as iran -- has iran earned the right to be trusted? we must ask this because we know there are secret deals that my colleagues and i were not privileged to. therefore a vote to support this deal is a vote to trust iran. the behavior of iran's leaders over the last 30 years offer noes indication that the next decade -- offers no indication that the next decade will be any different. now with these secret details we cannot know if the deal is verifiable, if it's enforceable, and accountable. to people who know iran best, trust them least. iran's neighbors have already requested additional arms from the united states to protect themselves from this very deal. any deal should include these three powerful principles, safety, security, stability. this deal falls short and i cannot support it. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: mr. speaker, we yield four mi

work outside of iran. that's going to be lifted on the -- on the european side. 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

so ii agree, we cannot trust iran, the supreme leader command i agree iran is our enemy. my decision to vote for disapproval of this deal rests on a simple premise. why in the world would we ever enter a deal that will inject tens of billions and eventually hundreds of billions of dollars to our enemy? our avowed enemy? one that i have to remind this body was responsible because they are ied's for the killing of a hundred and 96 troops in iraq and many more wounded and maimed. the regime take 52 us hostages for 444 days. that regime has not changed its behavior in all those intervening years. they are our enemy. let me.out, why in the world ever agreed agree to a deal that will strengthen our enemies economy and our enemies military? it seems pretty obvious, and i agree with pres. obama. this is a simple decision. he think it's think it's a good deal. i think it's a bad deal. of my remaining time i want to be respectful of my colleagues and talk about what this debate -- what this vote is actually about. this is not a straight up-and-down vote to approve an international

he's told us, don't trust iran mistrust iran, if you will, and verify. and we are going to send in scores of inspectors to verify inspectors who have access to everything in iran. and if there is a dispute over access, it is one that can be resolved in a matter of days or weeks. i might add that there are telltale pieces of evidence for the development of nuclear weapons that the iranians could never destroy in that period of time. we will know if they have breached this agreement. and in knowing that, we have created the authority within the united nations for the united states alone -- the united states alone -- to reimpose sanctions based on a breach of this agreement by iran. it's an extraordinary agreement. could it be stronger? of course. but when you look back throughout history at the skeptics who've attacked presidents of both political parties who have tried to reach agreements to create a more peaceful world this is no different. when president ronald reagan literally a matter of the deity of the republican party decided to sit down and negoti

reduced iran's g.d.p. by nearly 6% in one year, caused major inflation and basically ended international investment in iran's economy. and the sanctions worked. iran elected a reform government with a new president to negotiate an end to the sanctions and revive its economy. and despite its doubts, iran sent a negotiating teaming to meet with the governments of the p-5 plus 1 nations. in november , we signed the interim agreement that froze and even reversed iran's nuclear program. according to the iaea and various intelligence, iran has abided by the agreement for more than one and a half years now. as we all know, in july, 2015, the partner 5 plus 1 signed an agreement officially known as the comprehensive joint agreement on action. it is the result of years of careful diplomacy. it was only possible because other nations abided by their sanctions at their own economic sacrifice. they believe that these sanctions worked, have achieved their result, and now should be suspended as iran dismantles much of i

on iran. the house done for the week. numbers returned wednesday after the jewish holiday. here is part of the house debate from earlier, beginning with ways and means chair paul ryan. mr. speaker, i will yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i think this is a terrible deal. this administration has made a lot of mistakes when it comes to foreign policy. this has got to be the worst one because this deal will not stop iran from getting a bomb. this deal will all but guarantee it. we went into these negotiations saying that iran had to eliminate its nuclear program, all of it, full stop. now they're saying that was unrealistic. too unreasonable. too high in the sky. and we're handing over hundreds of billions of dollars in sanctions relief. so iran gets billions of dollars in exchange for what, for taking up some, not all, just some of its nuclear program? and then in 10 or 15 years, all of these limits expire. in ot

speaker, trusts iran. that's why we need and we must have and take the responsibility to come together after this vote, to make sure that the united states is exercising all of its initiatives to implement this agreement and to address what we know will come, those inevitable challenges. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from nevada, mr. heck, a member of the armed services and intelligence committees. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nevada is recognized for two minutes. mr. heck: i thank the chairman. mr. speaker, when president obama announced that the p5+1 had reached an agreement on iran's nuclear program, he stated that the deal was not built on trust, that it was built on verification. this was a clear acknowledgment by the administration that the iran regime is not a trustworthy negotiating partner and that any agreemen

