congress being a paria.ew weeks ago you were saying that no deal is better than a bad deal. and i know that there is no way that you could have possibly been thinking about war a few weeks ago. no way. and yet what you say to us now and said it over and over yesterday and i've seen you say it over and over on television that if somehow congress were to turn this down if congress were to turn this down the only option is war whereas a few weeks ago for you, for you to turn it down the only option is war. i don't think you can have it both ways. let me just say this if congress were to say these sanctions cannot be lifted it wouldn't be any different than the snap back that we now have where in essence the united states on its own, the united states on its own can implement snap back but my guess is the other countries as you've stated before wouldn't come along and we have to decide which way that it is. i know you speak with a degree of destain about a regional partners when you describe their reaction to th

with no regulations to support the measures that congress passes -- but i'll note that this congress doesn't pass much, but that's what we're here for to keep up with change and to legislate so that change is good for americans, their health, safety and well-being, and when we do do that, if we have a regulatory regime that is gummed up and inoperable then it hurts america's ability to compete in this global marketplace. it hurts america's economy to be an economy where all people can share in the prosperity of it. and so this is what this debate has been about. are we going to change america are we going to throw out the administrative procedure act which has been an orderly way and predictable way for regulations to be promulgated and placed into effect? are we going to subject that rulemaking process to a dysfunctional process like we have here in congress today where we can't even pass the icks port import bank -- export-import bank legislation which, by the way, you say government does not create jobs but there will be government jobs lost as a result of us going home early with

congress will not get to review those agreements. >>> congress will be briefed order those agreements. >>> we will not be given the actual agreements. >> i don't believe we'll get the actual agreement. >>> the problem is that the iran nuclear review act that the congress passed, required executive branch to provide all documents, to include any side agreements. so the executive branch has a finding legal obligation under the act it provide all documents. >> we don't have a side agreements. >> doesn't matter. it's a then de ten don't agency, and makes an inde punt den -- >> nuclear review act any agreement that iran would any other parties any related agreements whether entered or to be entered into, in the future. so if there's a dprement between iran and the i.a. ea, that needs to be provided to congress. so if you're not in complies with that act how is the clock starting to run for the 60 day review period. [laughter] >> congressman, i'm not sure, legally, the congress of the united states has the power powerful as it is, to be able to dictate, a change in its procedure? we passed

if congress had a say you could hold congress accountable. this is what self-government is all about. i reflect on 34 years ago when a certain gentleman spoke on the west front of this capitol and had these words to say. from time to time, we have been attempted to believe that society is too complex, that government by an elite group for, by and of the people. if no one among us is capable governing amongst ourselves who has the capacity to govern someone else. i thank the committee for its work on the ranlse act and i urge support to restore the proper constitutional structure of who's responsible for the laws that come out of this town. you would think that members of congress would want to take credit for good regulations and protect people from bad regulations. again that's what this legislation does. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. the economic elites who are the patrons of many of my friends across the aisle be

before congress?h earnest: no, and the reason is that it is important to reflect that disagreement is not between the united states and iran, this is a disagreement between p5 plus one and itran. p5 is actually a reference to the five permanent members of the un security council. it certainly is natural that those who are party to this agreement would be acting promptly to take it up. what is clear are a couple of things -- the first is, there is nothing that the united nations security council do that will have an impact on sanctions that are imposed by the united states . sanctions imposed by congress by executive order. the united nation's security council has no jurisdiction over that and will have no influence over decisions made about u.s. sections. the second thing is that the way that this vote is structured actually does reflect significant deference to the united states. that is that we do anticipate that in the next few days, there will be a vote by the united nations security council but i

and also congress you mentioned congress. the u.s.course, which was mandated by congress, actually going back to the clinton administration, they looked at the racial disparities in drug sentencing. so it's all right put in place, francis, where you have, you know, all bodies of the administration and congress now really looking at the drug in america but zeroing in on the drug sentencing laws and, of course, the unfairness of it. >> it's interest you put it that way because this is what you wrote when it comes to the president's actionss yesterday. these are your words. you you say it's a great news for a nation that has acquiesced far too long in the thoroughly debunked notion that the nation can incars rate its way out of the current morass. >> i think congress has to take the ball. i think they have to eliminate all of the drug disparity on the sentencings. i think they will do that. remember, we had crack cocaine versus powder cocaine. it needs to be eliminated. the second thing is a huge revamp in really ramping up treatment, ca

