under the president's deal with iran, nearly every aspect of iran's national power will be strengthened. economic power, diplomatic power, espionage power, conventional warfare power, and the power iran derives from supporting proxies like hamas, hezbollah, the houthis in yemen and the assad regime. so when supporters of the deal, mr. president, ask what is the alternative, there is a simple answer. political leadership. it is the next president and the next congress that will have to deal with the consequences of this deal. and if we're united in ending iran's nuclear program, we can make clear to the iranians that their weapons program is simply unacceptable. remember, it was the sanctions enacted by congress over the objections of president obama. many people have forgotten that. he didn't want the sanctions that he ended up getting. that caused sufficient concern within the regime to compel the supreme leader to allow the negotiations in the first place. that's why throughout the previous congress and the beginning of this congress i attempted to pass additional sanctions and made a

there could be an agreement with iran, with another government. iran, with this government, i think, is virtually unimaginable that we could have a reasonable deal. it's not what they want. what they want is to have nothing disturb efforts toward imperialism in the middle east. and they want as much money as possible to use in terrorist - they are a leading terrorism country and sponsor in the world. and they want to continue working very hard on the nuclear weapon technology, because the weapon technology, and the technology for peaceful nuclear power are very, very similar up to - up to the end of assembling a weapon. they want to make sure that that work of theirs, which is, i think, in reality focussing heavily on a nuclear weapon programme. is not interfered with. given those objectives, a chance they could deal with the united states that was a reasonable one, i think, is virtually nil. now president obama has been, in my view, very lax in terms of not pressing them, for the restrictions in the interests of the united states, the west and the

it is a comprehensive solution to the nuclear weapons issue with iran. without a nuclear weapon, it allows the u.s. and alleys to detour iran's de-stabilizing actions. let's take a reflective moment and look at the recent history in the united states. strong leaders, such as the united states, meet and talk and negotiate when it's in their interest. it was john kennedy who said we should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate. these kinds of negotiations aren't an example of weakness, but in most cases, of strength. sometimes the benefits aren't obvious immediately. it's been the practice of american for generations to meet and try to negotiate for a more peaceful world. to honor history, american leaders have used diplomacy. presidents of both political parties. 1962, the cuban missile crisis, we faced the prospect of a nuclear war, a standoff with the station where we knew and they knew that they had the capacity to detonate a nuclear weapon in the united states. they said let's take a moment, somebody suggested a full invasi

iran is working to prop up and protect assad's regime in damascus. it's working with shia militias in iraq to expand its influence even further, just as iran once supplied iraq's shia militias with the weapons to maim and kill our soldiers and marines. iran has a long history of employing terrorism as a tool for defending the regime, not just against its neighbors, not just against israel but also against americans. on september 20, back in 1984, with support and direction from iran, the shia militias of hezbollah carried out a suicide car bombing against the american embassy in beirut. 31 years ago. two dozen people died that day. among them chief warrant officer kenneth welch of the u.s. army. his son brian has lived with that loss ever since. and i want all of our colleagues to know he's sitting with us in this gallery this afternoon. he's right here with us listening to this debate. so i ask my colleagues how can we support a deal that would not only strengthen terrorist groups like hezbollah but also would effectively subsidize the activities of the revolutionary

the treaty with iran. so the senate can suspend as arry reid did, suspend the cloture rule with a vote of 51 senators and once they have the 51, suspend cloture in this iranian treaty. then bring the treaty to the floor for a ratification vote. it will not get 2/3. and once for all time, it will be clear to everyone except perhaps the president and secretary kerry, it will be very clear, as it is to constitutional law professors i have talked to, it will be very clear that we are not bound by the iranian treaty with the only country in the world that has broken every international agreement they have had since 979. the resolution that i have filed numerous great co-sponsors, it points out that the iran nuclear agreement review act of 2015, that's the corker-cordin bill does not apply to the joint comprehensive plan of action, iran treaty, submitted to , 2015. or july it is a treaty. pursuant toll article 2, the united states constitution, the senate must give advice and consent to ratification if the joint

