tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN September 9, 2015 12:00am-2:01am EDT
answer to your question, question, the implications of the deal will be what we make them. that is our responsibility and why i think your going to see a great flurry of diplomatic activity in the middle east. everyone knows that the deal is not the answer to all the problems, but everyone knows this is now the time to work very aggressively to begin to build the diplomatic framework in the middle east that the moment doesn't really exist. >> one last. >> very good question. i just want to add a point about the money issue because i think i always like to look at data, and this is a case where we have data. if you look at 2011 to 2013, that is when the sanctions regime reached its apex. it was really hurting 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 framework we will continue and perhaps expand and what does it mean for the relations among these countries that are in the group. this is a fairly important development where some potential nesting. >> i think it is true that
this deal would not have happened without quite effective diplomatic cooperation between the united states and russia, which at the moment on ukraine and most issues are fundamentally on the opposite side and likewise between the europeans and russia. and we have seen on this deal that the priority given to nonproliferation has meant that the countries have been able to coordinate their positions. and i would be cautious in suggesting that that is going to be expanded and can build on it for a broader cooperation. when there is a paramount goal like nonproliferation where the p5 fundamentally create, then they can come together, but when that goal
isn't there is much less likely. there is a question of the fight against violent extremism against the islamic state, but that is fraught with difficulties because when you read it from a russian perspective it is just a way to say, look, side is your best bet against violent extremism. so behind a superficial appearance of agreement as soon as you scratch the surface the divisions remain deep. and likewise, when there was the chemical weapons issue on syria and the security council for the 1st time in a long time was able to agree, there was hope that
that agreement would lead to a more coordinated policy on syria. that did not really happened , and at the moment we see probably greater russian support to the regime of president aside. so i think one should not overstate the possibility of convergence, but i stand to be contradicted and hope i will be wrong. but i think the fact at the moment does not support a very optimistic thesis on the convergence in the security council. the experienced diplomats at the table must have an opinion. >> okay. yes. >> hi.
just a quick question. you mentioned the pressures and articulated very well the pressure put on iran to put them in the negotiations on. and i understand who is the state, the spoilers of the negotiations. my question is, why do you think israel and the gulf area, i feel the other spoiler in my opinion and also why do you think that this is the optimal plan for negotiation knowing what we know, what iran is doing in syria and iraq? why you are releasing the pressure now and you think this is the optimal plan. although i understand the preface, but if i take a holistic approach and i see you are releasing the pressure, giving them a
chance, why do you think this is the optimum point of negotiation? thank you. >> i make two points. first is the question of, was this pressure of sanctions putting us in a better situation in terms of iran's regional policy? he will continue a policy only if it is successful. if it is not working there is no point and continuing it. we could have another 50 years of sanctions on cuba. and that is also the question of what happens with iran in the region. there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what iran seeks which is why people think the pressure of sanctions else. i would argue that as long as these fundamentals don't
change, iran foreign policy will remain the same. number one, it is encircled by the us. number two, it is inferior inand conventional military capability to almost everyone else around. the uae which is the size of a suburb of jurong has a more powerful air force that iran. number three, it is completely excluded of the regional security architecture. that is why it needs the former defense policy of supporting proxies command as long as those factors don't change coming iranian policy remain the same because those are the three elements that inform policy. number two, i think we should be careful about moving the goalposts. there arethere are not a lot of tools in the foreign-policy toolkit. one of them is sanctions.
and if we come to the conclusion the sanctions were useful in bringing iran to the table. they were at the table the majority of the time, but making them to negotiate seriously, if we move the goalposts now and say you also have to change your regional policy or foreign-policy or domestic policy, the sanctions as a tool of statecraft will lose their credibility and it will be hard to go and marshall international support to you sanctions for narrow, specific objective that people start thinking at the last minute we change the goal post. >> let me come back. it is hard for me to accept the analysis which says iran is a victim of the rest of the world. it is encircled and weekend and therefore must support aside who has killed 250,000 people.
it supports hezbollah, which is a terrorist organization. you flip the logic on its head. i don't think it is black and white. iran has its own internal dynamic. it does feel insecure, but you take it for these purposes, postulating on the other side that iran is a reactive country in the region. i think iran would be able to integrate itself more if it dealt with some of these broader issues, and i think that this agreement is a kind of steppingstone to that kind of integration. >> what makes the situation dangerous is that all countries have a deep sense of insecurity, and when the narrative in each country is fundamentally different from the narrative in another country the situation gets
even more dangerous when you add to the sense of insecurity nuclear weapons, but that does not mean that without nuclear weapons you have aa stable situation. you do not. that is why you need diplomatic engagement. certainly the narrative into round will be our push forward to enhance security that narrative will see in saudi arabia and other gulf countries the sense that they are under attack. that perception is perfectly legitimate. that is a strong reason why the region will not achieve stability without some kind of a diplomatic engagement from outside powers because left to its own devices that dynamic of insecurity will only feed escalation in confrontation. i think there was a question over there.
