>> don't you feel the "american idol" tension in the room think? know i feel it. major: all right. for those you curious, i count myself among those, 73% of you, before our conversation, felt congress should approve the deal. 15% said congress should disapprove. 12%, undecided. after the debate 85% felt congress should approve and 15% still believe congress should disapprove. that, ladies and gentlemen, our final results. [laughter] [applause] 60% variation from before and after. a big round of applause for our four panelists. they were fantastic. thank you. cheers and applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] major: we'll escort senator mccain out. after that, we can run wild.

give us a couple of minutes for senator mccain to leave the building. >> as debate gets under way on capitol hill, at least in the senate, on the iran nuclear deal, we want to hear from you. do you support or oppose that nuclear deal? debate under way in the senate. you can follow that on c-span2. here's how to follow our conversation here on c-span. also facebook.com/c-span. and at twitter. you can send us a tweet @c-span. i want to bring you up to speed on the meeting that's been going on capitol hill for the past hour. the house republican conference meeting to find a way forward on the iranian nuclear -- on the nuclear deal. this is video as members went into that meeting just about an hour ago, in the basement there

on capitol hill. that meeting, we understand, is still under way. but there is some news coming out of that. before we get to phones, i wanted to read you some of the reporting that beer seeing. -- we're seeing. news from inside the g.o.p. meeting, he says, peter roskam, mike pompeo,us -- just endorsed a new three-part g.o.p. iran plan. it looks like the new republican iran plau plan will fly. house rules aa peers to be reconvening to prep for floor votes this week.

host: she talks about a third vote taking place on the house floor, declaring that the president has not turned over necessary information on nuclear deal, a reference to the side deals. host: no word yet on whether that meeting has broken up or when the house may meet this evening. we will keep you posted. live coverage, of course, on the house here on c-span when they gavel back. let's hear from our democratics line. caller: i'm in favor of the agreement. i hope the senate members will hang tough and possibly filibuster it in the senate. so that it doesn't even have to be vetoed by the president. i'm a jewish american. i call both of my maryland senators, i was pleased that mccullsky supported it. i was disappointed that cardin did not. i have family that live in

israel. my sister and her family. and many people in israel are actually in favor of this, in the security community, the former heads of mo sad, a lot of generals, they really want peace and they see this as giving them some breathing room vis-a-vis iran. it's not as dire an apocalypse as netian hue said it is. when he came to the congress. his intervention here i think was really unfortunate. if we can get five or 10 years or 15-plus years out of this, that would be terrific. if they start cheating, we're going to know a lot more about what they're doing than we would otherwise. just assume we didn't have the deal, they would just go ahead and start resume their nuclear buildup and we'd have no grounds to stop them. we can't do this alone. this is an international issue. when you have russia and china as well as our traditional allies, britain and france and germany and japan and south korea, all on the same side of the table, this is an

unbelievable diplomatic accomplishment. it's unprecedented. we've got to go for peace and not war. we've had enough war in this country. we had too much war in iraq and afghanistan and we don't want a third war in iran. they are bad players, fleece question about that. we can -- there's no question about that. we can chew gum and walk at the same time. we can pass this agreement and turn to the terrorism issues and the other bad things they do and hopefully their load leadership's not going to live forever. the current ayatollah's going to pass away in the next five years or less hopefully. i think we should adopt this agreement. thank you. host: our chief diplomat, lead negotiator, the secretary of state on capitol hill today, talking to members about supporting that deal. let's go to tab that who is in ohio on our independent line. what are your thoughts on the deal? caller: i oppose the deal. i do not think that it is a good idea to make agreements with countries that are known

to be dishonest. quite frankly it reminds me of when chamberlain made a deal with hitler and you saw the results of that. history repeats itself. and i don't think it's a good idea. host: democrats line. caller: hi. this is don. from chicago. i'm for the agreement. i disagree that this is anything like the knew knick agreement that the previous caller just talked about but i do agree with the caller before her. it is a great deal. i think people forget that, and nobody mentions that israel is an occupying power over the palestinians and they have a siege of gaza and they have created lots of anmossity by some of the other arab states. iran is backing them. iran backs them as much as we back israel. if you notice, we created --

the u.s. and israel have created hamas and hezbollah by virtue of the way that we have occupied and treated the palestinians. the other thing i want to say is that i can't seem to find anyone who answers the questions of a better deal. they keep saying better deal. mccain did not mention that, nor did your other speaker who was against it. they never mentioned anything about what was exactly a better deal. the other thing is that the history, the trust issue, as many or some have heard, the c.i.a. did overthrow the iranian government in 1953. we also shot down an iranian airliner in iranian space, killing 290 civilians and 60 children. we also -- host: when was that? you're talking about the shooting down of an iranian airline. when was that? caller: i believe it was in the 19 0s. i don't have the exact date but it's recorded. an iranian airline.

they were in iranian air space. the united states shot that airplane down. never apologized. i don't understand why people think that we're -- we've been so good to them or fair to them. that's my comment. i hope the deal goes through. i think it should and it's going to change the whole middle east eventually. thank you. host: thank you. debate on the deal continuing in the senate. that's live now over on spee span 2. here on spea south korea span we expected to be well into debate. the rules committee yesterday providing for 11 hours of debate. but all of that has changed. apparently. reports, news reports out of that g.o.p. conference meeting say they're going to vote on three separate packages. one would include a resolution of approval of the deal. the other providing -- implementing sanctions and the other -- the third would provide -- would be a essential of congress resolution about -- sense of congress resolution about the president not providing details of the so-called side deals related to that negotiate. as far as we know, the --

negotiation. as far as we know the meet something still under way. the house g.o.p. conference. no word yet on, when, one, the rules committee will meet, or when, two, the house will gavel back in for further business and consideration of any legislation regarding the iran deal. let's take a quick check of facebook. facebook.com/c-span. asking you if you support or oppose the iranian nuclear negotiation -- the iranian deal, rather, the nuclear deal. here's the standing so far on facebook. 567 supporting, 509 against. next we go to pittsburgh and hear from david who is on our independent line. caller: hey, how are you? host: fine, thank you. caller: you know, a couple of the last callers were very articulate and covered a lot of the points i wanted to make. i just want to say that i have a problem with the whole premise of this discussion. i don't know whether it's a good deal or a bad deal because i haven't read the deal. probably most people, including congress people, haven't read the deal. but i have a problem with this premise that everybody takes on

