Transcripts For CSPAN3 Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act Markup Hearing 20150414

Building. The committee was set to meet beginning now 2 15 eastern, but its pushed back a half hour, to 2 45. Taking up legislation that will require congressional review of the nuclear deal with iran. This is White House Press secretary josh ernest said president obama wouldnt necessarily reject the bill proposed by bob corker which would require greater congressional review of a potential deal to curb Irans Nuclear program. The National Journal writes that corker and the new member of maryland reached a compromise monday night to alter parts of the bill in ways that ernest said the administration would consider accepting. The White House Briefing is online at cspan. Org. Were also covering the la times festival of books. Heres a preview. In los angeles is the annual Los Angeles Times festival of books. And book tv will be live, both april 18th and 19th from the university of Southern California campus. Nick is the deputy publisher of the la times. When and how did the la times start supporting this book fair . It is the 20th anniversary of the festival of books. It was an important way the newspaper could engage with the community, could provide a space for all kinds of people, from publishers authors thinkers, but also chefs and art u. S. Ists and actors and actresses to come together and celebrate los angeles as one of the creative capitals of the world. And what can we expect next weekend in los angeles . Were going to have over 500 authors, celebrities musicians, artists, et cetera as well as hundreds of book sellers, publishers and cultural organizations across nine stages. Theres something for everyone. Bring your kids. Bring your grandparents. Theres a huge amount of stuff going on. Some of the notable names can Candace Candace burgan, billy idol Joyce Carol Oates jason segel, Travis Smiley octavia spencer. It is something for everyone. Hippies, foodies, more than a hundred conversations on everything from california to Digital Privacy rights to the future of the american identity. What kind of reaction do you get from the community, to a book fest . You know, its been an immediate success. Its one of the when it was started 20 years ago it right away was a corner stone event in los angeles culture. The people market it out all year long. Its been a signature event. Its been a way the Los Angeles Times invites all kinds of folks around the community to come and celebrate this great city. Its grown to one of the largest festivals of its kind. Theres nothing like it anywhere in the United States. It started very simply as a goal of bringing together people who create books, and people who love to read them, but its grown into this broader celebration. Among other things we have a big book award we give out every year. This year, were adding something new. Were having something called an ideas exchange, where Malcolm Gladwell will be in conversation with the Los Angeles Times film critic. If you listen to npr, youre probably familiar with kenneths voice as nprs film critic. As regular viewers know, book tv will be there. The cspan bus therebywill be there. Weve partnered with the festival of books to create a book bag. Well be handing those out from the cspan bus. If youre familiar with the area, on the usc campus, were half a block from tommy trohjin. Is there a cost . The bulk is free. Some areas are ticketed due to limited space. This is a chance to invite the country in, in partnership with usc, to look at california. California as, you know, the gateway to both latin america and the pacific rim, to look at some of the future some of the challenges the country faces in its future that are acute in los angeles, from drought and Climate Change to immigration and the multicultural diversity of this nation. Across the board, all kinds of exciting opportunities. Go to the Los Angeles Times, la times. Com, and follow the book fest lafob, los angeles festival of books. Thanks for being on book tv. Looking forward to seeing folks next weekend. It will be live on cspan2 all weekend next weekend, from the Los Angeles Times festival of books. Saturday and sunday april 18th and 19th. Go to book tv. Org to get the full schedule. Lot of call in opportunities. Lot of panels. Lot of nonfiction authors youll be hearing from all weekend long on book tv. Here on cspan3, well be live in 25 minutes, 2 45 eastern, Senate Foreign Relations Committee taking a meeting to consider the bill dealing with the Iran Nuclear Negotiations and the announced framework. Thats 2 45 eastern. Until then part of todays washington journal. On the day that iraqi Prime Minister is set to meet with president obama at the white house, we welcome former u. S. Ambassador to iraq, Christopher Hill, back to our program. Ambassador hill, whats on the table today at this meeting between the Prime Minister and the president . Oh i think its going to be a lot on the isis crisis. Certainly, the president will be briefed on what hes been up to, in terms of trying to pull together the country after a kind of Difficult Run with his predecessor, maliki. Abadi speaks english, and it should be a much more sort of pleasant meeting for the president. Nonetheless, i mean, the issues are really tough. You mention some of the tension with the previous Prime Minister. What is the relationship like between president obama and Prime Minister al abadi, or is that something thats going to be in Development Today . I think its going to be in development. Obviously, theyve talked on the phone before. Abadi lived in the west, speaks english. I think its going to be a little easier to talk to him. Unlike maliki, who sometimes come to washington and then raise issues that no one knew he was going to raise the president wasnt sure what to do with them, the president s staff would wonder, where did that one come from. So i think abadi is going to be a lot more user friendly. That said these are tough issues. What to do about isis. What to do about the shia militia groups that have been a key part of pushing isis back. What to do about the iranian presence on the ground in iraq, which is clearly grown as the isis crisis has grown. Abadi is looking at a situation where his oil revenues are down. The price of oil is way down. Theyve had production problems. There are a lot of problems in iraq, and they have the sense that somehow, weve abandoned them. Its going to be theyre going to have to get down to the point with these discussions. One of the reports from route reuters yesterday, iraqs leader to seek payment on this deferred visit. A story about whats on the table today in the meeting between the Prime Minister and the president. If that is the ask today, is that going to be a tough sell, especially in light of how iraqi troops performed in the face of the isis advancements through mosul and other parts, large parts of iraq last year . On a certain level, everyone understands the need for more arms for the iraqi army. But on another level, people look at isis parading around with American Equipment captured from the iraqi army. Theres a little skepticism about throwing good money after bad. Clearly, abadi needs to make the case that hes turned things around. The iraqi army is performing a lot better than it did a few months ago. Nonetheless, any big arm sales need to be approved by congress. Congress is in a skeptical mood about iraq. If our viewers want to join the conversation, were talking to former u. S. Ambassador to iraq, Christopher Hill. He was ambassador there from 2009 to 2010. Before that, served as the former assistant secretary of state for east asian and Pacific Affairs, 2005 to 2009. With us for the next 45 minutes or so. Phone lines, republicans call at 2027488001. Democrats, 2027488000. Independents, 2027488002. Ambassador hill, i want to get your assessment of how the Iraqi Government is playing off the competing interests of the United States and iran as they look to try to defeat this threat of isis in this in their country. I mean, the essential problem is we live in a sectarian age. When the u. S. Went into iraq in oh 5 03, it flipped what had been a sunniled country, that is Saddam Hussein. He was sunni. Most of his government was sunni. We turn it into a shialed country, with a few Prime Ministers, includinge inging maliki. To an extent iraq is a black sheep in the arab middle east because sunnis in the arab middle east, i mean, they stretch all the way from iraqs borders, right over to morocco. They have kind of strategic depth and dont accept the shialed iraq. If you add to the equation the perception that the iranians are having their way on the ground, not only in iraq but also in syria, and theyre helped al assad, helping hezbollah, various other shia groups. Meanwhile, the iranians seem to be cheer leading at the very least, the success of the houthis in yemen, who are also shia. The sunni arabs look at what they believe to be this kind of shia advance, and theyre very worried about it. What were really asking the sunni arabs to do is not worry about shia, but rather worry about the extremist sunnis in isis. This is really the proverbial problem from hell. Speaking of iran, want to get your assessment of that announced framework deal of the Iranian Nuclear program. Youre a man who knows the art of diplomacy well. Was this a good deal . Well you know, you have to say that compared to what . I know there are a lot of people who think they could have reached a better deal with the iranians. I think it certainly creates a path forward. We have to see whether they can kind of cross the ts and dot the is with this agreement which theyve got three months to put together. If it works theres no question, its a good deal. If it has problems with the implementation, has problems with the verification by international observers, then its going to be a real difficulty for the Obama Administration to sell. For now, i think its a way forward. I wish people would give it a little more chance than they have. For those watching washington, d. C. Today for news on this front the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is set to take up the Corker Menendez iran bill today, giving congress a 60 day review and a say on any deal. Its a iran agreement review act of 2015. Has bipartisan support. You can check it out, cspan3 at 2 15 for that committee markup. Ambassador hill, your thoughts on congresss role in whatever final agreement is reached here. Well theits complicated. First, there were the landmark agreements with the soviet union. They were legal treaties that did indeed require congresss or the senates consent. But most agreements around the world, of the kind were looking at here, are something done by the administration through an executive process. That is, theyre political deals, not legal deals. The problem here is for the past year or so, the president has signalled his intention to try and rule through executive decrees, given the difficulty of dealing with the congress. So this issue of the iraq deal gets caught up in that sort of overall issue of executive privileges. And compared to the fact that in the past with the soviet union we had legal arms control agreements. So its going to require a mammoth amount of consultation. Theyll have to unleash joe biden on the senate and get him to work with his former colleagues. Itll be difficult because there is a mountain of mistrust on pennsylvania avenue these days. Lets get to calls. Jack