that is a goal of the obama administration. but it is not the only goal they have and it's not the primary goal. the primary goal is to pull the united states back from the middle east and to come up with a regional security architecture that will allow the united states to stay out. these two goals have been working simultaneously all along and at a certain point they run counter to each other. because in order to pull the u.s. back they've got to reach an agreement on the nuclear program. and the iranians picked up on that and they recognize that getting the agreement was more important for the administration than anything else. and they realize that they could use it to their advantage and they can come up with -- the iranians could offer solutions that were not really solutions, that the administration would accept in the end. so you get to see the amount of creative intelligence that has gone into this on the part of the administration in order to present to us something that is really something else is startling. the side

i presume the administration will defend that agreement. and i presume that that will mean ignoring iran's abuses at home and probably ignoring iran's aggression abroad. the negotiations were constraint on the administration taking action and protesting. and i presume that the new agreement is going to be a constraint on the administration's taking action against iran. i'm just pointing out my view on this based upon what i have observed, going back to the green revolution and this model with iran. i wish that the administration would take on a new life in confronting iran. i don't see it. and will have a really bad deal to contend with. and the other part of the deal, other points were made here tonight, but sanctions relief provided to iran under this agreement will enable them to increase the size and scope of their ballistic missiles. so the other observation i would make is the medium and long-term threat of an a ballistic missile that can reach the united states is very real. that is what we have heard from so many retired officers and

that is a goal of the obama administration. but it is not the only goal they have and it's not the primary goal. the primary goal is to pull the united states back from the middle east and to come up with a regional security architecture that will allow the united states to stay out. these two goals have been working simultaneously all along and at a certain point they run counter to each other. because in order to pull the u.s. back they've got to reach an agreement on the nuclear program. and the iranians picked up on that and they recognize that getting the agreement was more important for the administration than anything else. and they realize that they could use it to their advantage and they can come up with -- the iranians could offer solutions that were not really solutions, that the administration would accept in the end. so you get to see the amount of creative intelligence that has gone into this on the part of the administration in order to present to us something that is really something else is startling. the side

it in terms of the bush administration to the modern day

and the administration does what? nothing. and there is no deterrence so attacks continued we watch the hard-won gains of our men and women in uniform belt away in a back. following the presence decision to withdraw all of our troops in 2011 over the objections of his military leaders and commanders on the ground. and, of course, there's the conflict in syria which claimed 220,000 lives and counting, spawned a large the most threatening terrorist army in the world from involved repeat use of weapons of mass destruction, destabilizing the entire middle east and lead to the largest refugee crisis in europe since world war ii. there is no one who is not deeply moved by the picture of the three year old baby on the beach. my friends, that is a direct result of obama's foreign policy, and have no doubt about it. amid all that is going threats for four years at the budget control act and sequestration of cut our military by hundreds of billions of dollars for no strategic russia whatsoever. congress has been complicit in this disaste

afghanistan, the administration made the same argue. when we pull out of afghanistan, things will get better but in afghanistan, as the americans pull out, the violence levels have increased. afghans news just fork cussing on the afghan government in libya the administration said we're not going to send troops into libya after we destroy their government because that will stu stir it up. so if we don't put our troops into libya there won't be an insurgencies, and of course we see libyans also each other's throats, massive violence, chaos so it's an unfortunate theory that there my be certain cases where, yes, the people don't like americans and that may incite violation -- violence but this should be-i think most of he enemies are not driven by the american presence and that you're better off in some cases using americans because our allies knock do what we would like them to do. >> host: let's talk about afghanistan. some of hoe most fascinating parts of your book deal with afghanistan. that is a war, an operation, with which you have

regrettably, that does not describe the agreement that the administration negotiated. the agreement is fundamentally flawed because it leaves iran as capable of building a nuclear weapon as the expiration of the agreement as it is today. indeed, at that time, iran will be a more dangerous and stronger nuclear threshold state. exactly the opposite of what these negotiations should have produced. as the noted expert on sanctions testified before the senate foreign relations committee, even if iran doesn't violate the jcp oa, it will have patient pathways to nuclear weapons. access to heavy weaponry, and economy emmy and eyes again sanctions pressure and a more powerful regional presence. ". under under the agreement, mr. president, not a single one of iran's 19000 centrifuges used to enrich uranium to produce a nuclear bomb will be destroyed. not a single one. iran will be able to continue its research and development on advance centrifuges used to enrich uranium more rapidly and effectively. not only will iran retain its nuclear capabilities, but also it will be a far ri

