tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 19, 2015 10:30pm-12:01am EDT
each of the 12 cases. it will help you with the background as we proceed. we are just about out of time. as we close here just in quick summary, why should someone care about the landmark case as being one of them the slaughterhouse cases? michael: for the same reason they should care about re-construction. one of the areas that americans have a blank spot in their historical memory. the area that defines the meaning of the civil war. the slaughterhouse cases were in part about defining the meaning of the civil war. host: you would say, paul clement? paul: i counted six of the cases left in the series that are major constitutional cases that involve not action by the federal government but by action by the state governments. the reason those are constitutional questions, the reason that when the state government does something to you, you don't like it, you can take it all the time to the united states supreme court is the 14th amendment. it is the fact that cruikshank
>> our original series landmark casing continues next monday with a look at lochner versus new york. the court rules that a new york labor law interfered with the 14th amendment right of businesses and employees to enter into contracts by limiting the number of hours a bakery worker can be required to work. the justices declared that the law was not justified as a legitimate exercise of police powers to protect health and safety. that's live next monday at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. you can learn more about c-span's landmark cases series which explores the human stories and constitutional dramas behind some of the supreme courts most significant decisions by going to c-span.org/landmarkcases. from the web site, you can find
c-span's landmark cases book features background, highlights, and a legal impact of each case written by veteran court and published by c-span in cooperation with cq press. landmark cases is available for $8.95 plus ships. >> we spoke with patrick leahy about the cases. then a discussion from the washington journal" about what to expect. and at midnight, another chance to see the landmark cases on the slaughterhouse cases of 1872.
>> senator patrick leahy, thank you for giving us some time. i would like to start and have you talk about at the role of the supreme court in society today. >> the supreme court is everything in america. we have three branches. the president and the court. their decisions can affect so much. i mean they decided a presidential election. before the ballots were all counted. bush versus gore they changed dramatically the way we finance political elections. they are obviously you've had a great deal of effect when just recently they basically gutted
the voting rights act and some states took that as a chance to disenfranchise a lot of people. now so far better or worse they can do things that affect the average person far more than what we might do in individual acts of congress. host: there's a continuing debate. perhaps it is one that has gotten louder about whether or not the supreme court overreaches and works at a level that wasn't intended bit founders. what is your position on that? senator leahy: some of the members say we must stick to what the founders said. they tend to make that a flexible role depending on what it goes with their own feelings. i think it is a -- it can be a very activist court. perhaps that was foreshadowed
with marbury versus madison. they had been. that's been both good and bad. they basically upheld segregation at one point. then they realized what a mistake they made and years later ruled it illegal. the -- they've done some positive things. ludwig versus virginia. it was only a few decades ago it was illegal for a man, woman of different races to be married. in virginia. they were arrested for that. it is inconceivable to america that would be the case anymore. that's because of the supreme court made it very clear you can't do that. one man and one vote was a major
change. roe versus wade has has -- we debated abortion for years in the country. the supreme court decides the issue in roe versus wade. they've also been very activist and i mention bush versus gore. they decided that election before all of the ballots were counted. thesethese -- i wanttous have a supreme court. but i want a supreme court that is not ideologically polarized but it is more reflective of the country. and being reflective of the country and being first and foremost reflective of the laws of the country. host: let's stay with that. the people who were critical say it is anti-democratic that nine judges get to decide something
or overrule something that the representative branch of government has decided. is it anti-democratic when they look at and review the laws that you have written? senator leahy: in some of the ways it is. take the voting rights act. that was passed decades ago. it was renewed just a few years ago after hundreds and hundreds of hours of debate and hearings. the almost every member of the house representatives, both parties voted for it. they past virtually unanimously in the united states senate. again republicans and democrats. they signed it into law with great pleasure. it is always said by a republican president. this is after weeks and months of debate and hundreds of hours of testimony hearings and so forth.
they had one hearing in the supreme court and one of the justices in the very cavalier ways. they haven't looked at this one. he had heard an hour's worth of argument. by a 5-4 decision, they overroad it. there was no question that when totally against what the american people wanted. but there's a small subset of the american people that wanted it. there were laws passed so some of the people couldn't vote. host: you are the most senior democrat on the committee. you have chaired the panel in the past.
would you explain what the role of the senate judiciary committee is vis vis-a-vis the supreme court? senator leahy: we need to be careful. can i read what i said during the first televised hearings. that's for sandra day o'connor. i said this, if i had to choose one moment to explain the most about the way the american system or government worked it would probably be the moment when we choose the justice of the supreme court. it is a moment when the interest of all three branches of government join. also when the guardianship of the constitution has to be safely conveyed. that we have to stand there and say is that man or woman going to be a guardian of our constitution? they realize in the set as 100
senators we have to make a decision for 300 million americans. the decision we make on a supreme court justice especially goes beyond the time most of us will serve. they are lifetime appointments in the supreme court. if you make a mistake, you don't get to do a do over. host: what do you look for? senator leahy: i'm not as concerned about their philosophy republican, or democrat but will they treat all litigants equally? will they really adhere to the constitution? will they show respect for the laws that have been passed? we have some who i voted against. one person was somniated to the
supreme court. because i heard and read a number of the things about the constitution and the cases. then in his testimony under oath, he's taking what's going to be an entirely different position. i asked him are you having any confirmation conversion? i voted against him, not because i agree to disagree to some of the things he had written or said, but the inconsistency of it bothered me greatly. host: i'm going to dive into some of the specific cases we're looking at in the landmark series. before you came to the senate, you were a prosecutor. two of the cases have to do with rights that would have affected people who were in the judicial system. one of those is the famous miranda case. the other is m. a.p. and the decision and law. would you talk about both of those in the context of your work as a prosecutor and how they changed the process?