has been waiting in providence, rhode island, line for republicans. Jack, good morning. Hi. Good morning. Even though i am a republican the United States did help create some of these problems in iraq, like back in the 80s. We were a supporter of Saddam Hussein because we used him as a buffer against iran. In the 40s, we were aligned with the soviet union because we couldnt defeat them, too good too strong. Then back under the george bush administration, Saddam Hussein, he had to go. He was a strong man, but when he was there, none of these problems existed because he crushed them. Granted, yeah he was brutal but now that hes gone there is a power vacuum there. Its created a multitude of problems, which we helped create. Ambassador hill do you want to pick up on that . Your assessment of how much responsibility the u. S. Has in the problems in iraq today. Well, if you live there as ive lived there and you see what Saddam Hussein did to the country and to his people, you dont rue the day we got rid of hussein. He was a hideous character. At times, you have the impression that the u. S. Didnt understand what we were dealing with there. We thought that somehow, if we got rid of Saddam Hussein there was this sort of level of middle class and issuesbased politics yearning to flourish in a democratic environment. In fact when you get rid of governance, even bad governance, as was the case with Saddam Hussein, you have people taking refuge in old loyalties. Those old loyalties tended to be sectarians. People became a little more shoeia and sunni. You can lay blame on the United States, to be sure. But i get a little tired of this blame game stuff. Its mainly in washington. I see theres a little bit of it in providence, rhode island. By the way, the capital of my home state. I think its necessary to figure out, what are we going to do now . How will we go forward with this . Let the historians sort out some of these issues of, you know, who made mistakes in the past. A question from twitter referring to this front page story in the new york times, and also several other papers today. Russia to sell missiles to iran, which might cloud the nuclear talks, is the headline from the new york times. Is iraq worried about the announcement that russia is going to sell arms to iran again after the u. S. Nuke deal . What is that impact on the region . Well, obviously this is not well received at all by the entire region. Sunni arabs have no interest in seeing iran get rearmed. Their argument against this nuclear deal is that its going to reverse the sanctions and youre going to see more such deals. For those that have been saying dont do this nuclear deal theyve got exhibit a already. Vladimir putin when faced with the right or wrong thing to do almost 100 of the time he chooses the latter. I think this is an example of it. Did you have a chance to meet him during your years of service with the u. S. State department . No. I just was able to shake his hand once, and that was enough. What was your impression of the man when you shook his hand . Hes a hes someone who looked at his countrys performance in the 1990s and decided it was time to make a big change and get russia kind of back on its feet. Hes done so in a very damaging way, extremely damaging to russias relations not only within its bordering countries, like ukraine but with the entire world. I think to some extent putin has taken russia out of the business of being a great power, working in concert with other countries to try to resolve the worlds problems, and its become a problem itself. I think were going through a bad patch with putin. I think we need to be prepared for the long haul in that regard. Weve got former u. S. Ambassador Christopher Hill with us for the next half hour. He was ambassador of iraq and the former secretary of state for east asian and Pacific Affairs affairs, 2005 to 2009. If you have questions, republicans, 2024388001. Democrats, 2027488000. Independents, 2027488002. Frank is on the line. Go ahe. A year ago, i was watching cnn and they ran a special on a billion dollar aid for weapons. It was given over to a bicycle salesman from the netherlands. He ran off with 7 to 8 billion of the money. Do you know what happened to that . The last i saw on that article he was in south of france which was not being extradited. Ambassador hill, a case youve heard about . No. I cant speak to the specifics of that. I can tell you that the arms sales business around the world, certainly the United States tries to regulate carefully our sale of arms. We have some pretty impressive systems. We make sure that we have a pretty, you know robust system to make sure these things dont get into the wrong hands. Ill tell you, there are a lot of private arms merchants out there. What to say, its not a profession i would encourage my children to be in. Tom is in clinton maryland. Line for democrats. Tom, good morning. Good morning. Can you hear me okay . Yup. Yeah i beg to differ with ambassador hill about this being a bad deal that the iranians the fact that the russians are selling the missiles is so that the deal is compromised already. Let me say that, as long as this deal stays on the table i mean, i think its worse for us. We need to come to a deal something we can verify and hold the iranians to it. If they go against the deal, even if its not the best deal we have some idea of what we can do. The way things stand now were going to have to bomb iran. With these sophisticated weapon systems the russians are selling them, well take great losses. We need to come to some sort of understanding, some deal that is verifiable, may not be the best deal, but we can do something to hold their feet to the fire. Ambassador hill . I dont disagree with that. I certainly oppose the russian decision to make use of this Framework Agreement and sell iran sophisticated arms. Frankly, i think the russians are in it for profit rather than in it for any kind of overall Framework Agreement on Irans Nuclear program. I think it really undermines support for the Framework Agreement. Otherwise, makes it more difficult to get to the next stage. So i think its a very bad decision for the russians. As i was suggesting its kind of part and parcel of how they behave in the world now. They simply dont care what the rest of us think. So i think its a very bad decision, and i think the u. S. Government will be very clear in opposing it. Lets go to pamela in ft. Worth, texas. Line for independents. Good morning. Good morning. Id like to ask, isis is well supported with money and arms, and the other side isnt. Theyre begging for help. Who is supporting isis with all this money . Why are they so accepted and as well as a military force and the other side, who were supposed to be for, is drowning and losing lives . Thats one issue. Thank you. Ambassador hill . Well, i think one of the problems with isis is a hideous organization that it is, first of all, theyve been successful in raising funds through the usual kidnappings and robberies, that sort of thing. As you recall when they entered mosul, the first thing they did was make for the bank and blow the vaults. They do this Old Fashioned thing. But they also, i think, have a network throughout the middle east of extreme sunni supporters who support what theyre doing. Now, this came up in the past. This came this issue of making sure that money wasnt going into iraq to support the insurgency. This came up in 06 07. Many countries were much more supportive in terms of making sure that there were no money flows from them to these insurgents at the time. Now, i mean, things have fallen apart in many ways. Part of the what the United States is trying to do is make sure these countries are much more vigilant than theyve been. The other problem of course is whether the iraqis and the kurds and, you know, even these shia my militia groups are going to get what they need to stop isis. When you talk about shia groups kurds, you dont get a lot of support from the sunni arabs. That said, there have been countries who have been supportive. Jordan is certainly one of them. I think its something that requires constant diplomacy, to make sure we can dry up funds to isis and constant diplomacy to make sure arms are being transferred to those who are actually in the battlefield, dealing with isis. I think one of the points that Prime Minister al abadi will make today to president obama is, look, you want support against isis, well, my army, the iraqi army is the one army out in the field dealing with these people. Give us more to deal with this. Is he in a position of strength right now, when he talks about the battlefield . Is the iraqi army winning . We heard about the reports and the battle for tikrit. What is your assessment of the situation on the ground right now . Well, my assessment, i think, i would follow the conventional wisdom that the iraqi army is doing better. But its success is often dependent on these shia my lailitia groups who are relying on support from iran. Its not a positive development. I think the iraqi army is in the right direction, but the issue is whether it can succeed without these various shia militia groups, who were such a problem during the insurgency period in iraq back in 06 and 07. If shia groups run the day, they have shown that they are not supporters of democracy or sunni outreach within iraq which is a process that is necessary for eventual reconciliation in the country. Ambassador chris hill, the u. S. Ambassador to iraq in 2009 and 10. He was also ambassador to the republic of korea from 2005 to 2006. Poland in 2005. Macedonia from 1996 to 1999. And a frequent guest here on the washington journal. We appreciate it this morning. Ross is in columbus, ohio line for democrats. Ross, good morning. Caller good morning. Thanks for having me on. Id like to just kind of reiterate on the gentleman a couple calls back. When he spoke about the fact that we always go into these areas, especially the middle east, and pit one side against the other side, and play this game of basically chess over there. When things go badly, we pull out, and we shirk our responsibilities. I mean its a shame that this happens so many times around different places in the world. Especially the middle east. The gentleman made a statement, your guest says he gets tired of accepting the blame for whats happened in the past. You have to accept the blame if youre the main cause of the problem. Like i said which we have been in quite a few spots around the world. Ross what are our responsibilities in iraq right now . How would you state our responsibilities . Caller well, i dont know if we even have any responsibilities. We made a big mess of the situation. I think you can see that a lot of this conflict has grown. The battle lines are drawn along ethnic lines. These people have been fighting each other for thousands of years. If we just when we took out Saddam Hussein dictator. Do you think the United States should be involved in the efforts against isis in syria . Caller of course. Again, you talk about regime changes in syria. Whats going to happen after that . See, we make these knee jerk decisions over there, and we dont always understand the consequences. Ambassador hill, do you want to jump in . I dont disagree with the thrust of what the caller is saying. I think we have made a lot of mistakes, as i said earlier. I think we went in there thinking regime change in iraq would be a process that would lead to democracy. I think when you change your