, to iran's youth. i was there just as negotiators put the final touches on what's become a historic deal, between iran and six nations including the united states. iran agreed to open its doors to inspectors, in return, europe and the united states agreed to lift oil and financial sanctions that have crippled iran's economy. after 20 months of bargain thing the deal is done. whether or not you support the deal there is now a deal, agreed upon by iran and the world's powers. the iranian street is alive with talk of what's to come but to really make sense of it all you have to go there. i had to be there to talk to people to understand their history and to listen to their stories. i had to go behind the deal. ♪ ♪ >> the first thoughts when i landed were about how everybody who i'd seen looked very different. you didn't have to have your head covered on the plane. but as soon as you got off that plane you were in iran. and you needed to put your headdress on. that's what they needed to do to get into

it involves the countries that negotiate with iran and iran, but ultimately if iran does not open the site, any country -- any country, any of the p5+1 countries, they can go to the u.n. and push a button and have the sanctions reimbowsed. can't be stopped. can't be stopped by russia. can't be stopped by china. can't be stopped by iran. so, we have the ability. you know, that's the ultimate enforcement tool. the last thing i'll say and i'll stop is some of the critics say, it's too big a tool. it's like having a nuclear bomb, you know, to do traffic control. you'll never use it. that's a pretty good argument, actually. but there are alternatives. we have our own sanctions, our own unilateral sanctions, which we can impose if we can't get our allies to go along or if we think bringing the whole thing down is too much. so, we have a range of options to go after iran under those circumstances. i'll stop there. there are a thousa1,000 questio 1,001 answers. >> thank you very much. i'm the president of plow shares fund. it's our pleasure to join with international yisz group in this sessio

no trust between us and iran. tonight i say this is an international agreement and this is the final result, not in a way of making decisions but more accurately of some 12 years of engagement. it all started in 2003. the date is interesting because that was the year of the iraq war and deep worries that saddam hussein could have weapons of mass destruction. that was the year when north korea withdrew from the npt so there was a sense that the nonproliferation regime could unravel and the only possible response was war. hence the initiative at the time of the u.k., france and germany to engage iran diplomatically. that was initiative where they became a big part of the engagement and let the engagement with the iranians. that came to nothing. he became the president in 2005 and in 2006 you have thousand six you have a second stage of the issue. the security council was brought in. the security council had means of legal coercion and that did not exist before. so what we see today is the product of a very intense d

post: is this iran issue turning host: is this iran issue turning into something for the presidential race? >> absolutely. it. want to repeal bernie sanders and others have supported the agreement, so that issue is already playing out on the campaign trail, and with the congressional races, there are some with pressure on them to come down one way or another on this deal, and it will be very closely watched. they are going to be hammered with it one way or another over the next year or so, one way or another. host: you can read more online or follow him on twitter. thanks for joining us. announcer: last month, president obama defended the iran agreement at a speech at american university, saying the deal was the only way to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon other than war. this is about an hour. american university, saying the deal was the only way to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon other than war. this is about an hour. pres. obama: thank you. [applause] pres. obama: thank you so much. everybody, please have a seat. thank you very much. i apologize for the slight

were clearly a nuisance to iran, but they did not alone bring iran to the table. only sustained multilateral sanctions joined in by our five negotiating partners and others around the world succeeded in bringing iran to the table in the mood to talk. in fact, under the agreement that's been negotiated, if necessary, they could be be set up by the u.s. in their entirety, at our request, our request, if we're convinced the iranians are cheating. this agreement guarantees that if they're ever needed again, any of the six can trigger it again. the capabilities, we lose the support of the rest of the world in imposing sanctions in the event that a future government in iran elects to pursue a nuclear weapons program. i don't know about you, but that makes no sense to me, no sense. it also makes no sense to our negotiating partners. almost every american who is alive on 9/11 which we will commemorate tomorrow, remembers a horrifying images of that tragedy. to make matters worse, we had to endure the spectacle through the day and night of tens of thousands of arabs across