senator leahy: it was very interesting. both m.a.p. and miranda came down the time i become a prosecutor. i become the prosecutor and chief law enforcement officer for about a quarter of the state of virginia's population. i was 26 years old. i had been practicing law for only two or three years. i was asked on friday if i would take over the job on monday. they had all kinds of problems in the states attorney office. he was leaving. i took it over. i did some cram studies. i realize the police had not been adviced. i held seminars most evenings on my own time. i would bring in police officers and train them. i still have retired police officers that come up to them and show me the miranda card
with my name on it. i had them printed up at my own expense. i also try to point out to them these help follow in the rules of m.a.p. follow in the -- if you have a -- if you do the wrong thing and seizing something is going to be excluded or following the rules of miranda, if you don't warn people of their rights, you cannot use a confession that they make. these rules are here to protect you as well the person you are arresting. and follow them. if you are -- if you got a good case, you are going to have it no matter what. make sure -- make sure the people's rights are respected. because i also knew for my own work in defending cases before, sometimes you get the wrong person. i want to show you respect in the rights all the way along. now at that time, it was very
controversial. what do you mean we have to read this guilty, accused, we have here is that somebody once said. in fact, a former attorney general once used that expression. the guilty accused. but we knew we had to tell them their rights. of course you did. because think of it this way what if you were arrested for something? and you may think, look, they got the wrong guy. wouldn't you want to know what your rights are? that sunk in pretty heavily. before cases were being thrown out because they weren't being followed, none of my cases were thrown out. police may grumble, but they followed the rules. now it is inconceivable sort of in my state to not follow those rules. it is just ingrained. host: in the case of map the exclusion rule has had more and
certainly into the age of people accused of acts of treasuring against -- terrorism against the united states. senator leahy: we have a nation of laws. if you don't have something like map or an an exclusionary rules. we'll follow the rules. not the one time. we have to ill mother the rules. that's a very easy and treacherous to go down. i have members of the senate when osama bin laden's son-in-law was captured. and going to be prosecuted in new york. in new york city. they were saying it was
terrible. you can't have them come there. worse than that, they read him his rights. they told him that. my response to that is we are a nation that believes in laws. don't we want to show that example to the rest of the world? i said frankly if you were a prosecutor in new york city and you had osama bin laden's son-in-law being charged and you have all of the evidence against him whether he con fezzed or not, you would do anything tonight one prosecuting that case. of course, he was convicted. we also sent the signal to the rest of the world that we follow the rule of law. that's why i worry about something like guantanamo. that's not the image of the united states we want to give. ultimately, it plays against us.
you can always find a case, somewhere, where by following the rules somebody might get away with something. it happens so rarely. but if you don't follow the rules, that's what you do, then we -- none of us get away. we are all hurt by it. host: another area in the current age from map has precedent is on warrantless wiretapping. you were so involved in privacy issues and digital and internet issues. how does the map decision affect the governments interest and public safety interest there? senator leahy: that's a good question. we've gone through some great debates on this. we've just had another one on how we -- what we are allowed to get. it becomes more and more difficult. with the way we communicate today. it is not -- when i was a prosecutor you get a warrant
and get eclipsed to a telephone line somewhere. here with electronic devices and all, you might not be able to put the idea that we have a blanket sweep from all of us. in the long run, that's going to hurt us. that's not going to make us safer. getting back to the rules, the example that you used is this: if you had papers in your desk at home, you fully expect that the police want to come into your home and look at those papers. they are going to have to get a warrant. to come in and look at them. now if you are holding it -- those same files in the cloud and you've got it somewhere on the internet or communicating like that, shouldn't they have to follow the same rules? it is your privacy we're talking about. everybody said we need this to be safer. especially since 9/11. we had all of the information before 9/11 to stop that attack
from happening. we just didn't take the information they had and appropriately had and connect the dots. if you collect everything, in many ways, you have nothing. learn to do better analysis of it. we had at the time very few people looking at this material who could speak the languages of those who were in the wiretaps. we learned from that. but it doesn't make us less safe to have to follow the rules of law. host: change subjects because you referenced earlier the voting rights act. one of the case we've chosen for the series is baker versus carr. it was call the most significant case during the tenure on the court. do you agree? if so, why?
senator leahy: i do. i do. i was in law school at the time in georgetown. i remember us talking about it. i said we all have a right to vote. i grew up in vermont. you assumed that. i came down here, and i realized it didn't always work that way. i also realized that the way you could have things where you dis proportionate to voting. they said no. we're americans. americans can vote and americans should be allowed to vote. host: the impact of it over the court of time has been what? senator leahy: i think it has probably changed much in the united states. i think one of the impacts is
you see people trying to erode it. you have to ask why. host: you mention chief justice warren. several of the cases are from his tenure. when you look back at warren period, haas his significance on the court's history? senator leahy: i think the fact that he tried to get a unanimous court. there was going to be a split court. they kept it going a couple of years win -- years, i think the court complexity changed. then they had it unanimous. i don't think that president
eisenhower would have felt the ability or the need to enforce it if it hadn't been unanimous supreme court. our honor society law schools invited the supreme court for lunch, and they came on the insistent they don't have a head table. they want to sit at tables with some of the students. my wife and i got to sit with hugo black. he was a man who had been a segregationist. you know, from the south. he joined in these historic things. he made it very clear to the students if we're going to do something significant in this
country, it is going to have to be done unanimously. otherwise people are going to question what the court is doing. now you know and i know that's not always going to happen. i think the warren court tried very hard to do that. to make it unanimous. and i think when you see some of the cases, you see some of the bitter dissents in some cases it is because you are justices that know why we don't work harder to make this unanimous. bush versus gore is very, very hard for people to agree to because it was a split court. the citizens united, these were cases. shelby county. look at some of the notes that
i'm going over some of these things. the citizens united split the court just stevens read his dissent from the bench. remember justice stevens was a republican nominee. and he -- president ford dominated him. he felt very very strongly about this. one of the reasons was people don't trust it. they see it as a purely political decision. i think it is damaged the supreme court.