regime, you have to be prepared for something even worse to happen. What we got was something pretty bad, in terms of secretarytarian violence that has been spread. My problem with this blame game is that everything goes into the kind of this partisan meat grinder in washington. And before you know it, you have republicans lined up. Very much wanting to say well we had this thing all in good shape. Then president obama came along and, you know, undid all the progress we made. I get tired of that. I really think we need to get back to period in our history where wed understand the kind of politics that takes a break at the waters edge. We start figuring out how to work through things a little better. Try to present ourselves as a much more united organized country than we do. I mean thats been my problem with, for example, senators. I mean i know their frustrations in dealing with president obama. I dont think frustrations should be allowed to boil over in the form of a letter, to tell the ayatollah to pay no attention to our president. I feel this kind of politics and blame game stuff is a little out of hand in washington right now. Its hurting our country internationally. Chandler, arizona is up next on the line for republicans. Jerry, good morning. Caller good morning. I have two points. One is i want to talk about putin. The other is the lets talk about putin first. Why dont we crank up our sanctions against him . Hear what you say, so guess what, you dont like it so well crank those bad boys up. The second thing putin wants missiles in iran. Thats okay. Then well put defense weapons in ukraine. What are your thoughts . Ambassador hill, take them in which ever order you want. Well, first of all, with regard to sanctions, i mean clearly, there are people in iran who really are feeling the effects of the sanctions. They want to end the sanctions and understand that there is a price for ending the sanctions. Namely, to get away from producing Nuclear Weapons. So people such as zarif, for example, he understands that iran needs to give up something to get something. There are a loot oft of irainiansiranians who dont agree. For many iranians who profited from sanctions, you know, sanctions are something that you take kind of normal commerce and often with sanctions, you have to kind of go around normal commerce. So next thing you know, youve got the kind of organized crime involved in normal commerce. So the bad thing about sanctions is often, you can create problems in a country for generations to come. One of the concerns i have about the sanctions program is yes, i think its hurt the iranian economy. Such that good people in iran are saying to the government, please, try to sort this out with the west on Nuclear Weapons. One my problem with the idea of sanctions is i dont think its hurt the people we want to hurt. I dont think theyre well targeted at all. I think you see the revolutionary guards very much benefitting from this what has become illegal trade. Moreover, when you look at the Iran Nuclear Program the growth and the number of centerfuges, the equipment used to spin ready to roll. This business meeting for the Senate Foreign relations meeting will committee will come to order. The only order of of Business Today is s615, the Iran Nuclear Agreement review act of 2015. And that bill is the pending business of the committee. I want to start by thanking all of the members of the committee for the tremendous amount of work been done over several months. To et get us to the place we are. And in any piece of legislation obviously there are things that members would like to see different. But i think weve reached a balance here that is very, very appropriate. I want to thank former chairman and former Ranking Member senator bob menendez for his tremendous efforts on all things iran, but certainly this piece of legislation. I cant imagine a member being more constructive. And i want to say that to me today what may occur is the true reemergence of the Foreign Relations committee becoming more than just a debating society, but a committee that takes up the significant work that we have before us around the world. And i want to say again to our former chairman and Ranking Member, theres no question that over the last two years you have helped bring us to this point where instead of debating things we, in fact may well be taking up important legislation that will have a Significant Impact on the security of the middle east and certainly of our citizens. I want to thank tim kaine for his incredible effort. Tim is someone who understands truly the role of the United States senate and significance of the issues and has been to articulate more clearly than anyone else why its important for us to take the role that i hope this legislation today will allow to take. And to the Ranking Member, i dont know how many times weve talked over the phone over the last several days. I cannot thank you enough for you are yo temperament, for your tone for your seriousness on a very, very important issue. And i look forward to working with you on other significant issues. But today, to be where we are, no doubt is a testament to the type of senator you came here to be. And i want to thank you for that look. Lets set the stage in spite of what may be being said by buildings down the street on the other end of pennsylvania. This legislation is exactly the congressional review that weve been working on for day one and i want to thank everyone here for allowing this legislation to be in the form its in today the 100 of the integrity we hoped to be a part of this process embodied in this piece of legislation. What this legislation does, i think everyone understands that these Iran Nuclear Negotiations are incredibly important to the citizens that we represent. I think all of us would like to see a strong negotiated agreement that ensures that iran does not get a Nuclear Weapon. But what this legislation does is allow us. Congress has been a partner in this. Congress has passed four pieces of legislation since 2010 that most people credit for having brought iran to the negotiating table. Many times, lets face it, this was not something that the administration favored. But congress prevailed, and the sanctions we have put in place are the sanctions that a broad economy brought the iranian economy down certainly a great deal caused inflation and destabilizing effect that has caused them to want to be at the negotiating table. What we have before us today is a bill that forces the administration before they are able to lift the sanctions that we collectively put in place that brought them to the table it forces the administration to bring to us every detail if there happens to be a final agreement. Every detail. Weve left time frames in here. Weve worked through the house to make sure the procedures are appropriate well have a colloquy in a minute to further confirm that. But it means that the sanctions that have been put in place by this body, by the senate and by the house cannot be lifted cannot be lifted without the administration bringing to us every detail of the deal, then the clock will start. And therell be a period of time that congress that congress will have the ability to debate and decide whether Congress Wants to move ahead with a resolution of approval or a resolution of disapproval. During that time, no congressional mandated sanctions can be lifted. After that process is over, theres a third process that is very important. I think everybody understands what has happened. In north korea, where arrangements were made, buzz there was no follow through. And a very important aspect, a third leg to this agreement is that Congress Stays involved if an agreement is reached. And if one is not disapproved, Congress Stays involved. And every 90 days the administration has to certify that in every way iran is in compliance. And if there are violations within a tenday period, they have to give that to congress. If we have the ability to quickly reapply the sanctions that if a deal is approved would be alleviated. I think this puts congress in its rightful role. People should know and i think everyone understands the sanctions that are being negotiated right now are the Nuclear Sanctions only. The sanctions relative to Ballistic Missile testing, they stay in place. The sanctions relative to terrorism, they stay in place. Relative to human rights they stay in place. Today were focused on the nuclear piece, but i would say in the event over time these sanctions are lifted because a deal is approved and congress chooses not to disapprove it. I would say to everyone here this bill gives us more reporting on terrorism than weve ever had. More reporting on Ballistic Missile testing than weve ever had. More reporting on human rights than weve ever had. And we will have that entire arsenal of sanctions that we put in place since 2010 to reapply in those areas if we feel like iran is again, doing things not in our National Interest and certainly not in the countrys. So i want to thank again, the Ranking Member. I want to thank everybody who has worked with us in this regard. I know there may be some other, many people may have opening comments, but it has been a true pleasure to work with senator carden and others. For us to be in the place that we are with the entire integrity of the review process we started with staying in place. And with that ill turn it over to our Ranking Member who worked with us to get this in a place that i hope Many Democrats will be able to join in. And did so valiantly, toughly but with a temperament that allowed us to move along in a productive way. Thank you very much. I want to completely agree with you in regards to the role that senator menendez has played with us reaching this moment. I dont think we would be here reporting out. A congressional review of the iranian cords that we hope will be presented to us in june and senator menendez enjoys the strong thanks for the incredible leadership hes given the Foreign Relations committee as the chairman and as Ranking Member. I can assure everyone here, i am honored to be the Ranking Member did not want to under these circumstances. And i hope the issues will be resolved quickly. Mr. Chairman, i look at my position as working with you to achieve the mutual goals an extremely Important Role to play. And we want to do that in the best interest of the United States. I represent the democratic members, but in a broader sense we represent all the members of the senate i look forward to working with you in that regard. Its clear to me theres a strong, common commitment in the congress of the United States and within the white house to make sure iran never becomes a Nuclear Weapon state. That is our objective. Thats a game changer for the middle east. Something we cannot allow to occur. I think we all agree that the preferred course to achieve that objective is through the diplomatic means through the negotiations that are taking place with a strong agreement that would prevent iran from becoming a Nuclear Weapons state. It would have to provide ample time before iran could break out to a Nuclear Weapon so if they do not come ply with the agreement, well know about those breaches and can take effective action to prevent iran from becoming a Nuclear Weapon state. Bottom line is theres no disagreement in this committee or congress that we cannot trust iran and that the agreement must be able to assure that iran does not become a Nuclear Weapon state. I think we also