quorum call:

a senator: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: and, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to be able to speak until the top of the hour. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. i come to the floor today as i have over the past several years to talk about issues that are affecting this country, there's a nomination that we're cutsing on the floor and i have concerns about the issues related to that nominee, the way that nomination has been brought forward because it was done by what i believe to be an abuse of power, move in a way that resulted in voting in the middle of the night, discussions in the middle of the night, all in my opinion to distract from the disaster of the obama health care law, the obama health care law continues to affect people

all across the country and what we saw in october 1 in the great debacle of the rollout of the web site, was really just about a web site, october 1, but come january 1 it's about real people who have lost their insurance who will be hurt personally in terms of their own health by this terrible law. so i come to the floor as i have week after week after the law has been passed to talk about the concerns that i've had as a doctor, someone who has practiced medicine in wyoming for 24 years as an orthopedic surgeon, taking care of people from all around the state and as a medical doctor, a director of the wyoming health fairs, aimed at low-cost health screenings, that people can attend, check their blood results, visit with doctors and nurses and others in the community about issues of heart disease, diabetes, all aimed at preventing disease, early detection of problems and

lowering the cost of their care. so i had a great interest when this health care law was proposed and watching it unfold and the concerns that i had as it was passed continue today and i think more and more americans are seeing that those concerns are being realized in their own lives. this is what it's about, people's lives. so their web site failure to me are just a tip of the iceberg but what people are seeing all across the country are higher premiums and there are stories rampant around the country, i recall the president of the united states saying by the end of his first term insurance premiums would be down $2,500 per family, instead families are paying much, much more for health insurance. concerns obviously the canceled coverage because folks around the country, over five million i understand by recent counts have received letters saying that they've lost their insurance, their insurance has been canceled effective january

1. the president promised if you like your drrk dr. , you can keep your doctor but we're seeing many, many people are not able to keep their doctors, even though they want to keep their doctor, they can't, issues of fraud and identity theft we're hearing on a daily basis, chief of staff of one of the members of the senate was applying on the obama health care web site, the government web site trying to get insurance just this monday, and looked -- sure looked like the federal web site, he thought he was on the federal web site, then it goes to a screen where they wanted to know his bank account number and his pin number. he said -- he called the help line, spent over an hour on the phone and they ultimately said get off of that, it can't be, can't be the federal government web site. get off of it. he was focused enough to think this can't be right but fraud is

don't to be rampant, identity theft as well. we're seeing huge problems with higher co-pays and deductibles. i come to the floor and i have with me a couple of articles from this week's newspapers. wednesday, "wall street journal" has their recent-hole poll numbers. health law hurts president plitdally. the health law hurts president politically. the subheadline is disapproval rate obama's job performance rises. the disapproval rate of the president's job performance rises to an all-time high of 54%. 54% disapprove of the job the president of the united states is doing and even as americans are upbeat on the economy. it's not the committee economy that has people disappointed and disapproving of the president. let me read a couple of paragraphs here, mr. president, because this is about the president of the united states and what we want in a president

of the united states. the federal health care law is becoming a heavier political burden for president obama and his party despite increased confidence in the economy and the public's own generally upbeat sense of well-being, a new "wall street journal" nbc news poll suggests, we go through how the poll is conducted, but people across the country believe that nbc news, "wall street journal" poll is a true reflection of what's happening nationwide. it says disapproval -- disapproval of mr. obama's job performance has hit an all time high in the poll of 54% amid the flawed rollout of the health law. of a of those polled now consider the law a bad idea. that's also a record high. this is a big-time survey, a survey of 1,000 adults conducted between december 4 and december 8, found -- this is a disturbing part for us as a nation, mr. president, and

should sadden all of america. a sharp erosion since january in many of the attributes they talk about, honesty, leadership ability to handle crisis, the -- abilities you want in a president. you want a president who is honest and two, who is perceived by the public as honest. you want a president who can handle a crisis and is perceived by the public as being able to handle a crisis. but they say that there's been a sharp erosion since last january and many of the attributes, honesty, leadership, ability to handle a crisis that had kept mr. obama aloft through the economic and political turmoil of his first term. the poll goes on and asks people -- this is of a thousand people across the country. it asks in terms of the impact of the president's health care

