quorum call:

quorum call: a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. flake: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. flake: madam president, i come to the floor today to talk about s. 615, the iran nuclear agreement review act. this bill establishes a process to guarantee congressional review of any agreement reached between the p-5 plus 1 and iran

and unlike everybody else here, my goal is to ensure iran does not acquire nuclear weapons. with this goal in mind, i've avoided supporting measures over the past 18 months that would impact the administration's ongoing negotiations. i believe that it's incumbent upon us to explore every avenue of diplomacy to stop iran from getting a nuclear weapon. now, there have been suggestions that this legislation we're considering today will negatively impact the negotiations for a final agreement. to the contrary, i think this legislation will improve the chances of reaching a final accord. most importantly, it will improve the chances that this accord will stand the test of time. if approved, the president will have to negotiate knowing that congress will ultimately review this agreement. that is only proper given that the terms of the agreement go

far beyond, far beyond the current administration. in truth congress has always had a role here. it was the u.s. congress that passed sanctions that brought iran to the negotiating table. it is only the u.s. congress that can permanently lift these sanctions. now, unfortunately the administration would prefer to go it alone when it comes to the implementation of this agreement by using the waiver authority that was granted when these sanctions were passed. there is no dispute that the president can lift these sanctions on a temporary basis. but since this agreement is slated to last well beyond the president's term and even the next president's term, any effective enduring agreement has to have congressional buy-in. let me repeat. if this legislation fails the president will be able to sign a final agreement and have a nice signing ceremony, but an

effective, enduring agreement to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon will require congressional buy-in. we also need to recognize that we're not operating in a vacuum here. once an agreement that includes our allies is reached the multilateral sanctions regime that has been so effective to bring iran to the negotiating table will be defunct. thee sanctions have been effective because it has been iran versus the west rather than iran versus the u.s. it's unreasonable to assume that such a united front can be reassembled before iran obtains a nuclear weapon. that's why the bill before us today is so important. it sets up a process for review by congress of any agreement preventing the administration from presenting congress with a fait accompli. this legislation will not repeal any sanctions currently in place against iran. congress will still have to take

action to lift these sanctions permanently. its passage ensures if congress does repeal the sanctions it does so because it chooses to, not because it has no other choice. i'd also like to take a moment to reflect on the process that brought this bill out of committee. tough issues were thoughtfully worked out croims were made to -- compromises were made to get this bill language to a place where the bill was voted unanimously out of committee with a recorded vote. thanks to firm commitments made by the chairman and the ranking member to keep this bill bipartisan the white house which for weeks had threatened to veto the bill, reversed its position just hours before the markup. this about-face was likely due to the fact that there were so many senators on a bipartisan basis lining up to support this bill. this legislation signals to the administration that it intends to keep congress in mind when it

negotiates -- that it needs to keep congress in mind as it negotiates. and without poison pill amendments being added the president will be forced to sign it. most importantly i'm hopeful that the passage of this bill out of committee signifies a return to the time when the foreign relations committee is able to work across the aisle on foreign policy matters. i realize it can't always happen but the ideal is when partisan politics can as senator vandenberg put it, stop at the water's edge. the reality mr. president, is that given the myriad foreign policy challenges that confront us around the globe we don't have the luxury of partisanship, and nowhere is this more evident than with the legislation we are considering today. i hope that we can come together and pass it. i yield back and note the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. a senator: i ask to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order the senate stands in recess subject to the call of the chair. going into recess so lawmakers can walk across the capitol for today's joint meeting. when the senate returns we expect more work and the iranian nuclear negotiations oversight bill. senators will walk to the house chamber shortly to hear from japanese prime minister abe. you can watch that live at 11:00

eastern on our companion network c-span. >> the new congressional director rita is a handy guide to the 114th congress with color photos of every senator and house member plus bio and contact information and twitter handles. also district maps, full out map of capitol hill and a look at congressional committees, the president's cabinet federal agencies and state governors. order your copy today $13.95 plus shipping and handling through the c-span online store on c-span.org. >> monday the aspen institute hosted discussion with commerce secretary penny pritzker who outlined her department's initiatives regarding work force skills and training development. the event launched the new program by the commerce department and asked -- as an institute called communities at work partnership. aspen institute president walter isaacson moderated the discussion.

this is just over an hour. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning, everyone. welcome. i am vice president at the aspen institute and executive director of economic opportunities program and i am so delighted to welcome you all today to the launch of the community's network partnership and we are thrilled to work with the commerce department on this important initiative. i just want to say a couple things before we get started because we have a real feat for you today to hear our commerce secretary in conversation with walter isaacson. let me say a couple quick things first. i want to also acknowledge and thank the aspen institute, the commerce -- the work we're doing with the commerce department. i want to note that we are recording and live streaming this event today. if you are on live string please

tweet away at hash tag communities at work. if you are in the room please quiet your funds. following the event today we will have application materials for the region's up on our web site. aspen- aspen-communitiesatwork, it is written down so you don't lose it. that is going live today. that is all we have to say for my announcements. is my distinct pleasure and thrilled to introduce to you jay williamson, secretary of commerce, assistant secretary of commerce i am be noting you, he will provide a word of welcome and the importance of this work to the commerce department. [applause] >> thank you. i am excited and pleased to be with you today. as we publicly launched the

communities at work partnership. this is an important initiative that will build critical public-private partnerships needed to accelerate job skill development across the nation. i think the aspen institute for the hospitality and hosting us here today. the availability of skilled work force is often cited as a primary factor considered by businesses in their investment decision process. the skill needs of businesses by identifying promoting and expanding successful industry driven regional partnerships for development. by encouraging such partnerships the program will build a regional pool of workers with the skills that are in demand by employers in their communities leading to job creation and increased business investment. e d a is pleased to partner with the aspen institute on this initiative. through our partnership we help to build, sustain and skill

existing and new regional partnerships for development to regional economic development. critically, aspin through this partnership will also inform long-term talent and skill development strategy for the economic development administration. this partnership offers many exciting opportunities ahead as a testament to the focus of secretary of commerce penny pritzker who for the first time in history of the commerce department has made work force development the key focus of the department of commerce. through the secretary's open for business agenda of the department is advancing a bold policy framework centered on the tools needed for u.s. economic growth. secretary penny pritzker is a business leader with 25 years' experience as an innovator, builder of businesses in various sectors. she has focused the department of commerce on expanding trade and investment, spurring american innovation and unleashing government data to benefit economic developers and businesses alike. all of these issues are of the

utmost importance to our community and our regions. we are proud of the key role eda place in the open for business agenda and i am honored to work closely every day with penny pritzker to ensure our nation's communities and regions capitalize on the expanding economy. we are fortunate to have aspen president and ceo walter isaacson with us to meet our discussion. walter is a man who wears many hats and where's the mall exceptionally well. thank you for your participation and leadership. is my privilege to turn the program over to walter isaacson. >> thank you very much and thank you for treating us as partners. penny pritzker, thank you for being here. why is skills development such a priority for you now? >> as you know for years this has been a passion of mine, to make sure we not only develop the work force businesses need in order to grow and continue to create jobs but the work force

itself is getting the training and opportunity it needs to be able, individuals and country to be successful so this is something that has been passion of mine since we started working together in 2009 on this subject. it is important for us to bring the issue of work for steve element and skills training to the department of commerce because our job is to try to set the conditions for american businesses to thrive. if writing they will create jobs and our economy will grow and we have a prosperous society. it is a pretty simple formula. without workforce, it has the skills that are in demand in an ever-changing economy. the formula doesn't work if you will. so it is important particular early because we at the department of commerce have a relationship with businesses and

ultimately at the end of the day businesses need to lead by defining the skills that they need. >> what you do on manufacturing day which is innovation what do you learn when you visit manufacturers of the 21st century? >> i am excited to have the third annual manufacturing day. one of the things manufacturing -- there was a real misunderstanding in the united states about what is the clear manufacturing today? what is the interface between the cumin and the machine that is necessary to make products in the 21st century? we have been working with manufacturers and last year we had 1500 manufacturers that opened their doors to 300,000 people in the united states. and grade school and high school

kids with their counselors coming in saying this is not my father or grandfather's manufacturing plant anymore this changed a lot about computers, and alongside robots to create things. this is a real image you shoe. and to know what manufacturing means so we are trying to change the awareness and understanding so that families -- if i go -- if my child or my son or daughter goes in to manufacturing as a career is that something that has longevity? the first time in the united states since 2009 we are growing manufacturing output in the united states, also growing 900,000 new manufacturing jobs so this is becoming an area of growth that is a different career that was. >> you need to go into it?