will Reach Agreement today that of an appropriate role for congress in revealing what we must do in that regard. And i start by saying thank you to senator corker and menendez and kaine for giving us the framework to achieve that. I agree with senator corker the basic framework of the bill that were working on today provided a way in which congress and a thoughtful and meaningful way could weigh in and review any agreement reached between our negotiating partners and iran in regards to Nuclear Weapons. Timely notice in an event there was a material breach so congress could take appropriate action. Those two principles were in the original bill and they are still there today. And i agree completely with those purposes and said so well before the hearings this markup today. I am pleased though, we were able to negotiate a member managers package that has broad support and input from many members of this committee. And i want to thank members on both sides of the aisle for their input into the managers amendment. It reflects i think, the best thoughts of all the members of the committee. It provides, i think, the right framework for the congressional review and potential action. And i just want to quote from some language in the managers amendments. That the sanctions regime is primarily responsible for bringing iran to the table to negotiate its Nuclear Program. Were the ones who imposed the sanctions as you pointed out. These negotiations are critically important matters of Foreign Policy for the United States and the closest allies. This legislation does not require a vote for congress for the agreement to commence. This provides for congressional review including an appropriate approval or disapproval for no actions on statutory sanctions are leaf under an agreement. I just really want to point that out because people have asked. Were involved here. We have to be involved here. Only congress can permanently change or modify the sanction regime which is clearly part of what the president s negotiating in regards to the Iran Nuclear Program. Secondly, let me point out that the managers amendment, i think has the appropriate role for congress in regards to when we get that agreement and how we act on it. Technician clear we will only act after the administration has presented to us an agreement. Thats when the clock starts. Were providing an orderly way for our consideration. Well go into the time frame in a moment. But under the assumption were going to get the agreementen o time, there would be an initial 30day review period for congress to review the agreement. We have checked that out. That gives our committee ample time to hold hearings and for congress to take appropriate action. We dont know whether therell be no action, resolution dealing with sanctions. All of that is possible. Well wait until we receive the agreement and we have our Committee Hearings and determine the appropriate role for congress but there would be no action prior to receiving the agreement. Its also very clear that the april 2nd framework is not part of that review process. The 30 days could be extended if there was action that required approval. And potential veto override, the periods would be extended. No one can anticipate where well end up but its a 30day review process. I want to thank the chairman because we got into a big debate debate we may have an amendment being offered on this. Ill cover it briefly now. Weve eliminated from the original draft certain president ial certifications that were not related to the iranian negotiations. And i think that was the right thing to do. This is a complicated enough agreement. If we can prevent iran from becoming a Nuclear Weapon state, thats the objective these agreements. Does iran have other issues with the International Community and us . You bet they do. And we are concerned about that. And ivor urged my colleagues to take a look at the managers amendment because we have strengthened this bill as it relates to getting adequate information about their terrorist activities and their violations of human rights so that we have that information and can use that information as we see fit. I believe the managers amendment strengthens this bill as it relates to the other types of activities problematic to the United States that are caused by iran but does it in the right way without interfering. In fact, i would suggest this bill strengthens the president s ability to negotiate in regards to the Nuclear Framework itself. And lastly, let me say i think theres an amendment offered that makes it clear that the security of israel and the survival of israel is paramount. One of the paramount goals and i agree with that completely. I think senator rubio, i think senator boxer for their leadership on that issue. For her work on the framework of how we put this together. And all the members on both sides for their incredible work. I think this is a proud moment if we can get this type of legislation as to how congress can really weigh in on this agreement, i think its the right thing. Not only for congress but for the American People. You want to do the colloquy . And mr. Chairman, if i might, i just want to make one point on some of the new texts and the substitute amendment which has been agreed to between senator corker and myself. Regarding the period of congressional review. The original bill mandated a 60day period. The president would not be able to provide statutory sanctions. If the agreement is submitted by july 10th the review period would be 30 days. And during that period the president would be unable to provide statutory sanctions relief then provides for a further 12 days for the president to consider a veto of disapproval and ten days for congress to consider overriding a veto. The tenday period would begin the day after a president ial veto. That is absolutely my understanding and your understanding that the time clock only begins when the president submits all of the materials for us to weigh in including all of the classified annexes that the public will never see but are important for all of us to see and to be able to weigh in on prior to any sanctions being relieved. But that is my understanding. I appreciate that. Youre correct, the president has to submit the agreement. The agreement is defined in the managers amendment to include the relevant documents. And after that period of time, all of our members should know because of the way congress functions and nonfunctions during a period of august, theres a 60day process we revert back to. That is the case. Is that thats our understanding and certainly spelled out that way in the managers amendment. But i want to make sure that we have an agreement. I thank you for that. At this moment, i really think its important for senator menendez who has been such a champion, not only this piece of legislation, but regarding our mutual concerns with iran, i would like to call on him to make opening comments. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Let me thank you for your gracious remarks. And i appreciate having worked with you on the legislation and your consultations with me on changes to the legislation, which i support. And i think this continuation of the bipartisanship when i had the pleasure of chairing the committee rises to the high calling of what the United States senate is all about. And particularly upholds the significance of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as it relates to Foreign Policy and National Security. I want to thank you and congratulate you in that respect. I want to thank the Ranking Member for his incredibly hard work in perfecting the legislation that brings us to what i hope will be a broad, strong bipartisan vote. And i couldnt think of anyone better to take my place during this period. And i want to thank senator kaine who was in credibly helpful. In my view, the way to send a message to tehran about our expectations is for congress to put politics aside and pass the corker review act with unified bipartisan action that underscores congress Critical Role in one of the highest Priority National Security Nuclear nonproliferation charges of our time. The fact is if the p5 plus 1 in iran achieve by the june deadline, at the end of the day Congress Must have oversight responsibility and this legislation provides it. This bill establishes a managed process for congressional review and a framework for congressional oversight. Now, i dishuate between this agreement and others that the administration has cited for exclusive executive action because of the sanctions that are law. And as the author of those sanctions working with many others on this committee and beyond i can tell you that we never envisioned a wholesale waiver of those sanctions without congressional input and action. My goal is one goal. And that is to make certain that iran does not have the infrastructure to develop a Nuclear Weapon. And the best way is with bipartisan support that strengthens the United States hand in moving from a political framework to a comprehensive agreement and sets out expectations for iranian compliance. Lets send a message that sanctions relief is not a given and certainly not a prize for signing on the dotted line. That effectively dismantles the Nuclear Weapons infrastructure and verifies compliance with every word of the deal i have many questions, including the understanding of the agreement, the difference of what iran can do if research on advanced centrifuges, the ability to snap back sanctions if there are violations of the agreement the lack of addressing the dimensions of irans program, the degree of the iaeas ability to have snap inspections, not regular, but snap inspections. But thats all the more reason to have an indepth oversight role. I urge a strong bipartisan vote on the chairmans mark. Are there additional opening comments . If i could, i might want to go this way since we want to stay in balance here. First of all, again, i want to join in with everyone and recognize your efforts on this. Theyve been herculean to say the least. The reason this is so difficult, is the fact were negotiating towards two different goals. Usually when people are negotiating to get to a particular point. The United States and the world wants to negotiate to a point where the iranians cannot now, cannot every have a Nuclear Weapon. Theyre negotiating to get a very specific clear path forward to get a Nuclear Weapon. People talk about ten years, 15 years. This is a culture around for five millennia, 2 1 2 since they were the power in the world 10 to 15 years is nothing for them. Under the agreement thats been talked about they patiently can put one step one foot in front of the other and get to where they want to go. Unfortunately, that leaves people that are going to be sitting in these chairs in the future to deal with that. And that is whats made this so difficult. Having said all that. I think there are steps to take to slow it down. And maybe the iranian people will decide they want to be reasonable actors in the world and at some point in time get to the point where they do abandon their nuclear ambitions. This agreement that were talking about right now does not get them to the point where theyre abandoning their ambitions because itd be simple if they wanted to. Theyd destroy all of their infrastructure, abandon it completely and move on. Thats not what were talking about here. Theres good stuff in here were going to have to get on board with. Thank you, mr. Chairman. If i