Negotiation while the agreement was being negotiated, we saw greater coordination between the west and iranians on the ground in the least, where we have shiite militias led by the iranians in iraq, enjoying the air cover of the u. S. Air force. The public has been informed. Me is therprising to number of people who have seen this clearly and have pretended not to. I can completely explain why that is. A lot of people have seen that clearly. Weve seen some of the statements, especially from a Democratic Senators who came out in support. Senator booker comes immediately to mind. Senator coons as well expresses reservations. If you look at people coming out in favor of the deal, its like esoteric writing. Why describing the deal is deeply problematic, nonetheless they say they are supporting it. Some actually do recognize it. The way the administration has helped those people emotionally get over their its latest talking point, which is were going to push back against the iranians after the deal. The deal is going to help us do this. Pushback is the new slogan. We have one picture of this deal that will strengthen iran economically, militarily, and diplomatically, and it will do so immediately. You can see that happening before your eyes with the trade delegations from europe going to tehrans the russians and uranium correlating in syria. So on and so forth. You can see it happening before your eyes. The administration is exciting, yes, we are strengthening is exciting, yes is saying yes, we are strengthening iran, but were going to push back against them. If you support that, go ahead and support the steel. But is not going to make push back easier. This pushback talking point is something that plays out through a number of things that we have discussed today. The most obvious one is this idea that the administration consistently said whatever it had to say to get through new cycles, to get through testimony, until facts on the ground made it untenable. In september 2013, we were going to and irans end Irans Nuclear program while forcing them to come clean. That was a secretary shermans political testimony. Changed,some of that but we would have one of the Worlds Toughest anywhere anytime inspections regime. The iranians said no, we continue to give up. No iranians coming clean. The idea that the ic has sufficient knowledge to detect an effort to break out, and so on. The furor among the fear among skeptics of this deal is the pushback argument. Visit ministration promised to a. This administration promised to a. Pushback against iran, and b. Enforce sanctions. That is management of centrifuges as a promise administrations made to get congress to back off before new facts reach the ground. The concern is we are already seeing that. At the same time the administration is saying it is total downing doubling down on sanctions. Leaders who were under travel bans traveling to russia. Foxnews got a scoop, they literally disclosed the flight number and the flight times of the plane that he had taken to moscow in violation of the National Travel ban. The ministration, when asked for several days, said we dont know. It was a caricature of looking the other way. Without hyperbole, literally, as they were on the hill saying they will double down on sentient enforcement in order to provide the emotional buttressing to those who are concerned about iranian expansion. After this, there is nothing left. The reason why they have made to meet these commitments to congress, the latest being the pushback and double down argument is because congress has been in a position to jam up what is a bad deal, if lawmakers believe that the deal is bad. And of course i bipartisan majority believes it is bad. Again there will be no accountability, but instead of pushing back we end syriar instance, feeding to russian coordination. David i cant speak to those issues. Therld just caution that es a lot of positive things in this agreement. And sure, the duration is not one of them. Based on my experience in europe, our allies were not particularly happy with that. That in 10 years compared to what was thought, in the more 2030 year range, that was the original goal that is not enough. Its not an easy negotiation. It is an agreement that is very long. Has lots of moving parts. And decisions were made in the negotiation. I dont think it was made by obama. I think it was made by competent negotiators that they would try to win on this and taht. I think it is an imperfect deal. But it is the deal. And its going to have to be in limited have to be implemented. I would argue we would have to fix these weaknesses rather than a draw party lines and continue this battle indefinitely. I think israel will be shooting itself in the foot if it doesnt start contributing very actively to try and strengthen this deal. I think it can be done. I think there is support around the world. I dont know how many of you have read about the procurement channel. It is a key part of this agreement, both on the the siteion side and of enforcing bans on i write getting arms and missile imports. Bans on iran getting arms and missile imports. Meetings still need to occur along the general assembly. Places there are many at the iaea thinks is very important. There was never in any intention to get iran to confess. I mean, it should in my understanding from negotiators, its not a question from the Supreme Leader. Oh my god, we will never have Nuclear Weapons. Its more of a question of who gets blamed for sanctions. The iranian narrative blames the west for all the suffering they have gone through on sanctions. If they said, yeah, we did have a Nuclear Weapons program, guess what the iranian domestic audience will conclude . Yes, it was our fault, or more accurately, the regimes fault. That iran would come clean. It cant admit politically. It has nothing to do with the fatwa. It has everything to do with who gets blamed for sanctions in iran. I think the idea of the effort is not to get iran to come