News/info regarding Arizona's politics. U.S. Senate, Congress, Governor, statewide offices, initiatives, and - where we can - county and local.
We aim to present objective information (unless labeled as "commentary") and do original reporting.
Drop us an e-mail with tips/comments/questions/etc - info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Twitter: @AZs_Politics, phone:602-799-7025.
Operated by co-founder Paul Weich. Sister site/program is ArizonasLaw.org.
Want to join our team? Inquire within.
Arizona Rep. Matt Salmon (R-CD5) released a blistering statement after 91 House Republicans and 32 GOP Senators voted with Democrats to keep the U.S. government operating until December 12 without cutting off monies to Planned Parenthood.
“Today’s vote lacks the leadership our nation is demanding. Rather than taking a principled stand against arguably illegal activities, the House today surrendered to the demands of Planned Parenthood’s management and took up a continuing resolution that aimed to continue providing funding to an organization under multiple investigations for their potentially illegal abortion practices.
“I was proud to have voted in favor of Representative Roby’s amendment, which would have prevented any federal funding to Planned Parenthood in this resolution, and I know this fight isn’t over. We will again confront this issue in December, and I am hopeful that the House’s new leadership will pay more attention to the will of the American people than their own desire to capitulate.”
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.
With seven hours left in the month, four out of Arizona's five GOP Representatives voted "nay" on an authorization measure to keep the federal government operating past midnight. Rep. Martha McSally (R-CD2) teamed with 90 other Republicans and all 186 (voting) Democrats (277-151) to send the measure to the President's desk. He already signed. it.
The government is now funded until December 12.
Earlier in the day, Arizona Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake (both Republicans) joined with 76 other Senators to send the measure to the House. We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.
"You're profiting off death... and that's appalling to me." With that, Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar (R-CD4) rested after his cross-examination of Cecile Richards, the President of the Planned Parenthood Federation of Arizona.
Gosar used his five minutes of the House Oversight Committee time to attempt to show that Planned Parenthood's national organization has increased its profit* by providing less Medicaid-reimbursed healthcare in favor of "profit centers" like abortion.
As he saw his time was expiring, Gosar skipped ahead to his final point and had to tell Richards that he was changing the process where they had been interrupting each other: "This is my time, this is my time, don't interrupt."
Gosar also attempted to point out that Planned Parenthood has reduced the cost of (some sort of) contraceptives to $3/unit but gets Medicaid reimbursement at the rate of $35/unit.** Richards disagreed with several parts of that analysis, and Arizona's Politics has not yet researched the issue.
Republicans are attempting to "defund" Planned Parenthood. Most of the money that the organization receives from the U.S. come through states as Medicaid reimbursements for (non-abortion) medical services. A small portion comes from Title X grants, for which Planned Parenthood provides family planning (non-abortion) services. *Gosar and Richards sparred briefly about the term "profit". Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization, and the two agreed that the amount of "revenue over expenses" has increased over the last several years. **Gosar pointed out that - as a dentist - he is familiar with Medicaid reimbursements, and that they are not good. We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.
(UPDATE, 4:15pm: The House passed the Act this evening, 410-0. Rep. McSally emailed a news release - reproduced at bottom - giving a shout-out to Sen. Flake and including a quote from him. The bill now goes back to the Senate for a (second) vote.)
Arizona Rep. Martha McSally (R-CD2) and the outgoing House leadership are reviving the non-controversial "Border Jobs For Veterans Act" that they helped abort 1 1/2 weeks ago as part of the effort to avert a Planned Parenthood-related government shutdown.
McSally is the primary sponsor of the House version of the Border Jobs For Veterans Act. Three Arizona colleagues - Reps. Ruben Gallego (D-CD7), Paul Gosar (R-CD4) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-CD9) - are among the 17 bi-partisan co-sponsors of the measure that passed on a voice vote in the Senate earlier this month.
The measure - sponsored by Arizona Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) was sent to the House, where - asArizona's Politics reported - it was gutted and replaced with the "Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act", sponsored by Arizona Rep. Trent Franks (R-CD8). The House leadership pushed it to the Floor without any committee action, as part of a two-measure package giving House members a chance to vote for punishing Planned Parenthood and threatening employees at abortion clinics with five years prison time. The measures passed the House on largely party line votes.