could just to clarify. And i think the comments youre making about the agreement youre talking about the not todays agreement. Todays agreement is putting together a structure for us to be able to deal with that once its presented. And hopefully giving us a seat, not at the negotiating table, but to be able to weigh in a way to influence it. Well said. On that point. I think thats critically important. Were going to have strong bipartisan support for this agreement. There may be different views oen what has been negotiated today. And i think its clear this vote on the review process is not at all a reflection on how members feel on the underlying negotiations. And quite frankly, i want to see the agreements before i comment on the agreements. Its still a process being negotiated. I do want to acknowledge the president s success in keeping iran intact during these negotiating periods. The ability to get negotiating partners in unity and staying in unity and keeping the sanctions regime in place when many of us thought when the first framework was announced that we would not be able to do that. I think well reserve judgment at a different point. But right now, i hope we can focus on the framework for our review. Someone on this side. Senator boxer. Thank you so much. I appreciate the hard work that you, mr. Chairman, did along with our Ranking Member senator menendez and so many others, senator kaine, i dont mean to slight anyone. So many people involved in this. And to me its very, very important. I believe this bill has been changed from a point at which i did not support it to a point in which i can. And its because i believe the former bill wouldve disrupted and upended the ongoing negotiations between iran and the p5 plus 1, and i believe this new bill will not do that. Now, i have uh received assurances today, all morning i was on the phone with experts saying, do you feel that if we vote for this bill we will upend negotiations . And the answer came back very straightforward way. No. This bill will not do that. And so, im very pleased. Now, the reason for that is theres no longer language in the bill tying extraneous issues to the agreement. We may have an amendment to do that. And everyone has a right to their opinion. My own view, that would be a deal breaker. Because we know how many problems we face 7 00 with iran. We could count the ways wed be here all day. But were trying to take care of one of these problems today. So i would urge colleagues to refrain from trying to solve every problem with iran. Theres years worth of mistrust. Years worth of terrorism, and were dealing with them and we will still deal with them, and theres language in there that states we will still deal with them. Lets not tie it to this legislation. Also, im pleased what is highlighted in this is a section that says we will not be voting on the final deal if there is one until after it is concluded. I think those are very important. And i do so appreciate senators accepting and the right to exist. We all feel that way. Every one of us. Im proud its in there. And also am glad that the language i wrote with senator shotz on expedited procedures. Should there be a breakout so we can immediately go on to the floor of the United States senate, no filibuster allowed and add back sanctions . Or do other things, everything will be on the table if there is a breakout. So in the new forum the bill clears a strong path forward for congress to vote up or down on sanctions that it imposed. Thats the way i view the bill. I view the bill a vote on sanctions that we imposed. If this bill is altered in ways that threatened this once in a lifetime opportunity to deal with a looming crisis i will use every tool at my disposal to stop that from happening. This is just too important. I want to thank not only the leaders of this committee and that does include senator menendez if i failed to mention him before but also this administration. For its extraordinary efforts in putting together a framework addressing Irans Nuclear future. And i looked at the framework. And what i can say about it is, it does call for intrusive inspections. Not only of the facilities but of the supply chain that is critical. And an actual rollback of nuclear capabilities. This is not a freeze. This is a rollback. I for one have positive views about the framework and literally pray that the progress will continue. As i look at the alternative. To me as i look at the alternative to this negotiation this ongoing negotiation is frightening to the American People. They dont want another war. We had a colleague on the other side of the aisle actually call for bombing iran now. And i fear theres a lot more than one feels this way. And i think by taking control, this committee taking control of this process, mr. Chairman, i think its the best thing we can do. The very last point. I hope people read the letter we got from 50 leaders of bipartisan, eight administrations, five republican administrations and three democratic administrations urging us not to take any action to derail the ongoing negotiations. And i have to tell you, they are smart people. They know what theyre talking about. And thats why i was very very concerned. Now, frankly if i was in the chair, which im not i would probably start off by Holding Hearings and call up all those experts and look at the framework before we went to todays markup but we are where we are. And i feel good that weve moved to a place that doesnt threaten these ongoing negotiations. And i thank everyone again, for their effort. Thank you. If i could i want to move to senator rubio. But i want to clarify again, its my understanding that no one is discussing waiting to vote on this legislation after it comes out of committee on the floor that were ready to vote on it on the floor after the administration actually presents us a bill. Were clearing the way for a strong vote on the floor if we pass this out today. Well, if i could say what i want. Yeah. Okay. There may be problem amendments often on the floor that to me these amendments that could be often on the floor which would destroy this balance you two have achieved. Im not going to sit back and say, go for it. Im not. Im going to use every tool at my disposal to keep it the way it is. Because, i mean theres no such thing as perfection, but i think the two of you have truck the right balance. I want to protect that on the floor when this comes up. Thank you so much. Senator rubio who has contributed especially on the issues relative to israel. I want to thank him for his contribution and efforts in that regard. Thank you for your cooperation and help on this issue and senator boxer, as well. We were able to Work Together. I want to say that im even more concerned about not simply destroying the delicate balance but the destruction of israel. In july of 2014, tweeted quote this barbaric regime of israel has no cure but to be annihilated. In november of 2014, the Supreme Leaders twitter account posted this. Its a chart showing nine questions about the elimination of israel. Why should the regime be eliminated . During the 66 years of life so far, the fake zionist regime has tried to realize the goals by means of homicide, violence and iron fists while boasts about it blatantly. It goes on to say, until he calls for a referendum where the jews cannot participate and have to go back to their country, whatever that means. Up until the day when this regime is eliminated through a referendum, powerful confrontation and resolute and armed resistance is the cure of this regime. The only means of confronting a regime which commits crimes beyond ones thought and imagination is a resolute and armed confrontation. Heres another quote from the ayatollah. Its the mission of the republic of iran to erase israel from the map of the region. I think at some point when someone keeps saying they want to destroy you, you should take them seriously. And i wanted there to be an amendment on this and where the president would have to certify to congress that irans leaders have publicly accepted israels right to exist at a minimum. That whatever deal were agreeing to here does not put the existence of israel not to mention the security on stable ground. Now, i appreciate theres been changes to the bill its the sense of the congress that the president should determine the agreement and no way compromises the commitment of the United States to israel cease security nor its support for israels right to exist, i think thats better than not having in there at all. But this is an issue to talk about on the floor. And as we move forward today. While were concerned, no doubt the implications of a nuclear iran that is also, by the way, moving forward on Ballistic Missiles. And you build them because you want to put a Nuclear Warhead on it. And as they move forward, not only does that pose a risk it poses an immediate risk to israel. You want to know how i know that . Because the Supreme Leader has said it himself repeatedly. I appreciate the work and the accommodations youve made. And i also appreciate, by the way, that we added in the sense of the congress that United States sanctions on iran for terrorism, human rights abuses and Ballistic Missiles will remain in place under an agreement. I thought that was important. Thank you for allowing me to work with you. Thank you. Thank you mr. Chairman. I wont repeat all of the statements made. But i want to reiterate whats been said about the leadership by you relative to getting an agreement on this legislation. I think as you have said its not only important to the future of the Foreign Relations committee and the very important work that we should be doing, but i think it also sends a very important signal to the people of this country that we can Work Together on big issues to address common problems that face the country, and we should be doing that as often as possible in the future. So i just want to congratulate you again for the great work youve done and i intend to support this legislation. Thank you. Senator johnson. Mr. Chairman. Ill also thank the chairman and the people who have worked on this agreement to understand its been a tough road. And i realize your challenge in trying to accomplish creating legislation that could get bipartisan support and overcome a threatened president ial veto. I understand what of you been working with here, i understand the challenge. But i did offer a number of amendments to provide clarity. Now, if weve reached agreement and can take this to the floor of the senate i will withhold during this markup. But i want to talk about what this piece of legislation is and what it is not. You said it creates a rightful role, well right now we have no role i would rather have a role than no role whatsoever. From standpoint of negotiating this agreement. I realize its the executive commander in chief that has to negotiate this. But this is a role, the congressional review potentially congressional oversight is not advice and consent. I think this agreement that president obama is negotiating certainly rises to the level of a treaty. And theres no set criteria for what a treaty is. There are considerations. And lists those considerations, and one of them is the extent to which the agreement involves risks affecting the nation as a whole. I think this affects and involves the affecting this nation. Whether the agreement can be given effect without the enactment by the congress. I think that applies. From my standpoint, what president obama