tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN September 9, 2015 8:00am-10:01am EDT
president's tenure and can be altered by the next president. a treaty is binding on future president. this president decided to go directly to the u.n. security council and let some congressionally mandated sanctions that we all helped put in place that brought iran to the table so with the knowledge of god, congress stepped in and pass the piece of legislation that now gives us the right to review what the president has negotiated and prevents him from lifting congressionally mandated sanctions should we decide they disapprove of this deal. so this is a place for congress said we want to play a role even though it was not contemplated, but i know this has been confusing to numbers of people. this was the only vehicle capable of letting the majority provide congress with this
chance, a chance for the american people to have this on their behalf review this agreement and then vote. .. time as has the ranking member, as has all the members, people here going through this agreement and i oppose the implementation of this bill. i oppose the presentation. the president first stated his goal, his goal of ending iran's nuclear program,this that was something that i think achieved tremendous bipartisan support in this body. as a matter of fact, onward there were discussions about dismantling the program and as we all know today -- and i'm going to speak more on this tomorrow -- rather than ending it, this agreement, allows the industrialization of a program, the world's leading state sponsor of terror and does so with our approval.
now that is a large step from where we began these negotiations and had the president achieved the goal, i think what you would have this 1 body 100 senators standing uprss and supporting what he said he wished to do with these negotiations. ended up with something certainly is a far cry from that. instead of having anytime,re anywhere inspections i think everyone understands there is a managed inspection process.cess certainly there are some issuese relative to the iaea that has concern and i think the thing that is one of the most troubling aspects of this is only after nine months, the m leverage right now, where has had its boot on a rogue happened through the course of these negotiations is that in nine month the leverage shifts from these nations, our nation
being one of those, having them in a position where we might mig negotiate something that endseir their program.gram instead what happens is, the leverage shifts to iran.n. the leverage shifts to iran. they will receive as we knowee, billions of dollars. most people think the number is around 100 billion. by the way they have a 406 billion-dollar gross domestic product. is the size of their economy.size of their we're going to release to them over the next nine months about $100 billion, 25% of their economy in nine months, the president said surely others,ote some of this is going to be used to sponsor terrorism. we know that.w t think about, if we had 25% of our gdp given to us over the next nine months. we have an $18 trillion gdp. 4 or $5 trillion given to uss
over the next nine months. to certainly this will have impactw on what they are able to do. and what will say in nine months when we push back on violations in the agreement. we push back on terrorism. we push back on human rightse g violations. they're going to be able to say because most of the sanctions be will be lifted at that moment, they will have their money. their economy will be growing. what are they going to say? well, look, if you push back we think this is unfair. they're already making these statements in iran. we'll just resume our nuclear program. so, instead of us having going to have leverage over us. they're going to have leverage over us. this is, in the vacuum of having no made eastern policy, i don't say this to be pejorative, we know we have no policy in the middle east to push back againsg iran. we know that.s a
so this agreement is going to end up being our defacto policy and everything will be measured by what will iran do if we push back? what if we push back against the fact they're giving hamasro rockets to fire into israel? what if we push back againstst what hezbollah is doing in lebanon and what they're doing in syria?wi what if we push back against what the irgc, the arm of the supreme leader, what if we pusht back against what he is doing right now to protect assad? those are the shock force to keep assad in power right now. we know right now, in prisons, in syria, we know people are we saw it first-hand. the ranking member and i went over to see what was happening e at the holocaust museum presentation where caesar,tion someone working for the assad regime, took photographs.taki we know that as we stand here in these comfortable settings in
the chamber of the united states senate, people. genitals are being removed and tortured iran is supporting that. we knotw that. resources to do more of that, to do the same thing with theuthi houthis and in yemen. to support terrorists and people who are trying to disrupt the government of bahrain. so look, the leverage shifts to them. all they can say if we push bacg against those activities what al they're going to be able to say is, look, we think you're being unfair. we're just going to resume our program. i don't understand. this is beyond me. i have had no one explain it to me. i know the senator from illinois had diplomats from other countries come in. i have no idea why in this last meeting in geneva we agreed to lift the conventional weaponsngo
ban after five years. tha what did that have to do with the nuclear file?an we lifted the ballistic missile technology embargo in eight years. what was that about? and then as you know, with somee really weird language, within the agreement we immediatelyt w missile testing and i think everyone here, the people sitting in the audience, people watching, everyone knows that iran has no practical needeed whatsoever for this program,ne. none. let me say that one more time. here is a country with 19,000 centrifuges. 10,000 of them operating. they have an underground facility at fordow. they have a facility at arak. that produces plutonium. they have research andhi development this agreement
approves further research and development of their centrifuges. as a matter of fact it paves way perfectly for them to be at at position at zero breakout time which is exactly what the president said they would be att in 13 years. they can just agree to this agreement. they can continue to implement this agreement and be in that position. but they have no practical need. none. some people have said, well, if they really want to pursue the, technology of medical isotopes, maybe, maybe, they could use 500 centrifuges. think about this we have a country with one nuclear reactor. a country that could buy the, enriched-uranium to buy the energy for that, they could buy it cheaply on the market but b instead they put their entire society through grinding
sanctions that have harmed families. they have been doing that for years.or for something that they have not practical need for. there is only one need. that. and that is because they want ta be in the position to be a nuclear-armed country. so let me say one more time. every senator here supported this process. except for one. the american people deserve to know where our elected officials and where we stand onntia consequential agreement. i hope people on both sides wilh cause this to be a sober debate. i know it will be impassioned. i know people will certainly be and cons of this agreement. but i do hope at end of the day, while i was gone, i digress, there were discussions about
filibustering.ring filibustering the right to vote on this iran agreement. apparently, i read about it in some magazines here that instead of this being about, instead of this being about people expressing themselves relative to a policy that they felt wasy important to the country, all of sudden it became about something else. i would just say to my colleagues. i don't know how we can, i don't know how we can be in a place a where we said to our review and vote on this agreement. and then over some revisionistsn statement, or thought, come up with a process that says, no,
we really don't want people tor vote. it is my hope over the course of the next several days that of cooler heads will prevail. pre that we of course will have, i believe, a very sober debate. sb i think that my friends on the other side of the aisle have seen what the leader just did, to try to insure we keep the debate about approval or disapproval and in this case d disapproval of this particular deal and i hope that very soon, we'll all be able to express ourselves with a vote on the deal itself. whether we believe it is in our nation's interests. i do not. some do. let's have debate in sober way, i want to turn to my friend. >> the senator yield for asena question? >> yes. >> senator from texas. >> mr. president, i want to save to the chairman of the foreign relations committee how much i appreciate his good work
together with the ranking member, senator cardin who he alluded to earlier but you justt said something which i think every american should find troubling and that is, perhaps the single-most national- security issue facing the country since the authorization for use of force in iraq in 2002, that there might be a partisan filibuster of our ability, even to have that up-or-down vote on thetion resolution of disapproval. i would just ask the senator from tennessee, is he aware of reports that the supreme leader, ayatollah ali khamenei, has said that the iranian parliament will have the final word on this deal in iran? and i just wonder how the senator would characterize a partisan filibuster in the united states senate preventing such an up-or-down vote in the
united states senate while thety iranian parliament would have the ability for that up-or-down vote in that institution? >> so i did read those reports and as i said to my friend from illinois earlier, look, there's been so much that has occurred a from the very beginning that hao caused people on each side to, in some cases, raise a partisan flag or think that this is a deb debate that could devolve into something that was of thator and what we've done, as yountio mentioned, we've risen abovethat that and we've passed something that allows us to debate and to vote.. i read, with interest, what the supreme leader has said. i think he is hedging his bets and no doubt he will take it tot their parliament and allow theme to vote and debate. and i hope that here, the of
citizens of our country will be shown that same respect and expect that their senators and their house members will have the opportunity to vote on the actuals policy that has beennego negotiated and agreed to by these various countries. i hope that will be the case. yes, i was very aware of that.ih and with that, without objection, i would, i would like to turn the floor over, yield the floor, to my great friend, ranking member on the foreign relations committee, who together, or together, we have marched through some incredible hearings. i think allin of us have studied this dutifully. that could not have occurred staff.