both sides that iran is such a bad actor. i don't know where that comes from. they keep talking about iran supports terrorism all over the world. i have never seen one piece of evidence to support all these criticisms of iran. another never bombed country. iran has never innovated -- invaded another country. iran has never occupied other territories. iran doesn't have nuclear weapons. and we're all worried about iran. but these -- israel's done all those things and you never hear anything about israel. i think we're all mixed up. i think we're on the wrong side in the middle east. and i think that one caller just said, maybe one of the reasons why iran, if they do back up these various groups like hamas and hezbollah, it may be because of what we and israel have done over there for decades and denying the rights of the palestinian people. we've got this all mixed up. thank you. host: mesa, arizona, harriette on our democrats line.

caller: hi. i support this deal. i want to tell you something nobody's talking about. i saw in tehran the day they announced that the deal was going forward, there was millions of people in the street holding up cell phones with american flags on them. and those people were the younger people in tehran. 75% of the people in iran are 40 years old and under. if the deal holds up for 10 years, maybe those people will take over that country and we won't have to go to war. we've had enough wars. i agree completely with your first caller. but after i saw that, i turned my tv channel to fox and they were showing a street over there with not near as many

people that were in tehran and they were burning one american flag. i just don't understand. i think they're trying to drive us into a war. but that's all i want to say. and thank you very much for this show, because i am totally interested in it. thank you. host: thank you. here's memphis and kathy is on our independents line. caller: yes. hello, how are y'all doing today? i've been listening to the debate. earlier and with the fellows from brookings. i'm not -- i oppose the deal as it stands right now actually. i don't think war is an alternative either. no one wants to go to war. however, i'm very dismaid over the fact that we're releasing $150 billion that they can use at their own leisure and they know without a doubt that a majority of that money probably

will go toward terrorists movements. that's extremely upsetting. and i don't think that this deal is the way to go. i think there has got to be other compromises met. between all parties. including all the countries involved. i think that it's a bad deal. thank you. host: both bodies were to have voted on a resolution of disapproval of the iranian nuclear agreement. the senate is in now. they've begun their debate. the house republican conference has been meeting because of republican -- many republicans opposing the plan forward to vote on that resolution of disapproval. as we understand it, reports indicate there will be a three-pronged approach. the associated press wrote about this a little bit earlier. saying that house republican leaders have developed a plan b involving votes or several series -- on represented measures. this is according to peter roskam earlier today. ease the one yesterday who had that privileged resolution,

because of -- one of the reasons was the obama administration, he says, has not properly submitted the iran deal to congress. a second vote bound to fail says the associated press to approve the deal, not a resolution of disapproval, and a third vote to prevent the president from lifting congressionally mandated sanctions in iran. next up, your calls, we go to colonial heights, virginia, and this is donna on our republican line. good evening. caller: good evening. something that has never been brought to light since the beginning of our so-called war that was started in iran -- in iraq, president bush went in there because they were building nuclear and everybody got involved in that and then said, oh, well, you got two, three weeks, four weeks, whatever, for inspections. every night on television after that there was, on the news,

they were showing by night vision car vans and truck -- karavans and trucks, just kara advance and trucks goings a cross the desert every night from iraq to iran. and nobody did anything about it. so when we were allowed to go in, there was nothing there. so everybody says that bush was wrong. when everyone forgets in this material was hauled overnight just blows my mind. so get to war with iraq and iran picks up where iraq was. and they've got all the nuclear stuff from iraq and they just continue doing their thing, building up their nuclear to where it is now, and the united states, i mean, we just let them go. we just let them do it. the bottom line is,, no you

can't trust them. yes, they got more than they've gotten. and they just think we're a joke. because i find the whole thing a joke. a very costly joke. host: here's alabama, allen's on the independents line. what do you think? do you support or oppose the iranian nuclear deal? caller: highly oppose it. can you hear me ok? host: we can hear you fine. caller: ok. i highly oppose it. i remember when they took over our embassy back in the 1970's and i've been listening and watching and listening to both sides and everything. i have yet could see how we can trust them -- to see how we can trust them. they haven't shown any type of, you know, of warning to progress, so to speak. they want to stick so their -- to their old ideological ways and get what they can get, without showing any remorse or consequences for us. they still have four hostages,

i do believe, that they haven't released. host: from 1979 or the four prisoners in iran, right, right. caller: 1979, when they took over the embassy. correct me if i'm wrong there, but isn't that the first time that the u.s. was ever involved in any type of situation over there, other than helping out are israel? most of the time it was -- [inaudible] host:alen in alabama. appreciate your call. coming up on 20 after 5:00 on the east coast. we frnds our capitol hill producer saying that that republican conference meeting is breaking up on capitol hill. we should get some details shortly on the way forward in the house. we'll keep you posted on that. some comments on twitter. you can tweet us @c-span. lawyer even says that --

host: want to show you some additional reporting out of that meeting. host: see more of your you phone calls here. we go to maria in richmond, virginia.

caller: hello. i've been following the agreement, the actions of the international atomic energy agency, and i've been reading a lot of the news that's been from the islamic republic news agency as well. d i found that they reported just last week that president rouhani had said he would from abroad cake and export enriched uf-6 and i looked these up and they're both nuclear materials and then he also said, our nuclear program has been recognized in resolution two -- i can't

remember the exact number. host: tell us the news organization where you read or heard this news about the president rouhani's comments. caller: the islamic republic news agency. irna. and also, yeah, they also have the report that iran is going into cruise missile production on another o report iran agency that they support hamas in palestine and hezbollah in lebanon and they also reported that iran signs 10 agreements, economic and trade agreements, with russia. they're very active now.