unfortunately, the administration's concessions didn't stop there. on november 24, 2016, secretary kerry said there is no right to enrich. we do not -- we do not recognize right to enrich. however, in the final deal, the administration not only conceded the right to enrich, it also allowed iran to maintain an industrial scale enrichment capability that would only grow in size and sophistication. on the issue of fordow, the once-covert nuclear facility that was built deep into a mountain, president obama said in december, 2013, that iran had no need, no need for such a facility if all it sought was peaceful nuclear energy. and yet the final deal allows iran to maintain nearly a thousand centrifuges at fordow and conduct nuclear-related testing there during the entire life of the agreement on the issue of iran's breakout capacity. president obama said in december, 2013, that in the deal he envisions the iranians -- quote -- as a practical matter do not have a breakout capacity. here, too, the administration reversed itself, conceding to a breakout capac

we know by the administration's own admission that we can depend on some of that money. last year $6 billion went to terrorist support around the middle east and other parts of the world from iran. iran last year spent $^17 billion supporting their own military. that puts this windfall into perspective. one of the first things iran did when they anapsed this deal, when the administration announced this deal is they sent representatives to moscow. does it take much imagination to see that their behavior is not going to change in this deal just because we've given them a windfall? we're encouraging bad behavior. second, i'd like to know where our four american hostages are. they get to keep them. the third thing: iran gets to enrism this is my biggest problem. my biggest problem with this deal is that we gave up the ability right off the bat to stop iran from enriching. to me, this is the fundamental problem in this deal. break out without enriching capabilities is two to three years, not two to three months, like this deal provides. as a matter of fact, the president himse

and i think the administration deserves credit. and look, i think everybody on this committee has made up their mind on how they're going to vote on this. i think the point of this committee is to make sure that there is ample time for robust debate so that everybody can make their views known and engage in that debate. and i surely would support that i hope we have as much debate as humanely possible. because i think it is important for people on both sides to be able to state their opinion. but, again, i would close by saying, you know, i'm going to proudly support this agreement and vote against the resolution approval because i think it's in the interests of the united states. i think it is in the interests of israel. i think it is the interests of the world to prevent iran for getting a nuclear weapon. and i think this is our best chance of getting it. wand that i yield back my time. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair thanks the gentleman. thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for being with us for so long this evening. i

the administration will proceed regardless. the u.n. is going to act, which means the iaea will report at the end of december after the iran inspections itself, the iaea will say it's been implemented and it's on the way. europe has tons of delegations that has been into tehran. this is not going to be stopped. i think what has to be done is to try to delegitamize the deal by saying it never had support and i will now tear it up. otherwise, nothing is going to get done. >> hillary clinton came out in favor of the iran deal pretty forcibly today. i want to talk about a separation from the obama administration, some key points in this speech that she mentioned trying to differentiate. >> 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 sear ren syrian opposition. >> i remain convinced that we need a concerted effort to really up the costs on russia and, in particular, on putin. i think we have not done enough. i am in the ca

how do you think the bush administration managed that change? were the leaders, follow, or not even figuring it out? we were literallystie: at a crossroads. of septemberplay 11, 2001. for those of us who were evacuated at the white house that day, all cell phone towers and d.c. for our network went down. there was not a means or mechanism for us to communicate. conceptafter 9/11, the was introduced that we would now carry a blackberry, which most of us had never heard of before, to vacate with each other -- communicate with each other. way whichk at the would news digital media, the white house photographer will still taking still photos in 2001, 2002, 2003. we did not digitize until 2004. when you look at the way the iudents communicate today, think for us the challenge was recognizing that this new technology was out there and how thee best not only hook president into this new technology, but how can we staff? its half -- it as president obama uses e-mail, president bush did not. by the time you get into 2006, was, the white house staff a lot

