tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN September 10, 2015 2:00am-4:01am EDT
these laws. planned parenthood has not been. any attempts to cut them off have all been fruitless for those reasons. i think it is illuminating in many ways to have this hearing. it has not really vent about legality. it has been about a broader issue. an issue we all thought would have been settled 40 years ago.
in about planned parenthood, where they defended them at all costs. as they have even after the videos were made public. they prosecute you. i have seen that. what at times, i would advise people -- get a lawyer. we go a different route. if you go to the justice department you will find that it is a department of injustice. as far as being cutting and selective -- they did take excerpts, and put them online,
but also the long video so people would not be able to come in and say what has been dishonestly said that they were .nly trying to show portion they cut to what they felt was important to put the whole thing up there. as the continued statement at the first hearing this chairman called after the august recess to launch an attack on women's health, i see this as a hearing to protect the health on females. outnumbered, show, has been my life for 37 years. i have a wife and three wonderful daughters. prematurely. born
she got down to three pounds before she started gaining weight again. i did not know whether to stay with my wife and toddler my wife said do anything you can for the child. the doctors said she cannot see you, but she hears you and knows your voice. you talk to her and caress her. the end of my finger and they said i could stay for two hours at a time after they had noted that she is pulling strength and life from you. i couldn't leave. thought that somebody could take that three pound child and ripper leg off for armas and not consider that -- off and leg off or arm not consider that humane, or
take her liver and organs and use it for somebody else's life, then it is ok. what really came home, i am in the old testament right now and was reading about a woman who came complaining to the profit thatophet, and complained another woman had talked her into the deal that the first time they would boil her baby and eat the child and after that they would boil the second and it,that child -- let's face this hearing has said over and over if it is to save lives it is ok. i could not believe how reprehensible that wasn't how scary. but i want my girls to have mammograms whether they have money or not, so doesn't it make
more sense to give money to facilities that actually do the mammograms so planned parenthood doesn't take their cut and when people say it doesn't fund abortions -- i have been a judge and a prosecutor and the chief justice. we paid thesays rent and the facilities for this facility, knowing that a crime was being committed, you have aided and abetted and you are as guilty as the principal. i see that my time is up and i thank you for your indulgence. ask unanimouse to consent to put into the record a letter from the primary care association indicating they do not have the capacity to pick up the planned parenthood casework. .> without objection
is one of the committees pursuing investigations into planned parenthood. the house republicans launched a website yesterday to track the different investigations. >> while debate on the iran nuclear agreement got underway in the senate, it hit a roadblock in the house. christina marcos covering this in the hill. what happened to the debate on the disapproval resolution? >> originally, we were expecting the house would vote this afternoon. once again, house republican leadership found themselves pulled in a different direction because the right flank of the conference had different ideas.
multiple conservative members of the house freedom caucus, supported this initiative that would prevent a vote on the iran deal until the obama administration produced the text of the so-called side deals between obama and the iran nuclear inspectors. they are arguing that lawmakers do not have enough information at their disposal. >> the headline in the story mentions conservative revolt. how do they not see disappointment on the conservative side. how did they not anticipate this coming? the reality is this kind of came out of nowhere.
-- rufkin as part of the leadership team. he introduced the resolution yesterday that the moment they , itback from the recess would prevent a vote on the iran deal until the side deals were given to caucus -- congress. but they had their weekly dinner at the popular mexican restaurant and were talking decided, wend should band together and call attention to the fact that the public doesn't know everything about these side deals. roskam anduote peter he defends the last-minute effort.
this is the first time were here. it's the first time i could make a privileged resolution. tell us about what they will vote on. >> the house has a change of plans that it will be a three-pronged approach. that rather than the resolution of disapproval, they will vote on approval which will make it tougher for democrats and will highlight those who split with their party. the second part is that they will pass a bill that will .revent president obama iswill expire the day he sworn out of office from raising and the thirdions part is a sense that they
violated the iran review law. require the administration to present all documents to congress. >> change of process in the house but in the senate as expected. mitch mcconnell introducing two cloture motions. what is expected in the timetable for votes and any possibility of a senate democratic filibuster? >> mcconnell has mentioned five cloture this evening. it would set up the first senate vote on friday. mcconnell indicated he is hopeful they can do it thursday. little unclear if the democrats will filibuster, although there are 42 in support which is more than enough to sustain the filibuster if they
wanted. not every democrat has said whether they will unite together. some have reservations about completely blocking the vote entirely. christina marcos commenting on the debate on "the hill" and twitter. theillary clinton spoke at brookings institution about the iran nuclear agreement. yesterday it was john mccain's turn. this is one hour 15 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, welcome to brookings and welcome to our
second brookings debate. i'm the director of foreign policy here at brookings and it is my honor to welcome all of you here and online for spending the evening with us. convening debate has long been a part of the central policy of brookings but we are trying to innovate and find new ways of doing that, to generate debate and serious conversation among policy experts and conversation. tonight we're contending this new series combining policy , but also alcohol way to generate serious conversation among thought leaders. discounts. the issue -- this counts. the issue at hand is whether or not the united states should move forward with the iran
nuclear deal. congress will be voting as early as this week. it will continue to occupy american foreign-policy. we want to hear what you think online. if you have not voted, please do so now. tonight, we have a real treat. an opportunity to listen to a discussion and debate among the biggest thinkers on foreign policy ended washington. senator, when you were here sometime back, i wrote at the time that i thought your statement was found to become the rallying point. it was the most clearly articulated critique for many. willingness tour
engage on these issues. i am delighted to welcome the best of my colleagues to stage. on both sides of the debate. as such, he reports for all cbs platforms and is on "face the nation." while covering the white house, he covers extensively on the president. he has reported on presidential action to confront isis and ebola and the iran negotiations. he is extremely qualified to lead the debate. over to you. [applause] bruce.k you, it is a full house.
it is great to be invited to participate in this debate. it has been a newsy day on the iran deal. we will get to some of the news that made the day-to-day. as i was coming up -- coming over, the white house issued its veto threat. we will get into all of that. what weruce suggested, want to do is capture the thoughts in the room and online about what you think of the iran deal now before you hit the panelists, and what you hear and think after. vote and iprocess to would like to walk you through that. we have a pre-debate poll that will close in five minutes or so. if you want to let us know what you're thinking, whether you are
in favor or not, or if you don't know -- that is an option. tot the word "brookings" 2233. if you think they should approve, text 1. if you think they should disapprove, text 2. if you think you are undecided, text 3. we added that element to create space for those who genuinely are undecided so we can see after you have heard them, if any mines have been changed. -- minds have been changed. if you are choosing to vote on the streaming video that you are watching. because this is a twitter happy nation and city, to engage on twitter, the hashtag is #brookingsdebate.
i am told this will be a fast-moving debate. that is my obligation. it is oxford style. i don't know what that means because i have never been to oxford but it sounds great. oxford-style debate. five minutes from the presenters and i will conduct an open question from those opening statements and then closing statements of two minutes. they will be timed very precisely. and ifill be lights there are lights i will jump in and encourage them to wrap it up. earlier, will have a second vote on what you think and the underlying merits of the i run deal -- iran deal.
