 Good morning. There's a few people settling in. My name's George Perkovich. I'm a vice president for studies here at the Carnegie Endowment. And it's my pleasure to welcome all of you back from the end of summer, lamentably, and the beginning of the work here in Washington. But we have a great occasion, which we're honored to present to you to start it off. And that is an address by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reed. And to introduce Senator Reed, we have a dear friend and former colleague of his, Congressman Howard Berman, who's also a friend of ours. We've had the pleasure and honor of working together on a number of issues when he was chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. He's still very active in international affairs. And so it gives us extra pleasure to ask Congressman Berman to come up and introduce Senator Reed. Well, thank you very much, George. And just before I introduce the speaker, I just want to let our hosts know that the hosts at Carnegie that really how incredibly valuable your work has been to me during the 30 years that I was on the House Foreign Affairs Committee issues like non-proliferation, arms control, US-Soviet, and then US-Russia relationships, so many other issues. Your writings and your testimony, your conversations really helped shape my own outlook on a lot of key foreign policy issues. I owe you a lot. And a real special shout out to the brave people these days who are running your Moscow Center. Whenever I brought a group of members of Congress with me, never went to Russia without stopping there to get the analysis of those issues. But in any event, I am very honored today to be asked to introduce your speaker, who's been my friend for 33 years, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reed. We've worked together since he and I came to the House in 1983. We sat next to each other for four years on the House Foreign Affairs Committee before he was elected of the Senate in 1986. And as you know, the senator served as a majority leader from 2007 through 2014. And he remains the Democratic Leader during this, his last term in Congress. What most don't appreciate is the skill that goes into garnering the mantle of leader and majority leader in the US Senate and holding onto it. Senator Reed's commitment to a progressive agenda, his knowledge of the issues, and the parliamentary rules, his attention to detail, and his ability to handle the outsized personalities of his colleagues are legendary. He fights tenaciously for that in which he believes. And he produces the deft compromise when that is the only sensible course. And relevant to the discussion this morning, Senator Reed, during all his years and to this day, has given very special attention and focus to the US-Israel relationship. Fighting as strongly as anyone in the Congress for the survival and the security of the state of Israel. He, like I, believe that support for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is not only in America's security interest, but it is in Israel's security interest as well. What's not well known is that the critical strategic work that then-majority leader Reed played from 2009 through 2012 in ensuring that biting, far-reaching sanctions were enacted and were done so in a way that maximized President Obama's ability to put together a far-reaching international coalition in supportive sanctions. He wasn't the author of these sanctions bills. His name doesn't appear in the newspapers and in discussions about him. But he was seized with the critical importance of preventing Iran from having a nuclear weapons capability and devoted great time and leadership to making this happen. It's not often a House member gets a call from the Senate-majority leader to discuss legislative strategy on a bill not authored by that senator or makes himself readily and easily accessible to a House member to ensure a positive outcome. On this issue, Senator Harry Reed led not in name, but in taking the steps that only a majority leader can take to ensure that the effort was successful. I'm very proud to introduce Senator Harry Reed. So we're going to try a little experiment this morning. As some of you may know, I heard myself on January 1. Basically, I blinded myself in one eye doing my exercise. As Senator Mikulski said in our first meeting when I came back to the caucus, she said to everyone there assembled, I told you, I've said it all my life, exercise will kill you. So anyway, here's the deal. I can't see out of my right eye, but it does let light in. So I got some new glasses, and we're going to try for the first time I got a new pair of glasses. We'll see how it works. And the light here seems to be just about right. So if I have to go back to my dark glasses, you'll know why. So Howard, thank you very much. Howard and I are friends. We always will be friends. We bonded as freshmen in that very large class that Tip O'Neill had to deal with way back in 1982. He's a superb legislator. He was noted as a great legislator in the California legislature. But back here, when the history books are written, during these three decades that he served, Howard Berman would be part of that conversation. I'm so grateful that he came from California to introduce me today. There's no one I would rather have introduced me than my friend Howard Berman. I also want to thank the Carnegie Endowment and your president, former Deputy Secretary Burns, for hosting this meeting. He has a remarkable career and a record. And I'm grateful that he is somebody that I speak to and somebody that I like a great deal. He, most of the time, is out of the public eye. I know, I understand that. But he's known around the city and around the world as someone that has worked really hard to keep the world safe from a nuclear armed Iran. So thank you, Bill, even though you