i thank him for his leadership. i thank him for his willingness to seek a place where the senate can deal with in in the appropriate way and with that i yield the floor. >>fi mr. president.from >> the senator from maryland. >> mr. president, let me first thank my f friend, senator cork, for his leadership and more importantly thank him on behalff of the senate for standing upfo, for, i think the appropriate role of the united states senate in reviewing a major foreign policy issue. mr. president, i have had theere opportunity to serve with four different chairman of the senate foreign relations committeeign since i've been in the unitedcok states senate. senator corker, senator men men dead, secretary kerry, and vice president biden and all four fought for the united states senate having its rol appropriate role in establishing foreign policy. we are a country that believes
serves our country the best. that is what separations of branches of government.se we don't have a parliamentarywe system here. provide independence in its reviews of the laws of our the country and policies of our chief executive. and that is exactly what we are doing in this debate and i thank senator corker for his extraordinary leadership of our committee and i know i speak for both democrats and republicans in saying that we support the independence of the senate and w reviewing our work. i, senator durbin, i listened to his comments and senator durbin is a dear friend of mine. the two of us have foughthts together on human rights around we have fought for civil liberties here in the united states. many important issues including
mr. president, there are memberh on both sides that have reachedn different conclusions. but we are all committed to making sure iran does not become a nuclear weapons state and we honestly believe that our view is the best way for that to be accomplished.acco i don't challenge any other members decision. and i certainly don't question their resolve.ran against iran becoming a nuclear weapons state or their support o for our regional allies. i think each has demonstratedouh that throughout their career. some of us have come to different conclusions. i strongly believe that we mustn prevent iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state. it is a game-changer in the region. you already heard from my colleagues that iran is one of the principle purveyors of in terrorism in that region. it would accelerate an arms race that already has too many arms r in its region.
it would make so much moreso difficult to confront iranian policy if they possess a nucleaa weapon. that we will not let that happet and that all options are on the table to make sure that doesn't happen. anod congress is right to say that we support all options being on the table to make sure iran does not become a nuclear weapons state. that's a goal that we all have. in this independent review, some of us believe that the best wayc to accomplish that is to move a forward with the agreementtiat negotiated by the obama administration.ra others believe that it is not the case. i want to just second what senator corker said about theler iran nuclear review act. i was proud to be part of putting that bill together. and getting broad support in thn congress and the support of the administration. i think it put us in a much stronger position in negotiating
in vienna. i think the fact that we had, set up the right way for assio congressional review, that it would be transparent review, a critical review, put our negotiators in the strongest possible positions in vienna. it provided right type of review after the agreement was reachedt information would be made available to us. we would have an open process,ld american people would learn more about it. a and that we would be in a better position to make our own judgment. it was clear in the review act that no action is required.n i we can pass resolutions ofan't approval or disapproval. i want to mention one thing though that i want to disagreeth with senator corker but maybe not at the in the end we'll come together on this issue. i wasn't part of the original negotiations on the review act.i i came into it. was able to resolve the differences between the white house and the congress and many members of congress but it
was clear in talking to the architects of this legislation t that they always anticipatedld b there would be a 60 vote threshold for the passage of this resolution in the united states senate. s i agree with senator corker and that's why that we shouldn't have to use filibusters and we shouldn't have to have; t procedural votes. we should have a vote on the merits. senator reid's suggestion was the right way to go. i hopeti we can find a way to cn avoid the procedural battles ane be able to take this issue up and let every member vote theirr conscience whether to support or disapprove of the resolution. i total the people of maryland after the review, let me tell you how this review went. we had 2 1/2 weeks of review wee before the recess. senator corker worked ourked committee unmercifully as far as what we did. we had hearings. we had briefings. we had classified briefings. we had member meetings. a and, to the credit of the of members of the committee, all 19
showed up. on these meetings went on for about four hours each.ours so we were back-to-back-to-back in our b briefings and trying to understand what was in the agreement during the 2 1/2 weeks we were here. ihe then went back to maryland,' i'm sure my colleagues went back to their states. had a chance for the first time to meet with marylanders and talk with marylanders and get their views and fet theire evaluate whether i it was best it was a close call but i decided that i could not supporu the agreement.. and i just like to share with you why i can not support theor agreement. this. it puts iran after the time period in a position of enrichment of uranium that is dangerously close to being able to break out to a nuclear weapon in compliance with the agreement, being legal, they can get to that point.
and at that point, they have already gotten sanction relief. so they're in a much better muc financial position to be able te could be put on iran. they then, we know that theythey want to become a nuclear weapont state. we know that. documented. we haveso no reason to believe they're going to change their intentions. so if they want to become ation nuclear weapons state, and they make the calculation that welati really don't have a sanction way to stop them, because at that point, their economic strengthc is strong enough and sanctionsct take too long to really bite and take effect, it would not be an effective deterrent to a race to breakout. and, here's the key point ofer concern to me. and i acknowledged to all my colleagues that don't know whato will happen in the future. this is a close call.but but i think there is a higher risk of potential military if
operation if we go forward withc this agreement because we don't have effective sanctions once. they have been removed. that concerns me. because, mr. president, i don't think a military option is a good option. i don't believe it will eliminate the threat. it has a lot of collateraled w issues involved with a military operation.now, now, i acknowledge if we do nots go forward with this agreement there's a risk, there is no question about it. there's high-risk either direction. if we choose, if we were tohat reject the agreement what would happen? well, no one can tell for sure.. no one can tell for sure. there is a risk factor.ith in my conversations with our european allies they certainly want us to approve this but they know they have to work they know that europe and the united states needso to be together and, for the companies to be able to get full access to iran they have to work with the
united states on sanctions regime. they understand that iran also understands if we reject this agreement and they were to rush out to try to develop a nuclear weapon it would ignite unity in the international community of action against iran. they have to make thatom calculation. iran also wants sanction relief from the united states. so i can't predict the future but i believe all parties will want a diplomatic solution.ion. i understand that is not going to be easy. and maybe we'll have to mix it up a little bit and put some other issues on the table. h we have a lot of issues with iran. we know about their terrorism and interference in the region.n it may give us the opportunity. my point is, no one can predict the future. i came to that conclusion. others came to different conclusions. there are other concerns i have with the agreement. including 24-day delay. that doesn't concern me on known
sites but concerns me on youilit know known sites based on intelligence information. ins am concerned there isn't the really any consequence i see ins the agreement if there is not an accurate account of what happened in the past. that was a little clearer.s a little i don't think the arms embargo agreement. i must tell you, i am concerned that the language in the agreement, that talks about the united states and iran, withutua mutual respect and normalization, i don't know how you can have a mutual respect for a country that actively foments regional instability,abl advocates israel's destruction, kills innocent and shouts deathi to america. so, mr. president, i came to the conclusion that i could support the agreement. vie others came to the opposite views. each of us did what we felt wasi best and i respect this is vote of conscience. i do want to point out onebit comment that was made a little
earlier by my colleague about the iraq war. i voted gents the iraq war. it was not a hard vote for me qi because quite frankly i didn't see the intelligence information that would have justified theau authorization for use ofmi military force. but it was a controversial vote. in my congressional district, it was an extremely unpopular vote and the reactions were not too much different than the reactions we're getting today in regards to this particular agreement with iran.i i voted against that, along with a lot of my colleagues. when that vote was over, and it was a done deal, and we pursuedd our military operations in iraq i joined with all of myh al colleagues and the g administration to give us the best possible chance for america to succeed because that's our responsibility.