>> the administration and the supporters of the deal insist that this deal is based and focused on iran's nuclear and is all based on trust. but many critics say that if it is not based on trust is based on hope to achieve a certain goal in tackling the questions in the middle east but it is difficult to see that. even if behavior changes and harmonies and if it is not, if it was based on the nuclear, why did the negotiation team and the administration agreed to giving more and more incentive to iran doing a negotiation, like on purchases and missile systems and reduced periods.
some of the experts like nicholas burns and michael hayden have expressed worry about this concern. >> let me start with an answer to that. ithat. i do not think the us made a series of concessions. this is a bargaining process , negotiation. we went and with strong positions. would have preferred iran give up its nuclear program entirely. the safest outcome is that there is no enrichment facility, no nuclear activity of any kind. that was the position of the us back in 202,003 and 2005. that failed. iran built up a nuclear complex that in 2003 had about 164 centrifuges to something that had 20,000. now you trying to get them to go all the way down. it is not a freebie if iran
is going to cut two thirds of the centrifuges what are we going to do? that is what the us and its partners started putting it sanctions relief on the table. these are the kind of things we do. but i don't see outside of the sanctions relief package any other concessions that the us made. it did not lack nonproliferation standards or have a lucid verification regime. it does not legitimize the behavior. we are not dropping sanctions on terrorist activity, human rights activities. although stay in place. at the last minute you may remember, at the last minute they tried to get us to drop the sanctions on conventional arms transfers and on the missile program,
and they had a pretty good case because the sanctions were adopted by the un security council because of the nuclear program. it was part of the package, the pressure that was put on to try to get iran to come to the table and negotiate a deal. lift the sanctions. we did not want to do that. in this final agreement the ban on conventional arms states for another five years in the ban on missile trade stays for another eight years. this is a complete ban. we have other restrictions. they don't get a free pass to start importing the equipment to build intercontinental ballistic missile. so i'm sorry. i basically disagree with the premise of your question , that there were concessions made. this looks like a pretty good deal, and you have to
understand, this is negotiation. for negotiation to succeed, whether it is labor and management, players and owners poor countries everyone has to be able to leave the table and declare victory which is what is happening now. we may not like the sound of victory, and they certainly don't like it coming from us , but that is what makes it a strong agreement, a lasting agreement. all sides feel like they one. >> one quick comment. because diplomats never get credit for anything. this is a remarkable achievement. they sat in the hotel room 17 days and took a tough line. john is better than i for most of the critics a year ago he suddenly you take this deal they would say
it's unachievable. so the negotiating team really didn't extraordinary job. both of us happen to no the negotiators involved. for example, wendy sherman. she cleaned my clock. these were tough people. you see the smiles on tv, but behind that there teeth of steel. the only thing that prevents us in the us from seeing what our european allies see , with the conservative government in the uk and france and germany see, this is a remarkable diplomatic achievement. we have a better, partisan divide in the city where the republican party has decided
they will not let the democratic president get anything. if he came up with a cure for cancer it would be rejected. if a republican president negotiated this agreement would have already named an airport after him. [laughter] >> and i would add, speaking as a frenchman, as francis a difficult relationship over the years, and an ethnic occasion, france was on the top side. when it failed that verification provision or this or that was not tough enough, it made its voice heard very strongly, sometimes almost creating some worry that it could torpedo the negotiation. he did not have one country taking a tough position but a group of countries. that i would single out because it took a strong position wanting to have an agreement that would be really based on very strong
verification because there was no trust, they had the experience of terrorism originating against french interests, on french territory. a sense thata sense that you had to have a very solid, rocksolid deal was part of the dynamic of the negotiation. >> yes. >> american security project. the success of the deal will rely primarily on the ability of the iaea to verify the provisions. so what does the iaea need for the us and international community in order to assure its operating units for potential given that we know american inspectors won't participate in the inspections. what can the us and the rest of the international community contribute? >> money. the iaea is chronically
short of money. one of the pieces of legislation that some of us have seen that i think should be supported by all of congress is to increase the donation to the international atomic energy agency. they will be applying state-of-the-art technologies. if your idea of inspections is what happened in iraq in 1991 where you shut inspectors out in the parking lot for days, our friend sat they're looking for water. you don't understand what modern inspections like. this is, we will have cameras and sensors and seals everywhere, not game of thrown seals on parchment, fiber-optic seals with radio links to headquarters. if they are broken we will know instantly and have inspectors with 247 access.
the entire sprawling complex , that whole thing is covered by the iaea. this agreement doubles the amount of inspectors now. we are setting up a special procurement channel so that everything iran buys they have to buy through the special procurement channel. if you see a company in northern iran buying which is a, people will find that out. we will track the iranian the time it leaves the mine to the processing facility until it is stored. unprecedented. we don't do that anywhere else. you have to back up the iaea with money, with support, and one of the sticks you have to carry into this is making the threat of snapback sanctions real. there is a role that congress can play in helping to implement this agreement,
fund the necessary inspection tools and keep your powder dry on sanctions and show the us is going to snap these in place koran keep the unity because it is not unilateral sanctions that matter, not what we say but what japan and south korea and india and china and russia say. >> let me pick up on something you said about the next phase and how this is where we have to engage diplomatically. in new york last week and said several times that, yes, it is possible we can deal after the agreement with the united states, but it will depend on whether you continue to bully us and whether you treat us with respect.