on the one handte the administration says that the united states can unilaterally cause international sanctions te be reimposed. administration repeatedly warns us that the sanction regime is falling apart. which is it? second, iran has already made explicit the text of the agreement, that the imposition of any sanctions will be treated as grounds to restart its nuclear program. included in the jcpoa, is this clear statement.nt. iran has stated that if sanctions are reinstated in whole or in part, iran will treat that as grounds to cease this jcpoa in whole or in part. mr. president, in effect, iran has given advanced notice that if the united states or any of its partners insists on rei reimposing sanctions, iran can simply walk away from the deal.y given their investment in their deal, i am very kept call that any of the -- skeptic call, thae any p5-plus-one countries will take that action. after endorsement of agreement the iranians actually released a statement, that it may reconsider its commitments if new sanctions impair the business and trade resulting from the resulting from

. >> it is the administration feel the u.s. should play a role in the process of deciding how many should go where and that the u.s. should be one of those countries that allows this? >> there are some immigrants from that region of the world that enter the united states. right now this is a humanitarian crisis that is straining and there there's a number of things that we can do to offer support. this technical expertise that can be offered and there's obviously financial assistance the united states has offered to those countries that are providing and are engaged in the effort to provide the basic humanitarian need of these individuals that have fled their home countries with widespread violence in their own countries and we are going to continue to engage the eu to discuss additional steps we can do to be helpful in this regard but i'm not aware of any impending policy changes as it relates to immigrants in that region of the world. >> given that the crisis has reached the proportion that has come of these countries are str

there are others in the administration. agency and elsewhere they are much more conversant with this and would be happy to continue the discussion. >> well, for me this is a critical issue which must be viewed in the frame of what we're doing right now with overall sanctions. it has to be addressed in this context because i think it is a wonderful opportunity for our country to use this knew growth and our energy resources for smart and better diplomacy, better power, and provide european energy security, which i, which i think the lack of energy security among our allies has created a lot of economic disruption. it will continue to push for this, push for increased and maintaining sanctions on anyone who engages in terrorism command i look forward to continuing our discussion with you. to your family so ii want to thank them for raising a very amazing than men who is using his talent for public service. >> thank you. >> thank you. i want to talk about snapback sanctions on their effectiveness. sanctions were not stopping ir

the george w. bush administration. it's just reluctant to ratify unpopular treaties and treaties that undermine u.s. interests. there is a distinction between these two types of treaties. from the obama administration's perspective, this is a problem with the senate. but from the constitution's perspective, this is the purpose of the senate. and it's exactly why the framers included the senate in the treaty making process. article 2, section 2, of the constitution states that the president -- quote -- "shall have power by and with the advice and consent of the senate to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the senators present concur." the sharing of the treaty making power between the executive and the senate is not a quirk nor is it optional. it is a constitutional command. both branches are essential, they're essential to this process. without both branches, you cannot make a treaty and have it take effect. the executive is best suited to manage negotiations with foreign nations but only legislative consent can gran

the agreement will be implemented by the obama administrati administration. >> what do you make of the latest move to scuttle or at least delay the deal. >> i think opponents of this deal -- and not only folks in congress, people lake aipac, are going to be all over the place trying to figure out technical ways to delay or cancel this deal. i can tell you, i have a lot of very powerful jewish friends who are hitting the halls of congress today putting pressure on their congress people and senators not to go along with these plans. >> let's talk about hillary clinton, what's going on with her e-mail. suddenly she's apologizing robustly after refusing to do so for months. what's going on? >> well, i just want to respond. the jewish friends on both sides of the aisle who both oppose and support this deal understand the importance of the united states continuing to protect israel and regardless of what the vote is this week, democrats and republicans will be united not just in supporting israel but all about allies in the middle east. to her apology, i don't know how many times she can say

there are others in the administration for much more conversant with visit would be happy to continue the discussion. >> for me this is a critical issue and it has to be viewed in the frame of what we're doing right now with overall sanctions. it has to be addressed in this context. i think it is a wonderful opportunity for our country to use this new growth in our energy resources for smart and better diplomacy and provide european energy security, which i think the lack of energy security, among our allies, has created a lot of economic disruption. we will continue to push for this, we will continue to push for increased sanctions on anyone who engages in terrorism and human rights violations i look forward to continuing our discussion with you. enter your family, who are very proud behind you, i want to thank you for raising a very amusing young man who's using -- amazing a man who's using his talents for the public good. >> thank you for taking the time. congratulations on your nomination until your wonderful family. i want to talk about snapback sanctions on their effectiveness.

