this? is this an ideological divide between the parties or raw partisan politics? secretary clinton: well, i'll restrain myself and answer the first question first. i think there is an opportunity here, sissy. i really do. i don't think it's easy, but let's go back a few years. not so long ago israel and turkey were working very closely together on a number of issues. then came the flotilla and then came the response by the israeli military. then came many years of, you know, real hard feelings that ot harder and harder, and we lost what was a -- not just working relationship but a real

bridge. similarly, there have been a number of instances where in the past israel has worked in common concert with a number of the gulf countries. israel is now back in a very productive relationship with egypt. obviously with jordan. so there are the pieces of national and regional interests ere that i any -- think very diligently and probably frustratingly could be pulled back together. i don't know that it's something that the united states can lead, but it's certainly we can try to atalyze and encourage. and i think there is potential there. as i said in my speech, i'll do everything to tell turkey and

qatar it's not in their interests. it's not in egypt's interest. they care what happens in egypt for somewhat different reasons than others but they care. and so i think we have to build the case, and i think american diplomats could help build that case and then look for ways. i spent, you know, literally years trying to get the israel east to finally apologize -- israelis to finally apologize to the turks on the flotilla. there was one memorable day during one of my vacations where i was literally talking to the israelis. i was talking to henry kinsinger to make the strategic argument which we all believed that the sooner that israel did that the sooner they could get back to some kind of discussion perhaps. finally that happened when president obama went to israel, and i was very happy that, you know, now we have a different turkey with a different kind of set of challenges. but interests remain the same.

turkey's interests for stability are not so different than they were even though some of the leadership, attitudes seemed to have altered. so i would like to see us do everything we can. i would make a high priority of that. this administration in the last, you know, year and a half or so of its term will be similarly doing that because let's start seeing what we can do. it kind of goes back to robin's question. you don't know what you can achieve until you try to put the pieces together. i think the more we can try to put those pieces together, the more we'll know whether or not something can come of it. with respect to the lack of support for the agreement. honestly, i think it's in some instances genuine. just as i said in my remarks, i think that there are people who i deeply respect on the

democratic side certainly, and i would respect them on the republican side as well who just have concerns that they don't feel have been answered. but i think the driving force behind it is, you know, to close ranks against the president, against this kind of diplomacy but without offering an alternative and that's what i find -- i don't mind debating alternatives. when we did the new start treaty, it was really hard to get the votes for that. i remember, you know, going up and making the case but we got some republican votes. but we're living in a very partisan atmosphere right now, and i think we do have to do more, just as we -- i'll end with this by saying, just as we have to in diplomacy to reach out to people constantly if not to persuade them, to join with us to eliminate an argument

that they have, that they won't join because they have been consulted, they have been brought along, they have been briefed. we have to do that with the congress as well. and it's not easy if they don't even have open minds, but we still have to do it so we can be in the position of saying, you know, we told you this. we offered you this. we briefed you this. we gave you this information and you haven't come forthwith rational f, you know, or rationale to oppose us. you're just opposing us. it's very political. after discounting those who i think are genuinely skeptical. martin: madam secretary hillary, thank you very much for a very powerful, serious position on ed iran and the middle east and broader. this is precisely what we

expect from you and precisely we at brookings want to promote in this presidential debate, so we're very grateful to you. please join me in thanking hillary. [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] >> it was under former secretary of state hillary clinton's tenure in 2013 of the

iran nuclear negotiations began in earnest. she spoke this morning at the brookings institution in washington, one of a number of speeches we've covered on the iran nuclear agreement. and here on cleep as we wait for the house to come back in later this afternoon, once again opening up our phone lines to get your thoughts, your opinion on the iran nuclear agreement. democrats.20 for 202-748-8921 for republicans. 202-748-8922 for others. we posted a question. here's how things stand at 2:45 eastern this afternoon. 442 in favor. 344 opposing the iran nuclear agreement. that's at our facebook page. here's the situation in the house. the senate has come back in. they gaveled back in to consider that resolution of