and i guess i would say, it looks to me like after the deal the combination of loading on of legislation which will restrict the president of the united states effort to provide all that israel and the gulf states want, the political dynamics in this country and our own narrative combined with the narratives that we will here from iran could possibly make it a very long and difficult time before the discussions, the diplomatic discussions are really possible. so i guess i wonder how you think we can manage this next period or help the administration manage it in ways that will minimize the anger that will arise in
both countries, certainly in both parliaments after this deal is done. >> first of all, turn off his radio and television for the next three weeks. this debate is going to be ugly. we are sophisticated enough to understand. i think you make a really excellent point. as i was listening to you, 1st of all, thank you for all you have done in terms of putting together support. the triggers in my mind, start thinking about how we deal with this. so focused on the agreement,
getting the agreement done, supporting the agreement, i think we need to think about the period you were talking about. hopefully the administration is because you can undo. there are some people in the opposition who believe the affordable health care act strategy, which is introducing various things which will try to undermine the agreement will fail a series of amendments that put supporting senators in a difficult position. if you are democrat and decide to vote for this, which goes against a lot of your most serious constituents, and a month from now you get a piece of legislation, tough legislation which mandates sanctions against iran, supporters on, which would
be logical. so they're could be a strategy here of kind of legislative harassment as one piece of this. but i think you are right. there needs to be a broader process in terms of how we slide back. >> i was glad that sandy was answering your question. it is a tough one. i do think that over the long term it is really about building a narrative in the middle east that would not be the same in riyadh in tehran. but nevertheless that will allow for a discussion, and engagement between those countries.
as i said earlier, i think that because of the regional dynamic region will not come to that conversation without strong outside engagement, and i think speaking as a european, it will be important for the united states not to think that we have the deal now, monitor the technical implementation and of course that will be important, but that is not -- let's be as little involved in the rest as possible. i think it is essential on the country to be diplomatically engaged with the region so that the measure of reassurance comes from the united states because ultimately when you look iran is a big country. a much weaker military than saudi arabia or maybe the united arab emirates, but
nevertheless when you look at the population it is the big country in the region. it will be hard to build that sense of self-confidence in the countries of the region if they don't have some kind of external reassurance. the diplomatic challenges, you don't want that reassurance to build the kind of escalation. you wanted to be a path to diplomacy in conversation rather than a path to -- and that is a very fine balance defined. >> thank you. they and a perlman.
read the statement endorsing the deal as an opening for improved relations. following up, there's a question about whether this deal can have a moderating effect on whether it can be transformational command i would like to propose that it's up to us and having a more dynamic cause-and-effect understanding of how our relationship with iran and also just to say what we have been talking about, that it is irrational. ..
a test of both parties not just united states but the iranians are great at casting themselves as the victim without regard to what they're doing in the region is causing problems. so i agree on your premise we need to find ways to take a different path but that is not only what will come from you macy's son in this administration after the deal is done i think the country is not ready for a
cuba or for a big step. this is a big step right now. sold to see if we can engage with syria or iran en some fashion with an effort to stop the massacre in syria? that is question number one because everything that we talk about, we're focused on iran, but in midsummer of turmoil and at the epicenter is a civil war in syria which 11 million syria refugees from lebanon and jordan and elsewhere and a world that has been more
less indifferent to that. so the way to deal with syria is to step back from a side. >> one last question. >> i want to do congratulate the panel it is extraordinary work you have done to organize this has been extraordinary. i will complement the perception that will happen politically and raise the concern and i agree this
will look very much like the affordable care act with constant amendment so the challenge going forward to have a remarkable job to have 41 senators and nancy policy has done an extraordinary job in the house of representatives bader villages and - - vigilance in work have to continue because we can see this undone by a thousand cuts if we're not careful and we have to be very mindful of that. >> we shouldn't on that note. thank all of you for your questions and senator reid and the armed services committee for offering this room for a wonderful discussion. thank you. [inaudible conversations] presi?