the clinton administration. the office of faith-based organizations are working on an ongoing basis around a whole host of issues. my brother's keepers reaching out to churches and synagogues and mosques to try to figure out how do we reach young boys and young men in a serious way. but the one thing i want to say is that, when i think about my own christian faith and my obligations, it is important for me to do what i can myself, individually, mentoring young people or making donations. in some ways, impacting whatever circles of influence i have. i also think it is important to have a voice in the larger debate. and i think it would be powerful for our faith-based organizations to speak out on this in a more forceful fashion. this may sound self-interested, because there have been -- these are areas where i agree with faith-based groups and issues where we have had disagreements around reproductive issues or same-sex marriage or what have you. maybe it appears advantageous for me to focus on these issues of pov

i presume the administration will defend that agreement. and i presume that that will mean ignoring iran's abuses at home and probably ignoring iran's aggression abroad. the negotiations were constraint on the administration taking action and protesting. and i presume that the new agreement is going to be a constraint on the administration's taking action against iran. i'm just pointing out my view on this based upon what i have observed, going back to the green revolution and this model with iran. i wish that the administration would take on a new life in confronting iran. i don't see it. and will have a really bad deal to contend with. and the other part of the deal, other points were made here tonight, but sanctions relief provided to iran under this agreement will enable them to increase the size and scope of their ballistic missiles. so the other observation i would make is the medium and long-term threat of an a ballistic missile that can reach the united states is very real. that is what we have heard from so many retired officers and

he said the bush administration, the george w. administration wouldn't let us come. i said that's easy to fix. it wasn't easy to fix. they wouldn't relax their travel ban. so later i would ask in a conversation we had, this is when be a dina read, a figure tri, should be blown off the face of the earth, i said how do you get along with your president, be a zoney dad. he said not good. i'm not going to be here much longer. and he was right. the next time i reached out to him, he was gone. he was gone. seemingly without a trace, i found out years later he was recalled to tehran and to private life, writing, lecturing, largely out of sight. the final, he looked for who would replace him. a plan never heard of him. never thought he had a chance to run. he got to run, and not only did he run, but he won more votes than five candidates combined. and the question was would the supreme leader let him society. he did. what kind of cabinet would he put together, surround himself, as the leader of iran. and when he did, we're watching to see who would be minister of this or tha

we have heard the administration's excuses. we have heard all of the ways that the final deal fell short of their promises. america can't afford to let iran have the nuclear program that this agreement will allow it to obtain. we should vote to disapprove the iran deal. the president should drop his veto threat. the president should send his people back to the negotiating table as this deal proposes and poses too great of a threat to america's national security for us to do anything else. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. flake: as we continue the debate on one of the most important foreign policy matters this body has addressed in some time, i would be remiss if i didn't mention how honored i am to be a part of it. it's not unusual for the congress to engage in debate over matters like spending bills or to authorize various federal agencies or executive branch judicial nominations or other business that we routinely attend to around here,

the information necessary. act timely with administration to protect us interest. think we can speak with a strong voice on this debate is over. and i hope that the debate that takes place on the floor of the senate and the house of representatives reflects the best tradition of congress and our independent review and our commitment to work on behalf of america. the must stand firm in our determination. we must agree to counter iranian support for terrorism and confront violations of ballistic missile protocol and international human rights obligations. congress and the administration cannot dwell on past disagreements but we must find a functional, bipartisan approach. i stand ready to work with my colleagues in the administration to achieve such a result. >> i want to thank the distinguished senator from maryland for his comments and his tremendous leadership on this issue. i know the senator is here to speak, and it is my understanding she will speak for approximately 30 minutes. but i do want to say again not only that i know some people refer to the fact it is