clean, it is to say, we think this is what has happened. It did this and that, he didnt get there and we didnt accomplish that goal. To know the people, to know the sites and to make a determination. Tion may be that iran had a Nuclear Weapon. If they had access so that their credibility is not underlined, i would argue that would be the sufficient outcome of this whole issue. Important to very try and find ways to strengthen this deal and to get beyond some of his fighting, and not make it, what i fear it will be guerrilla warfare, particularly in the house to undermine the deal. I went through the agreed framework in the 1990s. We were a reluctant supporter. We supported the deal despite the iaea being thrown under the bus. Job,ant let them do their same arguments. It will cause seoul to be incinerated. We reluctantly went along, but congress didnt. Every time you needed money, it was a nightmare. Here, you can envision, Lindsey Graham has only said it. He will hold up money for the iea. Its shooting yourself in the head, but if you are just trying to kill the deal, its not a great strategy. Real efforts have to be made to try and shift the debate to one of, have you strengthen this . Even though many dont like it. The discussions in europe were very different. Its really different. You dont have this congress to deal with. But there and much more willingness to look at the pluses and minuses and move on. No one is sitting saying this is some a perfect deal. Not anyone i have talked to. Say that here. Ist i hear here is i that different. In the spirit of bipartisan complies, i will say that i am in favor of giving the iaea money in order to do its job. We started a little late. Lets take 12 questions. Gentlemen all the way in the back. I think we have a microphone circulating. If you could just wait one moment. I in a masters student at George Washington university. You were discussing the ifthen statement for Congressional Republicans and trust between congress and the administration. How congress repeatedly tried to undermine the deal throughout the process and not give it all the breathing room possible. Has that affected the administrations trust of congress, the to wait relationship has become more difficult. The two way relationship has become more difficult. I am wondering how going forward, congress can strengthen the deal, what your opinions might be going forward. The theory that this started off as a relationship of trust is a difficult one to sustain, if only because we know now that reporting some these meetings have been leaked and posted online as early as january 2014. Ben rhodes was taking meetings with alligators and ngos with ngos to ice congress. To create a structure that would circumvent congress. Whether or not that was justified secretary kerry said they didnt pursue a treaty because they couldnt get 2 3 rds. A strange admission to make in those terms. Times, that at various congress was less cooperative and in more senses cooperative. There has been an enormous appetite in congress for the last two years to pass on a nuclear sanctions, which are explicitly permitted under the jcpoa. Please dont, mess this up for us. Of course you are allowed to do it, but please dont. And congress didnt. And republican and democratic houses and congresses did not. Provided anress has enormous amount of breathing instinctsthe better of many of its members. I think it was senator booker, but one of the Democratic Senators who recently came out in support of the jcpoa or against a resolution of disapproval. He said, if we could go back, i think we would have made mistake not pursuing sanctions resolution. Forward, congress will have to do they will take two tracks. There will be efforts to kill the deal. There will be efforts to strengthen the deal. The one of the things youre going to see is an effort to work with the administration, to make good on the administrations pledge to double down on nonnuclear sanctions. If it doesnt turn out, then at the pledge for nonnuclear sentience is another one of these commitments made just to get out of the news cycle. Then i think youll see irreparable harms to interbranch relations. Lets take one more. This gentleman right here on my left. Much. Nk you very i am a recently retired state department officer. In the last week or so, when the new aspects one of the new aspects is that the agreement allows from continuing research on uranium. But that it stops any research on plutonium. If you really want a bomb, what you really want is plutonium. Im wondering if you can comment on that. There was a New York Times piece about the iraq reactor. Andd i like broad respect his work. They left out a key thing, which is the processing of plutonium separation. Reactor has always been a secondary to enrichment. The main reason is that it wasnt done. It turned out it wasnt close to being operational. Said it didnt intend to build a plaintiff to separate the plutonium build a plant to separate the plutonium. It gives iran the ability to make weapons grade uranium that could be used in a bomb. When finished, it would give iran the ability to have plutonium fuel. They needed a reprocessing plant. Yes, we think iran was working on that years ago, but it stopped. Enriched part has already gotten a priority. The administration perceived that, as you are you know, much harder than the iraq reactor. Everyone is happy with the limitations on the iraq reactor, for sure. But the story over civil fight and mr. Presented at story oversimplified what was happening. I want to point out in this deal, iran has committed not to do research on plutonium metallurgy. I dont know of anyone who was made a bomb using uranium oxide. They use metal. So iran is committed not to do that research, even indefinitely, along with several other Nuclear Weapons nation activities. Nuclear weaponization activities. That was seen as a positive achievement. I dont know who originated it. Certainly the french were big proponents of it. I