party's deal with iran, too. it's a deal that allows iran to grow stronger in any number of ways -- diplomatically, militarily, in terms of trade and in terms of its enrichment program. it's also a deal that achieves hardly any of the obama administration's primary goals. secretary kerry once declared that an accounting of iran's military-related nuclear activities -- quote -- will be part of a final deal. if there's going to be a deal, he promised, it will be done, but it isn't. secretary moniz once declared that he expected we would have any time, anywhere access to iranian nuclear facilities. we won't. president obama once declared that the deal we'll accept is they in their nuclear program. it's very straightforward. or perhaps not quite so straightforward because this deal will not end iran's nuclear program. because the president made clear his desire to secure an agreement at any cost, it became easy for the iranians to exploit concession after concession after concession. it became possible for the world's

and it certainly won't result in a better deal with iran. instead, it would allow iran to accelerate their weapons programs with no oversight and it will significantly undermine our ability to engage with our partners on critical issues like addressing international terrorism. simply put, rejecting this deal would isolate the united states and would put us back on the path to war. as the scriptures say, let us study war no more. may i have an additional 20 seconds please? ms. slaughter: i yield the gentlelady 30 seconds. ms. lee: thank you very much. the scriptures do say let us study war no more. that's why it is critical for us to support the president and our diplomats and give this deal a chance to succeed. s that defining moment for our country, for the world. let us continue to work for peace because the military option, that's always there. let us work for a world worthy of our children and future generations. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this rule. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: at this time i w

i can tell you, without any reservation, that this deal with iran is a disaster. it will weaken the security of our allies in the region and it will make americans less safe here at home. if this deal goes through, iran will receive up to $150 billion , that's 25 times what iran currently spends on its entire military, does that seem like a good idea? we're talking about the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism here. this money will fund more and more terror across the globe and here. my district is the greater cincinnati area. g.e. aircraft engines is headquartered there. an air force base is just up the road. that's been top potential targets for icbm's since the cold war. this deal allows iran to get more sophisticated icbm technology from russia, which will allow them to target not only tel aviv, but washington and new york and cincinnati. this is just nuts. and what happened to the any time, anywhere inspections? gone. and it will take months to get the inspectors in. by that time they'll have removed the incriminating evidence elsewhere. the bottom line

i think anything iran develops now and in the future will be shared with terrorists. as to israel, she can't survive nuclear armed iran. containment won't work. so israel's going to be put in a bad spot. if there's any indication at all that iran is going to break out, israel has to attack, because the idea of containing the ayatollah after he gets a nuke is a nonstarter for people who have lived through the first holocaust. john: if you were president, would you see war against iran as an option? senator graham: i would see iran losing a war with the united states if they wanted one. and they would see it too. as i told you i would try to have leverage to get a better deal, starting with denying access to american financial institutions if you do business with iran. and i'd wait until the phone rings, and it would. $450 billion economy versus a $17 trillion economy. to those who worry about isolating america, what are you thinking? how do you isolate us? so this kind of thinking led to this bad deal. so as to a war with iran, nobody wants it, but if there is one i can

he hate this is proposed nuclear deal with iran. he made that abundantly clear. a navarro, donna brazile are here with me. let's get some reaction. he said these are stupid people referring to the president of the united states, the secretary of state of the united states, those who negotiated this deal with iran. he says the united states gets nothing, iran gets everything. those are his words. you heard that. >> well, unfortunately i'm sure that mr. trump has not had an opportunity to read the deal. he has probably not had an opportunity to really digest how complicated it was to get the p5+1 nations together to even make these steps. look, this has tough enforcement agreements, we know that we can not trust iranians, no one is sleeping on this. this is a sensible approach. it's not perfect but i don't believe donald trump is ready. what you heard just now is what i call the litany of insults that donald trump likes to -- the soundbites so to speak rather than getting into the deep substance of what this agreement will or will not. >> do he is resonating with re

why not live with iran? if they decide to do that then they will encourage forces within iran that are willing and able to accommodate western interests. >> one thing that iran is eager to help the west with is confronting i.s.i.l. both iran and the u.s. back the iraqi government in the war against i.s.i.l. fighters. but in neighboring syria where i.s.i.l. also controls territory, iran and the u.s. work at cross-purposes. that's because they back opposing sides in syria's civil war. in fact, in almost every contentious area and facing the middle east today, syria, israel yemen and the flow of oil to the world, iran and the u.s. are on opposite sides. nowhere is that more apparent than in the strait of hormuz, a narrow waterway that connects oil traffic from the waters of the gulf and the indian ocean, just ten miles separates iran from the peninsula on the other side. across the strait there are american military installations in arabian peninsula countries. iran considers this a threat and has said it will

