what is iran going to say? we are just going to begin development of our nuclear program, or what if we say we know yo you are in violation of this program and, therefore, we will put their nuclear program and, therefore, we'll put the sanctions in place, what are they going to say? we are just going to resume the nuclear program. so in nine months literally the leverage chefs from us to them. we are going to be very reticent to challenge them on any violations of this agreement. candidly, we are going to be reticent to push back against the things that they are doing to destabilize the region. so let me just close with this. i appreciate the leader setting up this debate in this way. i appreciate senator reid allowing us to do this. i appreciate that 90 senators have said look, this is probably the biggest foreign policy issue that we're going to do with during our time here in the united states senate. and i hope you what is going to happen is we will continue over the course of the next several days to expre

we were in iran. even before islam came to iran. please make the distinction, and i think the regime did make the distinction. that was important to jewish survival in iran for the past 36 years. is it a good or bad idea to have the distinction. >> i think it was one that was inevitable. one that they needed to pass on in order to prevent executions, and allow the community to make its own decision whether or not it felt comfortable to live in iran and whether it wanted to leave. the chips are yet to fall. 90,000 jews have left. under hassan rouhani, and in the future, iran can hang on to a community of 10,000. i got that in part because of infrastructure that exists, in order to create a community has come apart, and unless the regime. invests heavily. and i doubt that, in recreating the infrastructure that exists, it's likely that wherein the next decade or so, the numbers will go further down. >> that's our show for today, i'm ali velshi, thank you for joining us. access, more conversations. so you don't just stay on top of the n

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

on iran. but negotiated agreements are the only ones that get signed in the times of peace are compromised by definition. it is where president reagan did with the soviet union on arms control and it is what president nixon did with china and it is the case with specific agreements with the soviet union and china. we'll continue to have significant differences with iran on important issues, including human rights, support for terrorist groups, and meddling in the internal affairs of neighbors. we must never tire of working to persuade iran to change its behavior on these issues and countering it where necessary. and then i conclude with this. there is no credible alternative for congress to prevent u.s. participation in the nuclear deal. if we walk away, we walk away alone. the world's leading powers work together effectively because of u.s. leadership. to turn our back on this accomplishment would be an abdication of the united states unique role and responsibility, incurring justified dismay

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

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

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

with the removal of restrictions on iran's ballistic missile program, this agreement will give iran a means to launch a nuclear attack on the u.s. homeland. a week before the deal was announced, president obama's own secretary of defense, carter, declared this should not happen. quote, the i in icbm, ashton carter noted, stands for intercontinental, which means having the capability to fly from iran to the united states, and we don't want that. that was a week before he knew what was in the agreement. i know of no nation in history that has agreed to guarantee that the means of its own destruction will be in the hands of another nation, particularly one that is hostile. what president obama is asking the united states congress to do is unique. historically and dangerously unique. the results could well be catastrophic. the claims made by president obama, secretary kerry, and other members of the obama administration about this agreement have been robust. this deal will, they have said, and i quote, prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. cut off all iran's pathways to boom, incl

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

iran can't create presidents -- ts thatnt -- preceden sites in iran are off limits. the safeguards agreements do not distinguish between military and civilian sites. under the traditional safeguards agreement, the iaea can go where it needs to go and there's no such distinction. it can ask to go to a military site. the board wouldn't have said, you can't do that because it's a military site. it never would have done that. so the united states has strongly wanted to have the precedent set that iran can't deny access. but they want a deal. and so this gets into a very complicated debate. how's the u.s. going to react? i think part of the problem i've seen from, again from europe is that i think both sides are so distorting the facts, i mean, let me be honest, that it's hard to have an honest debate and an objective debate about this. we live on the left. that's where we are. i'll admit it. my group wants nuclear disarmament. and we see iran and north korea as the front line of efforts to get nuclear disarmament. not wrestling with u.s. nuclear weapons stock pile sides,