host: we have about eight minutes left. four of cases that we have chosen have to deal with the 14th amendment. is that coincidental or has the court taken on cases? senator leahy: that's interesting. 114 years since part of the second founding. host: why do you call it that? senator leahy: well, we had the founding fathers. when those series of amendments came through, it is like the united states become more aware of what they are and more aware of the fact slavery ending and so on that we had to treat all people the same. now you know and i know having said at that time, it look a long long time. some places in the country it is still going on.
but it was some of the second founding. it was a second coming of the united states. why they picked so many in that i really don't know. but i do know that even among those who claim to be strict constructionist, they've gone way off of the reservation. citizens united say that corporations of citizens -- i mean the absurdity. you push that to what it means. general eisenhower was elected president. why can't we elect general electric? it is as absurd as citizens united. it means just a handful of people with huge amounts of money can influence what all of us as americans do.
host: one of the other cases you preferred to as an notorious era in american history. we've chosen the lochner case. why did you call that a notorious time in american history? senator leahy: well, there's a case here we're not going to look at everybody in the country. we're going to look at only those the wealthy and the well connected. we don't have to care about the others. host: the lochner era was about 32 years long. senator leahy: then you have the threat from franklin roosevelt. i have to assume that president roosevelt knew it would never happen. they expressed that time. the supreme court reads the papers. then they started changing. there was the sense that we all
come from the privileged class. i mean we've got to take care of ours. i thought that if you were a supreme court justice or u.s. senator that you were supposed to take care of everybody. obviously you lochner they were not. that's a distinct improvement moving away from that. ultimately -- excuse me. it ultimately showed the same members of the supreme court. they said we can't do anything but this. they thought wait a minute. we may actually get replace and expand the court. they try to say you mean those ideas of protecting employees? of course they are okay. host: we have just about five minutes left. one of the cases that is on our list was actually youngstown
steel. harry truman was sent to rights for his intention of seizing the steel mills. there's a big debate over executive power right now. i wonder what you think of the supreme court's role in this checks and balances of making decision about executive power. senator leahy: you can go back to the supreme court on the checks and balances. you can go back to marbury versus madison. it is well established. any president has used executive power. the easy answer is if congress doesn't like it, pass a law. there's been criticism of president obama using executive power in immigration. the senate two yeared ago passed by a 2-1 region on comprehensive immigration bill. the president at this passed the
house also and signed into law. the president would not be doing any executive power. a few in the tea party told the house they couldn't bring it up. even though it probably would have passed. it was never brought up. it has to be frustrating to a president. i still have to help run the country. they use the executive authority. again any time a president oversteps his authority, then the congress can pass a law. you haven't seen the congress -- the congress has talked about it a lot. especially those of the 40 or 50 that seem to be running for president this year will talk about that. i don't see passing a law to change what the president did. host: in our final two or three minutes that we have left, let's go macro again. i'm wandering if you look over
the arc of the court that you've studied over the year and worked with in your role on capitol hill, what's the greatest periods of the court's history? the early days or sometime after that? senator leahy: i think you can pick the different times when they've -- i mention marbury versus madison. i'm sure that was some of the thought what in the heck are they doing? yet it is established the supreme court is an equal power. then you see things like dred scott. that was a terrible decision. it hurt us for years. so it ebbs and flows. you are talking about lochner and others. there was some bad parts. then when individual rights were brought up during the war in court and elsewhere, that was a very good movement.
we sat and talked about one person and one vote. a very, very good vote. a woman's right to choose, i believe a very good one. they would disagree. i think now we're going into a shaded and concerned area where the right to vote is being in the shelby case. now this is being diminished greatly. at that, if it continues, this country is going to be badly damaged by it allowing untraveled amounts of money to control our elections. that's going to hurt us. that's going to put us back to the age where only the wealthy and only certain individuals have a power in the country instead of one person and one vote having a real substance. it will also bring about a cynicism and a disillusionment
among voters. the country will suffer by that. host: right now the supreme court along with the congress is suffering in public approval ratings. what do you see is the genesis of that? senator leahy: it is suffering because people are not reflective on what they think. it is a huge amount of frustration. i hear it from voters. how do we stand up to all of the money? how do we stand up to the fact that the court makes decisions that just totally ignore what congress has passed. how do we actually have a voice? i think in a complex society -- remember we're not a homogeneous county. we have all kinds of backgrounds in where we live and what our backgrounds are racially and age and education. they are seeing it as not being
reflective of the country and this great melting pot to use the older expression. they say it is not reflecting. it is reflecting only a certain privileged few. unless we get away for that, the actions of the congress and the actions of the supreme court are not going to be respected by the people in the nation. host: on that note, we have to say thank you for your time. senator leahy: i hope it will get better. host: that's an optimistic note to end on. >> hillary clinton is set to testify before the house benghazi committee this week. we'll get an idea on to what expect this week. also a talk about the 2016 presidential race. we're joined live former utah governor and 2012 presidential candidate, john huntsman, who
co-chairs no labels. you get a chance to weigh in on twitter. "washington journal" is live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> here's our schedule beginning this weekend. we're live in the nation's heartland for the wisconsin book festival in madison. at the end of the month, we'll be in nashville. at the start of november, we're back on the east coast for the boston book festival. in the middle of the month, it is the louisiana book festival in baton rouge. at the end of the november we're live for the 18th year in a row from florida for the miami book fair international and the national book awards from new york city. just some of the fairs and festivals this fall on c-span2's
booktv. >> the iran nuclear agreement was formerly adapted today, setting in motion several conditions that were agreed on in mid july. iran will start the process of demissioning the centrifuges and uranium. the effort is expected to take six months. on "washington journal" we learned more about the conditions of the deal and what else to expect moving forward. michael: good morning. the caption signified the start of the clock.