think that is an important achievement. Its also another reason why you want the achievement to go right. That experience is related to the development of a Nuclear Weapons component. It is very small scale and hard to find. You want the iaea to go quickly to verify that those activities are taking place. Any final agreement, its going to be Nuclear Weaponization activities that they will have to verify. If you cant to the military sites, you cant verify that part of the agreement at all. Mr. Albright david, thank you very much. That will bring our panel to a close. I want to especially thank david albright. I want to thank our cspan audience, and most of all, you for showing up this afternoon. [applause] thanks and we will see you soon. Today on capitol hill, the senate without, but the chamber failed to get the iran disapproval resolution to about. At 6 00 eastern time, the plaintiff hold a second vote on the legislation to bring the bill to the floor again. You can watch the senate live on cspan2. And earlier today, the house rejected the Iran Nuclear Agreement by 162269. They also passed measures that prevent the president from lengthy sections on iran. From lifting sanctions on iran. The house done for the week. Numbers returned wednesday after the jewish holiday. Here is part of the house debate from earlier, beginning with ways and means chair paul ryan. Mr. Speaker, i will yield myself such time as i may consume. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Ryan mr. Speaker, i think this is a terrible deal. This administration has made a lot of mistakes when it comes to Foreign Policy. This has got to be the worst one because this deal will not stop iran from getting a bomb. This deal will all but guarantee it. We went into these negotiations saying that iran had to eliminate its Nuclear Program, all of it, full stop. Now theyre saying that was unrealistic. Too unreasonable. Too high in the sky. And were handing over hundreds of billions of dollars in sanctions relief. So iran gets billions of dollars in exchange for what, for taking up some, not all, just some of its Nuclear Program . And then in 10 or 15 years, all of these limits expire. In other words, theyre getting something for essentially nothing. Its a steal, and thats if they dont cheat. Now, the Administration Says that this deal will bring about unprecedented transparency. Well get regular access, they say. Well see what irans up to, they say. But if the inspectors think somethings up, iran has 24 days to cover its tracks, and in some cases irans own inspectors will get to collect the evidence. Finally, against all of the advice from our military, we are going to let iran buy Ballistic Missiles in just eight years. Mr. Speaker, you only buy Ballistic Missiles if youre looking to build a bomb. I get why russia and china like this idea. They get another big customer. But i dont for the life of me understand why we would ever agree to this. Mr. Speaker, the president the president s taking a huge gamble here. He thinks if we make nice with the Iranian Regime theyll change their ways, bring them into the Global Economy and theyll become more like us. Now, i think the iranian people, they want democracy. They want freedom. But we are not talking about the iranian people here. We are talking about an extremist regime that is unaccountable to their own people. This is a regime that chants death to america. This is a regime that funds terrorism all around the world. Has is a regime that called for wiping israel off the map. Im all for diplomacy, but i am not for rewarding a rogue regime. Id also point out that the sanctions we are lifting will let european and Asian Companies build up irans economy and they will make the regime even stronger. And should iran start to cheat, which they have a pretty darn good track record of doing so, it will be that much harder to put back in place the sanctions. Our trading partners, theyll feel the pinch and they wont want to hold this regime accountable. So i want to stress how firmly i oppose this deal. I know the president may have already lined up enough support to save his deal, but with this vote, with this vote we need to send a message to both iran and to the world the regime, the regime may have bamboozled this administration, but the American People know this is a rotten deal, and i fear that because of this deal the middle east and the world at large will only become a much, much more dangerous place. With that, mr. Speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman reserves. The gentleman from michigan is recognized. Mr. Levin before i yield myself such time as i shall consume, id like to yield 30 seconds to the Ranking Member of the budget committee, mr. Van hollen. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from maryland is recognized for 30 second. Mr. Van hollen thank you, mr. Speaker. And i thank my friend, mr. Levin. This agreement represents the best path to achieving our goal of preventing iran from ever obtaining a Nuclear Weapon, and it advances the National Security interests of the United States and our allies, including israel. I ask that the remainder of my remarks be placed in the record. The speaker pro tempore without objection. The gentleman from michigan is recognized. Mr. Levin thank you, mr. Speaker. For far too long we faced the nightmare of iran with nuclear bombs. Impacted by heavy sanctions, iran finally agreed to negotiate, led by the United States and five other nations. After agreeing on a framework, which iran complied with, the parties completed the muchdetailed joint comprehensive plan of action. When i issued my statement of support for jcpoa six weeks ago, its fate was uncertain. What decisively turned the tide was the impassioned leadership of the president with secretaries kerry and moniz, combined with a momentus outpouring of support outside the political realm from a vast array of scientific experts, experienced diplomats, key figures from all religious faith