In the case that this bill is passed, and the President chooses to initiate action and subsequently the committees or Congress as a whole decides that the mission is not worthwhile. What impact do you think that it will have on the morale of our military? As well as the perception of unity within the U.S.? >> Very tough. So, so there's a, there's a couple of ways this could go. So the, the action is going to be more than seven days. We've consulted with the Consultation Committee. Now look, that consultation is supposed to be meaningful. So if the Consultation Committee says, Mr. President, this is a bad idea and we're going to be against you on it. That should tell the President something. Okay, so the President would not just act willy nilly in most instances if the combined leadership of the four committees in the Republican, Democratic leadership of both houses are saying, you know, red light, red light, red light instead of green light. That would give a President pause. But yes, you could foresee under this circumstance that a President would tell consultation committee, we need to do it. Consultation can mean might or might not express reservation. The resolution of approval as required by the statute gets introduced, and one or both houses turns it down. At that point, from a political standpoint, it would be shear folly for a President not to stop all operations. It, it would really, and in knowing the internal, you know, kind of politics to the way the place works, it would end the operation. The other prospect is, after a vote of approval goes all the way through, if it doesn't pass any member of Congress can introduce a resolution of disapproval to try to get that passed. That would go to the President's desk, the President could sign it or veto it. If vetoed it could be overridden. But by forcing the consultation, and by forcing, a President knows, there's going to be a vote. No President wants to lose that vote. No President has lost that vote. When put to a vote, no President has lost that vote. Nobody wants to be the first. So I think the fact of that there's going to be an accountability. There's going to be Congress, the elected representatives of people having their say. It doesn't eliminate the possibility of disagreement. But by making everybody accountable for their position, it works to dramatically encourage the reaching of a consensus. Give you an example of our recent instance, the one where I had to cancel, because it's a little bit of a functional exercise, it didn't completely follow the War Powers Consultation Act, but middle of August, Bashar al Assad in violation of a International Convention has been in place since 1925, used chemical weapons to gas 1,500 civilians. That accord, no use of chemical weapons, has been a very important part of international law, one of the clearest ones in international law. It's been violated a couple of times, but not often. And the fact that it's generally been upheld has been of enormous value to civilians in combat, but also to American servicemen and women who've been able to be in military battles without facing the use of chemical weapons against them. The President said, this is wrong, we gotta do something about it. Now he could have just initially, you know, just unilaterally started military action. But I, I and others reached out the the White House and said do not do this unilaterally, bring this to Congress. Do it the way it's supposed to be done. We can save our arguments about the War Powers Consultation Act for later, but in this instance, do it the way it's supposed to be done. And the President did decide to bring it to Congress, and look what happened. When the President said we ought to use military force to block this. Russia and Syria, that had, Syria had been using chemical weapons and Russia had been covering for them, and excusing them, and blocking U.N. Security Council actions to stop atrocities. As soon as the U.S. was willing to use military force, they changed their calculus. Because we got to do something different. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee where I sit then, then came back and had an emergency debate for a week that was finished by a vote to use military force. Because that debate took some time, Syria and Russia and others thought about what they should do. And they came to the table before we used military action said, I'll tell you what, we will destroy our chemical weapons stockpile. This was one of the largest chemical weapons stockpiles in the world. Syria had never even acknowledged that it had chemical weapons. Everybody knew that they did, but they hadn't acknowledged it. When we first complained about the use of chemical weapon against civilians, they said, we didn't do it. It was the opposition. But because the President said, this is an important principle, we ought to use military force against it. I'm going to Congress to seek an authorization to use military force. We had a debate. We voted and it was a close vote, not a landslide. It was a close vote to use military force. By the time we got there suddenly they had completely changed their tune. And in the last months, in the middle of a civil war, this is very hard to do, in the middle of a civil war, they have embarked upon the complete destruction of one of the largest chemical weapons stockpiles in the world. Not only the stockpile but on their capacity to make chemical weapons. And even though the Syrian civil war is still going on in a way that it's just atrocious in terms of civilian casualties. Those chemical weapons which endanger citizens, but also all the neighbors of Syria, are going to be gone off the face of the Earth, in a way that is positive. So by, by going to Congress and having the debate and voting to use military force, we changed Russia and Syria's calculation. And those chemical weapons are soon to be gone. So that, I think that shows what we might be able to, to see if we do this the right way. >> Fascinating. Senator, let me, use that segue just to ask you a question about, Iran. You have a very unusual situation here students, where you have a committee used to be the most distinguished committee of the Congress. I like to think it still is. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where the President of the United States is from that committee. The Vice President of the United States is from that committee. >> Yeah. Right. >> The Secretary of Defense is from that committee. Mm-hm. >> And the Secretary of State was the chairman of that committee before he became Secretary of State. So you have four individuals who are steeped in the traditions of the Senate, and are very aware of how to, use the good cop, bad cop routine, deal with us or else the, the bad Congress will beat you up if you're talking about sanctions. >> Yep. >> And I'm just curious. What is the atmosphere other than full and frank exchange. >> Yeah. >> In a room like that, when you have individuals who know each other so well, who've served in different roles and now have very important responsibilities. I mean, we just appreciate any insight. >> Sure. >> You can give us. >> Well it, it's been an extraordinary set of discussions. And and, and let me begin by saying, the one thing that is absolutely clear as we talk about Iran, and a potentially nuclear program, and sanctions, and trying to work this through, is that, everybody in Congress, and the President, share exactly the same goal. We do not want Iran to have nuclear weapons, and let me just take a minute and, and say, well I think that is so important. Iran's had, nuclear weapons would be of immediate threat to Israel, and Israel is a very close ally. But it's not just about Israel, sometimes this issue tends to be talked about as, it's just about Israel, and that's not fair to Israel to put it all on Israel's shoulders. A nuclear ron, Iran would threaten Israel, however. The issue to me that's the big issue is if Iran gets nuclear weapons Saudi Arabia has said we're going to get nuclear weapons. Turkey hasn't said it quite so clearly. But believe me, they're going to get nuclear weapons. And there are other nations that don't have nuclear weapons now who will get them if Iran does. So suddenly you see this, you know, what I, what I call the illogical logic of nuclear proliferation. We don't want there to be more nuclear weapons. We don't want nuclear weapons. Our neighbor has nuclear weapons. We don't like our neighbor. I guess we gotta get nuclear weapons. And that's what happens with a, a nuclear Iran. You start a nuclear arms race in that neighborhood in a way that would be very destabilizing. So, everybody wants Iran not to have nuclear weapons. There's only two ways that that result will be accomplished. Diplomacy or military. Everybody prefers that it be diplomacy. And so, the differences of opinion are ultimately tactical. What is the best way to achieve, hopefully, a diplomatic solution rather than a military one? And, and you know, like you all, if you, you're in your classes talking about any issue, you're going to have some different ideas on tactics and, and that's the same. So, I don't question, sort of the good faith of anybody around the room. This is a tactical difference. But my sense, and the President talked about this at the meeting, is we have a diplomatic opening to have this discussion in a meaningful way with Iran. The opening has come about for a couple of reasons. First, the sanctions program that Congress has put in place. And Senator Menendez, who currently is sort of in a different position than the President about whether we do more sanctions now. But he gets huge credit for the sanctions regime that's been put in place up to now. So he gets a lot of credit. The sanctions regime has hurt Iran's economy so that Iran has been interested in negotiation. The sanctions regime has not, the one thing it hasn't done, though, is hasn't slowed down Iran's nuclear program. Because to the extend that Iran has felt isolated via the sanctions, they felt more of a need. You know, we're we're by ourself. We got, you know, we've got to have the, the everybody's against us, and if you have that attitude, you're more likely to want to race ahead to get weapons, including nuclear weapons. But, now we have an opportunity to sit down and test each other's good faith. You know President Reagan used to say, trust but verify. We were talking about that earlier. I don't even like trust but verify. I, I like don't be too sure but verify, you know. Going into this negotiation, I'm not starting off trusting. But I am starting off willing to, you do this and we'll do this and then let's check each other and see if we're good to our word. And so this interim deal with Iran I think is a very important opportunity where we can each see. The, the six nations, P five plus one, and Iran, whether each is good to our word. We don't dismantle the sanctions regime. Instead, we release escrowed funds that have already been swept away from Iran. We release about 500 million a month to Iran over the course of 6 months. In exchange, they agreed to destroy their 20% enriched uranium cap, all their other enrichment at about3.5%. And allow inspections, daily inspections, to determine the extent of their nuclear enrichment program. So during the six months we get them to destroy the uranium that's near a weapons grade and we get a better ability to get an early warning system if they decide they want to move toward nuclear weapons. And in exchange they get some escrow funds released to them. If we do our part, and if they do their part, then we will build some trust along the way and then we can see whether there's a next step or more comprehensive deal we can put in place. I believe, and, and, and Jerry and I were talking about this, I believe it would be wrong to impose additional sanctions right now in the middle of an negotiation. I don't think it would be wrong. I want to keep the sanctions in place. And I'm going to vote for more sanctions in a minute if the negotiations crater, or if Iran takes steps in bad faith during the negotiations. But as long as we are at that negotiating table, and trying to find a diplomatic outcome to a very vexing and important problem, I don't think we should be piling on. We should spend 100% of our energy negotiating to try to find a diplomatic outcome that's, that's good for the world. >> Thank you, Senator. Thank you so much for your comments and we'll be having a working press availability here once the room has cleared. >> Great. >> Thank you. >> Thank you all very much. Nice to be with you. [APPLAUSE].