i don't need to explain it to those watching, but a couple things happened today. senate democrats secured 41 votes, which means the motion to disapprove is subject to a successful filibuster if that is what democrats decide to do. the white house encouraged them to do that. the ranking member of the foreign relations committee said that was always implied, so did the democratic senator from virginia. republicans say why would you's filibuster -- why would you filibuster something if you support it. why not have a vote and let the country see? that is part of the boat -- part of the debate. as i was coming over, the white threatssued its veto with a lengthy list of disapproval. if you want to register your opinion you can go into the po
ll. one more thing to say, as i have been covering the white house for the better part of six years. if there is one brief that the president has carried throughout his presidency, one thing that he has constantly monitored, and deeply involved himself in the underlying details of, it has been the method to obtain the nuclear deal with iran. it is underlying specifics. he believes that he knows this issue cold, and surprised -- describes his support and curiosity about opposition in stark ways. it has sometimes left republicans a bit annoyed. that is the political reality. the president does believe he has achieved the best deal imaginable. now we will get into what it is and isn't. are closed inls
that pre-debate survey. if i can invite all to the stage we will begin the conversation. i will go to the center podium because that is where i've been told to go. there we go. everyone has taken their seats. leon will argue for disapproval of the deal. . we shall begin with conversation , who is the deputy
director of foreign-policy and the senior fellow for middle east policy also here at brookings. the podium is yours. suzanne: thank you and good evening. i am honored to be here sharing the stage with senator mccain and two of my most distinguished colleagues. i am used to following in the but on powerful voices, this issue i am eager to lead off. i'm convinced that congress has an obligation to vote to approve the recently concluded nuclear ran, uniteden i states and five other world powers. allow me and my remaining time to explain. by any measure, this is a good arms-control deal.
that means that the deal extends the breakout timeline, the time that it would take iran to rush toward the bomb about the deal from a matter of weeks, for at least a decade. the deal imposes limits on research and development. that blocks the plutonium pathway on weapons capabilities for the foreseeable future, and institutes advanced monitoring for the full range of nuclear related activities there it the incentives under the deal are not forthcoming until and unless it fulfills its major, irreversible actions to curb its own program. if you don't like the deal, consider the alternative. there is no renegotiation.
if somehow congress manages to kill the plan, we go back to the bargaining table alone. our partners, russia, china and the european three, have made it very clear. many in congress may not be satisfied, many in this country may not be satisfied, but the rest of the world has indicated that it is. in whichno scenario sanctions will be strengthened. just examine the track record of the past 36 years when we failed repeatedly to generate sufficient political will under -- among even our closest allies. washington can try to up the and weth new measures, may even see a little bit of additional compliance for a while. ultimately, an attempt to intensify pressure without the
coalition will fail, at no small cost to america's own economy. russia and china have their own experience with sanctions. the rest of the international community sees no interest in perpetual economic pressure on tehran. there is the military's is -- solution. we cannot bomb away their infrastructure and know-how. even the most ambitious airstrikes would set it back by maybe three years. there would be no doubt that it would incite a much more determined effort. there is no regime change. i have spent time in tehran studying the country and no one has fewer illusions about iran than i do. but the idea of an opposition movement engineered, sponsored and championed by washington that succeeds in overthrowing the islamic republic is naive.
that, there are two men with some bridges to sell you. it is not war, as the administration has sometimes argued. it is simply a less attractive deal. the last time america turned its back on the possibility, we lost the chance to curtail iran's nuclear activities at an earlier stage. let me get to the heart of what i believe motivates the heart of the agreement. many of the criticisms are not about the terms or the alternatives, but simply because that a abhor the fact deal has been struck with a bad actor. they are outraged that they will be let outside the international penalty box without conclusively terminating the nuclear program or any of the other offenses that have contributed to the pariah status. i understand that outrage.
himwe have tried maximal is on iran -- maximalism on iran. but it got us nowhere. it neither force them to capitulate or halted their advance. restricted quite deliberately by the bush administration. this was the only viable construct for the talks, since all of the country's we have negotiated with have very different approaches to the concerns we have with their policies. until now, the only party that sought to broaden the conversation with tehran was with nuclear concessions. but the good news is that the nuclear deal is not the sum total of nuclear policy toward tehran. we cannot renegotiate the deal but we can construct a better iran policy.
one that begins to curtail their maligned influence. moderator: i will have to ask you to wrap it up. suzanne: we have arrived, as benjamin netanyahu said, at a faithful crossroads. the paths are clear. be the mostan effective coalition that sets back the proximity to nuclear weapons capabilities for at least a decade, barbican strikeout on our own, -- or we can strikeout on our own and leave iran would only two months away from nuclear capabilities. that is no choice at all. [applause] moderator: thank you very much. senator mccain? senator mccain: if you like, i will talk from here. thank you for coming. when i come to brookings, i always mention and always wonderful to see old friends and enemies again and those in the overflow room, i notice there is
quite a bit of alcohol back there. thank you, it's great to be back. i had some prepared remarks, but i think i'll maybe just mention the scenario in which we are considering and the debate will start tomorrow afternoon. as major garrett just pointed out, the president probably has enough votes to sustain a veto. and i'm sure that that is a great triumph for those who greatly favor this agreement. i would also like to point out, and i'm a student of history, first time in history that an agreement will be voted on on a strict party-line basis, strict party-line basis. not a single republican senator will be voting in favor of this agreement.
you can draw your own conclusions as to what the ramifications of that are. but they're not good. they're not good. either somebody failed in outreach or somebody failed somewhere to at least obtain a degree of bipartisanship, which is characterized every other treaty and agreement throughout our history, including the one i remember that was so controversial, was the panama canal treaty. at least there were some republicans that voted for that. i think also we are talking about iran here as if it were on another planet somewhere. and that we were just discussing the virtues or the downsides of this agreement. i don't know how you do that. i don't know how you do that. they are in control in four countries at least. they recently in yemen, syria,
iraq and lebanon, recently they are giving weapons to the taliban and afghanistan. they are still the world's single most important sponsor of terrorism. tried to assassinate the saudi ambassador in d.c. they are on the move and on the march and not relenting, nor has there been any indication of them changing their behavior. and they are going to now get $100 billion, whatever it is. is there any belief whatsoever -- please raise your hand that they aren't going to use a hell of that money to pursue their ambitions in the region.
we are handing tens of billions of dollars that they can now freely support the quds force, extend their influence in lebanon, continue until yemen, whatever activities that they want to continue. motivated by their, mr. suleimani who takes it outside of baghdad as he leads the shiite militias in their attempts to regain control of iraq for iranian purposes. and by the way, the individual who is responsible, according to general dunford, incoming chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, mr. suleimani was responsible for the deaths of 500 soldiers and marines deaths. i have no idea how many idea. mr. suleimani is going to have a blank check to continue his activities. the world is in chaos, my friends. we are seeing nothing like we
have not seen since the end of world war ii. we all know that. anybody disagrees with that? no one. why did this happened? because of the failed policies of this president and this administration. the guy that wouldn't speak up. this president would not speak up in 2009 when iranians were demonstrating in the streets of tehran and a young woman bled to death and they were chanting, obama, obama are you with us or with them? and not a word was spoken on their behalf. now we see the middle east in chaos, but we're going to treat this agreement as if it took place in some more sterile and less interesting environment. and finally, let me just say that i have seen some bad deals in my time. and and i take particular exception to the president telling the american people there are two options war or
this agreement. and i can tell you before the armed services committee, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general dempsey said we have a range of options. i think there are other options going to war. navy admiral james richardson. so i'm upset about the intellectual dishonesty that we only have two choices. obviously there are many others and that is according to our military leadership. we need to engage and discuss this entire situation in the middle east, not just this. but the deteriorating chaos that now envelopes the entire middle east. we need to have that conversation with the american people. thank you. major: we now turn to bruce.