some of their officials have been to north korea. so i don't trust them and i on't trust our leaders as well , in me respects, because one -- in the reuters news session that secretary kerry had in new york, he reported need to sign ot the agreement in order to have the sanctions lifted. he said all they had to do was show up at meetings. so my question is, who gave them that out? host: good points there. appreciate that. the meeting has broken up on capitol hill. the house republican conference and video here shot moments ago as members are leaving. and apparently a three-pronged approach to the iran nuclear

deal coming out of that, we will get details out as soon as we get more solid information about when, one, the rules committee might might, -- meet, and when the house might begun consideration of the iran package. senate's under way. you can follow that debate over on c-span2. we go to north las vegas, nevada, mark's on the republican line. caller: yes. on this issue, i do depart from my republican brethren. i see on both sides some big blind spot it's, or they're just sticking their heads in the ground. in the 1980's i worked on our nation's icbm projects as a systems analyst and can tell you there's a great difference between a medium range and an intercontinental ballistic missile and it's naive to believe that iran doesn't already possess and built medium range ballistic missiles. all they need now is to put a nuclear warhead on it.

and i think also, it's naive to believe that only america, in our black projects, has the ability to keep the secret. i think in iran's military house we see a few of the cockroaches and it's naive to believe we don't shee the hundreds of others that are well hidden. host: give us an idea of the -- you said the two different ranges. the intercontinental ballistic missile, the icbm, and the medium range. what's the difference in distance between those two? caller: the difference is, partially the velocity that you need to be able to reach and the fact that that velocity is significantly high, where you have to factor in relative effects for your targeting. medium range you don't need that.

this is so funny to me. the republicans are burping about the tens of billions of dollars that are going to be unfrozen. well, that doesn't even compare to the tens of billions of dollars that iran's going to get when all the sanctions are lifted. i do believe that iran, their motive for this, ok, is they need the cash to develop a viable intercontinental ballistic missile. because they would love to just lob one over and hit america. it doesn't even have to be particularly accurate. could be within 10 miles of anywhere in a metropolitan area. that's terrorism -- that scares the hell out of me, i don't know about you. back to the cockroaches. and keeping secrets. i think it's naive to believe that the only military grade fissionble material that iran

possesses came from their centrifuges. when the sove outunion broke up, yes, there were -- when the soviet union broke up, yes, there were black market routes to gaining fissionable material. i think it's even more naive that to believe that they don't already have enough fissionable material and perhaps even when what they need to make their first warhead if they don't already have it. host: i appreciate you lending your expertise to the conversation. we go next to orange cove, california, carlos on the independents line. caller: yes. my name is carlos. i just want to say that iran has the tools already to become nuclear. everybody already knows that. a good deal for them right now has to be and is recognized by the leaders, you know, the of the u.s., and they're going to do what's best for the american people. it's good that the -- they have

that loaded gun. but let them set it down at the table and then they can be dealt with. afterwards. so this deal is great deal. it brings peace. 1/3 of the people, not 1/3, maybe 88% of the people from iran are idiot it's and they believe that they want to -- idiots and they believe they want to conquer the world and take over everybody. the rest of the iranian people are good people. they want to live and let live. peace is always a good thing. so i really think that, yeah, they're making a great deal -- other countries have supported the u.s. with the sanctions. so by saying no to this deal, we're turning our backs on good countries that helped us out here like china and these other countries that have helped us out with the sanctions. so we're letting a lot of people down by saying no to

this deal. host: just moments ago you saw some of the video of members leaving the republican conference meeting. a meeting that looked like it went an hour and 15 minutes or so and what's coming out of that apparently is a three-pronged approach in the house to dealing with the iran nuclear agreement. the senate meanwhile taking up the disapproval resolution. that debate sunday way on c-span2 -- is under way on c-span . we should be hearing shortly about a likely meeting of the rules committee. we'll tell you about as soon as we get information on that. a lot of this started on the house floor yesterday when they came from for their morning hour speeches. peter roskam, republican of illinois, rose to introduce a privileged resolution on making the point, his point is that the president and the administration did not provide congress with all of the information related to the iranian negotiations. the rules committee met yesterday, decided to proceed on a disapproval resolution, 11 hours of debate. when they came to do that

today, that's when a lot of other republicans joined peter roskam in saying, hold on a minute, we want to change course. it looks like republicans are doing that. details could come. but let's take a look at the comments yesterday of peter roskam. 2-a-1 of rule 9, i rise to give notice to raise a question of the privilege of the house. the form of my resolution is as follows. mr. roskam: whereas rule 9 of the house of representatives rules states that a question of the privileges of the house shall be first those affecting the rights of the house collectively, its safety, dignity and the integrity of its proceedings and, second, those affecting the rights, reputation and conduct of members, delegates or the resident commissioner individually in their respective representative capacity only. whereas the iran nuclear agreement review act of 2015 in this preamble referred to as the review act, was passed by

the senate on may 7, 2015, by a vote of 98-1. whereas the house of representatives passed the review act on may 14, 2015, by a vote of 400-25. whereas the review act was signed by president barack obama on may 22, 2015, becoming public law 114-17. whereas section 135-a-1 of the atomic energy act of 1954 as enacted by section 2 of the review act states not later than five calendar days after reaching an agreement with iran relating to the nuclear program of iran, the president shall submit and transmit to the appropriate congressional committees and leadership the agreement as defined by in subsection h-1, including all related materials and annexes. whereas section 135-h-1 of the atomic energy act of 1954, as enacted by section 2 of the review act, states the term

agreement means an agreement related to the nuclear program of iran that includes the united states, commits the united states to take action or pursuant to which the united states commits or otherwise agrees to take action regardless of the form it takes, whether a political commitment or otherwise regardless of whether it is legally binding or not, including any joint comprehensive plan of action entered into or made between iran and any other parties. and any additional materials related thereto, including annexes, append ises, side agreements, implementing materials, documents and guidance, technical or other understandings and any related agreements whether entered into or implemented prior to the agreement or to be entered into or implemented in the future. whereas on july 14, 2015, the director general of the international atomic energy agency in this preamble herein referred to as iaea, and the president of the atomic energy organization of iran signed the