that's ourit system. our system is independent review. but when review is over it is time for us to come together. sohe yes, i have been talking to my republican colleagues. i have been b talking to my for colleagues voting for thehose agreement and those voting against it as how we can work together in a responsible manner when this debate is over, so the united states can bean in a stronger possible position, working with the administration, to preventan iran from becominga nuclear weapons state.ing working together i think we can help the administration, have a stronger position, knowing the independence of congress. the administration said and weht can underscore all options areot on the table to make sure iran. will not become nuclear weaponsd power. the administration said and weo can underscore need for regionaf strategy so our partners know oe our commitment to the region against whatever happens with iran.n administration has suggested and we can reinforce, that ourthat
closest ally in the region, israel, will have the security it needs as a partner with the united states.e a the administration has stated and we can reinforce that we will be active in pursue terrorism by iran if they increase their terrorism, or attempt terrorism against the united states. we can speak to that. and we can make sure that we're better informed and that we hava the information we need to see where iran is using their sanction relief. t so that we can act timely with the administration, to protect.. u.s. interests. i think we can speak with a strong voice when this debate ii over. and i hope during the next two e weeks that the debate that takes place on the floor of the unitef states senate and house ofs representatives, reflects the bestep tradition of the congress and our independent review and behalf of america. we must stand firm in ourterm
determination to prevent from iran acquiring a nuclear ben. we must agree to counter iranian support for terrorism around confront iranian violation of ballistic missiles, pros calls and international human rights obligations. congress and the administration can not dwell on past a disagreements. functional, bipartisan approach toi iran. i stand ready to work with my colleagues and the administration to achieve such a result. floor.o >> mr. president, i want to thank the distinguished senator from maryland for his commentst. and for his tremendous leadership on this issue. i know with senator collins is here to speak. my understanding that, she willa speak for approximately 30 minutes and then senator cornyn maybe shortly thereafter to speak and senator kaine but i do
want to say again, not only, i s know some people referred to the fact only those who wanted to gr to war with iraq that ares. supporting this, but not own dia the ranking member not support going to war with iraq, neither did senator menendez from new jersey who again opposes this agreement. that type of characterization certainly is not the way that wy is. the two most knowledgeable democrats in the united statesas senate on this issue by far,ar both oppose it. with that, i will yield thethe floor to the senator, distinguished senator from maine, who represents a s beautiful state and we thank her for her contributions. >> the senator from maine. >> thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i want to thank the chairman of the foreign relations committee for his leadership on t this issue, fors briefing us, for arranging for
briefings, for his very thorough analysis and i also want to commend the senator from maryland for his vote of con conviction, for doing what he believed was correct, for showing the courage to cast a vote of true conscience. and, i was honored to be here on the senate floor to listen to his comments today.esid mr. president, president obama'e agreement with the iranian government, with respect to itsl nuclear program is one of themo most important foreign policy e decisions ever to face the united states senate. the vote that we shall cast will not be an easy one. the security of our nation, and the stability of the
middle east, as well as america's leadership in the world, are affected by this agreement known as the joint comprehensive plan of action or the jcpoa. let me begin by making clear that i supported thenist administration undertaking these negotiations with iran. indeed, i was heartened when president obama initially said in october of 2012 that quote, our goal is to get iran to recognize it needs to give up po its nuclear program and abide by the u.n. resolutions that have been in place. he went on to say, the deal will accept is they end their nuclear
program. ver it's very straightforward, enden quote. i was optimistic that the administration would produce an agreement that would have accomplished the goals that thee president laid out. alongwith six others of my republican colleagues, i did not sign a letter to the leaders of the iranian government sent in the midst of the negotiationsia because i wanted to give the administration every opportunitp to complete an agreement that would have accomplished the goals that the president himself originally set forth as the purpose of these negotiations. mr. president, i long belief, that a verifiable, diplomatic i agreement with iran, dismantled
its nuclear infrastructure and blocked its pathways to the a development of a nuclear weapon, would be a major achievement and accomplishment that would makeet the world a safer place.t regrettably, that does not jibe the agreement that the administration negotiated. i the agreement is fundamentally flawed because it leaves iran as capable of building a nuclear weapon at the expiration of the agreement as it is today. indeed, at that time, iran willa be a more dangerous and stronger nuclear threshold state, exactly the opposite of what these
negotiations should have produced. as mark dubois, a noted expert on sanctions, testified before the senate foreign relations s committee, quote, even if iran doesn't violate the jcpoa, itl will have patient pathways to nuclear weapons and an icbm program, access to heavy weaponry, and economy immunized against sanctions pressure and r more powerful regional presence, end quote. mr. president, not a single one of iran's 19,000 centrifugesentr used to enrich uranium, to
produce the fissile material for a nuclear bomb, will be destroyed. not a single one. and iran will be able to research and development on r advanced centrifuges enable to enrich uranium more effectively. not only will iran retain its nuclear capability but also it will be a far richer nation and one that has more conventional weapons and military technology than it possesses today. the lifting of the sanctions will give iran's leaders access ultimately to more than $100 billion in the form of frozen assets and overseas accounts. iran also will once again be
able to sell its abundant oil in global markets. repeatedly argued that iranianes leaders will invest those billions of dollars into their own country to improve the lives of their citizens.mr. mr. president, the record strongly suggests otherwise. iran today is the world's foremost exporter of terrorism, powering billions of dollars into terrorist groups throughout the region and into funding the murderous assad regime in syria. if iran is financing, arming, and equiping terrorist groups io iraq, lebanon, gaza, syria, and
yemen, when its own economy is in shambles and its citizens are suffering, why would anyone believe that it would invest thl proceeds of sanctions relief only in its own economy? i do expect that iran's leaders will invest in a few high-profile projects to help their own citizens but given their history, it is inevitable that billions more will be used to finance terrorism and venten iran's power and proxies throughout the middle east. it is deeply troubling that the administration secured no concessions at all from iran. designated by our government,
the director of national intelligence as the number one state sponsor of terrorism, to cease its support of terrorist groups. whether it is hezbollah in iraq, the houthis in yemen, iran's proxies are terrorizing n the innocent civilians, forcing families to flee their homes and causing death and destruction. and incredibly the jcpoa will end the embargoes on selling iran's intercontinental ballistic missile technology and conventional weapons, which the