he is the director of the intelligence project. you can have the table or the podium as you prefer, bruce. bruce: it is an honor to be here with everybody, and an american hero. i only wish more of my colleagues had followed his path. we have a very big agenda and cover a couple of points. first of all, is there a better deal available? i don't think there is a better deal available. it is built into the inherent structure of these negotiations. it's not a six-party agreement with iran but an eight-party,
the european union and u.n. security council. all of those other parties have announced they intend to implement this resolution no matter what the congress does and they have indicated they are not going back to the negotiating table. if you think there is an alternative that we go back to negotiations, i don't think there isn't. is it a good thing? maybe not, but it's a fete a compli. i don't think there is. it was demonstrated last friday when the king of saudi arabia came here and he doesn't really like this deal, he moved on and said it's time to accept the fact that it's here and he solemnly endorsed it. and that gets to my second point. the region has moved on. it has accepted that this deal is going to be the reality that we have to deal with. i agree completely with the senator. the middle east is in flames as we have never seen it before. this is one of the most dangerous moments in the history of the middle east.
and the iranian regime is up to no good. but better to have a deal with iran that keeps it from being a nuclear weapons state and building an arsenal than it is to allow it to move to that stage next. if the congress of the united states votes against this deal and shoes overturns a presidential veto, the regional reaction will be confusion. people won't understand how the american system works. they'll only know that the american system doesn't speak with one voice and they will react in a manner, confusion, doubts about what america stands for and where america stands on this deal. i have no illusions about the iranians. i have colleagues who have been murdered and tortured to death by the iranians. i know what they are going to do with the additional money. it is still better to find a path to keep them from developing nuclear weapons. the third issue i want to look
at briefly is does this deal put israel at risk? we are hearing from a lot of commentators today that this deal is the equivalent of the munich agreement of 1938, that this deal somehow will create an israel which is check check 1939, and thrown under the bus. i don't believe that for a minute. the state of israel is a very powerful and strong state. it is fully capable of defending itself. thanks in large part, but not only in large part to american assistance over the last four decades, israel has strategic superiority and the qualitative edge not only over iran, but any combination of its enemies conceivable today. first of all, israel has the strongest conventional military in the region. they fly f-15i's. it will soon be flying f-35's.
the iranians are flying state of the equipment from america, too, f-14's, there's no competition there. israel has the best intelligence system in the entire middle east. believe me, i have worked with them. they know more than anything else what is going on. third, israel is a nuclear weapon state. i know that is verboten but they have nuclear weapons and three means of delivering nuclear weapons. the f-15's and f-35's and intermediate range ballistic missiles and u-boats provided by germany. israel even in the worst case scenario is more than fully capable of defending itself. a close colleague and friend of 30 years, the former chief of
the mosad said israel is the biggest beneficiary of this deal in the region and he knows what he is talking about. in short, i think the challenge for the united states is that we need to figure out ways we can bolster our allies to deal with the other threats that iran poses after this agreement is put into place, particularly the terrorism, subversion and political evil that iran is likely to be up to. major: leon is the senior fellow and senior fellow in culture and policy and jointly appointed in the foreign policy studies at brookings. leon: my opposition is on two grounds. the first is that it fails to
upset the objective. ofis to block everyone iran's paths to a bomb. based on the text of the agreement and the very pronouncements, it seems uncontroversial to insist that this deal does not do that. it provides for a respite for 10 years and respite for another five years. it is not a release. we have not been emancipated from our unwarranted anxiety about its exashtse. if during that period, the iranians don't lie and our respite is not consumed by verification controversies which is a very big if, we will have accomplished a successful postponement to the questions which this presidency has cleared to finding a solution for. the most significant fact about
this negotiation was that the iranian regime never made a decision to renounce nuclear weapons. it made a tactical decision to defer nuclear weapons. it is true the agreement states not once but twice that iran reaffirms under no circumstances will it seek, develop or acquire a nuclear weapon. but the refusal to provide an accurate of its military program and the very structure of this deal which legitimate mieses and acknowledging the activities that have no purpose for the civilian use of nuclear energy, indicates to me that no iranian renunciation of its nuclear ambition is likely to occur as long as this regime persists. when tony tells congress that we cannot bomb iran out of its knowledge of how to enrich, he is correct. but there are other
states who are in possession of the same knowledge and we aren't losing any sleep about the plans for the application of what they know. the strategic decision that the islamic republic did make was to find a way out of the way of the crushing sanctions. so for me, the joint comprehensive plan represents a change of decree, not a change in kind. it is true that a lot of arms control has aspired only to that but not all arms control. from the standpoint of iran's interests, the renunciation of nuclear weapons would have been a perfectly course of action and the administration likes to assure us that this regime is rational but pointed to no course of action and one of the reasons is that it did not insist to consider it. we made a prior assessment what
is and what is not possible in terms of iranian flexibility. good and honest people can disagree. but we can disagree it was decisive for determining the outcome of negotiations. good and honest people can disagree about the deal itself. it is not hard to understand in all situations of tremendous pressure. that is why i do not oppose the deal, since i do not believe it is permanently or even for a long time altered our strategic circumstances. i regard it as only a mitigated threat that haunts the region and the world. all the options must remain on the table. the other grounds for my opposition is that in exchange for such a limited and passing amelioration, the deal will strengthen the regime. the deals must be considered along with its meanings for
national security. insofar as this deal, a beginning of it, it seeks to accomplish a goal that in my view against american values and interests. i know it is heretical to introduce values these days. many people regard values or at least some of them as the slippery slope to shock and awe. but it is not always the case that conflict is based on a misunderstanding or a mistake. sometimes conflict is a sign that fundamental differences have been accurately understood. our previous hostility to the islamic republic was not based on a misreading of the islamic republic in its borders or the conduct beyond its borders. the text of the agreement mentions, quote, a desire to build a new relationship with iran, closed quote, not a new relationship with a new iran but a new relationship with dis-iran
[captioning performed by the national captioning institute relationship with dis-iran with anti semitic, homophobic regime, anti-american regime and thwarting american purposes and allies and the support of terrorism. what democrat, what pluralist, what liberal or conservative would want this iran for a friend? what constructive role can this iran, i know it opposes isis, play in the community of nations? it is important to note that during the period of the negotiations, iran was intervening to inflame the shia in iraq to prop up assad in syria and arm hamas in gaza. unlies us, iran was not inhibitted in its interventions by the fear. nor should the islamic republic's loud and regular call for the destruction of israel be treated as some sort of foible sighedntricity to be
over as we go about the important business. insofar as this arm still represents a new beginning in our relationship with iran come a this behavior is your main -- ane to the discussion. when one utters the word iran, one may be speaking either of the regime or the people, but not to both, because they are not on the same side. the obama administration has not grasped this and it's overtures had the effect of invigorating only the regime. moreover, the iranian society will be significantly opened up by the economic windfall that will result from the suspension of sanctions is absurd. a great deal of saddening but serious evidence exists that economic liberalization need not
entail political liberalization. ayatollah and the irgc have not opened up their society until now, it is not because they lack the cash. thank you. major: i'm going to encourage our four panelists to engage directly and we are going to start here. suzanne and bruce, senator mccain said not a single republican will vote for this and that is a bad sign of the deal, bad sign for history and failure of the administration. would you say the problem is with the deal or with republicans? [laughter] don't worry senator. sen. mccain: i think that i know the answer to that one. let me jump in first, and i hope that bruce will fall in my wake.