congressional mechanization -- commemoration and remarks by members of congress. gop presidential candidate carly fiorina. on american history tv on c-span3, tonight at 8:00 p.m. at college professor. -- a college professor. sunday evening at 6:30 a best-selling novelist. get our complete we can schedule at c-span.org >> in his weekly address this week the president supports passage of the fair housing act. senator warren -- lamar alexander of tennessee has the republican response. president obama: hi, everybody. it's our job as citizens to make sure we keep pushing this country we love toward our most cherished ideals that all of us are created equal, and all of us deserve an equal shot. this week, my administration took new steps to bring us closer to that goal. almost 50 years ago, republicans and democrats in congress came together to pass the fair housing act. it's a law that says landlords can't turn away tenants solely because of their race, religion, sex, national origin, or disability. and it made a difference in this country. still, the work of the fair

congress -- you don't know that congress will do anything.guess that congress will say no to this. is that sort of a prerequisite toward the president taking some sort of executive action on his own? i'm thinking of the precedent of immigration reform where the president tried to work it through congress, tried to bring people togethering to work on comprehensive reform and they decided not to do it and he acted alone to the extent he could. is that the temp plate here? >> it could be. i think it is important to approach in the way the president has which is an optimistic spirit what about congress may do here. after all, gitmo has been a total disaster and failure. there have been only eight trials at guantanamo seven convictions reversed already or about to be reversed. it's not working. yeah i think he has to work with congress first. at the end of the day, i suspect he has some unilateral tools available but i'm sure he would do that in the last entrance and doing the right thing working with congress first. >> thank you for your time ton

, to the congress by the irs. we removed the obvious spam e-mails and additional duplicates we found during the manual process. at the conclusion of this review we determined that over 1,000 e-mails that were recovered by tigda from backup tapes were not previously provided to congress. using the analysis of e-mail transaction logs we estimate that there may still be 23 23,000 to 24,000 e-mails still missing. another potential source of e-mails i will highlight is decommissioned e-mail server. based on our review of this source, our agents identified 58 new e-mails not previously produced to congress. the final source that i will discuss is the backup tapes for the decommissioned e-mail server. as the i.g. stated during our investigation we obtained the 424 backup tapes associated with the decommissioned new carolton e-mail server. and it is important to note that that server was in operation until approximately may 2011. we determined that 422 of the 424 tapes were degauzed or magnetically erased and therefore ha

it's early in the congress.ey've got lots of time to move around the we had one last question in the back. >> jim, thank you for bringing this great group together. it's really important to discuss some of these issues. i'm the chairman emeritus of the national -- in 1984 the president of the institute was the original author of the economic espionage act and the national trade secrets act. one of the precisions we attempted to get into law at the time was a civil portion of the because we did not have to wait and then adjust the government filing some form of action. today, concurred with the 1994 action was the establishment of the national counterintelligence center at in the first report to congress on economic espionage they said there were it countries that were actively and aggressively stealing technology from the united states. the last report in 2011 said there was over 140 countries who are actively and aggressively stealing technology. now that we've moved first to patent of all the stone technology

institute of congress, and testified before congress this month. jim, always a pleasure to have you with us. i want to take you strait to something i heard. she said no one thought it would be easy, historic decisions never are. really how historic is this deal? some of these terms phase out and it doesn't close iran's most advanced facility. what parts of this are history and are lasting? >> let's start with the first piece first. this is historic. iran and the united states have been at each other for 30 years. it's historic for that reason. it is in non-proliferation terms the strongest i'm halfway through the 159 pages so still need more time, but it seems largely consistent with the announcement made in april. if so, it would represent the most impressive arms control or i should say non-proliferation agreement ever negotiated voluntarily in a multi-lateral setting. this would be the strongest one stronger than the m.p.t., the agreements with libya and so on. you mention facilities. the number of facilities is not important. what's important i