russians among others, are very eager to sell them. think about that for a moment. why would iran want to buy intercontinental ballistic t missiles technology? it already has they deeply-troubling capacity to launch missile strikes at israel, which it has pledged to wipe off the face of the earth. icbm technology poses a direct threat to our nation from a nation whose leaders continue to chant, death to america. we should also remember that the iranian quds forces were the source of the most lethal improvised explosive devicesovis
that were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of ourserv servicemembers in iraq. why would we ever agree to lift the embargo on the sales of conventional weapons that could endanger our forces in the region? lett me now turn to the issue of the enforcement of the agreement by posing the obvious question. will iran abide by the agreement and corresponding u.n. securityi council resolution? or will it cheat? sig despite being a signatory to the u.n. charter, iran has repeatedly violated or ignored the united nations security
council resolutions aimed at curbing its nuclear program. in 2006, the u.n. security council pass ad resolution prohibiting iran from enriching uranium. what happened? iran cheated. it has literally thousands of centrifuges spinning to enrich resolutions require iran to cooperate fully with the international atomic energy agency, the iaea, and to come clean on what is known as the possible military dimensions of its nuclear activities totand understand how far iran has progressed towards developing a
verified baseline to evaluate future nuclear-related activities. iran cheated. not only did it never report to international arms control experts about the experiments at its military installation at parchin where iran is suspected of developing detonators for nuclear devices but iran sanitized buildings at parchin in a manner a manner the iaeaind likely to undermine the agency's ability to conduct effective verification. remarkably, according to public reporting, iran has continuedrtn
the sanitation activities while congress was holding hearings oh in 2010, the u.n. security council adopted another resolution requiring iran to cease any activities related to ballistic missile activitiespabl capable of delivering nuclear weapons. what happened? iran cheated. it launched ballistic missilesd in july 2012. given this history, there is no question in my mind that iran will try to cheat on the new agreement and exploit any loophole in the text or in theim implementing security councilreo
resolution, that was by the wayr as the chairman has pointed out, adopted before congress even had a chance to vote on the agreement. given iran's history of non-compliance, one would think that an ironclad inspection process would be put in place. sadly that is far from they reality of 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.expl
inexplicably the jcpoablis establishes up to a 24-day delay between when the agency requests access to a site, and when access to granted. the former deputy director general for safeguards at the iaea notes that 24 days is sufficient time for iran to sanitize suspected facilities, and points out past concealmentv activities carried out by iran in 2003 left no traces to be det this is a long way from the anytime anywhere inspections that should have been part of this agreement given iran's sorry history.
second, no american or canadian experts will be allowed to be part of the iaea inspection team unless these countries re-establish official diplomatia relations with iran. now i recognize that the iaeahas has many highly qualified experts but the exclusion of some of the most highly-skilled and experienced experts in the world does not inspire confidence.nd according to press reports, the iranians themselves will be responsible for the photographs and environmental sampling at parchin, a large militaryon w installation where nuclear work iso suspected to have beenucte
conducted and may still be underway. iaea weapons inspectors will be denied physical access to parchin. now you note, mr. president, that i say, according to press reports. that's because the actual agreement between the iaea and iran is secret and has been withheld from congress. as a member of the intelligencee committee i have been briefed on the agreement but like every other member of congress, i have been denied access to the actual document despite how significant thisnt issue is. the actual text matters becausel of iran's repeated efforts to
exploit loopholes and particularly in light of press reports on what is in that document. forth, mr. president, iran iss not required to ratify the additional protocol before sanctions relief is granted. if ever. the additional protocol allows thes iaea permanent inspection access to declare and suspected nuclear sites in a country in a order to detect covert nuclear activity. ratification of the protocol would make the ap permanently, and legally binding in iran. 126 countries including our country have already ratified
the additional protocol. yet the agreement negotiated byy the administration only requires iran to seek ratification of the additional protocols eat years from now. in the 8th year of the com agreement and to comply wits terms until then. but if iran's past behavior is y any guide, iran may never ratift the additional protocol and thus be subject to its legally-binding inspection regime. to prevent iran from cheating the administration has repeatedly pointed to the prospect of an immediate snap back of sanctions as the teethte of the agreement.nt. i will be surprised if they work
as advertised. first, the rhetoric on the snap-back of sanctions has been inconsistent. on the one handte the administration says that the united states can unilaterally cause international sanctions te be reimposed. administration repeatedly warns us that the sanction regime is falling apart. which is it? second, iran has already made explicit the text of the agreement, that the imposition of any sanctions will be treated as grounds to restart its nuclear program. included in the jcpoa, is this
clear statement.nt. iran has stated that if sanctions are reinstated in whole or in part, iran will treat that as grounds to cease this jcpoa in whole or in part. mr. president, in effect, iran has given advanced notice that if the united states or any of its partners insists on rei reimposing sanctions, iran can simply walk away from the deal.y given their investment in their deal, i am very kept call that any of the -- skeptic call, thae any p5-plus-one countries will take that action.
after endorsement of agreement the iranians actually released a statement, that it may reconsider its commitments if new sanctions impair the business and trade resulting from the resulting from lifts of nuclear sanctions. this is a direct quote, mr. president, irrespective of whether such new sanctions are introduced, a nuclear-related or other grounds.grou let's think about the tha implications of that for a moment. and the iranians are saying a sanction is a sanction is a sanction and iran is ready to resume its nuclear activities if any sanctions are reimposed even if the purpose is non-nuclear.
even if the purpose is to halt iran's financing of terrorist groups. means, if the united states reimposes a sanction, in response to the iranian's continuing to finance, train,psa arm, equip, terrorist groups all over the world, iran, the foremost exporter of terrorism according to our own director of national intelligence, iran can just walk away from the agreement at that we are being third, according to the the non-partisan congressional research service the agreement has sanctions would not be applied. quote, with retroactive effect
tive contract signed between any party and iran or iranian entities prior to the date of that application, end quote. this grandfathering clause will create an immediate rush of businesses to lock in long-termh contracts with iran. iranian foreign ministers sarif assured iranian lawmakers that the swarming of business for reinvesting their money is the biggest barrier to the reimposition of sanctions and he is right. the state department insiststh that each case will be worked on a individual basis but there is no guarranty that any case, much
less every case, will be resolved in the short time period necessary. mr. president, there are alternatives to the deeply-flawed agreement reached in vienna. while i recognize that it would be difficult, the fact is that the administration could renegotiate a better deal. as kitry, the former lead state department attorney for nuclears issues recently noted in jou "the wall street journal," the senate has required changes to more than 200 treaties that were ultimately ratified after congressional concerns were addressed. this is not unusual.