aren't here. George, thank you for filling so ably in. When the Senate is gaveled into session in just a few hours, a debate has ignited passions from Tehran to Tel Aviv, from Beijing to Berlin, and from coast to coast across our great country will take center stage in the world's greatest deliberative body. The question at hand is no small matter. Is the agreement between Iran and the international community, led by the United States, the best pathway to peace and security for America, Israel, our partners and interests? I believe the answer is unquestionably yes. And today I'm gratified to say to my fellow Americans, our negotiating partners and our allies all around the world, this agreement will stand. America will uphold its commitment and will seize this opportunity to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. While the formal debate begins this afternoon, the private negotiations that brought us to this point have been going on for years. And the public's review of the agreement has been going on for months. And during that long period, President Obama and Secretary Kerry were clear in their goals. Above all, that the United States will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. United States also would not sign any agreement that takes Iran at its word, or he lies on trust Iran has not earned. And at the most difficult crossroads of this time, consuming and technical negotiation, President Obama and Secretary Kerry made clear that the hard choices belonged not to us, but to Iran. But now it's our turn. Now the United States has a choice to make. We can enforce an agreement that forces Iran to walk away from any nuclear weapons program, or we can walk away from the agreement and assume responsibility for the consequences. We can take the strongest step ever toward blocking Iran from getting a nuclear bomb, or we can block the agreement and all but ensure that Iran will have the physical material it would need to make a bomb. In a matter of months, they would be able to do that. But we can't have it both ways. Make no mistake, blocking the bomb and blocking the agreement are two distinct choices that lead to very different futures. I spent a lot of time talking, listening, and thinking about the various elements of this agreement. And so have my colleagues. I've heard from nuclear scientists, intelligence community, military leaders. I've listened to diplomats and experts. I've been briefed by Secretary Kerry and under Secretary Sherman, by Secretaries Lew and Moniz, who by the way is this brilliant nuclear physicist who knows almost more than anyone else of the reality of this thread, the science behind the agreement, and the agreement itself. I've heard from ardent supporters and passionate opponents. I've talked with Nevadans for all walks of life. I've spoken with Israel's leaders, Prime Minister Netanyahu, Ambassador Dürmer, and I've read the text of this long agreement and I've read it very carefully. In all my years, I cannot think of another debate with so much expertise, passions, and good faith on both sides. It's clear to me and to the overwhelming majority of my caucus that this agreement gives us the best chance to avoid one of the worst threats in today's world, a nuclear armed Iran. In fact, I believe the agreement is not just our best chance to vert what we fear most, I fear it is our last best chance to do so. Before I explain why, let me first acknowledge some of the people who helped us get to this historic moment. I mentioned President Obama and his cabinet secretaries who achieved a remarkable diplomatic breakthrough. I also want to acknowledge my colleagues led by Senator Bob Menendez, who helped set the stage for those negotiations by rallying the Senate and the world behind sanctions that brought Iran to the negotiating table. I also acknowledge Senator Cardin and Corker for their leadership. They did a great job. The legislation they wrote created the process to review the agreement in Congress. I support this agreement and the United States Senate will support President Obama's veto of any effort to undermine it for two simple reasons. Number one, this agreement will do a tremendous amount of good. And number two, blocking this agreement would lead to a tremendous amount of bad outcomes. The bottom line then is this, enforcing this agreement will prevent the thugs, I'm sorry, the things we most dread. Where'd Ian slip? Right here. There's a few thugs in there, I'm sure of that. But undermining it would permit these very same dreadful consequences. Those consequences are in fact totally unacceptable. We all recognize the threat Iran poses to Israel with powerful weapons, hateful words, anti-Semitic smears, and pledges of Jewish state's destruction. No one can underestimate this menace. And no one should dismiss how much more dangerous Iran would be in this regard if it were to have a nuclear bomb. We also recognize the threat of the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps, the threat from Iran's support for Hezbollah and Assad, of Iran's brazen, and my little teleprompter friend is pretty slow there, okay? Of Iran's brazen human rights violations toward its own people and Americans, it holds political prisoners. And of course, those who have disappeared. We recognize the danger that Iran poses to our allies, our interests, and our own troops. And course, diplomats serving around the world apparel every day of their lives. In the Middle East, certainly. No one is blind to the threat Iran poses. But again, no one should forget that Iran would become a threat of an entirely different magnitude if it were ever to have a nuclear weapon. I can't think of a single challenge in the region that wouldn't get worse in that nightmare scenario. That's why our goal, first and foremost, must be to keep Iran from getting its hands on