road map for the clarification of past and present issues out standing regarding iran's nuclear program which refers to two separate agreements between the iaea and iran. whereas the first of these separate agreements seeks to clarify long standing questions about the possible military dimensions of iran's nuclear programs including those identified in the iaea director neral report's report to gov-201/65. whereas section g-38 of that report states, since 2002, the iaea has become increasingly concerned about the possible existence in iran of nuclear activities involving military related organizations including activities related to a nuclear payload of a missile which the iaea has received new information. whereas the road map describes the second of these separate

arrangements as an effort to resolve outstanding issues regarding the military facility at parchen and whereas in his november 29, 2012, report to the board of governors of the drector general of the iaea stated, they have information relating iran has a large containment vessel at the site to conduct hydrodynamic experiments, despite related -- requests, they have not granted access to the parchen sites. including removal and replacement sizeable quantities of earth are at this location, i'm concerned they have seriously undermined the iaea's undertake verification. i reiterate that iran provide access to that location and substantive answers to the iaea's detailed questions regarding the parchen site. whereas on august 20, 2015,

report by the associated press includes draft text of the parchen separate agreement which details a process by which iran will provide photographs, videos, soil samples and other materials in lieu of giving the iaea access to the parchen site. and whereas a 27-year-old veteran of the iaea and its former deputy director general and chief inspector stated, much of the current concerns arise from the reported arrangements worked out between the iaea and iran in the side documents to which the p.m.d., possible military dimension, issues. if the reporting is accurate, these procedures appear to be risky departing significantly from well-established and proven safeguard practices. at a broader level a verification standard have been diluted for parchen or elsewhere and limits imposed the ramification is significant as it will affect the iaea's ability to draw conclusive

definitive conclusions with the requisite level of assurances and without undo hamplehaverpering of the verification process. whereas the self-information and verification of iran of its own nuclear weapons-related activities performed at the parchen military facility are inadequate and incapable of demonstrating iran's compliance with safeguards against nuclear weapons development and as established by the iaea or the international nuclear agreement with iran. whereas on july 14, 2015, the p-5 plus one, the united states, the united kingdom, france, the people's republic of china, the russian federation and germany and iran all announced that the parties have agreed to a joint comprehensive plan of action. whereas section c-13 of the joint comprehensive plan of action requires iran's parliament and the president to implement the additional protocol to iran's comprehensive safeguards agreement to the iaea.

whereas section c-415 of the joint action plan requires them to fully implement the road map for verification of past or present issues regarding iran's nuclear program which was agreed to by the iaea. whereas the joint comprehensive plan of action is necessarily predicated on an interdependent with the two side agreements between the iaea and iran all of which are reinforcing and indivisible. whereas the state department spokesman issued a statement on july 29, 2015, today the state department transmitted to congress the joint comprehensive plan of action, its annexes and related materials. these documents include the unclassified verification assessment report on the jcpoa and the intelligence community's annex to the verification assessment report as required under the law. therefore, day one of the 60-day review period begins

tomorrow, may 20. whereas the section of the atomic energy report of 1954 states it is critically important that congress have the opportunity in an orderly and deliberative manner to consider and as appropriate take action affecting the statutory sanctions regime imposed by congress providing to the house collectively and members of the house individually in their representative capacities to review the iran nuclear agreement as defined in section 135-h-1 of the atomic energy act of 1954 in order to determine what action, if any, to take. whereas section 135-h-1 of the atomic energy act of 1954, as enacted of section 2 of the review act, specifically requires the president to provide congress with the text of side agreements. and related agreements. including those agreements between iran and any other

parties. and whereas the state department's transmission to congress did not include the text or materials relating to the two side agreements between the iaea and iran and was therefore incomplete as a matter of law, whereas on july 21, 2015, senate foreign relations committee chairman corker and ranking member cardin sent a bipartisan letter to the state department requesting the actual text of the two separate agreements between the iaea and iran. whereas on july 22, 2015, congressman mike pompeo and senator tom cotton, along with the speaker of the house and the majority leader of the senate, sent a letter to the president requesting the text of the two separate agreements between the iaea and iran. whereas on august 4, 2015, congressman pompeo sent a further letter to the president co-signed by the house majority leader and 92 other members of the house requesting the president to provide the text of the two separate agreements between the iaea and iran. whereas contrary to the law and

these requests, the president did not provide the text of the separate agreements to congress or any of its members. and whereas on july 22, 2015, state department spokesman john kirby stated, there's no side deals. there is no secret deals between iran and the iaea that the p-5 plus one has not been briefed on in detail. whereas on august 5, 2015, letter to the -- to members of congress assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs, julia fryfield contradicted that claim saying the road map refers to two separate agreements between the iaea and iran. and within the iaea system, such arrangements related to safeguards, procedures and inspection activities are confidential and are not released to other member states. whereas on july 28, 2015, secretary of state john kerry told the house foreign affairs committee in responding to the statement that national security advisor susan rice has

seen the actual text of the two side agreements said, i don't believe susan rice, the national security advisor, has seen it. whereas responding further to whether he has seen the actual text, secretary kerry said, no, i haven't seen it. i've been briefed on it. and whereas on july 29, 2015, secretary of energy earnest moniz stated, i personally have not seen those documents. whereas on july 31, 2015, white house press secretary josh earnest stated, our negotiators were briefed on the context of that agreement, a reference to the side agreements. whereas being briefed second or thirdhand, including by obama administration officials, who themselves have not read the actual text of the side agreement, is akin to a game of telephone and is not letting the members of congress to read the actual text of the agreements. and whereas the congressional review period described in section 135-b of the atomic

energy act of 1954 as enacted by section 2 of the review act to review the iran nuclear agreement begins only if an agreement, including all materials required to be transmissioned to congress -- transmitted to congress pursuant to subsection 1-a is transmitted by the president to the congress for revufmente whereas on july 14 -- review. whereas on july 14, 2015, president obama stated, this deal is not built on trust. it is built on verification. whereas it is impossible for the president, congress and the american people to consider and determine whether to support or oppose an iran nuclear agreement without reviewing key inspection and verification details contained in the text of the two side agreements between the iaea and iran. whereas the determination by the parliamentarian by the house of representatives, acting as an officer of the house and that the president -- that the president has transmitted to congress the agreement and related materials as required by law. and therefore to become