While Arizona's Politics pushed Congressional offices last week for answers on how the House GOP came to vote against border security and jobs for veterans in favor of a symbolic pro-life vote, McSally's "related measure" was quickly (i.e. without committee action, aka not in regular order) put on the calendar.
McSally's Communications Director Patrick Ptak tells Arizona's Politics (by email) that McSally's office had been in contact with both House leadership and her Senate counterparts (e.g. Flake's office) regarding the bill. He adds that "we’re happy to see it come to the floor today."
Assuming it is passed by the House today, it will have to again be voted on by the Senate before reaching the President's desk.
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.
Francis' speech to a joint session of Congress (Thursday). Later that day, NextGen Climate Action signed contracts to air an ad in Phoenix countering Gosar and touting the Pope's comments on climate change.
Yesterday, Democratic Reps. Raul Grijalva (D-CD3) and Ruben Gallego (D-CD7) teamed up with NextGen to semi-gently chide Gosar to listen to the Pope.
The ad buy does not mention Gosar (or anyone else), and is titled "Dear World". The script is a collection of quotes from the papal encyclical about climate change.
NextGen press secretary Suzanne Henkels tells Arizona's Politics* that they want to "ensur(e) that (Gosar's) constituents will hear the Pope’s powerful message on climate change", and NextGen increased the broadcast and digital buy to more than $400,000.
The ad was not originally planned to air on Phoenix TV stations - only on national cable, in Washington, D.C. and in five states.
NextGen issued a press release yesterday with comments from billionaire founder Tom Steyer, and Democratic Reps. Grijalva and Gallego. Only Steyer named Gosar. Grijalva stated that "Unfortunately, Congressional Republicans continue to turn a blind eye to the need for increased sustainable energy, reduced carbon emissions and the development of new green technologies." And, Gallego added "I hope his message resonates with politicians on both sides of the aisle."
*Full comment from Henkels to Arizona's Politics: "On Friday, Arizona Congressman Paul Gosar announced that he plans to boycott Pope Francis’ upcoming address to the U.S. Congress. While Congressman Gosar may not want to hear Pope Francis’ call to action on climate change, Americans are looking to the Pope for leadership on this critical issue. NextGen Climate is ensuring his constituents will hear the Pope’s powerful message on climate change by running our new ad, “Dear World” in Gosar’s congressional district. We’re calling on Gosar’s constituents to reach out to their Congressman and encourage him to listen to the pope’s urgent call to action on climate change." We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.
(Updated, 9:30am, to include full text of letter.)
Arizona Rep. Martha McSally (R-CD2) joined with 10 other freshman Republicans in signing a letter urging hardline conservatives to avoid a government shutdown over the Planned Parenthood issue.
The "Dear Colleague" letter was obtained by Politico, and summarized there. It is now publicly posted, and reproduced here in its entirety. The article this morning contains this snippet:
“[W]e are writing today to express our strong support for a funding resolution that will avoid another unnecessary and harmful government shutdown. [W]e were elected by our constituent’s to be principled, pragmatic leaders… The sixteen-day government shutdown in 2013 … not only hurt taxpayers with the loss of important government services — it actually cost more taxpayer money to close the federal government than to keep it open.”
The letter, from the freshmen in the 65-member Republican Main Street Partnership, puts McSally at odds with Arizona's four other Republican Representatives. Salmom, Gosar, Schweikert and Franks are all members of the House Freedom Caucus, consisting of the more conservative members at odds with House leadership. Salmon has been among the leaders of the latter. We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.
Arizona Republic reports on Court of Appeals decision affirming decision to deny effort to hold Glendale referendum on settlement agreement with Tohono O'odham regarding the West Valley casino.
Here is a link to the opinion. We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.
Republicans in the House of Representatives today erased the non-controversial Border Jobs For Veterans Act, and replaced it with a much-more-controversial "Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act".