it is always the same story with the obama administration. if you want a deal bad enough you will get a bad deal and they have. when the obama administration is negotiating with countries who need a deal more than we do the president of the united states surre surrenders. this administration has no red lines when the comes to negotiating. they will give away anything to get a deal. there have been too many concessions for anyone to be comfortable with this agreement, too many red flags, president obama cannot see the defects that are obvious in this plan. he refuses to see what is so clear to the american people. after this agreement, iran will be a nuclear threshold state and a military and industrial power. they will have the money to support terrorist around the world and more money than it has had in the past. it will have the freedom to pursue its nuclear ambition. even some democrats who have said they support the deal are doing so with great reservations. they say they know it is not a good deal but they say it is the only option we hav

the administration signed off on these concessions. the deal will allow sales of aircraft and parts to iranian airlines which the quds forces use to move its people and weapons throughout the region. the irgc controls key parts, as i said, of the iranian economy. the largest construction companies. the telecom sector. shipping. 90 current and former irgc officials and companies will be taken off the sanctions list as a result of this deal. and even sanctions on the head of iran's elite quds force, general suleimani, will be coming off. he's been involved in the plot to assassinate the saudi ambassador, here in washington, d.c. while still under a u.n. travel ban, he traveled to moscow on july 24, 10 days after the iran nuclear agreement was announced. and he held meet wgs a russian defense minister and with president vladimir putin. believe me, those meetings are about weapons systems which the russians want to sell to the quds forces, to the iranians. so the irgc is the biggest sponsor of terror throughout the middle east and even trie

the administration has accepted what i consider as false choice. is is only about nuclear weapons and not terrorism. the fact of the matter is we are concerned about iran having a bomb, because a large part it is the world's largest state-sponsored terror. asking us to set aside the terrace question is irresponsible and misses the point. over the past and last 36 years, iran has carried out thousands of active terror that has killed thousands of innocent lives. not just. not just in the middle east but around the world. despite sanctions and treaty, continue to call for an attempt to destroy the state of israel, bomb diplomatic buildings and murder innocent people. on top of it all they are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of soldiers. the deal does nothing to address those. after ten to 15 years iran will be able to produce enough enriched uranium. for a bomb. i hope iran will conduct itself differently for the last 36 years. it is because of that belief that i that i must cast a vote against the steel. i do not believe supporting the still w

the same strategy that the previous administration followed. heavy sanctions, threats of military force, no diplomacy. but the cheney doctrine didn't work with iran. under that strategy, the iranian nuclear program rocketed ahead, centrifuges, enriched uranium growing by the day. the prime minister of israel, prime minister netanyahu, acknowledged this before the u.n. in september of 2012. and when the vice president was confronted by this, by chris wallace over the weekend on television, he had no answer for it. he couldn't answer for it because the fact of the advance of the iranian program under that cheney doctrine cannot be disputed. i was interested in this speech yesterday when he tried to justify that that strategy had worked when they tried it, and again, he ignored it. if we go back to the preferred doctrine of no diplomacy, sanctions and military threat, we're likely to get what we just got before, and that's an acceleration of the iranian nuclear program, and we should not go back down that path. rett mae conclude with a story about

the administration will proceed regardless. the u.n.ing to act, which means the iaea will report at the end of december after the iran inspections itself, the iaea will say it's been implemented and it's on the way. europe has tons of delegations that has been into tehran. this is not going to be stopped. i think what has to be done is to try to delegitamize the deal by saying it never had support and i will now tear it up. otherwise, nothing is going to get done. >> hillary clinton came out in favor of the iran deal pretty forcibly today. i want to talk about a separation from the obama administration, some key points in this speech that she mentioned trying to differentiate. >> 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 sear ren syrian opposition. >> i remain convinced that we need a concerted effort to really up the costs on russia and, in particular, on putin. i think we have not done enough. i am in the category

the story. [laughter] we had a pretty leaky ship in our administration, and i think, obviously, the other administrationsad. so i think the discipline was there. i think the team was good. i think a lot of the problem was the press had changed dramatically, and it's there today. it's now forever, even though we've lost a lot of the great editors and entities that used to be we considered mainstream media, today you've got so many fundamental differences out there today, and those 17,000 journalists that got displaced, unfortunately not all writing blogs or doing whatever without an editor trying to make sure the stories weren't there. so i think the bush administration was affected more by the events and the lack of an ability to control that environment. you don't control wars, you don't control terrorism, you don't control the economic breakdown. and as much as they attempted to do all that -- and i think they were pretty darn good at it -- it just, the stories were just overwhelming. .. a thoughtful hard to sell good stories on the economic razors but he had a different environment with a different ec