it was negotiated in july. then it was endorsed by the u.n. security council. then there was a period for review. then it made it through iran. then it marks the states which are the party to the deal have to start implementing their commitments under the deal. now you saw president obama and his counterparts in the european union sign some orders that would put sanctions relief into place. not right now but once iran for its part finishes the things it needs to do. remove the core from the heavy water reactor start to moth ball centrifuges, start to dilute the enriched uranium. once that is done, the sanctions
relief comes into effect. the deal is underway. host: back to the protest of the review. you used that term. it was noted it was not treated as a treaty. they weighed in. they didn't get an up or down vote. how about the parliament or the council? did they have to approve it? michael: the process is a lot more opaque. it wasn't clear the parliament was going to review the deal. until the supreme court leader who holds supreme court power in iran. they said the parliament should review the deal. then it underwent some debate in the parliament. ultimately they approved it. even after they approve it, it has to get subsequently approved by an appointed council. a council of guardians. the process doesn't move anything like it. it is not as routine or regular as our process. it is a more ad hoc process.
host: the steps now the steps that we the united states end the p5 plus one will be able to take and observe the iranians are living up to their end of the bargain. what do they include? michael: the steps the iranians need to take to get their nuclear program to what will be the steady state over the next eight to ten years. they need to go from where they are now which is a robust nuclear program to the sort of lesser program that president obama has touted as the key benefit of the deal. so that again involves taking out the core of their plutonium producing heavy water reactor so it can't produce all of the plutonium. it means taking thousands of centrifuges and moth balling them. they have about 6,000 left in place as opposed to the 19,000. it involves taking the large pile and reducing it.
president obama has used 98% which they will do either by sending that uranium out of the country or down blending it into natural uranium. there's a number of steps. one question, bill the iranians will face is can they do all of these steps? these are steps they probably haven't taken in a significant way before. how long it will take? host: who is the organization that's responsible for observing that these steps are being taken? michael: this will be the international atomic energy agency, the iaea is responsible for not just monitoring the deal over the next 10-15 years, but for certifying that iran has taken the initial steps. the iaea also has to certify by december 15th that iran has cooperated with the investigation into the past nuclear weapons research. this is another element of the deal which u.s. officials have been speaking about over the
weekend because that investigation, that sort of iaea report happens according to a timeline. a lot of people have said this is really just a way to put this issue to the side essentially. host: michael singh is the guest with the "washington journal." we're talking about the iranian nuclear agreement. we welcome your comments and call. the line for republicans democrats, and independents are open. if i want to tweet us, we're at c-spanwj. the headline in the "usa today" says obama orders waives. they say the president designed a waiver to begin issues waivers. the waivers will go into effect only once iran meets its obligation limiting the nuclear program. is there an idea for a timeline before and how long the
sanctions will be lifted and what's the monetary value? michael: as far as the timeline, the iranians would like it to be as short as possible. i think the united states and the -- the partners in the p5 plus one are mainly interested in iran complying. they are skeptical it will be long enough to take a run. i will an it is pating it will be spring or next summer before we see implementation day which is the day they will be lifted. in terms of the value, there's a couple of different parts of this. iran will have some assets unfrozen which are being held in foreign banks. that probably amounts to $50 billion in usable cash and money on additional hundred billion
which is tied up for various reasons. then it will also mean the lifting of sanctions on iran's oil sector, various other sectors, and there again the value over the course of the deal over the 10-15 years will be tremendous for iran. it really means perhaps a renewal of economic growth, a removal of the isolation which iran has been under for decades now. host: is there a piece of the sanction? you mention oil. will the united states be able to import oil from iran or other goods? michael: you won't be seeing any economic activity. the sanctions which prevent an american oil firm from going and doing business in iran will remain in place. those national sanctions are not going to change. host: mandated by congress? michael: mandated by congress. there aren't any waivers. they are the secretary or extraterritorial sanctions. these were the penalties that the united states was applying
to foreign firms that decided to do business in iran. the other sanctions that get lifted will be the united nation sanctions. they will remain in place that stop u.s. companies. host: what's the organization that implements the date? or is that dictated by the agreement itself? michael: it is dictated by the agreement itself. iran has to complete the initial commitments before implementation day can happen. they will be certified by the iaea. there has to be consensus or agreement amongst the other parties to the deal, the p5 plus one that iran has done these things. host: a call first to larry on the republican line. good morning, go ahead. caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: yes, we can. caller: this is c-span. to mr. singh and c-span, the
first that he did was ali as he gave the permission of the associate press or whoever. they have 500,000 feet and iran has missiles under ground not for peaceful purpose. why would it be underground under a bunker? before that, january, they are showing you what they are going to do. they made a replica of the u.s. limits. they fired upon it. they are gloating. president obama is a fool. with the new movie, bridge of spies." let a girl cry? that's where we are heading. getting to the comply nation of klum columbia, university, and harvard. we're going to pay the price with the whole world. host: in addition to what he said, let me ask you about the conviction of jason rizzo and
the firing of the iranian test missile. what's the general thought about why those took place and why the iranians would do something before the adoption day took place? michael: sure. i think the callers is getting at this is a narrow deal we signed with the iranians. when it comes down to it, it really only requires iran to take some pretty limited steps with regard to elements of its nuclear program. in exchange, iran gets a fairly broad view. they made no commitments to change its regime -- regional strategy. the u.s. didn't require iran to change the regional strategy or the basic approach to the united states. we do see iran sending more