law. if this is going to have a positive impact on you and your family. mr. president, fewer than one out of eight people in the country today believe that this health care law will have a positive impact on them and their family. we are changing the entire health care system of the country oonld one out of eight people believe it's actually going to help them? the performance of the president considered to be very bad, significant disapproval and it is because of the health care law. and people look at this and say what does this mean to me? how is this going to affect my life? those are the issues we talked about here. people are being hit with the incredible increased cost and they say, well, there are some policies that may be a little bit cheaper, the so-called bronze policies, so "the new york times" took a look at that and, again, these are just articles this week, mr. president. this is monday, december 9 on

health exchanges, premiums may be low but other costs can be high. it says as consumers -- this is by robert perr this monday, a well-known writer, does his research, gets the facts, and he says as consumers dig into the details -- that's a key phrase. i believe so many people that voted for this health care law didn't look into the details, didn't know what it meant, didn't know what would be in it. nancy pelosi famously said first you have to pass it before you get to find out what's in it. americans are now looking at it, digging into it and as robert perr in "the new york times" said digging into the details they are finding that the deductibles, the deductibles, and other out-of-pocket costs are often much higher than what is typical in employer-sponsored health plans. so what they actually have to pay out of their pocket is much higher than an

employer-sponsored health plans. people really care about what they have to pay personally for things. the same day, "wall street journal," monday, december 9, page one, deductibles fuel new worries of health law sticker shock. same information that we've seen there in "the new york times." it says the average individual deductible -- average, the average individual deductible -- for what is called the bronze plan on the exchange, the plan i was talking about a little bit earlier which is the lowest priced coverage, average deductible is $5,081 a year according to a new report on the insurance offerings in 34 of 36 states that rely on the federal -- the washington-runnion line marketplace. that's 42% higher than the average deductible just last year on plans that were purchased, this is before the federal law took place. deductibles fuel new worries of

health law sticker shock. now, i've heard the president say that's because, you know, states that have done it have done really well. it's astonishing. you turn to the second part of this article. turn to page a-6, sticker shock. what about one of the states that's doing their own plan. the headline above that "health site snafus plague maryland." "health site snafus plague maryland," a state that's decided to do their own web site. maryland is struggling to fix its web site. this is again monday, more than two months after it opened, showing how technology woes are affecting more than just the federal system. and yet we see it's not just the web site people are hit -- one article about the bad web site. the next article about higher co-pays and deductibles.

interestingly, the official in charge of maryland's insurance marketplace resigned after criticism of her decision to take a vacation in the cayman islands during thanksgiving week. new statistics released friday showed just a trickle of customers, just a trickle, mr. president, of customers signing up for private coverage in the state. it's interesting that states are having problems and the federal government is having problems. and, you know, people wanted to keep their insurance. they wanted to keep their insurance. they liked their insurance. i talked to a worth a rancher in i would wishings talkewyoming. her insurance worked really we will for her and her family but she lost it because it didn't meet the criteria of the ten different standards that had to be met. well -- and she knows me.

she called me doc, because i am a doctor in wyoming. she said, it is interesting that the reason that they lost their inurns iinsurance is because itt include maternity coverage. i doc, i've had a hysterectomy. but apparently president obama believes she need maternity coverage. the democrats in the senate believing she needs maternity coverage. the question is who knows better what you need? who is the better judge for you and your family? is it the government or the democrats who believe they know better than you do? or the freedom-loving americans who believe they can make their own decisions about their lives and their families and what insurance they want or not want? you know, people wanted to keep their insurance. they weren't allowed to but the president said that they could. the president time and time again said that people could keep their insurance if they liked their insurance.

and i think that's a good -- one of the major reasons that the president's credibility has dropped. as a matter of fact, there's a nonpartisan fact checker that year after year -- called "politifact." and each year they go through lots of comments and lots of statements that are made and think came out last night with their "lie of the year." they do this every year. the "lie of the year." and the "lie of the year" that came out from "politifact" last night for the year 2013 was, "if you like your health care plan, you can keep it." and we all know who said it -- the president of the united states. they go on to say, he didn't just say it wufnlt it once. we counted dozens of times that president barack obama said if people like their health plans, they can keep t it was a catchy political pitch and a chance to calm nerves about his dramatic and complicated plan to bring historic change to america's