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

himwe have tried maximal is on iran -- maximalism on iran. but it got us nowhere. it neither force them to capitulate or halted their advance. restricted quite deliberately by the bush administration. this was the only viable construct for the talks, since all of the country's we have negotiated with have very different approaches to the concerns we have with their policies. until now, the only party that sought to broaden the conversation with tehran was with nuclear concessions. but the good news is that the nuclear deal is not the sum total of nuclear policy toward tehran. we cannot renegotiate the deal but we can construct a better iran policy. one that begins to curtail their maligned influence. moderator: i will have to ask you to wrap it up. suzanne: we have arrived, as benjamin netanyahu said, at a faithful crossroads. the paths are clear. be the mostan effective coalition that sets back the proximity to nuclear weapons capabilities for at least a decade, barbican strikeout on our own, -- or we can strikeout on our own and leave iran would only two months a

iran. 50 percent loss of value of the currency, 50 percent loss of oil exports. during that period of time iran we will have actually made the majority of its gains if you can call them gains. it succeeded and popping up beside, and the beginning of the crisis, it succeeded in helping iraqi pushback isys. that is when there were reports of increased iranian presence in yemen. 2011 to 2013. now iran actually received about 15 billion as a result of the interim agreement, but during that same period of time aside started getting weaker and weaker and today is in his weakest position. a long-lost it's our in baghdad. it saw the islamic state taking over half of iraqis syria. it is not that money necessarily will empower iran or lack of money and sanctions and pressure will bring about a more moderate iran. >> thank you. jim goodby from the hoover institution. i just wondered particularly what you thought of the possibility that the cooperation that is taking place now within the p5 plus one fr

should iran be given a special deal? in january, we will face an important decision to approve or disprove this agreement. to be frank, the hasnistration's preference been to sideline america's representatives, so i was not surprised when the administration went against bipartisan calls and gave russia, china, and others on the security council a vote on this agreement before the american security council. and wrong.kward we have heard from experts on the substance of this agreement. is not required to dismantle key bomb making technology. does that make the world safer? second, this bypasses decades of bipartisan nonproliferation policy. does that make the region more stable? third, iran is allowed to continue its research and development to obtain an scale nuclear program in as little as 10 years. 10 years. that is a flash of time, and then a runny start unwinding. does this make -- and then iranians start unwinding. does this make the world more secure? , russia, and china having a say in where international inspector

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

i'm talking about the iran deal. inkeyed, the original premise of -- indeed, the original premise of the iran nuclear deal is that iran would be a nuclear-free, nonmilitary nuclear zone. that has already been conceded to in the deal we'll be voting on here soon in the house and i guess over in the senate as well. this is going to greatly effect the security of our allies, like our good, solid ally israel, as well as others we do trading with in the middle east. and if you don't think it affects u.s. homeland, then why is the deal including provisions not only after five years for being able to trade arms in the open market for iran, but for them to have intercontinental blissities mickles within eight years? -- ballistic missiles within eight years? what do you do with them? i guarantee it isn't delivering bouquets to the united states. our security is on the line in this deal. 73% of americans don't even believe that we can strike a deal with iran and have them keep their word. associated press, this is a real kicke

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

further, iran has agreed to never pursue chief. so the agreement deems not only with the production of fissile manically. because of these limit tagz and guarantees, we can without this agreement, the iranians would have several potential path ways to a bomb. with it they won't have any. the plutonium pathway will be blocked because it won't have a reactor producing plutonium for a weapon and it won't build any more avenue i water react orz for at least 16 years, we have the ability to watch them and know precisely what they're doing p. >> the country would not enrich uranium to a level higher than 3.67%. let me be clear. no one can build a bottom from a skok pile of 300 kill grams of your neighborhood and not go over 7.63%. it's just not possible. under our plan there will be 24/7 monitoring of iran's key nuclear facilities. as soon as we start the implementation, inspectors will be. as it is mined, then mill, then. this means that for a quarter of a century, at least every activity throughout the nuclear fuel chain will receive a

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

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

luckily, we can punish iran ourselves. every governor has the power to divest from iran. we call on every governor of every state to divest from iran now. if the federal government wants to take us on, bring it on. we will win. finally, we want to send a message to the iranian regime. america is more than just this administration. us and iranians like those that you in prison will be victorious. you will lose and we will not pass this on to the next generation. ronald reagan once said that freedom and democracy will leave marxism and leninism on the ad heap of history and he was right. the iranian regime and their revolution will also be left on the ash heap of history. thank you. next, congressman from charlotte, north carolina, richard hudson. >> hello, i am from north carolina. i work for you. i am here today to thank you for being here. shame on our leaders for this country who don't see this iran deal for what it is. it's an absolute disaster for this country and for this world. , not since 2000 years before the birth of christ when the king of troy accepted the gift