counting the lapsing of the congressional review period beginning july 20, 2015, deprives the house collectively and members of the house individually in their representative capacities of the right to review the nuclear deal with iran. and whereas the congressional record for the legislative day july 27, 2015, is incorrect, listing the under the heading executive communications the following entry -- a letter from the assistant secretary legislative affairs, department of state, transmitting a letter and attachment saving all requirements of section 135-a of the atomic energy act of 1954, as amended by the iran nuclear agreement review act of 2015, public law 114-17, as received july 19, 2015, jointly to the committees of foreign affairs, financial services, the judiciary, oversight and government reform and ways and means. and whereas the house of representatives is scheduled to vote on a resolution of

disapproval on the iran nuclear agreement as soon as september 9, 2015, a procedure provided for under section 135-e-4 of the atomic energy act of 1954, as enacted by section 2 of the review act. d whereas such a vote is injurious as to the integrity of the house as it violates the process provided under section 135-4 of the atomic energy act of 1954, transmission -- transmittal of the iran nuclear agreement and all related documents, including side agreements and the observance of the congressional review period provided in section 135. and whereas in her august 5, 2015, letters to the members of congress, assistant secretary of state fryfield inaccurately stated the united states does not have a right to demand the side agreement documents from the iaea.

. where as the former deputy director and chief inspector of the iaea, according to the rules and practices such documents could be made available to members of the iaea board. whereas he further stated the issue of confidentiality is an important matter for the iaea, however it should not be used as a blanket to stop legitimate questions particularly regarding verification methods at perfect chant. historically the iaea had not viewed such as confidential. they have disclosed much more detailed facility speask a proaches at regular safeguards sim posea. additionally, in 2007, the iaea iran work group addressing outstanding issues accumulated over several years was made available to all iaea member states and the board also received a 2012 document from iran related to very specific

p.m.d., possible military dimension questions, which happened while the iaea was negotiating with iran for greater clarity and access. whereas part one section 5 of iaea information circular 153 provides that specific information related to such implementation of measures to safeguard nuclear materials in the state may be given to the board of governors and any such -- to such agency staff members as required such knowledge. and whereas article 6 of the statute of the iaea authorizes the board of governors of the iaea to direct the work of the iaea including and safeguarding nuclear materials and ensuring the peaceful end of a nuclear participating member states nuclear program, and whereas rule 18 of the rules of the board of governors of the iaea entitled circulation of documents in particular importance establishes procedures by which member states of the iaea board of

governors may access relevant documents and re-- related to their duties. whereas the united states serves on the board of governors of the iaea and has both the need and the authority to access the actual text of the two side agreements between the iaea and iran, whereas on july 30, 2015, white house press secretary josh ernest speaking on behalf of the president of the united states stated i will acknowledge that i don't know exactly what the requirements are of the iran review act. so i'm not sure exactly what that means congress is acting for. whereas on april 6, 2015, white house press secretary josh ernest stated, we do believe that congress should play their rightful role in terms of ultimately deciding whether or not the sanctions that congress passed into law should be removed. whereas on april 7, 2015, white house press secretary josh ernest further stated, members of congress should consider the agreement and decide whether or not the president has achieved

his stated objective of preventing iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. shutting down every pathway they have and making them cooperate with the most intrusive set of inspections that have everever been imposed a country's nuclear program. whereas the joint comprehensive plan of action which was negotiated and agreed to by the obama administration fails to accomplish these objectives. whereas any recognition by the house of representatives of the transmittal by the president of an iran nuclear agreement does not include -- that does not include all of the materials required by law, including the text of the two side agreements agreed to between the iaea and iran violates the rights of the members of the house individually, in their representative capacity, impeding their ability to make a fully informed decision on how to vote on behalf of their constituents as conceived and provided for in the enactment of the review act. whereas the director of the national intelligence --

director of national spence james clapper has labeled iran the state's -- world leading state sponsor of terrorism. whereas the web shite whitehouse.depfment ov states that iran currentlyly has a two to three week break out time to build a nuclear bomb. whereas, legislative action on an iran nuclear agreement is one of the most important issues that will ever come before the house as it is directly affecting the safety and security of the members of the house and their constituents. whereas taking of legislative action without reasonable consideration and knowledge damages the reputation and cridibility -- credibility of the house collectively and its members individually in her representative capacities. whereas the president's failure to follow the law that he signed is an affront to the dignity of the house and cannot be ignored, now, therefore, be it resolved, that the house of representatives, one, reaffirms its legal right to obtain all materials, including the full text of all side agreements

exricing the iran nuclear agreement as defined in section 135-h-1 of the atomic energy act of 1954 as enacted by section 2 of the iran nuclear agreement review act of 2015 in the section referred to as the review act signed into law by president obama. two, directs the parliamentarian of the house of representatives not to recognize for purposes of determining the date of the congressional review period prescribed in section 135-b of atomic energy act of 1954, as enacted by section 2 of the review act any agreement and related documents commit smithed by the president that do not include the actual text of two side agreements between the iaea and iran. three directs of clerk of the house of representatives and officers of the house to correct executive communication number 2207 appearing on page 5522 in the congressional record of the legislative day of july 27, 2015, to state the following. a letter from the assistant

secretary of legislative affairs state department transmitting a letter and attachment which does not satisfy all requirements of section 135-a of the atomic energy act of 19534 as amended by the iran nuclear review act of 2015, public law 114-17, as received july 19, 2015, jointly to the committees on foreign affairs, financial services, judiciary, oversight and government reform, and ways and means. four, instructs the speakerer of the house to dispatch without delay a notification to the president on behalf of the whole house entitled failure to follow the law and stating that, a, the president's transmittal of that agreement to the house is incomplete as a matter of law. b, consequently the congressional review period provided in section 135 of the atomic energy act of 1954 as enacted by section 2 of the review act has not begun. and c, pursuant to section