i think it is a sad statement on the character of politics today in washington and what's truly unfortunate about it, so much of our policy has been bipartisan. what we have constructed, what brought us to this deal, what made these negotiations effective was an effort between both congress and presidents from two parties to construct a strategy to create a really coherent coalition that imposed the kind of pressure that brought iran to the table that had an impact on its domestic politics. and despite that bipartisan agreement with the objectives of the u.s. policy and the need to engage in negotiations. it was a decision by george w. bush to understand that it maximalism wasn't going to be effective. we have lost bipartisanship today. and i think that's less about the deal than it is about the quality of politics today in washington. major: bruce? bruce: i agree with suzanne. the problem is not the republican party, although the republican party has many
problems today as the economists has brilliantly shown this week . senator mccain: democrat party is in great shape. bruce: it's not in great shape. both of them are having a lot of trouble. let me look at a different point. moderator: that is a different brookings debate. bruce: the middle east today is an incredibly confused and gray area. we heard some of the contents about the iranian regime. the iranian regime is trying to subvert our closest allies in the region, israel, saudi arabia and others. it is our most significant partner in the war against isis in the defense of baghdad. that's not a statement of opinion, but a statement of fact of what's going on in iraq today. i'm not advocating reprochements
with iran, i think that would be a fool's errand. but what i'm saying is unlike the black and white situation we see on whol hill, the real situation in the middle east is filled with grays, a lot of blacks and very little white. and that's the situation that this deal ought to be evaluated in the context of. major: senator mccain, the suggestion is this is all politics and the bipartisanship is somehow being subverted purely for politics. that's the allege i want you to respond. -- that is the allegation, i want you to respond. senator mccain: thank you, bruce, for your kind words. i mean that about torture. thank you. to have some kind of equivalency between israel having nuclear weapons and it ran have it -- and iran having nuclear weapons is intellectually dishonest.
bruce: i never suggested moral equivalency. israel has never had death to iran. death to america demonstrations. israel is a country surrounded by nations committed to its extinction. overjoyed that they have nuclear weapons. i want to clear that up. but the second thing is i voted for sanctions and sought sanctions against iran not so much because of their path towards nuclear weapons, but their aggression in the entire region. by the way, the fact that there are iranians in baghdad today that are orchestrating efforts against isis no greater example of the collapse of america influence, what happens when you withdraw. when you leave, my friends,
there is a vacuum and others fill it. i'm deeply alarm it's iranians that are our friends in baghdad. i voted against sanctions because of the long record of germanic behavior, of the atrocious treatment of their people, four americans still being held hostage, one a reporter for the "washington post." why wasn't that in the negotiations? for god's sake. their entire behavior throughout the region. hegemonic, and trying to realize the ambitions that they are obviously pretty successful now. now that the united states has basically left the region -- i take that back, we have trained 60 people -- 54, a number of them captured. we are doing a lot there. so the point is, i think is that the iranians are about to receive a crowning victory.
and if there is the slightest indication that is going to change their behavior in the region, i will be glad to see what that indication is. leon: i am not sure what suzanne when when -- suzanne means we say we have a maximalist position towards iran. if we did, we have a minimalist position. we have gone from overreach to underreach without stopping at reach as far as i can tell. i'm not prepared to look the iranian people in the ice and tell them there is no possibility of regime change. that doesn't mean i do not mean, i do not mean, i do not mean the iraq war. i want to say that 50,000 times. not the iraq war, not the iraq war, now we can move on. we can move on. in iraq, there was no democratic democraticndigenous
movement. is and indigenous democratic movement with western sympathies that is beneath its society. it is a country, at the change of regime in tehran not only a moral obligation of hours, -- moral of addition of ours, not to change the regime but to help those people in iran who want to change the regime. there is a -- no greater prize in the region than an event you will, not the iraq war, not the iraq war, change of regime in tehran. suzanne: i share your admiration for a democratic iran but no possibility in the past 60 years in american policy that we have any capacity to influence that. senator mccain: how about them demonstrating in the streets [panelists talking over one another] suzanne: people mistreating in
the streets today support the deal. many of the leaders in that movement came out. they do not believe further sanctions, further securitization of iranian politics are in the interests of the people. they are the people who understand what is happening on the ground, not people sitting here in ivory towers here in washington. [applause] leon: we all sit where we sit. my understanding is that the the dissident community -- senator mccain: have you ever been to syria lately? have you? i have been to syria. how many times have you been to iraq. i have been some 22 times. suzanne: my argument is not that iran -- sen. mccain: i resent a great deal that i'm sitting in an ivory tower. leon: she meant me. [laughter] senator mccain: i take it all back.
bruce: i never suggested an equivalency between israel and iran, i agree with you. we are better off israel having nuclear weapons. israel is not weak. czechoslovakia in the aftermath of the agreement. and that kind of argument doesn't consist with the facts. i don't want to fight the iraq war over again. i agree, leon. let's not. but i do remember what the late saudi foreign minister said, he said the bush administration handed iraq to iran on a silver platter. i think that's the sin of letting the iranians getting into iraq occurred. i agree with you. the obama administration just helped them come in further. if we are going to debate the embers of the bush and obama administration tonight, we will have never have time to talk about the iran nuclear deal. >> it is very important, arms
control can not only be evaluated in its own terms. it needs to be evaluated and assessed in terms of larger strategic considerations. since the president's first inaugural address, since his first public pronouncement as president that he has dreamed , for good reasons or bad, that he has dreamed of a new relationship with iran. in 2009 -- my own view is many people want a new relationship with iran, suffer from this feeling that the united states comes to iran with some sort of prior disqualifying guilt from helping it advance toward a democratic society. but the fact is that in 2009 when the valiant people were in the streets of tehran and we turned our back on them. they were screaming obama's name and he was in the white house -- most of the kids on the streets of tehran were too young to know who he was.
suzanne: they understand that history. the simple reality is we do not have the leverage to influence iranian politics. ell people did not leave the streets in 2009. they left the streets because they didn't have a leadership in the opposition that was prepared to go to the mattresses with a very impressive regime. that is the question of moral responsibility. what is our moral responsibility if we walk away from this deal? these negotiations are proof of concept of american leadership on tough foreign policy issues. we did this, not just one administration, but congress working with president bush and president obama, built this strategy and came up with a solution. it's not a perfect solution or a comprehensive solution because none of our allies are signed on to a comprehensive solution. but it solves one piece of the iranian puzzle for a less than optimal period of time and gives
us more leverage and more leeway to address the other issues. if we walk away from this deal, how does that help syria or iraq. bruce: we never had an aspiration of the nuclear weapons program. where do they stand today? they have identified facility after facility that needs to be changed in a significant way and the number of centrifuges reduced, all of which is an admission they were lying up front. the critics would say it only delays and does not block, and there is apparently no requirement in any way that is
consistent with the underlying language about verifying and accounting for the previous military dimensions of what they were doing and lying to the world. anddoes not the agreement therefore fall, not based on what the critics say, but on what the administration says it should achieve in the first place? bruce: we engaged in negotiations over time. i am not shocked -- that is what happens. let's look at the iranian side of the bargain. iranians went into this saying we don't have any aspiration for a nuclear weapons program. where do they stand today? they have identified facility after facility that needs to be changed in a significant way and the number of centrifuges reduced, all of which is an admission they were lying up front. now did we get the historical replay of that?