that it would aim at the best deal acceptable to iran rather than one that might actually end iran's nuclear program. remember, ending iran's nuclear program was supposed to be the point of these talks in the first place. what's already clear about this agreement is that it will not achieve or even come close to achieving that original purpose. instead, the iranians appear to have prevailed in this negotiation, maintaining thousands of centrifuges, enriching their threshold nuclear capability instead of ending it, reaping a multibillion-dollar windfall to spend freely on terrorism, dividing our western allies and negotiating partners, some of whom will now undoubtedly sell arms to iran. and gaining legitimacy before the world. this was an entirely predictable result. in fact, the most predictable result given the administration's stance. as noted back ne 2012, here's what i said, the only way the iranian regime can be expected to negotiate to preserve its own survival rather than to simply delay as a means of pursuing nuclear weapons is if the administration imposes the strictest san

iran cheated. it has literally thousands of centrifuges spinning to enrich uranium. multiple un security council resolutions require iran to cooperate fully with the international atomic energy agency and to come clean with what is known as the possible military dimension of the nuclear activity to understand how far iran has progressed toward developing a nuclear device and to have a verified baseline to evaluate future nuclear related activity. what happened? iran cheated. not only did it never report to international arms control expert about the experiments at its military installation where iran is suspected of developing detonators for nuclear devices, but also iran sanitized buildings at that location in a manner that the iaea has described as likely to have undermined the agency's ability to conduct effective verification. remarkably, according to public reporting, iran has continued the sanitation activities while congress was holding hearings on the agreement this summer. in 2010 the un s

iran from doing. that is the building of a nuclear weapon. before closing, i want to comment on the nature of the debate which we are currently engaged in. some advocates of the iran agreement, including me of phrasingaccused scare agreements in order to get people to support it. curiously this often comes from people who have been raising scare scenarios to convince people to oppose it. if this plan is voted down we cannot predict with certainty what iran will do. that we do know what iran says but we do know what iran says it will do, and that is to begin to expand its nuclear activities. we know that the strict limitations iran has accepted will no longer apply, because they will no longer -- there will longer be any agreement. and again it will begin operating thousands of other centrifuges that would otherwise have been mothballed. they will expand their stockpile toenriched uranium, free move ahead with the production of weapons grade plutonium. free to go forward with weaponization research. an

not iran. iran was prepared to implement the agreement and will have no reason whatsoever to return to the bargaining table. the world will hold accountable the people who broke with the consensus, turned their backs on our negotiating partners and ignored the council of top scientists and military leaders. the world will blame the united states. when those voices that accuse us of scaremongering begin to warn, iran's nuclear activities are once again out of control and must at all costs be stopped, what do you think is going to happen? the pressure will build, my friends. the pressure will build for military action. the pressure will build for the u.s. to use its unique capabilities to disrupt iran's nuclear program. negotiating is not going to work as we just tried it. president obama has been crystal clear that we will do whatever is necessary to prevent iran from getting a new your weapon. -- getting a nuclear weapon. the big difference is at that point, we will not have the world behind us

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 will continue to support materially and financially the terrorism groups like in yemen. there's nothing we can do to stop it. they have also said that we, western powers, will not have access to secret military sites or secret nuclear sites. yet we are going to give them 24 days in this agreement? america, i didn't say 24 hours, i said 24 days advance notice. 24 days advance notice before we are going to inspect a site. are you kidding me? we are going to allow them to self-regulate. that means they can go out in the desert and get clean dirt and air and provide that. that's like telling a regular drug user you can bring somebody