troops. it didn't require iran to change its strategy more broadly. not only did it bring about a more warming, the opening to china did. it left missiles out of the deal well. a lot of people again including myself would say iran's missile program is, in fact part of its nuclear program in a sense. you can't have a nuclear weapon without a missile delivery vehicle. in fact the deal not only doesn't restrict iran's missile activities, it lifts some of the restrictions on iran's missile activities right up front. then even more of them in about eight years. what iran did in testing that missile under the deal was a violation of sanks -- sanctions because of the timing. it is something that the president has agreed to allow under the deal. host: with the adoption day, the elements are underway. we're talking about it michael singh. we welcome your comments today
on the republican line, democrat line and independent line. kelly is in rome, georgia. republican line. caller: yes. thank you so much for taking my call. i just -- i've noticed a few things over since the iran deal has been -- gone into agreement. number one, they've already violated two things. they have already win to moscow. he was told he could not leave the country. number two, you just mentioned the missiles. the missiles can already reach israel or anything like that. those missiles are meant to meet and reach places like the united states. number three they have not changed their rhetoric at all
about wiping israel off of the face of the earth nor less the great satan, the america or the united states. it seems our president wants to sing as they put thousands of soldiers into syria and our p5 plus one included russia and -- i mean it is just a disgrace at what is going on. everyone not include the hostages before i would have ever allowed the iranians into that room, that would have been included those hostages would have been released before i ever would have allowed them into the room. host: that's kelly in georgia. just to add on to what she had
to say, they tweeted a question. how does the case additional tension to the iran deal? michael: sure. kelly races some of the same issues the previous caller raised. this is a limited deal that frankly left a lot out. we're not getting as a result of the deal a sort of broadly changed policy from the iranians. i think the administration has defended that in two ways. they've said the nuclear weapons are the biggest threat. at least it gets those off of the table. one could quibble or argue with that. to the extent the deal affects iran's nuclear program, it does so for a limited amount of time. it only affects one out of three elements of the nuclear programs. it gets at the question of the production of fuel. we don't see again the broader change in policy from the iranians. i think the other answer is this may be a first step in getting
this -- the biggest source of tension out of the relationship maybe now we can see a sort of broader reconciliation or steps toward a reconciliation between the u.s. and iran. i think if anything iran's action since the signing of the deal have suggested the opposite. what we'll see is at very least a continuation of iran's hostile policies toward the united states. we'll also see iran look not to the united states but to moscow and beijing for friendship. i think things like the continued attention of jason reazian and all of the steps mentioned bit caller are taken as evidence of that. as far as jason reazian and his fate? i think it is hard to know what will happen with him now. it is hard to know if he's being held as a leverage against the united states, weather he's being held by hard liners or another faction in iran. they will have to keep pressing
for his release. host: the headline in the "wall street journal" he was convicted by the tribunal in tehran. they have the ability to implement could be compromised said the former u.s. officials involved in the diplomacy. you were involved in the security measures. how much of a concern was iran on -- in your tenure during the bush administration? michael: it was a tremendous concern. over the course of the 2000, iran become even more of a concern as time went on. as they made progress towards a nuclear weapons capability. it was in 2002 that the sort of here to for secret nuclear facilities were discovered in iran. there was a decision to pursue the basic policy of imposing pressure on iran through sanctions and credible military threats while pursuing a
diplomatic, negotiated agreement. that basic sort of model didn't change over the ensuing ten years. they think the objectives to rid iran of the nuclear weapons capability changed along the way under the obama administration. host: let's hear from mary who is in grand ledge, michigan. go ahead. caller: good morning. i would like to say that i agree with everything that the young man has said as well as the most -- most of the callers, kelly, hit a nerve. two other things i'd like to bring up: one is i believe from watching the senate hearings we're required to help iran if they are -- say remember the virus that we were sending that billy bradley manning outed us
on when we were slowing down the centrifuges cyberly. if anybody else tries to do that to iran, we are now required by this agreement to help them and to out if israel tries to attack them in that way. second thing is i believe we are also required -- now everybody keeps saying this is iran's money they are getting back with the sanctions. fine. however america itself will be paying, i believe it is about $10 million a year for iran to inspect its own nuclear military sites. is that or is that not correct? host: appreciate the call, mary. michael: these two issues are issues that came up in the congressional hearings. will we will required to guard
about nuclear sabotage in the iranians have said military sites are off limits. host: just nuke your sites. michael: what they said. president obama said there's no exemption for any sites. that's not the case. there's a lot of nuclear cooperation that has offered as part of the deal. it is under various subheadings and nuclear safety and research. these things are not meant to sort of be stopgaps against the united states or any other country sort of responding to iranian cheating under the deal. they are not meant to sort of help iran guard against us in a sense. they are sort of extended as a form of sort of nuclear safety or civilian nuclear cooperation. i think what we'll need to keep a close eye on what the united states and others will need to watch is the activities don't become a sort of cover for other
countries helping iran with aspects of its nuclear program which aren't aloud under the deal. they don't become a cover for cheating. that will require a careful monitoring and inspections. on the second part, you know, about military sites. host: yeah. michael: you know, one of the key controversial sort of weaknesses in the deal is that iran does not give inspectors the right to go any time and anywhere. if inspectors feel there might be say a military site or any other site which is not a declared nuclear site, but they worry that covert nuclear work is going on there, there's the back and forth between the iaea inspectors and tea ran. there's a 24-day period before the issue comes to a head. the way the issue is resolved that the military site where iran is doing some sampling of its own with iaea supervision has not lead folks here in
washington or elsewhere to feel this will be an airtight process. now it falls upon the iaea and on the obama administration to demonstrate the inspection and monitoring process can happen in a way that satisfies the critics and international community. host: here's danny on the democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call. sir, in the first place, this was not a treaty or anything. this was an international agreement between six different countries; right? i think the way it was set up, all of the countries had to agree to the whole package. there wasn't no agreement. am i right? obama allowed this year. what about the other five countries? michael: sure.