>> you need knowledge of how computer works, you need knowledge of how to adjust machines, an interface of information goes on where the machine says here is where we need to treat the production and bring the mechanical talent to bare. it is available in many community colleges this is one of the things with the new partnership to work with communities, making sure they are developing processes for work-force training married to what businesses need. >> one of the great essentials working with businesses, how do you partner with business? >> our belief is that business

needs to lead as i said in terms of the skills that are needed for them, and what do we do with our partnership. what we are trying to do is say our work force training is local. we know that. is not something that can be driven nationally. needs to be driven by the demand of business. what do businesses need today? what they going to need over the last five or ten years of skill sets from the work force in that community? what the partnership is doing, the reason the economic development administration is the perfect partner, we work with communities every day helping them develop the economic development strategies. and copper and to economic development strategies. and we have put in our strategy planning what we do with

communities across the country, work force training, processes needs to be part of that. what we are doing in our partnership that is important is bringing regions together. it is made up of business leaders it is made up usually of universities and institutions of higher learning, local government, workforce board. the whole ecosystem for lack of a better word working on these issues. if you are university present you tend to meet with university presidents. if you are a community college president you meet with community college presidents. there is no place where the ecosystem, business leaders meet with other business leaders, no place or forum where ecosystems are coming to get a meeting with each other and saying this is working for us in south

carolina, and we are there, unemployment has plummeted, employers are happy because of the skilled labour force we have. no where are those communities coming together and sharing best practices and know where i we documenting best practices for communities and sharing that throughout the united states. unlike other countries where there is often dictated at age 15 or 16, go to university, or go into a trade? we don't do that in the united states. we are much more local bubble of power communities, where they are going to focus and what are their strengths or weaknesses? what we need to do is have a mechanism where best practices are being shared so we can address our changing economy.

>> what you saw at work? >> take south carolina which has become a mecca for auto production. there is a real partnership between universities, community college, auto manufacturers, state government, and auto manufacturers are led by saying here is what we need. in order to have the most efficient for example bmw has made their largest manufacturing production capability in the world in the united states. german companies, they have helped lead the development of a whole ecosystem that is benefiting other manufacturers in that area and in fact their challenge is unemployment -- there is a real challenge.

governor nicky hill, a real benefit. in chicago, put together a work force plan or strategy in the region that is focused on hospitality, healthcare, and chicago is my home town and we have given geography and the density of rail, we played a really important role in terms of the logistics of the country. how do we get things from one place to another, so we l.a. out six or seven different sectors that they want to be strong in. really are tied together, the community college, what are the offerings of the community college and the offering is being done at the high school level and what role is the university playing all driven by the sectors. the sectors are driven strong business is locally. and also aspiration l.a. what

the chicago wanting to be. that kind of planning is important and something to celebrate and that is what eda is expert at working with communities on making such plans. what we want to do is bring the players together to share with one another and learn from each other. >> before you begin, you would deeply committed to the notion of using community colleges as an important link in the chain. and upgrading the community colleges and we have a community college at the aspen institute's. you inspired us and pushed us to do it. i noticed when you talked about chicago in particular, you worked together to make sure each community college is more aligned with the particular industry and more aligned skills sets, how would you make that work. >> it came from local leadership

coming together, across the business sector first it started with chicago, a group of businesses, ceos working with city government to say here are the sectors we are -- and we should focus on. where the growth and demand and new employment, defining what you want to be when you grow up. second, making sure the community college system was offering the kind of courses to young people that want -- who are looking to get into one of these sectors it was about the leadership of the city, across the business community meeting in terms of demand and local government leading in terms of bringing money to bear but also

leadership over the community colleges and aligning community colleges, the university saying we are going to make sure there's a seamless process of going from getting credentials at a community college if you want to continue on their education, you don't have to repeat -- young people having to repeat courses to go from having been at the community college to be at the university and that money and that is an impediment and why has it worked? at the leadership level across these various sectors across various areas of expertise, local government, economic development agency. the university and community colleges coming together to find a solution. and the challenges. unemployment was sticking really

high in chicago. and in america's future working on this future created skills for chicago's future and what that was this intermediary focused on the long-term unemployed. a two years ago we had long term unemployed defined as somebody who has been unemployed for six months. the short term unemployment returned to normal. it is the person who has been unemployed for six months having a hard time finding a job. we create and intermediary to work with those folks to help from that employed. there is the real bias that existed. >> would not interview somebody who had been unemployed for six months. >> it was really nuts and we have spent in chicago and enormous amount of effort to address this issue and make huge progress in bringing that area of unemployment. >> in community college,

president obama has now made that a major plank of what he wants to do making it seem less to go to the first two years of college if possible. how does that tie into skills development. >> and natural place to go to gain -- the goal has been to have the training offered at the community college reflect the demands in the local community. >> does that mean community colleges to not do that well as they were sort of -- >> our labor secretary used to say we train and spray. you cannot longer afford to train and pray. >> how you make a more focused? >> business leaders -- i will give you chicago as an example. business community partner with community college to say here are the skills but we need. what i found when you and i started with skills for america's future, what we

learned was companies were willing to share their intellectual property, training intellectual property with the community colleges and say partner with us, help us produce folks that are capable, not necessarily is that their training ends when they entered a business. ready to do the work that is in front of them. let's not kid ourselves, businesses delete% of work force training in this country. the 20% necessary to get into -- to be job ready if you would. businesses are the business they are part of that end up supporting it their training. that is what we're trying to bridge. >> let's go back to that story in south carolina becoming a manufacturing center. if we look back 10 or 15 years ago for the carolinas and the

furniture industry and textile industry that we are both declining in terms of the amount of employment we are doing. i don't think you or i or certainly i would not have guessed that it would be a huge bmw plant coming in. how, since you cannot really predict what the job 15 years from now will be, how do you predict the skills for any type of job that is likely to be coming along? >> one of the things we encourage is working with industry. ..

>> so imagine starting and steel 37 years ago. it is a very different set of jobs. this skill is really human interface skills. >> exactly. it is also flexibility. it is your willingness to continually learn. it is being open to the jobs of all been a willingness. i spent 27 years in the private sector. this is my first government job. i will take an over achiever any day of the week. i'll take somebody ready willing and able to grow when a job. that is going to consistently be

the case as they have this constant evolution. we are living in a new machine age. i've heard the second machine age, the fourth machine age. i don't know which number it is. all we know is technology is causing a constant evolution and what we all know is american workers are the most productive workers in the world. what we need to continue to do for the american workforce is make sure we are recognizing the skills that are needed in training folks. here's the thing. you keep asking the hills, name the foreign skills. cybersecurity. what are the six skills you need for cybersecurity 10 years ago. we didn't know we needed cybersecurity skills. you need folks who are open to continual learning and who are -- that will become a

hallmark of employment. so one of the things we are doing in government is we created a checklist so every federal program we are doing that involves training has to meet with six or seven criteria. employers have to be -- it always starts with the employers, what does the employer need? second we want to make sure when we do the training, there are earn and learn opportunities. you are earning and learning at the same time. make sure you use data to evaluating hold yourself accountable at the effect of mr. the training. we want to make sure there's a stepping stone to seamless transition from one certificate of graduate degree to another. we want to break down barriers to moving along in accessing training. and then we want to have her partnerships more public or the

partnerships. we don't have all of the answers. we need to work with the private sector more closely. that is why the partnership is so important. today we are announcing the department of commerce will take all of our skills after that now cause skills for business. we are now branding ourselves and so the work that eda is doing the work that is being done for example the patent and trademark office doing apprenticeships. the president has a big initiative to double the numbers in the united states. typically think of an apprenticeship at some gain one does in a trade. this is really training around becoming a patent and trademark office there in the whole area of intellectual property protection. we are moving out of apprenticeships for trade but

also apprenticeships and health care apprenticeships in computer programming and other areas. >> the rebranding of skills for business. what is the symbolic reason for that? >> well, the symbolic reason is twofold. first is the fundamental issue that we talk about, which is demand comes from business tier jobs are created in the private sector. and so we've got to start with the business leadership and what do they need. it is never far from my mind what does the workforce need. what is you and i talk about what do we need to do so they're a good middle-class job with good ages and earnings available to american workers. what is the goal here? the goal is a wonderful match between a great career for someone in a business leader able to continue to grow so they

will create more jobs. >> speaking of that. one of the great theoretical debates which is actually a consequence is whether this new machine age while actually hurt the number of jobs in the future. especially middle-class jobs coming out hollowing out of the middle-class. automation machinery, robotics whatever it may be. 2000 years of data points about technology employment. zero data points show that technology and the decreasing employment. even you and larry summers and others have been discussing whether it could be different. >> there is enormous concern about the issue. frankly, what we are seeing -- what i see as commerce secretary is the united states is the

number one place to invest. the last couple years goldman sachs. because many many reasons not the least of which is perfect to me, but also the ingenuity of the workforce. in the flexibility of our workforce, all of which is about the willingness of our workforce to work with technology to be more good. why is bmw choosing the united states as its global manufacturing? its largest global manufacturing for print. it is not just the workforce. it insults our intellectual property, strong rule of law the fact we have trade agreements around the world so they can manufacture here and export around the world more efficiently. gets from other locations in the world. low-cost and abundant energy. we have many assets that at all

rats -- starts with our workforce. >> i push the book on you which is bob putnam's kids here a few weeks ago. i think it is the most important vote because it's about the opportunity gap. the gap seems to be widening between the opportunity from a privileged background someone from a poor background times it has anecdote after anecdote in datapoint master data point getting a greater divide between the type of opportunity starting with pre-k all the way through the internships and apprenticeships and the job market and skills.