when was congress that one -- one was congress. we talked about redistricting.d a good agreement between republicans and democrats on our commission. we felt like there were some things to be done better in that regard. as a political scientist, i think these are important questions. political scientists will tell you you still will not have districts that are all competitive or everyone in the middle. part of what has gone on in america is not only that congress is more left and right the people live together in certain areas. democrats live in democratic neighborhoods. the drawing of the lines will not solve. both parties should have -- it really is too often that one party has control of the legislature and governorship and writes the map and sticks it to the other party. secondly, you mentioned some geographic concerns. we try to put limitations on the map drawing process by requiring districts to have more natural geographic features rather than just crazy districts that squiggle around. it is not easy to do. one thing it does is it makes it impossible for

but frankly it is up to congress. justice kagan: so so what you're saying essentially is that all the statutes in the back of the government would count? menendez: yes, your honor. justice kagan: but nothing else would. in other words you have to have a listen specifically and this conduct created a serious risk of injury. menendez: if congress chose that as a solution, yes your honor. i think this demonstrates why the seats be left to congress. justice breyer: extortion dozens have that. menendez: extortion is an enumerated offense and that would pose the additional solution, your honor justice breyer: is there any crime like that? what is the crime like that? menendez: there's 200 crimes like that. justice breyer: in the first one, use attempted use threatened use of physical force and are simply adding to those three categories, you'd say, or risk or serious risk? menendez: has as an element the of a serious risk or a serious potential risk. justice breyer: of? menendez: of injury to another. it is up to congress h

i did not see myself as a member of congress. interviewer: you have a schedule that you have to keep. what is the daily routine like for you? mr. ratcliffe: one of the things that surprised me is how many people want to see me. we averaged 300 requests per day to get on my schedule. i often have 30 or 40 different meetings during the course of the day with different groups, that includes also time for votes. we usually have a number of vote series during the day but i have different constituents that, from in the district and there are different outside groups that want to see me and talk about different matters of legislation that i will be ultimately voting on. it is incredibly busy. there is some time in there for fundraising, that is always an issue or members of congress as well. it is different every day. i see a variety of people but at the end of the day it ties back into my role of trying to legislate, to put this country back in a better path. interviewer: where would you put yourself ideologically on the political spec

by congress. even though it's not technically an up or down vote on the iran nuclear deal you could see how it could have the affect if congress were to refuse to lift sanctions that have been so pivot tal to making this deal happen in the first place. however, you know that the white house is going to veto a move like that and to override the veto congress would have to have a two-thirds majority in both houses. that could be difficult if not a no go. >> thank you for laying that out for us michelle. very helpful. we have our eyes on what happens if they get it done in vienna. let's talk to senator ben cardin. cosponsor of the bipartisan deal for congress to review any nuclear agreement. senator, good to see you here on "new day." what do you think happens if the deal as we currently understand it kind of makes its way to congress? do you think it gets through? >> good morning, chris. first, we need to say that the devil is in the details. we don't know exactly about the inspection regimes. that'

and frankly i think that the law that the congress passed that now gives the congress of the united states 60 days to look at it will turn out to be 60 days that the president himself is about to find out what's in the deal that he and the administration signed. this is a serious matter for every member of the senate. i was asked earlier today are you going to -- are you going to lobby members of the senate as to how they should vote on this agreement when it came up. i said i'm going to do everything i can to talk about the real shortcomings of this agreement, the destabilizing of this agreement but every member of the senate is going to have to answer for this agreement and this vote for a long time. members of the senate on their own are going to have to decide what side of this to wind up on, and, mr. president i predict that a majority and maybe a substantial majority in the senate will wind up understanding that this is a bad deal for america and a bad deal for the future of world se the presiding officer: without objection. mr. king: fellow citizens, we cannot escape history. we of