Arizona's Politics previously reported that the new bill had been tacked on to the unanimously-passed Border Jobs For Veterans Act. In fact, the House's move was a "strike everything" amendment that used Arizona Senator Jeff Flake's measure as a vessel, and it will now be sent back to the Senate with the measure that could impose five-year prison sentences on anyone working in a clinic who does not contact law enforcement if an aborted fetus moves and is not admitted to a hospital.
Here is the text of the resolution that paved the way for today's votes. (also, below) Section 4 provides for the removal of the veterans/border jobs language from Flake's bill.
Flake had just (last week) touted the unanimous passage of the bill, and spoke of its importance.
Arizona's Politics has asked Senator Flake's and Representative Franks' offices for comment on this startling development.
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.
(CORRECTION, 2:00pm: The Franks anti-abortion act ERASES Flake's Border Jobs For Veterans Act, rather than tacking it on. Appropriate changes made to this article. Details here.)
Arizona Rep. Trent Franks (R-CD8) introduced his "Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act" earlier this week, and the House today approved it and replaced Arizona Senator Jeff Flake's Border Jobs For Veterans Act with it today.
Franks' measure will make it a crime punishable by up to five years in prison
for any clinic employee who does not report an abortion which results in an aborted fetus making any movement after being removed from the pregnant woman.
The measure - introduced on Tuesday by Franks, and with all Arizona Republican colleagues except Martha McSally (R-CD2) signing on as co-sponsors - was rushed to the Floor as part of the wrangling and threats to cause a government shutdown over the Planned Parenthood defunding issue. It passed on a party-line vote of 248-177 (with 5 Democrats voting "aye").
It will now go back to the Senate as the full content of what had been the non-controversial Border Jobs For Veterans Act proposed by Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake. That had passed the Senate on September 9.
As noted earlier, many House conservatives - with Arizona Rep. Matt Salmon (R-CD5) in the forefront - are leery of the House GOP leadership's plans to give anti-Planned Parenthood, anti-abortion Representatives a chance for "feel-good" votes which will not result in the measures becoming law.
Here is Rep. Franks speaking on Sept. 9 to open a hearing on the Planned Parenthood issue:
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.
Arizona Rep. Matt Salmon (R-CD5) is in the forefront of conservative House Republicans accusing their leadership of playing games with the Planned Parenthood defunding effort.
He is quoted on Politico.com this afternoon as saying Speaker Boehner's (and, leadership's) plan to avert a government shutdown over the issue "fails to move the needle" and is "pure political posturing".
He was excited about the twin votes that the House suddenly held on the Planned Parenthood news release:“I applaud our leaders for this vote, but now is not the time to rest. We must ensure that any funding bill we pass now contains absolutely no funding for such a barbaric organization.”
defunding and Arizona colleague Trent Franks' "Born Alive Survivors Protection Act" - both of which passed on party-line votes. However, he stated in a
Conservatives in the House believe that the Republican leadership is permitting these votes as part of a deal to stop a threatened government shutdown over the Planned Parenthood defunding effort, and promising to continue it in the budget reconciliation process later in the year.
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.
Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar (R-CD4) announced this morning (on conservative Townhall.com) that he was boycotting Pope Francis' speech to a Joint Session of Congress because his Pope is acting like a "leftist politician" focusing on "the fool's errand of climate change."
Earlier this year, Gosar scolded President Obama for his "temper tantrum" and "breach of protocol" (and, presumably, the other Democrats who followed suit) for his treatment of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he addressed a joint session of Congress.
Gosar - a self-described "proud Catholic" - said today that he is skipping the Pope's address because "media reports indicate His Holiness instead intends to focus the brunt of his speech on climate change - a climate that has been changing since first created in Genesis. More troubling is the act that this climate change talk has adopted all of the socialist talking points, wrapped false science and ideology into 'climate justice' and is being presented to guilt people into leftist policies."
He states that he "would be there cheering him on" if the Pope spoke out "against violent Islam", although the Pope may also do that in his address.
The Pope was invited to address Congress by Republican Congressional leaders. The same leaders who invited Netanyahu to speak weeks before an Israeli election. At that time, President Obama and a couple of dozen Democratic lawmaker declined to attend.