the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: today we will begin consideration of the resolution to disapprove the resolution to disapprove the >> today we will begin consideration of the resolution juror disapproved the plan of action negotiated by china, france, germany the russian federation, the united kingdom and the islamic republic of iran and the united states. this seeks to constrain the iran's nuclear weapons program. os call senators to be present in the chamber to commence debate on this important issue. lusby extend my appreciation for the time and research
many colleagues have given to understand the details the strengths and weaknesses of this agreement. for many it has been a very difficult decision and for some it was made even more difficult by assertions from the administration the only choice was between this agreement anwr. of course, that was never true. all that such levels -- political segment say is a launch the wheel -- will and leadership to produce additional sanctions for those untended to end the program if it cannot have agreement on the deal with iran. they are really a nuclear agreement passed a vote of 98 / one earlier this year. that provided each of us to the opportunity to a truly represent constituents on this important issue price
suspect every bit senator who voted for the measure is now entitled to the upper deck of the vote, not a filibuster or artificial limits on passage but it important vote along with americans who were sent there to represent countries and businesses their proliferation network seeking to expand to have a simple question answered all those involved around the world deserve to have a simple question answered does the senate disapprove of this deal with iran? the senate should not hide behind procedural of the station or the individual views this debate should not be a president who will leave office in 60 months but where our country will
be in 16 years. the democratic leader said he will preserve the bill was incumbent to review with a thoughtful levelheaded process of this magnitude. i agree. i know that is nearly every senator in this body voted for it and i call one every senator to resist attempts to obstruct a final vote to deny the american people in congress for what they deserve on this extremely important matter the facts that have already led many colleagues including the top democrat on the foreign relations committee on the senate and the foreign affairs committee on the house as well as the next leader of the democratic leader in the senate to come out in opposition certainly
was not an easy decision for them but they are joined in their skepticism by americans of every political persuasion that will make our country less safe even those that have come out in favor of the president's agreement use terms like deeply flawed. remember why that is the american people were led to believe negotiations would be about ending the nuclear program but that is not what the deal before us would do. reno it will not end the program but leave them with the threshold nuclear capability recognized as legitimate by the international community. quite the opposite of the original goal. and other presidents deal with iran will even with thousands of centrifuges
with access to billions of dollars some of which would be used to support terrorist. we know it will have further ballistic missile research and made no iran will emerge stronger in nearly every aspect of its national power better position to expand this year of influence. the nuclear program was never intended to produce nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. certainly there rand does not need an underground in richmond facility or long-range ballistic missiles. it is afforded every aspect of national power to include support for terrorism terrorism, unconventional warfare, a public diplomacy
suppression of internal dissent in support of proxy's and terrorist groups vary no iran is undertaking many activities relative to a nuclear explosive device as the iaea revealed it has attempted to procure nuclear related equipment and materials that is related to the military. number two to develop the pathway. number three with acquired nuclear weapons and documentation for men that were true develop the indigenous design and all of that has been done according to the iaea. moreover as secretaries of
state recently observed, the final stages have coincided with the intensified efforts to expand its power in neighboring states. it is now the preeminent military in multiple arab countries. political restraint freeze iran from sanctions risky and power from the hegemonic efforts. i would expect every senator would wish to explain his or her vote but keep this in mind. the president has said no deal is better than a bad deal although he will be at of office in a few months the rest of the country has
to do with the predictable consequences of the president's deal for far longer than the next year and after careful makers to chairman this deal is bad then they have a duty to vote that way. we can work together to have suitable legislation to maintain capabilities to deal with the threat from iran. but the matter what we should conduct a respectful and serious debate that is consistent with the ramifications of this agreement. >> mr. president, today we face one of the most critical national security issues of overtime the agreement to stop iran from getting a nuclear weapon. from the beginning the senate has done everything
possible to move forward in the quickest way possible. while the senate begins the debate on the resolution itself. i am proposing after concludes three days of debate to move directly to a vote on passage of a resolution with a 68 go to threshold. the republicans are insisting to go through all procedural steps then as a republican leader of the senator has stated numerous times to acquire 60 votes och simply is'' the way the senate operates''. >> i could literally spend
all afternoon talking about those of very similar to what i will give you. to july 30, 2011, we know of controversial matters in the senate requires 60 votes. it is hard to may incredible case to deny on your own proposal with a filibuster. listen everybody. that is what he said. just a few days later '' and i wish to make clear to the american people said republicans are ready to vote on cloture and 30 minutes, in an hour as soon as we can get our colleagues over to the floor we're ready to approach.
with a better of the enormous importance is not at all unusual it is the way the senate operates. then he came back a few months later. '' i can only'' my good friend, that's me, to have 60 votes when he was the leader in march 2007 with the minority or majority to request 60 votes for those of her controversial. and a short time later who can decide who is wasting time? none of us have the
was never any intention but the republics try to pull the bait-and-switch out of desperation. they have now had a good august. face it. if we didn't have some senator talk about closing the government ended a time that happened the republican leader so there is a lot of talk in republican circles and what happens nothing to do with finding the government long term. a republican stalling summit don't have to work with democrats to keep the
government open and funded or wait until the last minute? every day that goes by without legislation is the day for the businesses and our country. with trade secrets. so mr. president with a critical legislation to talk about our distress with a halt -- for the insolvent highway system crumbling roads and bridges. him to i hope instead of having the senate jump
the presiding officer: the assistant democratic leader. mr. durbin: thank you very much, mr. president. mr. president, this has been one of the most extraordinary measures that has come before the senate in the time that i've the senate in the time that i've >> mr. president one of the most extraordinary measures that came before the senate. with the historic moment and to raise the question about "war and peace" in the middle east that had been considered so carefully by such a long period of time. when i left for the august recess, most members of the democratic side restore processing and reviewing the proposed agreement.