such is the case with this upside down administration. our own americans can be inspected at any time, yet, when it comes to the world's biggest sponsor of terrorism, we can't inspect them at all. we have to go through a third party and wait at least 24 days. common sense turned upside down. except in this case, mr. speaker, it's with grave danger to americans and grave danger to our friend, israel. now, the president says it's either this deal or war, and in fact there is no other deal, and i think that's false. in fact, i believe this deal in all likelihood bring war. and why do i think that? we're putting $150 billion back in the hands of iranians, and i want to know who here thinks they're going to build holts, who they'll use that $150 billion to help -- hospitals, who will use that $150 billion to help iranians? please reject this deal. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: we reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from

what is the administration's response? mr. earnest: i did not see the admiral's comments, so i cannot respond to those directly. i can say as a general matter we , have long encourage china to find a constructive, diplomatic way to work with other countries that have claims in the south china sea to try to resolve differences of opinion there. the stakes of resolving those tensions are not insignificant. the fact is, the south china sea is a significant area when it comes to international trade. there is a lot of international trade that goes through those waters, and it is in the interest in all the countries in that region of the world and in countries like the united states that have an impact on the global economy to ensure that those tensions don't interfere with the free flow of commerce. so, what we has steadfastly urged the chinese to do is to engage with other countries in the region to find a diplomatic resolution to some of these differences. we are strongly supportive of the efforts of other countries to find a dipl

and the obama administration. that's what brought them to the table -- american leadership. congress and the executive branch working together. remarkably, the deal the president and the administration have negotiated have flipped all of this on its head. it's incredible that we're at this point, as if we're treating iran as an equal, blessed by all the world's great powers. and, make no mistake, we are, as senator cardin mentioned and others, this deal legitimatizes iran's nuclear program and it blesses iran as a threshold nuclear power. so the question has to be asked, why not stick t original to thel goals set out by the senate just a year ago in 2014? in the letter to the president. to dismantle iran's nuclear capability, to prevent them from having enrichment capability. well, according to the president, he's stated -- quote -- "there is no one who thinks that iran would or could ever accept that. the international community does not take that view that iran can't have a peaceful nuclear program." well, the co

the administration and frankly leadership in the senate believe -- have stated that it started when the administration transmitted a number of documents relevant to their disclosure obligations. some of those have been leaked, some of those haven't. those involve things like the u.s.'s collapse on p.m.d.'s, it involves arrangements, involves why the intelligence community believes that that collapse is justified. so we know the content of a number of these documents. they were transmitted -- they were transmitted within a couple of days of getting back from vienna. the clock, according to this reading, ends on september 17, which is the last day congress would have to pass a resolution of disapproval. there are many people who are now claiming that because of the nontransmission of the iaea side deals, that clock hasn't started. there was, until the last 48 hours, no real recourse for those people. they could complain they could say it was illegal. there wasn't much they could do. on tuesday, d.c. district court ruled for the first time ever, this was in the context of an obamacare case

not only republicans blasting the administration's inept tactics in syria. former secretary of state hillary clinton admits one of the things xas bathe the crisis is the u.s. inability to train syrian rebels to fight the islamic state. the administrations ineptitude extends to director of national intelligence james clapper today testified that we're losing the fight in cyberspace. he also told congress there isn't much we can do about it. clapper claims we shouldn't retaliate either, because we also spy on china. we take up the president's foreign policy failures tonight with former united nations ambassador john bolton. and republican front-runner donald trump firing back at what he calls the bankrupt "forbes" magazine, after information pegged his net worthaf 4.5 billion dollars. trump claims he's worth at least 10 billion. we'll ask our guest, well, why he and the other gop candidates aren't on the forbes list. we'll talk about that and much more with presidential candidate former arkansas governor mike huckabee. >>> our top story tonight, a busy day for