most of the world still did business with iran. we needed to step up our game. so president obama and i pursued a two-pronged strategy. pressure and engagement. we made it clear that the door to diplomacy was open if iran answered the concerns of the international community in a serious and credible way. we simultaneously launched a comprehensive campaign to significantly raise the cost of iranian defiance. we systematically increase did our military cooperation in the region. sending additional firepower, additional aircraft carrier, battleship, strike aircraft and the most advanced radar and missile defense systems available. meanwhile i traveled the world capital by capital, leader by leader twisting arms to help build the global coalition that produced some of the most effective sanctions in history. with president obama's leadership we worked with congress and european union to cut iran off from the world's economic and financial system. and one by one we persuaded energy-hungry consumers of iranian oil like india and south korea to cut back. soon, iran's ta

but the democratic parties deal with iran too. stronger and any number of ways. diplomatically, militarily, in terms of trade and in terms of its enrichment program. it's also a deal that achieves hardly any of the obama administration's primary goals. secretary kerry once declared that an account here but -- accounting of iran's nuclear activities quote will be part of a final deal. if there is going to be a deal he promised, it will be done but it isn't. secretary moniz wants declared he expected we'd have anytime anywhere access to iranian nuclear facilities. we won't. president obama once declared that the deal will accept the nuclear program. very straightforward. or perhaps not quite so straightforward because this deal was not in iran's nuclear program. because the president made clear his desire to secure an agreement at any cost it became easier for the iranians to exploit concession after concession after concession. it became possible for the world's latest leading state sponsor of terrorism to secure a deal that allowed

if a private company is smart, they won't deal business with iran for that reason. you're dealing with the devil. the best way to deal with a zefl not deal with them at all. cut off their source of funds, which they need the free market for. i think ted cruz is right in this case. >> very interesting, gary, an answer i didn't expect from you. jonas, you say asset seizures are questionable in the first place from a free-market country. and this may not necessarily be the whole way to go. >> this has flip-flopped into the republican -- free-market people are not supposed to be for sanctions. seeing a sovereign country's wealth is not a free-market move. decreeing what banks cannot cannot do business there. in a real free market, the government has no say who a bank does business with. that's a free market. real libertarians like ron paul are not for any of this garbage. in fact, democrats have always been behind some of the bigger sanctions that didn't work in the past. japan before they attacked us because they had no oil. carter put it on the soviets with the grain e

if we press the case with iran, that, of course, gives iran the option of withdrawing from the agreement. and at an important time, now having over $100 billion in their hands, now having signed up contracts with many nations around the world, long-term contracts for delivery of oil or whatever, now having put themselves in a different position with the sanctions lifted, they may use that exact language as a means of escaping. or your turn it on its head and turn it the other way. iran says wait a minute, our intentions are such and such. you didn't understand what we were trying to say to you and how are we going to respond? this puts us in a very tenuous position. i can't -- i can recall times i told my wife i thought you were going to pick up milk on your way home. i intended to, i got a phone call. wait a minute. i thought you were going to clean the garage on saturday. i intended to do that, but, you know, joe called and said let's go play golf. i intended. it was a good intention. well, that's fine in a good relationship or any other kind of relationship, many of those are just mea

with you why i cannot support the agreement. and senator corker mentioned this. it puts iran after the time period, in a position of enrichment of uranium that is dangerously close to being able to break tout a nuclear weapon in compliance with the agreement, being legal they can get to that point. and at that point they've already gotten sanction relief, so they're in a much better financial position to be able to withstand any pressures that could be put on iran. they then -- we know that they want to become a nuclear-weapon state. they've tried in the past. we know that. that's a pretty -- that's pretty well been documented. we have no reason to believe that they're tabooin they are ge their intentions. so if they want to become a nuclear-weapon state and they make the calculation that we really don't have a sanctioned way to stop them because at that point their economic strength is strong enough and sanctions take too long to really bite and take effect, it would not be an effective deterrent to erase the breakout. and here's the key point of concern to me: and i acknowl