health insurance system. they quote, "if you like your health plan, you can keep it," president obama said many times. but the promise, they say, was impossible to keep. so this fall, as cancellation letters were going out to approximately, they say, 4 million americans, the public realized that the president's breezy assurances were wrong. and, therefore, they have a give init the "lie of the year." so, people saw this coming. republicans saw this coming. my colleague from wyoming, senator mike enzi, saw this coming. and that's why he came to the floor years ago and said, people are going to lose their coverage. people are going to lose t he brought a resolution to the floor because he actually reads the "federal register," senator enzi does, and he saw the regulations that came out. and he came to this floor with legislation to say, wait a second. if you really believe that people can keep their coverage, you got to adopt this piece of

legislation so people really can keep their coverage. and yet we saw republicans vote with senator enzi saying, let people keep their coverage. we saw democrats say, forget it, senator enzi. we don't bheeiv believe you're . the president was wrong. senator enzi was right. there was an article in pow, wyoming, with the headline, "enzi saw a.c.a. impacts beforehafnltdz" shows the value of senator enzi. "fox news had a very interesting and informative program on "the kelly files." ages anyone who watches fox news know, they're covering the beginning effects of the affordable care act also known as obamacare. as it is being implemented, megan kelly began her program saying she had a special guest who had predicted three and a half years ago almost exactly

what will happen when the obamacare law goes into effect this october. her special guest was our own wyoming senior senator mike enzi, and he had made his predictions in a speech on the senate floor, right from that desk right over there, three and a half years ago. he was then called a fearmonger, called by the democrats a fearmonger, and a radical right-winger. senator enzi was probably one of a very few elected officials who had actually read the bill. senator enzi reads all the bills, understands the bills, understands the implications. then he goes and reads the federal religious standers brings to the floor -- federal register and brings to the floor thoughtful pieces of legislation to make things better for the american people, not things worse. and now what we're seeing is people can't keep their insurance, they're losing their insurance. losing their doctor and losing

their hospitals. i mean, it is interesting, in terms of being able to not even keep your doctor, not being able to keep -- go to the hospital that you prefer to. and i'd like to just talk for a few seconds about the doctor-patient relationship and why when the president says if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, period, that actually caused comfort for people. but again that's another broken promise. not necessarily ranked by "politifact" to the level of that, if you like your coverage, you can keep your coverage, because millions of people have thgotten the letters, but next year we'll see more and more people who are not going to be able to keep their doctor. i wrote an article that appeared on wednesday of this week in investors' business daily called "obamacare disrupts the delicate relationship between patient and

doctor. i'd like to share parts of it with you now, mr. president, specifically because this past weekend on one of the sunday talk shows, rahm emanuel's brother, ezekiel emanuel, who was one of the, architects of e president's health care law, he was on one of the talk shows responding to a question about, if you like the president' yourn keep your doctor. and can you really keep your doctor? well, what i wrote was the central architect of the president's health care law admitted this week that the often-repeated promise that if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor simply isn't true. instead, the doctor explained that if you like your doctor, you will simply have to pay more. as a physician i know firsthand

how this will hurt many americans. mr. president, i write how families look to doctors as trusted friends, confidants and advisors. in wyoming, patients have included me in graduations, in weddings, and they ask me to serve as a pallbearer at funerals. they ask me to pray with them, to referee family disputes and provide reassurance when a doctor they didn't know was called in to consult. norman rockwell's painting tells the storks a little girl holds up her doll as the trusted family doctor listens to it with his stethoscope. the caring, compassionate physician takes the time to reassure a concerned little girl. mr. president, i write the doctor-patient relationship is a very special bond. it requires faith and trust for a patient to allow me to cut into their body, to remove a

tumor, to replace a worn-out joint, to fix a broken bone to repair a torn ligament and, above all else, to do no harm. now, the president knew of that special relationship between people and their doctors. that's why when he was trying to gain support for the health care law, he made a clear and simple promise to the american people. the president said, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, period. now people all across the country are finding out that they can't keep their doctor. the same law that has caused millions of americans to lose the hirns tha health insurance d for them is now causing them to lose their doctor. people who are shopping for insurance on government exchanges are being forced to purchase insurance for things they don't want, they don't need, and they will never use. to keep costs down, many of these policies limited doctors and hospitals that patients can use. some of the nation's premier hospitals, including the mayo

clinic and cedar-sinai medical center are excluded from many exchanges and their networks. some of the best children's hospitals in the country are also excluded from the exchaiption. ex-- exchanges. this means a child may lose access to his or her doctor in a specialty hospital. why? because of the law. in new hampshire, ten of the state's 26 hospitals are excluded from the only carrier that offers insurance? the exchange chg the head of the medical staff at one of the excluded hospitals in new hampshire has learned that her a plan does not even let her, the chief of staff of the hospital, seek treatment at her own hospital. the situation can be equally bad for seniors on medicare. thousands of doctors caring for seniors on medicare advantage have been dropped from their net, withs. those net care patients are now going to be challenged to find a new doctor to take care of them. the president's health care law is making it harder for doctors as well as for patients.