d.c. that problem and if so how are you working to mitigate it? >> well, my children are your children or the kids that live in our zip code have enormous opportunity, not the least of which is from parents of a college college education and that is a natural next activation, but. to have connections to open the door for their child. that is the challenge we face. in chicago the kids on the south side don't have the same and they are not pushing on the same open door. we need to write to fight back. that is why it's been such a great passion. i'm all about education and education has been the great

equalizer at these certainly in my lifetime. i continually believe that plays an important role, but we have to continue also creating opportunities. it is my apprenticeships are so critical. it is why creating structures that provide mentorship for kids is so important. it is by educating, this image challenging manufacturing and the idea to me the most important people going through manufacturing are the parents and guidance counselors. for the kids are going to be inspired but it's also so adults can see a really good middle-class career existing manufacturing. it is a growing opportunity with the skills you are earning and earning are transferable. this is something we have to be persistent about. >> the issue of income inequality. as you look at the numbers of the past two years of job growth and we look under the hood what

do you see about this issue of income inequality and what type problem that might be? >> well, it is not good for society. we know that. it is important that we don't have a hollowing out of our middle class. it is important that we make sure there are good opportunities that exist. what i see as a changing economy where we place value on different scales. if you look at being a data analyst, today an analyst has paid over $40 an hour. that is the job that didn't exist when i was a kid. cybersecurity we talked about a different format data analysis.

huge demand, smart grid workers. and good pay. these are good solid jobs. what you have to do and what we all know is the path to finding those careers often requires a human interface was somebody who hopes to guide you. parents, mentors, friends, a coworker. i see it at the department of commerce. we have all kinds of folks working there who are looking to figure out where they go next, how to manage careers. we spend a lot of time typing in counseling everybody from the folks in our security detail to folks who are in a policy shop and everything in between. you know, that is really an important part of the role of

the manager is to be a mentor and to set a culture of mentorship. it is not just the seniormost person who is guiding. it's got to be the whole organization. >> as you look at the numbers of the past two years, what is your analysis below the surface? are we in a good recovery? >> i think we are in -- we are in a much better recovery than people like to talk about. relative to the rest of the world we are definitely doing better. if you -- everyone focuses on gdp growth. if you look at unemployment unemployment rates continue to come down. there will be bumps up and down. i feel as though what we've done is the economy with the

foundation of our economy is far stronger. if you look in the 90s and 2000, a lot of our economy is built on bubbles. bubbles housing bubbles. we are not fitting in environmental bubble. these are far stronger foundation of our economy. it has been hard. we all know we either have our own kids or friends or kids or appears to have been either laid off during the process or have had a hard time finding jobs. it is getting better and better and it's not even across the united states, but it is much stronger than it was. we still do not have the growth in the housing industry we should. we have not invested in infrastructure the way beneath you. that would be a significant impact on our economy, but

congress has not made that commitment yet and we need to. we have $2 trillion due for investment. we need to pass the trade agreement because those are job creators. those are good for our economy because it will open markets like asia to american businesses. i will put in a fog for the trade promotion authority as well as for the transpacific hardener shape. geisha is going from 500 million consumers to somewhere over 3 billion in the next 15 to 20 years. we have never seen this in the world. that largest consumer base growth. our companies need to be a part of that in order to be leaders in the future. they'll come back and there is

very little barrier to entry to investing in the united states whereas there is enormous market access barriers to investing in vietnam or malaysia or other parts of asia. these agreements level the playing field for market access or business leaders. they began to level the playing field for the workforce. there are new labor standards in this agreement as well as environmental standards that insist upon minimum wage and the right to organize, insist upon no force or child labor. rules we all live by. all of this will affect the quality of opportunity for our workforce in the united states in a very positive fashion. >> you are going to china in a few weeks. what is the mission? >> i was just there last week. what we did was we took clean

energy companies to china. china has made a commitment to a 20% of its energy by 2030 b. non-fossil fuel based. china is world-class solar wind and hydro capabilities. but they don't have is the ability to connect to the grid. they don't have technology to do carbon capture. a lot of technologies they don't have that we do. they're a $90 billion marketplace per year of clean energy and we have a tremendous amount of market share. our companies want greater access. it is about helping them reach clean energy goals. we have all heard about the challenges and i am here to tell you it is true. if you haven't been there it is a real challenge. people are aware of it. their population is not just folks in beijing but a real

challenge for them. this is a place where they could work wofford is late to help solve not just their climate problems but also those that affect us as well. >> before i turn it over when they go right back to what we hear today to announce which is skills for business. today we are beginning to accept applications at the aspen institute. a process of applications from regional teams and others with education, public agencies. tell us about the approach without putting too much pressure, what do you want come out of this? >> i have enormous confidence having worked before this. what does success look like? we talk about six different

regions and leaders from business, the community colleges, universities and local government. so those regions can learn from each other. we can develop a case study of best practices. we can develop a set of tools by other communities to improve. we are using convenient to learn from each other and develop a case study of how to better improve your own region for workforce training. my hope is out of this we have more communities that want to participate do you have such satisfied customers that the demand is we do it again and the final part of this is where the department of commerce. we play a role in partnering

with you in convening in helping develop the tools. our goal is to take the learning and put them into we work with hundreds of communities around the country and helping them develop economic development strategies to take those learning and put them into the community economic development strategy processes that we use with communities across the country. this is a way of beginning to lift everybody. >> if anybody's interested, go to our website, find marin conway's name. anybody on her team that you find on the website. let me open it. yes, sir. asked his hand in the room. >> fred staal previously only in an m.i.t.

it looks to me like there is a powerful and emerging change in how we are managing manufacturing. i think we are going to be transferring the responsibility and authority to workers on the front line. it is tapping into those things that you talk about a good knowledge of workers ingenuity and flexibility. my question is should we be training workers to have leadership skills needed to step into that in the future? >> absolutely. thank you for that question. you are exactly right. what is happening is a decision-making and power with the worker. to problem solve on the ground and to have a continuous improvement process. the democratization and develop

schools of personal leadership, personal conflict resolution and talents to be able to manage as they are evolving change as well as confidence to make choices that have ripple effects across the floor and working with colleagues, and groups to make these decisions. so these kinds of skills are necessary. there is a base level of skills that one gets before one enters into the job market for a new job. 80% of the training is going on in businesses.

leadership skills, management skills. communication skills. fundamentally skills obtained in grade school high school, community college three universities. this is not something that starts when you walk in the front door of your first job. >> dian silber, clinical psychologist. i am interested in the opposite side of the spectrum in terms of skills. the students coming into community college in the apprenticeship program. are they prepared for and secondary education with the basic skills of reading and math not ask? >> it is a real challenge. at least from what i know, one of the other things i did on the school board in chicago, which is one of the more challenging roles i've ever played in my life. the responsibility for young

people and making sure they are getting basic fundamental reading and writing skills. here is why i am optimistic. i am optimistic because what i saw when you had the teacher in computer interface working with young kids come at her graders second graders in the third-graders, fourth-graders fifth-graders helping young people involved at their own pace and on project area. more personalized individual training. i have no trouble with multiplication, but i have trouble with the vision. walters challenges to digit multiplication. we should be working on different problem sets at the same time not doing the same work off the same time. that interface has tremendous potential and what i saw that was so encouraging to me is the

teacher's enthusiasms for working with students in using technology at the same time so kids can have more individualized learning platforms. teachers not feeling threatened by that, but instead celebrating accomplishments they can have with their whole class. the class is a range of capabilities. more and more that is why connect ed is so important. the idea we will more and more leverage our teachers with technology. teachers are incredibly important role in kids learning. also learning is going to change. if you think about what we've learned from kyocera and fedex if you make these 10 to 15 minute packet of information testing understanding moving

forward, often teachers learn they will do the lecture portion and through the testing will know they did not get the concept. we have to get in the classroom and work on the concept. everybody understood this concept and we don't need to spend more time. it allows for a much more targeted learning. i am optimistic we are going to get better at the fundamental skills technology has a role to play in helping us do that. not replacing teachers as an aid. >> her. thank you. >> hi catherine mcclellan from the manufacturing institute, partners in manufacturing day. i love hearing how much he talked about that this morning. one of the places i love hearing how businesses are lining the community colleges to make sure the course is are there to meet the skills, but how are you

going to leverage the partnership to make sure there is credit alignment at the community colleges as well? there are very few manufacturing pathways at the community college level currently aligned with academic credit, meaning they are terminal courses. >> someone of the the areas of focus has been the idea of partnering not just of the business later but industry to develop credentials. i know the prt has been focused on getting different business roundtables and working with different industry associations to develop credentialing that is both transferable, well understood in an industry, but also stackable in the sense that you can build upon it were seamless transition to more education. it is an area that needs a lot more attention and frankly where the industry association has a

role to play. not typically the job of an industry association to focus on credentialing. i will bet you guys have an education subcommittee and i bet this is a hot topic and that is where partnering with the community college the american association of community colleges is critical. we have too many one-off credentials. >> i think you had your hand up early. >> good morning. thank you for the marvelous job you are doing. we appreciate that. i'm from peoria illinois. all of your criteria is an urn learn model. my point is that it's taking too long. i've been working for 15 months now. the first cohort of the local community college getting the first in the nation social

degree in soccer development. the barriers and my question is what kind of help he can get from the government to do this. a tremendous misconception. they understand a direct connection between the apprenticeship as a problem. the companies have a lot tends to invest in people. i am telling the companies in that area that is going to take about $90,000 over a three-year period. to invest in these people. you are at a doing now. any training done by industry. community colleges are not quite aware of the change in terms of delivery. >> because you don't committee college, address how to improve apprenticeships in the united states. >> that is one thing the labor department is doing to double

the number of apprenticeships. and to broaden the industries within which apprenticeships are available. this has been a big effort by the department of labor and the department of commerce. the areas. writeback year. he could tell you more about our whole absurd on apprenticeships. >> there's a microphone right next to you. >> good morning. thank you, madam secretary. our historic investment the president asked us to do closes this week. so hurry up and get your applications and. 25 or so innovative models across the country working together in a very huge effort to really blow it out of

traditional paper and we should keep doing it into i.t., health care manufacturing chemist either security. a lot of interest across the country. we are up about 65000 in the last year. regarding increased by 65,000 apprenticeships. >> maybe i can take a look at the institute and get an apprenticeship that the trademark patent office. that is how einstein started. in the way back since i don't want people in the back to feel left out. >> call him arose from the northeast training association. i want to thank you so much for creating the idea of sector strategies. michael porter at the harvard business school has been trying to teach us this for a long time in the rest of the world sort of grabbed hold of it in the united states seems to be not quite as it danced. i want to thank you for that.