with iran. as the council noted, the guards estimated to have ties to more than 100 companies, controlling $12 billion dollars in construction and engineering capital. one of it linked to companies connected to nuclear technology. the administration has attempted to make light of the benefits of iran's economy and military, and terrace arms from lifting of the sanctions. secretary carey observed $100 billion is, nothing, nothing compared to what gets spent in the region. iran's military budget is $15 billion he said part of the golf status 130 billion. what is lost on secretary loss on secretary carries the fact that iran has pursued asymmetric capabilities against the united states, not to mention israel. iran is carefully studied the capability brought to bear by our forces. in desert storm, operation enduring freedom, operation iraqi freedom and other campaigns. because it has, the the regime has decided to invest in anti- access, cyber warfare capabilities, espionage and ever their means to

many people have some connection with iran over the years. both having dealt with the shock in the early days, the fateful toes that jimmy carter gave the shawl in 1977, i was there. how would it feel to be the speechwriter at that event where the president toasted the shaw as an island of stability in a sea of turmoil. that was a memorable moment. we have our next speaker who will tell us about one of the themes and dr. collins presentation. the texture of what it is like in iran now. you have recently been back to iran. he of done a number of interesting reports for the foreword. you have been in many tv shows pre-tell us how your visit to iran is the first reporter from a jewish publication and decades , what that experience as to our discussion. dr. collins: sure. how everyone can hear me now. after that yen and yang of pro and con, i have nothing to say about the agreement. it is not my expertise. i was in iran. i came three weeks ago. was the first generalist from a jewish publication the lead in since the revolution. i'm interested in t

we know that the presidents deal with iran will not end its nuclear program but would instead leave iran with a threshold nuclear capability recognized as legitimate by the international community. quite the opposite of the original goals. we know that the presidents deal with iran will leave a thousand centrifuges at an advanced research and development programs and access to billions of dollars at least some of which the president himself has acknowledged would be used to support terrorism. we know the presidents deal with iran will allow it to further ballistic missile research and strengthen its economy. in short by almost any measure we know that iran will emerge stronger from this deal in nearly every aspect of its national power and better positioned to expand its sphere of influence. the iranian nuclear program was never intended to produce nuclear energy for peaceful civilian purposes. that is never what they had in mind. certainly iran does not need an underground enrichment facility for those purposes are long-range ballistic missiles. iran has employed every aspect of nationa

iran has time and time again failed to comply with u.n. resolutions and failed to meet its obligations. iran has violated u.n. security council resolutions. iran has violated the nuclear nonproliferation treaty in the past. iran has consistently been unresponsive to the international atomic energy agency in the past, the iaea, and iran has failed to answer questions about its past nuclear weapons activities. if there is no covert undeclared nuclear facility in iran today, oli hynenen, a former iaea deputy director has said it would be the first time in 20 years. so one of the important issues that i believe for any of us in reviewing this agreement is what is the inspection regime that will be put in place to asure not only that we're doing a full inspection at the declared facilities of iran but also the undeclared facilities. and the reality is that under this agreement, the process for seeking inspection by the iaea for undeclared facilities is a process that only a lawyer could love. and i happen to be one. because if you look at the la

america doesn't do business with iran. we haven't for decades. but other countries made their own economic sacrifices in the name of pressuring iran and now they want to buy iran's oil and trade with it. so as much as we like for sanctions that brought iran to the table to also bring iran to its knees, it's only with international cooperation that sanctions actually work. like it or not, we need our partners in this effort. and our partners have told us in no uncertain terms that the united states walks away or walk away alone. sanctions have isolated iran and brought us to this moment, but if we squander it and turn our backs on international partners, it is we, the united states, who will be isolated. we will surrender our leverage in the future. put it all together, what does it mean if america blocks this agreement instead of iran's pathway to a bomb? it means iran gets more money and more impunity to develop a nuclear weapon. it means we get far less scrutiny and far less secure. it means we'll have to put ourselves at a disadvantage at the v