doctors noi know that they are patients, they know their patients, their health history, their fathers their lives. and doctors value the personal relationship as much as the patient does. that's why people become doctors in the first place to take care of their patients. evening if someone is able to cape their doctor, they won't necessarily be able to spend as much time with them as they might like to. that's because nearly two-thirds of doctors expect to spend more time on paperwork under the requirements of the law. now, this isn't at all what the president promised the american people. people all across america put their faith and their trust in barack obama when they elected him president. it's the same kind of faith and trust that they have in their own doctor. and i'll tell you, mr. president, when patients lose trust in their doctor, as citizens are now losing faith in

their president, it's extremely difficult to regain that trust. so i continue to hear from my patients in wyoming. they've always had my home phone number. they are anxious, they are angry, they know what they want from the health care reform. they want being a stey's quality, affordable care. that's not what they got from this law enforcement now many face losing the doctor who has always been there for them. so if president obama wants to regain the trust of the american people, he'll sit down with republicans to deliver reforms that will help all americans and fully protect the doctor-patient relationship. after all, president obama has his own doctor at the white house, a doctor who is dedicated to the president's care. and i'm sure that the president values his relationship just as much as other americans value their relationship with their doctor. so, mr. president, i continue to come to the floor. i see my colleagues that are

arriving. i would call to their attention, as they say we've got to make the coverage of all these things that they feel they know what's best foreamerican pairktz. we need to provide psych psychic insurance and coverage. i voted to provide parity for psychiatric care. but yesterday's "new york times" article by robert perr, "fewer psychiatrists seen take health insurance." so the insurance that the president is providing to people doesn't actually help them. it may make the president feel better, but it is not actually helping people get care. the president has been very confused and used the word "coverage "quhtion he should have been talking about health care for people, providing physicians to take care of them so people could get what they needed in health care reform, the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower cost. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the nomination.

is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. and there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, there are 9 yaises and 6 nays and the nomination is confirmed. the clerk will now report the motion toip voke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on -- the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of heather ann hyinger bottom of the district of columbia to deputy secretary of state for management and resorteses signed by 19 senators. the presiding officer: pursuant to rule 22, the chair now directs the clerk -- the

chair now directs the clerk to call the roll to ascertain the presence of a quorum. quorum call:

the presiding officer: is quorum is present. the question now is -- majority leader? mr. reid: could we have order. i have an announcement i would like people to heamplet. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the majority leader. mr. reid: constitution, mr. president. i realize everyone is tired and anxious. some are a little concerned about everything. mr. president, i have had during

especially late last night and early this morning conversations with republicans and democrats as to what we should do this weekend. now, the next set of votes is to -- will come shortly before noon today. and then we'll have another set of votes this afternoon. absent consent, the senate will vote late saturday, probably about 10:30 or thereabouts on confirmation of jeh johnson to be secretary of homeland security. the senate has received the budget bill from the house. we expect momentarily to receive the defense bill from the house. so i would like the senate to process these important bills as quickly as possible. so i plan to move -- to proceed to these bills as soon as we can. and that would be as soon as we handle the pending nominations that are now before this body. thereafter there are certain things we need to do before the

christmas break. we need to do those two important bills, the budget and defense. we have to do the chair of the federal reserve system. there is an under secretary of state that is very, very urgent according to john kerry. we have secretary of homeland security -- deputy secretary of homeland security, under secretary of the department of interior, the head of the internal revenue service, and the remaining judge oge on the . circuit. there's been a request from lots of other people do things. but we're limited as to what we can do before next weekend. there are some other nominations that we're happy to discuss with individual senators. so it would be my suggestion that we'll go ahead and do this vote, during this vote, prior to the next series of votes, i'll meet with the republican leader to see if there is a way that we can give relief, especially to the staff over the weekend.