and so i -- i really liked the days when i came in the congress and one of the things we did is congress was much more involved in the trade agreements. we were at the table. we travel to countries. we asked the tough questions. and then we're pushing for our people here back home to get some of these jobs. unfortunately, i think we have handed it over to president to negotiate the deal -- presidents to negotiate a deal. i am with you on trade, albert. host: from las vegas, nevada. hello. caller: good morning, senator. guest: how are you this morning? caller: oh, pretty good. i just want to applaud you for your bill. i supported and if we can get a vote on it, which i doubt, i know that my senator here in nevada will vote on it. the reason i have doubts about that is because we cannot even get anything bipartisan as a highway bill through. and that is, like, the most bipartisan thing in the country and we can get that done. so i i'm a little skeptical about that. and i just want to ask you one question. you have a long institutional memory. the other day when ted cruz was on the floor an

congress was in recess so congress had no time. by missing it, congress has 60 days. they'll be back from recess and will have at least a month. so this deadline, losing the word loosely, missing it does have significance but at this point now that they're at july 13, god knows when they'll keep going, now it's just let it play. gwen: not just the u.s. and iran at this table. there are also the p-5 partners, other european nations. in whose interest is it to walk away? who's closest to getting up and throwing up their hands or are we dealing with people spinning us in these negotiations? yochi: p-5, a lot of them want to go back to witness iran. they don't want to have to enforce sanctions. they have existing deals that were in place before sanctions and deals they want to put in place now -- russia china, they want no part of this and want to go back to doing business. same situation with france. the longer this goes, the more isolated the u.s. is. gwen: a whole lot of distance into getting something done and a lot of people to criticize if they do. yay, john kerry.

congress has two months to look it over. you have heard from two members of congress today.iden is behind closed doors with house democrats, answering their questions. we talked with the wall street journal this morning, we talked about congress' review process. >> republican leaders made clear yesterday that there -- that they are not going into this with optimism. they are sharply critical of it. they suggested that if upon further inspection, if it matches what they think it is, they will try hard to block it. host: how will they do that? guest: there are 60 days for lawmakers to review it in congress. it will probably be when they return from their august recess. they will take some kind of folk. leadership can take a vote to decide whether to approve or disapprove. that will influence what happens on capitol hill. most likely, at this point, it looks like they would bring up a vote to disapprove the deal. a joint resolution to disapprove of the deal. that would have to hurdle -- clear the hurdle of getting 60 votes. the president has said that he will veto that if that

this is often known as the first continental congress. and so, this is a first printing of the journals of the proceedings of congress. in this case, the first continental congress held in philadelphia september 5, 1774. and was published just on the street from where the museum will be located at the london coffeehouse. this is the corner of market and front street in old town philadelphia. this wonderful emblem that we have in the center, very symbolic, you as you can see there is the hand -- each one representing one of the colonies with the pillar and a liberty cap at the top and the words "magna carter" underneath, still reminding us that these delegates on the eve of the revolutionary war are still appealing to their rises in which meant -- their rights as englishmen to define their place in the empire and seek redress for these grievances. of course, not everybody felt this was the right way to go. there were still, this is by no means the consensus of all americans that we should be pushing literally to the brink of war to the poi

congress got rid of both of those. if you read the declaration of independence the word parliament, even though it is really about parliament, because george iii is almost as much of a figurehead -- well, he is closer to elizabeth ii then elizabeth the first. their focus was on sovereignty. they wanted to make it clear they're only connection to britain has been through the king and now he is the king of great britain and no longer the king of america, the focus of sovereignty. with all of that in mind, knowing that second sentence of the declaration of independence is really about the right to secede, i want to propose that we should really refer to the declaration of independence as originally written and was adopted by congress as inordinate of secession. a loaded term, but when we get back to talking about the confederate flag -- i think they will get it down in south carolina but if you are looking at secession from 1861, i defy you to find an anti-monarchical phase -- phrase in the declaration of independence. ju