over the course of august they have announced their public positions on the matter. and to which the iran agreement those that are opposed to read. and expect this to happen and surely it is a unique matter i ask mustapha and others i ask them to research a letter said march 9 of this year the 47 republican senators sent a letter to the leader of the islamic republic of iran, the ayatollah. to take you back in history
united states of america is in negotiations with iran to see whether or not we come to any agreement or an understanding with a nuclear weapon that i am sure both with the to stop from happening. in the midst of the delegation 47 republican senators including every member of the leadership sent a letter to the ayatollah. here is what it said. with this nuclear negotiations if you cannot fully understand our constitutional system. so to features of the constitution with the international agreements bin
to seriously consider as the negotiations progressed. in the midst of the delicate negotiations so as the president negotiates congress plays a significant role then given the case the senator russ ratified by the two-thirds vote to require a majority vote in the house and senate which because of procedural rules effectively means the 35th vote in the senate. to advise the ayatollah as he should know more about our constitutional form of government to take senate
approval that effectively means that three fifths vote. they go on to write anything not approved by congress is the executive recruitment. identify a is the ayatollah the officers have different characteristics. president made serve to four year terms president obama will leave office january january 2017 while most will remain in office will be on to perhaps decades. then in the letters to the ayatollah say what the is provisions mean is we will consider any agreement with the nuclear weapons program has nothing borden the executive agreement between obama and the ayatollah khamenei. the next president with an
agreement with the stroke of a pen could modify the terms anytime. we hope this is rich is your knowledge of a constitutional system of a mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear. -- communications progress. the senators in march of this year ready to the ayatollah basically telling him don't get your hopes up. reminding him they will have the last word stipulating it is a 3/5 vote required to the united states senate and kuwait on tuesday keep in mind we may be the last group to make a decision and basically reminding them presidents, and go if dick
cheney was president we would have charges of treason and. in this circumstance it was not good judgment to reply to stipulate to the chair in foreign relations committee i want to make sure that is clear on the floor. before new orleans who did have the answer the question why. if we don't have a final agreement by with 47 want to intervene? why would they want to say don't waste your time negotiating with this president? it is trouble some. in the m&a reached even before it was written that they would oppose it, but others took time to consider and major to announce their position when it came to this matter. i respect them for doing
that. even a different conclusion than what i did because virtually every member of our caucus i talk to root them about this. real soul-searching serious consideration. of course, some went to new the source to met with the intelligence agency state department and department of defense and cave back to washington during recess one senator sat down for five hours in closed meetings to ask questions that brought his mind about this agreement. others met with constituents , it talked about it and found differences of opinions with in their states and thought about it long and hard. always wanting to hear were there were but they took it
seriously. that is where we find ourselves today. want to salute the senator from tennessee we may disagree but i respect him very much. he is a man of honor and integrity and brings to the process the attitude toward the institution that i respect and will continue to respect. are also believe my colleague from maryland we see this issue differently has thought long and hard perc we have been on the phone together many, many times everyone to lot of his vacation trying to figure out where he was with his thought process although we cannot on different positions of respect that that is the way we should be. what they expect now is said debate fitting of this
institution. they expect us to come here to conscientiously consider the matter on its merits to express our point of view in everyone has done that the one. but it is a critical debate the issue is whether iran will develop a nuclear weapon. we believe they have the capacity now to create as many as 10. we don't want that to happen. if it would be disastrous for the world certainly for the middle east and israel and that is why the leaders from around the world, 100 different nations support what obama is trying to do. it is something i believe should be the starting point in every critical foreign policy decision. diplomacy. negotiation. problems from a diplomatic
way and if that fails we rule out possible dash publicity he organized nations around the world. if this were just united states vs. iran we would not be where we are today. with the president engaged countries that historically have not been our allies. before the recess we sat down with the five ambassadors from nations that joined us in negotiations for car looked across the table to see the ambassador from china china, russia, united kingdom, representing the embassies of germany and france have thought if you are a student of history it is amazing coalition. all working together to bring into the sanctions regime other countries that did not have that same
direct involvement but were witness. south korea. japan. joining us in the effort to put pressure on iran the president lead this effort and was successful. of the iranians came to the negotiating table because they put the pressure on them. and now we have before us this agreement. some said you can never trust iran a matter what they say and i would hearken back to the days of ronald reagan who said our enemies around the world trust but verify. recently we had an announcement made by colin powell, a man i respect and support of this agreement with an announcement that surprised me. i didn't know he will take a
position but the former secretary of state expressed support for the obama nuclear agreement calling the leaders remarkable dismissing critics concerns about the implementation per barrel it is a pretty a good deal he said on reach the press. to expedite the pursuit - - pursuit of nuclear weapons to forget the reality that they have done a super highway to create a nuclear weapons program with no speed limit. the production end of centrifuges and the air agreement to shut down the reactor were remarkable. these are the remarkable changes and i think it is very important. colin powell also pushed back:skeptics with wary over
the independent inspectors. he said with respect to the radiance, don't trust common never trust and always verify. of vigorous mishima's put emplace. i say we have the deal is seen help implement it if they don't then the bailout. i feet she hit the nail on the head. general paul lewis served our military brings a perspective to this the very few can come he risked his life on the battlefield but a man who was empowered to by the republican president and negotiations the clear i'd approach that we need and want i have other things
to say on this matter but at this point i yield the floor to my colleagues. >> the senator from tennessee. >> i have more lengthy comments to make later but first of all, i wanted to thank the senator from illinois for his common sense certainly the senator fully. but i would like to remind the body that be went through several steps do get to where we are today that certainly created consternation in wamble sides of the aisle with a letter was referred to, and address but maybe this debate but what we have done
is send a the with the firebrand review act and to to have 12 hearings on this topic extensive hearings with the foreign relations committee many have done the same and to put in place with 98 votes one senator was absent, to create a process where all could review to have the documents at their disposal to understand fully what disagreement say and then have the right to vote. certainly things happen along the way that does the manchin end created consternation but in the
love letting that divide us to create a scenario, we create a process where we will review it. because day conversation with the distinguished senator from maryland and i hope this week that is what continues. we all want to see that happen but i do think the american people deserve to go where senators and house members stand on the serious piece of foreign policy before us and i want to take everyone for their role to get it here. i will move on. first thank you senator reid and senator mcconnell for loving the debate to take place this week for i cannot think senator cardoon more for being a colleague who
really works to figure out a way for the senate to play the appropriate role of foreign policy. nothing but outstanding to deal with them. a lot thing can for the way he has conducted himself. and without the iran nuclear agreement there is no role for congress. what i think it is confused american people that would prefer this to have been a treat, but the fact is under our form of government the president can decide if he will submit as a trio or executive agreement that stays in place during the duration of the president's tenure to be altered by the next poetry he is finding on future presidents.