135-b-3 of the atomic energy act of 1954 as so enacted in the end of the congressional review period the president nay not waive, suspend, reduce, provide relief from, or otherwise limit the application of statutory sanctions with respect to iran under any provision of law or refrain from applying any such sanctions pursuant to an agreement described in subsection a. five, instruct the speak every of the house of representatives on behalf of the whole house to return the agreement and related materials provided in the president's transmission of july 19, 2015, in order that the president may provide a full and complete transmission of all materials required by side luding the text of agreements. and six, instruct the speaker to take such actions as may be necessary to provide an appropriate remedy to ensure the integrity of the legislative process is protected and to report his

actions and recommendations to the house. mr. speaker, if you didn't catch it, i'm host: peter roskam on the floor of the house yesterday with his privileged resolution. the house in recess now subject to the call of the chair. meaning we don't know when they're going to come back in. we suspect they will gavel back in this evening. ut peter roskam's privileged resolution the basis of republican opposition to the disapproval resolution that had been scheduled for debate in the house. so the point he was making there, his point, that the administration had not submitted the full details of the iran deal to congress for consideration. well, they started debate today in the house or were planning to start debate today in the house. but never got to it. as republican opposition mounted and led to a conference this afternoon. lasted about an hour and 15 minutes. here's what came out of that conference. lisa, who covers washington for the tribune papers, tweeting

about the three-pronged approach -- host: our producer on capitol hill with a photo of mike pompeo speaking with reporters after the meeting. no new votes to include his call for president to, quote, submit the side deals, what people are calling the side deals in that agreement. luke russert of nbc tweeting that basically the iran deal still goes through. it's just three ways of voicing pleasure instead of one hosea:er toitya coast is a restaurant on -- host: tortilla coast is a restaurant on

capitol hill. it's reported that the rules committee will meet this evening and develop a new rule for consideration of that three-pronged approach to the iran deal. we will keep you posted on that. obviously we'll have live coverage of any house session that comes out -- comes up, even if it's just for a couple of minutes. all of that will be here on c-span. over on c-span2, debate continues on the disapproval resolution. they are under way. you can follow that over on c-span2. over the past couple of days we've been covering -- and weeks really, a number of speakers for and against the resolution. in recent days, yesterday, dick cheney, the former vice president, john mccain yesterday, lindsey graham, and this morning at the brookings institution, former secretary of state and democratic presidential candidate, hillary clinton, voicing her support for the iran nuke deer agreement.

>> good morning, everybody. welcome to you all. and especially welcome to secretary clinton. she, as you all know, is here today to talk to us about the iran nuclear agreement. which i think it's safe to say is one of the most, if not the most contentious foreign policy issue that we have debated in this country since the decision to go to war in iraq a dozen years ago. last evening, brookings hosted a debate in which senator mccain took part, with three brookings scholars, who were on different sides of the issue. it was a substantive, lively and civil debate.

secretary clinton, of course, is deeply knowledgeable on the subject that we're devoting this morning to. as the senior member of the cabinet, she played a critical role in shaping america's strategy to combat and thwart iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. including having a very strong and instrumental role in setting up the international sanctions that were so important in bringing the iranian government to the

table. now, this issue is obviously going to reverberate in the presidential campaign. brookings has hosted declared and potential candidates from both parties. and they have been here on this stage to talk about both domestic and foreign policy matters. and we are -- have invited several more to be with us in the future. after her opening comments, secretary clinton will have a conversation with my colleague, martin, executive vice president of the brookings institution, and there will be time towards the end of the program for her to take a few questions from the invited guests who are here in the audience. madam secretary. welcome back to brookings. secretary clinton: thank you so uch. let me thank you, strobe, it's great to be back at brookings. there are a lot of long time friends and colleagues who perch here at brookings, obviously including strobe and martin who i'll speak to in a minute. also bob einhorn and tammy. this institution has hosted many important conversations over the years, and i appreciate strobe's reference

to the event last night and the continuing dialogue about urgent issues facing our nation and the world. that's what brings me here today, back to brookings, to talk about the question we are all grappling with. how to prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, and more broadly, how to protect ourselves and our allies from the full range of threats that iran poses. the stakes are high and there are no simple or perfectly satisfying solutions. these questions and in particular the merits of the nuclear deal recently reached with iran, have divided people of good will and raised hard ssues on both sides. here's how i see it. either we move forward on the path of diplomacy and seize this chance to block iran's path to a nuclear weapon, or we turn down a more dangerous

path, leading to a far less certain and riskier future. that's why i support this deal. i support it as part of a larger strategy toward iran. by now the outcome in congress is no longer in much doubt. so we have must start looking ahead to what comes next. enforcing the deal. deterring iran and its proxies and strengthening our allies. these will be my goals as president and today i want to talk about how i would achieve them. let me start by saying i understand the skepticism so many feel about iran. i, too, am deeply concerned about iranian aggression and the need to confront it. it's a ruthless, brutal regime that has the blood of mericans, many others,

including its own people on its hands. its political rallies resound with cries of death to america. its leaders talk about wiping israel off the face of the map, most recently just yesterday. and foment terror against it. there is absolutely no reason to trust iran. now, vice president cheney may hope that the american people will simply forget, but the truth is by the time president obama took office and i became secretary of state, iran was racing toward a nuclear capability. they had mastered the nuclear fuel cycle, meaning that they had the material, scientists, and technical know how to create material for nuclear weapons. they had produced and installed thousands of centrifuges, expanded their secret facilities, established a robust uranium enrichment program, and defied their international obligations under

the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. and they have suffered many consequences. i voted for sanctions again and again as a senator from new york, but they weren't having much effect. most of the world still did usiness with iran. pressure and engagement. we made it clear that the door a diplomacyy was open in serious and credible way. we launched a comprehensive campaign to significantly raise the costs of iranian defiance.