. >> once congress -- if we don't disapprove this agreement, if it goes forward, will the congress -- u.s. congress have any role -- any further role in this agreement number one? number two can any president alter this agreement or refuse to abide by it in the future? >> well, congress will always have a role, obviously, and you've made that crystal clear in the context of what we're doing here now. so, yes, there will be an ongoing role with respect to the enforcement, the implementation, our -- >> do we have to vote on anything? >> afterwards? >> to repeal sanctions or -- >> ultimately, yes. ultimately the iran sanctions act itself. there is the lifting of sanctions. ultimately you would have to vote. >> if we don't do that pursuant to the agreement are there any penalties on our part? >> actually, iran is fry to break the agreement because we will have broken it and then all bets are off in terms of compliance. >> can a future president refuse to abide by the agreement? >> absolutely. a future president can but it's our judgment if the agreement is fully implemented and is working

it's early in the congress. when you get through that part of the process, the house has one version and the senate has their version go. it's a messy process. but it is not in the interest of either party. >> that's what congress face this is week. the senate has a six-year funding stream for the highway trust fund that they want to get through bipartisan bill that the leader of the republican party mitch mcconnell worked on with barbara boxer from california. the house passes a five-month extension. >> ultimately you have to resolve that one way or the other. sometimes one body gives in and says, okay we'll take your version. we don't think that should never happen. but on many major issues the bodies have worked hard on these compromises with their own members. but there is still another step to get to the president. a conference committee where appropriate is an important step. that's where the house brings its leaders on both sides who have been involved with passing the bill. the senate brings its leaders

what do you predict will happen with how congress approaches them? are you seeing a situation where republicans will be bucking the president and democrats will have to provide the majority? guest: anybody who tells you what will happen on this deal is the last person you should be listening to. nobody knows because we don't , have a deal. i am deeply skeptical. i will not vote as a democrat for a deal unless it satisfies me on several basic precepts. number one, anywhere and anytime verification. number two, sanctions relief that can be snapped back where there are violations. and number three, i want to know exactly what the iranians have been doing on their nuclear program because we cannot figure , out where they're going unless we know what they have been doing. if the president and secretary kerry can satisfy those issues i would consider voting for the deal. so far, i see no indication that those three concerns will be satisfied. but we will see. >> you see iranian officials who are very active on social media and getting their message out to

is right to review -- congress' right to review. >> what happens of congress overrides the beater? >> there would be no deal. >> that you and resolution -- that u.n. resolution? >> the entire deal dies because we cannot lift the sanctions. that would be part of the vote. we would see this deal die. >> thank you. >> die without any other option. no alternative whatsoever. >> secretary moniz, what materials could be cleaned up within the 24 day. before an inspection? >> there would be an attempt presumably to do all kinds of cleanup. as i said, we have experience in both the unclassified and classified arenas in terms of being able to detect very small amounts of uranium. using nuclear materials, there would definitely be a strong signature. >> if iran fails to allow inspectors entry within that 24 day. period, what consequences with a face and under what timeline? >> if they fail to do it they are in breach. we can snap back all the sanctions. obviously all options are available. >> so immediately after that 24 day period -- >> if they fail to provide access they are in breach, and

it's not just up to congress. and we heard the senator from idaho, republican saying that he wishes this was a treaty process, which would require a lot of members of congress to get on board. it would require them to sign off on. this isn't that case. and while congress can approve or disapprove, a lot of members are feeling a sense of frustration, like the horse has left the barn and they are just here to give a thumbs up or not, but they don't have nearly as much power -- they weren't able to be at the negotiate table literally. >> and they also seem to have a chip on their shoulder over the fact that the u.s. brought this first to the united nations security council which quickly on monday because they are all party to the talks, approved the nuclear deal. >> we're going to take a quick break here and be back with more live coverage of the senate hearing. >>> welcome back to al jazeera america. you are watching live coverage of the iranian deal being discussed at a hearing in the senate foreign relations commi

the 113th congress. i think that you can be a conservative for you can be a liberal but if you are thoughtful, you can find common ground on issues. that's one of the things that i've worked to do. i do think there is the fact that now more than half of the members of congress have served in the body for six years or less really underscores the fact that everyone sees we need to do business also get differently and a little bit better than we have done in recent times. to get more done. >> host: you have to support from the tea party organizations when he ran for congress. as you will know a lot of the conversations are not too happy with republican leadership in the house. where does that put you? >> guest: what i campaigned on was getting support from all kinds of republicans. the district i represent includes some tea party support some tea party constituents but also involves traditional chamber of commerce republicans libertarians, constitutional conservatives. i really don't get hung up on labels.

