and they go into the oval office with scowcroft dan quayle is there. he gets a 15 minute briefing from the cia, a personal briefing. he was very disdainful to read the briefings because he wanted to ask questions it was always a personal briefing. so then scowcroft takes a half-hour to talk about what happened overnight the short term agenda of foreign policy issues. i takeover to talk about everything else like domestic policy, politically that meeting is supposed to end at 930 we always have a half-hour margin because it never ended at 930. you have for people in their there really liked and respected each other if you read barbara bush's book she has a line where she says all that meeting was going on she would be walking billy in the rose garden and all she heard coming from behind those doors was raucous laughter and could understand how those people could be running the world through all that humor. [laughter] but very important part to answer your question as a strong personal relationship myself or in domestic everybody trusted each other with

i believe general scowcroft is correct.an iranian compliance is critical no matter how you vote on a resolution of disapproval. it is also important that we ensure the administration is able to follow through on the commitments they made to our allies and partners in the middle east, especially to the state of israel. again, general scowcroft makes an excellent point. the united states must work -- in his words -- closely with the g.c.c. and other allies to moderate iranian behavior in the region, countering it where necessary. absent support and resources for the implementation phase of this agreement, these efforts may not happen and our efforts to reassure our partners in the region may fail. soon this debate will be over. i believe sustaining the j.c.p. will leave us in a stronger position. but regardless of the outcome of this debate, we must not relax our efforts in countering iranian nuclear aspirations, regional aggression and the sponsorship of terrorism. i believe the jcpoa will give us valuable tools to monitor a

the monitoring, brent scowcroft said as much., this is something we all have to work on, every president, house, and senate, if we do a good job of implementation and enforcement and smack of the iranians when they violate and have strong deterrence, it can work, but we have a lot of work to do. john: your colleague from delaware who came out with you yesterday in endorsing this deal is also endorsing vice president biden if the vice president decides to get in the race. vice president biden has roots in your state. i know you support hillary clinton, but would you give consideration to switching your support for president biden? >> i support secretary clinton. i think she will be a strong president and a strong nominee. i am a good friend of vice president biden, but i have made a determination to support her. we will have a continued spirited debate. mark: what's your opinion, biden in or out? >> i don't like when others give me that advice. i will not give it to him. john: are you worried about secretary clinton given the poll

us a jump and scowcroft -- as general scowcroft recently stated in a "washington post" op-ed, supporting the agreement implementation and verification will be the key to success and congress has an important role. it should ensure the iaea and other public bodies and u.s. intelligence agencies have all the resources necessary to facilitate an inspection and monitor compliance. i believe the general scowcroft is correct. and iranian compliance is a critical no matter how you go through revolution -- resolution of disapproval for it support we intruded administration israel to follow through on the commitments they have made to our allies and partners in the middle east. especially to the state of israel. by jim general scowcroft makes an excellent point. that united states must work, in his words come close with the gcc and other allies to moderate on many behavior in the region, countering it were necessary. absent support and resources in the implementation phase means these efforts thing that happened at our efforts to ensure our partners we may fail. soon this debate will be over. i b

i believe general scowcroft is correct. an iranian compliance is critical no matter how you vote on a resolution of disapproval. it is also important that we ensure the administration is able to follow through on the commitments they made to our allies and partners in the middle east, especially to the state of israel. again, general scowcroft makes an excellent point. the united states must work -- in his words -- closely with the g.c.c. and other allies to moderate iranian behavior in the region, countering it where necessary. absent support and resources for the implementation phase of this agreement, these efforts may not happen and our efforts to reassure our partners in the region may fail. soon this debate will be over. i believe sustaining the j.c.p. will leave us in a stronger position. but regardless of the outcome of this debate, we must not relax our efforts in countering iranian nuclear aspirations, regional aggression and the sponsorship of terrorism. i believe the jcpoa will give us valuable tools to monitor