no. anyone who thought that was going to happen does not know how negotiations really work. the key to the deal here is not whether we fell back and find out what happened in 2004 or 2003 or 2007, but is it -- >> are we in a position to -- if they start to cheat, we will know it. everyone agrees that this agreement has more teeth than we have seen before. is it perfect? no. we have put ultimately into the hands of the international atomic energy agency and i have a great deal of confidence in that organization because its track record in the past has been very good. i promise not to fight the iraq war again, but i'm going to fight it one part of it. they had dead right, there was no nuclear weapons program in iraq.
i trust their verification because they have done it before. i don't trust those critics of this deal that have said, oh, the next thing you will hear will be a mushroom cloud. major: any reaction? senator mccain: to say that the iranian people would not go to the mattresses, while the iranian revolutionary guard was slaughtering them in the streets. i heard revisiononists of history. we saw a young woman bleed to death in the square. that's just really quite remarkable to me. they didn't have weapons. i don't know how they would have gone to the mattresses, but they wanted the president of the united states, the leader of the free world to speak up on their
behalf and refused to do so. that is a historical fact. april 6, 2015, under this deal, you have anywhere you have 24/7 access as it relates to the nuclear facilities. u.s. deputy national security adviser. april, 2015, we expect to have access in a well-defined process and access to places, et cetera suspected oubds activities. that was our energy secretary. we know they have delayed inspections 24 days before they can visit an inspected site. majority of the eight members of the joint commission have to approve an iaea request for access before tehran is obliged to comply. they would vr equal standing. the agreement specifies no means of enforcing joint commission rulings although if they fail to
comply, the u.s. could terminate its agreement by invoking the snap-back provision and we know how ludicrous that are is. and the deal concedes that iran will convert the facility in nuclear technology center. they are going to have a nuclear and technology center inside of a mountain. yes. sure. but they won't be enriching uranium or have any nuclear material. and i just want to get back to the conventional weapons embargo if i could, real quick. and that is that's going to be lifted within five years. and both our secretary of defense, ash carter, says, no, we want iran to be isolated as a military in terms of the kinds
of equipment and material they are able to have. that embargo leaves in five years. and under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking. that was the chairman of the joint chiefs recommendations to the congress. neither of those statements are valid. major: both suzanne and bruce said there is no better deal than this deal. voting to disapprove and making that policy legislatively appears impossible but it is a position that you defend. what does a better deal look like? senator mccain: why did the iranians come to the table. they found their road to damascus? they did that, too. but the point is, they came to the negotiating table because
their economy was hurt terribly by these sanctions. so we, of course, have and had that leverage, although we have given enough now in this agreement, but they didn't come because they wanted to see a new middle east. they came back -- because of the incredible punishment inflicted by these sanctions. i don't think it is more complicated. suzanne: could i jump in here. what made those effective is the adherence by much of the international community by major partners. they did not agree to sanctions. they did not agree to sanctions after iran sponsored terrorist activities all across the middle east and europe. only agreed to sanctions because of the unfairly unprecedented level of urgency, not about the
rest of iran disturbing policies and they are not prepared to sustain them and not prepared to adhere to them. the russians, chinese, all the major purchasers are not interested in reducing their supplies. senator mccain: and that is no american leadership. there is no american leadership, no american leadership. suzanne: leadership isn't a magic word to do what we want. senator mccain: there is no deal that we can say and should, if they don't do business with iran, they don't do business with us. that's when america leads. but america doesn't lead anymore. suzanne: are you able to say there will be no business between the united states and europe? senator mccain: i'm prepared to tell the american people what this deal is and millions of refugees now floug into europe
and probably the united states because of failure of american leadership and we have to restore that leadership, because other wise things are going to get worst. look at the map of the world of the middle east in 2009 and look at a map of the middle east today. and tell me how things are going. [applause] leon: this is no alternative. the argument that there was no alternative to this deal that gives respite of 10 and 15 years gives resspite of 7 and 12 or 3 and eight or one month and six months. this is some sort of a gain. if the deal is a bad deal. if it's a good deal. and does not furnish the
solution to the problem it sets out to solve. i don't know how it can be defended. the only thing that matters to me is we get out of the strategic problem posed to develop a nuclear military exarkte and i see no evidence that this is what this agreement accomplishes. we get a band-aid and they get a bank et. i have a -- banquet. we are being played the fools. i believe this agreement, this negotiation was not conducted in the spirit of tough leadership that suzanne mentioned earlier. toughness is not the word i would describe. it was conducted in the spirit of reconciliation. and i have nothing against reconciliation. we should talk to our enemies and have talked to our enemies.
bruce: this is becoming a debate about the obama administration's middle east policy. i don't think there are a lot of people who are enthusiastic about the administration's policy. >> that's the vote i want. bruce: you are turning it into a debate about obama administration's policies. but this is a debate about the nuclear deal. as suzanne said at the beginning. this is not a deal to prevent iran to get nuclear weapons. this is a deal to prevent them getting nuclear weapons in the next 15 years. does it do that? the biggest argument that has been made against that, the verification process is not tough and stringent enough. i know a lot about the tactics to verify a deal.
it is, let me tell you easier to work to verify if the other side is cheating. if you have inspectors. even if they can't go any time, anywhere, it is easier if they're on the ground looking around. it's a lot easier if you have an international agreement that says here's the standards of behavior. at the end of the day, any verification system depends upon united states intelligence community and how good it can do its job. i think this deal significantly enhances the capacity of the american intelligence community to do that. and depends on the ability of our allies, particularly israel to be able to do that. and this goes back to my friend, he says quite rightly, better able to verify this deal than it is to verify the current status
quo. is it perfect, no. is the obama administration pursuing the perfect policy this the middle east? no. to vote in favor of this -- major: do you believe in snap-back and it's true about the collapse of the sanctions regime, in any event that they were cheating, do you believe snap-back or any serious -- bruce: i believe this deal has moved further towards snap-back. the proof of the pudding will be the moment of the violation occurs. the united states not only has the option of snap-back, the united states will have all its other options including use of the military options. major: this is the last
question. you have both talked about the lack of appetite within the international community and the p-5 plus one partners to continue sanctions and that is the reason why the negotiations had to reach a conclusion and why the deal should be verified and upheld as written. but doesn't that suggest that if there is a legitimate disagreement over verification and compliance that the very same partners who are no longer interested in economic sanctions and believe they have run their course not only politically but not only want to create dislocations for their own populations, will not, to use your phrase go to the mattresses to require verification of iran and iran can by dragging this process out, keep going what we in the international community
would like to block? suzanne: we are going to be tested during the implementation phase and test the alliance. i agree with some of the criticisms of the deal. it will be difficult if not impossible to achieve this level of economic pressure on iran. we never achieved it before. but the simple reality is, it's not going to stay if we disapprove the deal. we don't sustain our alliances if we tear up an agreement. major: we are out of time with the back and forth. it has been extremely liflely. give a round of applause to our four panelists. [applause] major: the word smith is working on the word smith.