only congress can lift it. if anyone thinks the sanctions will go away that the embargo will go away they have not been paying attention to the attitude of congress. congress unlike president obama understands that the castro regime are the oppressors. some committed to blocking the confirmation of a u.s. ambassador tore havana. many say the human rights record is the most pressing issue. palma says he will not visit the island until things improve. >> freedom of speech assembly of the press. it's clear cuba has progress to make in all of those areas. >> the embargo, and human rights are dominating the conversation. they are not the only fences left to mend in the new relationship. one issue is the u.s. naval base at guantanamo bay. it's the only permanent overseas u.s. base in the americas. havana wants the land back. >> no anticipation and no plan with respect to the guantanamo bay naval station in cuba >>> washington has controlled the deep water bay, and 45 square miles of land on cuba's south-east end sinc

again, sanctions passed by congress. he wants to remove sanctions on the energy sector equipment and gasoline sanctions that were passed by congress. so in essence what he's doing he's allowing iran to export his oil, allowing investment to help them produce more oil and allowing exports to iran of technologies that will help them produce more oil and gas, at the same time by turning down keystone he's making it harder for us 0 produce and transport oil and gas in our country and work with our strongest ally, canada. so what's the net effect of that? the net effect of that, it just helps put opec back in the driver's seat. but if you don't believe me, let's just take a look at the numbers. the numbers don't lie. prior to 2012, before we put the congressional sanctions in place, the kirk-menendez sanctions as part of the defense authorization act the end of 2011 during that year at that time in 2011 iran was producing 2.6 million barrels of oil a day, 2.6 million barrels of oil a day. by 2013, after the kirk-menendez sanc

congress got rid of both of those. if you read the declaration of independence, the final versions, the word "parliament," even though it is really about parliament, because george iii is almost as much of a figurehead -- well, he is not totally figurehead, but he is closer to elizabeth ii than elizabeth the first. so it is about parliament but it was not mentioned in the document. their focus was on sovereignty. they wanted to make it clear there only connection to britain has been through the king and now he is the king of great britain and no longer the king of america, the focus of -- was on sovereignty. with all of that in mind knowing that that second sentence of the declaration of independence is really about the right to secede, i want to propose that we should really refer to the declaration of independence as originally written and as adopted a loaded term, of course. especially since we are talking about the confederate fight. we will finally get it down in south carolina. here is georgia's ordinance of sece

i did not see myself as a member of congress.: you have a schedule that you have to keep. what is the daily routine like for you? mr. ratcliffe: one of the things that surprised me is how many people want to see me. we averaged 300 requests per day to get on my schedule. i often have 30 or 40 different meetings during the course of the day with different groups, that includes also time for votes. we usually have a number of vote series during the day but i have different constituents that, from in the district and there are different outside groups that want to see me and talk about different matters of legislation that i will be ultimately voting on. it is incredibly busy. there is some time in there for fundraising, that is always an issue or members of congress as well. it is different every day. i see a variety of people but at the end of the day it ties back into my role of trying to legislate, to put this country back in a better path. interviewer: where would you put yourself ideologically on the political spectrum? mr. ra