we systematically increased our military capabilities in the region, deepening our adoption with partners and sending more firepower and additional aircraft carrier, battleship, strike aircraft, and the most advanced radar and missile defense systems available. meanwhile, i traveled the world, capital by capital, leader by leader, twisting arms to help build the global coalition that produced some of the most effective sanctions in history. with president obama's leadership, we worked with congress and the european union to cut iran off from the world's economic and financial ystem. and one by one, we persuaded energy hungry consumers of iranian oil like india and south korea, to cut back. soon iran's tankers sat rusting in ports. its economy was collapsing. these new measures were effective because we made them global. american sanctions provided the foundation, but iran didn't really feel the heat until we turned this into an international campaign so biting that iran had no choice but to

negotiate. they could no longer play off one country against another. they had no place to hide. so they started looking for a way out. i first visited oman to speak with the sultan of oman in january of 2011. went back later that year, the sultan helped set up a secret ack channel. i sent one of my closest aides as part of a small team to begin talks with iranians in secret. negotiations began in earnest after the iranian election in 2013. first the bilateral talks led by deputy secretary bill burns and jake sullivan that led to the interim agreement, then the multilateral talks led by secretary john kerry, secretary ernie moniz, and undersecretary wendy sherman.

no there is a comprehensive agreement on iran's nuclear programs. is it perfect? well, of course not. no agreement like this ever is. but is it a strong agreement? yes. it is. and we absolutely should not turn it down. the merits of the deal have been well argued so i won't go through them in great detail here. the bottom line is that it accomplishes the major goals we et out to achieve. it blocks every pathway for iran to get a bomb. and it gives us better tools for verification and inspection and to compel rigorous ompliance. without a deal, iran's breakout time, how long they need to produce enough material for a nuclear weapon, would shrink to a couple of months. with a deal, that breakout time tretches to a year which means

that if iran cheats we'll know it and we'll have time to respond decisively. without a deal, we would have no credible inspections of iran's uclear facility. with a deal, we'll have unprecedented access. we'll be able to monitor every aspect of their nuclear program. now some have expressed concern that certain nuclear restrictions expire after 15 years. and we need to be vigilant about that which i'll talk more about in a moment. but other parts are permanent, including iran's obligations under the nonproliferation treaty and their commitment to enhance inspections under the additional protocol. others have expressed concern that it could take up to 24 days to gain access to some of iran's facilities when we suspect cheating.

i would be the first to say that this part of the deal is not perfect. although the deal does allow for daily access to enrichment facilities and monitoring of the entire nuclear fuel cycle. it's important to focus on that because being able to monitor the supply chain is critical to what we will find out and how we will be able to respond. but our experts tell us that even with delayed access to some places, this deal does the job. microscopic nuclear particles remain for years and years, they are impossible to hide. that's why secretary moniz, a nuclear physicist, has confidence in this plan. some have suggested that we just go back to the negotiating table and get a better unspecified eal. i can certainly understand why

that may sound appealing, but as someone who started these talks in the first place and built our global coalition piece by piece, i can assure you it is not realistic. plus, if we walk away now, our capacity to sustain and enforce sanctions will be severely diminished. we will be blamed not the iranians. so if we were to reject this agreement, iran would be poised to get nearly everything it wants without giving up a thing. no restrictions on their nuclear program. no real warning if tehran suddenly rushes toward a bomb. nd the international sanctions regime would fall apart. so no more economic consequences for iran, either. those of us who have been out there on the diplomatic frontlines know that diplomacy ask not the pursuit of perfection. it's the balancing of risk. and on balance the far riskier

course right now would be to walk away. great powers can't just junk agreements and expect the rest of the world to go along with us. we need to be reasonable and consistent, and we need to keep our word. especially when we are trying to lead a coalition. that's how we'll make this and future deals work. but it's not enough just to say yes to this deal. f course it isn't.

we have to say yes and. yes can and we will enforce it with vigor and vigilance. yes and we will embed it in a broader strategy to confront iran's bad behavior in the region. yes and we will begin from day one to set the conditions so iran knows it will never be able to get a nuclear weapon, not during the term of the agreement, not after, not ever. we need to be clear and i think we have to make that very clear to iran. about what we expect from hem. this is not the start of some larger diplomatic opening. and we shouldn't expect that this deal will lead to broader changes in their behavior. that shouldn't be a promise for proceeding. instead, we need to be prepared for three scenarios. first, iran tries to cheat. something has it's been quite willing to do in the past. second, iran tries to let us out. perhaps it waits to move for 15 years when some but not all restrictions expire. and third, iran ramps up its dangerous behavior in the region, including its support for terrorist groups like hamas and hezbollah.

i believe that the success of this deal has a lot to do with how the next president grapples with these challenges. let me tell you what i would do. my starting point will be one of distrust. you remember president reagan's line about the soviets? trust but verify? my approach will be distrust and verify. we should anticipate that iran will test the next president. they'll want to see how far they can bend the rules.

that won't work if i'm in the white house. i'll hold the line against iranian noncompliance. that means penalties even for small violations. keeping our allies onboard but being willing to snap back sanctions into place unilaterally if we have to, working with congress to close any gaps in the sanctions. right now members of congress are offering proposals to that effect. and i think the current administration should work with them to see whether there are additional steps that could be taken. finally, it means ensuring that the iaea has the resources it needs from finances to personnel to equipment to hold iran's feet to the fire. but the most important thing we can do to keep iran from cheating or trying to wait us out is to shape iranian expectations right from the start. the iranians and the world need to understand that we will act decisively if we need to. so here's my message to iran's leaders. the united states will never allow you to aguirre a nuclear weapon. as president, i will take whatever actions are necessary to protect the united states and our allies. i will not hesitate to take military action if iran attempts to obtain a nuclear weapon. and i will set up my successor to be able to credibly make the

same pledge. we will make clear to iran that our national commitment to prevention will not waiver depending on who's in office. it's permanent. hould it become necessary in the future having exhausted peaceful alternatives to turn to military force, we will have preserved and in some cases enhanced our capacity to act. and because we have proven our commitment to diplomacy first, the world will more likely join s. then there's the broader issue of countering iran's bad behavior across the region. taking nuclear weapons out of the equation is crucial because in iran -- an iran with nuclear weapons is so much more dangerous than an iran without them. but even without nuclear weapons, we still see iran's fingerprints on nearly every conflict across the middle ast.