is doing on behalf of america is a treaty. And according to constitution, treaties should be subjected to the advice and consent of the senate. What that would mean if we were really doing engaged in our role of advice and consent, that would require 67 senators to approve of this deal. That is not what is going to happen here. We will not have 67 senators approving of this deal. Thats not what this bill is going to do. Theres a treaty, theres also congressional executive agreements agreements. Well, in that case, youd need 60 senators affirmatively approving of that agreement. Thats a high hurdle. There potentially could be congressional executive agreements under expedited procedures, would not allow a filibuster. That would then require 50 senators as well as a majority in the house the congressional executive agreements and require a majority of the house affirmatively approving the agreement. In other words allowing the American People to have a say in an agreement that involves commitments or risks the nation as a whole. Now what this bill does kind of turns the advice and consent on its head. It basically allows for a vote of disapproval. In order for that to have an effect in potentially stopping a bad deal that involves commitments or risks affecting the nation as a whole well if its not vetoed that would require 60 senators voting for disapproval. Which means 41 senators could approve this deal and we would not have that vote of disapproval. If that is vetoed by the president , we would need to overcome that veto with 67 senators, which means, 34 senators would be required to approve of this deal. This piece of legislation, i appreciate the fact this gives us a role, it is an incredibly limited role. A far cry from advice and consent of 67 senators voting in the affirmative that this is a good deal for america. I still, it is beyond me why democrats simply wont agree to the fact that more than one person should evaluate whether this is a good deal or not. Going to decide for america that this is a good deal or bad deal. I believe the American People should be involved in that decision i believe this agreement, that president obamas in negotiation rises to the level of treaty. I believe we should be providing that advice and consent we should be approving this thing with 67 votes. But, in fact its going to be this piece of legislation ive made my point, provided clarity i will support this as long as the deal that has been struck is approved here thank you. I appreciate the comments and, you know, if i could wave a wand or pigs began to fly, we could turn this into the type of agreement thats been discussed. But i will say this, the administration as you know in the previous hearing we had has been fighting strongly against this. Secretary kerry fighting against this earlier today. I know theyve relented because of what they believe to be the outcome here. I believe this is going to be an Important Role. Especially the compliance pieces that come afterwards. Did not occur under the north korean agreement and gives us significant teeth if a deal is achieved. I want to thank you for your comments. I agree with that and appreciate that. I just i dont think well convince any administration democrat or republican that congress should have any role in anything they do. We understand that. Thats a given. I want to assure you in my conversations with the administration, its been a positive conversation over the last ten days. Looking for a way that they could resolve the concerns that they had in a genuine way. I wanted to be clear that i think the administrations been very open about trying to get to where we are today. And i just thank you for allowing us to have that open process. Senator . Who also has been incredibly constructive. And we made your first trip to afghanistan together and appreciate your input on the committee. Thank you for the clear eyed and the tough way in which youve negotiated this compromise thats in front of us this afternoon. We have a broad and shared common goal which is to prevent a Nuclear Capable iran. What role will this congress and committee play . Important policy decisions and in particular, in the consideration of a deal with iran and the p5 plus 1 partner should there be one. I want to thank senator menendez for his leadership of this committee and role as Ranking Member in laying a lot of the groundwork for this. Raising on a bipartisan basis that congress should have a role and thank you for including in this package two amendments i filed a week ago. And i look forward to supporting it and moving it out with a strong bipartisan vote. We have a simple question about which path forward today this committee will take. We can by passing this package, ensure that in the event of a deal with iran, congress has a constructive and defined role to play and opportunity to review the deal and as youve said to stay engaged in oversight. Or we can expose to messy endless, unpredict bli timed attempts by congress to prevent that from being implemented. We can embrace this compromise and help our diplomats and our negotiators by presenting unified position and a reasonable process for congressional review or we can reject it and hurt our diplomats and negotiators by sending mixed messages to the world. It is my hope that we will not reject this agreement. By doing so we would once again have this committee serve as a minor speed bump as this administration and future administrations proceeds to make american Foreign Policy largely unrestrained. We can enact this pass this out of committee today and reassert that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has an Important Role to play in our nations Foreign Policy decisions. It is my hope on a bipartisan basis we will do just that and thank you to both of you for making this possible. So constructive throughout this from the very beginning. Thank you so much. And in the interest of voting on this before submitting a final agreement, ill yield. Any other opening comments senator . I agree with the thrust of what senator flake has. And i wont take all my time here. But i think this committee and what chair corker and the Ranking Member and senator menendez and others that have worked on this has done has been incredibly important. Because Arthur Vandenburg would use the phrase, politics stops at the waters edge, which is the best tradition, i believe of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. And i think thats what weve seen today. With you, chairman corker and Ranking Member carden and senator me then dez. Everybody working together to try to find a way through this. I congratulate you on doing that. You have incredible restraint in not getting in on that letter that was sent to the ayatollah. And i think, once again, i pat you on the back for that. Once again, thats in the tradition of this committee trying to do the best bipartisan Foreign Policy it can. The one other thing i want to do is, and its behind the scenes. This agreement that the administrations working on has had a lot to do with the national laboratory. Talked about to us earlier we have 2 of the 3 National Security labs in new mexico. We cant talk now about all the great things those scientists have done and the contribution theyve made. But they are really on top of these Nuclear Enterprise issues and i know the story will come out eventually how important that is. And i would ask that the Washington Post editorial be put in the record at this point. And thank you all for your work again. Thank you and ive visited both of those labs. And certainly they are playing an incredible role in our National Security as is the Oak Ridge Lab in tennessee in cooperation with them on these issues. Any other comments . Senator kaine, yes, sir . Thank you, mr. Chair, and to all committee members. I strongly supported the beginning of the negotiation with iran when president obama announced november of 2013 and really viewed it as the fruition of your efforts. I was not in the senate when the sanction regime were passed. So to those of you who were, the economic realities of that regime opened up an opportunity and our president did what we would want the president to do, to seek a diplomatic answer to a very difficult question. I also have a number of questions about the framework of the deal announced on april 2nd. But much in that framework i feel positively about. The rollback of the stockpile from 10,000 kilograms to 300 is massive. And the agreement of iran at least in the framework to participate in the iaea also significant. So im pro dediplomacy. But ive been strong pro congressional approval. If you think Congress Needs to approve this, youre antidiplomacy. Thats ridiculous. Theres even been some suggestion if you think Congress Needs to approve this, youre pro war. Thats offensive. We have a role under article 2, and i actually think that congressional approval in this instance under the framework that is before us is necessary, helpful and what the American Public demands and deserves. Its necessary because at the core, this is a negotiation about what must iran do to get out from under a congressional sanctions regime. And so congress will be involved. Its helpful because since congress will be involved, the only question is, will that involvement be helpful and orderly . Or will it be free for all rules . Much better for us the administration the p5 plus 1, the iran that we are asking to make concessions big concessions for them to see a process thats orderly and constructive. And finally, its something that the American Public, our role, they really deserve it. Ive been talking to virginiians about this for months and seen polling that seems kind of odd if you look at it, but it does make sense. The American Public just as we do is deeply concerned about an Iranian Nuclear Weapons Program the American Public just as we are, would really hopes that well find a diplomatic answer to that problem if we can. Diplomacy over war, just like we all do. The American Public is deeply skeptical as we are about irans intentions. Will iran come ply with an agreement . The American Public overwhelmingly wants congress to approve a deal than the president to announce a deal. Why do my constituents and yours want a deal approved by congress . Its not because they love congress. They are so concerned about the magnitude of this deal theyll feel more comfortable if both the executive and the legislature take a look and say this is in the best interest of the nation. This is why people get a Second Opinion if they hear from a doctor something they dont like. Theyll feel more comfortable if its the executive and legislature reviewing it. I want to thank you mr. Chair, senator carden menendez, the colleagues and the white house for weighing in. Thank you. Senator, murphy. Thank you very much. To you and the Ranking Member as well as to the white house for bringing this incredibly productive compromise before us today. You know ive been of like mind with senator boxer. I have believed that this has been a largely unnecessary endeavor in that the legislation that were debating today doesnt really reserve for congress any power that we dont already have. We had the ability before this debate to be able to review this agreement once its submitted to congress and to be able to take away from the president the power to waive sanctions. And after the passage of this bill, we still have that power. And so all along, my concern has simply been whether were engaging