we not only had a court position, we did similar things in congress, trying to get the congress to refuse to seat's delegations that we knew were constituted from people who systematically denied african-americans the right to vote. did either one of you all run into this while you were doing your research? asa: it has been long ignored. you are still being ignored. what we are doing here -- the suit is an embarrassment. it is very powerful and strong in anything you have on the books. the only reason i submit we pass the 1965 voting rights act is because we did not have the courage or the guts to enforce the provisions under the constitution. what we need is not a voting rights act. what we need is a voting rights act to enforce the second provision of the 14th amendment. i think you recall that every party should -- richard: the republicans ideally, but i think that is too optimistic. any democratic presidential candidate wants to be taken seriously should enforce section two. asa:frank: in plessis versus ferguson, the chief judge wrote that congress intended when it rode the 14th amend

erector quarter he said that you are accountable to congress. however, you get to determine your budget and how to spend it. neither congress nor the fed can tell you how to allocate taxpayers money. many members of congress have expressed strong disapproval of the bureau's costly building renovations which include a waterfall and a four-story glass staircase and now stands at more than 3.5 times of the original estimate. has this disapproval by people cost you to change your renovation plans in any way? and if so, tell us what changes you made, if any. >> to answer to the question. first on the overall of the can build an oversight we are accountable to this congress in numerous ways that are in our statue. the gao does a regular audit of our expenses and expenditures each year which is not common to federal agencies. we are subject to an independent audit also by our statue.hi were subject to reviews by our inspector general which haveindepend been figures. i'm required by law to tesla in front of this committee, that's where the congress put

>>-- their dad in congress? representative ashford: i think they are proud that i am in congress. i think they are proud of me, which is quite something. you would always love to have your children be proud of you. they know that we work hard. the fact that we picked up the campaign from scratch with nine months to go. people say, you had been there 16 years people wanted a change i odn'tdon't know if people think of things exactly that way. i hope that they thought we offered something. maybe we purchased more optimistic. -- we were just more optimistic. that by working together, we could get things done. i think they are proud of that. my children are proud of how i committed to the tough issues like gay rights which to me is extremely important. i grew up in the clothing business. and the gay community was to me a very important part, of certainly the women's business. i grew up seeing the description against gays as a young child in new york. my grandfather's commitment to those issues at the national conference of questions and -- conference of christians and jews. we have st

it goes forward, will the congress -- u.s. congress have any role -- any further role in this agreement number one? number two can any president alter this agreement or refuse to abide by it in the future? >> well, congress will always have a role, obviously, and you've made that crystal clear in the context of what we're doing here now. so, yes, there will be an ongoing role with respect to the enforcement, the implementation, our -- >> do we have to vote on anything? >> afterwards? >> to repeal sanctions or -- >> ultimately, yes. ultimately the iran sanctions act itself. there is the lifting of sanctions. ultimately you would have to vote. >> if we don't do that pursuant to the agreement are there any penalties on our part? >> actually, iran is fry to break the agreement because we will have broken it and then all bets are off in terms of compliance. >> can a future president refuse to abide by the agreement? >> absolutely. a future president can but it's our judgment if the agreement is fully implemented and is working well

can congress live with that?know based on a lot of briefings i get that they do have in the past engaged in covert development of nuclear capabilities. that's our concern here. they've had underground facilities is. i'm sure they'll use their military facilities to do this and the inspectors will have no access. that's one of the biggest issues we have. i'm on the foreign affairs committee as well. we have a hearing later today on this issue. i was just over in the middle east with prime minister netanyahu and with the saudis and the turks. and what i'm really concerned about is a nuclear arms race this could spur in the middle east in response to this. they do not want to see iran go down the path to building a bomb. and that's from their perspective how they see this. >> netanyahu has called this a historically bad deal or a historic mistake today. here are some other things that we hear are in it. it will get rid of 98% of the enriched uranium stockpile that iran holds. the president said that currently they c

but we need to have a new generation of leadership in congress. so after 2012, i started working at my family's business which i grew up around and i started as a completely no-name candidate taking on a seeded incumbent. i made the rounds with large districts, community leaders, local elected officials, business leaders, to ask what they were looking for in congress. and at first blush, i think that many of them were shocked by my age. i was 29 at the time. and that was an impossibility for a 29-year-old to even be remotely possible to win an election, a primary and then a general election. but i turned my youth from a weakness into a strength. and just really embraced the fact that i was a young candidate. and it actually worked. >> and a district that borders vermont and canada, how big is it? >> ms. stefanik: the district is 12 counties, one of the biggest districts on the east coast. it's mountainous terrain. the adirondack mountains, which are beautiful, are right in the center of the district. in terms of the population. the population is s