they support bad actors from syria to lebanon to yemen. they vow to destroy israel and that's worth saying again. they vow to destroy israel. we can never take that lightly particularly when iran ships advanced missiles to hezbollah and the ayatollah outlines an actual strategy for eliminating israel or talks about how israel won't exist in 25 years just like he did today. and in addition to all the malicious activity they already underwrite, we've got to anticipate that iran could use some of the economic relief they get from this deal to pay for even more. so as president i will raise the costs for their actions and confront them across the board. my strategy will be based on five strong pillars. first, i will deepen america's unshakable commitment to israel's security. including our long-standing tradition of guaranteeing israel's qualitative military dge.

i'll increase support for israeli rocket and missile defenses and for intelligence sharing. i'll sell israel the most sophisticated fire aircraft ever developed, the f-35. we'll work together to develop and implement better tunnel detection technology to prevent arms smuggling and kidnapping. as well as the strongest possible missile defense system for northern israel which has been subjected to hezbollah attacks for years. second, i will reaffirm that the persian gulf is a region of vital interest to the united tates. we don't want any of iran's unfinished business to develop or aguirre a nuclear weapons program either. we want them to feel and be

secure. i will sustain a robust military presence in the region, especially our air and naval forces. we'll keep the strait of hormuz open. we'll increase security cooperation with our gulf allies, including against sharing, military support, and missile defense. to ensure they can defend against iranian aggression. even if that takes the form of cyberattacks or other nontraditional threats. iran should understand that the united states and i as president will not stand by as our gulf allies and partners are hreatened. we will act. third, i will build a coalition to counter iran's proxies, particularly hezbollah. that means enforcing and strengthening the rules prohibiting the transfer of weapons to hezbollah. looking at new ways to choke off their funding and pressing our

partners to treat hezbollah as a terrorist organization it is it's time to eliminate the false distinction that some still make between the supposed political and military wings. if you're part of hezbollah, you're part of a terrorist organization, plain and several. beyond hezbollah i'll crack down n the shipment of weapons to hamas and push turkey and qatar to end their financial support. i'll press our partners in the region to prevent aircraft and ships owned by companies linked to iran's revolutionary guard rom entering their territories and urge our partners to block iranian planes from entering their airspace on their way to yemen and syria. across the board, i will vigorously enforce and strengthen, if necessary, the american sanctions on iran and its revolutionary guard for its sponsorship of terrorism, its

ballistic missile program, and other destabilizing activities. i'll enforce and strengthen if necessary our restrictions on sending arms to iran and from iran to bad actors like syria. and i'll impose these sanctions on everyone involved in these activities whether they are in iran or overseas. this will be a special imperative as some of the u.n. sanctions lapse. so the u.s. and our partners have to step up. fourth, i'll stand as i always have against iran's abuses at home from its detention of political prisoners to its crackdown on freedom of

expression, including online. its inhumane policies hold back talented and spirited people. our quarrel is not and never has been with the iranian people. they have a bright future. a hopeful future. if they weren't held back by their leaders. as i said before, i think we were too restrained in our support of the protests in june, 2009, and in our condemnation of the government crackdown that followed. that won't happen again. we will enforce and if need be broaden our human rights sanctions, and i will not rest until every single american detained or missing in iran is ome. fifth, just as the nuclear agreement needs to be embedded in a broader iran policy, our broader iran policy needs to be embedded in a comprehensive regional strategy that promotes stability and counters extremism. iran like isis benefits from chaos and strife. it exploits other countries' weaknesses and the best defense against iran are the countries and governments being strong so that they can provide security and economic opportunity to their own people, and they must have the tools to push back on radicalization and extremism. helping countries get there will take time and strategic discipline, but it's crucial that the united states leads this effort.

i will push for renewed diplomacy to solve the destructive regional conflicts that iran fuels. we have to bring sufficient pressure on assad to force a political solution in syria. including a meaningful increase in our efforts to train and equip the moderate syrian opposition, something i called for early in the conflict. and the united states must lead in assisting those who have been uprooted by conflict, especially the millions of syrian refugees now beseeching the world to help them. as pope francis reminded us, this is an international problem that demands an international response. and the united states must help lead that response. that's who we are and that's what we do.

so our strategy needs to cover all these bases. iran's nuclear ambitions and support of terrorism. its hatred of israel and its cruelty toward its citizens. its military resources and its economic strengths and weaknesses. we need to be creative, committed, and vigilant. and on every front we need to keep working closely with our friends and partners. on that note let me just spend a 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 anger.

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 negotiate -- 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 ogether. 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. or 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 ecretary 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]

martin: 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 to 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. nd i wonder how you navigate what is a certain -- unspoken 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 t 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 esponse. 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 ntended 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 seems to come down to when you -- what happens in syria where iran is very invested in the assad egime. 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 the 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 against 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 ime. 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. but i wonder how you deal with 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 ace.

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 hink 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 imams 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 penness 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 hem because the alternatives are hardly more promising. martin: israel. you made a very clear effort in your speech to say it's time for healing, it's time to come together. when you're president that you ould 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 inister. [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 pproach.

martin: let's go to your questions. i would ask you please to identify yourself and make sure there's a question mark at the end 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 ran? secretary clinton: yes, i would, robin. i think we have to attempt to do hat. 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 ummer.

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 and bob einhorn, it was exploratory and laid down the ground rules we were looking for and then eventually was launched 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 n 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 e brought iran in. so we have to readjust this all he 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 out 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 nd 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. we all wish it would go way.

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 projecting 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. hy 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 know, 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 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 troops 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 vocally within the dministration 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 ense 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 n 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 evelopments 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. 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, you know, short-sighted and just wrong-headed. i don't think -- i don't know ow 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. think we have work to do.

martin: 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. e 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 eft 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. 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. so i think it's like much in international relations. t'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 ontribute 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 eed. in fact, the last i checked the u.n. appeal had only reached 37%. o there is both financial work and contributions that need to be forthcoming and countries need to be more open and willing o 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 tates. if you agree with that, how ould 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 ilitary. then came many years of, you know, real hard feelings that got 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 so there are the pieces of national and regional interests here 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 ertainly we can try to catalyze 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 -- the 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