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

iran is cheating every day. the administration has all the evidence they don't want that iran is cheating every day and iran has all the information they need to know that this administration will not do a months. next 16 we're seeing that now. i'm going to get off stage so two great americans can follow. but thanks for your support. ♪ >> thank you, michael. tea party patriots decided we were going to do an event on the west lawn in september back in may. and in july, a special senator who has been a supporter of tea party had a coalition meeting with about 60 different groups and he invited me to speak at that meeting. i told him and the others that we would be doing this event and wanted everyone to be able to participate. so senator cruz has been leading the effort on this in the senate. he's a great friend to the tea party movement, a great friend to the tape. he stands for freedom in america. it's my pleasure to welcome senator ted cruz. >> god bless the united states of america. what an incredible gather

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

because an iran with nuclear weapons is so much more dangerous than an iran without them. but even without nuclear weapons, we still see iran's fingerprints on nearly every conflict across the middle east. >> we're going to break away from this press conference held by hillary clinton talking about the iranian nuclear deal. and we'll analyze it. but i've got to do that after a break. i'll be right back with more in the "newsroom." what did iran's supreme leader get in the nuclear deal? to start with, $100 billion. they keep their nuclear facilities and ballistic missiles. there won't be surprise anytime-anywhere inspections. and after ten years, restrictions are lifted and iran could build a nuclear weapon in two months. congress should reject a bad deal. we need a better deal. so you're a small business expert from at&t? yeah, give me a problem and i've got the solution. well, we have 30 years of customer records. our cloud can keep them safe and accessible anywhere. my drivers don't have time to fill out forms. tablets. keep it all digital. we're looking to double our de

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

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

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

-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

iran. the deal would've been a very different io and would have probably been a deal that would not be as controversial as the current deal is because the iranians were clearly a much greater distance away from the nuclear weapons capability than they are today. so sometimes delay and arms control can be disadvantageous if you don't like trends are changing balance of power. a good example was in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the united states in negotiations with the soviet union was focused on the soviet abm program. with the russian offense in her forces grew during the course of those negotiation, limiting soviet offense of power became more important in those negotiations. so the agreements themselves are not going to fundamentally change the realities of where iran is and that to be clearly understood. secondly, there is something different about the agreement and other arms control agreement because in the past we haven't had a tremendous pressure brought about by sanctions which a

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

, 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

we don't trust iran. we have to leave emotion out and look at the agreements and determine whether the compliance with the agreement by the united states will put us on a path that make us less or more likely to become a nuclear weapon power. that has to to be the test we use. mr. chairman, i have many questions i hope we will get answers today. i hope the answers to the vote and debate. since there is no trust, inspection regime is important. do we have significant time to see if they are violating the agreement. chairman, you raised the 24-hour window. i think all of us recognize there is going to be a protcall for inspection. we need to know if the 24-hour delay, knowing what iran is likely to do, does it compromise our ability to have inspections. we need to know the answer to that. they are great credibility in this area. these are questions we are going to ask. we have read the agreement. will this agreement provide us, iaea, with sufficient access to documents so we know the prior dimensions. is th

a little over a year ago, in march 2014, secretary kerry said iran's not open for business until iran is closed for nuclear bombs. however, we know now that iran will in fact be open for business much sooner than that, this deal will not only allow them to be open for business but they'll be rewarded with hundreds of millions of dollars worth of sanctions relief, return of assets that didn't have to be returned. and under this agreement, all sanctions, even those related to arms, missiles and proliferation will be removed. not be suspended. these will be removed. we have some of the most aggressive arms suppliers in the world in iran now being given access is to all kinds of arms that they couldn't get legally or easily up till now. all economic and banking sections as well as those imposed on transport, on insurance, on petrochemical industries and valuable materials will be removed. dismantling, the president said that iran would have to dismantle its illegal nuclear program. in december of 2013, the chief negotiator wendy sherman told pbs that a final agreement should include -- qu

particularly by china, russia and iran. with regards to james clapper, i ran has conducted cyber attacks on u.s. officials, hacking which compromised the marine corps internet, sans las vegas casino, and attacks against u.s. banks. in relation to the iran deal, these attacks, along with recent successful attacks against opm, leads me to have less than full confidence in our own cyber capabilities, let alone the cyber capabilities at the iaea. it is vital iaea has a lock tied ability to protect its equipment and technology, vital to ensuring effective monitoring of iranian facilities under this agreement against cyber attacks. simple yes or no, secretary carter. are you concerned regarding iran's ability to impact the effectiveness of iaea monitoring equipment through cyber? mr. carter: i am sorry, i cannot give you a yes or no. i am very concerned about iranian cyber activity. you name three countries. i could go on. this is a big problem, and sadly, i share the lack of confidence you have in the adequacy of our defenses. i

