Sponsor of the debate between republican george bush and democrat geraldine ferraro. Our panelists are john mashich, world news and world report, jack white, correspondent for time magazine, norma quarrels, correspondent for nbc news, and robert boyd, Washington Bureau chief for night ritter newspapers. Sandra venoger, senior Political Correspondent for abc news, is our moderator tonight. Sandy . Thank you, dorothy. The order of questioning was determined by a toss of the coin. Congresswoman ferraro won the toss. She elected to speak last, therefore, Vice President bush will get the first question. The debate will be billed upon a series of questions from the four reporters on the panel. A reporter will ask a candidate a question, a followup question, and then the same to the other candidate, then each candidate will get to rebut the other. The debate will be divided into two parts. There will be a section, the first one, on domestic affairs, the second on Foreign Affairs. Now, the man
What mechanisms do we have to enforce any violation . Will there be penalties embedded in the nuclear deal . If you could be specific. First, i should note it has been said iran has complied. Have they also said iran is not complying and letting them in as the iaea asked . No it is saying they complied and outside of the agreement of course they are seeking so you look at the report and cherry pick. You say the iaea is happy with this but you should give the totality of what they have been given and how frustrated they have been with iran. They have said with regard to the obligations iran complied and outside of the agreement you are correct including the question of military dementions of irans program in the past or that matter now it hasnt comply would what the iaea is seeking and that has to be part of any agreement. And enforcement is straightforward. In the event iran were to renege the sanctions would snap back in full force. And i am sure iran is shaking at that. That is why t
Why not insist on a period of two or three years . Mr. Chairman, we think that a oneyear breakout time, not only is sufficient but is quite conservative. We believe that with the verification and inspections and monitoring well insist on in any agreement, that would give us more than enough time not only to detect any abuse of the agreement but also to act on it. If you look what various experts said, many have said that a far lesser period of time would be sufficient to detect and act on any violations well, let if i can just add to this very quickly. One year is conservative. First of all thats the most if everything went perfectly for iran it would second, the idea that any country, including iran, would break out for one bombs worth of material is highly unlikely, like i said let me go to this question. Will you insist that the inspectorred have anytime, anywhere access to revolutionary guard bases and will iran have to satisfy all questions iaea has regarding irans coverture searc
Weapon. That would provide enough time to detect and act on transgressions. It is irans job to convince the world the Nuclear Program is peaceful. That is why we are seeking a time frame to establish such a track record. Only then would iran be treated like any other nonNuclear Weapons state party to the nonproliferation treaty. With all the rights and obligations including inspections and a binding commitment to not build a Nuclear Weapon. The bush proposed this concept. Dozens of countries adhere to the npt. Some constraints would be removed after a significant time. Others would remain in time indefinitely. Including a monitoring regime. Iran would have to implement the same hard to agreement and additional protocol. Even after some core constraints are completed, far more Intrusive Inspections will be required that before this agreement. Some have argued iran would be free to develop a Nuclear Weapon at the conclusion. That is simply not true. Iran would be prohibited from developi
Chairman, and thank you, mr. Wheeler for your long and dedicated role, and i know it is often thankless. While opinions differ, your dedication is appropriated. Chair wheeler sir, i recognize your badge, and thank you. Rep. Russell thank you. You stated earlier today that it you came to an evolutionary decision because you determined it was reasonable for isps, but not reasonable for consumers with this ruling. Is it not true that federal taxes could be applied to consumers where it was once prohibited . Chair wheeler that is in the hands of congress. The tax freedom act specifically, the freedom of information act prohibits specifically that and whether that has changed is outside rep. Russell but from an Informational Service to a communication service, does it not lay the foundation for consumers being taxed. Chair wheeler again, that is going to be your decision and not mine. Rep. Russell was it possible when it was just an Information Service outside of title ii . Chair wheeler In