we have -- these people work extremely hard, and i haven't heard a complaint from a single one of them, quite frankly, but i went up last evening and visited the court reporters. we have 16 court reporters. up on the fourth floor, they have been sharing for a little respite. they have two beds that they are sharing, taking naps or trying at least to lay down and rest a little bit. they have worked extremely hard. you know, they work in 15-minute shifts, and they have been doing that for days now. if we can work that out, i would be happy to do that. my -- my goal would be to wind up at the same place on monday in the evening as we would wind up if we did all this stuff over the weekend. so i'm happy to be as cooperative as possible. it's just christmas is on its way and there are certain things that we need to have done, and there are lots of other things that we need to do, but we're

probably not going to be able to do those, but i would lay -- i have laid out for everyone the broad scope of the schedule. i'll meet with my friend, the republican leader, and see if there is some way we can do this. otherwise, we will just proceed on. the good news is that following the vote this afternoon, we wouldn't have anything until tomorrow night under the schedule as it's now listed. the presiding officer: okay. now a quorum is present. the question is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of heather ann higginbottom of the district of columbia to be deputy secretary of state for management and resources shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule, and the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any other senators that wish to vote or change their vote? if not the ayes are 50 -- if not, the ayes are 51 and the nays are 34. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will now report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of state, heug heug of the district of columbia -- heather anne higgin bottom to be management of resources. the presiding officer:

pursuant to the provisions of s. res. 13 there will be up to eight hours of postcloture nomination equally divided in the usual form. who yields time? if neither side wishes to yield time, the time now will be equally divided.

the senator from kansas is recognized. mr. roberts: thank you, mr. president. good morning, mr. president. the presiding officer: good morning. mr. roberts: mr. president, i would like to take a short time here to discuss a situation that i think is gaining some attention in the national news media on a continuing basis, but with the affordable health care act and what we're doing or not doing here on the floor of the

senate with regard to the 51-50 controversy. perhaps we overlook the number-one obligation that we have as members of this body, and that is our national security, the defense of our individual freedoms, and the part that we play in determining the same kind of objectives -- liberty and freedom -- all throughout the world. i'm talking about foreign policy, and i'm talking about the very dangerous situation that we face with regard to iran. on november 24, the united states and germany, france, china, great britain and russia signed an interim deal with iran agreement regarding its nuclear

weapons program. the president and secretary john kerry, former colleague, have applauded this arrangement, or this deal. the president has claimed we've opened up a new path forward toward a world that is more secure, and the secretary of state, who came before us this week and gave senators a briefing argues this is why we had sanctions in the first place. mr. president, with all due respect, i disagree. the world, it seems to me, is not a safer place, and in six months i do not believe we will be one step closer to dismantling iran's ability to produce a nuclear weapon. this administration is asking us

to trust a regime that has been clear on its intentions. quite frankly, to wipe israel off the face of the planet. their words. and, quite frankly, would be happy to take the united states with it if you believe their rhetoric. i don't think that represents a step towards security. i think that is misguided, at best. this, to me, is not a good plan. i would even reverse that and say it is a bad plan. at this moment the administration is asking -- rather, more than asking, congress to back down from additional sanctions, which many of us have supported and think would be certainly a better

thing to do at this particular time. but at any rate, this is not a request that i can oblige. sanctions are indeed the reason that iran has decided to come to the table. b but coming to the table and honestly negotiating are certainly two different things. if the reports are true, the administration has been holding secret talks with iran for months. if you're going to have a deal, an agreement with another country that represents a threat to the united states, obviously that's what you try to do, at least to set up something that would be a workable plan. i don't know what was discussed during those talks. i'm not sure that anyone in the senate does really know. what did the state department,

the treasury department and the president offer to bring iran to the public stage? it seems to me that that should be transparent. so i think the congress and the american people are left to wonder with regards to transparency of what was arranged before this deal or this -- this peace plan. the bigger problem is that it has taken painstaking effort on the part of those like myself and others in this body who care about our nation's security and the security of our allies to implement sanctions to the strength that we have today. it has taken a decade. it has taken the six actions by the security council of the united nations, ten years of work and a tremendous effort to finally get people on board, but now the president is asking us to back off, after we have