the administration set forth a case that the current agreement immediately reduces iran's nuclear program and places it under a series of overlapping safeguards. together, these measures push a threshold nuclear power back from the brink. the agreement imposes an intrusive inspection and surveillance regime, relying on international certification and verification by the international atomic energy agency. future united states presidents have the authority immediately and through executive order to reimpose our sanctions if iranian actions are inconsistent with our national security. rejecting this agreement is fraught with unacceptable risk. our former negotiation partners and allies have signaled clearly that they are simply not coming back to the table, a point confirmed in my direct conversation and meeting. there is no better deal available now. the president's sanctions will soon become unenforceable, producing an economic windfall for iran, whether or not the united states accepts this agreement. the united states, instead of iran, would be isolated. and iran's nuclear program would

the obama administration has never liked sanctions. they fought vigorously to oppose sanctions targeting the iran central bank in december of 2011. then, as they are now, the obama administration claimed that imposing these sanctions would divide the international coalition and leave the united states alone in the world. i'll remind you, that didn't happen when we hung tough in 2011, when congress pushed for those sanctions and we got that set of sanctions through. indeed, that is why iran is even at the table. so, businesses and in particular banks, will be hesitant to put a premium on the iranian market if that means getting shut out of the united states. i think all of us understand that. that is the power of the united states financial markets. that is the potential damage of reputational risk to any company that makes that decision. that is the power that we in congress wanted to deploy in this negotiation. and that is what the administration did not deploy, flat out, by blocking the legislation that i andel yont engel passed out o

he came up with the resettlement administration program. roosevelt could not live with the political fallout from it. took him away from the program and had him do other things. that is when it became farm security administration. the agenda was slightly different. different people were put in charge. 1937 or so, when they began being the farm security administration, they were well-established. newspapers and magazines were glad to have their photographs. they had seen the quality of the work. it was becoming an established, reliable picture source. the pictures were free, so they were appealing to magazines, publishing agencies, that sort of thing. and as a well-established organization in 1939, when kodak introduced color film, they sent film to roy stryker to have his photographers try it out, see what they do. kodak was trying to establish a new product. they wanted people who would know how to use it effectively to try it out and publicize it. photographers produced over 1600 photographs. you can see when you go online, you can see the

a blistering report on the obama administration's failure to keep americans from joining isis. we'll discuss all the foreign policy today. with the panel, comrie. >>> nearly 70 isis followers have been arrested in the last year in the united states of america. i think that's a wake-up call to action. the findings indicate that we, that number one, the threat is getting worse, not better. that we are losing in the struggle. to keep americans from the battlefield. because many are still going to the region and coming back. and i think most importantly that we lack a national strategy to deal with this problem. >> bipartisan tank force with a new report on foreign fighters, calling the flow of foreign fight nears syria and iraq the largest global convergence of jihadists in history. finds that some 7,000 have been added in just the past few months alone. most from the middle east and north africa, but thousands from europe and some 250 american who is have come back to the u.s. and in some way, shape or form. let's bring in our panel. joki dreesen, managing editor of foreign policy

the bottom line is, the obama administration wanted a deal, any deal, more than the iranian mullahs did. this administration was willing to sell out israel and our allies in the region and make us less safe here at home. this is a lousy, lousy deal and it ought to be rejected. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: thank you, mr. speaker. just to take a brief moment to respond to my colleague from california, i wish it were so simple that a credible alternative was the passage of a bill in congress that had not passed before that we could pass now. mr. schiff: and through the mere act of our legislation, compel the rest of the world to join us in a new negotiation and a stronger rounleds of sanctions. -- round of sanctions. we simply don't have that power . what's more, to imagine that a new sanctions bill will somehow come back to the table ready to concede its entire enrichment program is simply not credible. if that's what we're left with, we're really lef

the grateful for administration's leadership." times calls the republican efforts "a vicious battle against mr. obama and unseemly spectacle of lawmakers siding with a foreign leader against their own commander-in-chief." i want to be crystal clear, i support our commander-in-chief. the republicans and israeli proponents of this agreement are the same neocons who sold the war and a rack to americans based on lies and misinformation. now, what do the republicans offer as an alternative? nothing. they have no plan other than to kill the agreement which means that a ron will either obtain a nuclear weapon or the u.s. will go to war to stop them. let me tell you, i'm not interested in another republican war in the middle east. now is the time to put national security of the american people first, let's reject this republican gameplaying and support a tough diplomatic agreement that will stop iran from gaining a nuclear weapon. i yield back. >> gentlelady yields, judgment from california recognize. mr. shuster, judgment of the chairman