begin to see people around him as a republican looking for the jim baker, looking for the brent scowcroft. are people like that going to be at his side? that's really critical for him. >> it's interesting though. i mean, you know, the most specific policy he's talked about probably, and -- and i think it's the most specific he's gone into, is dealing with isis. he's talked about bombing the hell out of them, surrounding the oil fields, taking the oil, using american troops to protect those oil fields while american companies go in and take the oil. if -- if, you know, the critics of that policy, a lot of military experts that we've had on the program, you know, general hertling who commanded u.s. troops from 2007 to 2009 in northern iraq has said, you know, that's just -- that's just not realistic, it's just not -- i mean, that's the kind of argument somebody would make, you know, just say the bomb the hell out of them. if that is your policy the fact that you don't seem to know a lot of the details, specific as they may be about who the players are in the region, it does sort of bolster

ben scowcroft, one of the great names in american security and evers -- endeavors of the last century and now, served as a national security advisor to two republican presidents. he is among the many respected diggers who support it. the agreement is being backed with one exception by each of the more the more than 100 countries that have taken a formal position. the agreement was also endorsed by the united nations security council on a vote of 15-0. this not only said something very significant about the quality of the plan. particularly when you consider that five of those countries are permanent members and they are all nuclear powers. it should also invite reflection from those who believe the united states can walk away from this without causing grave harm to our international reputation to relationships and to interests. you probably heard the claim that, because of our strength, because of the power of our banks, all we americans have to do if congress rejects this plan is return to the bargaining table, puff out our chests and demand a better deal. i heard one critic say he w

soup and sorbet part of the dessert course ♪ ♪ [inaudible conversations] ♪ ♪ >> the honorable brent scowcroftnt is arriving soon and will be greeted by the president and the first lady. [inaudible conversations] [sir}) [sirens}. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> earlier today at the white house president obama and president xi jinping held a news conference. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states and the president of the people's republic of china. >> good afternoon, everybody, please have a seat. i want to once again welcome president xi back to the white house. we first toasted him when testifies vice president. this is our sixth meeting. as a result of our efforts, our nations are working more closely across the broader change of critical issues. since i took office, america's export to china has nearly doubled. chinese investment in the united states help support across the country. encouraging development reconciliation in afghanistan to the ebola in west africa. we have encouraged other countries to step us as well increasing prospects for global agreement. as a member, china was critical t

scowcroft has said and colin powell said. the notion that we have the financial power when already other nations have begun to undertake some further economic ork with iran, it's -- it's an illusion. it's an illusion. because so many of the sanctions would disappear. the other countries would not participate and the ministers from the other countries have said very clearly taos that this notion that you can turn this own and have a stronger set of sanctions is something that is imaginary. i appreciate the chance to answer your question. we'll have a full debate on this for hours, as many as you'll allow. mr. royce will have a chance to raise these points and we'll be fully prepared to answer them. but -- mr. royce: part of this is personal for me because one of those bills was my bill. and when you say the president did not oppose sanctions, it was my if you would yield, it was my legislation. it did pass 400-20. it passed unanimously through the committee. and yes the president and the secretary of state opposed it every ste

general scole croft -- scowcroft, national security expertise who served four republican presidents, said we would be sowing further turmoil in the middle east rather than seizing a chance and responsibility to stabilize it. that would be a tragedy of our own making. one we cannot allow. i respect greatly the concerns i have heard about what this agreement means for israel. i believe this agreement makes israel safer and in no small part that's why i support it. over my decades in the senate, my support for the safety and security of the israeli people has been at the corps of my views on the middle east. national security of the united states. it from dinners i attended 50 years ago with my girlfriend to the history of my own wife's family, my support for the state of israel and the jewish people has been personal and unimpeachable, and i have not been afraid to disagree with the president of the united states when it comes to israel. when the administration opposes congress passing specific sanctions. we must build on our firm commitment to make sure israel can defend itself, take