, not a new relationship with a new iran but a new relationship with dis-iran [captioning performed by the national captioning institute relationship with dis-iran with anti semitic, homophobic regime, anti-american regime and thwarting american purposes and allies and the support of terrorism. what democrat, what pluralist, what liberal or conservative would want this iran for a friend? what constructive role can this iran, i know it opposes isis, play in the community of nations? it is important to note that during the period of the negotiations, iran was intervening to inflame the shia in iraq to prop up assad in syria and arm hamas in gaza. unlies us, iran was not inhibitted in its interventions by the fear. nor should the islamic republic's loud and regular call for the destruction of israel be treated as some sort of foible sighedntricity to be over as we go about the important business. insofar as this arm still represents a new beginning in our relationship with iran come a this behavior is your main -- ane to the discussion. when one utters the word iran, one may be speaking e

sanction that target third party companies doing business with iran. t regard the possibility of iran not up holding the deal. that is why we will be able to snap back both u.s. and un sanctions. and the united states has the ability to eeffectively force the reposition of those sanctions. even as we phase in nuclear related sanctions relief, we maintain sanction that fall outside of the scope of the nuclear deal including our primary trade embargo. iran will continued to be denied access to the largest market and maintain sanction for terrorist groups like hezbollah and destabilize the role in yemen, its missile program and human rights abuses as home. just this week, treasusanctione hezbollah leaders and well-not be relieving sanctions on the guard core, kurds force or senior officials. some argue that sanctions relief is premature until iran seizes the activities and the funds iran recovered could be used on terrorist. i understand. but iran's ties to terrorist groups are why we must keep them from getting a nuclear weapon. a nuclear armed iran is a

iran. mr. crapo: with regard to iran's capacity to build a nuclear weapon. i strongly oppose this agreement for a number of different reasons. before i get into the specifics of those reasons, i want to back up a little bit about two years ago. i serve on the banking committee, which i don't think most people in america realize is the committee that has jurisdiction over the sanctions legislation, which deal with iran and other sanctions legislation throughout the world. we have over the years developed a very powerful and effective sanction regime with regard to iran. this regime has involved not only the united states but the participation and agreement of nations around the globe, including sanctions that were followed by us through the united nations. those sanctions increasingly after four or five different investigators of them, increasingly tightening them down, had worked very effectively to cause iran to need to come to the negotiating table. i think most americans realize that the reason why iran came to the negotiating table was the fact that our

iran. i agree with prime minister netanyahu. d applause] at a nuclear iran poses an existential threat to the nation of israel. and let me be clear, when he says existential because i made a bunch of french men in black or raise chain-smoking. he means literally going to the very existence of israel and prime minister netanyahu addressed a joint session of congress or president obama boycotted, but vice president biden boycotted, that every member of the cabinet boycott it and participated with ellie with all the noble laureate, the holocaust survivor. l.a. was no, the one person capable of murdering 6 million traded ivan in stand is a nuclear iran. l.a. observed never again means never again. [cheers and applause] the second group or want to address our democratic senators and democratic members of congress. right now today 42 senate democrats have come out in support of this deal. it is my hope and prayer that every one of those senate democrats reconsiders that they go home and they fall to their knees and they praise tonight.

iran would never make any deal with the united statesment all of those assumptions made about iran have been proven to be false. connect with the international community and that is the best chance the international community has to see that iran is far more moderate than it has been the last 15, 20, 30 years. host: mr. mcinnis. what was- guest: motivating president obama to pursue this deal was what i believe is the doctrine that he sees in cuba and in iran, which is it is not about the details of the deal, but the ability to bring iran into the international community and iran will become more moderate. it is not about centrifuges, but about bringing iran into the rest of the world. it is an attractive idea. i understand that. there is a possibility that could happen. at the same time, this is a regime that is keenly aware that the challenge of integrating into the national -- international community is going to be. you see the supreme leader is very vocal about the fact that he believes president obama is pursuing the deal so he can infiltrate the country with western ideas, western

we have many concerns as we move forward with iran. we have already seen that even as this agreement is being moved forward iran gives its it's okay to russia to overfly iran and iraq where we have spent some money lives in national treasure to send military hardware into syria to pop -- prop up the assad machine. and at the same time to establish a military base for russia. there will be a lot of concerns notwithstanding this agreement that we have with iran. but i for one do not want to give an idea till's -- support this agreement is someone who opposes this simply because the hostages would be released and iran would recognize israel. some might believe that will never happen so therefore the agreement would move for but if the agreement isn't as good as some of my colleagues say this for iran than it may not be a price that was fine too high to pay in order to have the agreement moved forward. in any event whether iran thinks it's a good agreement for them it would do so i just simply do not want to support the underlying agreement