it is an agreement between iran and the p5 plus one which includes russia, china, uk, france, and the united states endorsed by the entire u.n. security council. this is now an international agreement. i think from the perspective of the united states, the deal could not have gone forward without the united states agreeing to it. the provisions in the deal could not have gone forward without u.s. acquiescence. it is not the hardest line in the sense of the p5 plus one. they recall the french foreign minister being tougher on some of the provisions than our own officials were. i think that it is fairly frankly to say whatever is in the deal it is not solely the responsibility of the united states. it was an negotiation. you can't simply dictate the terms. i think it is fair to say the united states at some level is comfortable with these provisions. the administration is comfortable with the provisions. they've been frankly defending them vociferously.
i think it is not in this case unfair to associate these provisions with the u.s. negotiators. host: a couple of comments on twitter. with the new money they can buy bombs that korea and moscow will sell to them. and they say when iran violates the treaty treaty/deal/agreement what are the options? the u.s. sanctions that are not affected. we talked a little bit about that. go ahead. michael: sure. the question of buying a fully fledged nuclear weapon. it is a concern. nothing in the deal allows that. hopefully nothing in the deal makes it easier. the bigger concern, i would say would be duel use items. items which could have an extensive civilian purpose and have a co-vet nuclear purpose coming into iran. the deal attempts to police those kinds of purchases.
i would say that procurement channel is something that needs to be improved upon. it is -- as you look at it in the tale, it is not sufficient. not so much the purpose of the nuclear weapon. it is a concern but one that isn't affected by the deal. it is by a series of nuclear weapons related items. when it comes to violations, look, one criticism of the deal is that the only penalty for violation which is prescribed in the deal is the full snap back of the previously sort of prevailing u.n. security council sanctions which means the entire deal is canceled. it is a very significant penalty. it makes you think it will probably only be applied in significant circumstances when there's major violations. the question that arises is about what incremental violations? what about small violations? there's nothing in the deal about that. neither the united states or the
european partner have spelled out how to respond to such violations. the concern is that there won't be responses to smaller violations and that frankly when iaea inspectors feel like they need access to a site, if they don't feel like they are 100% sure about intelligence or information, maybe they won't press the case for access knowing the result could be the unraveling of the deal itself. so this is again a flaw that we'll need to address. we'll need to come up with a menu of options. host: comely indicating the launch, it was a well publicized launch. the headline in the "wall street journal" said the missile didn't violate the nuclear deal. president obama was also asked about whether it did. he spoke at a joint news conference last week. here's what the president -- president obama had to say. president obama: with respect to iran, iran has often violated
some of the prohibitions surrounding missile testing. our position with respect to u.n. resolutions prohibitions, and potential sanctions are unchanged with respect to their their -- to the missile programs. and this thing that i made very clear during the debate around the iran nuclear deal. the iran nuclear deal solves a specific problem which is making sure they don't possess a nuclear weapon. it is our best way to do that. it does not fully resolve the wide range of issues where we've got a big difference. and so we are going to have to continue to put pressure on them through the international community and where we have biolateral channels through biolateral channels to indicate
there are costs to bad behavior in the region and around the world. host: why wasn't nuclear testing and missile testing part of the deal? michael: it is a bit technical. the nuclear deal doesn't stop them from conducting them. there's nothing in the deal that says they can't do this. what the nuclear deal does is it lifts a previous prohibition on such missile tests that was found in u.n. security council resolution 1929. that resolution, resolution 1929, is still in effect. it won't be come implementation day. we're in the middle period now. where those resolutions are still in effect. we contemplate lifting them. what the president is saying this doesn't violate the nuclear deal. the nuclear deal doesn't prevent iran. it does violate u.n. security council resolutions.
come implementation day next spring, it won't. it is very problematic. the president says this deal is meant to stop iran from getting a nuclear weapon. iran would need a missile to launch a nuclear weapon at another country. and iran would need an intercontinental ballistic missile to reach the united states. i think one big concern is if the deal allows iran to continue to perfect its missile capabilities if they choose to violate the deal in the future, they may be well positioned to have that capability. host: ten more minutes or so. get back to the calls. we hear from joseph in owensborough kentucky. caller: thanks for taking my call. lifelong republican. i always vote accordingly. i've done some research into how accurate and on cue ron paul was
in office. he told us things. he might be a psychic. everything he has said has come true. nobody listened to him. they marginalized him. i'm curious to where we would be today if ron paul was elected president and not marginalized by the establishment media. now they've done the same thing to rand paul. rand paul leads in all of the polls, he gets more money from individuals, he gets more money from the military, and now the media doesn't say nothing about him because they know he's such a threat. host: a little off topic. we welcome your comment. we're talking about the iran nuclear deal. good morning on the republican
line. caller: yes, i had a friend in college. he was from iran. he was -- the old shah is dead. the son is still alive. are there still parties to back out and talk them out of doing this? host: whatever happened to the green revolution in iran? michael: sure. obviously the green revolution which broke out in 2009, it was tremendously significant. in many ways, a precursor top arabic risings. you had three million people in tehran. it was crushed by the iranian regime. it set off a sort of very political contest in iran. you had sort of mounting political opposition even within the regions and factions against the hard liners against the