brent scowcroft, someone i know well, see annually, and the former national security advisor to president george h.w. bush, recently wrote -- and i quote -- "there is no credible alternative were congress to prevent u.s. participation in this nuclear deal. if we walk away, we walk away alone." i think it may be helpful to remind my colleagues and the american people how we got where we are today. first of all, preventing iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon has been a long-standing and bipartisan national security objective. in 2003, europe led the first effort to halt iran's nuclear program. the next decade saw five separate major rounds of failed negotiations and an ever-advancing iranian nuclear program. iran went from having a few centrifuges spinning to being a threshold nuclear power. following the revelation that iran was installing centrifuges at natanz last decade and disclosure in 2012 by our government and allies that iran was turning a mountain near gohm into a deeply buried centrifuge chamber, iran has seen sanctions escalate and felt international isolation. but its nuclear

joan scowcroft -- general scowcroft, who served four republican presidents, said we would be sowing further turmoil in the middle east rather than seizing a chance to stabilize it. that would be a tragedy of our own making, one we cannot allow. i respect greatly the concerns i have heard about what this agreement means for israel. i believe this agreement makes israel safer and in no small part that's why i support it. over my decades in the senate, my support for the safety and security of the israeli people has been at the core of my view on the middle east. national security of they have united states. from dinners i attended a years ago with my rl friend, to my most recent trips to israel, my support of israel has been unimpeachable. i have not been afraid to disagree with the president on the question of israel. we must build on our firm commitment to make sure israel and -- can defend itself and take more money. more military support. but we must provide the one true democracy in the region and the one and only jewish state in the whole world with the resources it needs. the united st

and then i read that in brent scowcroft memoir's comp basically this is all a big charade and we shouldit and not get involved. so that took a big pause, and i think jim baker and i give him credit, he made friends with shevardnadze just as i did but it took them about six months to get back on track, and that was lost time. but anyway, it came in and they managed the endgame of the cold war -- the cold war very well by not counting their chest. when the wall fell he didn't go over screening. spent i think that was very important that the americans didn't let out a lot of cheering. by 88 and 89 the soviet union was entering a critical phase and was giving away concessions that were only imaginable five years before. but some of gorbachev needed to retain his dignity, and a different pair of presidents might have not had that. >> i think they did it very, very well. >> do you think that things would've been different with a different american president? how much do you think the personalities mattered and this as against, say, the macroeconomic problems of the u.s. as our? >> well, i ser

generals, admirals, national security officials, famous diplomats, including jim baker and brent scowcroft and marine general zinni and the head of the former national security agency, bill odom, spoke out and wrote against invading iraq before it happened in march 2003. a majority of the people in this country think that there's something inflated about our military budget. [scattered laughter] all right. well, they've read the pentagon audits and the gao reports and the "60 minute" exposes and so on. it's horrendously inflated. waste, fraud, abuse is only part of it. we're still building cost-overrun military weapons systems designed for the soviet union era of hostility. like, the f-22 should never be built. you could put it on this stage. that's how much $200 million of electronics cost, profit in overruns. why are we building more submarines, nuclear submarines? one trident submarine--nuclear warheads can destroy 200 cities. that's before it reloads. why are we building more aircraft carriers, $15 billion a carrier? we got 13. the next country to challenge us is italy, has two. [laugh

agreement and richard lugar is for the agreement and john warner is for the agreement and brent scowcroft is for the agreement. these are all leading republican voices and others, many others. i don't see that happening. and for those people who say that it's been partisan, it has been partisan. several democrats joined republicans against the agreement. not one republican -- not one -- despite all the leadership on their side outside the senate, joined us. so the partisanship has been coming from the other side of the aisle. we're voting again on iran. and so maybe, i thought next week we could take up some of these serious issues that i just outlined, these pressing, pressing issues -- the budget, the debt ceiling, the ex-im bank, all these unbelievably important issues that are facing us. but, no, next week the majority leader has decided to take up abortion. abortion. and what we're going to be faced with is a bill that says to a woman, you cannot have an abortion after a certain period of time. it's a ban. no exception for the health of the woman. and i want to talk a little bit abou