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 what we have heard from the pentagon. and yet the administration has been reluctant to ensure that the united states has adequate, protective measures to guard the homeland against the ballistic missile threat. one of his first major decisions was to cut funding for the and therefense agency was signed missile agreements with poland and the czech republic in terms of the interceptor program that was supposed to defend united states and europe against any potential launch and contrary to the representation provided to congress as part of the new start, the president canceled phase f

let's talk with the latest on the iran legislation. the senate holding a closure vote on a disapproval resolution articleiled, and your details of oh, tell us what happened today. democrats supporting and opposing a filibuster. >> you wind up with a crazy situation here, resolutions of disapproval. to overturn or block the iran deal. and what you have are democrats filibustering. that democratsis have sustained the presidents position. they are allowing him a free hand to go ahead and lift the sanctions, as he wants to do. there were 58- senators who wanted to overturn or block the deal. ,4 of those were republicans four of those were democrats. you have the 42 members of the democratic caucus, voting for the filibuster. so one more than the absolute number needed to sustain a filibuster. a fairly close vote. theh mcconnell on republican leader, said they will try again next week. but unless there is major pressure back home on those 42 democrats, is unlikely that anything will change. but there will be a revote next week. overall, the

with who? iran has made it clear that if this is rejected, they consider themselves free to go back in and in rich and go back to where they work with the 12,000 kilograms and 12 alms, etc. the inevitable consequence of that would be, what are you going to do about it? we will have lost the international support unit in international community is ready to enforce this deal. if we are not unilaterally, they walk away. it is not a choice the president wants to make. they believe it is their right in their program. >> senator ayotte. >> i want to thank the chairman of all of the witnesses for being here. this'll probably be the last time general dempsey testifies before the committee. i want to thank you for your dedicated service. i know when you appear before the committee on july 7, i was the person who asked you. there have been floated views that iran was pushing for the lifting of the resolution on ballistic missiles and the resolution of arms. we know it is in the agreement of five years and eig

iran has ten years to kill the co coffers with tens of billions. as the world's leader of state sponsored terrorism it will only be a matter of time before iran achieves its ultimate goal and that is achieving a nuclear weapon. this deal will not prevent iran from achieving a nuclear weapon and the american people deserve a better deal. this deal provides a 24-delay delay before iran is forced to comply with inspections at nuclear bases. this is long ways from anywhere, anytime, the american people promise. can you imagine with the epa or the fda came knock on a business owner's door in montana and said you cannot come and inspect now but come back in 24 days. that is what we have setup with the iranian government through this deal. through this deal the american people are being asked to ender into a binding trust agreement with the world's leading state sponsor of terror. in fact, just yesterday i looked at my twitter feed, and the supreme leader of iran, he is called the supreme leader for a reason, the ayatollah said and i quote i say to you the

iran. i agree with prime minister netanyahu. that a nuclear iran poses an existential threat to the nation of israel. and let me be clear when he says exiss ten rble he doesn't mean a -- of -- exiss tentall existentia he doesn't mean a bunch of french men in berets. this is an agreement that every member of the cabinet boycotted. i participated in a panel weisel, theith elie holocaust ate, the survivor, talking about the ability to destroy millions of jews in one flash of light, he said never again means never again. the second group i want to address are democratic senators and democrat exmembers of congress. right now today 42 senate democrats have come out in support of this deal. it is my hope and prayer that every one of those senate democrats reconsiders. that they go home and they fall to their knees and they pray tonight. i agree with former democratic senator joe lieberman that this vote is quite likely the most important vote that any member of congress nirk member of the senate will cast in their entire career. there w