one of those nuclear weapons, or building them. We have no illusions about the Iranian regime, which is exactly why, when we are presented with the best way to stop its nuclear ambitions, we must not let that chance slip through our fingers. We must support and enforce the agreement we've reached. The agreement that Congress now assumes is responsibly reviewed. Does a better job than any other proposal of reducing Iran's chance to get a bomb. When our negotiators came to the table, they did so with Andrew Carnegie's advice in mind. The man who, in 1910, gave his name and fortune to this institution, once said, and I quote, our duty is with what is now practicable, now, with the next step possible in our day and generation. In our day, we know it's not practical to bomb away knowledge of how to build a nuclear weapon or erase that knowledge with sanctions. So our negotiators said, even though we cannot take away the recipe to build a bomb, we can take away the ingredients and the use of equipment to cook one. That's what we're doing. Not only if the United States upholds, but only if the United States upholds and enforces its agreement. The good news is this agreement does more than take away Iran's ability to build a bomb. It gives us the ability to watch every move through strict limits and intrusive inspections. The agreement takes away Iran's highly enriched material and takes away Iran's ability to make more of it. This agreement takes away Iran's ability to build any facilities or fizzle materials secretly and with impunity. The agreement Iran signed forbids it from pursuing, building, or having a nuclear weapon ever. There's no expiration date on that commitment and it's not grounded in trust. This isn't a peace treaty with Iran or a gift out of the goodness of our hearts. If we trusted Iran, we wouldn't need the video cameras and inspectors and seals and all manner of technology to make sure Iran complies. We're not asking Iran to promise us anything and taking it at its word. We're demanding Iran prove to us it's complying with every last letter of this agreement. Before it gets sanctions, relieve, Iran has to take specific actions. And if it doesn't happen, as some fear sanctions will be imposed on Iran. We've done everything possible to make sure that if Iran cheats, we'll know quickly and will act immediately and with the international community behind us. That makes us safer. That makes Israel safer. That makes the world safer. That's what nuclear experts around the world know, what diplomats know, and what the overwhelming majority of my caucus knows. That's why this agreement will stand. And to make sure this agreement succeeds, Congress must provide the oversight to ensure monitoring and force verification. At the same time, Congress must continue to hold the line against Iranian arms trafficking, its funding of terrorism, and demanding the return of Americans who have been taken political prisoners and those who disappeared. Priorities that were never meant to be part of this negotiation, but must never, never be forgotten. This agreement offers a number of different ways to cut off Iran's path to a bomb. There is on the other hand, one surefire way to open Iran's path to destruction. And that is to reject this agreement. As I mentioned, the second reason I support this agreement is because of what happens if we walk away from it. That would leave Iran with no limitations on nuclear weapons program, and leave the United States with no leverage to do anything about it. If we walk away from the agreement, we help secure. Think about what happens the very next day. Iran gets to keep as many centrifuges as it wants and build as many more as it would like. Iran gets to build its stockpile, the kind of uranium and plutonium you'd need to build a bomb. Iran gets to test more advanced technologies that bring it closer to a bomb, and to do so as quickly as it wants. And when those weapons are ready, Iran gets to point them at Israel, or worse, launch them very good on its threat to wipe Israel off the map. Iran also gets to kick out the inspectors and hide all this from the world. And forget worries about 15 or 20 years from now. All this would happen tomorrow. If we walk away from this agreement, the international sanctions regime will fall apart, meaning the tool Congress imposed to bring Iran to the table disappears from our arsenal. Sanctions don't work if it's our idea alone. The world has to be on the same page. And here's why. America doesn't do business with Iran. We haven't for decades. But other countries made their own economic sacrifices in the name of pressuring Iran, and now they want to buy Iran's oil and trade with it. So as much as we'd like for sanctions that brought Iran to the table to also bring Iran to its knees, it's only with international cooperation that sanctions actually work. Like it or not, we need our partners in this effort. And our partners have told us in no uncertain terms that the United States walks away or walk away alone. Sanctions have isolated Iran and brought us to this moment. But if we squander it and turn our backs on our international partners, it is we, the United States, who will be isolated. And worse, we would surrender our leverage to negotiate in the future. Put it all together. What does it mean if America blocks this agreement instead of blocking Iran's pathway to Obama? It means Iran gets more money and more impunity to develop a nuclear weapon. It means we get far less scrutiny and far less security. It means we'll have to put ourselves at a disadvantage at the very moment we let Iran become more dangerous. Of course, we still have the military option. President Obama has made crystal clear that's a fact. But military strikes cannot solve this problem nearly as effectively as solution before us today. Clearly, a military option