ben scowcroft, one of the great names in american security and evers -- endeavors of the last century and now, served as a national security advisor to two republican presidents. he is among the many respected diggers who support it. the agreement is being backed with one exception by each of the more the more than 100 countries that have taken a formal position. the agreement was also endorsed by the united nations security council on a vote of 15-0. this not only said something very significant about the quality of the plan. particularly when you consider that five of those countries are permanent members and they are all nuclear powers. it should also invite reflection from those who believe the united states can walk away from this without causing grave harm to our international reputation to relationships and to interests. you probably heard the claim that, because of our strength, because of the power of our banks, all we americans have to do if congress rejects this plan is return to the bargaining table, puff out our chests and demand a better deal. i heard one critic say he w

ben scowcroft, one of the great names in american security and evers -- endeavors of the last century and now, served as a national security advisor to two republican presidents. he is among the many respected diggers who support it. the agreement is being backed with one exception by each of the more the more than 100 countries that have taken a formal position. the agreement was also endorsed by the united nations security council on a vote of 15-0. this not only said something very significant about the quality of the plan. particularly when you consider that five of those countries are permanent members and they are all nuclear powers. it should also invite reflection from those who believe the united states can walk away from this without causing grave harm to our international reputation to relationships and to interests. you probably heard the claim that, because of our strength, because of the power of our banks, all we americans have to do if congress rejects this plan is return to the bargaining table, puff out our chests and demand a better deal. i heard one critic say he w

agreement and richard lugar is for the agreement and john warner is for the agreement and brent scowcroft is for the agreement. these are all leading republican voices and others, many others. i don't see that happening. and for those people who say that it's been partisan, it has been partisan. several democrats joined republicans against the agreement. not one republican -- not one -- despite all the leadership on their side outside the senate, joined us. so the partisanship has been coming from the other side of the aisle. we're voting again on iran. and so maybe, i thought next week we could take up some of these serious issues that i just outlined, these pressing, pressing issues -- the budget, the debt ceiling, the ex-im bank, all these unbelievably important issues that are facing us. but, no, next week the majority leader has decided to take up abortion. abortion. and what we're going to be faced with is a bill that says to a woman, you cannot have an abortion after a certain period of time. it's a ban. no exception for the health of the woman. and i want to talk a little bit abou

general scowcroft, national security expertise who served four republican presidents, said we would be sowing further turmoil in the middle east rather than seizing a chance and , responsibility to stabilize it. that would be a tragedy of our own making. one we cannot allow. i respect greatly the concerns i have heard about what this agreement means for israel. i believe this agreement makes israel safer and in no small part that's why i support it. over my decades in the senate, my support for the safety and security of the israeli people has been at the corps of my views on the middle east. national security of the united states. from dinners i attended 50 years ago with my girlfriend to the history of my own wife's family, my support for the state of israel and the jewish people has been personal and unimpeachable, and i have not been afraid to disagree with the president of the united states when it comes to israel. when the administration opposes congress passing specific sanctions. nor on semblance. we must build on our firm commitment to make sure israel can defend itself, take

scowcroft has said and colin powell has said. the notion that we have the financial power when already other nations have begun to undertake some further economic work with iran, it's -- it's an illusion. it's an illusion. because so many of the sanctions would disappear. the other countries would not participate. and the ministers from the other countries have said very clearly to us that this notion that you can turn this down and have a stronger set of sanctions is something that is imaginary. i appreciate the chance to answer your question. we'll have a full debate on this for hours, as many as you allow. we'll have a full debate about this. mr. royce will have a chance to raise these points, and we'll be fully prepared to answer them. >> but if the gentleman would yield, part of this is personal for me because one of those bills was my bill. and when you say the president did not oppose sanctions, it was my -- if you would yield, it was my legislation. it did pass 400-20. it passed unanimously through the committee. and yes,

brent scowcroft, someone i know well, see annually, and the former national security advisor to president george h.w. bush, recently wrote -- and i quote -- "there is no credible alternative were congress to prevent u.s. participation in this nuclear deal. if we walk away, we walk away alone." i think it may be helpful to remind my colleagues and the american people how we got where we are today. first of all, preventing iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon has been a long-standing and bipartisan national security objective. in 2003, europe led the first effort to halt iran's nuclear program. the next decade saw five separate major rounds of failed negotiations and an ever-advancing iranian nuclear program. iran went from having a few centrifuges spinning to being a threshold nuclear power. following the revelation that iran was installing centrifuges at natanz last decade and disclosure in 2012 by our government and allies that iran was turning a mountain near gohm into a deeply buried centrifuge chamber, iran has seen sanctions escalate and felt international isolation. but its nuclear

ce scowcroft that's what former senator john warner says. the agreementally recollects an intrees i have regime that provides the iaea to declare nuclear facilities. additionally, they will be able to monitor iran's supply chain including uranium mines, mills, centrifuges, storage facilities and dedicated procurement for nuclear-related or dual-use technology. the agreement will have major components and place strict restrictions on the iranian nuclear program. if these restrictions are not adhered to, the united states can at any time revive the sanctions currently in place. congress should be able to conduct close oversight to ensure the terms are implemented d iran is living up to its obligations. it isn't about trust. secretary of state clinton today echoed the words distrust and verify. she supports the agreement. more broadly the united states ust signal to iran that it condemnable record of human rights will not be tolerated, nor will we hide with disagreement that action and our response to it. quite the opposite. we will redouble ou

ce scowcroft that's what former senator john warner says. the agreementally recollects an intrees i have regime that provides the iaea to declare nuclear facilities. additionally, they will be able to monitor iran's supply chain including uranium mines, mills, centrifuges, storage facilities and dedicated procurement for nuclear-related or dual-use technology. the agreement will have major components and place strict restrictions on the iranian nuclear program. if these restrictions are not adhered to, the united states can at any time revive the sanctions currently in place. congress should be able to conduct close oversight to ensure the terms are implemented d iran is living up to its obligations. it isn't about trust. secretary of state clinton today echoed the words distrust and verify. she supports the agreement. more broadly the united states ust signal to iran that it condemnable record of human rights will not be tolerated, nor will we hide with disagreement that action and our response to it. quite the opposite. we will redouble ou

scowcroft has said and colin powell has said. the notion that we have the financial power when already other nations have begun to undertake some further economic work with iran, it's -- it's an illusion. it's an illusion. because so many of the sanctions would disappear. the other countries would not participate. and the ministers from the other countries have said very clearly to us that this notion that you can turn this down and have a stronger set of sanctions is something that is imaginary. i appreciate the chance to answer your question. we'll have a full debate on this for hours, as many as you allow. we'll have a full debate about this. mr. royce will have a chance to raise these points, and we'll be fully prepared to answer them. >> but if the gentleman would yield, part of this is personal for me because one of those bills was my bill. and when you say the president did not oppose sanctions, it was my -- if you would yield, it was my legislation. it did pass 400-20. it passed unanimously through the committee. and yes,

expert on national security, including people like henry kissinger and madeleine albright and brent scowcroft and the list goes on and on, the world has never been in more turmoil than it is today. and that doesn't take a great deal of intelligence or study. all you have to do is watch television or read a newspaper. the united nations head of refugees has said there has never been more refugees in the world than -- since world war ii than there is today. you can't turn on the television without seeing the plight of these terrible -- terrible plight of these refugees who have had to flee their country because of the brutality and genocide committed by basher assad. you can't do without it. and some in the media and some of my friends on the liberal side treat this as if it were a hurricane, an earthquake, a natural disaster that just short of happened. it didn't just happen and it didn't have to happen. what has happened with these refugees is a direct result of the failed, feckless policies of this administration in general and this president, in particular. this is the president of the unit