my one fear is that we may begin to be driven by only big business and minders and main is the small and medium enterprises higher than most people. so how do we teach small and medium enterprises how to grow within economic program. how we teach them to expand business is to create a need to create jobs. >> well we work with a lot of different business sectors in terms of trying to help them grow. for example i will go back to manufacturing. we have something called the manufacturing extension partnership at the department of commerce where we work with local manufacturers to adopt world-class practices so they can remain globally competitive. we also the department of commerce had the u.s. export center where there's over 100

108 centers around the united states where he worked with companies to determine which markets around the world will be competitive so that they can and we have foreign commercial officers in 75 countries around the world where we help you navigate locally to grow your business. as we say our job is at the department of commerce to create the conditions for businesses to grow so that they will create jobs. we partner with the department of labor in terms of the training. most of the money the grant money comes on the department of labor and what we've done is partner with them to work on the condition for those grand said that their employer led and job driven and so what we are doing is trying to have less and more of a seamless approach to skills

acquisition and training into various tech reason our economy. >> i am trying to do it in the order i saw them and will try to get to you. but it may be time to wrap it up. >> michael petrie at. really appreciate this new program by the commerce department. my question is one thing we hear when i talk with employers if they are very much progressing and wanted to go towards a more diverse workforce but they often don't have the tools they need to diversify their workforce. wondering if any program will include more diversity in industries that have not been traditionally diverse including new american population for non-english speakers to the program as well. >> maybe we will that maureen and jay answer that. >> sure brise in terms of

including diverse populations in the partnership one of the things the secretary mentioned earlier as a lot of these issues are driven locally in one of the things we are looking for in terms of the applications and how we are hoping to work with partnerships within the community if they raise the issues they struggle within their community and rethink how they can work across the business education community organizations, publications and others on how to address that. if this is the real issue the command me how can i come from them that this is an issue they want to work on together and we can facilitate that. >> i would concur. in our experience working with communities, that is where the focus of priorities identified the workforce issues by those communities. the work we do in the native american tribes across the country. they have a very specific set of needs from the rural communities

and urban communities. having them as part of the conversation, having our stuff on the ground gives us the extra sensitivity to address those and be inclusive and diverse in terms of our investments that approaches. the >> had welsh grandson connector. one of the issues we've seen in the work we've been doing his students in stem fields and whatever aren't aware of the opportunities that exist in the workforce, especially students from low income backgrounds. this is a great set of infrastructure you are putting in place but if they build it and they will come approach might not be one that works. arthur and his strategies to ensure students and educators and those who work with them at the secondary level hope to inform students about opportunities to talk about? some of these jobs didn't exist 15 years ago five years ago. >> where is kate?

do you want to talk about the glass door effort and some of the things we're doing, the matching going on, some of the pilot. >> one example, the glass door example we are working on a partnership in eda. jake in a follow-up on the innovation and entrepreneurship program focusing on workforce development as one subcommittee of what it's doing as part of its advisory role to the secretary via eda. a member of the advisory group is working with asp to touch on your question and comment about how to prepare for what are the jobs of the future basically in stem where job growth and an i.t. most people know we don't have a lot of localized data but the supply and demand tickets to her example. we are working with glass door

to look at virginia to obtain some unemployment data to do some matching between the supply side in the demand side. glass door has a treasure trove of information about jobs available ghostly dead in developing a partnership with the state of virginia and obtaining information. who needs jobs, what skills do they have and to develop a demonstration project that we could share with other states. it is early stage, but something that addresses your question about how we are thinking forward about the skills needed for jobs now in going forward. >> linked in is working on a different approach. we are trying to use technology to deal with the supply demand question and equation. >> i'm going to end with a topic that is a future looking topic which is the evolution of the

american workforce seems to have a couple trend accelerated recently. one is young people coming out of the college or career ready from high school are not necessarily join their corporate entities. the affordable care act makes that more possible because you don't need to join a corporate entity. secondly steve k. and the rest have been working with the administration across america to new orleans in a couple of weeks to talk about entrepreneurs and startup in that culture. how do you deal with people not going into traditional paycheck and format. >> we work with incubators and accelerators to help support that whole innovation culture and the hodge premiership culture in the united states which frankly is the envy of the world. there is another country i go to around the world assess how do

we replicate what you've got. what is so exciting to me is we are really doing a lot to elevate and support innovation and not for newer shipped outside of the traditional centers of the silicon valley and ostend, texas, boulder and the efforts like what steve case is doing and what eda is doing to help find a number of these organizations. we are helping entrepreneurs around the united states can access not only to mentorship and training because remember they are going from a business idea into a business plan as to how to create an organization illegally to having to hire people, it better. the whole process is something daunting if you don't come from folks who can help you do that.

so these are centers that are able to help young folks or old folks. it doesn't matter what age you are. just any entrepreneur. it is very exciting what is happening there. the mac i will put in a plug we started this last month who ran one of the incubation at the aspen institute. for-profit and nonprofit entrepreneurs. people want to be social launch partners are entrepreneurs in the dirt because the notion of bringing people together and giving them the skills, giving them the support structure they need a last people to start new enterprises. what about the sport olio. how are we besides the affordable care act up and allow to flourish in america?

>> well i think we are living in the age of the micro-entrepreneurs. think about what technology is allowing to have happen. you can drive goober asked for four hours a day and go to night school for a day school or whatever and be volunteering part of your time. i always love talking to the driver and they are portfolio folks the same is true with bmv. the sharing economy is allowing people to put together a portfolio light and income stream that is something we've never seen. we are a monkey and entrepreneurship in this country in a way that is revolutionary. >> that might be the answer to the questionable technology create jobs or destroy jobs. >> one of my questions is very capturing not in gdp?

>> we are certainly capturing in the countries and eventually the numbers will catch up with us. any final words? >> thank you all very much. [applause] >> thank you all. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> was in kansas, nebraska act was signed in 1854, the very act of signing that just signing that piece of paper was viewed and is there and an act of war. so when northerners decided that of popular sovereignty will decide the fate of kansas, we will send people to saddle. that was viewed as an act of war by many missourians who assumed this would all be theirs. there are rates back and forth across the kansas border almost immediately. in may of 1856, john brown, his son and a couple other followers dragged five men from their

cabins along the miss ito and pottawattamie creek and they were hacked to death with swords. that affect it was clear the area of southern settlers. >> here in topeka if you look at the schools standing outside, you'd be hard-pressed to determine whether white students are african-americans didn't attended because the school board did provide all of the same materials that the white schools offered. what is even more interesting for most people when they come to visit if they find out after graduating from elementary school african-americans didn't attended integrated middle and high schools while they certainly were no supporters of segregation and obviously saw the injustice of having to attend separate elementary schools the african-american community also was proud of their schools because viewers for excellent facilities. while there was support for the idea of integration also

resistant from the teachers and the local chapter of the naacp who feared the loss of the institutions them off of those jobs. >> democratic presidential candidate hillary clinton today called for every police department in the united states to have mandatory police body cameras to improve transparency and accountability. she said america has to come to terms with the truth about injustice in america and she unveiled her plans to overhaul the current criminal justice system. she made the remarks during a speech at columbia university in new york city. this is about half an hour. [cheers and applause] be mac thank you. thank you so much.

i am absolutely delighted to be back here at columbia. i want to thank president bollinger and dean jane l. and everyone at the school of international and public affairs it is a special treat to be here with and on behalf of other great leader of this city and our country comment david dinkins. he has made such an indelible impact on new york and i had the great privilege of working within as first lady and then of course then of course that they knew senator. when i was just starting out as a senator david storr was always open.