in an effort thats going to make it less likely rather than more likely that were going to get a deal to review. I reserve the right to be able to weigh in on that agreement. I just want to make sure were not taking any steps that lessen the chances that we will be able to conduct that oversight when the time is appropriate. And i would reiterate what weve heard today from the administration. I think weve heard clearly that the changes that have been made over the past 24 to 48 hours essentially make this legislation benign as it relates to the negotiations that there is a belief that with these changes, the shortened time frame the removal of the terrorist certification that this legislation the passage of it is not going to affect the negotiations or the ability for us as a body to see the final agreement. Im happy to support it. My final comment is this one. And it builds off a comment from senator kaine. I do worry about a double standard of oversight in this congress. And i dont worry about it when it comes to senator kaine because he was right there at the beginning saying we should oversee the president s proposed military action in the middle east. But we have a constitutional duty to declare war. And we have been in this committee now for four months and havent taken any progress to fulfill what is our constitutional obligation oversee war. I would argue we dont have a constitutional obligation here. And we frankly dont have the ability to weigh in until we see a final agreement. And so i dont want to be in a situation where we have a higher standard of oversight on diplomacy than we have for war. And glad to support this compromise moving forward. I think it will provide for a useful framework for the review of this agreement should it be entered into. I want to be sure that this committee moving forward is just as vigorous in the oversight over war making powers as it is over diplomacy. I dont think this is an attack on diplomacy. But im hopeful that we will show some consistency in the weeks and months to come. Thank you. I do just want to i have to say this. I apologize. I think the administration in the last two hours has chosen the path theyre now taking is the number of senators that they realized were going to support this legislation anyway, i have 180degree different view of whats happened over the last couple of hours. I appreciate your comments. Thank you mr. Chairman and, again, cant praise you enough for the way that you are conducting this committee. This is in the best tradition of the way that people might understand it to be. Often times it is not. And i thank you senator carden for your excellent work in helping to create a bridge that has brought us to this moment. I also want to thank senator menendez and senator kaine for their work in ensuring there would be a protection of prerogatives, especially in an area where the sanctions were actually a congressional idea. Originated here and that is why the iranians have come to the table. Its altogether fitting and appropriate that we are at this moment. And therell be an assertion of this congressional prerogative to oversee such an important matter. We congratulate all of you. And by the way, every member of the committee who participated in this process. There is no more important subject for the congress to have to deal with. The iaea is perhaps the least well known, most Important Institution on the planet. That is what we are going to be debating over the next four or five months. The role that the iaea can play in avoiding a dramatic escalation of Nuclear Weapons, proliferation in the middle east that we have avoided for 70 years and so its going to be critical for the senate, for the house to be able to determine the adequacy of the inspections regime. The funding made available to ensure that the iaea can be the policeman on the beat, the protector against a compromise of civilian Nuclear Program that in the wrong hands can turn into a nuclear bomb factory. Its why the saudis, egyptians, the turks are all looking at this one issue so closely. If we get it wrong, it is going to lead to the escalation that we have avoided over all of these decades. And so this is a big moment and i think the committee has handled this very responsibly. I think to a certain extent listening to Expert Opinion i think theres kind of a surprise that some people have had with regards to the specificity in the agreement which senator kerry, and president obama have brought back to america. And it should give us some hope that an agreement can be reached that accomplishes all of those goals. Its also appropriate for this committee, for the senate to advise and consent. In conducting the hearings and hearing the evidence and then making the decision. A lot of the rest of the history of the 21st century is going to actually ride on how this agreement is, in fact, written and enforced. And so, i keep coming back to thanking you for the way in which youre conducting it. Its the appropriate role for this committee and for the senate and i cant praise senator kaine, Menendez Carden and you, mr. Chairman for the incredible work youve done. And i yield back. Thank you. Are there any more opening comments . Seeing none. I would entertain a motion that we consider the managers amendment by a roll call vote. Moved. Is there a second . Mr. Chairman at the appropriate time id like to make a comment with regard to what we incorporate into the managers amendment. Actually, i think you can go ahead and do that now. That would be fine. Thank you for your involve. In this and making this bill better as it is today. I just want to thank chairman corker and Ranking Member cardin for their cooperation today. For five years i have worked to see to it that the 44 living americans that were hostages in iran in 1979 are compensated for their loss and their time. You remember when we negotiated the algerian accords to release those people at that time it was 52 living people. We specifically negotiated away their ability to get compensation from the iranian government. I have a bill which i offered as an amendment which i will withdraw for reasons that i understand that would allow us to collect compensation from the iranian sanctions money which is available and accessible to compensate each one of those remaining 44 citizens who are still alive today. The chairman and Ranking Member asked me to withdraw the amendment because it is not appropriate given the nature of the framework of the deal and i agree with that but you were both gracious enough to include it in the managers amendment. I appreciate that very much and appreciate chairman corkers willingness to at a time in the near future, which hopefully will be the immediate future to allow the legislation to come before the committee. We owe those americans everything. They were captured and tortured and beaten for 444 days. They are the only american civilians ever kept in captivity that never got some sort of compensation from their captors an tormenters and i want to see to it that happens. But i want to thank you for everything youve done and allowing that in the managers amendment and i withdraw my other amendment. Thank you for your steadfast support of these families with everything theyve gone through. Is there any member that would like to offer an amendment to the managers package . Thank you mr. Chairman. Id like to call up an amendment to the managers amendment. This restores the language from the underlying base bill on the terrorism certification. It is simple straightforward. It just reestablishes the requirement that the president certify iran has not directly supported or carried out an act of terrorism against the United States or United States person anywhere in the world. This was in the original piece of legislation. It is the bill that had significant bipartisan support bipartisan cosponsorship. Iran has been designated by the United States as a state sponsor of terrorism since 1984. I think it is critical for the president to make this certification to congress and to the American People. We are serious about our National Security. I think it is important that the committee clearly state that we will not tolerate terrorism against our nation. Thank you. If i could just respond, first of all i want to thank the senator for the way hes conducted himself and certainly raising this issue. I would just like for the audienced a the world to know this was a request by senator menendez actually that this be initially put in the bill. It is very difficult for me to understand why certification like this wouldnt easily be made candidly we have more information about terrorism in this bill than weve ever had before and my guess is that if iran attempted a terrorist act against an american they not only would have sanctions but likely missiles and bombs. So i dont know why this could not be agreed to but it was true that the administration did not want to have other issues not relevant to the nuclear deal in this. I have agreed to that and while i support your amendment and support the base bill as it was before, i think the senator knows that i will oppose it. I think yindzi understand this creates problems for the balance that we have today. Thank you mr. Chairman. Let me explain. First, i agree with the clarm. Chairman. I know the sponsor of this amendment is well intendeded. We all want to see iran and its terrorism influence in many regions of the world that are very, very troubling to world stability. So it is a major continuing problem. We agree completely with the intent of this amendment. I disagree with the chairman though about the impact of this amendment. This amendment would have the unintended consequence of i think defeating any possibility for diplomacy. Let me explain why. The president would not be able to make this certification. Because he could not make the certification, there would be an expedited process for sanctions against iran. And therefore, it would be totallily contrary to what is being negotiated today in regards to a nuclear none proliferation obligations of iran related to what theyll do to give up their Nuclear Weapons in regards to sanctions imposed because they violated their Nuclear Proliferation obligations. There are separate sanctions in regards to terrorism, Ballistic Missiles, and human rights. And the managers amendment makes it clear that nothing in the negotiations affect those sanction regimes. So we had that tool in place, but its not the sanctions that were imposed in regards to the Nuclear Proliferation discussions. So therefore, this became a part of the bill it would very likely be used as a reason to say that diplomacy cannot work, because the president cant make those certifications cant give the relief that is being negotiated, and the u. S. Would be blamed for the ends of negotiations putting iran actually in a stronger position nationally than they are today. I know thats not senator brassos intent but i think thats the consequences. Let me though point out senator menendez in the original bill included very strong report language on the terrorism activities of iran that must be submitted to congress on a periodic basis. That language is not only included in the managers amendment, but strengthened in the managers amendment. Weve also included other language that says that the president must submit all actions, including an International Fora being taken by the United States to stop counteracts of terrorism against the United States and u. S. Persons