disapproval. we expected the house to begin at noon eastern but apparently there is some real opposition among republican ranks. and jake sherman of political is reporting about that. his piece from late this morning, early this afternoon. the headlines says house republicans revolt against iran vote. here's what he writes. he says the republican leaders are once again in a jam just a day after a month recess, john boehner, kevin mcmccarthy and steve scalise find themselves stymied on what they thought would be an easy vote. one mind there is not republican to support the -- -- house dozen republicans are resisting to bring it to the floor. here's the potential way forward on this. he says the house g.o.p. is discussing a new plan which

they plan to present to the rank and file at a 4:00 p.m. meeting this afternoon. that would attempt to pass the legislation with three separate concepts. moving toward a vote on the measure or asserting that the president did not submit all the elements of the agreements with iran, a concept first raised by mike pompeo. in a speech on the house floor by congressman roskam of illinois. second, republican leaders in the house are working on a bill that would try to prevent the president from lifting sanctions on iran. and lastly, according to jake sherman of "politico," they would -- the original plan was to vote on the disapproval resolution. we're expecting a final vote on that. 11 hours of total debate. a final vote on that to pass possibly on friday, september 11, but all of that is up in the air. we will keep you posted as we get more solid information. we do know that meeting this meeting on capitol hill with house republicans. let's go to townville, south carolina, to hear from teresa

on our republican line. caller: well, i am definitely for it. it is a good plan. as a republican i think republicans need to vote out the republicans that are now in office. we cannot continue to delay making important decisions. host: audrey is in hendersonville, north carolina, on our others line. what's your take on this? caller: how do you do? i have a couple comments. also, i lived in the middle east during the 1967 crisis, and i consequently for the remainder of my adult life have followed the middle east news highly. here's my comment. i do agree with cheney's comments and the words that he used even though the word was stark. the word i'm referring to on fox news yesterday is the word

madness. i do not believe logic is being utilized by the republican party in particular because they would be the strongest and fiercest voice for the americans who are opposed to the iranian agreement. but the particulars that make it madness, in my own mind of logic, are the following. the fact that an infusion of somewhere between $100 billion and $150 billion into the economy of a country who at the very least would be ranked within the top three of our nations. our nation, the united states, iran would be listed as most likely in the top three of our enemies. number two, the fact that the ast history of how the iranian

parliament has operated in previous contracts that were made that pertain to contracts that deal with secrecy, places in which various uranium enrichment plants are located and concealed, deals were broken in the past. we can't expect them to remain in any way liable to the united states or the iaea to be trustworthy. next, the simple fact that the quds force, who is known to have killed hundreds if not thousands of our american troops that dedicated their lives to protect american safety, money will be, from what i hear on the fox news station, they will be infused with more money. the fact also -- this is very

strategically important, the fact we did not impose in this iranian agreement that the flakes of -- nation of iran must cease their activity which is anti-american and all of the manners in which they support groups of terrorism such as hezbollah and others who are anti-israel and anti-american. host: that's audrey in north carolina. she talked about the quds force that was also referenced in that rally we have been covering on our companion network c-span3 and c-span2, the tea party talking about that. let's go to denver and hear from jeff on our democrats line. go ahead, jeff. caller: hi. good afternoon. host: good afternoon. caller: listen, i just want to make a comment and then -- i do

support the deal. i just want people to remember that we have a long history in the middle east, from propping saddam who basically did not take care of his people and the upporting, you know, -- supporting policies in the middle east that i personally don't agree with. the point is that i prefer diplomacy over war. i think we should give this a shot. at no point are we weakened by this. we are still the most powerful nation on earth. israel has nuclear weapons as well. i think the republicans position, i don't like. thank you. host: all right. jeff, we're asking your thoughts on the iranian nuclear deal.