congress. so we worked out a compromise. and in working out that compromise we did so in a way , that fully protects the prerogative of the united states congress to review this for the next 60 days. we put a 90 day period in during which there will be no implementation. no ability of the congress has been impinged on. the rights of the congress to make its evaluation have not changed. on the other hand, when you are negotiating with six other countries, it does require obviously, a measure of sensitivity and multilateral cooperation that has to take into account other nations' desires at the same time. they were insistent the vote take place because they were negotiating under the umbrella of the united nations and they thought it was appropriate when they completed their work for the united nations to make its judgment. i look forward to continuing over the next 60 days to having , discussions and testimony in private meetings in whatever form is necessary to help convince the congress that this deal does exist. -- this de

>> the congress needs to reject the deal. -- if the president chooses to veto, which he said this morning in his announcement that he would veto -- the president said the m.a.s. american public has every right to be open-minded and to review it as long as you essentially agree with me. it congress wants to reject the deal as representatives of the american public, the president already said he's going to veto it. now, there are republicans in congress, but that majority isn't a supermajority. it would rely upon democrats who are here who plan on being in office longer than obama will be in the white house, and they're talking to their own constituents in their states and congressional districts. they're going to have to do the right thing for american security because whoever the next president is, their leverage just got handicapped by negotiating away the sanctions that bring the iranians to the table, and there are so many other actions of the iranians that we need to confront head on. >> the sanctions brought them to the

whether iran -- whether congress kills the deal or not. the question is it requires international pressure. unanimity of opinions across the globe to convince iran to reduce their uranium stockpile by 98%. to essentially unplug 13,000 centre fuges. to overhaul their heavy water plutonium reactor. to agree to a set of inspection and verification measures that are stronger than any others imposed on a country's nuclear program. the only reason we're able to reach that agreement and apply that much pressure on iran is that the international community was united. if the united states steps away from the agreement, it certainly is fair for iran to start calling everybody's bluff. you can imagine iran then say, well, you know what, we're not going to comply with the agreement. the united states isn't going to, we're not going to either. what are you going to do about it? one thing we won't be able to do about it, we won't be able to apply a comprehensive international set of sanctions against iran. the reason we were able to do that last time is

it will be a hard sell in congress. we said that president barack obama knows that the resolution of disapproval is likely to introduced, likely to pass and likely to get over 60 votes. we do have legislatures -- legislators joining us later to talk about the deal but first the president of the united states. pres. obama: after two years of negotiations the knot estates together with our international partners has in -- achieved something that democracy has not. a deal with iran that will prevent it from attaining a nuclear weapon. this demonstrates that diplomacy can bring about real and meaningful change. change that makes our country safer and more secure. it is in line with a tradition of american leadership. it is now more than 50 years since resident kennedy stood before the american people and said let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate. he was speaking between the need for discussions between the night of state and the soviet union, which led to efforts to restrict the spread of n

versus our desire to protect congress's right to review. >> so if congress does go through the review process and disapproves the deal, at that point what happens -- >> if congress overrides the veto there would be no deal. >> that passed unanimously would not stand? >> the entire deal dies because we can't lift the sanctions without the ability to waive and that has been taken away and that is part of the vote. so we would see this deal die. >> okay. thank you. >> and die without any other option. no alternative whatsoever. >> secretary moniz, what evidence or materials could potentially be cleaned up or hidden within the 24-day period listed in the inspections regime? >> well there would be an attempt presumably to replace flooring, do all kinds of clean-up. and as i said we have skpleerns in the un -- experience in the unclassified and classified arenas in determines of detecting very small amounts of uranium so using nuclear materials there would typically be a strong signature. >> and if iran fails to allow inspectors entry within the 24-day period, what consequences would they f