so, we are going to have another vote as i promised earlier as i beat into your heads earlier, we are going to have a vote and take one of the options away from you. we want to know whether the congress should approve or disapprove. text number one if congress should approve, text number two if congress should disapprove. the polling will close as soon as senator mccain concludes his remarks. he will be the last of the speakers. each speaker will have two minutes and we will start with bruce. bruce: i encourage you to continue to vote undecided and throw this thing up in the air. because this is a complicated issue. final point i would make to you is this. right now, the united states has allies, have successfully concluded an agreement in the
middle east. first one in 17 years that the united states has successfully concluded in the region. what it has done is put iran in the box as to the country that has violated international norms and failed to live up to its obligations after it signed the nonproliferation treaty. the congress of the united states has an enormous task and very important that they do it. very important how we hear how they vote. at the end of the day, i don't want the congress of the united states to put us -- to put the united states as the partner of this deal the first to reneg ongoing forward with it. i think the congress has been been put in an awkward position. the negotiations talking about the deal very well on the hill. you put yourself in a position where if you vote no against it,
you become the problem and the united states becomes the problem. that would not be good for american leadership in the region, for american leadership around the world. what we need is now find out if this deal goes forward, how can we better ensure that its implementation leads to all of the outcomes we want. first, that iran does not get a nuclear weapon, not now, not in 10 years and not later and secondly we address those other issues with both the senator and leon have pointed out, we need to put on the table for multi lateral and unilateral options. major: leon. you have two minutes. leon: it is ironic that we begin -- that people will begin to be concerned about the consequences about american leadership in their attitude towards this deal when we have been witnessing
attrition of american leadership in the world for many years. i think that this deal -- and as i said earlier, i'm not against it apock libertyally. it changes it in degree. my heart sinks when i hear my friend bruce who was a proponent of the deal that we can always use the military option. that's correct. but that means this deal has not advanced us beyond the strategic situation that troubles us. i worry that this deal is the latest expression of a certain spirit in american foreign policy that i regard as responsible for some of the disasters that we have been witnessing in the region and in the world. i think that it was not ipso facto the case, that they came to the table under did youres
and not because they read leiber, who came to the table under duress. and we could not have gotten a tougher deal. if it is the fact that this deal is in their interest and the fact that they are hurting so bad economically and the fact that they do want to renounce nuclear weapons, it seems obvious to me that it seems wrong to rule out the possibility of a tougher negotiating position and a tougher position regarding this repus i have regime in tehran. the united states is historically the only country that will ever create obstacles and impedements to certain evils in the world. there is no other country. we are without american leadership and there will not be the obstacles and impedements and seems to me that the adoption of this deal which of course will be adopted, will be
a fine occasion to begin a new discussion of the first principles of american foreign philosophy after both bush and obama. suzanne: we can change the question for this debate because we agree on perhaps more than we disagree. i share all of the aspirations that senator mccain and leon have expressed for greater leadership in the middle east and grave and strategic and humanitarian tragedies that are unfolding before us. i share their chorus of the policies that are responsible for many of these threats unfolding in the region. i oppose normalization. unhelpful and unrealistic. that's not what this deal is and that's where we subsidy. where we disagree is whether an imperfect solution to the most urgent but certainly not the
only part of iran's threat is one we should move forward with to test the possibilities of whether we can after 36 years to mitigate the challenges that iran poses to our interests and the region around the world. it's an impact solution for two simple reasons. we have an international coalition. we couldn't do this on our own and needed the leverage contributed by our allies. and because of the realities of negotiations. the bush administration originally opposed to have nuclear den ties try. by the time president bush moved into the second term he had to come to the table and offer a deal to iran. where we subsidy is what the consequences of disapproving this deal would mean. walking away would leave washington with less influence not more at the very moment
where the responsible superglobal powers are needed. we should be doubling down on the strategies and the bipartisan that brought us to these negotiations and agreements. we should use it to build a larger coalition on the broader range of concerns that we have with respect to iran. major: that is something we can agree on. we are all opposed to nuclear dentistry. the polls will close as soon as senator mccain wraps up his remarks. senator mccain: i thank you, major, for some very excellent questions and thank bruce and suzanne also for their presentation of their point of view and the man gifted with poetry and proud to be in his company.
i'm concerned about the verification as pebts of this agreement. especially from where we began and statements in the beginning and where we ended up. i'm concerned about the relaxation of any restriction on developments of icbm's. i'm concerned about the relaxation on the prohibition of conventional weapons, which obviously is -- are being used throughout the middle east today. but i'm -- the money is really something that bothers me as much as anything else. there is 230,000 syrians that have been slaughtered, millions have fled and we are now seeing the consequences of it. assad was about to fall. and the iranians brought in hezbollah, 5,000 of them. and then they brought in
weapons. and then the barrel bombings started and the poison gas was used. someone needs to show me what the iranians are going to do with these additional funds? $100 billion as they attempt to extend their influence throughout the region. is there any indication of any slight change in iranian behavior? so, i think it's a very bad deal because i believe it puts the iranians on the path to nuclear weapons in 10 years, a blink of an eye in the middle east. but i'm more concerned or as concerned about the implications of this agreement as we basically legitimatize this regime which is the world's greatest sponsor of terror. and that frankly is what keeps me awake at night. and when i see all of us, when our hearts are broken, as we see these children, see a little
baby wash up on the shore on the beach, it breaks our hearts and a lot of those things do not have to happen. and this agreement, i'm afraid, may facilitate other crises of this nature. major: the polls are now closed. it's rare in this city to have an assembly as distinguished as this and they engaged each other as forcefully as they did but to disagree agreebly. i want to give them a round of applause. and join me in that. [applause] major: i want to add this thought, because there is a sense or could be a sense that because the white house has secured the votes in the senate that is anti-climactic. i don't think this debate is. everything said in public about what this deal is or isn't is
important to the historical record not just for this administration but the next administration. this deal is going to survive. and everyone in the policy field and politics says about this will resonate for many years and i thank the panelists as well. i'm going to ask you to stay here for a second and i'll get the results of this poll we just took. so give me one second. [chatter]
major: don't you feel the american idol tension in the room? [laughter] major: i know i feel it. for those of you curious, and i count myself among those, 73% if you before the conversation felt congress should approve the 12%, 15% said disapprove, undecided. after the debate, 85% felt congress should approve, 15% still believe disapprove. [laughter] major: those are our final
result. 15% variation. a big round of applause for our four panelists. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] the irandebate on nuclear agreement got underway in the u.s. senate, it hit a roadblock in the u.s. house. christina marcos, covering the story, what happened to that anticipated 11 hours of debate? originally, we were expecting the house would vote this afternoon and started three days worth of debate on a resolution
to disapprove the deal. but once again, house republican leadership found themselves pulled in a completely different direction, because the right flank of their conference had different ideas. multiple conservative members are accruing members of the freedom caucus, this initiative led by peter roskam, that would prevent a vote on the iran deal until the obama administration produced the text of the so-called side deals between iran and international nuclear inspectors. this congress has not received the text of those so-called side deals. they are arguing that lawmakers don't have enough information at their disposal to make an informed decision about the iran deal. >> the headline on your website mentions conservative revolt. how does republican leadership in the house not see some disappointment on some of the conservative side?