security council, germany and iran. iran's population is huge. oil refers formidable and designed to be effective. this there's so much unfinished business between iran and the u.s. so many fires burning that it would be naive to assume that everything would get fixed even if the deal is a big step. >> republicans held a vote on a measure to approve the deal. it was an effort to put themselves on the regard against the agreement. and put politically vulnerable developments on the spot. republicans won, with the help of 25 democrats that sided with them. beyond politics, the result means little. the day before a vote was blocked on a measure that would have rejected the agreement. >> barring the unforeseen reversal. the house measure is going nowhere, and the deal with stand. in a statement after the vopt. president obama said in part: >> the iran nuclear deal >>> the iran deal has been a political football, and the boat came at the end of an intense lobbying effort from both side. the white house launching a public and private campaign to sway me

iran will use it. now this was a last minute demand that iran made. it should have been easy for president obama to reject it. but he did not. he surrendered. the president was so desperate to get a deal he gave in. 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

sanctions on iran and? >> now, what it would mean on implementation day when when iran has taken official steps and opposed the nuclear steps that ambassador sherman described would mean that economic sanctions in the united states -- united nations security council would be really. the sanctions on arms. and ballistic missile technology remain in place for many years to come under the u.n.. >> and your opening statement you made some point about the fact that it would be hard right now for the united states's to back out the agreement is has reached henry imposed the sanctions regime, correct? >> senator would i was referring to in congress -- as congress were to strike down the deal would we be able to unilaterally coerce international pressure to be able to secure a much better agreement? i wasn't talking there about snapback in the key distinction between those two is obviously iran has been breached. iran is defying the international community and i think we have good leverage in that case. >> that's t

we'll have veto authority over what goes into iran and we will know what comes out of iran. these unprecedented oversight provisions have the support of arms control experts, nuclearsce scientists, diplomats, military and intelligence leaders, all of who believe that this deal will make the difference.nce. >> the senator's time has expired. >> i would ask unanimous consene for one more minute? >> without objection. >> finally this agreement is about trust. the deal requires verificationao that iran is cooperating before sanctions can be lifted. if iran cheats we can snap back sanctions and with international support. we can initiate military operations if need be. repeat. the deal before us does not prevent the u.s. from taking military action if needed.need this agreement is not perfect. however, rejecting this deal means risking internationaloper cooperation, our security and our ability to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon. based on the facts before us, this agreement deserves our support. let's put politics aside. i urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the

iran is our enemy. the president asked us to trust iran, but what has iran done to earn our trust? nothing. this is a deal of surrender and with it iran will go nuclear. the alternative isn't war, the alternative is to strike a better deal. i say this as one of the few members of the congress who has seen combat, who has fought two wars and who spent nearly seven years as a p.o.w., so i say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, do the right hing, put country above party. listen to the american people, uphold your most sacred duty, safeguard our republic from those who seek to destroy it. vote this deal down. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: mr. speaker, i yield four minutes to the distinguished lady from the district of columbia, ms. norton. the speaker pro tempore: jeat the gentlelady -- the gentlelady is recognized for four minutes. ms. norton: i thank mood mayorga good friend for yielding to me on this important subject -- i than

he's told us, don't trust iran, mistrust iran, if you will, and verify. and we are going to send in scores of inspectors to verify, inspectors who have access to everything in iran. and if there is a dispute over access, it is one that can be resolved in a matter of days or weeks. i might add that there are telltale pieces of evidence for the development of nuclear weapons that the iranians could never destroy in that period of time. we will know if they have breached this agreement. and in knowing that, we have created the authority within the united nations for the united states alone -- the united states alone -- to reimpose sanctions based on a breach of this agreement by iran. it's an extraordinary agreement. could it be stronger? of course. but when you look back throughout history at the skeptics who've attacked presidents of both political parties, who have tried to reach agreements to create a more peaceful world, this is no different. when president ronald reagan literally a matter of the deity of the republican party, decided to sit down and ne