supreme leaders. in many ways, the election who is regarded as a relative fragmentist was a way for the regime to try to release some of the steam and pressure. i think the question now though is will the expectations that iranians have invested in president rouhani that will be he able to deliver a better life for iranians and a loosens of the social and thrill -- political fixes. he has elections in march of next year. we'll see how the deal has affected the politics when we watch the elections. one thing that's very clear right now, no more dealings with the united states. the iranian courts have said the handshake they had at the
general assembly was espionage. this is a very controversial issue in iran. the idea of a further warmings with the united states. there are plenty of people against it. host: the bbc has a map of the nuclear site looking at iran. of the four sites listed here of these nuclear site, which one concerns you the most? michael: what concerns me the most about facilities that none of them will be closed. they were revealed in 2002. they were kept secret in covert and the nuclear weapons related work was being done. host: these were underground ones? michael: no. these were aboveground. the one revealed by president obama in 2010, that's the one that's buried deep underground. it has no clear weapon a covert
nuclear weapons purpose. the iranians have built all of the facilities in violation to the international obligations. the end results after the ten or even 12 years of diplomacy is that all of the facilities to some extent will remain operational. i think the one that is most concerns is the one buried underground. if they could convert that, it is the most difficult for us to cope with and contend with. because the iranians will take the lesson they need a deeper or more well guarded facility in the future. host: here's ben in virginia. on the democrats line. welcome. caller: good morning. thank you for your presentation, mr. singh. iran has had a nuclear program for a very long time. including under the shah. at times the united states has
supported and encouraged that program. most of the -- a lot of the people who work in the program were trained in the u.s. and so on. it seems to me that since no new country, aside from this year went the nuclear route all of these years this new deal will reduce the likelihood not only in the region, but internationally. it will strengthen the non-proliferation regime. as an indication, when the iranian parliament approved the deal, one of the conditions or one of the things that the bill they passed -- one of the stipulations was that the government worked towards the
nuclear or disarmament of israel which has the only nuclear undeclared arsenal. do you think that this deal will actually encourage israel to be more open about its nuclear weapons program and perhaps ultimately lead to a nuclear -- a middle east nuclear weapons free zone which countries in the region have encouraged but which the u.s. with israel's agreement has generally tried to stymie? host: we'll get a response. thank you. michael: sure. if you look at the way the nuclear weapons have spread, it is not right to say there haven't been more nuclear weapons. we've seen india and pakistan and north korea develop nuclear weapons. generally speaking nuclear
weapons upset. they want to develop the nuclear weapons of their own to sort of balance that capability out. i think the concern about the iran nuclear weapons deal is not that it sets a gold standard in non-proliferation. it doesn't because it does allow iran to pursue uranium and pursue heavy water reactors. it does require them to account for the nuclear weapons. you'll see the arrivals like the saudi arabia and egypt and turkey have a stronger incentive. maybe not to pursue an actual nuclear weapon, but to be ready to produce a nuclear weapon if iran cheats on the deal. i think a lot of that decision making also comes down to the question of the united states role in the region. a lot of these considerates feel
as though the united states is disengaging. they see the nuclear deal as evidence of the united states to extricate itself. the sense that now we have to fend for ourselves may further reinforce the desire to get nuclear weapons. i worry the effect, will be the opposite. host: we're reading a lot of the reports out of the newspapers and online. what are some of the ways you educate yourself above and beyond what's reported in the media? michael: sure. in terms of primary energy is the international italic energy agency which puts out reports to how iran is complying or not complying with the deal. i look around the community here in washington. there's a lot of serious non-proliferation experts on both sides of the deal those supporting it and criticizing
it. people like david albright for the science and international security. deputy director general of the iaea. people like robert einhorn who was one of the u.s. negotiators in the early stages of this and now is back in the think tank community here. i do think -- i'll say that one thing which i think is quite important is that we notary's this to a partisan question. the question given iran's record of supporting terrorism is probably the most serious national security issue that we face. we can have our debate as to whether this was a good deal or bad deal. it is very important we approach this in a bipartisan way of how to address any flaws in the deal? is the deal going to be sustainable? how do we reinforce the norms globally so we.net face this type of problem again in the future? host: couple of comments on twitter. yesterday was when the adopt day kicked in.
the white house tweeted today mark an important moil stone toward preventing iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. they write the snap back has dismissed as not a real option. one more call here from john on the democrats line. caller: good morning. thanks for your time. it is -- i'm still scratching my head why given the bush doctrine and the neokhan doctrine which driven from bush's legacy. given libya syria, iran, now afghanistan in total disarray, our biggest ally in the middle eastern and egypt, you know, it is now ruled by an iron hand. i'm still -- why did every single republican in the house and senate vote against a
diplomatic resolution to iran's nuclear deal? it seems to me they are all sting clinging to the neokhan strategy. it was a total disaster for our country and money spent. are you for this negotiated treaty or not? michael: the interesting thing about congressional debate is that prior to this deal being signed, there was very strong bipartisan consensus in congress as to how to approach the issue. you had iran's sanks bills passing 99 to zero. this is unusual. these days in a polarized washington for anything to enjoy that kind of support. what you saw in the congressional debate was it doesn't just republicans voting against the deal. you had quite a few democrats. the folks on the fence were not the republicans but many democrats who were conflicted.