so they decided to go directly to the un security council all and by the way to lift sanctions that we all help to put in place that brought a rand to the table so with knowledge of that congress passed legislation that now gives us the right to review what the president has negotiated to prevent him from lifting congressionally mandated sanctions if we decide we disapprove. so this is a place congress came together to say no. even though it is hands contemplated but it has been confusing. >> as a chance for the people to have and then to vote for president mentioned
, we had more than one dozen hearings per cry have spent a great deal of time as has all committee members come so many people going through this agreement i oppose the implementation when the president first stated his goal to end the nuclear program, that is something that could have achieved tremendous bipartisan support in fact, there were discussions to dismantle the program. rather than ending it, this allows the industrialization of the program with the leading state sponsor of terror. that is a large step from where we began these
negotiations. and what you had in this body is 100 senators to stand up and support what he does with these negotiations. search of the dead is a far cry instead of having inspections everyone understands there is a managed inspection and process relative to the iaea has given many members tremendous concern in the paying that one of the most troubling aspects of this, the beverage where basically the role the community is on the road nation's throats what happens through the course is bad in nine months the leverage chefs from the stations having them in a
position to negotiate something but instead is what happens as a leverage will shift to iran to receive billions of dollars most people think it is around 100 billion they have a $406 billion gdp. that is the size of their economy. over the next nine months we will release about $100 billion. 25% of their economy in nine months. the president said shirley it will be used to sponsor terrorism. we know that. think if we had 25 percent of average gdp given to us with $18 trillion? for r5 treen dollars given to us? certainly it will have an impact than what they are
able to do read one iran can say in nine months when we push back on terrorism and human rights violations, they can say because most of the sanctions will be lifted at that moment. they have their money the economy is growing and what will they say? if you push back they already make the statements in iran we will just resumed our program. instead of having leverage over them, they will have leverage over us. this is then the vacuum to have a new middle eastern policy. we know we have no policy in the middle east to push back. we know that. this agreement.
>> well will iran do if we push back if they give the tomas rockets? what if we push back what hezbollah is doing in lebanon and syria? what if we push back from the supreme leader and push back against what he's doing right now to protect a side? -- assad we know right now in prison and syria people are being tortured. we saw that firsthand the ranking member and i went over to see what was happening in the holocaust museum presentation somebody took photographs. create know as we stand here in the united states senate
people's genitals are being removed and tortured and iran is supporting that. we know that. so the fact they will have resources to do the same thing? to support terrorist than people who were trying to upset the government? all they can say is we thank you were being unfair. we will resume our program for girl i understand nobody can explain to me and though the senator has said diplomats come in but i have no idea why this last meeting in geneva we agree to lift the ban after five years. what does that have to do with the nuclear file?