Gosar spoke out forcefully against those who declined to attend Netanyahu's address: "I Stand With Israel. You? I am pleased israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will speaking to us tomorrow in Congress. The truth about what is going on with our inept administration and Iran needs to be discussed. I am disappointed the President has acted so inappropriately towards our guest--a guest we invited to speak at the People's House. The only breach of protocol is the President's temper tantrum."
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.
Arizona Rep. David Schweikert was the final speaker this evening before the debate on the Iran nuclear agreement was closed by the ranking members, and he further brought it home by pointing out Iran's actions in "our hemisphere".
Schweikert noted that finance ministers at a conference in Panama recently told him about Iranian money coming through their banks. Schweikert held up a chart of Iranian actions around the world, including in Mexico.
(click picture for video)
Schweikert - as are many opponents of the agreement - tried to hold President Obama and those in Congress supporting the agreement responsible for any possible bad that may occur in the future.*
* Not mentioned was whether opponents of the agreement would accept responsibility if the agreement is blown up and bad happens. We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.
Arizona Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) focused his Senate floor speech this morning on the claim that the Obama Administration chose to make the Iran nuclear deal an agreement instead of a treaty that would have required Senate approval.
Flake also took advantage of the increased audience for the debate to plug his Border Jobs For Veterans Act, which passed the Senate on a voice vote yesterday. Here is the text of that, which now goes to the House.
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.
(Addendum, 1:17pm: C-Span responded to Arizona's Politics' email alerting them to the error, noting that it is the House Recording Gallery that originates the closed captioning that C-Span uses, and that C-Span cannot change the error.) Arizona's Politics just published an article/video of Arizona Rep. Martha McSally (R-CD2) speaking on the House floor this morning. When we went back to must-see C-Span TV, imagine our surprise when the transcript showed that fellow Arizona Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-CD1) had also spoken.
To stave off angry comments from Democrats and/or Kirkpatrick people, we quickly added a note to the article that we would update with the new video. We then went back to C-Span, only to find that the hard-working C-Span closed captioners had re-labeled McSally's speech as coming from the mouth of Kirkpatrick. (Substance-wise, it could have.)
Proof?
Needless to say, we pulled the note. This is the explanation for those of you who may have wondered, "WTF?"
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.
Arizona Rep. Martha McSally (R- CD2) set the stage for the the U.S. House of Representatives' debate on the nuclear arms deal with Iran this morning, noting that the attacks by "Islamic terrorists" on 9/11 (2001) "sparked a renewed sense of determination and unity that should not be forgotten."
McSally's one-minute speech on the House floor came immediately preceding the suddenly-tense House debate on the nuclear agreement. She focused on 9/11, especially remembering two victims who were born in Tucson - Aaron Jeremy Jacobs and Karol Ann Keasler.
While not specifically mentioning the debate on the Iran deal, she did note that "we are in a generational fight against terrorists, like ISIS, who seek our complete destruction and that of our allies and our way of life. (Correction, 2:25pm: correcting spelling of 9/11 victim Karol Ann Keasler.) We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.
Arizona Senator Jeff Flake sat for his first PBS interview with Charlie Rose late last month, and discussed the nuclear deal with Iran, Donald Trump's frontrunner status in the GOP Presidential race, and other issues.
While you cannot rely too much on the closed captioning transcript (below the jump), you can get an idea of the parts you want to play. At the top, he describes what made his decision to oppose the agreement with Iran most difficult:
"The part that troubled me most is that this probably should have been a treaty where
0:55
it binds all parties. Instead it's an executive agreement that just lasts, you
1:00
know, the length of the presidency, and when there are other issues like
1:05
problems with one Iran has been doing in the region some of the terrorist
1:09
activity then I thought that the agreement unfairly restricts Congress's
1:15
ability to respond to that kind of behavior and so that's what tipped the
1:19
scales for me. It was, i mean for those who say this was an easy call, I think
1:24
they haven't looked closely at it or at the alternatives, so you never want to be
1:28
on the other side of nearly all of your allies and we are but this is a tough
1:34
agreement.