the administration has confirmed their existence. there is still a lack of clarity about the content. have you read either of these two side deals between iaea and iran? >> i haven't. >> have you read any previous drafts? >> i have it. that's have not. i have been -- i have not. i have been briefed. >> did anyone read the text of these agreements? >> i believe one person may have read it at the facility. >> is that person's name? -- what is that person's name? >> i don't know that for sure? >> have you read the text of these agreements? have you read any prior version? on any medium? >> i'm not sure. i don't know. i could ask. maybe somebody saw something. >> to your knowledge, has anyone else reviewed the text of these agreements? >> not that i'm aware of. i don't think so. >> and he has read the text of these agreements, does that not undercut the claims of confidentiality between the iaea and iran? >> i have no idea. i'm not sure. i know she's leaving the senate. >> i perceive several briefings in the deal. i look forward to anothe

hopefully the administration is because you can undo. there are some people in the opposition who believe the affordable health care act strategy, which is introducing various things which will try to undermine the agreement will fail a series of amendments that put supporting senators in a difficult position. if you are democrat and decide to vote for this, which goes against a lot of your most serious constituents, and a month from now you get a piece of legislation, tough legislation which mandates sanctions against iran, supporters on, which would be logical. so they're could be a strategy here of kind of legislative harassment as one piece of this. but i think you are right. there needs to be a broader process in terms of how we slide back. >> i was glad that sandy was answering your question. it is a tough one. i do think that over the long term it is really about building a narrative in the middle east that would not be the same in riyadh in tehran. but nevertheless that will allow for a discussion, and engagement between those cou

and every time that opposition to the administration says we can't be silent, we're being tested. can do something about it, we need strength of leadership. the people who are supporters of the president say we don't want war. lou: they don't want war, i don't think any of us do. >> none of douse. lou: but passivity is hardly a policy. congressman, appreciate you being with us as always. congressman lee zeldin. >> thank you up. >> next, liberal seattle decides it's acceptable, acceptable to go through people's trash! is that a violation of privacy? and what kind of city are they running there? yuck! we take up the case with lis wiehl and mercedes colwin, they're here next, you don't want to miss that. technology empowers us to achieve more. it pushes us to go further. special olympics has almost five million athletes in 170 countries. the microsoft cloud allows us to immediately be able to access information, wherever we are. information for an athlete's medical care, or information to track their personal best. with microsoft cloud, we save millions of man hours, and that's time

the obama administration collapsed on the issue of verification. we don't have anywhere, any time inspections in here. we have got self-inspections by the iranian regime with respect to parchin, which is the one military site where we know, we know that the iranians, because of 1,000 pages of documents, did most of their bomb work. and they say now, no, no, no. we'll do the inspections. we'll turn that stuff over, but nobody's going into our military sites. that's the argument they are making. and the sunset clause in this means the key parts of this deal expire at the end of the deal. so, we've got prominent sanctions relief for the iranian regime, relief that's going to go into their military in exchange for temporary constraints on iran's nuclear program. and the restrictions on iran's missile program designed to deliver those weapons -- now, this came up in the 11th hour of this negotiation, no one anticipated it being in the agreement. at the 11th hour the russians came forward and on behalf of the iranians said we want the lifting of the sanc

that way the administration was able to move through stories quickly. now you see the president holding back, we won't hear from him for months and it is like this firehose. reporters are finally asking 12 part questions. there is so much to ask him because the cycle just moves on and on. when i talk about state run media talking about photo releases. instead of a routine signing of note, which the president -- which president bush would do, now we don't have that. we get a photo taken by a white house photographer that is handed out, which is no different from them writing out a press release and expecting that to go in the paper without any scrutiny or accountability. this president doesn't like the press. bush didn't like what the press did, but he understood and respected the role that the press played. accessible in a casual way, like those oval office encounters with reporters just lobbying quest that lobbing questions. president obama doesn't do it. throw both administrations reporters found the most useful information comes from outside the admin