then we let the ballistic missile technology embargo after eight years and what is that about? after some of very weird language we immediately left it as a ban on testing and everyone here, watching from the everyone knows that i iran has no practical need whatsoever for this program. nine. i will say it again 19,000 centrifuges, 10,000 operating from an underground facility, a facility that produces plutonium, all types of research and development and this agreement approves further development of the centrifuge and paves the way
and time set up perfectly to be in the position as the row breakout time where the president said they would the end 13 years. they can just agree to implement to be in that position. but they have no practical needs. nine. people say if they want to pursue a the technology of medical isotopes maybe they could use 500 santa fuchsia. we have a country with one nuclear reactor, that could enrich uranium and produce an energy for that but instead they put their entire society with the sanctions and have been harming families for years for something they have no
practical need for and we know that because they want to be a deposition to be a nuclear-armed country. one more time every senator supported the process except for one. the american people deserve to know further our elected officials stand on this agreement. i hope the people of both sides will call this to be a sober debate. i know it will be in passion and death people will speak strongly but i do hope that the end of the day, while i was on, there were discussions of filibuster. filibustering the right to
to vote i've read about it but with people all expressing themselves i would just say to my colleagues, i dunno how we can vienna plays that we said to our constituents to vote on this agreement then over a religion statement or thought come up with a process to say no. we will filibuster. it is my hope over the next
several days, cool heads will prevail, we will have a very sober debate. my friends on the other side has seen what the leader just did to try to insure we keep the debate about approval horror disapproval of this steel and i hope on the deal itself with its decision in our interest. and ruth that i want to return to my friend. >> will you yield for a question? >> the senator from texas. >> i just love to say to the chairman of the foreign relations committee, chaired appreciate his good work with the ranking member
senator carted that really did to do earlier pledge but i want to comment this statement i found it troubling the single biggest national security issue facing the country since the authorization of the use of force in iraq that may be a partisan filibuster purpose of the ability a to have that up and down vote. the senator from tennessee, is he aware that this supreme. >> digest and plunder for that ability with that
institution. >> i have read those reports and i have said so much that has occurred from the beginning but does recall on people on each side to raise the of partisan flag to think this is the debate that could evolve into something, what we have done is risen above that to pass something allows us to debate and vote for gore read with interest what the supreme leader has said. i think he is hedging his bets the he will allow them to vote and i hope that the citizens of our country will be shown that same respect
and expect the senators and house members i will have the opportunity to vote and actual policy negotiated and agreed to read the various countries for our hope that is the case. and with that, without objection, i would like to yield the floor to my great friend and ranking member on the foreign relations committee who ruth together we have marched through some incredible hearings for all of us have studied this a beautifully and could not occur without cooperation and i think jim for his leadership and the willingness below me thank
parliamentary system but independent congress is expected to provide independence with is reviews of a lot of the country and the policies of our chief executive. bettas so we're doing and this debate for cry space for democrats and republicans to say we support the independence of the senate to review our work. senator, i listened to his comments and he is a dear friend of mine we have fought together on human rights around a the globe and for civil liberties here in the united states. we have worked together on so many important issues including the middle east. mr. president, and members of both sides have reached
different conclusions from a we are of committed to make sure iran does not become a nuclear weapon state and we honestly believe our view is the easiest way for that to be accomplished for chrysler's and they don't question resolved against a nuclear weapon state or the support for regional allies. each has demonstrated there will have to conclude with steve fun dash different conclusions but i believe this is a game changer in the region procured you heard from our colleagues as are the principal purveyors of terror is some tricks of rage and arms race and make it so much more difficult to confront every and policy.
president obama is right to say that all options are on the table to make sure that doesn't happen and congress's right to say we support options on the table to make sure everyone does not become a nuclear weapon and stay. that is a goal that we all have. with this independent review some of us believe the best way to accomplish that is to reform word with what is negotiated by the obama administration and others believe that is not the case. just to second when senator corker said about the review act and was proud to be a part of that to get broad support with the administration.
so we would be transparent, and a critical critical, i also think it provided the right type after the agreement was reached, and no ben process as a judgment in was clear that we cannot pay the resolution. but one thing to disagree with the senator maybe we will come together but i came into rich to resolve differences between the right house and the congress but it was clear to talk to the architects of the
legislation they always anticipated there would be a 60 vote threshold and i agree. that is why we should not have to use and i hope we can. >> touche take this issue up episode we support the resolution. >> i told the people of repair -- elections before senator corpora work to the committee. we had hearings, everything has come a classified briefings, member readings readings, and the french head make go.
said of and had a chance in the russell -- to get their views and to evaluate if it is best to move forward or not. it was a close ball park or decided i could not support the agreement and i will share why. and senator corker mentioned this, after the time period that is dangerously easy close with the label it can get to that point purport that point they already have sanction relief so they're in a much better financial
position to withstand any pressures to be put on iran. then what they tried in the past but it has been pretty well documented we have no reason to believe they will change their intention so if they make the calculation we really don't have a sink schumer grey to stop them the sanctions take too long. >> is not a defective deterrent to be race the breakout. here is the key point of concern and i ebro it one dash mile national my colleagues i think there is a higher risk of military operation. >> we do have effective
sanctions once they have them removed. that concerns may purport of think the military option is a good option. i don't believe it will eliminate the threat and has a lot of collateral and but if we rejected the agreement would happen? >> i want to tell her story. and our conversations know they have to work with the united states that the europe - - europe is to bathe together to attack access the half to live with the sanction regime. i also understand if we
reject this agree rand their word rush out to it word i am understand that will not be easy and maybe we have to mix it up a little bit. we know about their terrorism and interference but the point is no one can predict the future i came to that conclusion and we will always come to different conclusions the other concerns is it asks me in the undeclared sites. i am concerned of a possible military dimension that this
is no consequence if there is not an accurate account per primary share was a little clearer for pride of think the arms embargo should have been but i will tell you why i am concerned with the language of in the agreement to talk about the united states and iran. i don't know how you have a mutual respect. >> i came to the conclusion i can support the agreement and others came opposite but i respect his is a vote of conscience for car want to do talk about my colleagues and their action there.