His comments about Trump are clear and to the point:
"
19:55
by that time hopefully some of these statements and and these policies
20:02
if you want to call them that from Mr Trump will be a faint memory because
20:06
certainly it's not a serious policy to talk about building a wall and forcing
20:12
the Mexican government to pay for it or imposing fees and terrorists like she
20:19
has talked about doing it just you know it borders
20:22
well it it runs from you know insensitive to laughable frankly some of
20:30
these policies that have been advocated by mr. Trump
(Transcript - from YouTube - is below the jump) We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.
0:00
jeff Flake is here is the junior republican senator from Arizona on
0:03
Friday attended the ceremonial reopening of the USA embassy in a manner
0:07
alongside Secretary of State John Kerry he has been an outspoken advocate for
0:12
restoring ties between the two countries but on Saturday he announced his
0:16
opposition to the president
0:18
Iran nuclear accord he joins me now from Phoenix Arizona we're pleased to have
0:23
him on this broadcast for the first time what in the end made the difference for
0:27
you with regard to Iran yes you know the nuclear side I think was pretty tight
0:35
particularly with the known nuclear facilities in Iran and the inspection
0:38
regime and it does truly limit Iran's ability to at least amass enough fissile
0:44
material to make a bomb for ten to fifteen years and that's a good thing
0:49
apart the troubled me most is that this probably should have been a treaty where
0:55
it binds all parties instead it's an executive agreement that just last you
1:00
know the length of the presidency and when there are other issues like
1:05
problems with one Iran has been doing in the region some of the terrorist
1:09
activity than I thought that the agreement unfairly restricts congress's
1:15
ability to respond to that kind of behavior and so that's what tip the
1:19
scales for me it was a i mean for those who say this was an easy call I think
1:24
they haven't looked closely at it or at the alternatives so you never want to be
1:28
on the other side of nearly all of your allies and we are but this is a tough
1:34
agreement we r
1:35
opposes deal where and what what do you mean by on the opposite of our allies
1:39
obviously depends on which allows you talking about
1:42
well as the P 5+1 negotiated this agreement so our european allies have
1:47
been with us on the sanctions regime you know will now go on
1:52
assuming that this agreement were to fall apart I think that they would might
1:57
go a different direction and that's that's not a good thing to to break up
2:01
this this could coalition part of the success I think we've had in bringing
2:05
Iran to the table as it's been around versus the West rather than Iran vs the
2:10
us- and and this kind of brake setup and so it's it's not an easy thing to do you
2:15
go against your european allies on the other hand israel has some real concerns
2:20
here some genuine legitimate concerns about this agreement and they're
2:25
obviously a very close ally of ours as well there is a lot of political
2:29
personal side but in the end you think people and and the ballast senators date
2:34
you know well from that one hundred are voting today about this on the merits of
2:41
this treaty on marriage of this Agreement or on political pressure well
2:48
I like to think that that all of us look at the facts and the merits of the case
2:53
and I think by and large thats true we've had a good number of hearings and
2:57
briefings and meetings that have been widely attended by my colleagues and so
3:03
i i think that they the senate I can't speak for the house but knowing what
3:08
we've gone through in the senate people are taking this very seriously as they
3:11
should
3:12
this is a big important agreement and I thought it was important to do due
3:15
diligence on it and I've tried to do so why is it important
3:19
well this is this is going to affect not just our relationship with the ran but
3:24
the entire region and this this
3:28
allowing or trying to prohibit a nation like Iran from getting a nuclear weapon
3:34
is extremely important it's something that we've faced a a good chunk of our
3:39
foreign policy in the Middle East on for quite a while and it will affect
3:43
obviously the region and we've got to establish a regional security framework
3:49
in the wake of this record now assuming it goes through those kind of things are
3:55
big and important do you believe that the president could have negotiated
3:59
better and secretary Kerry and the Secretary of Energy and others that were
4:05
part of the USA team that they could have negotiated better and perhaps
4:09
include some of these elements that concern you about Iranian conduct in New
4:15
yes I do I think it had this been a tree they obviously were clarified some of
4:21
these things that many of us have been raising for a number of months I
4:25
actually wrote to the president in February of this year
4:28