he and his wonderful wife, joyce, were great friends and supporters in good sounding boards about ideas that we wanted to consider to enhance the quality of life and opportunity for the people of this city. i was pleased to address the dinkins leadership and public policy forum in my first year as a senator and i so appreciated then as i have in all of the years since david's generosity with his time and most of all his wisdom. so 14 years later i am honored to have this chance once again to help celebrate the legacy of one of new york's greatest public servant. i am pleased that he will have the opportunity after my remarks to hear from such a

distinguished panel, to go into more detail about some of the issues that we face. i also know manhattan borough president, gale brewer is here along with other local and community leaders. because surely this is a time when our collect the vat for to devise approaches to the problems that still afflict us is more important than ever. indeed, it is a time for we've done. for yet again the family of a young black man is grieving a life cut short. yet again, the streets of an american city are marred by violence, by shattered glass and shouts of anger and shows of force. yet again, a community is reeling at fault lines laid there and its bonds of trust and

respect for aid. yet again, brave police officers have been attacked in the line of duty. what we have seen in baltimore should indeed, i think does tear at our sole. from ferguson to staten island to baltimore, the patterns have become unmistakable and undeniable. walter scott shot in the back in charleston, south carolina. unarmed, and dad terrified of spending more time in jail for child support payments he couldn't afford. tamir rice shot in a park in cleveland, ohio. unarmed and just 12 years old. eric turner choked to death after being stopped for selling

cigarettes on the streets of our city. and now freddie gray. his spine nearly severed while in police custody. not only as a mother and grandmother, but as a citizen, a human being, my heart aches for these young men and their families. we have to come to terms with some hard truths about ray's injustice in america. [applause] there is something profoundly wrong when african-american men are still far more likely to be stopped and searched by police, charged with crimes and sentenced to longer prison terms

than are meted out to their white counterparts. there is something wrong when a third of all black men face the press that the prison during their lifetimes. an estimated 1.5 million lachman are quotes missing from their families and communities because of incarceration and premature death. there is something wrong when more than one out of every three young black men in baltimore cannot find a job. there is something wrong when trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve breaks down as far as it has in many of our communities. we have allowed our criminal justice system to get out of balance. in these recent tragedies should

galvanize us to come together as a nation to find our balance again. we should begin by heeding the pleas of freddie gray's family for peace and unity echoing the families of michael brown très von martin and others in the past years. those who are instigating violence in baltimore are deemed the gray family and entire community. they are compounding the tragedy of freddie gray status and setting back the cause of justice for the violence has to stop. more broadly, let's remember everyone in every community benefits when there is respect for the law and whenever one in every community is respect it by the law. [applause]

that is what we have to work towards in baltimore and across our country. we must urgently begin to rebuild the bonds of trust and respect among american. between police and citizens, yes. but also across society. reese tore and trust in our politics, press markets. between and among neighbors and even people with whom we disagree politically. this is so fundamental to who we are as a nation and everything we want to achieve together. it is how we treat each other and what we value. they came impossible for every american to reach his or her god given potential regardless of who you are where you were born for who you'd love to the

inequities that persist in our justice system undermine the shared vision of what america can be and should be. i learned this firsthand as a young attorney out of law school by one of those law schools that will remain nameless at columbia. one of my earliest jobs for the children defense fund which david had mentioned. i was so fortunate to work with marian edelman is a young lawyer in serving on the board of the children defense fund was studying the problem of youth, teenagers, sometimes preteen incarcerated in adult jails. then as director of the university of arkansas school of law's legal aid clinic, i advocated on behalf of present

in a thin poor families. i sigh repeatedly how our legal system can be and all too often a stack against those who have the least power, who are the most vulnerable. i saw how families could be and were torn apart by excessive incarceration. i saw the toll of children growing up in homes shattered by poverty and prison. unfortunately, i know these are not new challenges by any means. in fact they have become more complex and urgent over time. today they demand fresh thinking and bold action from all of us. today there seems to be a growing bipartisan movement for comment since reforms in our criminal justice system.

senators as disparate as cory booker ayn rand paul and dick durbin and mike leigh are reaching across the aisle to find ways to work together. it is rare to see democrats and republicans agree on anything today. but we are beginning to agree on this. we need to restore balance to our criminal justice system. [cheers and applause] it is not enough to agree and give speeches about it. we actually have to work together to get the job done. we need to deliver real reforms that can be on our street and courthouse says in our jails and prisons and communities too long neglected. let me touch on two areas in particular where i believe we need to push for more progress. first, we need smart strategies to fight crime and help restore

trust between law enforcement and communities, especially communities of color. there is a lot of good work to build on. across the country there are so many police officers out there every day in firing trust and confidence, honorably do their duty, putting themselves on the line to save lives. there are police departments deploying creative and effective strategies, demonstrating how we protect the public without resorting to unnecessary force. we need to learn from those examples, build on what works. we can start by making sure federal funds for his date of local law enforced at are used to bolster best practices rather than to buy weapons of war that have no place on our streets. [applause]

president obama's task force on policing gives us a good place to start. its recommendations offer a roadmap for reform from training to technology guided by more and better data. we should make sure every police department in the country has bodied cameras to record interaction between officers on patrol and aspects that will improve transparency and accountability. it will protect good people on both sides of the lens. for every tragedy caught on tape there surely have been many more that remain invisible. not every problem can be ill will be prevented by cameras ,-com,-com ma but this is a commonsense steps we should take. the president has provided the idea of matching funds to state and local governments investing in bodycare minus. we should go further and make this the norm everywhere. we should listen to on for

leaders calling for a renewed focus to prevent crime rather than measuring success by the number of arrests or convictions as your senator from new york, i've supported a greater emphasis on community policing along with putting more officers on the street to get to know those communities. david intends was an early pioneer of this policy. his leadership helped lay the foundation for dramatic drops in crime in the years that followed. [applause] today smart policing and communities that builds relationships, partners and tries make more sense than ever. and it shouldn't be limited just to officers on the heat.

it is an aspect that should extend throughout the criminal justice system to prosecutors and parole officers two judges of lawmakers. we all share responsibility to help research the fabric of our neighborhoods and communities. we also have to be honest about the gaps that exist across our country, the inequality that stocks are street because you cannot talk about smart policing and reforming the criminal justice system if you also don't talk about what is needed to provide economic opportunity better educational chances for young people. more support to families to do the best job they are capable of doing to help support their own children. today i saw an article on the front page of "usa today" that really struck me written by a journalist who lives in

baltimore. here is what i read three times to make sure i was reading colette ali. at a conference in 2013 at johns hopkins university vice provost jonathan bagger pointed out six miles separate the baltimore neighborhood of roland park and hollins market. but there is a 20 year difference in the average lasix can see. we have learned in the last few years that life expectancy which is a measure of the quality of life in communities and countries manifest the same inequality we see in so many other parts of our society.

women white women without high school education are losing lasix actin fee. black men and black women are seeing their life expected the go down in so many parts of our country. this may not grab headlines, although i was glad to see it on the front page of "usa today." it tells us more than i think we can bear about what we are up against. we need to start understanding how important it is to care for every single child as though the child were our own. david and i -- [applause] started our conversation this morning talking about her grandchildren. his are considerably older than mine. but it was not just to longtime

friends catching up with each other. it was so clearly sharing what is most important to us as it is to families everywhere in our country. so i don't want the discussion about criminal justice thomas mark policing to be silo and to permit discussion and argument and debate about it to only talk about that. the conversation needs to be much broader because that is a symptom not a cause of what ails us today. the second area where we need to chart a new course is how we approach punishment in prison. it is a stark fact that the united states has less than 5% of the worlds population. yet we have almost 25% of the

worlds total prison population. the numbers today are much higher than they were dirty, 40 years ago despite the fact crime is at historic lows. of the more than 2 million americans incarcerated today, a significant percentage are low-level offenders. people held for violating parole for minor drug crimes or simply awaiting trial in a clogged courts, keeping them behind bars does little to reduce crime, but it does a lot to tear apart families and communities. ..

roughly 60% face long-term unemployment. and for all this taxpayers are paying about $80 billion a year to keep so many people in prison. the price of incarcerating a single inmate is often more than $30,000 per year, and up to 60,000 in some states. that's the salary of a teacher or a police officer. one year in a new jersey state prison costs or $4000 more than the annual tuition at princeton.

if the united states brought our correctional expenditures back in line with where they were several decades ago we would save an estimated $28 billion the year. and i believe we would not be less safe. you can put a lot of police officers and nurses and others with $28 million to help us deal with the pipeline issues. it's time to change our approach. it's time to end the era of mass incarceration. we need a true national debate about how to reduce our prison population while keeping our communities safe. i don't know all the answers. that's why i'm here to ask all those more people at columbia and the new york to start thinking this through with me. i know we should work together to pursue alternative punishment for low-level offenders.

they do have to be in some way registered in the criminal justice system but we don't want that to be a fast-track to long-term criminal activity. we don't want to create another and incarceration generation. i've been encouraged to see changes are supported as a senator to reduce the unjust federal sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine crimes finally become law. and last year that sentencing commission reduced recommended prison terms for some drug crimes. president obama and former attorney general holder have led the way with important additional steps, and i am so looking forward to our new attorney general loretta lynch carrying of this work forward. [applause] there are other measures that i and so many have championed to

reform arbitrary mandatory minimum sentences that are long overdue. we also need probation and drug diversion programs to deal swiftly with violations while allowing low-level offenders who stay clean and stay out of trouble, to stay out of prison. i've seen the positive effects of specialized drug courts and juvenile programs work to the betterment of individuals and communities. and please please let us put mental health back on the top of our national agenda. [applause] you and i know that the promise of the institutionalizing those in mental health facilities was supposed to be followed by the

creation of community-based treatment centers. we got half of that equation but not the other half. our prisons and our jails are now our mental health institutions. i have to tell you, i was somewhat surprised in both iowa and new hampshire to be asked some questions about mental health. what are they going to do with people who need help for substance abuse or mental illness? wantwhat are they going to do when the remaining facilities are being shut down for budget reasons? what are they going to do when hospitals don't really get reimbursed for providing the kind of emergency care that is needed for mental health patients? it's not just a problem in our

cities. there's a quiet epidemic of substance abuse sweeping small town and rural america as well. we have to do more and finally get serious about treatment. i'll be talking about all of this in the months to come offering new solutions to protect and strengthen our families and communities. i know in a time when we are afflicted by short-termism we are not looking over the horizon for the investments that we need to make in our fellow citizens in our children. so i'm well aware that progress will not be easy despite the energy bipartisan consensus for certain reforms. and that we will have to overcome deep divisions and try to begin to replenish our depleted reservoirs of trust.