could also come with significant costs and risks for both Israel and the United States. After all, that's why diplomacy is our first resort and military option our last resort. That's why I believe blocking the agreement would actually achieve the opposite of what opponents intend. Instead of being tougher on Iran, voting against agreement is a vote against a smart international sanctions regime, against inspections, against any international requirement that Iran backs off its nuclear program in any way. Blocking this agreement pushes Iranians closer to a bomb rather than pushing it farther away. That's a fact. General Brent Scowcroft, National Security Expertise who served before Republican presidents said he would be sewing, we would be sewing further turmoil in the Middle East rather than seizing a chance and responsibility to stabilize it. That would be a tragedy of our own making. One, we cannot allow. I respect greatly the concerns I've heard about, what this agreement means for Israel. I believe this agreement makes Israel safer and in no small part. That's why I support it. Over my decades in the Senate, my support for the safety and security of the Israeli people has been at the core of my views on the Middle East and national security of the United States. From the bonds for Israel dinners, I attended 50 years ago with my girlfriend. To the history of my own wife's family, my support for the state of Israel and the Jewish people has been personal and unimpeachable. And I have not been afraid to disagree with the President of the United States when it comes to Israel, whether on settlements or when the administration opposes Congress passing specific sanctions. We must build on our firm commitment to make sure Israel can defend itself and take more money, more military support, but we must provide the one true democracy in the region and the one and only Jewish state in the whole world with the resources it needs. The United States must also maintain its staunch support of Israel, including by using our veto in the United Nations for resolutions that isolate Israel and fairly or make it less secure. I read closely the letter that Secretary Kerry sent to the Senate early in September. That letter lays out a number of important steps that the United States would take to support Israel's security. One of those steps is protecting Israel's qualitative military edge. Another is negotiating a new 10-year memorandum of understanding on military assistance. And yet another step is continuing to work with Israel on joint efforts to deal with shared threats as well as confronting both conventional and asymmetric threats. It's also closely reviewed, very closely, the Legislation Center Cardinals proposal, which will provide additional security assistance and assurances to Israel. And after looking at the letter and Cardinal's legislation, I plan to work with the White House and with both Democrats and Republicans to guarantee that the United States is doing everything possible to protect safety and security of Israel. And as the administration has promised, we'll continue funding the missile defense system that has already saved so many Israeli civilians will also grow our strategic relationship even stronger, collaborating, to direct and destroy those tunnels that have been used to terrorize Israeli citizens. Now, after all the good disagreement we'll do in blocking Iran's pathway to a bomb, after all the dangers rejecting it will do by letting Iran grow more dangerous or cloud incredibly slip down the drain, after all the assurances that our commitment to Israel's security is stronger than ever, after all that, some will say they want a better deal. But there is no such thing as a better deal. There is no plausible alternative. There is no better deal. Opponents of this agreement, by respect, talk often about how very real the Iranian threat is to Israel and the region. And it absolutely is. But for all the talk about what is real, the idea that we can somehow get a better deal is imaginary, diplomats, scientists, or international counterparts tell us it's fantasy. The agreement before us is a result of many years of hard work. We live in the real world, and in the real world, this really is the best option to keep Iran from a nuclear bomb. Let me say a brief word about details of getting this done. The Senate, of course, has an important oversight role to play. When we voted nearly unanimously for the Iran Review Act, we voted to give the Senate that role. We voted to consider three possible outcomes, no action at all, a resolution of approval, a resolution of disapproval. It's absurd to argue, as some are doing now, that by voting for a process with three possible and very different outcomes, senators somehow obligated themselves to vote to advance a specific outcome. We did no such thing. I hope we can avoid the usual and unnecessary procedural hurtings. Democrats have already agreed to forego our opportunity to filibuster, and I've offered Senator McConnell the chance to go straight to vote on passage of the resolution. But of course, as he's noted many times in the past, everything of importance in the Senate requires 60 votes. So passage will require 60 votes. There's no precedent in recent history for the issue of this magnitude, getting consideration in the Senate without having to secure 60 votes. This is not about how one leader manages the floor. This is precedent dating back decades now. Finally, of all the many important things at stake here, American leadership is one of them. After convening our international partners in common cause, rallying the world by tough sanctions, after negotiating and negotiating and negotiating and negotiating some more, the way American acts now will inform the way we're viewed on the world stage and the credibility with which we can negotiate