>> it wasn't a hard row to because to receive intelligence information to be justified with the use of military force. so in my congressional district the reactions were not too much different than what we're getting to day in regards to this particular agreement with iran. and to get the best possible chance to succeed. our system is independent review with the review is over we come together.
so yes i have been talking to republican colleagues than those for and against it to how we can work together in a responsible manner so the united states can be a stronger possible position. to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state. >> we can help the of frustration knowing with the independence of congress, they said all options are on the table to make sure iran will not become a nuclear weapon in power. we can underscore the need for riccio securities that the personnel of our commitment to the region against whatever happens. they are suggesting we can reinforce, the closest ally will have the security that it needs to partner with the
united states. they have stated to be active to pursue terrorism by iran if they increase terrorism or attempt against united states. we can speak to that to make sure we are better informed and have the information and agreed need to act timely with the administration to protect u.s. interests. we can speak with a strong police with the debate is over and i hope over the next two weeks the debate that takes place on the floor of the senate reflects the best tradition of the of congress and our strong commitment to stand firm with our determination to prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and agree to
have support of uplifted ballistic missiles. to read with a bipartisan approach i stand ready with my colleagues and the administration to achieve such a result. mr. president, i yield the floor. >> mr. president want to thank the senator from maryland for his comments and tremendous leadership on this issue. i know senator collins is here to speak and it is maya understanding she will speak approximately 30 minutes then senator cornyn the net senator pain and. are what to say again i know some people who want to go
to war support this but the navy but that type of and in the united states. >> the distinguished senator who represents say beautiful state. >> thank you, mr. chairman president. mr. president, i want to thank the chairman of the foreign relations committee for his leadership on this issue and i also want to
commend the senator from -- from maryland for his vote to do what he believed was correct that the courage to cast a vote was your conscience of was happy to be here to listen to his comments today. mr. president, president obama agreement with the iraqi cover rent with respect to the nuclear program, is one of the most important foreign policy decisions as well as america's leadership in the world.
they are affected by this agreement known as the joint comprehensive plan of action. let me begin to make clear that i am supportive of the administration is with us iran and i was heartened when the president initially said in october 2012 that to recognize the needs of the nuclear program and those could have been in place. expose non to say that the deal that i would accept.
>> i have convinced the administration will produce an agreement to accomplish the goals that the president's. >> with those leaders of the iranian government in the midst of the negotiations, i want to give the administration every opportunity to complete and agreement and with these negotiations, mr. president i have long believed a diplomatic agreement with iran but but you have a
development of a nuclear weapon would be a major achievement and accomplishment to make the world a safer place regrettably, that does not describe the agreement that the it and reduced. >> but keep the bill. >> you could. >> and a stronger threshold say -- state the opposite of what these negotiations should have produced.
as a noted expert on sanctions testified before the senate foreign relations committee, even if iran does not violate it will have pathways to nuclear weapons and the program has had the weaponry of it a more powerful regional presence. under the agreement mr. president, not a single one of the 19,000 centrifuges used to richard rhenium to produce the fissile material for a nuclear bomb will be destroyed.
not acing:. iran iran can continue its research and development if it is able to read rich uranium. not only will it retain its the nuclear capabilities, but also a far richer nation and one that has more conventional weapons and military technology can both give access ultimately to $100 billion with the overseas accounts it can once again so of the abundant oil.
are suffering, why would anyone believe with us in chivas relief with its own economy? with some few high-profile projects that billions more are reduced to finance terrorism and to finance their brands power throughout the middle east for:--. it is deeply troubling administration got no concessions imphal adult to be designated by our government as the director of national intelligence as
the number one state sponsor of terror to cease its support of terrorist groups were everett is then she acknowledges and the proxy is terrorizing the innocence of civilians and causing death and destruction and incredibly said jay p. co pay will end the embargo to sell in terror -- the conventional weapons that the russians are very eager to sell them. think about that for a
moment. y word they want to buy intercontinental ballistic missile technology? it already has a deeply troubling capacity to launch missile straits to write off the face of the eric for a direct threat to to coronation from a nation whose leaders continue to chant death to america. this should also remember this source of the most explosive device that were responsible to the death of hundreds of our service
members in iraq. why whoof may ever of us agree to lift the embargo of conventional weapons that could endanger of our forces in the region fell let nature and to the enforcement by opposing the obvious question will iran abide by the agreement with the council resolution or will it cheeked? despite the signatory to the charter iran has repeatedly violated or ignored the united nations security council resolution and in
2006 the un security council prohibits iran from enrich the uranium. what happened? iran she did literally thousands of centrifuges spinning to enrich uranium. multiple u.n. security council resolutions require our rand to cooperate fully with the iaea to come clean on what is known as the possible military dimensions of the nuclear activities to understand how far are rand has progressed to developing a nuclear device and have a fair fight for future
activities. what happened? iran she did. not only did it never report to the experts about the experiments at the of military installation where they are suspected to develop detonators for the nuclear devices but also they sanitize buildings in a manner that iaea has described as likely to have undermined the agency's ability for effective if verification. remarkably, iran has continued the sanitation activities while congress
was holding hearings on the agreements and in 2010 the un security council adopted another resolution requiring iran to seize and the activities capable of nuclear weapons. what happened? it cheated. launched ballistic missiles 2012. that they retry tears sheet on the new agreement to exploit a loophole. that was by the way adopted
before congress before the even had a chance to vote on the agreement. . . this agreement. let me make four points about how iran can stymie inspections. first, throughout the term of the agreement, iran has the authority to delay inspections of undeclared sites. those are the sites where inspectors from the iaea believe that suspicious activities are occurring. inexplicably, the jcpoa establishes up to a 24-day delay between