but i am convinced, as a congenital optimist i must be to live my life that we can rise to this challenge. we can heal our wounds. we can restore balance to our justice system and respect in our communities. and we can make sure that we take actions that are going to make a difference in the lives of those who, for too long, have been marginalized and forgotten. let's protect the rights of all our people. let's take on a broader inequities in our society. we can't separate the unrest we see on our streets from the cycles of poverty and despair at how low out those neighborhoods. despite all the progress we've made in our country lifting people up him and it has been

extraordinary too many of our fellow citizens are still left out. 25 years ago in his inaugural address as mayor, david dinkins warned of leaving too many lost amidst the wealth and grandeur that surrounds us. today, his words and emotion behind them ring truer than ever. you don't have to look too far from this magnificent hall to find children still living in poverty are trapped in failing schools, families who work hard but can't afford rising prices in their neighborhoods, mothers and fathers who fear for their sons and safety when they go off to school or just to go buy a pack of skittles. these challenges are all woven together, and they almost be tackled together.

our goal must truly be inclusive and lasting prosperity that's measured by how many families get ahead and stay ahead. how many children climb out of poverty and stay out of prison. how many young people can go to college without breaking the bank. how many new immigrants can start small businesses. how many pairs can get good jobs that allow them to balance the demands of work and family. that's how we should measure prosperity. [applause] with all due respect that is a far better measurement than the size of the bonuses handed out in downtown office buildings. [applause] now, even in the most painful times like those we're seeing in baltimore when parents fear for their children when smoke fills

the skies above our cities when police officers are assaulted, even then come especially then, let's remember the aspirations and values that unite us all that every person should have the opportunity to succeed that no one is disposable, that every life matters. so yes, mayor dinkins, this is a time for wisdom, a time for honesty about race and justice in america, and yes, a time for reform. david dinkins is a leader we can look to. we know what he stood for. let us take the challenge and example he presents and think about what we must do to make sure that this country we love, the city we live in are both

good and great. and please join me in saying a prayer for the family of freddie gray ed haldeman whose names we know -- and all the men whose names we know those we don't, who lost their lives unnecessarily and tragically. and in particular today include in that prayer the people of baltimore and our beloved country. thank you all very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> the u.s. senate should be gaveling back in shortly to resume consideration of the iranian nuclear negotiations oversight bill. they been in a joint meeting with the house to hear from japanese prime minister shinzo abe, but that is wrapped up in we expect the senate to gavel back in shortly. the house as well. follow the house on c-span and the senate on c-span2. yesterday debate debate continued on an amendment to the iranian to include one by ron johnson of wisconsin introduced as an inimitable declared a nuclear deal with iran a treaty subject to the advice and consent of the senate. it ultimately failed 39-57 but we'll show you some of the debate on that as we would for the senate to gavel back in.

>> mr. president, i would like to speak to this amendment. >> the senator from wisconsin is recognized. >> mr. president this deal that the administration is involved in making with iran has serious implications for not only america's long-term financial security but really the peace and security of the world. it is true that at this point in time nobody knows what really is in the deal. we certainly have been given a framework in terms of what the deal is supposed to be but what we do know is even within that framework as it has been described to the american public, there's some serious discrepancies in terms the way this administration has typified the framework of a deal and what the ayatollah in iran having described the deal. for example according to our

president compensation will only be lifted once iran has complied with the major components of the agreement. according to the ayatollah those sanctions will be lifted immediately. that's a big discrepancy. according to this administration we will have the right to inspect to ensure verification and accountability of any agreement. but the ayatollah disagrees with that. the ayatollah certainly says that there will be no inspections on military sites. now, if we want to enter into this agreement to prevent iran from creating a nuclear weapon, surely we should have the right to inspect the military sites. another pretty serious discrepancies in terms of the administration's idea our understanding of what this framework is versus the ayatollahs, what's going to happen with the 10,000 kilograms

of enriched uranium. according to this administration those will be shipped out of the country, not available for any kind of nuclear program. according to the ayatollah no way, it will stay in a rented those are some major discrepancies in terms of what this agreement is all about the types of discrepancies they need to be certainly fully vetted by the american people need to understand what that is. there's also been some real deceptions about this agreement. for example, we've heard repeatedly in hearings that this administration will insist that any, any agreement will ensure that the nuclear program within iran will be for peaceful purposes. i just have to point out that there is no peaceful purpose for iran to have nuclear enrichment. if they want peaceful nuclear power, they can certainly do what a number of other countries that have peaceful nuclear power they can purchase that uranium fuel, that nuclear fuel from outside countries.

the only reason iran would subject themselves to the sanctions, to the isolation to the economic harm to their economy and to the people is because they want nuclear weapons to blackmail the region and the world. and, of course this administration talks about snapback of sanctions. that's deceptive. because once -- >> senator johnson on his amendment yesterday. we leave this don't take you back live to the senate floor as they gavel in for more debate on the iranian negotiations oversight bill.

a senator: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you mr. president. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you mr. president. i have ten unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have been -- they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders and i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. barrasso: thank you mr. president. mr. president, i come to the floor today because i noticed that the minority leader, the senator from nevada, had some nice things to say about me on monday in his remarks. he said that i was -- quote -- " relentless in my condemnation of obamacare." those are his words. well i appreciate the minority leader's kind remarks because he's right. as a doctor, i am relentless in my condemnation of the president's health care law a law that has done incredible harm to so many people all across this country. now, the minority leader reid also said that he had the facts about the law. most of those facts seem to come from a "new york times" opinion column by a the renowned liberal icon paul krugman. let me share some real facts with the minority leader. the insurance plans offered in the health care exchanges are so

expensive that they are a terrible deal for most americans. that's why that's why the president had to give out subsidies to help hide the costs. the congressional budget office says that washington will spend $850 billion on those subsidies over the next decade. that is a fact. accordingly a new study by the health research company avalaire obamacare plans are extremely unpopular among people who don't get the huge subsidies to buy the plans. only 2% of the people who don't qualify for subsidies have actually bought insurance through the exchanges. that's a fact. and it's an alarming sign of how high the cost of obamacare really is. it's not just the premiums that are sky-high. this year the average deductible the deductible for

obamacare silver plan is almost $3,000 for a single person and more than $6,000 for a family. now, that's according to something called health pocket which is a web site that helps people actually compare insurance plans. that's a fact. and $6,000 is a lot of money for a hardworking family to pay for their deductible. now, the minority leader said that paul krugman's opinion should be treated like facts not as facts but like facts because as senator reid said, this isn't some high school teacher talking about the merits of obamacare. well i agree on that point. high school teachers are far more likely to have had actual experience with the damages done by the obama health care law than has had "new york times" columnist. that's what we learned from a report at kmox tv in st. louis on april 23. their report talked about the

parkway school district in missouri. senator reid said this isn't some high school teacher. well this report from st. louis said that obamacare is forcing the school district to outsource the employment of substitute teachers. why would they want to do that? well it's in the face of a $4 million penalty for not offering health insurance to the part-time teachers. that's a fact. and those substitute teachers are real people who are being hurt by president obama's health care law. here's another fact reported by "politico" on monday afternoon. this was the headline april 27. study, a.c.a., affordable act, change in enrollees take tax hit. according to a study by the tax preparers at h & r block almost two-thirds of people enrolled in obamacare exchanges had to pay back some of their subsidy with

their taxes this month. the average amount people owed the i.r.s., $729. that's a fact. and it's a big hit to a lot of families who thought that they were going to get help to pay for their obamacare premiums. doesn't even count the people who decided that the insurance was just too expensive and decided not to buy it. according to h. and r block those people paid the i.r.s. an average tax penalty of $178. that's a fact. and it's only going to be higher next year when people sit down and fill out their taxes then. now, i remember another speech that senator reed gave on the floor about obamacare. february 26, 2014, he said "despite all that good news, there's plenty of horror stories being told." he said, "and all of them," he said, "are untrue." that was senator reed a year ago.