expressing concern that congress hasn't been involved particularly and what will
4:33
happen with sanctions should this Agreement go into a fact and I i do
4:40
think that we could have clarified with with a treaty you can do what it calls
4:44
rides a reservations understandings and declarations where you clarify some of
4:51
the confusing aspects of a treaty we didn't have that opportunity here and so
4:56
I encourage the administration to at least supports and parallel legislation
5:00
that might clarify some of these items and and they just aren't clear the
5:05
administration will say that we do maintain retain all the tools that we
5:10
have to deter punish Iran for behavior in the region on the non-nuclear side
5:15
right but if you read the agreement
5:18
that's just not the case and so I think that those things needed to be clarified
5:22
they aren't and I think they'll present a big problem going forward you think
5:26
the president wants his deal to me too much
5:28
well i i don't want to say that I know that the agree with the administration
5:33
wants an agreement I want an agreement I supported the negotiations all along and
5:38
I wanted to support a good agreement I wanted to be there I don't think it's a
5:42
good thing to have big important agreement like this just passed with a
5:47
bare plurality of partisan votes and so I would have liked to have been there
5:52
but but I just couldn't get over these hurdles in supporting the president how
5:58
do you think it's going to come out in the end if I had to guess I would think
6:04
that the president may lose a few more democrats have already declared that
6:09
have already declared but in the end will have votes to sustain a veto so
6:15
he'll be able to get this agreement that he very much I I believe so I believe
6:20
the votes will be there what do you think he doesn't understand well have
6:24
put it that way I think certainly these negotiations have been entered into in
6:31
good faith and I think we're trying to get an agreement that will both restrict
6:37
Iran's nuclear ambitions but also got to deal with the behavior in the region
6:44
the president
6:46
believes that we can separate those things and and I'm not sure that we can
6:51
in fact I think in the agreement the fact that Iran has agreed on the nuclear
6:56
side to something that that it can get out of if we impose sanctions for other
7:02
behavior ties the two non-nuclear and nuclear aspects together in ways that
7:08
I'm not sure is fully appreciated by the administration as you well know the
7:13
present will I get that two things one who argued that it was a non-starter it
7:18
was a non-starter to to include these things as part of an agreement they
7:24
weren't simply were not gonna go there and that the intent of the Peapod plus
7:28
one was only to use sanctions to get an agreement to prevent Iran from having a
7:35
nuclear weapon simply disagree I don't want to disparage the president of the
7:42
administration like I said I've plotted their efforts and their their
7:46
willingness to negotiate think we should have been doing this long before that I
7:51
think we we have a stronger hand than we've shown and so i i think that we
7:57
could have gotten some more commitments or at least not found congress's hands
8:04
with regard to responding to Iran's behavior in the region I think that we
8:09
could have clarified that and that would have provided more deterrence than is
8:14
currently
8:15
there with this agreement also the president argued that it's much better
8:19
to have the in competition and and to be engaged in a conflict with Iran that
8:26
does not have a nuclear weapon about these issues whether it's a support
8:30
there's bolo whether it's the denunciation of Israel and all of that
8:35
to be engaged with Iran it does not have a nuclear weapon than one that does not
8:41
there's certainly something to be said for that but I but I'm not sure that you
8:45
can take that to the full extent if Iran believes that we are so worried that
8:52
they will get out of their nuclear obligations that that we won't challenge
8:57
them on some of the regional behavior they simply have far too much leverage
9:01
in that regard and I i think that there's some of that in this agreement
9:06
so i i take the president's point on dealing with Iran without nuclear
9:10
capability that's certainly better but if they can use that as leverage to
9:16
increase bad behavior in the region then I'm not sure that argument holds do you
9:23
believe there are things that the congress can do now that even though the
9:28
agreement will go into effect can make a difference
9:33
yes I think congress will and that's part of what I was talking to the
9:37
administration about as late as last Friday I think the congress is going to
9:42
move ahead and for example to reauthorize the Iran sanctions act which
9:47
expires next year simply so if there is
9:51
need a need for a snap-back we have sanctions to snap back to and that has
9:59
been met with resistance by the administration they say you know we can
10:03