it will not bomb away iran's knowledge and it will empower significantly the hard-liners in iran who are committed to developing a nuclear weapon. they will likely disperse to disguise their activities so that military strikes are increasingly ineffective and produce significant collateral damage which will be exploited by the iranians for propaganda purposes. general dempsey on this issue of delay provided two important insights. first, in response to a question asking for his military assessment, what is more effective in delaying or stopping iranian nuclear program at this time or in the near future, a military strike or this p-5 plus 1 agreement, he said, first, i would like to point out that the military options remain. secondly, i think a negotiated settlement provides a more durable and reduces near-term risk which buys time to work with regional partners to address the other maligned activities. he also said our government's policy has been they will not get a nuclear weapon and nothing we're talking about today should change that policy. this agreement does not change that l

on the iran deal. i proudly stand with our allies in israel not with the moo last in tehran. -- mullahs in tehran. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes gentleman from, mr. dold, for five minutes. mr. dold: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to just anegotiate myself with the comments of my good friend from kentucky. who i think was just up here eloquently was giving a case as to why this deal with iran is such a bad deal. mr. speaker, i strongly believe that the national security consequences of the nuclear agreement with iran will haunt america for generations. if congress does not step in to stop it. this shouldn't be about party. it should not be about loyalty to the president because if one thinks about this current president, whether you like him or don't like him, whether you agree with him or don't agree with him, this administration ends in 15 months. but the national security consequences of this deal will go on and haunt america for generations to come. so this deal, this agreement, need

that is the official view of iran and the dominant in iran. but there is an alternative view that is recently gaining more in the think tanks. you find this of course at the university and among the pundit. -- pundits. they would argue that iran is already overstretched. we don't have any more resources to allocate. basically we are the primary and that this is not our fight. they would argue that this would make the -- make us the target of a large attack. we have not yet been attacked, not because they are not capable but because they have not made the decision to do so. they can easily penetrate into our territory and explode bombs. so, why do we have to do that? the argument is that our engagement should be minimal. minimal towards those who are vital and necessary. in iraq, damascus, and the coastal area. and, basically, in syria. sunnis are really interested in having a representative in the government , if they want it, let them have it. but there is not that much concern for us. i mean, if they consolidated the power that would basical

with iran. blocking the republicans disapproval revolution will not stop the lively debate over the deal, one involving many americans, including jewish americans. it strained ties between the united states and israel and exposed divisions among american jews over what the pact means. tonight i want to explore the subdivisions and what they sell us or not about american jews and their support of israel. paul painted a picture of where jews in america stood on the deal. in july, after the deal was reached, a survey bit the left-leaning lobbying group showed 60% of support for the deal, 40% opposing it. critics of the deal, and jay street say it opposed the agreement. at the same time, a poll taken by an advocacy group found 45% of americans rejected the deal. 40% wanted congress to approve it. it's a grey area. the unmistakable take away is that there's nothing preaching a unanimous opinion about the deal among american jews, and the picture reflects differing views israel. jewish opponents like

the gulf countries now spend eight times what iran spends it is not really money that is giving iran an advantage. it's capabilities and other asymmetric amenities. we need to work with our friends to better position to push back a bit. the 3rd thing swirling around is that the verification provisions are not really effective because they said they would have anytime anywhere inspections and don't. joe probably knows he says that. i don't want to denounce something. it was unfortunate because no country anywhere would permit anytime anywhere. the only time that happened is in iraq after the invasion. we were occupying. so it was kind of a false expectation,a false expectation, but i want to put it into bigger context. a big puzzle with a thousand pieces. we will have 247. monitoring of all of iran's nuclear program, stuff coming in, the mines where they mine uranium, the places where they make centrifuges and assemble the centrifuges. all of that will be viewed by cameras, seals, totally transparent. 99 percent, 98 percent is an open book. this whole debate and discussion 24 days bei