even those who voted in support did so with grave resolution. not because they felt it was a great deal, but they felt the other options were fore closed by that point. so you see that actually the concerns over the deal are bipartisan. they are actually widely shared. i think it will be again a big mistake to try to cast this in terms of the iraq war, libya bipartisan neokhans and so forth. we hear that language a lot. i don't think it is helpful for resolving the national security issue. i think whoever is the next president, they will not have been responsible for negotiating the deal. they don't have a personal investment in it. they will need to look at it and try to protect the upsides and protect the downsides. whether you are a democrat or republican, there will be a sanctions component. how will we address the support for terrorism, what it is doing in syria and iran. we'll have to do that not through direct military
intervention, but hopefully we can use the other tools we have which is are powerful. it is not the folks who are expressing concerns are not in favor of the negotiated agreement. it is the question of does it resolve the issue? no. at best it kicks the can down the road. we'll have to deal with it again. host: michael singh is the managing director. you can follow their reporting on this and their coverage of this at washington institute's web site and also on twitter. thank you for being with us this morning. >> former secretary of state, hillary clinton, is set to testify against the house committee of benghazi this week. we'll get an idea what to expect with lanny davis. also a talk about the 2016 presidential race. we're joined by former utah
governor and legislator, john huntsman. you get a chance to weigh in on phone and twitter. "washington journal" is live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> c-span is home to the debates. this year we're taking our road to the white house coverage into class rooms with the student camera. giving students the opportunity to discuss the important issues they want to hear the most. follow the student cam contest and road to the white house 2016 on tv, on the radio and online at c-span.org. >> president obama hosted a cer
round table at the white house. he spoke briefly with the media following that meeting. president obama: i just had the opportunity to meet with ceos from across the country who are acting on climate change. historically when you start talking about an issue like climate change, the perception is that this is an environmental issue, it is for tree huggers and that hard headed business people either don't care about it or see it as a conflict with their bottom lines. and this conversation has confirmed what we've known for quite sometime. it is that considerations of climate change, energy efficiency renewable energies are not only contradictory to their bottom lines, but for the companies, they are discovering they can enhance their bottom
lines. for decadeses our addiction to fossil fuels and imported oil i think not only threatened our planet and our security but also our economy. and what we've been able to do over the last seven years is even as we obtain the number one status in the production of oil and gas, what we've also been able to do is to slowly begin the transition of our economy to a cleaner, smarter approach to using energy. many of the companies sitting around here have been at the forefront of that process. we have now doubled our production of clean energy, we've been reducing our carbon footprint even as the economy grows, and this progress isn't just creating a safer planet, it is also creating jobs and business opportunities and it is
something that customers are increasingly looking for. thanks in part to investments there are parts of america where clean power is actually not only competitive but in some cases cheaper than traditional sources of energy. we have seen, for example companies like walmart install on site solar capacity. more actively than just about any other company. we've seen google become the largest corporate purchaser of renewable energy in the world with companies like apple and costco close behind. today the ceos around the table who have been extraordinary work are determined to go even further. we've got 81 companies who have signed on to the american business act on climate change. they operate in all 50 states. they've got about nine million employees collectively and $5
trillion bother of market cap. these are some of the cutting edge, most extraordinary business that is we have. it is not just the big companies that are getting involved, it is their suppliers and small businesses that are also getting involved in saying number one we need a strong outcome in paris as we go for the climate summit there. and number two, we need to have a partnership between business and the federal government, state government local government not-for-profit sector all to continue to achieve aggressive reductions in the carbon footprint as a leader. all told right now the commitments that the companies are making, the total of at least $160 billion. it ranges from reducing emission s to reducing water usage to pursuing zero deforestation to purchasing 100%
clean energy represented around the table. we've got companies as diverse as intel which is obviously one of the leading high-tech innovators. it is one of the chip manufacturest and inventors. they are -- not only are they doing the right thing in the production of the products, they are facilitating along with some of their suppliers the ability for us to pursue the data that we need for companies to become even more energy efficient. we've got big utes like pg and e that have been at the forefront making it economic for the customers to get clean energy. one of the things we discussed is the importance of us getting a smarter grid and transition so that we are able to work to get energy from one part of the country to another part of the
country in an efficient way that doesn't have a lot of leakage but can end up really feeding an increasing demand on the part of customers for clean energy. we've got chocolate companies that are doing the right thing in terms of how they are getting their inputs and farmers who are doing a wonderful job in california and recognizing in light of changing temperature what they need to do to be much more energy and environmentally conscious. the big companies like berkshire hathaway that the whole range of industries. the bottom line is this: we have to do something about climate change. not only is it it going to have an impact on our children and our grandchildren and we have a moral obligation to leave them a planet that is as wonderful as the one that we inherited from
our fore bearers. it is really important for americas bottom line and economic growth that we do something about the climate change. if we are at the forefront of this if we are the innovators, and if we are the early adapters and setters, then we are the ones who are going to be creating and selling the products and services that help the entire world adapt to a clean energy future. if we are lagging behind, it is not going to happen. so as we look at this major conference that we're going to be having in paris in just a few months where we've already mobilized the international community, including china to participate. i just want everybody to understand that american businesses want this to happen as well. what they do need is certainty. it is going to be very hard for them to operate if they don't
know what the rules of the road are. and what we're trying to do is make sure that everybody is on a fair playing field. everybody is going their part to make sure that we're saving this planet. if we're able to establish those kinds of rules and that's the goal that we're setting forth in paris, i have no doubt that these companies are going to excel. that's going to mean jobs, businesses, and opportunity alongside cleaner air and a better environment. so i'm very grateful to all of you for participating. i'm looking forward to getting even more companies on board in the months and years to come. all right. thank you very much, everybody. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> president obama has promised to veto the defense programs bill passed by congress earlier this month. it funds pentagon operations in military pay. senator john mccain and representative mac thornbury
will talk about the pending veto at the berkings institute live at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> a signature feature of book tv is the all day coverage of book fairs and festivals from across the country with top non-fiction authors. here's our schedule beginning this weekend. we're live in the nation's heartland for the wisconsin book festival in madison. at the end of the month, we'll be in nashville. at the start of november, we're back on the east coast for your boston book festival. in the middle of the month, it is the louisiana book festival in baton rouge. we're live for the 18th year in a row from florida for the miami book fair international and the national book awards from new york city. some of the fairs and festivals this fall on c-span2's book tv.