prp the impact of National Security of the United States and safety of american citizens as a result of any iranian actions reported under this paragraph and an additional paragraph was added, in assessment of whether violations of internationally recognized human rights in iran have changed, increased or decreased as prepared to the prior 180day period. These reports are due every six months. So it is a very strong provision in regards to keeping congress informed as to these types of activities. Of course, we always have the right to take action. So i just would urge my colleague to recognize the certification provisions could very well compromise the ability of the United States to continue its negotiations with be whereas this managers amendment is very strong on the terrorism issues. Senator menendez. Very briefly. Let me say, i have no doubt that iran is a major state sponsor of terrorism. Not because i say it but because the state Department Says it. So that is real. Having said that, my reason for seeking to include it was concerns that nonNuclear Sanctions would be waived as it relates to terrorism and other elements. In view of the language that makes it clear that none of those other sanctions will be as a result of any nuclear deal i certainly support the bill as it presenty stands and i will continue to pursue iran as it relates to its state sponsor of terrorism in other venues but i think it is so important, having that clear now, that thats not going to be waived under any set of circumstances to have this type of process for the senate to review any potential deal at the end of the day that i dont think that this is an impediment to our goal of both having a review process and making sure that iran continues to suffer the consequences for being a state sponsor of terrorism. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, i would speak in favor of the brasso amendment. We know that iran has targeted and killed americans. I would just point out, in the oped written about a week ago by secretaries schultz and kissinger in the wall street journal, their statements that with the recent addition of yemen as a battlefield tehran occupies all the waterways and encircles archrival saudi arabia, and unless political restraint is linked to nuclear restraint, an agreement freeing iran from sanctions risks empowering irans efforts. Absent the linkage between nuclear and political restraint americans traditional allies will conclude the u. S. Has traded temporary Nuclear Cooperation for being aacquiescence to iranian hedge money. I think it is important to have this in here. Thank you very much. Ive spent a lot of time talking to secretary kissinger. Like many of us we have that ability and i couldnt agree more with the comments that were in the oped. And thats why the language that senator menendez has mentioned clears that up and absolutely makes it known to all that we in no way no way as part of the agreement that we will discuss later if we pass this legislation, in no way will those sanctions be removed. I might add to the extent we have the information that will be much more available to us from an intelligence standpoint as to whats happened we have the tool of all of these sanctions that were talking about today to even add to that. But i know the senator would like to have a vote. If theres no objection then do you want to speak to it anymore . Lets have a roll call vote. Aye. Aye. Aye. No. Aye. No. No. Aye. Aye. No. Aye. No. No. No. Rudolph. No. No. No. No. No. Clerk will report. Mr. Chairman, yays are six. Nays are 13. Again, thank you so much for your ability to work on this and raising this. I very much appreciate that. It is my understanding then if there are no other amendments, are there any other amendments . I think weve had a motion and a second to move to the managers package which we will now vote on and if the clerk would please call the roll. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Clerk will report. Mr. Chairman yeas are 19. Nays are zero. Are there any are there any other amendments now to the base legislation that has been amended by the managers package . Is there a motion that we move ahead with approving the bill as amended by the managers package . Its been moved and seconded. If the clerk would the question is a motion to approve s615, the Iran Nuclear Agreement act of 2015 as amended. The clerk would call the roll. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Clerk will report. Mr. Chairman, nays are zero ayes are 13. With that, without objection, the committee will stand adjourned. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you. Senate Foreign Relations committee wraps up its work on the bill dealing with the Iran Nuclear Negotiations. They defeated an amendment by senator barrasso that would have put the terrorism language back into the bill. It passes though the measure passes the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by a unanimous vote 190, and this as White House Press secretary josh ernest saying today the president would not necessarily reject the bill proposed by the committee which would require greater congressional review of a potential deal to curb Irans Nuclear program. Getting your reaction, your thoughts on the role of congress. Denzel writes with their marching orders from bibi he means Benjamin Netanyahu theyve already stated their opposition to the negotiations so why have them be even more hypocritical than they already are . Meanwhile, jason says their constitutional role. Senate has the duty, and right to vote on foreign treaties negotiated by the executive branch. Find more on facebook. Com cspan facebook. Com cspan. U. S. Ambassadors to the United Nations Samantha Power is on capitol hill wednesday. Tomorrow shell talk about the 2016 foreign operations budget. That house hearing gets under way wednesday at 2 00 p. M. Eastern here on cspan3. This weekend the cspan cities tour has partnered with comcast to learn about the history and literary life of st. Augustine, florida. Pons ponce deleon may or may not have been out looking for the fountain of youth. We do know that Ponce De Leon came ashore after searching for good harbor. Took on water and wood. This area represents one of the few fresh water spring around the area around 30 degrees 8 minutes. It is also the location of the 1565 first settlement of st. Augustine. 42 years before the settlement of jamestown was founded and 55 years before pilgrims landed on plymouth rock. The hotel ponce deleon was built by Henry Morrison flagler. Now flagler is a man who is very little known outside of the state of florida but he was one of the wealthiest men in america. He essentially had been a cofounder of Standard Oil Company with john d. Rockefeller. He was a man who always wanted to undertake some great enterprise. And as it turned out, florida was it. He realized that he needed to own the railroad between jacksonville and st. Augustine to ensure that guests could get to his hotel conveniently. So clearly the dream was beginning to grow on flagler. He was a man with big dreams. He was a visionary. Watch all of our events from st. Augustine saturday at noon eastern on cspan2s book tv and sunday afternoon at 23 00 on American History tv on cspan3. Were you a fan of cspans first ladies series . It is now a book published by public affairs. Looking inside the personal life of every first lady in American History. Based on original interviews with more than 50 preeminent historians and biographers, learn details of all 45 first ladies that made these women who they were. Their lives ambitions and unique partnerships with their president ial spouses. The book, first ladies. President ial historians on the lives of 45 iconic american women provides lively stories of these fascinating women who survived the scrutiny of the white house, sometimes at great personal cost while supporting their families and famous husbands. And even changed history. Cspans first lay days is an illuminating, entertaining and inspiring read and is now available as a hard cover or an ebook through your Favorite Book store or online book seller. The head of this years Imf World Bank annual spring meetings in washington Christine Lagarde spoke to the Atlantic Council about the state of the Global Economy. Atlantic Council President and ceo Frederick Kemp moderates. This is about an hour. Good morning. Im fred kemp president and ceo of the Atlantic Council. And its my pleasure to welcome this impressive and impress perspectively large audience. We have no more Seats Available and some people in our hallway. Let me particularly welcome our Atlantic Council board members. Atlantic council members. Members of the diplomatic corps and public officials, as well as our online intelligent audience. If i had known how popular your appearance would be madam lagarde, i might have tried to scalp the tickets. It is an even greater pleasure to introduce our speaker, a remarkable leader navigating difficult times and wrestling with a vast array of challenges every day with grace, courage and clarity. Arranging from ukraine survival to the European Unions future to broader underlying issues well discuss today regarding where the Global Economy will draw its future strength and sustainability. After madam lagardes opening comments, a curtain razor as we used to call it at the wall street journal ahead of next weeks imf and World Bank Annual spring meetings, ill engage her in a conversation also drawing upon audience questions here and online. So i encourage you to continue to submit your comments and questions using the acglobaleco flchlt. Acglobalecon. It is no secret i am, i first ran across christine whether with the wall street journal europe was putting together its 2002 top european women in business rankings. This was an inaugural effort. I was then editor there. To celebrate women who were pushing through the mostly male ranks of corporate europe. The jury of experts ranked her among our top ten finalists. But then they had a dilemma. As a french lawyer at a partnership organization, was she really a business leader. And as she chaired a chicagobased company though it was global, did she count as a european executive. But the editor intervened and the judges were taken by her accomplishments and the certainty that she would only achieve more. It was revolutionary that baker and mckenzie, then the worlds thirdlargest law firm, had elected her as the first woman the youngest partner around the second nonearn to ever run the firm. Our wall street journal jury marvelled at her remarkable consensus building skills. Such an underestimated and historically crucial talent that she demonstrates at the imf. Our jury placed her at that time number five on our list, which i at the time referred to as a result of the chicago penalty. But if i named the other four for you today, you wouldnt know them. Nine years later in 2011 another jury, this time at the Atlantic Council, got it more right when we gave her our highest recognition in new york, alongside the u. N. General assembly, the Atlantic Councils Global Citizen award. By then she had been finance minister in france atop the Baker Mckenzie experience of steering 500 lawyer egos at 60 offices around the world, good preparation for running the imf and its impressive staff of more than 160 nationalities in 182 countries, often in unstable and corrupt settings. In presenting the Atlantic Councils award to you madam lagarde, World Economic founder clause