deal with that when it comes up but it would be too provocative to do that now
10:07
and that's what makes me and others concerned that the administration will
10:13
be simply unwilling to challenge Iran's behavior in the region when it comes to
10:18
it if we're that afraid to challenge their interpretation of the agreement
10:23
now and and to be to allow Congress to move ahead and and reauthorize sanctions
10:29
without challenging the president's waiver authorities nobody's disagreeing
10:33
with that but to say if Iran behaved in ways that or if they violate even on the
10:40
nuclear side we want sanctions to snap back to I think that the congress will
10:46
move forward on some items like that and it may be uncomfortable for the
10:51
administration and certainly for the Iranians who have already said that they
10:55
would consider that provocative behavior but it but it it should be done many
11:01
people who support the agreement will will say I don't think it's a perfect
11:04
deal by any means and I think I don't think I met anybody who's this is a
11:08
perfect deal but they do believe you know that in the end at this will be a
11:12
more important element of preventing Iran from nuclear weapon than anything
11:16
else that on the table or off the table having said that when you look at the
11:23
dangers of Iran getting a nuclear weapon under living under the disagreement is
11:31
it the covert possibility that concerns you the most of what they might do now I
11:37
like I said I i think that the nuclear side
11:41
you know it's not perfect obviously the inspections regime as it pertains to the
11:46
non known nuclear sides of the suspected sides is certainly far from ideal but I
11:54
think what you know given our our knowledge in what we know about the
12:01
supply chain and the points at which we can intervene and and look at what's
12:05
going on I think frankly on the nuclear side it's although there are tradeoffs
12:11
like ours is not a perfect agreement there but that I was willing to go for
12:14
that part of it and I i think frankly that Iran has little incentive to cheat
12:22
big on the nuclear side if you look at it they've been a threshold nuclear
12:26
state for a while right and and they simply haven't gone there because they
12:30
have engaged I think appropriately the reaction whether it's a military
12:35
response or increased sanctions so i i i wouldn't expect Iran to try to break out
12:42
partly because the position they'll be in you know ten fifteen years from now
12:47
you know they haven't lost my age in fact they can conduct quite a bit of
12:53
research in the meantime and in some ways industrialized their program so I i
12:59
don't i don't think it's in their interest and I think they they don't
13:02
believe it is either too to break out that I got I am concerned and that's why
13:07
I ultimately couldn't support the agreement at you know the the
13:11
non-nuclear side and and I'm license it might give them to to behave differently
13:16
there and and what do you think might restrict their behavior beyond this
13:25
nuclear deal what are the elements that you would like to see in American
13:29
foreign policy to restrict these activities whether its support of
13:33
hezbollah and using hezbollah as an agent in Syria or whatever it might be
13:38
what are the tools in American foreign policy that can change that behavior
13:46
well obviously a real threat that that is known and under
13:53
and believed and I believe that that is a problem right now I'm not sure after
13:58
the Syria issue in the red line there that that are threats are believed as
14:04
much as they should be
14:06
master Dennis Ross wrote a couple of good pieces where he talked about a
14:09
couple of items that he suggested that that we could do just simply on their
14:13
deterrence side to ensure on that any move on the nuclear side to enrich
14:19
uranium beyond what's needed for peaceful purposes would be met
14:24
immediately with a strike no questions asked those kind of things that we could
14:30
do hopefully that would be believed would help on the non-nuclear side on
14:35
the non-nuclear side I think Iran needs to understand that it is our
14:41
understanding is congress and we will move ahead to impose sanctions tough
14:48
sanctions even if they're the same type of sanctions or the same sanctions
14:52
imposed on the nuclear side if they break out on the non-nuclear side and
14:58
increase their support for terrorism in the region they need to understand that
15:05
and that's as I mentioned that's part of my problem with this agreement I think
15:08
that they believe that they have neutered our ability to impose sanctions
15:14
on them tough sanctions like financial sanctions on their the central bank
15:20
should they misbehave on the non-nuclear side so we congress needs to make clear
15:25
that we will come hard even if it's the same sanctions right turn to cuba what
15:31
do you say to your fellow Senator Marco Rubio about the re-establishment of
15:37
relationships with cuba I think this represents the ultimate policy for today
15:43