for example. the 1997 resolution of ratification regarding the multilateral chemical weaponsnvn convention included 28 conditions inserted by senate. the treaty was ultimately ratified and is currently enforced in 191 participating nations, including iran and the united states. similarly the senate insisted that the threshold test ban treaty, with the soviet union have additional provisions strengthening compliance measures before it was ratified. of course, one of the problems with this agreement is that it's not in the form of a treaty. which precludes the senate from
inserting reservations, understanding or declarations. but that does not mean that the this agreement can not be renegotiated and there are so many precedent for side agreements or renegotiation of treaties themselves. more than 200 times. another alternative to this agreement would be to further wield our unilateral financial and economic power against thost conducting business with key iranian entities. as juan serati, first assistantd secretary for terrorist testified before the senate foreign relations committee, we
can't argue in the same breath that snapback sanctions as constructed offer a real sword of damacles to be wielded over the heads of the iranians for years while arguing that there is no way now for the united states to maintain crippling financial and economic isolation which helped bring the iranians to the table, indquote. -- end quote. every country and every business would have to choose whether to do business with a nuclear iran or with the united states. i'm confident that most countries, and most businesses would make the right choice. despite these options, the administration negotiated a pact in which its red lines were
abandoned, compromised, or diluted, while the iranians held firm to their core principles. a the iranians have secured the following if this agreement moves forward. broad sanctions relief. u.n. less domestic you rhine yum enrichment capability. international acceptance of irae as a nuclear threshold state. international acceptance of its own ballistic missile program. the lifting of the arms and the icbm embargoes. repeal of all previous u.n. security council resolutions.
issue from the u.n. securityresi council agenda. accordingly, mr. president, i shall cast my vote for the d motion of disapproval. i believe that iran will abide, will bide its time, perfect its r&d on advanced centrifuges, secure an icbm capability, and build a nuclear weapon as the jcpoa is phased out.s it is time for congress tohe reject the jcpoa and for the administration to negotiate a new agreement as has been done so many times in the past, when the senate raised serious concerns. the stakes are simply to high.th
the risks too great for us to dy otherwise. thank you, mr. president. >> we are live this morning at the brookings institution here in washington, awaiting remarks from democratic presidential candidate and former secretary of state hillary clinton. she will be talking about the iran nuclear agreement. she also plans to touch on implications for u.s. foreign policy and national security. should get underway in just a moment. this is live on c-span2. [inaudible conversations]
>> democratic presidential candidate and former secretary of state hillary clinton will be addressing the brookings institution today about the iran nuclear agreement and u.s. foreign policy and national security. should get underway in just a moment here live on c-span2. in the house and senate today, starting with the senate, we expect more debate on the iran nuclear agreement today. lawmakers will consider that resolution of disapproval of the iran deal. the senate expected to recess at 12:30 until 2:15 until their weekly party lunches. when they return, they will continue the consideration of the disapproval resolution until 7:00. the time from 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. will be controlled by the democrats and from 6:00 to 7:00 republicans will be debating the resolution. although no votes are expected. yesterday senator maria cantwell
of washington state was the final senator to announce she supports agreement. there are now 58 senators who support the disapproval resolution and 54 republicans including collins and four democrats, including cardin, menendez, manchin and schumer. all 54, sorry, 58 senators who are opposed to the nuclear agreement, 42 senators oppose the disapproval resolution. that would be 40 democrats and two independents. and so, since there are more than 41 senate opponents of the disapproval resolution, there could be filibuster of the resolution which would block a final passage vote. the house will take up debate on the bill today when they gavel in. we do expect a vote on the final vote on the bill which would happen by this friday. you can see live coverage of the house when they gavel in today on c-span. the senate here on c-span2.
agreement. also its implications for u.s. foreign policy and national security. should start in just a moment. while we wait to hear from her, we'll go back to yesterday in the senate where majority leader mitch mcconnell talked about you hot debate in the senate on the iran nuclear agreement will proceed. >> today, we will begin consideration of the resolution to disapprove the joint comprehensive plan of action negotiated by china germany, the russian federation, the united kingdom, islamic republic of iran and the united states. this resolution seeks to constrain iran's nuclear weapons program. i will ask all senators to be present in the chamber beginning tomorrow afternoon to commence debate on this important issue. let me extend my appreciation for the time and research many of our colleagues have given to
understanding the details, the strengths, and the weaknesses of this agreement. for many this has been a very difficult decision. for some it was made even more difficult by assertions from the administration that the only choice was between this agreement and war. of course that was never, never true. all that such political statements really say is that the administration lacks the will and the leadership to pursue a stronger agreement, additional sanctions and policies intended to end iran's enrichment program if it can not attain agreement on president's deal with iran. the iran nuclear agreement review act asks the senate by vote of 98-1 earlier this year. it provided each of us with the opportunity to truly represent our constituents on this important issue.
i expect that every senator who voted for that measure is now entitled to an up-or-down vote. not a filibuster or artificial limits on passage. but an important vote on this resolution. along with americans, we were sent there to represent countries, businesses and proliferation networks seeking to expand ties with iran stand to have a simple question answered. all of the people involved in this around the world deserve to have a simple question answered. does the senate disapprove of this deal with iran? does the senate disapprove of this deal with iran? the senate should not hide behind procedural obfuscation to shield the president on our, or our individual views. this debate should not be a about a president who will leave office in 16 months. it should be about where our country will be in 16 years.
the democratic leader said his party strove to preserve the corker-card inch bill and that it was incumbent on congress to review this agreement with the thoughtful, level-headed process of agreement of this magnitude deserves. i agree that is actually what is needed right now. i know that is exactly what every senator in this body voted for. i call on every senator to resist attempts to obstruct a final vote and deny the american people and congress the say they deserve on this extremely important matter. the facts have already led many of our democratic colleagues including the top democrat on the foreign relations committee in the senate, and the foreign affairs committee in the house, as well as the likely next leader of the democratic party in the senate, to come out in opposition to this agreement.
certainly those were not easy decisions for them. but these democrats who joined in their skepticism by americans of every political persuasion, who believe this deal would make our country less safe, less safe. even those lawmakers that have come out in favor of the president's agreement used terms like, quote, deeply flawed, to describe it. so let's remember why that is. the american people were led to believe that negotiations with iran would be about ending its nuclear program. that is not what the deal before us would do. we know that the president's deal with iran will not end its nuclear program but would instead leave iran with threshold nuclear capability recognized as legitimate by the international community. quite the opposite of the original goal. we know that the president's deal with iran will leave it with thousands of centrifuges, and advanced research and
development program, and access to billions of dollars. at least some of which the president himself acknowledged would be used to support terrorism. we know the president's deal with iran will allow it to further ballistic missile research and strengthen its economy. in short, by almost any measure, we know that iran will emerge stronger from this deal in nearly every aspect of its national power and better positioned to expand its sphere of influence. iranian nuclear program was never intended to produce nuclear energy for peaceful civilian purposes. that was never what they had in mind. certainly iran does not need an underground enrichment facility for those purposes, or long-range ballistic missiles. iran has employed every aspect of national power to defend the regime and the islamic revolution to include support for terrorism, unconventional warfare, public diplomacy, cyber
warfare, suppression of internal dissent, an of course support for proxies and terrorist groups. so we already know that iran is undertaking many activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device. as the international energy atomic energy agency revealed in november 2011 report it has attempted to, number one, procure nuclear-related equipment and materials through individuals and entities related to the military. number two, develop pathways for the production of nuclear material. number three, acquired nuclear weapons development information and documentation a clandestine nuclear supply network. number four -- >> we're live at the brookings innings r institution to hear remarks from former secretary of state hillary clinton. she will be talking about the iran nuclear agreement this morning. [applause]
>> good morning, everybody. welcome to all and especially welcome to secretary clinton. she, as you all know, is here today to talk to us about the iran nuclear agreement, which i think it is safe to say is one of the most, if not the most contentious foreign policy issue that we have debated in this country since the decision to go to war in iraq a dozen years ago. last evening brookings hosted a debate in which senator mccain took part with three brookings scholars, who were on different sides of the issue. it was a substantive, lively, and civil debate. secretary clinton of course is deeply knowledgeable on the subject that we're devoting this
morning to. as the senior member of the cabinet, she played a critical role in shaping america's strategy to combat and thwart iran's nuclear weapons ambitions, including having a very strong and instrumental role in setting up the international sanctions that were so important in bringing the iranian government to the table. now this issue is obviously going to reverberate in the presidential campaign. brookings has hosted, declared and and potential candidates from both parties, and they have been here on this stage to talk about both domestic and foreign policy matters and we are, have invited several more to be with us in the future. after her opening comments, secretary clinton will have a
conversation with my colleague, martin indek, executive vice president of the brookings institution and there will be time towards the end of the program for her to take a few questions from the invited guests who are here in the audience. madam secretary, welcome back to brookings. >> thank you so much, strobe. thank you so much. [applause] let me thank you, strobe. it's great to be back at brookings and there are a lot of long-time friends and colleagues who perch here at brookings. obviously including strobe and martin who i will speak to in a minute. also bob einhorn and tammy witis. this institution has hosted many important conversation over the years and i appreciate strobe's reference to the event last night and the continuing dialogue about urgent issues
facing our nation and the world. that is what brings me here today, back to brookings, to talk about the question we're all grappling with. how to prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and more broadly, how to protect ourselves and our allies from the full range of threats that iran poses. the stakes are high and there are no perfect or simple satisfying solutions. these questions and in particular the merits of the nuclear deal recently reached with iran have divided people of goodwill and raised hard issues on both sides. here is how i see it. either we move forward on the path of diplomacy, and seize this chance to block iran's path to a nuclear weapon. or, we turn down a more dangerous path, leading to a far-less certain and riskier future. that's why i support this deal.