republicans have been citing -- this is senator reed -- "republicans have been citing examples of people being harmed by obamacare and senator reed said that all of them were 'stories made up from whole cloth.' well here's a story from the minority leader's home state newspaper, nevada, very recently. this was an article earlier this month, "las vegas review journal" april 7. the headline was "past state obamacare sign-up glitches haunt nevadans at tax time." "past state obamacare sign-up glitches now haunt nevadans at tax time." here's what the article says. it says, "how did a reno collections agent end up in collections himself? the answer, he bought coverage in the 2014 through the state's health insurance exchange." according to this article rick

first is still ironing out wrinkles in a plan purchased in may through the nevada health link and its contractor, xerox. his cascade of issues has included bad coverage dates unpaid medical bills and an incorrect tax credit form. this man told the las vegas newspaper, my credit was excellent and now my credit is shot. my credit was excellent and now my credit is shot. does senator reid think that this man from his home state of nevada made up his story out of whole cloth? people are having their lives turned upside-down by the disgraceful failure of this obamacare exchange. that's a fact. and it is a cruel and costly side effect of this terrible health care law. now, paul krugman, "new york times," he didn't talk about that fact in his opinion column in "the new york times" the other day. another thing that he and the

minority leader aren't talking about is the fact that many americans now have less access to actual care because of the health care law. well, they should have known about that fact. it was reported right there in "the new york times" itself sunday, february 8 2015 with a headline "insured but not covered." "new policies have many americans scrambling." the article talked about the narrow networks many insurance plans had to create. this was to try to meet the requirements of obamacare without the premiums going even higher. the story starts off by talking about one woman in new york city her name is karen pinneman. first she lost her existing health insurance policy because it didn't meet all of the mandates that president obama said a health insurance policy had to include. now, the president calls them -- these benefits essential benefits. i call them excessive benefits.

it's much more insurance than many people need, want or can afford. so the article in "the new york times" says that she accepted that she'd have to pay a higher premium for a plan with a narrower network of providers and no out-of-network coverage. according to the article she also accepted the fact that she would have to pay out of pocket pay out of her own pocket to see her primary care physician because her doctor wasn't part of the narrow network that was now covered under her insurance. well she even accepted having co-pays of nearly $1,800 to put a cast on her ankle after she broke it playing tennis. finally, the article says, her frustration finally bubbled over when she tried to arrange a follow-up visit with her orthopedic surgeon. the nearest doctor available in her network who treated ankle problems was in stam ford, connecticut. now, remember, she lives in new york city.

this woman finally had enough and she told the newspaper, she said "it's ridiculous. didn't they even notice that i was in another state?" well that woman is reported in the new york -- that woman as reported in "the new york times," did not make up her story out of whole cloth. those kinds of narrow networks are a fact under president obama's law. it's a fact that there are people who now have coverage and can't have access to care. and there is a difference between coverage and care. and you don't have to take my word for it. it's right there in "the new york times." so the minority leader is correct republicans have been relentless in condemning the horrifying costs of the president's health care law. republicans have been relentless in condemning the intolerable damage that the health care law has done to people's access to health care. republicans will continue to be relentless because this health care law has been bad for patients, it's been bad for

providers, and it has been terrible for american taxpayers. republicans will continue to come to the floor to offer the facts about how the health care law has harmed american families. we will continue to offer solutions that deliver the real reform people have been asking for all along. the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. 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 florida. mr. nelson: mr. president, if the senator from iowa is intending to speak -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. nelson: mr. president i ask consent the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: if the senator from iowa is intending to speak this senator will only use about five minutes. so -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: thank you. mr. president, i wanted to come and embrace this package that

the senate foreign relations has brought forth to the floor. first of all, it is much needed bipartisanship which has been shown on the committee. that is a very good thing. given the fact that we've had so many contentious and divisive issues. but secondly, what it does is set up a process by which the congress would express its approval or disapproval with regard to a future agreement that may be made between iran and the united states to prevent iran from building a nuclear weapon. so first is the process by which we would express that vote, and then if the agreement is

concluded by the end of june, the actual vote on whether or not sanctions under the agreement should be lifted. so it is a two-step process and it is often confuseed. -- confused. that is why it is important to keep this committee bill clean and as i have already expressed to the chairman of the foreign relations committee on the floor of the senate two or three days ago, it is this senator's intention that all of the amendments which generally have a deleterious effect and that are generally considered poison pill amendments, this senator will oppose them, and it's my understanding that the leadership of the foreign relations committee will likewise oppose those

amendments. then i might say assuming that this legislation is passed and we have this process in place and the president has said he will sign it into law if the framework as announced a few weeks ago by the president is fleshed out in the final details of the agreement and those details by the end of june reflect what the framework of the agreement has been announced, it is this senator's intention to support the agreement. and i do that very simply on what is in the best interests of the united states. if in fact, this agreement

once completed if the framework is fleshed out prevents iran from developing a nuclear weapon for at least a ten-year period -- and there are other 15 and 20 and 25-year period benchmarks in the framework. but if they are prevented from developing a nuclear weapon within ten years and that we know there is a regime in place in order to detect that so that we have the verification and that because of the verification we have at least a year's advance notice so that appropriate action could be taken, if all of that is included within the agreement

it is this senator's intention that i will support the agreement. why? because if we can keep iran from having a nuclear weapon for ten years at least the world is going to be a very different place in ten years. and what we will have done as a country is prevented iran from going ahead and developing a nuclear weapon now of which we would have to face those consequences with possible military action. i do not shy away from supporting military action. if that is necessary to prevent a nuclear weapon from being developed. but we also -- if we have a path

to achieving the same thing doing it diplomatically and having the guarantee of at least ten years if not 15 and 20, then that seems to be in the interests of the united states to this senator. i want to clearly state where this senator's coming from. i happen to think that that's in israel's interests as well. the interests of the united states and israel are inextricably entwined when it comes to the defense of that little democracy that is a beacon of democracy in that part of the world. i have some familiarity with the integration and the sharing of our military forces as well as

our intelligence apparatus. and it is clearly in the interests of the united states that we see that israel security is protected. from what i see of the framework of this agreement if fleshed out, then i think that's in the interests of our country. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mrs. ernst: mr. president i would ask unanimous consent to speak for up to ten minutes. mr. president, i rise today to stress the importance of ensuring nuclear negotiations with iran, to preserve our national interests and our security. one that protects the security of our allies and partners in the region and maintains peace

and stability in the world. as a member of the iowa army national guard and serving on the armed services committee here in the senate, i am focused on strengthening our national security developing strategies to confront terrorism and discuss ways to support our exceptional military. while i believe iran's long-term goal is developing nuclear weapons, its most effective line of effort against us and our allies has been through its unwavering support of terrorism. the obama administration should only accept a final deal which prohibits sanctions relief until iran abandons its support of terrorism. providing iran with sanctions relief would only enhance their opportunity to fund proxy groups which threaten our israeli allies and whose activities have

led to horrible consequences to millions of people in syria iraq and yemen. while the obama administration has been seemingly eager to relieve sanctions in an effort to convince iran to sign a nuclear deal, congress cannot stand by and watch as a deal is negotiated that paves the way for iran to obtain nuclear weapons. we must take a step back and examine their actions and it is absolutely crucial we understand who is on the other side of the negotiating table. iran continues to be the world's lead sponsor of terrorism and supporter of syrian president bashar al-assad who is responsible for killing hundreds and thousands of his own people creating the gravest humanitarian crisis in modern history and who facilitates the

continueed rise of extremism and sectarianism across the region. iran has shown unwavering support of terrorism and has aligned themselves with groups that are hostile to the united states our allies, and partners in the region. in fact, iran continues to fund groups that threaten our israeli allies who are very concerned about iran amassing nuclear capabilities and the direct threat they pose to the region. after this long-standing pattern of behavior, i do not believe we can trust iran will curb its ambitions or support terrorist activity on their own. despite any agreement that iranian president aranee may agreed to, i think that iran's supreme leader, ayatollah

khomeini will pursue his policy of working to obtain a nuclear weapon and will use funds obtained through prematurely ending sanctions as well as to support terrorists. iran's more than a quarter century long effort to obtain a nuclear weapon will not subside overnight. it is a faulty assumption to trust that tehran is on the side of rule of law. iran has a very troublesome track record when it comes to deception, when it comes to compliance and trustworthiness which is why we need a deal that ensures america and the world's ability to verify and enforce any agreement with iran. this includes complete and open access at any time to all of iran's facilities, to hold them

true to their word and to verify their actions. we must also have the proper enforcement mechanism in place so that any broken promise garners an appropriate and immediate response. this accountability can be enforced through renewed and strengthening congressional sanctions, sanctions have been effective in the past and we must keep this option on the table. in fact, these sanctions are what brought iran to the negotiation table in the first place, so we must not be too quick to suspend them. the ever-increasing and complex threats we face in the middle east underscores how crucial it is that any long-standing agreement with iran must go through congress. this enables the american people to have a voice. congressional review is supported by a bipartisan majority of my colleagues, and

a majority of americans. it's common sense. we must have more oversight of this process and the opportunity for thoughtful consideration to ensure we have been very clear about our demands and the framework of any final agreement. there is no doubt the administration shares my concern, and the concern of many of my colleagues regarding the hundreds of thousands of syrians who have been murdered with barrel bombs sarin gas indiscriminate shellings of cities and in prisons or millions more who have been forced to flee their homes. we must stop iran from supporting this criminal regime which has helped engulf the region. sanctions relief without ensuring funds would not go to assad or to terrorist groups such as hezbollah which is key to the survival of the regime, would do nothing to help achieve

a favorable political or military solution in syria. with that in mind, i cosponsored the iran nuclear agreement review act which has bipartisan support and is before the senate today. this legislation embraces fundamental and core principles that lay the foundation for a good deal with iran. this deal ensures congressional review of a final agreement. it demands that no congressional sanctions be lifted during the review period, and it safeguards congressional oversight of iranian compliance. this bill is a good starting point, and i want to praise the good work by the chairman of the committee for continuing to push for congressional review. our ultimate goal hub to curb all iranian terror and this will