how did they not anticipate some of this coming? >> the reality was that this came out of nowhere. congressman roskam -- he is a former member of the leadership team, the majority whip. he introduced this privileged revolution yesterday. at that moment the house came back from a long august recess, and that prevented a vote on the iran deal, until these the so-called side deals were given to congress. the freedom caucus had their usual weekly dinner at a popular mexican restaurant last night. they got around to talking about this and they decided amongst themselves -- we should band together on this, we should call attention to this. the public doesn't know everything about the side deals. roskam inate peter
your tweet -- "defending last-minute iran effort. the first time i could make a privileged resolution." some of his objection is getting a say in how the house will approach it. tell us what they will vote on. >> the house had a change of plans. they announced late this afternoon that they will have a two-pronged approach. the first is a rising resolution of approval. that is another way of making it a tougher vote for democrats, to highlight some of those who would split with their party. the second part is that they will pass a bill that would prevent president obama, and only president obama, to expire the day the new president is sworn into office, that would anyent him from waiving
of the iran sanctions. the other is the sense of the house that president obama violated the review law passed earlier this year that requires the ministration to provide all documents related to the iran deal. >> lots of changes in the house procedure, but in the senate, as expected. a long day of debate in the majority leader mitch mcconnell introduced two motions. what is expected in the senate in terms of timetable for votes on the deal? any possibility of a senate democratic filibuster? mentioned this evening, under senate rules setting up the first senate vote on the deal for friday. he indicated that he is hopeful it could reach an agreement on thursday instead. point, it is a little
unclear what the democrats will announce for filibuster, although there are 42 senate democrats who are in support of the deal, more than enough to sustain a filibuster if they wanted to. not every democrat has said whether they will unite together to prevent -- to maintain the filibuster. some of them have some reservations about blocking off the debate. >> follow her reporting on the iran nuclear agreement debate at thehill.com and on twitter. thanks for the update. >> thanks for having me. heard, three majors dealing with the array nuclear agreement are expected on the house floor today. and on the other side of the capital, the senate will continue to debate the accord. mitch mcconnell told senators today that he expects a final vote next week. here is senator bernie sanders, who is running for the democratic presidential
nomination, talking about the iran agreement yesterday. president,s: mr. high-rise to speak about the comprehensive plan of action that the united states negotiated with china, france, germany, russia, in the united kingdom and iran. and will the agreement oppose the resolution of this disapproval, as i believe that this approach is the best way accomplishwe are to what all of us want to accomplish -- making certain that iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon, which would destabilize the region, lead to a nuclear arms race in the area, and would endanger the existence of israel. it is my firm belief that the test of a great nation with the most powerful military honor is not how many wars we can engage
in, but how we can use our strength and our capabilities to resolve international conflicts in a peaceful way. those who have spoken out against this agreement, including many in this chamber, and those who have made every effort to thwart the diplomatic process, are many of the same people who spoke out forcefully and irresponsibly about the need it to go to war with iraq. it is the worst followed foreign-policy blunder in the history of our country. sadly, people like dick cheney and many of the other neo-cons who pushed us into war in iraq were not only tragically wrong then, they are wrong now. unfortunately, these individuals
have learned nothing from the results of that disastrous policy and how it destabilized that entire region. manyresident, i fear that of my republican colleagues do not understand that war must be a last resort, not the first resort. war, it isto go to not so easy to fully comprehend the unintended consequences of that war. as the former chairman of the senate veterans affairs committee, i have talked to veterans from world war ii to iraq, and i have learned a little bit about what the cost of war entails. iraqi and afghanistan we lost many brave men and women.
without legs, without arms, without eyesight. let us not forget that 500,000 veterans of the wars in iraq and afghanistan came back to their families with posttraumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injuries. 500,000 brave americans. the suicide rate of young veterans is appallingly high. the divorce rate of those who serve is appallingly high. the impact on their children is appallingly high. god knows how many families have been devastated by these wars. mr. president, we should also not forget that many hundreds of thousands of innocent iraqi men, women, and children died in that haveand those whose lives been completely destabilized. hundreds of thousands of
people's lives have been totally altered, including those who are fleeing that country today, fleeing that country today, with only the clothes on their back, as refugees. real, and itar is is easy to give great speeches about how tough we are, but let us not forget the cost of war on the men and women who serve in our military, and people in other countries. yes, the military option should only be on the table, but it should be the last option. we have got to do everything we can to reach an agreement to ensure that iran does not get a nuclear weapon without having to go to war. mr. president, i believe we have an obligation to pursue diplomatic solutions before
resorting to military engagement, especially after nearly 14 years of ill-conceived and disastrous military engagements in that region. the agreement before us calls for cutting off iran's pathway to the fissile materials needed for a nuclear weapon by reducing its stockpile of uranium by 98% and restricting the level of enrichment of uranium to well below the level needed for recognized uranium. the agreement requires iran to decrease the number of installed centrifuges by 2/3, dismantle heavywater nuclear reactors so it cannot produce any weapons grade plutonium, and commit to rigorous monitoring, inspection, and verification by the iaea. -- onlyer it ran as after iran has demonstrated its
compliance, the united states and the european union will lift the sanctions that help to bring yoiran to the table in the first place. it also contains a mechanism for the snapback of those sanctions if iran does not comply with its obligations. does this agreement achieve everything i would like? no, it does not. but to my mind, it is far better than the path we were on with iran developing nuclear weapons the potentialnd for military intervention by the united states and israel, growing greater by the day. let us not forget that if iran does not live up to its agreements, sanctions may be reimposed. if iran moves toward a nuclear weapon, all available options remain on the table. i think it is incumbent upon us,
however, to give the negotiated agreement a chance to succeed, and it is for these reasons that i will support the agreement. thank you. . > >> our coverage continues on the next "washington journal," with martha mcsally, a member of the house armed services and homeland security committee. then, foreign affairs committee member dave tried. later, the head of the american association of community colleges will join us to talk about president obama's efforts to expand access to community colleges. journal" airs live every morning. and as always, we welcome your comments on facebook and twitter. some live the to tell you about on c-span3. a national security summit gets
underway with a few capitol hill lawmakers, including dianne feinstein, the top democrat on the senate intelligence committee, and the chairman of the midi, devin nunes. that is at 8:00 a.m. eastern. later, he will convene a hearing of his committee on global cyber threats. cia director john brennan and fbi director james county are among the witnesses. then as debate over the nuclear accord continues on capitol hill, we will have live coverage of a hearing on the bill's implication on nonproliferation, including officials from the defense department. begins at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. the iran nuclear agreement has become a political issue for the 20. 16 campaign -- 2016 campaign.