i support it, as part of a larger strategy toward iran. by now the outcome in congress is no longer in much doubt. so we've got to start looking made to what comes next. enforcing the deal. deterring iran and its proxies and strengthening our allies. these are ply goals as president an how i would achieve them. i understand the skepticism some feel about iran. i too am deeply concerned about iranian aggression and the need to confront it. it's a ruthless, brutal regime that has the blood of americans, many others and including its own people on its hands. its political rallies resound with cries of death to america. its leaders talk about wiping israel off the face of the map,
most recently just yesterday. and foment terror against it. there is absolutely no reason to trust iran. now vice president cheney may hope that the american people will simply forget but the truth is, by the time president obama took office, and i became secretary of state, iran was racing toward a nuclear capability. they had mastered the nuclear fuel cycle, meaning that they had the material scientists and technical know how to create material for nuclear weapons. they had produced an installed thousands of centrifuges, expanded their secret facilities, established a robust uranium enrichment program and defied their international obligations under the nuclear non-proriff -- proliferation
treaty. and they hadn't suffered many consequences. i voted sanctions again and again as a senator from new york but they weren't having much effect. most of the world still did business with iran. we needed to step up our game. so president obama and i pursued a two-pronged strategy. pressure and engagement. we made it clear that the door to diplomacy was open if iran answered the concerns of the international community in a serious and credible way. we simultaneously launched a comprehensive campaign to significantly raise the cost of iranian defiance. we systematically increase did our military cooperation in the region. sending additional firepower, additional aircraft carrier, battleship, strike aircraft and the most advanced radar and
missile defense systems available. meanwhile i traveled the world capital by capital, leader by leader twisting arms to help build the global coalition that produced some of the most effective sanctions in history. with president obama's leadership we worked with congress and european union to cut iran off from the world's economic and financial system. and one by one we persuaded energy-hungry consumers of iranian oil like india and south korea to cut back. soon, iran's tankers sat rusting in port, its economy was collapsing. these new measures were effective because we made them global. american sanctions provided the foundation but iran didn't really feel the heat until we turned this into an international campaign so biting that iran had no choice but to negotiate.
they could no longer play off one country against another. they had no place to hide. so they started looking for a way out. i first individualed oman, to visit with the sultan of oman in january of 2011. weren't back later this year. the sultan helped set up a secret back channel. i sent one of my closest aids as part of a small team to begin talks with iranians in secret. negotiations began in ernest after the iranian election in 2013. first, the bilateral talks led by deputy secretary bill burns and jake sullivan, that led to the interim agreement. then the multilateral talks led by secretary john kerry, undersecretary ernie moniz and undersecretary wendy sherman. now there is comprehensive agreement on iran's nuclear program. is it perfect? well, of course not.
no agreement like this ever is. but is it a strong agreement? yes, it is. and we absolutely should not turn it down. the merits of the deal have been well-argued so i won't go through them in great detail here. the bottom line is that it accomplishes the major goals we set out to achieve. it blocks every pathway for iran to get a bomb. and it gives us better tools for verification and inspection and to compel rigorous compliance. without a deal, iran's breakout time, how long they need to produce enough material for a nuclear weapon, would shrink to a couple of months. with a deal, that breakout time stretches to a year, which means that if iran cheats, we'll know it and we'll have time to respond decisively. without a deal we would have no
credible inspections of iran's nuclear facilities. with a deal, we'll have unprecedented access. we'll be able to monitor every aspect of their nuclear program. now some have expressed concern that certain nuclear restrictions expire after 15 years. and we need to be vigilant about that, which i will talk more about in a moment. but other parts are permanent, including iran's obligations under the non-proliferation treaty and their commitment to enhanced inspections under the additional protocol. others have expressed concern that it could take up to 24 days to gain access to many solve iran's facilities when we suspect cheating. i'd be the first to say that this part of the deal is not perfect. although the deal does allow for daily access to enrichment
facilities and monitoring of the entire nuclear fuel cycle. important to focus on that because being able to monitor the supply chain is critical to what we will find out and how we will be able to respond. but our experts tell us even with delayed access to someplaces, this deal does the job. microscopic nuclear particles remain for years and years. they are impossible to hide. that's why secretary moniz, a nuclear physicist has confidence in this plan. some are suggested we just go back to the negotiating table and get a better, unspecified deal. i can certainly understand why that may sound appealing but as someone who started these talks in the first place, and built our global coalition piece by piece, i can assure you it is
not realistic. plus, if we walk away now, our capacity to sustain and enforce sanctions will be severely diminished. we will be blamed, not the iranians. so if we were to reject this agreement, iran would be poised to get nearly everything it wants without giving up a thing. no restrictions on their nuclear program. .
we need to be reasonable and consistent and keep our word especially when we are trying to lead a coalition. that is how we will make this and future deals work. but it is not enough to say yes to the deal. of course it isn't. we have to say yes and yes and we will enforce it with vigor and vigilance. yes and we will embed it in a broader strategy to confront iran's bad behavior in the region. yes comment and we will begin from day 1 to set the conditions so iran knows it will never get a nuclear weapon, not during the term of the agreement, not after, not ever. we need to be clear and i think we have to make that very clear
to iran about what we expect from them. this is not the start of some larger diplomatic openings and we shouldn't accept that this deal will lead to broader changes in their behavior. that shouldn't be a promise proceeding. instead we need to be prepared for three scenarios, first, iran tries to cheek, something it has been quite willing to do in the past. second, iran tries to wait as out, perhaps it waits to move for 15 years when some but not all restrictions expire. and third, iran ramps of the dangerous behavior in the region including its support for terrorist groups like hamas and hezbollah. i believe the success of this deal has a lot to do with how the next president grapples with these challenges.
let me tell you what i would do. my starting point will be one of distrust. you remember president reagan's line about the soviets, trust but verify? my approach will be distressed and verify. we should anticipate that iran will test the next president, they want to see how far they can bend the rules. that won't working 5 in the white house. i will hold the line against iranian noncompliance. that means penalties even for small violations, keeping our allies on board, being willing to snapback sanctions into place unilaterally if we have to, working with congress to close any gaps. to see whether there are
additional steps that could be taken. finally it means insuring that the iaea has the resources it needs to hold iran's feet to the fire. the most important thing we can do to keep iran from cheating or trying to wait us out is to shaped iranian expectations right from the start. the iranians and the world need to understand that we will act decisively if we need to. so here is my message to iran's leaders. the united states will never allow you to acquire a nuclear weapon. as president, and i will take whatever action is necessary to protect the united states and our allies and will not hesitate to take military action if iran attempts to obtain a nuclear weapon and i will set up my successor to be able to credibly make the same pledge.
we will make clear to iran that our commitment to prevention will not waver depending on who is in office. it is permanent. should it become necessary in the future having exhausted peaceful alternatives to turn to military force, we will have preserved and in some cases enhanced our capacity to act. because we have proven our commitment to diplomacy first, the world will more likely join us. then there is the broader issue of countering iran's bad behavior across the region. taking nuclear-weapons out of the equation is crucial because and iran with nuclear weapons is so much more dangerous than an iran without them. but even without nuclear-weapons, we still see iran's fingerprint on nearly every conflict across the middle
east. they support bad actors from syria to leva non to yeoman. they vowed to destroy israel. that is worth saying again. they vowed to destroy israel. we cannot ever take that lightly particularly when iran ships advanced missiles to hezbollah and the ayatollah outlines an actual strategy for eliminating israel. we are talking about how israel won't exist in 25 years just like it did today. in addition to all the malicious activity they already underwrite we have got to anticipate that iran could use some of the economic relief they get from this deal to pay for even more. as president i will raise the cost for action and confront the across-the-board. my strategy will be based on five strong pillars.
first, i will deepen america's unshakable commitment to israel's security, including our longstanding tradition of guaranteeing israel's qualitative military edge. i will increase support for israeli rockets and missile defenses and intelligence sharing. i will sell israel the most sophisticated fighter aircraft ever developed, we will work together to develop and implement better detection technology to prevent arms smuggling and kidnapping as well as the strongest possible missile defense system for northern israel which has been subjected to hezbollah attacks for years. second, i will reaffirm that the persian gulf is a region of vital interest to the united states. we don't want any of iran's neighbors to develop or acquire a nuclear weapons program either. so we want them to feel and be
secure. i will sustain a robust military presence in the region, especially air and naval forces, we will keep the strait of hormuz open, we will increase security cooperation with our allies including intelligence sharing, military support and missile defense to ensure they can defend against iranian aggression. even if that takes the form of cyberattacks or other nontraditional threats. iran should understand united states, and i as president, will not stand by as gulf allies and partners are threatened. we will act. third, i will build a coalition to counter iran's proxy particularly hezbollah. that means enforcing and strengthening of the rules prohibiting the transfer of weapons to hezbollah. looking at new ways to choke off their funding and pressing our partners to treat has a lot as a
terrorist organization it is. it is time to eat the many the false distinction that some still make between thus opposed political and military wings. if you are part of hezbollah, you are part of a terrorist organization, plain and simple. beyond hezbollah, i will crack down on the shipment of weapons to hamas and pushed turkey to end their financial support. i will press our partners in the region to prevent aircraft and ships owned by companies linked to iran's revolutionary guard from injuring their territory and courage our partners to block iranian planes from entering their airspace on their way to yemen and syria. across-the-board i will vigorously enforce and strengthen if necessary the american sanctions on iran and his revolutionary guard for its sponsorship of terrorism,
ballistic missile program and other it destabilizing activities. i will enforce and strengthen if necessary our restrictions on sending arms to iran and from iran to bad actors like syria and opposed the sanctions on everyone involved in these activities with if they are in iran or overseas. this will be especially imperative at some of the un sanctions. for the u.s. and our partners have to step up. fourth, i will stand as i always have against iran's abuses at home, from its detention of political prisoners to crackdown on freedom of expression including online. it's inhumane policies hold back talented and spirited people, our quarrel is not and never has been that the iranian people. they have a bright future, hopeful future. if they were not held back by their leaders. as i said before i think we've too restrained in our support of
the protests in june of 2009 and in our condemnation of government crackdown that followed. that won't happen again. we will enforce it if need be brought in our human rights sanction. i will not rest until every single american obtained or missing is home. fifth, just to the nuclear agreement needs to be embedded in a broader iran policy our broader iran policy needs to be embedded in a comprehensive regional strategy that promotes stability and counters extremism. iran, like isis, benefits from chaos and strife. it exploits other countries's weakness, the best defense against iran are the countries and governments being strong that they can provide security and economic opportunity to their own people. and they must have the tools to push back on radical extremism.
helping countries get there will take time and strategic discipline. is crucial that the united states leads this effort. i will push for renewed diplomacy to solve the destructive regional conflicts that iran fuels. we have to bring sufficient pressure on assad to force a political solution in syria including a meaningful increase in efforts to train and he quit the moderate syrian opposition, something i call for air the -- early in the conflict. the united states must lead in assisting those who were uprooted by conflict especially the millions of syrian refugees beseeching the world to help from. as pope francis reminds us, this is an international problem that demands an international response. the united states must help lead that response. that is to we are and what we
do. our strategy needs to cover all these bases. iran's nuclear ambition and its support of terrorism, its hatred of israel and its cruelty toward its citizens, its military resources and its economic strength and weaknesses. we need to be creative, committed, and vigilant and on every front we need to keep working closely with our friends and partners. on that note let me spend a minute thinking about the serious concerns israel's leaders have about this deal. israel has every reason to be alarmed by a regime that does denies its existence and seeks its destruction. i would not support this agreement for one second if i thought it put israel in greater danger. i believe in my course that israel and america must stand side by side and i will always stand by israel's right to defend itself as i always have. i believe this deal and a joint
strategy for enforcing it makes israel safer. i say that with humidity. i am not israeli. i don't know what it is like to live under constant threat from your neighbors in a country where the margin for error is so thin. i know this deal makes you savor, won't alleviate the very real fear is of the israeli people, but i have stood for israeli security for a very long time. it was one of my bedrock principles as secretary of state, is why i support stronger defense systems like the iron dome anti rocket defense system which proved so effective in protecting israeli lives during the conflicts of 2012 and last summer. it is why i worked closely with israel to advance a two state vision of a jewish and democratic israel, secure and recognized borders and it is why i believe we should expedite
negotiation of a long-term military assistance agreement with israel. let's not wait until 2017 when the current deal expires. let's get it done this year. i would invite but israeli prime minister to the white house during my first month in office to talk about all of these he shoes and set us on a course of close, frequent consultation right from the start because we both rely on each other for support as partners, allies and friends. this is not just about policy for me, is personal. as president i am committed to shoring up and strengthening the relationship between our countries. we have had honest disagreements about this deal, now is the time to come together. now is the time to remember what unites us and build upon it. so i know well that the same forces that threaten israel threatened the united states.