make sure iran supply complies. we are not asking -- iran complies. we are not asking iran to promise anything and taking it at its word. we are demanding prove to us it is complying with every last letter of this agreement. before it gets sanctions relief, iran has to take specific actions. if it doesn't happen as some fear sanctions will be imposed on iran. we have done everything possible to make sure that if iran cheats we'll know quickly and we'll act immediately and with the international community behind us. that makes us safer. that makes israel safer. that makes the world safer. that's what nuclear experts around the world know, what diplomats know, and the overwhelming majority of my caucus knows. that's why this agreement will stand. and to make sure this agreement succeeds, congress must provide the oversight to ensure monitoring and enforce verification. at the same time, congress must continue to hold the line against iran and arms tracking, funding against terrorism, and demanding a return of american

it is not a six party agreement with iran. it is an eight party agreement with iran. the european union and the un security council. all of those other parties have already announced that intend to implement this resolution, no matter what congress does. they have indicated they are not going back to the negotiating table. if you think there is another alternative where we go back to negotiations, there is not. is that a good thing? mabye not. it was demonstrated last friday when the king of saudi arabia came here and despite everyone knowing he does not really like this deal, he moved on. it is time to accept the fact that it is here and he reluctantly, and somewhat solemnly, endorsed it. add this to my second point about the regional reaction. the region has already moved on and accepted that this deal is going to be the reality that we have to deal with. i agree completely with the senator. the middle east is in flames, as we have never seen it before. this is one of the most dangerous moments in the history of the middle east and the iranian regime is up to no goo

work outside of iran. that's going to be lifted on the -- on the european side. 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

they run iran's version of youtube. they're in business because you can't get youtube in iran. now suddenly these restrictions on entertainment and media are lifted why do you want the iranian version of youtube. and then you'll see the version of a car you're familiar with but then you'll see pars on the side meaning it's made by the pars company. so what do they do when nissan makes their own cars? i don't know. there are money changers all across the city. i don't know what you can do when you can actually change money legally or you don't have to change money. so it's an interesting dynamic. >>> about ten years ago we were doing a story on the strait of hormuse. this thing has been a point of contention for decades. it's a choke point where oil from oil producing countries in the world goes out into the world. and at its narrowest, the distance between iran and oman is 21 miles. that's very easy to control militarily. iran often threatens to lay mines. so when things get hot with iran i'll prices go up because people assume i'll won't get out. we did go down there but it wa

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

but does that mean we trust iran's government? no. not at all. the iranian leadership -- the iranian religious leadership encourages the hard-liners there to chant death to america and death to israel. therefore, this agreement can't be built on trust. we must have a good enough mechanism in place to catch them when and if they cheat. in other words, don't trust but verify. i believe the agreement sets out

sanctions on iran and? >> now, what it would mean on implementation day when when iran has taken official steps and opposed the nuclear steps that ambassador sherman described would mean that economic sanctions in the united states -- united nations security council would be really. the sanctions on arms. and ballistic missile technology remain in place for many years to come under the u.n.. >> and your opening statement you made some point about the fact that it would be hard right now for the united states's to back out the agreement is has reached henry imposed the sanctions regime, correct? >> senator would i was referring to in congress -- as congress were to strike down the deal would we be able to unilaterally coerce international pressure to be able to secure a much better agreement? i wasn't talking there about snapback in the key distinction between those two is obviously iran has been breached. iran is defying the international community and i think we have good leverage in that case. >> that's t

they never negotiated with iran. they said no to every opportunity to negotiate with iran. on what basis of experience can they say they could have gotten a better deal. they never engaged in negotiations. host: as far as avoiding a war and a weapon in the short and long-term, what are your thoughts and does this do that? guest: it actually kicks the can down the road a bit on the problem. i actually believe that within the first 10 years, maybe first 15 years of the deal, we will be able to restrain iran, iran's ability to pursue a nuclear well on. the problem is that it mortgages the issue to 2030. so whoever the president is at that point in time is going to be faced with a situation where iran is actually allowed to have, and will most likely build an industrial capacity for its nuclear program. if it wanted to pursue or have the capacity to pursue a nuclear arsenal, not just a couple bombs, it will have that capacity to do so. that's when the real challenges of the deal is. it doesn't solve the problem long-term. it contains the problem. it pushing the problem down the