in the future. If America renegs on this agreement, we will lose more than the compliance of our adversary. We will lose the confidence of our allies. America led the negotiations to stop an Iranian nuclear program. And now it is time for Congress to reaffirm America's leadership by supporting this agreement. We cannot and will not allow our land to have a nuclear weapon. Neither the United States nor Israel, our golf partners or a volatile Middle East or anyone in the world can take that risk, that danger. I believe it's our responsibility to avoid that threat. So let's heed Andrew Carnegie's reminder of our duty to respect what is practical and to respond with pragmatic solutions. Solutions like the one before us. As he said, when a statesman has in his keeping the position and interests of his country, it is not with things as they are to be in the future, but with things as they are in the present. Right now, close quote. The agreement on the table at present is a good one. It is our best chance to ensure a land never builds the worst weapon on earth. I'll do everything in my power to make sure it is forced and effective, to make sure in turn we are safer and more secure in our day and generation and in the days and generations to come. Thanks, everybody. I have to build some better glasses here. Don't worry about those glasses. These work well. So that's good. You have time to- Sure do. A brief conversation while you're here. Yeah. That was a very powerful brief for the agreement and description of the process. If you now look out over the next few days, do you have a sense that ultimately it's going to work out in terms of when the Congress has it say that the deal won't be blocked at least at this point? As I said in my remarks, it's clear that the Senate's going to recheck this agreement. Well, we're all together. There are a few dissenting votes. We'll find out how many we have still. About four senators have not made a public decision. I believe one of them is going to make a decision and may have already have done it. So we expect to know very soon where everybody stands. But we, as everyone knows, we have enough votes to make sure that the president's veto, if necessary, will not be overwritten. Do you alluded to this, but I want to draw it out a little bit because I think a lot of us who've worked on this have been puzzled about what the theory is that if the Congress were to block this deal, what positive effects over time would come from that? You suggested that, you know, the arguments were weak, but you deal with a lot of your colleagues. Do they articulate why blocking it would lead to some kind of better outcome or is it just an assertion that they don't argue? Your question, yes. Is blocking the... In other words, do people who want to block the reason actually give you detailed arguments? The reason it's confusing is this is a resolution of disapproval. Right. Okay, so. Right, but we will block that. Right. But the argument of, and the whole process is basically for those who want to block the agreement going forward. The JPCOA, and so... Well, but as I said, we have three choices, do nothing, to approve it or disprove it. Those are the choices. And I think those of us who believe that we should not approve this proposal is one that recognizes that as if we do, as I said in my remarks, we're alone. In the world community, we're alone. Sanctions will no longer be effective. You know, we'll be able to have some sanctions, but we learned a long time ago that our doing it alone doesn't work and that's why it's... I mean, we made some sacrifices blocking this agreement economically, but other countries made significant sacrifices also. And as I indicated here, they want to begin trade relations with Iran. It's a country of 50 million people. There's potential there. And that doesn't take away from the fact we got a lot of work to do. This agreement that we have, the opportunity to affirm, does nothing but stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. That's the purpose of it. It doesn't stop other things. We will continue to assert our influence and our power to make sure that their meddling in other places will be at a relative minimal. But we and our allies agree on that. Well, what our allies don't agree on is the fact that if we reject this agreement, they're out the door and think about this. China, Russia, I mean, they're with us on this. So I think that we should quit while we're way ahead. There's a theory and this has to do with leverage in a lot of ways. There's a theory that some say, which is, okay, even if the rest of the world starts doing trade with Iran, because the US economy is so important, we have national sanctions that can block other companies from other countries from doing financing through the US. And with that leverage that the US is alone, we can somehow impose our will on others to go along. And I guess my question is, is even if that's true. But George, we tried that. We tried that, didn't work. Why do you think that was important that we had the countries involved in the negotiations? We needed them, otherwise it's meaningless to us. A lot of this money is held up in banks, not all our banks, other banks around the world. And we tried that alone, I repeat. It didn't work, it helped a little bit, but it certainly didn't bring them to their knees. And they didn't even bend at the waist with that. I think we have to cut it off now because I'm seeing that you have to get back to do the urgent business that we were alluding to here as things are happening. And so we're very grateful. Well, I appreciate very much. I don't have to answer questions about the Pope coming, the Chinese president coming. I don't have to answer questions about the budget deal, about highways, about cybersecurity. So I'm glad to leave also. Thank you very much.