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

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

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

the iran deal. what about the whole process of a filibuster? >> that is certainly helped possibility. -- that is certainly a possibility. there's still a chance that they could filibuster did -- the deal from getting to the senate in the first place. it could be a possibility. >> as our viewers watch the debate, a reminder that they could keep track of where members are they looking at the hills web count at thehill.com. what options do opponents have in case that india a vent that the president vetoes this resolution of disapproval? -- in the event that the president because this resolution of disapproval? >> there are sanctions on iran but don't necessarily deal with this nuclear program. they will try to punish the government for its support of terrorist groups throughout the region and the abuse of human rights appeared that is something lawmakers have said they will get started on as soon as they get act. you see people like marco rubio who promised to effectively say if i was elected, i would

my second question goes to the iran agreement. basically to ask you if you care to offer some comments on the verifiably -- never fiblet of the agreement -- never fiblet of the agreement. james: that is pretty much the lane i've tried to stick to. our ability to monitor compliance with this agreement, assuming it comes off. and we were required within five days after the agreement was struck to submit to the congress very detailed assessment of our capabilities, what we could do and what we had lesser capabilities to monitor the agreement. so i come away with pretty confident, i won't say 100%, should never say, that but pretty confident that we can in own erify, through our sources, what the international community will be able to, through the mechanism, the iaea, and its very intrusive, in fact unprecedented access and ability to observe and monitor what the iranians are doing. i'm pretty confident in that. we are fielding some independent capabilities, which i can't obviously go into, despite my -- all my protestations about tr

to make sure iran complies. we're not asking iran to promise us anything and taking it at its words. we're commanding iran prove to us it's comply wevering last etter of this agreement. to get sanction reliefs, iran has to take specific actions. if it doesn't, sanctions will be imposed on iran. we've got every protection possible to make sure that if iran cheats we'll know quickly, immediately, and with the -- and react immediately and with the international community behind us. that makes us safer. it makes israel safer. it makes the world safer. that's what nuclear experts around the world know what diplomats know, and what the overwhelming majority of my caucus knows. that's why this agreement will stand. to make sure this agreement will succeed, congress must provide oversight to enforce monitoring and verification. at the same time congress must continue to hold the line against iranian arms trafficking, its funding of terrorism and demanding return of americans taken political prisoners and those who disap

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

participation, by the way, on the ground in iran with the iaea, we're allowing iran to actually take samples under the protocol of inspection. the side deals are unconscionable. i would never in business sign a deal where every legal document was not exposed. how in the world -- i understand these side agreements are normal operating procedure between the iaea and their countries that they're inspecting. this is different. this is a public, global deal dealing with a rogue country like iran and we need to see that. i can't imagine how we would approve a deal, anybody would approve a deal and go home and explain to their constituents how this makes sense for the safety their children and grandchildren when we don't know what's in every legal document. now, what did we get? i would argue that basically what i hear, the number-one goal from this administration is a legacy for this failed president. i'm sorry but that's the only real benefit i can see. we get iran, the world's largest sponsor of terrorism, and proven violator of past nuclear agreements to promise to be a good actor. real

iran has 14 days to grant access. if iran eases access after that time, then members of the joint commission could take another week to resolve the iaea's concerns. after that, iran has three more days to provide access. we're already nearly a month after inspector's first access. if iran continues to say no, another month could go by while this gets resolved. that potential amount of time gives me pause. i would like to know how we can be sure that iran cannot use these delays to sanitize sites in a way of breaking the rules. already, we are seeing iran's leadership to that military sites will be off-limits to inspectors. >> human with tough international sanctions, there are militias and the assad regime. if this deal goes through, how do you propose to keep it out of the hands of terrorists entirely? i am glad that iran will be limited in the development of advanced centrifuges for eight years. i worry about what will happen down the road. iran could quickly move toward the next stage of its enrichment activities.

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

why not 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. iran and the u.s. backed the iraqi government in the war against i.s.i.l. fighters. but in neighbouring syria, where i.s.i.l. controls territory, iran and the u.s. work at cross-purposes. that's because they back omsing sides in syria's 123i8 war. -- civil war. in fact, in almost every contentious area and issue facing the middle east, 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 between the waters of the gulf and the indian ocean. at its narrowest .21 miles separates rain from the countries of the arabian peninsula on the other side. let me give you an idea of how much of a choke point there is. across the strait there's american