iran's aggressive nature. iranian leaders have already renewed their threats to israel and continue to call the united states the great satan and have rejected the administration's hope publicly that the agreement will lead to better cooperation with iran. so where are we? the united states senate passed legislation 98-1 saying that congress should have a right to vote on this agreement. twice already in these senate chambers within the last week we have tried to bring that legislation up only to face a filibuster that has stopped us from even being able to vote on the agreement. 98 senators voted to let congress have a right to vote on this agreement. 42 of them voted twice now in the last week to refuse to let us bring the agreement before the senate to vote on it. and so today we are facing yet another effort. today the issue before the senate is a provision that would say that the agreement cannot go into effect until iran recognizes israel's right to exist and until iran frees the four political prisoners

iran has done none of that. the truth is, the vienna plan will provide a stronger, more comprehensive, lasting means of limiting the nuclear program than any alternative that has been spoken of. and to those who are thinking about opposing the deal because of what might happen in the year 15 or 16 or 20. we walk away, year 15 or 16 or 20 starts tomorrow. any of the long-term verification or transparency safeguards we have but in place. havethe past week, i spoken at length about what this deal is. i want to make their what this deal was never intended to be. first of all, as the chief negotiator, i can to you that i never uttered the words, anywhere, anytime, nor was it any part of the discussion we had with the radiance -- iranians. it was designed to discuss the nuclear issue and that alone. if we got caught up with all the other issues, we would never get where we needed to to stop the nuclear program. it would be staying there for account -- forever, negotiating one aspect after the other. the highest priori

the iran nuclear deal is not only the best option to prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons, but really the only option. considering that if it is not put into effect, the other countries that negotiated this deal along with the united states would not support the continued sanctions. so if iran adheres to the deal, and if iran would not adhere to the deal the u.s. would have options down the road. he is making this case as the administration has just secured what appears to be the crucial 34th vote in the senate that assures the president would be able to override any veto or disapproval of the bill in congress. now the administration would like to get 41 votes in the senate, so that the bill -- the resolution to disapprove the iran deal could be filibustered and never actually make it to his desk. this is coming right at the same day it appears the president has won the legislative victory that he is looking for in congress, but securing the pledges of enough democratic senators to ensu

technology by iran. by the brutal terrorist leader suleimani who used money from iran and who will be get manager money to export with the sole purpose to kill american troops and the thousands who are wounded. i deployed to this region six times in my military career. and our military is concerned about this administration turning their back on the men and women who died. and the strength that they need in order to keep that region safe and secure. this is a slap in the face to those who paid that sacrifice. suleimani is a brutal man, we have studied him throughout my military career. he's exporting terror all over the region, not just in the region, he's responsible for deaths in india and latin america. he's funding money to the assad regime. over 250,000 dead. hezbollah and hamas. i said a few -- i stood a few weeks ago on the oming they have gaza strip where thousands of rockets were lauged last summer, killing innocent civilians in israel. israelis have seven to 30 seconds to run to shelter. they a

not iran. because iran was preparing to implement the agreement and we will have no reason to return to the bargaining table. the world will hold accountable the people who broke with consensus, turned their backs on negotiating partners and in council and ignored the and blame the united states. in those same voices that accuse us of scaremongering now begin suddenly to warn that iran must nuclear activities are out of control and must at all costs be stopped, what do you think is going to happen? .he question will build the question will build for military action, it will build for the united states to hold its unique capabilities to disrupt iran's capabilities because negotiating is not going to work because we just tried it. crystalt obama has been clear that we will do whatever is necessary to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon, but the big different is, at that point, we won't have the world behind us the way we do today. because we rejected the fruits of diplomacy, we will be hel

at year 15 iran. at year 15 iran we will have no limits on its uranium stockpile. this dealthis deal grants iran permanent sanctions relief in exchange from the temporary limitations on its nuclear program, not rolling back or dismantlement, but temporary limitations. at your number ten un security council resolution will disappear along with the dispute resolution mechanism needed to step back un sanctions and the 24 2040 mandatory access provision for suspicious sites in iran. the deal and shrines and in fact commits the international community to assisting iran in developing an industrial scale nuclear program complete with industrial scale enrichment. i understand this program will be subject under the treaty, i think it fails to appreciate iran's history of deception and its nuclear program and its violations of the mbt. it will, in the long run, run,run, if we believe there is a violation, make it much harder to demonstrate that the iranian program is not in fact being used for peaceful purposes because iran we will have legitimate reasons to have advanced ce