and tomorrow not yesterday I i think that this is long overdue obviously my
15:50
concern over the years has been the travel ban more than anything else as an
15:54
American I should be able to travel wherever
15:56
want unless there's a compelling national security reason otherwise and
16:00
and to restrict american's ability to travel is just wrong
16:05
some people do this kind of as a concession to the cuban regime it's not
16:10
a concession to allow your own citizens to travel and it's not a concession to
16:16
have diplomatic relations at an agreement between two countries to speak
16:20
and and and work things out with diplomacy so that that's not a
16:26
concession either so this was a great moves I think it's good for cubans and
16:30
certainly good for americans as well
16:31
to where you stand on the embargo I would lift the whole thing as I said
16:37
before we ought to tell the cuban regime that we're we're lifting elements of the
16:43
travel ban were established diplomatic relations and unless you clean up on the
16:47
human right side we're gonna lift the embargo I've never seen that as a
16:52
concession either not guarantee better behavior on the government side but
17:00
we're more likely to get it if we have diplomatic relations into there's
17:05
increased commerce in contact and travel from americans are you suggesting to
17:10
make sure I understand you that the day date dear they fear the lifting of the
17:15
embargo because of what impact in my home phone changing the behavior that
17:19
might mean change in cuba no doubt that this this policy on the embargo or the
17:26
blockade as a call that is being used as a scapegoat for the failures of
17:30
socialism for decades now and so although they they say they want it
17:35
to be lifted it's a whenever we make moves in that direction we usually see
17:43
behavior on the cuban government side that that makes a step back and it
17:48
shouldn't it should make his move forward more quickly and so I am i
17:54
applaud the Obama administration for moving forward on this it's the right
17:58
thing to do it is already making lives better on the Cuban side particularly
18:04
when the president lifted restrictions on cuban-americans travel in 2009
18:10
you know it went from a hundred thousand or so visits a year to about 400,000
18:15
within a year and also money has been invested with family members in Cuba
18:20
family members in Cuba have been able to lead better richer lives and the number
18:28
of people in cuba there working outside of the state environment with private
18:33
businesses has increased substantially and and that's a good thing it spells
18:38
you know spells spells relief for a lot of people and it also I think spells
18:43
trouble for the government if they want to continue socialist government going
18:49
ahead with respect to the future of the relationship do you think that when the
18:54
Castro brothers leave the scene there you'll see democracy in cuba I don't
19:00
think it'll be immediate but I but I do think it will accelerate and a lot of
19:07
that depends on how much we open it up and how much we continue to push and
19:12
allow activity between Cubans and Americans to go forward and develop that
19:19
I i do think it will accelerate but it's not going to be a median man just turned
19:23
immigration for a moment what's happening in your party with respect
19:27
immigration because of the presence and her recommendations of Donald Trump
19:34
where we're a good you know you're out from serious political activity
19:39
well-timed a year out but for a ways out
19:42
gratefully Hampshire and still we still got a while until you know they had
19:49
actually thought in those caucuses in those primaries but i i i think that you
19:55
know by that time hopefully some of these statements and and these policies
20:02
if you want to call them dad from Mr Trump will be a faint memory because
20:06
certainly it's not a serious policy to talk about building a wall and forcing
20:12
the Mexican government to pay for it or imposing fees and terrorists like she
20:19
has talked about doing it just you know it borders
20:22
well it it runs from you know insensitive to laughable frankly some of
20:30
these policies that have been advocated by mr. Trump NY is a leading the polls
20:34
well I when you have so many candidates you can you can still have thought you
20:41
know twenty percent you've got a majority of those are a plurality and
20:45
that will no longer be the case as the field narrows and as people start really
20:51
thinking we don't just need to think about a primary but we need to think
20:55
about winning a general as well and nobody can talk seriously about winning
21:00
a national election when you use rhetoric like mr. Trump is using and I i
21:06
think the broader electorate on the republican side understands out and as
21:11
we get into next year it'll be a more serious debate could you support
21:15
donald trump that he was a republican nominee I will support the republican
21:19
nominee and I i don't think it will be mr. Trump senator to pleasure to have