the people of israel, let me say you will never have to question whether we are with you. the united states will always be with you. there have also been honest disagreements about the nuclear deal here at home. smart, serious people see issues like these differently. like my friend chuck schumer who is going to be an excellent leader in the senate. i respect the skepticism that he and others feel and i respect differences of opinion and people who advocate vigorously for their beliefs but i have a harder time respecting those who approach an issue as serious as this with an serious talk especially anyone running to be president of the united states. several republican candidates boast they will tear up this agreement in 2017. more than a year after it has been implemented. that is not leadership.
that is recklessness. it would set us right down the very dangerous path we have worked so hard to bobblehead. i am looking forward to robust debate about foreign policy in this campaign where we have disagreements we should lay them out. american ground forces in iraq to engage in direct calm at as scott walker wanted or if we should keep cuba close as marco rubio and jeb bush one, let's debate these issues but let's debate among the basis of facts, not fear. let's resist denigrating the patriotism or loyalty of those who disagree with us and let's avoid at all costs undermining america's credibility abroad. that only makes us weaker and i am going to call it out whenever i see it. i spent four years representing
america abroad and -- secretary of state was one of the greatest privileges of my life and knowing my fellow americans were counting on the and rooting for me not as democrats, not as republicans but as americans, meant to great deal. we are all one team, the american team and that doesn't change no matter how much we may disagree. i can tell you from personal experience we are stronger, overseas, when we are united at home, so we simply have to find a way to work together better than we have been doing. there is a lot democrats and republicans can and should agree on. the united states should lead in the middle east, we can agree on that. we should stand by our friends against iranian aggression, we can agree on that too. i believe the plan i have laid out today is one that all americans could endorse and i hope they will. the next president will face threats from many quarters, from
those we see today like terrorism from isis, aggressiveness from vladimir putin, pandemics like ebola, things we can't predict yet. we need a leader who has a strong vision for the future and the skill and determination to get us there. we can't stop the world from changing but we can help to shape those changes and we can do that by beating with frank, smarts and unyielding commitment to our values. i saw that when i was first lady, senator, secretary of state. when america leads with principal and purpose, other people and governments are eager to join us. no country comes close to matching our advantages, strength of our economy, the skill of our work force, tradition of innovation, hour and matched alliance of partnership, we are poised to remain a world's most admired
and powerful nation for of long time if we make this smart choices and practice smart leadership. that is what i will try to do as your president and i believe as strongly as ever that our best days are ahead of us and america's greatest contributions to the world are yet to come. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, very much, madame secretary. i was wondering what we could call this and it occurred to me at the end from hard choices to
smart choices. ladies and gentlemen, welcome, this second part of the event with secretary clinton, a conversation i will have with her and i will take questions from the audience. i wanted to start by saying number one, it is a very strong speech and if i had to summarize the basic elements, the message to iran is the will confront you when you try to destabilize the region and we will deter you if you go for nuclear-weapons sometime down the line and i wonder how you navigate a certain unspoken tension between the fact that you are taking a
hard line against some of the destabilizing nefarious activity of the iranians and that is the same time disagreement puts the united states into a partnership with iran in terms of implementing so how do you deal with that tension, giving up all these things, and this is what we will get in return, very tough. >> i don't see iran as our partner in implementing the agreement. iran is the subject of the agreement. that it now faces obligations that frankly in many instances it faced before the agreement and they signed an agreement where they are committing themselves to fulfill the terms of the agreement. the agreement will be enforced not by iran, it will be enforced
by the rest of the negotiators, plus the iaea, and it will be at these intended to be quite burdensome and intrusiveness into iran. may be they believe that having signed the agreement they can somehow avoid consequences of the inspections and other requirements, but i think they understand very well they are at the starting line. there are these demands that they are supposed to fulfil. there is a sequencing, lifting of sanctions and other kinds of benefits they receive in return for they're having taken the action required at and i think if anything they are probably counting on the world led by the united states being distracted, being diverted, getting tired, not having the staying power to
consistently enforce the agreement and hold iran accountable and i for one went to make clear to them that that is not going to happen, that we will take seriously every aspect of this agreement and expect them to comply and there will be consequences if they do not. >> when you called for a strategy, the elements of that, it really seems to come down to syria and what happens in syria where iran is very invested in the assad regime. a regional strategy on your watch means taking down the assad regime? >> it is not only iran that is invested. obviously it is becoming public, we are learning much more about russian investment, russian troops on the ground. it may very well be opening the door to greater russian
involvement. there is no doubt russia has been the principal supplier throughout this entire terrible episode so we are facing the collapse of syria, the survival of the assad regime although it clearly has much less to govern than it did when this started, open areas that are hosting terrorist groups, and the continuing commitment from iran and russia to propping up assad. i was the principal negotiator on the geneva 2012 agreement which russia signed on to which laid out a path way to a political solution. it wasn't very long until russia reneged on what they had signed
but it still provides a very credible framework for us to keep doing everything we can to try to push iranians and russians in that direction. what i do believe is this. the potential threat from the terrorist groups and the chaos in syria can destabilize the region in ways that are bad for iran and therefore higher the pressure is for some kind of reaction to what is going on inside syria, certainly their efforts that isis is making to take even more and hold territory in iraq directly against what iran sees as its interest, continuing destabilization along the lebanese border, all kinds of reasons why iran is going to
have to confront this instability. my view on this is we have to be talking and pushing and raising the cost for iran and for russia all the time. if vladimir putin were sitting here which is hard to imagine, if he were, he would say we are fighting terrorism. that is what we are doing. there may be a way to begin. >> i remember a speech you gave when you were secretary of state in which you word gulf leaders policies, president obama in talking about the concerns of iran's destabilizing activity in
the region said we can help protect our gulf arab allies, external threats. the problem is to protect them from internal threats. you are clear again that you will do that in terms of protecting against those threats but i wanted -- wondered how you deal with that continuing challenge. >> you know very well it is a difficult one. i apologize for my voice. suffering under massive allergy assault. republican histamines are everywhere. [applause] >> this is one of the biggest problems we face. nobody can deny that much of the
extremism in the world today is the direct result of policies and funding undertaken by the saudi government and individuals. we would be foolish not to recognize that increasing lead they would be mistaken not to recognize that. you can never be more extreme than the next extremist and they face some very serious internal problems as do the other regimes. i am not sure they are convinced of that. i am not sure they believe that they have to figure out different ways of dealing with their own population and cooperating with each other. and cutting off funding and exporting troublesome imams to elsewhere. you have to be constantly beating that drum with them and maybe now given the rise of isis and the clear threat they feel
from iranian activities in the gulf that there is an openness there. the king was here last week, had a chance to meet with the president. perhaps there is more of an opportunity for candid dialogue and we have had in the past. >> we have to break away from this speech by hillary clinton at brookings to take you live to the u.s. senate floor. they are about to start there debate sunday iran nuclear agreement. this is live coverage. the earth. today, open the hearts of our lawmakers to what you have done, are doing, and will do for those who love you. as they remember how you led our