no one can tell withceptor which way iran -- with certainty which way iran will go. it's yo true. iron has a large number of -- iran has a large number of people who want to focus on economic advancement at home. but this desire has been evident for 35 years and yet iranian leaders have held a tight and undiminished grip on iran with little threat. who is to say that this same dictatorship will not prevail for another 10, 20, or 30 years? to me, the very real risk that iran will not moderate and will instead use the agreement to pursue its nefarious goals is too great. therefore, i will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because i believe war is a viable or desirable option nor to challenge the path of diplomacy. it is because it is far too likely that iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining nuclear and nonnuclear power. better to keep u.s. sanctions in place, strengthen them, enforce the secondary sanctions on other nations, and pursue the hard-trodden path of diplomacy once mo

sold to see if we can engage with syria or iran en some fashion with an effort to stop the massacre in syria? that is question number one because everything that we talk about, we're focused on iran, but in midsummer of turmoil and at the epicenter is a civil war in syria which 11 million syria refugees from lebanon and jordan and elsewhere and a world that has been more less indifferent to that. so the way to deal with syria is to step back from a side. >> one last question. >> i want to do congratulate the panel it is extraordinary work you have done to organize this has been extraordinary. i will complement the perception that will happen politically and raise the concern and i agree this will look very much like the affordable care act with constant amendment so the challenge going forward to have a remarkable job to have 41 senators and nancy policy has done an extraordinary job in the house of representatives bader villages and - - vigilance in work have to continue because we can see this undone by a thousand cuts if we're not careful and we have to be very mindful of that. >> w

speaker, i strongly oppose the nuclear agreement with iran. i strongly oppose giving the president the ability to unilaterally lift sanctions, congressional sanctions. our allies don't trust us and our enemies don't fear us. i think we ought to take iran at its word. here's some quotes. during the negotiations, ayatollah said this, the enemies are talking about the options they have on the table. they should know that the first option on our table is the annihilation of israel. the ayatollah khomeini said this, the iranian people and leadership with god's help will increase their defensive capacity, capability each day. through the iran deal we're getting ready to give iran $150 billion. they can do a lot of damage with that. they're the largest state sponsor of terrorism. they're responsible for killing people in indonesia, in india and all across the globe. . the ayatollah has said we will not stop supporting our allies. that's hamas, that's hezbollah, and other terrorist groups. they have said their own words, take them at their word, they w

with. this was yesterday. the iran supreme leader predicted wednesday that israel would not exist in 25 years and ruled out any new negotiations with a satan to the united states beyond the recently concluded nuclear accord. in remarks published wednesday on his personal web site -- at least the ayatollah has gotten in modern times, and post on twitter, the supreme leader -- do you know what they call him supreme leader? because he is. ayatollah khamenei responding to what he said claims that israel would be safe for that period. where do those claims come from? it came from this administration, my colleagues on the other side. you're telling everybody in the world that this is the best deal for israel. guess what? nobody in israel agrees with you, who is in the current government. everybody who is in the current coalition government understands this is not a good deal for israel. why don't you listen to them? you want it to be a good deal for israel. well, it's not. and you wanting it doesn't change it. so let's finis

president obama's hope that the relations with iran will improve as the result of the nuclear agreement appears to be backfiring tonight. ayatollah is reaching new extremes, as critics of the deal continue to rail against it with no short-term prospects for victory. chief political correspondent carl cameron has the top story. >> reporter: in 90-degree heat, donald trump took to the stage at a rally. thousands turned out. >> ever in my life have i seen any transaction so incompetently negotiated as our deal with iran. we are led by very, very stupid people. >> reporter: unlike his gop rivals, trump does not plan to immediately nullify the iran deal if elected. he says the next president has to be a negotiator. he says he'll renegotiate with tehran but will not say how. >> i don't want to say things that the other side is going to want to know about me. >> reporter: hillary clinton dumped on trump's renegotiations as naive. >> we will begin from day one to set the conditions so iran knows it will never be able to get a nuclear weapon not during the term of the agreement, not after, not e