gained the support of the international community and just begun to make inroads. the administration is offering to now cut back on these sanctions and to allow the iranian government to continue enriching uranium. why? it is widely accepted that the iranians have no real dues for enriched uranium to use for nuclear power because russia provides fuel supplies for its sole operational nuclear power plant. but they do have use for enriched uranium to contribute to the assembly of a -- a nuclear weapon. mr. president, why? why should we back off and only get half of what we want? why should we not keep applying pressure on iran through sanctioning until they are ready, willing and able to give up their entire program? it seems to me that i -- that it

would be in our best interests that iran would commit to several things for this deal to be a true step toward security. i'm just going to mention a few. number one, let's just get to the heart of the matter. public acceptance for the jewish state of israel and the -- and to allow for the peaceful co-existence of the israeli people in the middle east. nobody in iran has agreed to that. that is the main issue, the right of israel to exist. that should be the foundation that we have to start all talks. then we should have reporting and inspection access to the portion parchin facility and full details of the undeclared nuclear activities. third, dismantling of iran's

plutonium-producing heavy water reactor at iraq. fourth, the construction of new centrifuges, that's got to stop. and lastly and into all enrichment. unfortunately, this agreement fails to include any of these -- of these points. if the purpose of sanctions was to get iran to the negotiating table, how did we walk away without getting what we need, a complete end to iran's nuclear program. difficult but certainly i think the overreaching and primary goal. for a decade, iran has openly disregarded the tenants of the -- tenets of the nuclear nonproliferation agreement, legally binding resolutions

passed by the united nations security council and mandatory inspections by the international atomic energy association, the iaea. all of this completely disregarded by iran's regime. but the president believes we should trust them now. why? because hassan rouhani has been elected president, who on the international scene is certainly a smiling president. it is well accepted, however, that the supreme leader ayatollah khomeini does actually control everything in iran, including its nuclear policy, meaning that mr. rouhani's election equates little change for iran with regards to the public face. it seems to me this is why we cannot back off now. many of my colleagues, senator

kirk, senator graham, senator menendez, just to name a few, are working on a new phase of sanctions. they are tough sanctions, and i am right there with them. i just don't have any faith with regards to what the iranians are stating as to where they will be . israel's prime minister, benjamin netanyahu, has called this a dangerous blunder. he has warned israel has the right and the obligation to defend itself by itself against any threat. it concerns me that the administration has no phase two plan in place for the end of this six-month period, and if, in fact, we ease the sanctions, which we are doing, and people take advantage of easing those

sanctions and are doing business with iran, to put those same sanctions back in place or tougher sanctions back in place is going to be very difficult. one of my colleagues described this as once the toothpaste is out of the tube, you can't put it back. ten years, six different attempts in the security council finally taking a stand. how do you put back the sangs we have had in place that brought iran to the table if, in fact, at the end of this period, no progress is being made, not to mention the tougher sanctions that those of us have proposed. so it's a real concern. the administration's hope, of course, is that this leads to a stronger long-term agreement. i hope this works out, but i am highly skeptical. when the interim agreement is

up, i think iran will remain capable of producing a nuclear weapon in a mere few weeks because we are failing to ask more of that regime. at that moment, we must have a very strong sanctions in place to ensure iran does not weaponize with regards to its nuclear capability. i fully support a new round of sanctions, and i will continue to work with my colleagues to ensure that these are passed before the six-month period is over. unfortunately, if we do not take this kind of action, iran is set to gain everything while the united states loses, not just the united states but israel and europe as well. ending iran's nuclear weapons program entirely is what i consider a path toward a world that will be more secure. in today's issue of "the wall street journal," there is an

editorial called mood music diplomacy on iran. basically, it just simply states more sanctions would strengthen the united states leverage with tehran, and it closes by saying that secretary kerry now likes to quote ronald reagan's trust but verify mantra for dealing with iran, and it goes on to say but the gipper's real legacy was to show resolve when it counted. the obama administration and their opposition to new sanctions with a delayed trigger feeds suspicions, according to this editorial, that it is eager to accept just about any agreement with iran, and it states that members of congress from both parties who want a good and credible deal can help by passing a new sanctions bill. i think that is advice well taken. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: if there is nobody that seeks recognition, the time will be equally divided. mr. roberts: after careful inspection, it seems to me i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. pryor: i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. pryor: i have one unanimous consent for a committee to meet during today's session of the senate. it has the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that this request be agreed to and that this request be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. pryor: mr. president, i yield back the remaining time on the democratic side on this nomination. the presiding officer: all democratic time is yielded back.

mr. pryor: and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: