the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the ayes are 90, the nays are 7. the nomination is confidence.

-- is confirmed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to the consideration of the following nominations, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nominations, department of state: james d.neelan of the new hampshire to be ambassador to the republic of hon hong. robert a. wood of new york for the rank of ambassador during his tenure of service as u.s. representative to the conference of disarmaments. department of transportation, paul nathan janichen of kentucky to be administrator of the maritime administration. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will now be two minutes of debate prior to a vote on the wheaton nomination. ms. klobuchar: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: we yield back time on all three nominations. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. hearing no further debate, the question will occur on the

neelan nomination. all those in favorfy by saying aye. opposed? the ayes have it. the nomination is confirmed. question now occurs on the wood nomination. all those in favor sayfy by saying aye. opposed? the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. the question now occurs on the janichen nomination. all those in favor signify by saying aye. opposed? the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table are considered made an laid upon the table. the president will be immediately notified of the senate's actionaged the senate will resume legislative session. ms. klobuchar: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota.

ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i come to the senate floor today in support of the not my boss's business act. i would like to thank senator murray and senator udall for introducing this legislation to help address the recent supreme court decision. mr. president, women have gone to the tops of the mountains and to outer space. women are serving as c.e.o.'s and scientists and starting their own companies. here in the senate we've gone from no women to 20, and that's a great thing many but for all of our progress -- and there has been a lot -- this stubborn fact remains: women still struggle to attain the basic health care services that allow them to plan their families, protect their health, and contribute to our economy. this is fundamentally an issue of fairness and an issue of equality. i've always said that the affordable care act is a beginning and not an end. i'd like to see chaiption to that bill. i've sponsored changes to that bill. but the law does take

significant steps forward on health care for women. one that's of particular importance to women is requiring that all health insurance plans cover f.d.a.-approved forms of contraception. this decision, mr. president, was based on the recommendations of the institute of medicine. and the institute of medicine had good reason to include contraception as an essential preventive service. we know that pregnancies that are planned are good for moms, are good for babies. better access to contraception prevents unintended pregnancies, something that we can all agree that we want. we don't want unintended pregnancies. we don't want to have abortions, and so better access to contraception has been proven time and time again to bring down those numbers. and access to birth control is essential for women to meet their career and their education and their family goals. now not every employer was required to provide contraception coverage.

certain nonprofit religious employers were allowed an exemption. it could be implemented in a way that still ensured all ways andt all women received protection in their hundreds. what this bill will not do, it will not force churches or religiously affiliated nonprofits to offer contraception kofnl. this bill main thanes their exemption. it won't force anyone to use contraception. that decision is and must remain with each person. what this bill will do, however, is to add a provision to the affordable care act's requirements that would prohibit an employer from denying coverage of a health care service that is required under federal law. it clarifies that this requirement applies even urntd

the religious freedom restoration act. the law that the supreme court ruled was violated by the contraception coverage requirement. in other words, it says that if you work for an american corporation, you can expect that your health insurance, which you worked for and receive as part of your compensation, will cover the same basic preventive health benefits everyone else receives. it says that your boss, regardless of his or her religious beliefs, can't pick and choose what benefits your health insurance covers sms this is common sense. a woman's decision about her birth control is between her and her doctor, not her employer. what she chooses to use her compensation for is really not her boss's birks whether we are talking about her salary or her compensation, including health insurance. there is no doubt that women have come a long way. but when a woman's boss can step in as a result of this narrowly decided court decision, 5-4 ruling, and prevent her from

make the best health care decisions for her health, her career, and her future, it makes me wonder just how far we've actually come, mr. president. that's why i urge you to support this bill. i urge my colleagues to support this bill. this important legislation will help preserve the rights of employees while protecting religious employers. it will help women access the preventive services that they need, and it will prevent unintended pregnancies and improve the health of both women and their children. that's not just good for women, that's good for families, that's good for business, that's good for our economy, and that's good for our future. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to finish my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. hatch mr. president, mr. hatch:i

rise on behalf of a fundamental principle, rightly recognized as our first freedom: religious liberty. mr. president, our fellow citizens today do not think much of congress. the gallup organization's results are actually less grim than some other polls and gives congress a job approval rating of just 15%. that figure has not risen above the teens in more than three years. now and then, however, congress does rise to the occasion, putting aside partisan ideological differences to achieve something important for our nation and its citizens. one example occurred in 1993. i had a lot to do with it. when liberals and conservatives, democrats and republicans stood up to defend the fundamental human right on october 27, 1998, this body passed the religious freedom restoration act by a vote of 97-3. it went through the house 100-zip. or should i say by a unanimous

vote. by mid-november the house passed it unanimously and president bill clinton had signed it into law. i was there at the signing ceremony on the south lawn. despite the overwhelming bipartisan support for final passage of rfra, it took congress three years to achieve that defense of religious freedom. the house judiciary subcommittee on civil and constitutional rights held hearings in 1990, in 1992, and the full senate judiciary committee held a hearing in 1992. concerned citizens and groups came together to form the coalition for the free exercise of religion. the grass roots effort more diverse than any i have ever seen in all of my 38 years here. americans of every political stripe joined hands to defend the first freedom mentioned in the bill of rights. the resulting legislation, the freedom freedom restoration act, allows the federal government to

interfere with the exercise of religion only for the most compelling reason and only in the least restrictive way. this law was necessary because the supreme court had in 1990 changed the legal standard making it easy rather than difficult for the government to burden religious exercise. the bill recently introduced here in the senate, s. 2578, would turn the clock back, requiring that federal laws and regulations ignore rather than respect religious freedom. this is the first time in american history that congress will consider a bill intended to diminish the protection for religious liberty of all americans. it is part of a broader campaign to demonize religious freedom as the enemy, as an obstacle to certain political goals. it is important for the american people to know the truth about how we got here.

the affordable care act requires that most employers provide insurance coverage at no cost to employees for what it calls preventive services. regulations from the department of health and human services define that category as covering all forms of birth control approved by the food and drug administration, including both contraceptives and methods that can act after conception. the difference between a contraceptive and an a-- abortive facia is the difference between substance and human life. it can be a matter of the most profound morale and religious significance. as a result of the birth control mandate, many religious employers face massive fines if they follow their religious beliefs, so some of them filed

suit to prevent its enforcement. this is exactly the kind of situation that the religious freedom restoration act was enacted to address, the kind of situation that should require government to justify why and how it wants to interfere with the exercise of religion. cases brought by two companies owned by religious families made it to the supreme court. these companies do provide insurance coverage for the f.d.a.'s 16 methods of contraception, but they believe that doing so for its four methods of birth control that can cause abortion violates their deeply held religious beliefs. two weeks ago in a case titled burwell vs. hobby lobby stores, the supreme court ruled that the h.h.s. birth control mandate does not sufficiently accommodate these employers exercise of religion as required

by the religious freedom restoration act. mr. president, it took a lot of work to establish rfra's defense of religious freedom, but it would not take much work to destroy it. the bill we will soon consider, s. 2578, would in one fell swoop reduce the free exercise of religion from a fundamental human right to a cheap election-year prop. rfra was developed over months of discussion and debate. it was the product of bipartisan deliberation and considered judgment. i know; i was there. i was the one who talked senator kennedy into coming on this bill. and when we signed it on the south lawn -- when president clinton signed it, senator kennedy was one of the most proud people there. this bill represents vindication of the fundamental and natural rights that we originally established the government to

protect. by contrast, s. 2578 was thrown together in a matter of days. it was not received -- it has not received a single committee hearing in either chamber. in fact, here in the senate it isn't even being sent to a legislative committee. the majority has put their finger to the political wind and decided that all they want is a show vote, that they can spin to their advantage in the election this fall. that's ridiculous, and they ought to be ashamed. one sign of what is really going on is the fact that the bill's findings are about four times as long as its actual provisions, and it reads more like a series of press releases than serious legislative language. the bill's supporters wish to ram it through congress without meaningful deliberation, without hearings, without the kind of scrutiny that would expose this

effort for what it is. the bill's findings, for example, say not one word about the exercise of religion that gave rise to the hobby lobby litigation in the first place. instead, one of the bill's findings claims that those lawsuits were filed by employers who simply want to deny their employees' health insurance coverage for birth control. i guess you can call it contraception. but, mr. president, in reality, the employers do not want to take anything away from anyone. they simply ask as the religious freedom restoration act requires, that laws and regulations about health insurance coverage also consider and balance their basic right to free exercise and to religious exercise. i've heard proponents of this legislation make wild claims that corporations are denying access to health care, intruding into people's bedrooms and even

taking away their freedoms. nonsense. such claims don't even pass the laugh test. they are so clearly false that those who peddle such fiction must ignore both rfra and the supreme court's decision in the hobby lobby case or deliberately distort them beyond recognition. just yesterday "the washington post" fact checker listed example after example of what it charitably described as the rhetoric getting away ahead of facts as democrats made one outlandish claim after another. filing 19 in this bill is probably its most outrageous, claiming that legislation -- quote -- "is intended to be consistent with the congressional intent in enacting the religious freedom restoration act." unquote. but of course that claim is absurd on its face. congress expressed its purpose in enacting rfra in the text of

that statute, including rfra's finding that its legal standard applies -- quote -- "in all cases where the free exercise of religion is substantially burdened." rfra's most prominent backers in congress also expressed its intent. over in the house, for example, then-representative charles sue mer said that rfra would restore the american tradition of -- quote -- "allowing maximum religious freedom." spoke glowingly about what it means on both sides of the floor. the bill before us today does the opposite requiring employers to provide insurance coverage -- quote -- "not withstanding any other provision of federal law" including specifically the religious freedom restoration act. if a bill prohibiting consideration of religious exercise is consistent with the

law requiring consideration of religious exercise, such as rfra, then words have no meaning whatsoever. we are also told that s. 2578 simply responds to the supreme court's recent decision in hobby lobby, but in reality it goes much further. the supreme court's decision involved only the affordable care act and the h.h.s. birth control mandate. but this bill prohibits consideration of the religious freedom restoration act regarding insurance coverage of any health care item or service required by any federal law or regulation. the affordable care act and the h.h.s. birth control mandate applied to employers with at least 50 employees, but this bill's much broader mandate applies to any employer regardless of size. the hobby lobby case involved a for-profit corporation, but this bill applies to any employer.

this bill appears to be not so much a response to the supreme court's decision in hobby lobby as the attempt to broaden and extend the affordable care act and the h.h.s. birth control mandate. the bill's mandate that health insurance coverage for any health care item or servicened any federal law -- service under any federal law or regulation not provided any other law seems to reach beyond the religious restoration act. does it include the hyde-well done amendment or any others that protected health care providers or facilities? before you answer no, remember that no one thought rfra's protection for religious freedom would ever be attacked as it is today. under s. 2578, the lone

protections for the fundamental right of religious exercise would be the narrow statutory exemption for churches and houses of worship and the weak administrative accommodation for religious nonprofits that could be revoked at any time. even worse, the bill would allow for a future reduction or elimination of the so-called accommodation, but not for its expansion. not only would religious freedom be diminished immediately, but what's left would be subject to a one-way ratchet toward elimination. earlier this summer i spoke here on the senate floor about how religious freedom in america has three key dimensions. it includes religious behavior as well as belief. it applies collectively as well as individually. and it is public as well as private in scope. the religious freedom restoration act represents the full understanding of religious

freedom. it requires that when congress considers legislation or executive branch agencies consider regulations, they must take this fundamental freedom into account and give it the respect it deserves. s. 2578 would be the first bill to create an exemption from rfra, and the first bill explicitly to prohibit consideration of the fundamental right of religious exercise. five years after enacting the religious freedom restoration act, congress enacted the international religious freedom act which established the u.s. commission on international religious freedom. that legislation declared that the -- quote -- "right to freedom of religion undergirds the very origin and existence of the united states." unquote. the senate passed that legislation by a vote of 98-0,

including ten democrats who have today cosponsored the bill before us that would disregard the freedom of religion. those democrats include the majority leader and the sponsor of s. 2578. they can't have it both ways. like his predecessors, president obama designated january 16 as religious freedom day. in his proclamation the president declared that -- quote -- "my administration will remain committed to promoting religious freedom both at home and across the globe." we urge everybody -- we urge every country to recognize religious freedom as both a religious right and a key to a stable, pros puss and peaceful -- prosperous and peaceful future." unquote. mr. president, actions speak louder than words. either religious freedom undergirds the origin and existence of america or it

doesn't. religious freedom is either a universal right or it isn't. religious freedom is either a key to a stable and prosperous future or it isn't. if america is about allowing maximum religious freedom, as my colleague, the senior senator from new york, once said, then it should continue to do so. it is time for this body to choose whether it will protect religious liberty or whether it will seek to destroy it. in 1993, congress stood up to defend the free exercise of religion after a supreme court decision undermined it. the bill before us today would undermine the free exercise of religion after a supreme court decision defended it. in 1993, the free exercise of religion was offered as a solution. the bill before us today targets religious freedom as the

problem. it treats certain religious beliefs as simply unworthy of recognition and religious exercise in general as a second or even a third-rate value. mr. president, i believe that we can both uphold fundamental rights and find solutions to public policy issues. i hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, even though we have differences about policy, will once again join together for the common good by recommitting ourselves and our nation to the fundamental right of religious freedom. we've got to do this. it's the first freedom mentioned in the bill of rights. you would think everybody here would be absolutely on the side of upholding it. this bill is anything but that. and i hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle start to realize how important this really is and vote against this,

i think, terrible bill that's just been slapped together for political purposes. mr. president, i suggest 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 massachusetts. a senator: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. warren: mr. president, republicans are on the attack once again trying to put a woman's fund mental rights on the chopping block. i stand with my colleagues to fight back. senator patty murray of washington, senator mark udall of colorado and 40 other senators have stood up to sponsor new legislation to reverse the supreme court's shocking decision in hobby lobby where the court gave corporations the power to deny their employees access to birth control. we will vote on this legislation tomorrow morning and i urge my colleagues to pass it without delay. right now, with millions of

americans still out of work and struggling to recover from the worst economic downturn since the great depression, with 40 million americans dealing with student loans, with millions of people working full time at minimum wage and still living in poverty, with the big banks getting wor work bigger, s working more and struggling to make ends week, republicans in washington have decided that the most important thing for them to focus on is how to deny women access to birth control. i'll be honest, i cannot believe that we are even having a debate about whether employers can deny women access to birth control. guys, this is 2014 not 1914. most americans thought this was settled long, long ago. but for some reason, republicans keep dragging us back here over and over and over again.

after all, the hobby lobby case is just the most recent battle in an all-out republican assault on women's access to basic health care. in 2012, the republicans tried to pass the blunt amendment, a proposal that would have allowed employers and insurance companies to deny women access to health care services based on any vague moral objection. democrats said no. the president said no. the american people said no. to this offensive idea. but instead of listening to the american people, republicans in washington doubled down. remember last year's government shutdown that nearly tanked our economy? that fight started with a g.o.p. effort to hold the whole operation of the federal government hostage in order to try to force democrats and the president to let employers deny

workers access to birth control. well, we rejected the hostage taking. democrats said no. the president said no. the american people said no to this feighansive idea. but instead of listening to the american people, republicans turned to their right-wing friends on the supreme court and those justices did what congress would not do, what the president would not do, what the american people would not do. those justices decided that corporations have the right to ignore the law and determine for themselves whether their employees can access basic health care coverage. the hobby lobby decision is a stunning case. as justice ruth bader ginsburg noted in her dissent, "the result of this case could be to deny -- quote -- "legions of women who do not hold their

employeemployer's beliefs, acceo contraceptive coverage that the a.c.a. would otherwise secure." and the case is a first step on the slippery slope that could eventually allow corporations to deny health care coverage to their employees for other medical care, including immunizations that protect our children from deadly disease, h.i.v. treatments that save lives, or blood transfusions needed in surgeries. the hobby lobby case is stunning but not entirely surprising. giant corporations and their right-wing allies fight every day in congress to protect their own privileges and to bend the laws to benefit themselves. they devote enormous resources to the task. sometimes we beat them anyway. we beat them when they tried to pass the blunt amendment and we beat them when they tried to shut down the government over birth control.

but when corporations lose in congress, they don't just give up. they know they can often turn defeat into victory if they can get a favorable court decision. so while they push hard on congress, they also devote enormous resources to influencing the courts, trying to transform our judiciary from a neutral, fair and impartial forum into just one more rigged washington gang. and nowhere has the success of this strategy to rig the courts been more obvious than with the united states supreme court. three well-respected legal scholars recently examined 20,000 supreme court cases from the last 65 years and they listed the top 10 most pro-corporate justices in that entire time, 65 years. the results?

the five conservative justices sitting on the court today were all in the top 10 and justices alito and roberts, number 1 and number 2. so it is no surprise that those five justices banded together in the hobby lobby case to decide that corporations have more rights than the women who work for them. they decided that corporations are people who matter more than real living men and women who work hard every day and who are entitled to the protection of our laws. now, we can fight back against this decision and against the corporate capture of our federal courts. we can fight back by appointing judges who are fair, judges who are impartial, judges who won't show up on any top 10 list for putting a thumb on the scales in favor of big businesses.

we can fight back tomorrow by passing legislation to overturn this terrible supreme court decision. the proposed law, called "the protect women's health from corporate interference act," is simple. it does not require any person, any corporation, any faith or religious nonprofit, to endorse or provide insurance coverage for contraception. it does just one thing. it prevents ordinary for-profit corporations from ignoring the law and imposing their owners' religious beliefs on their employees by refusing to provide basic health benefits that are legally required. that was the law before hobby lobby and it should be the law again. senators will have a chance to vote tomorrow and i urge every senator to do the right thing. but whatever happens, we have

won this fight many times before and i am confident that sooner or later we will win it again. because no matter how many resources the other side pours into this battle, they will never convince americans that their bosses should be in charge of their most intimate health care decisions and they will never convince americans that corporations are people whose imagined rights are somehow more important than the health of real, living, breathing people. i have a daughter. i have granddaughters. and i will never stop fighting the efforts of backward-looking ideologues who want to cut women's access to birth control. we've lived in that world and we are not going back.

not ever. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. flake: according to the border patrol, more than 57,000 unaccompanied children have entered the u.s. illegally this year. that number is expected to grow to 90,000 by the end of the year and 140,000 by the end of next year. these startling facts speak for themselves. swift and dramatic action both on the part of congress and the administration is needed. we know that most children -- or why most children are coming. america offers more opportunity than the countries from which they are fleeing. most of these children hope to be reunited with a parent or a

relative but many just hope to blend into the u.s. and to stay for an indefinite period of ti time. i understand that. i understand the incentive to be in the united states. but we cannot simply allow this to continue. according to reports about a recent white house meeting, the president had a meeting with some people concerned about this wave of people coming from central america. the president said that sometimes there is an inherent injustice to where you're born and no president can solve that. he reported -- he reportedly said that president's must send the message that you just can't show up at the border, plead for asylum or refugee status and hope to get it. the president is quoted as saying -- quote -- "then anyone can come in and it means that effectively we don't have any kind of system. we are a nation with borders that must be enforced."

the president is right. if the reckless journey from central america or mexico or any other country to the u.s. is met with, at worst, long stays in the u.s. and, at best, long stays coupled with family reunification, these crossings will continue. it's just human nature. even if every child and every adult is ultimately deported six months or a year from now, it will be too late, for the intervening months the message is make it to the u.s. and you can stay. the incentives must change when planes full of those who crossed are returned, people in those countries will stop paying smugglers thousands of dollars to take their children north. incentives work and in this case it may be the only way. so what are we to do? at one point the president asked congress for some legal authority. congress should give it to him.

in addition, senator mccain and i will offer a bill that will hinge u.s. foreign aid to central american countries on their response to this situati situation. providing for refugee processing in those countries, it will heighten penalties for human trafficking and it will expedite the removal of those who are here without a legitimate claim. the president did ask for funds to deal with the crisis, although he asked for those funds without reforms. i'm pleased to say that there appears to be a growing consensus that any funding request in a supplemental bill should include substantive reforms that both deal with the existing circumstances that we're in as well as heading off future impacts. in the meantime the administration has at its discretion the abit to dramatically stem this wave of crossings. i'd like to talk about a few of these options that the president clearly has right now.

first and foremost, the department of homeland security is not required to release unaccompanied children after they have been apprehended. while requiring d.h.s. to transfer them to health and human services within 72 hours, the 2008 trafficking law provides flexibility in -- quote -- "exceptional circumstances." second, the administration has at its discretion the ability to expedite or trim the time lines of hearings for unaccompanied children. for example, the president can direct the department of justice to not agree to continuances for these hearings. he should do that as well. third, for children already released to h.h.s., the president can direct h.h.s. to not place children automatically with their families, parents, or family members. the 2008 trafficking protection

law requires the administration to place children in the -- quote -- "least restrictive setting in their best interest." the administration has discretion to -- as to what constitutes least restrictive setting. if we acknowledge, as the president has, that most of these children will not be able to stay in the u.s., why would we place them with a parent or guardian only to take them from that parent or guardian months or years later? that, i would submit, is not in their best interest. i'm certain that there are those who will object to these actions if taken by the president, but i would submit that we should do everything we can to ensure that another 30,000, 60,000, 100,000 children do not stream north on this dangerous journey. the real question is, what wouldn't we do to prevent that

from happening. the current situation is not humane at all, to allow these children to come forward this way. let me be clear. those seeking asylum, there will be many who will have a colorable claim, a legitimate claim of persecution. nobody is talking about shutting down the avenues to submit or to have such a claim. there will still be protections for genuine asylum seekers. it is best for those who seek refuge to do so in their own home countries at an american embassy or consulate. that should at best be done in their own country, and the legislation that we will put forward will provide more resources for that to happen. earlier this month the president's spokesman indicated that -- quote -- "it's unlikely that most of the kids who go

through this process will qualify for humanitarian relief, which is to say that most of them will not have a legal basis to remain in the country." the director of the white house domestic policy council made it clear. quote -- "if you look at the history of these kinds of cases and apply them to the situation it seems very unlikely the majority of those children are going to have the ability to stay in the united states." so here is my primary concern. despite discretion to do otherwise, the administration continues to provide precisely the goal that those crossing illegally, being allowed to enter the u.s., to be reunited with their families, and staying for an extended period of time, they're allowing these incentives to continue. despite firm quotes and statements otherwise, the administration's response to the crisis is a case study in sending a wrong message.

in his july 8 request for $3.7 billion in supplemental spending related to this crisis, the president stated that his administration would work with congress to -- quote -- "ensure that they have the legal authority they need, including, quote, providing the secretary of homeland security additional authority to exercise discretion in processing the return and removal of unaccompanied children from these central american countries" -- unquote. more than a week later, with the wave of children crossing illegalleyly every day and increased anger pointed at the issue, it remains anyone's guess at what the president is actually seeking. he didn't ask for any new authority in the funding request just sent up. in the days after the supplemental request was made, it became clear that nearly $2 billion of the funding request is for the department of health and human services department. this is a department that plays

no role in deportation and the department that the administration permits -- or requires to place those who cross illegally with families inside the united states. congress needs to do what it can to provide the statutory tools to address this crisis. as i mentioned earlier, the senior senator from arizona and i will offer a bill in the coming days to do that. in the meantime, the president has the discretion and the authority to act within the law and to follow the law and to offer the right incentives so that we don't have this situation continuing as it is today. i would encourage the president to do so. with that i yield back. mr. menendez: madam president? the presiding officer: the

senior senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: madam president, i come again to the floor to speak about one of our greatest national security challenges, which is a nuclear armed iran and the latest conflicting remarks coming from iran's leaders. let me say at the outset as i've said in the past i support the administration's diplomatic efforts. i have always supported a bipartisan two-track policy of diplomacy and sanctions. at the same time, i am convinced that we should only relieve pressure on iran in exchange for verifiable concessions that will fundamentally dismantle iran's illicit nuclear program. and that any deal be structured in such a way that that alarm bells will sound from vienna to washington to moscow and beijing should iran restart its program any time in the next 20 or 30

years. now, i'm gravely concerned by the recent remarks of the supreme leader, the ayatollah whose views about what iran is willing to give up in a deal seem to undermine the position of iran's negotiators in vienna and curtail their flexibility as we enter into a critical stage of the talks. yesterday the foreign minister gave an interview that went public with iran's negotiating position and let's break down exactly what it is that he offered. he said that iran will freeze its nuclear fuel program for several years in exchange for being treated like other peaceful nuclear nations and for sanctions relief. let's be clear, this would leave 19,000 centrifuges spinning in iran. it would not from what i can tell require iran to dismantle anything. in my view that's not a starting

place for an end game. it is the same obfuscation, the same iranian tactics that we have seen for years, for decades. iran puts offers on the table that appear to be concessions but in reality are designed to preserve iranian illicit nuclear infrastructure and enrichment so that the capacity, the capacity to break out and rush towards a nuclear weapon is still very much within reach. that's not an end game. it's a nonstarter. essentially what zarif is offering is the same concessions as what iran made for the interim agreement six months ago and in exchange iran gets sanction relief except we know that iran is not like any other nation and its history of cheating, lying, and evading inspections proves it. as one commentator said this morning -- quote -- "so it seems

that iran is trying to protect its nuclear breakout capacity while trying to appear moderate ." czar eve's proposal last night is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. it's more moderate than the ayatollah's outlandish demand for 190,000 centrifuges last week but at its core it's an offer to not give anything in terms of enrichment capacity and in exchange receive sanctions relief. and that's unacceptable. the proposal will extend the joint plan of action allowing iran's nuclear program to run in place subject to inspections but make no concessions, none, not a single concession that would demon demonstrably set back iran's nuclear ambitions in the long cerm including no concessions on the new number of centrifuges.

if iran would get the relief it wants, while retaining the infrastructure to quickly rebuild its stockpile of highly enriched uranium. madam president, that is straight out of the north korea hand book. freeze and preserve your ability for a future date. i would remind my colleagues in the senate that in october, 1994 the united states and north korea signed and agreed framework which the international community hoped would end the ongoing crisis over north korea's nuclear program. the agreement froze the operation and construction of north korea's nuclear reactors which were part of its covert nuclear weapons program. in exchange the united states agreed to provide two proliferation resistant nuclear power reactors. there were high hopes with many calling it a first step in the full normalization of political

and economic relations with north korea. while north korea carried out some of the measures in the agreement, it simultaneously continued its ballistic missile program improving the range and accuracy of its missiles and it secretly began to pursue a can des tine program to -- clan des tine program to enrich program separate the plutonium which the agreement had frozen. international tensions came to a head in january of 2003 when north korea withdrew from the nuclear con proliferation treaty and following its withdrawal from the n.p.t., north korea kicked out iaea inspectors, restarted the reactor that had been frozen under the 1994 agreed framework and moved spent fuel rost rods to a facility that can produce plutonium. at the time, north korea said

it had no intention of making nuclear weapons and its nuclear activities would be -- quote -- "confined only to power production and other peaceful purposes." of course as we now now, north korea would conduct a nuclear test establishing its potential to build nuclear weapons. this history should serve as a warning about what could happen if we allow iran to maintain a robust nuclear infrastructure. the fact is iran is simply agreeing to freeze, to temporarily lock the door on its nuclear weapons program, as is, walk away, and should they later walk away from the deal as they have in the past, they can simply unlock the door and continue their nuclear weapons program from where they are today. that's exactly what the talks in my mind were intended to avoid. now, as i stand here, there is a rush for our negotiators

invene he, secretary kerry, to go and try to save the essence of what seems to be a significant distance between the parties. i know there are -- our side is working in good faith to reach an agreement. our terms have been on table for months. and now at the critical hour the supreme leader throws a monkey wrench into the negotiations surprising even his own negotiating team but demanding 190,000 centrifuges must remain for any final deal. so it's our obligation at this point to be asking some very pointed questions. are they truly empowered to make this deal? even if zarif and gla hany are sin sin sincere wan canada we say it about the supreme leader in tehran? does the supreme leader truly want a deal or are his red lines

an attempt to undermine the negotiations? secretary kerry said this morning that -- quote -- "the u.s. believes iran has the right to a peaceful nuclear program under the n.p.t." let's remind ourselves of first principles here. no country has a right to enrichment. they may have the ability to enrichment. they desire to enrich. but they do not have the right to enrich, and certainly not iran, given its past behavior. let's remember how we reached this point. iran, over a period of decades, has deceived the international community about its nuclear program, breaching its international commitment in what everyone agrees was an attempt to make iran a nuclear weapon state, or at least a threshold state. experts like those at the institute for science and international security, believe that iran began building secret

uranium enrichment centrifuge facility underground at forto in 2006, three years -- three years before it was declared to the international atomic energy administration. now iran is seeking to turn the tables in the negotiation to again convince the international community through words rather than deeds that it seeks a peaceful nuclear energy program. the supreme leader called the idea of closing the facility laughable. that is facility -- for my colleagues, this is a facility built under a mountain, declared only after iran was caught cheating, and designed to withstand a military strike. it does not take a nuclear expert to draw the obvious conclusion about iran' iran's intentions. if iran can't even agree to close the facility that is at

the heart of its covert enrichment program, what concessions can it possibly make that would address international concerns? are we supposed to take iran at its word when its actions have demonstrated over years that it is not a good-faith actor? are we supposed to pleeiv beliet iran wants 190,000 centrifuges, about 171,000 more than it has right now, for peaceful purposes? madam president, it's truly laughable. even for a country that doesn't have the world's third-largest oil reserves -- which iran does -- that would be an absurd position. iran can and, in fact, already does get cheaper and better nuclear fuel for the bashir reactor from russia than it could make at home. let pee repeat that. it gets cheaper and better fuel

from russia for its nuclear reactor at the bashir facility than what it can make at home. experts agree that centrifuges must be a part of the deal. david albright, a respected former atomic agency director said for iran to move from an interim to a final agreement, it would have to close the fordo facility and remove between 15,000 and 16,000 of its existing 20,000 centrifuges. even then, we are looking at a breakout time of about six to eight month oz, dependin monthsn whether it ha iran has access t% enriched uranium. dennis roth, one of america's preeminent foreign policy experts, has said iran should retain no more than 10% of its

centrifuges. that's no more than 2,000. so maybe the comments we've heard from the supreme leader were, as some analysts have suggested, an effort by the supreme leader to superimpose limitations on the negotiating team so at some point they would be free to say that these issues are out of their hands in the hope of somehow forcing a better deal this week in vienna. so i'd suggest that we are either seeing a not-so-clever game of "good cop, bad cop," or iran's negotiators have done a bad job of negotiating what their boss believes is the bottom lining at the negotiating table. or maybe -- or maybe we just haven't been listening to what we don't want to hear. from the onset of the talks, iran's foreign minister and president have sthaid they would not dis--- have said that they

would not dismantle any centrifuges. president rouhani was adamant that iran would not be dismantling its centrifuges. let me quote interest that interview with mr. disa cariaen clierks we are determined to froir the nuclear fuel of such plants inside the country at the hand of local iranian scientists. we are going to follow on this path. so zacarisa says, so there will be no destruction of sentry fiewrnlings of existing centrifuges? and president rouhani said, no, no, not at all. let's remember that the onus in this talk is on iran, not the p-59-plus-5. iran is the party of fault. iran is the party that came to the talks with unclean hands. iran is the party that has been

consistently rebuffed by the united nations and the international community for its support for terrorism, the subject of six u.n. security council resolutions and a multitude of sanction regimes. just last week the united states courts agreed to a landmark payment of $1.7 billion to the families of iranian terror victims, including families of the 241 service members who died in the bombing of the marine corps barracks bombings 31 years ago. and 19 who died in the khobar towers in 1996, both bombings perpetrated by iran. iran's duplicity has been going on for decades. so who's the bad guy here? now, commentators may choose to see the u.s. congress as the antagonists here, but i suggest they look across the table and

decide whether they want to take a deal with iran on a nod and a hand shake. in my view, through its history, through its actions, through its false words and deeds for decades, iran has foregone the ability for us to shake on a deal that freezes their program. the only option on the table can be a long-term deal that dismantles iran's elicit nuclear weapons program, a deal that clearly provides for a long-term verification inspection and enforcement regime and incentives for compliance in the form of sanctions relief based on iranian actions that are verifiable, not on what iran claims to be the truth. the fact is, there's no, from m perspective, sanctions relief signing bonus. if iran wants relief from sanctions, then it needs to tangibly demonstrate to the world that it is giving up its quest for nuclear weapons,

period. let's remember that, though none of us is at the negotiating table, we have a tremendous stake in the outcome. without congress' bipartisan action on a clear sanctions regime, there would have been no talks and we would not even have had the hope of ending iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. as a separate and coequal branch of government, representing the american people, congress has an obligation to provide oversight and a duty to express our views of what a comprehensive deal should look like. and i'll continue to come to this floor to express my views and my concerns given what we've heard and seen in the past from iran. iran has a history of duplicity with respect to its nuclear program, using past negotiations to cover up advances in its nuclear program. and let's not forget that president rouhani, the former negotiator for iran, said in no

uncertain terms -- quote -- "the day that we invited the three european ministers to the talks, only 10 centrifuges were spinning at the natanz. we could not produce one gram of u-4 or u-6. we did not have the heavy water production. we could not produce yellow cake. our total centrifuges in the country was 150. we wanted to complete all of these. we wanted time. we did not stop. completed the program." the simple truth -- that's his quote. the simple truth is he admitted to deceiving the west. madam president, everyone knows my history on this issue. everyone knows where i stand is the same place i have always stood. for 20 years i have worked on iran's nuclear issues starting when i was a junior member of the house pressing for sanctions to prevent iran from building the bashir nuclear power plant and to halt iaea support for the

uranium mining and enrichment programs. for a decade, i was told that my concern had no basis, that iran would never be able to bring the bashir plant online and that iran's activities are not a concern. well, history has shown that those assessments about iran's abilities and intentions were simply wrong. the fact is iran's nuclear aspirations has been a long and deliberate process. it did not materialize overnight and they will not end simply with a gad word an a good work a handshake. if iran's nuclear weapon capability is frozen rather than largely dismantled, they will remain at the threshold of become ago declared nuclear state should they choose to start again, because nothing will have changed if nothing is dismantled. make no mistake, iran views developing a nuclear capability

as fundamental to its existence. it sees the development of nuclear weapons a as part of a regional hegemonic strategy to make iran a central power throughout the region. that is why our allies and partners throughout the region are so skeptical and so concerned about having a leakproof deal. quite simply, our allies and partners do not trust iranian leaders nor do they believe that iran has any intention of verifiably ending its nuclear weapons program. so while i welcome the diplomatic efforts and i share the hope that the administration can achieve a final comprehensive agreement that eliminates the threat to global peace and security, for the u.s. congress to support the relief iran is looking for, we will need a deal that doesn't just freeze the nuclear clock on iran's nuclear weapons program,

but verify action that turns back the clock and makes the world a safer place. let me say that the fact is there are those who have created a false narrative over the last six months that now seems to be self-perpetuating, that anyone who expresses an opinion different than the desire to have a deal -- a deal at any cost -- is a warmonger. for those who now say, well, if we don't have a deal, then what? i would remind them of what the administration has said time and time again: no deal is better than a bad deal. and i agree with that sentiment. but i am concerned that there are forces who would accept a deal even if it is a bad deal. this doesn't serve the interests of the negotiators at the table in vienna, and it doesn't serve the interests of the american

people who want to ensure that iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon and that any deal permanently eliminating the possibility that iran could develop a nuclear weapon that threatens the international order. one mistake is all it takes. at the end of the day, keeping the pressure on iran to completely satisfy the united nations and the international community's demands to halt and reverse its illicit nuclear activities is the best way to avoid war in the first place. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. mr. cruz: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: madam president, i would like to commend the senior senator from new jersey for the powerful remarks he has just given about the threat posed

both to the united states and to the world of iran acquiring nuclear weapon capabilities. and i'd like to commend the senator from new jersey for his leadership along with senator mark kirk in iran sanctions legislation, legislation that enjoys wide bipartisan support, and indeed that would have passed into law months ago were it not for the majority leader of this chamber refusing to allow a vote on it. even to this day, we should vote on kirk-menendez because a substantial majority of members of this body and the house of representatives would pass this legislation to make clear what the senior senator from new jersey just made clear: that no deal is not nearly as bad as a bad deal, which all of us fear we are on the verge of entering into this geneva.

madam president, i rise today to address the misguided foreign policy of the obama administration. which is wreaking catastrophic consequences across the globe. the obama-clinton-kerry foreign policy has profoundly under undd or national security along with that of our friend and ally, the nation of israel.. just last week the white house coordinator for the middle east, philip gordon, gave an astonishing speech at an international conference in tel aviv to try yet again to revive the israeli-palestinian peace process. in his remarks, mr. gordon criticized israel for the failure of the most recent round of attacks, urging yet further concessions to the palestinians. he asserted that the united states, as israel's -- quote --

"greatest defender and closest friend" had the obligation to ask fundamental questions about israel's very viability as a democratic jewish state after the breakdown of negotiations. i'm not sure about the role mr. gordon suggests friends should play, but undermining our allies is not one of them. mr. gordon threatened that america would not be able to prevent the international isolation of israel. what secretary of state john kerry shockingly recently referred to israel as becoming an apartheid state. if israel did not return to the table on terms he found acceptable. mr. gordon warned that the clock is ticking and that israel should not take for granted the palestinian authority's

willingness to negotiate. he claimed that the administration's negotiations with iran had halted that country's nuclear program and made israel safer. mr. gordon's comments are belied by the facts. given that, number one, this conference took place under the direct threat of rocket attack from the palestinian-sanctioned terrorist group hamas, indeed delegates literally had to at one point scatter for shelter. given that, number two, that these rockets were fired by the very same terrorist actors who abducted and then brutally murdered three jewish boys three weeks ago near hebron. and given that, number three, the hamas spokesman osama hamdan announced days later that it was

working closely with iran in its attacks on israel, declaring hamas' -- quote -- "connection with hezbollah and iran is much stronger today than what people tend to think." given these facts, mr. gordon's remarks seem utterly detached from reality. even more disturbingly, the speech did not take place in a vacuum but rather was part of a coordinated messaging effort. it was accompanied by an op-ed by president obama by the group that sponsored the conference repeating mr. gordon's main themes. taken as a whole, these statements demonstrate the administration's long-standing policy of pressuring israel into a peace deal with the palestinians remains unchanged by the harsh reality in which israel finds herself. in the hopes of demonstrating that there are some in the

united states government who do not share this policy, i would like to offer an alternative approach. as israel's greatest partner and ally, the united states has weathered with israel relentless attacks from terrorist organizations like hamas and hezbollah, belligerence from rogue nations like iran and unremitting hostility from international organizations like the united nations. as such, we are veritable brothers in arms. and who better than a brother to tell the truth about you? the truth is that israel is the one country in the middle east that fully shares america's fundamental values and interests. the truth is that israel is a vibrant, inclusive democracy that respects the rights of its citizens, jewish and arab alike. the truth is that israel has for more than six decades wanted

nothing more than peace and has repeat lid made significant -- repeatedly made significant concessions to achieve it. the truth is that israel can never be isolated on the international stage because the united states with or without the president will continue to stand with israel. and the truth is for the united states to abandon israel would be to abandon the very moral principles that have made our nation exceptional. these basic truths should inform any discussion of the current conflict taking place between israel and the palestinians. we also need to recognize that the circumstances leading to the 2012 cease-fire between hamas and israel are not the circumstances in which we find ourselves today and that the terms of that agreement have proven inadequate to the current reality. both israel and the united

states had hoped that the relative calm following the 2012 cease-fire would lead to peace and that the increasing prosperity of the west bank would lead the palestinians to renounce war. sadly, those hopes proved illusory. that cease-fire did not change the fact that the palestinians have remained implacably hostile and indeed their government is actively indoctrine nateing yet another generation of vicious genocidal hatred towards israel and the west. that simmering hatred burst into flame last month when three innocent teenagers: naftali frenkel, eyal yifrah and gil-ad shaer, were kidnapped and murdered by hamas agents. in a stark reminder of how intertwined our nations are,

naftali was a dual citizen. this was a vicious attack against innocent jews regardless of their nationality and americans as well as israelis were considered legitimate targets. there is a temptation to refer to the murder of three teenagers as a senseless tragedy that should be handled by law enforcement. but this attack was nothing of the sort. it was a terrorist atrocity coldly plotted and executed by vicious killers whose only motivation was to murder teenage jews regardless of their citizenship and whose larger mission is the annihilation first of israel and then of the united states. it was, therefore, my privilege last week to file senate bill

2577, a bill that would direct the secretary of the to offer a reward of up to $5 million for the capture or killing of naftali's killers and by extension those of eyal and gil-ad as well. no one expects israel to handle this matter on their own but the hamas terrorists need to be perfectly clear that the united states understands that kidnapping and murdering a u.s. citizen is an attack on us as well. and we will actively support israel's response to this atrocity. i'm gratified by the support this bill has gotten in the senate from both sides of the aisle, and in particular i am gratified this this bill is cosponsored by the senior senator from new jersey, the chairman of the foreign relations committee, and i look forward to that committee's markup of the bill this week.

and then hopefully to its passage through both houses of congress. there is also a bipartisan version of this bill in the house of representatives led by representatives doug lamboorg of colorado and representative brad sherborn of california. the israeli government has moved against hamas in a just and appropriate action to both bring the terrorists responsible to justice and degrade their ability to launch further attacks. now is not the moment to suggest that israel open itself up to further terrorist attack by, for example, withdrawing from the west bank. now is not the moment to urge restraint or to try to broker yet another temporary cease-fire that doesn't stop the threat of

hamas murdering innocent civilians. but now is the moment to support israel in the effort to eliminate the intolerable threat of hamas, and given hamas' commitment to terrorist violence, the israeli response must be decisive. this conflict is not of israel's choice. it is hamas' choice. and to argue that there is some sort of viable diplomatic alternative as mr. gordon and president obama did last week is denying the truth. in addition to the current military offensive, there are a number of important long-term steps that the government of israel has taken to reduce the threats of terrorist attack and so to secure the civilian population. one is the security barrier in

the west bank initiated by prime minister ariel sharon during the second intifada necessitate bid waves of palestinian suicide bombers targeting israel. this fence was immediately decried as an abuse of the palestinian people, and indeed declared illegal by the international court of justice. but since the fencing began, attacks have declined by 90%. 90%. no apology should be required for securing a nation's border and for saving innocent civilian lives. the israeli missile defense system that protects against short rang rockets coming out of gaz is a success story. israel designed and implemented iron dome which enjoyed an 87%

success rate during the 2012 operation pillar of defense. and to all appearances is exceeding that performance in this most recent action. iron dome has dramatically changed israel's ability to determine the future on its own terms not because the palestinians have in any way modified their eagerness to fire rockets at their neighbors in an attempt to murder innocent civilians, but rather because the israelis now have a system capable of neutralizing the vast majority of those rockets and protecting the hospitals and schools and homes that the palestinians seek to destroy. president obama wrote in his heratz op-ed that -- quote -- "while walls and missile defense systems can help protect against some threats, true safety will only come with a comprehensive negotiated settlement but that

can only be true when both sides genuinely seek peaceful coexistence which at this time, sadly, the palestinians do not. projects like the security barrier and iron dome may well be both practically and philosophically israel's only option. that the israeli response to hostility out of the territories has been primarily defensive is an important illustration of their preferred approach to this problem, which is not to attack or destroy but rather to protect and defend. this posture illustrates the fundamental difference between the israelis who have pledged they will stop fighting when the palestinians stop fighting, and the palestinians who swear they will stop fighting only when israel ceases to exist. as prime minister netanyahu recently said, israel uses

missiles to protect its citizens whereas hamas uses its citizens to protect its missiles. we must reject any assertion of moral equivalent between the palestinians who seek to attack israel and the israelis who are trying to defend themselves from terrorist attack. nowhere was the contrast between these two sides more clear than in the two investigations that are taking place into the murders that occurred in israel in recent weeks. after the bodies of naftali frenkel, eyal and gil-ad were discovered. miew -- muhammad abu was tragically murdered in retribution. prime minister netanyahu rightly

quickly and emphatically condemned this act and he called the victim's father personally to offer condolences. naftali's mother rachel stated her sympathy publicly saying -- quote -- "no mother or father should go through what we are going through now. we share the pain of the parents of muhammad abu khadir. even in the death and the mourning over our son it is hard to describe the drs. -- distress we felt. the shedding of innocent blood is against morality, against the torah and judaism, against the basis of our life in this country. the murderers of our children, whoever sent them, whoever helped them and whoever incited them towards that murder will all be brought to justice, with you it will be them and no innocent people. it will be done by the government, the police, the justice department and not by

vigilantes. contrast rachel frankel's powerful statement with that of the mother of one of the hamas suspects in naftali's abduction and murder. who while the boys were still missing and before their executed bodies had been discovered publicly announced -- quote -- "they're throwing the guilt on him by accusing him of kidnapping. if he truly did it, i will be proud of him until my final day. if he did the kid kidnapping, i will be -- kidnapping, i will be proud of him. i raised my children on the knees of the religion. they are religious guys, honest and clean handed, and their goal is to bring the victory of islam madam president, contrast those two statements. one, serious law enforcement responding to the wrongful murder of a teenager and the

other a society that celebrates, that glorifies, that lionizes vicious criminals who kidnap and murder innocent teenagers. further highlighting the contrast is the fact that the murderers of muhammad abul khadir were apprehended in less than a week. the israeli police moved and moved expeditiously. almost a month after the abduction of naftali gilad nyal, their hamas murderers are still at large because they are being protected by those that consider them heroes rather than terrorists. when mr. gordon asserted in his speech that israel's -- quote - "military control of another people for recurring instability and for embolding extremists were to blame for the region's problems, they ignore the fact that the palestinian authority bears the real responsibility

for the crisis. by including hamas in their so-called -- quote -- "unity government and then urging the international community to officially sanction this deal with the devil. this should not be surprising as the p.a. is headed by muhammad abbas, a holocaust denier who was yasser arafat's right-hand man for three decades. ever since frat and abbas were given autonomy to run the palestinian territories 20 years ago through the oslo accords, they have used that power to radicalize their population and to harden opposition to the very idea of peaceful existence with the jewish state of israel. palestinian children are bombarded with heavy-handed propaganda praising the virtues of suicide bombers and other mass murders.

"sesame street" style puppets and cartoon characters are horrificcally used to encourage children to grow up to become terrorists. yet president obama hailed president abbas as a man who could help broker a peace deal, and phillip gordon called him in his speech last week a -- quote -- reliable partner for peace. madam president, holocaust deniers are not reliable partners. madam president, leaders who incite hatred and bigotry in the murder of innocent children are not reliable partners. just two months ago, i was back in the nation of israel. i traveled to the north of israel to the ziff hospital, a hospital in the north of israel that has treated over 1,000 syrians wounded in the horrific civil war waging in that country. i met with those israeli physicians and nurses as they

described they have given over $8 million in free medical care uncompensated. one person in particular i spoke with there was a social worker who described the shock and trauma of young children. imagine, madam president, you're a little boy, you're a little girl in syria. you go to bed in your bedroom and a bomb, a missile, a mortar comes through the ceiling, explodes, and when you awake, you have been who who are i have beenicly wounded, and you find yourself in the nation of israel in a hospital surrounded by israeli doctors and nurses. what this social worker told us was that as horrifying as being the victim of terrorism, as horrifying as some of these little boys or girls discovering limbs of their body had been blown off, consistently the greatest terror of these children was finding themselves

in israel, as their entire time they had been told that israel was the devil, and this social worker fluent in arabic would spend time talking and reassuring these children and comforting them because they were sure horrible things would happen to them. why were they sure of this? because they had been taught those lies from the moment they could learn them. one israeli physician, she described to me a comment that a syrian woman made to her. she said my entire life, the army that i had been told was there to protect me, now they are trying to kill me, and my entire life, the army that i had been told wanted to kill me, now they are the only people protecting me and my family. we will not see peace between israel and the palestinians until the palestinian government stops incitement, stops

systematically training its children to hate and to kill. neither hamas nor its partner, the palestinian authority, has displayed any interest in peace. the so-called hamas affiliateed technocrats that abbas has embraced have done nothing to curb hamas' violence, as missiles continue to rain down on innocent civilians in israel or even to express sympathy for the murdered jewish teenagers. even that is a bridge too far given the hatred that the palestinian government promotes. the incessant campaign of incitement carried out by the p.a. lays bare the myth that abbas is in any way a moderate or possesses any real desire for peace with the jewish state.

in his speech, mr. gordon asserted that -- quote -- "israel should not take for granted the opportunity to negotiate peace with president abbas who has shown time and again that he is committed to nonviolent and co-existence with israel. madam president, how can any rational, sentient person utter that sentence that mr. abbas has shown time and again that he is committed to nonviolence and co-existence with israel while he partners with hamas, a terrorist organization that is raining rockets on israel as we speak. when he's directly responsible for a pattern of incitement that is training young palestinians in vicious racial bigotry and hatred, that is celebrating murderers and kidnappers as heroes and martyrs. anyone who utters a statement like mr. gordon uttered is being

willfully blind to the facts on the ground. given that it was mr. abbas, not israel, that accepted hamas into the p.a.'s government, the burden should be on the p.a., not israel, to unequivocally condemn not only hamas but also their fellow terrorist groups, the islamic jihad and abbas' own al-axa martyrs brigade. the p.a. should not take for granted the limitless patience, not only of israel but also the united states. and indeed, any responsible members of the civilized world for the legitimatization of these terrorist groups. while p.a. harbors hamas, islamic jihad, the al-axa martyrs brigade or any other terrorist group and supports their vicious activities, it

should forfeit its position as a legitimate negotiating partner with israel. it is the height of delusion to suggest that israel should accommodate the palestinian authority with any further security concessions until this activity stops. while the p.a. harbors hamas islamic jihad, the al-axa martyrs brigade or any other terrorist groups and supports their vicious activities, if it should forfeit any and all materiel support from the taxpayers of the united states. not one penny. and only when the p.a. takes significant and affirmative steps to stop incitement, eradicate terrorism and demonstrate its leadership's ability to honor their pledged commitments in the past, including the oslo accords, and affirms israel's right to exist

as a jewish state should this aid be reconsidered. it must also be recognized that hamas is not acting alone in the current crisis. in an alarming escalation of the rocket attacks out of gaza, hamas militants recently fired an m-302-type rocket an unprecedented 70 miles north, some 30 miles north of three. meaning that -- north of tel aviv. meaning that now six million israelis are vulnerable to the rocket attacks. israel has intercepted a shipment of these weapons bound for gaza from iran earlier this year. it now appears that some of them have gotten through by other means. as owe sam a hamden's comments celebrating their close collaboration demonstrate, neither hamas nor iran is even trying to hide the connection. in the face of this blatant

hostility from the islamic republic of iran, it seems the height of foolishness for the united states to be participating in nuclear negotiations with tehran at this time. iran's leaders are actively engaged in inciting and supplying violent terrorism. indeed, iran is the chief state sponsor of terrorism on the globe today, and our focus should be on thwarting iran's behavior in gaza and across the world, not in engaging diplomatic niceties over chardonnay in vienna. given iran's ongoing pattern of arming hamas with increasingly sophisticated weapons, it is simply unacceptable to risk their achieving nuclear capability by exploiting the eagerness, the utterly unexplainable eagerness of the obama administration to get a

deal, any deal, any deal at all, it seems, by the july 20, 2014, deadline. we need to recognize that the arbitrary decision to relax sanctions and to engage in six months of negotiations under the joint plan of action last year was an historic mistake. we need to dramatically reverse course, and we should immediately reimpose sanctions until iran makes fundamental concessions by ceasing all uranium enrichment, handing over its stockpiles of enriched uranium and destroying its 19,000 centrifuges. madam president, the obama-clinton-kerry foreign policy is setting the stage for iran to acquire nuclear weapon capability, and if iran acquires that capability, it will pose a grave if not mortal threat to the nation of israel and to the united states.

the strategy of the obama administration relaxing sanctions first and then hoping to get some concessions later is putting the proverbial cart before the horse. you do not negotiate with bullies and tyrants by conceding everything at the outset and then hoping for good faith. instead, we should reimpose those sanctions, and additionally, as a further condition, we should demand that iran stop its state sponsorship of terrorist attacks against our allies. only then should iran see a relaxation of sanctions. madam president, in the coming days, i will be filing legislation which will do exactly that, reimpose strong sanctions on iran immediately,

strengthen those sanctions, include an enforcement mechanism to ensure that these measures are implemented and call for the dismantling of iran's nuclear program which should be the only path to relaxing sanctions in the future. this legislation will lay out a clear path that iran can follow to evade the sanctions -- simply behave in good faith and stop its relentless marks towards acquiring nuclear weapons capability. the connection between hamas and iran is a sobering reminder of the larger context in which the events of the last month have taken place. they are not an isolated local issue that could be managed if only israel would act with restraint. both the united states and israel want the palestinian people to have a secure and prosperous