president obama's hope that the relations with iran will improve as the result of the nuclear agreement appears to be backfiring tonight. ayatollah is reaching new extremes, as critics of the deal continue to rail against it with no short-term prospects for victory. chief political correspondent carl cameron has the top story. >> reporter: in 90-degree heat, donald trump took to the stage at a rally. thousands turned out. >> never, ever ever in my life have i seen any transaction so incompetently negotiated as our deal with iran. we are led by very, very stupid people. >> reporter: unlike his gop rivals, trump does not plan to immediately nullify the iran deal if elected. he says the next president has to be a negotiator. he says he'll renegotiate with tehran but will not say how. >> i don't want to say things that the other side is going to want to know about me. >> reporter: hillary clinton dumped on trump's renegotiations as naive. >> we will begin from day one to set the conditions so iran knows it will never be able to get a nuclear weapon not during the term of the agreement, not

why can't we have the same nuclear agreement with iran that we made with libya and actually stop iran from advancing towards a nuclear weapon? mr. president, i'm convinced we can do better. we must for the security of the nation as a whole. and with that, i yield back. and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. mccain: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be suspended, and i ask to address the senate as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: mr. president, after a few hours from now, the senate will vote again on the iranian deal, and i think it's pretty well known that no votes will change. and it's very unfortunate that that's the case but it will give our colleagues, hopefully they may have contemplated how bad a deal this is and possibly change. but obviously we know the likelihood of that is unlikely. and the virtues of this legislation have been emphasized by my friends on the other side of the aisle and those of us who have

this agreement with iran would threaten all that we hold dear. i encourage my colleagues to join the bipartisan opposition against the iran deal and instead support the security of america above the dangerous desires of iran. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back of the the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: it's now my pleasure to yield four minutes to mr. rangel, to put it mildly, a senior member of our committee. mr. rangel: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from new york is recognized for four minutes. mr. rangel: my fellow members, this is an historic occasion for the house and very emotional time for me because unfortunately i have known -- i have known the horrors of war and i speak for all of those that had this horrendous experience to say that we should always give diplomacy a chance before we put any american in harm's way. i don't think any of us with any degree of certainty

>> this is not an agreement that solves all of our problems with iran. it doesn't cure cancer, it's not going to help you shed those unwanted pounds. it does one thing and one thing only. it stops iran from getting a bomb. but it does that very well. and that is the position that the u.s. and european partners took at the beginning of these negotiations, russia and china agree to this. we were going to discuss the nuclear issue. this is what israel wanted. what saudi arabia wanted. you have to understand, if we're going to have a negotiation about regional issues, some of our partners want to be in that discussion. they were not in this discussion. but, okay, real quick. what it does do is it's a gateway to those discussions. solving this, the biggest difference you had with iran opens the way to conversations about these other issues. areas where you have overlapping strategic objectives where iran and the united states both have an interest in defeating isis. both have an interest in stabilizing iraq, in stabilizing afghanistan. both have an interest in

ones that target third-party bases doing part -- doing business with iran. iran violates its commitments, once we have suspended the sanctions, we will be able to promptly snapped back at both u.s. and eu when sanctions. -- and un sanctions. since that requires an affirmative vote by the un security council, the u.s. has the ability to effectively force the reimposition of those sanctions. even as we face nuclear sanctions relief, we maintain sanctions that fall outside the scope of the nuclear deal, including our primary u.s. trade embargo. with some exceptions, iran will have sanctions targeting its support for terrorist groups such as has blocked -- as h ezbollah, backing of the assad regime, and human rights abuses at home. just this week, several hezbh ollah leaders targeting the group's from leaders. some argue that sentence relief is premature until iran seizes these activities, and the funds iran recovers could be diverted for maligned purposes. i understand the concern. but iran's ties to terrorist groups is why we must prevent it from obtaining a n

anyone who has read the array nuclear agreement act should support this legislation with force. the iran nuclear agreement act is to allow representatives of the american people, us to read what is in the deal before we vote on the deal. ronnuclear deal with the may be the most important international agreement our lifetime. is crystal bill clear and defined what the president needs to provide congress before the review. of 60 days begins. the president is obligated under the law, let me read a portion of the law. that the president signed. here's what it says. that congress is allowed to have the agreement itself any additional materials related thereto. including an excess appendices side agreements implementing materials documents and guidance. technical or other understanding and any related agreements. the logic behind this requirement is simple. congress cannot review the agreement without having access to everything. we need to see all of the secret side deals come mr. speaker. testifying before the foreign america -- affairs committee secretary who is making the deal for us said