ted cruz and donald trump along with sarah palin and glenn beck spoke at a rally on the west front of the capital. this is three hours and 15 minutes. >> our first speaker is a member of the board at heritage for america, media research center, and he also recently inspected the position as the chairman of the board for tea party patriots. he is a former executive and has experience with wall street and understands how dangerous and difficult it can become on big
government, big labor, and big business teamed together. he is going to be our first speaker today, please join me in welcoming bill walton. [applause] ♪ >> hello, it is great to be here. jenny mentioned that i have a background in wall street and business and one of the things we hope to do is get more people from that world to stand here with us for our freedoms. today we are here to help congress do the right thing. withk obama wants a deal iran. [booing] >> we don't. [cheering] >> here is why. iran is only the leading sponsor of terrorism in the world. the have networks all over world from south asia to the horn of africa to yemen.
they have a significant network here in the united states. their terrorist operation reports directly to the money -- to hamani. it has been a key supporter of syria where over 120,000 civilians have been killed. constitutionalists, but their constitution is committed to the extent of the universal holy government and the downfall of all others. hours, you last 24 probably saw it, the supreme commander told us that israel will not exist in 25 years. it is a deal so good that americans can set foot in a ran. we turned it over to the united nations and we know how vigilant
they are. believe -- i believe -- that this will kick off a nuclear arms race and it will be pretty easy for them to buy a weapon from pakistan. what does that do? it releases up to $150 billion into the iranian economy in the next six months -- put that in perspective. the entire economy is $400 million. 40% of the economy will be provided as stimulus in the next six months thanks to barack obama. you thought tarp was bad. the united states equivalent would be like $7 trillion. already you can't find a hotel in tehran with all the businesses lined up, and you can bet russia is there too.
maybe the most egregious part of this deal is the key piece that lets iran back into the world banking system -- what that does is it means they can finance their terrorist operations worldwide without anyone knowing it -- and it was a big reason they got back to the table. five americans want their senators and congressmen to vote no. two out of three democrats say vote no. let's make congress do the right thing. vote against anything that moves this deal forward. [cheering] >> thank you so much. by the are joined president of the zionist organization for america, morgan klein.
♪ >> hi. i am the president of zoa. i am a child of holocaust survivors born to the displaced persons camp in germany and lost most of my family to the holocaust. people frugally asked me how could the world have let the holocaust happened but now we see a large minority of congress and other countries supporting a deal that will give the nazi germany of today, iran, hundreds of billions of dollars to increase islamic terrorism, giving them more sophisticated weapons and icbms and nuclear weapons in 10 years or less. this is even know that hitler of has rallies every week screaming death to america and death to israel. in his new book, he calls for the islamic regime to take over the entire world and rule it. we ignored hitler's "mein kampf," but we did not ignore his "works in action."
we are commemorating the 40th anniversary of 9/11. that the courtow concluded after a seven-year investigation it was iran's leaders who planned and funded the world trade center attack. al qaeda came in 10 years later. iran was forming this vicious and dangerous enemy. why do 90% of democrats support this catastrophic deal, when only 21% of americans support it? senator lindsey graham said this week, "what president obama did unleashes a political machine, and members of congress were told in no uncertain towards that if they crossed the president here the obama network will come after them forever." i have never seen pressure like this coming from the white house anytime, anywhere. i have been told by members, told there won't be money for district of the vote against this, no national money for
campaigns. you will lose important positions on committees, and we will investigate your fundraising and other activities. this was mafia in chicago, politics at its worst. why is president obama doing this? why is he aiding and abetting america's most dangerous enemy, the islamic republic of iran? let's very briefly examine his record, when his attitude to radical islam determined what evidence requires us to believe. attended an he anti-israel church, calling its parishioner a great man. he refused to attend anti-islamic terrorism marches in paris. he refuses to lose the term -- to use the term islamic terrorism. he has criticized networks that
criticize iran. he wanted to get -- he refused to get rid of the leaders of iran. concludesit painfully that president barack obama is sympathetic to radical islam. g]heerin >> president obama wants to make iran great again, but others want to make america great again. [cheering] >> a large minority of politicians have announced their support of the anti-american zeal. politicians can change their mind -- they do it all the time. people change their lines -- let's do it one more time. you all are great american patriots, you all of america, love freedom, love liberty. we will fight to save america, save our allies, save the world from obama. with all our hearts come with
all our souls, with your help and the help of the mighty god, we will ultimately prevail. thank you so very much. >> thank you. next, the man who knows all about economic freedom, congressman dave brat. ♪ brat: how many people want to make this country great again? i'm honored to be with you here today. i have a few brief remarks that have to do with leadership in this iran deal. the bible says you will know them by their fruits. the chief executive of this country is making a deal with iran, the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, and will provide a legal pathway in 12 to 14 years to a nuclear weapon. they will also give them icbm weapons within 10 years along
with $150 billion to the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, and $500 billion over the next decade. that is the world your kids are going to live in. their goal is to strike terror into the hearts of your children. you will know them by their fruits. the united states, on the other hand, our goal is to give children all around the world a great future. deal,eeing to the iran are we producing greatness or weakness? how is our economy doing lately, strong or weak? how are we viewed by our adversaries, strong or weak? how is our current foreign-policy going, strong or weak? how is our national security and the security of our border lately, strong or weak? of thethe leadership
political class in washington, d.c., strong or weak? the situation we are in right now is a product of weak leadership. leadership in washington is ignoring you, the american people. hey, i'm dave brat from virginia, and i think i know what happens when leadership in washington does not listen to their voters. [cheering] brat: as for the budget process last year and begin this year, we find ourselves in the last minute making split decisions on huge issues that will affect the destiny of the nation. we need to stop this deal right now. a few weeks back i voted against corporate cardin because it did
not follow the constitution. today, the senate should be voting up or down on a tree. -- a treaty. leadership got us into this mess and they are the only ones who can get us out. president obama has not submitted all the information and ride deals linked to the deal. mitch mcconnell and john boehner -- [booing] congressman brat: -- they are going to cut me off. boehner need to get congress 60 days to review all the information we need to make this deal a great deal and get a deal that protects american exceptionalism once again. let me end on a strong note. hint, the answer is strong. what is the character of the
american people standing out here today? strong. what kind of nation in future will you leave your children and grandchildren? strong. what kind of deal do you want and demand with iran? strong. god bless you, god bless the united states of america, thanks for letting me say a few words. god bless you. ♪ >> thank you so much. next, we are joined by someone who helped put this event together. of the center for security policy, frank daphne. ♪ to the tea thank you party team and to all of you our country by the millions who do not want this deal.
there was a courageous democrat in the united states senate by the name of bob menendez. when he announced that he would not support this deal, despite the pressure, despite the conversion, despite the said my namehe will not be on this bomb. [cheering] mr. daphne: we have examples of names who will be on the bomb -- but the question is, ladies and gentlemen, if the of thecan leaders united states senate and house do not stop a steel, which they can, their names will be on th ebombs. mitch mcconnell, john boehner, that must not happen.
when we are all asked in the years ahead what did we do to stop this disaster, we were here. we were here working against it . and across the country millions of us are doing it. we must not rest. because this will not be over in the next few days. so we need your help. we need your strong support. and it is a distinct privilege to be able to introduce some of the team who are working with us in this fight. some 240 retired generals and admirals have signed a letter to the united states congress -- do not do this deal. one of their leaders is retired navy admiral, four-star to the