facebook.com/c-span, we have a poll up. lots of response here. in addition to the votes, rick says he strongly oppose it is. they got what they wanted and we got nothing. the u.s. has to defend iran if they are attacked, which means we would be fighting our allies. nate says, it's the wrong question. the question should ask, do you support going along with the world's greatest powers or acting unilaterally and ending up in another mideast war? your thoughts welcomed. more thoughts at facebook.com/cspan. the senate's in. they are debating the disapproval resolution. follow that over on c-span2. understand that the chairman of the armed services committee, senator john mccain, will be speaking in about five minutes or so. 3:00 p.m. eastern. the house unknown. we do know the republican caucus is meeting -- a conference, rather, is meeting this afternoon at 4:00 eastern to figure out a way forward when it appears now that the earlier agreed to rule on debate is not going to stand up. stay tuned. carol's next.

she's in westminster, maryland, on our republican line. caller: hello. host: hi, there. caller: i am very much opposed to this deal. iran constantly states "death to america." they're very, very clear with that. we are going to turn around and give them as much money as we can for them to develop their missiles and eventually nuclear facilities. they're checking themselves. they've never been honest with anything they've done. they're constantly saying one thing and doing another. the first thing they're going to do is wipe out israel, and then they're coming for us. i mean, they are very, very clear with how they stand on everything. anyone that has read the koran knows this is their plan. this basically is the united states of america turning on israel, and shame on us. i cannot believe we are even discussing this. people just are not informed, and i am just absolutely

flabbergasted that it's even come to this point. host: glen beck, another one of those speaking at the tea party patriots rally. we will show you the comments of ted cruz and donald trump at the rally this afternoon. next up, louisville, kentucky, and jonathan on the others line. caller: yes. how do you do? i'm calling. i'm in opposition to this deal. let me preface what i'm about to tell you. taught grazz wit physics for nearly 30 years. i've been retired for 12. i think i know about this subject. this iranian deal is ludicrous. they don't have to build a bomb to get a nuclear weapon. they can buy a bomb with the money we're giving them from russia, china, probably north korea. once that element is put inside a titanium and lead containment device, it's undetectable. they could sneak it into iran and get them in there, put them

on missile sites that we can't inspect and they could assemble -- this is not 1945. atomic weapons don't weigh tons anymore. you can get a good atomic weapon in a suitcase. they can get them in, bury them at missile sites that we cannot inspect, nobody will know they're there and within 48 hours, once they have the missiles, they can assemble the missile, put them atop and fire them. this whole thing is ridiculous. i don't know what the hell people are thinking of. i've never heard anything like it. host: couple comments on twitter. some of what people are saying. iran has been saying death to america for decades and in billion dollars is their money. you can't hold it forever. j.w. says, my god, there's more than a nuclear deal. the way the u.s. brought crisis to the middle east. and thankful c-span is

currently reairing hillary clinton's important iran deal eech and not the "duck dynasty"/palin -- looking live. >> goals of that terrorist whether for the president -- host: we'll show you later on the program schedule. you can follow ton c-span doirk. we'll share you the comments of ted cruz and donald trump from that rally momentarily. here's alamo, california, and comprarl son our republican line. -- and carl is on our republican line. caller: first, i have to tell you i'm persian and i came to this country in 1962. i'm totally for this resolution because in the iranian deal, nuclear. and i want to tell you whatever discussion cheney had with the nation regarding the iranian going to make it, you know, bomb and everything, that is

not true. iran could have a bomb in this time, actually. we are not a country to go invade every country because they have the bomb or they will have the bomb in the future. what we did in iraq was wrong. at the same time we created this isis, now is a good time to make this deal, let it go through and ask iranians to help us in order to fight isis. isis is the most dangerous element in that area right now. and look at what's happening to the syria and others. and what cheney was talking about, obama created -- that's not true, because we are not in the value system that we could go invade every country because they are not agreeing with us. for the future of the middle east is great.

this resolution is fundamentally right based on our value system, democratic way, an element of democracy. this is a great program that's ever come true. i'm totally for host: you said you came to the united states in 1962. what brought you here? caller: i came here as a student, from there, i went and got two master's degree in the business, i work in the medical center for 25 years, i was one of the administrators and right now i have a management consulting firm. host: appreciate your perspective. let's go next to brooklyn, sal on the others line. what's your take on the congressional debate on the iran nuclear agreement? caller: hello, thank you. i am very much against this deal. how can we support an