we have interests that align with iran. there are more of those but including afghanistan where the u.s. is likely to be stuck for the foreseeable future. interest the interest actually a line to some extent the iranian and iraqi interests align in iraq as well. so it's important to look at the nuances and all shades of gray in between and not just say we have no interests in common or we have all interests in common. >> to were three things picking up on what has been said. >> secondly it is in the ronald reagan tradition trust but verify. it's based on distrust and elliott comes to you and says this agreement is based on the presumption that iran is going to become an angelic doctor in the middle east has got to be wrong. they were to find a way to live with them and it isn't going to happen very quickly. and all of those that have hopes that this agreement is quick to make a remarkable shift i would say continue to pray, we needed all that it is in my view not something that is inevitably going to happen. finally, the re

what is very clear is the mind that was iran, chances are iran will change in that time. chances are the young population will become much more liberal. chances are the regime at the moment would be fundamentally altered. i don't know what guarantees anyone believes there are but that will happen and that the whole agreement is predicated on not facts but at the end of the 10 years iran will not be the same throughout regional air globally that we see it as being today to achieve the bases. i can see circumstances in which the successor to how mean he is actually more adventurous than he is. there's nothing at all to suggest any change will necessarily be liberal and pro-western been how many years of the present time. this is a dangerous gamble and to try to get the world to look like with any country or she will look like in a decades time and base your security policy on the israeli placing too much value on experience. [inaudible] -- threat to israel because of this deal. >> well, clearly iran isn't it their state poses an existential threat that has to be taken as we

-iran agreement. it is an agreement between iran and what is called p5+1, the five veto holding members of the security council plus germany. and the other participants might agree to proceed iran as well. they would then join china and india, which have already been finding ways to evade the u.s. withraints on interactions iran. and if they do, they will join the large majority of the worlds population of the nonaligned movement, which all along has figures lay supported iran's right to pursue its nuclear npt.ams as a member of the but remember, they are not part of the international community. so when we say the international community, it opposes iran's policy or the international community does some other thing, that means the united states and anybody else who happens to be gone along with it, so we can dismiss them. if others continued to honor the deal, which could happen, the united states will be isolated from the world -- which is not an unfamiliar position. that is also the background for t

we can all rage about iran's support for terrorism. but we all passed sanctions bills knowing they were about their nuclear program, not all these other activities. thus, it must stand to reason that these sanctions would be removed if iran came to the table and satisfied our concerns about their nuclear program, not our concerns about everything else that they do that's terrible. peace is never perfect. diplomacy is frankly mostly ugly, but it matters. because why on earth do we spend $500 billion every year on the world's biggest, baddest, most capable military force if we aren't willing to use it? and i don't mean use it in the way that senator graham or senator cotton may mean "use it," i mean use it by entering into peaceful agreements that are held in place by the threat of overwhelming u.s. military force. our planes and our bombs and our brigades, these are the muffle tha-- these are the muscle that ensures that agreements are lived up to. america more than any other country in the world can afford to take a diplomatic risk bec

look, i don't trust iran. i think this -- i think the verification measures in this agreement are solid. and i think that's reflected by the expert opinion that is coming out in support of this deal. i also should just say for this record, i don't trust iran, i don't think the iranians have a lot of trust for us either. and when you look at our history in iran from a cia overthrow of their government in the 1950s to our collaboration with our then friend saddam hussein in the late 1980s when we shared intelligence with him which he then used to use sarin gas against iranian soldiers. i mean, i think there is a lot of history with us that provides a lot of skepticism in iran with regard to anything we do. so neither of us trusts one another. and that is precisely why we need an agreement like this that is verified. 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 ma