never happen if we do not confront and contain iran's nuclear ambitions. i believe a final deal which does not address iran's support of terrorism and other groups which subvert recognized governments is not in the best interests of our nation, and an agreement without these assurances will miss an opportunity to provide stability in this region. in closing the bottom line is that iran must never be allowed to develop a single nuclear weapon. not now or at any point in the future. a nuclear iran presents one of the greatest threats to peace and stability in our time, and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

is quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. cardin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i ask consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: mr. president i thought i would take this time -- i know that senator corker is at a lunch with some of our colleagues and is going over some of the issues concerning how we're going to move forward but i thought i would take this time to at least go over for our members that we're working very hard to try to resolve some of the amendments that members want to offer. i must point out there have been no requests on the democratic side for amendments, so i know

senator corker is a little bit more busy than i am trying to work with the number of amendments that have been filed by the republican colleagues, but we're trying to go through those amendments, see if there is a way consistent with the purpose of the bill that we can work out language that would accomplish what the author of the amendment is attempting to accomplish but consistent with the purpose of the bill to make sure that we have an orderly way to review any agreement reached between the united states and our negotiating partners and iran on its nuclear weapon program, and that we get timely notice from the administration in regards to material breaches so that we can take action to be prevent iran from becoming a nuclear weapon state. there is also provisions in the bill that provide notification by the administration and important information so that we can do our work. so within the context of what we're trying to do, we'll take a look at these amendments and we're trying to see whether we can work our way forward in

order to move this bill in the same method that it moved through the senate foreign relations committee as the presiding officer knows we worked together to try to get that accomplished. i might point out we start add debate yesterday and we're going 0 continue it. senator barrasso has brought forward an amendment that he wants to get pending that would change the certification requirements. we're trying to work a way in which we'll be able to take that issue up before the full senate. senator corker and i are trying to resolve that issue as to how we can bring that forward. but let me take a moment -- i explained it yesterday -- to just explain to all of our members that changing the certification requirement -- and the certification requirement is the president has to certify on a regular basis that iran is in compliance basically with the agreement. if he can't do that, then we get into an expedited process for imposing sanctions to take action against iran.

so there are a lot of amendments that have been filed. they're not pending -- that have been filed that would require additional certifications by the administration. and if the administration can't make those,s is, there is an expedited process. now, the problem with going beyond the terms of the nuclear agreement on any of those certifications is that it affects the bill itself. that's why we call them poison pills. i want to try to explain that because senator barrasso's amendment dealt with a certification that iran was not involved in terrorism against the united states or any of our citizens but there are several other amendments that have been filed that would change the certification requirements so that the president would have to make those certifications or it could trigger expedited procedures. why do we call those poison pills? first of all it changes the balance of what we're trying to do. and it is highly unlikely that we're going to be able to get that bill to the president for his signature for it does, it

will compromise what we are trying to do and we're not going to be able to get a bill done. we're going to lose the bill. we're going to lose the opportunity for the committees to consider, to get the information, to have the period of time where we get -- a review process where the administration cannot exercise its waiver power for additional sanction he -- -- sanction relief. that you will et goes lost. it is really counterproductive. the second consequence that it could do, if this is in the bill and the president can't make the certification, it's very likely we're never going to get an agreement. therefore, what we're doing is the united states would be accused of walking away of true i.g. to get an agreement with iran. we would be isolated and our chances of preventing iran from becoming a nuclear weapon state becomes that much less. the third reason why these amendments are really problematic and are problem pills deals with the fact that it becomes a negotiating objective for the united states.

these are good objectives. we want iran not to be -- sponsor terrorism. it is certainly something that is part of our policies. but we make it a negotiating objective, then the administration has to achieve that in order to prevent sanctions from going into effect or in order to achieve our objective. that makes it much more difficult to achieve the primary objective. the primary objective is to stop iran from become ago nuclear weapon state. so although these amendments are well-intended, they have the consequences of just the opposite of making it less likely that we're going to prevent iran from become ago nuclear weapon state. the same thing is true on any certification. one of the amendments that have been filed would say that we have to certify that iran recognizes israel's rights to its own sovereignty. i support -- i want iran to recognize israel's own sovereignty. and we've put into this bill very strong language to make it

clear that israel's security is of prime concern to us. it is in the bill. but if we headache it make it a certification requirement think about this for moment, it means that our negotiators are going to have to figure out a way something they don't want to do. and what are they going to put on the table in regards to international recognition? it distracts us from our objective to prevent iran from become ago nuclear weapon state. which is critically important to the security of israel. so these amendments do just the opposite of what they're intended to do. i mention that because we are trying to move forward with this legislation. i hope we can do it very quickly and we can find a path forward and we're going to try to accommodate the fair considerations of these amendments. but i would just urge my colleagues take a look at your amendments work with senator corker work with me, let's see whether we can accommodate within the framework of the

legislation your concerns and then we can do what the senate foreign relations committee was able to do, a 19-0 vote -- 19-0 vote. it makes the senate much stronger it makes the united states much stronger when we can come together on these amendments. our objective is to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear weapon state. the best way for us to do that is to speak with a united voice and the type of work that we did in a bipartisan manner. mr. president, i can tell you this: the people of maryland, the people of this country want us to work together. they want us to resolve issues. the senate foreign relations committee was able to do that. i would just urge my members who have filed amendments to work with us so we can find a way forward to make sure this bill remains intact. it gives the congress a best chance for an orderly review of the process. it gives us the tools we need to

make america's position even stronger to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear weapon state. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. perdue: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. perdue: i ask the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. perdue: mr. president you rise to speak in favor of the iran nuclear agreement review act. first, i want to commend my colleague, senator corker, and senator cardin, for their leadership of this important bipartisan legislation. because of their crucial leadership the foreign relations committee recently passed this bill unanimously in a 19-0 vote. one thing that is so important to remember as we debate this bill is that without this legislation, we would not have a say at all on the president's nuclear deal with iran. now, i'll be the first to say that an international agreement of this mag magnitude should probably have been considered the same as a treaty, but unfortunately, the president chose to completely circumvent congress in this process. the senate foreign relations committee, of which i am a member did all we could to ensure that the american people, by way of congress, get a say in this deal if we let the perfect

become the enemy of the good, however, and fail to pass this bill the president will be able to go ahead and implement any and all aspects of a nuclear deal with iran. this bill prevents the president from having a total free hand with regard to this potential deal with iran. and from permanently -- or, i'm sorry, prematurely lifting sanctions. this lifting of sanctions would mean that, according to c.r.s., an estimated $130 billion in sanctions would start flowing to iran. sanctions relief. that's more than iran's entire annual defense budget. imagine what they could do with over $is $100 billion mr. president. they could continue to fund terrorism. they could continue to prop up assad's regime in syria. they could continue to fuel the houthi rebellion in yemen. and, yes first fund development of their nuclear weapons program. congress passed the very

sanctions credited with bringing iran to the table and i firmly believe that congress should play a role in any decision to lift those sanctions. while the president may be able to waive captions sanctions on iran later this year, permanent sanction relief are only come from congress. my colleagues and i still have many questions about this deal. and we must take this opportunity to get a period of congressional review so we can get answers to these questions and prevent the president from prematurely lifting sanctions. we're truly facing a global crisis and the world is watching. as prime minister netanyahu recently said before congress, a nuclear deal with iran is not just a threat to middle east security, it's not just a threat to u.s. security, it's a threat indeed to global security. there is no scenario in which a nuclear iran would be anything but catastrophic.

indeed a nuclear iran would spark a wave of proliferation in the middle east and potentially worldwide. and if we don't like iran's behavior today imagine what their actions will be like if they have a nuclear weapon with the missiles to deliver them. under no circumstances mr. president, can we allow iran to become a nuclear weapon state, not now not in ten years, not ever. thank you mr. president. with that, i yield the floor and 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 new hampshire. ms. ayotte: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. ayotte: thank you mr. president. mr. president, before i speak on the pending legislation, i would like to take a few moments to recognize the exceptional service and the extraordinary life of rockingham county high sheriff michael downing of salem, new hampshire. he's someone who passed away recently following a battle with cancer. he's a personal friend. and when i served as attorney general of the state of new hampshire, i admired so much his public service in our state legislature, both as a member of

the house of representatives and the state senate. his incredible service to law enforcement both not only as sheriff but also in the state police. sheriff downing was a knowledgeable, respected compassionate public safety professional. he was a problem solver. he was an incredible member of the community. and he was one of a kind. everyone who interacted with mike downing came away feeling better about themselves and feeling that they really had met someone who wanted to make a difference in the lives of people in new hampshire. mike was raised in salem and he attended st. joseph's school graduated from the salem high school in 1972. he served our country in the united states army in the airborne division, so his service began early in his life. and after that he began after he served in the army he began a long career in the state not

only as a new hampshire state trooper but someone who served at the salem police department. and, again as i mentioned, in the state senate, in the house of representatives in new hampshire and in fact, in the state senate he was the senate minority leader. in 2010 when he returned to law enforcement as -- elected as the high sheriff of rockingham county everyone who interacted with mike knew that he had the protection of the people of ham hanl -- of new hampshire at his heart and he showed that every single day by the respect that he showed the people of new hampshire, the work that he did to get the bad guys off the streets in new hampshire and the impact that he had on the community. most recently he was honored as the 2015 recipient of the chief john ganley community service award, which is presented to an individual who has exhibited concern, involvement and leadership in the community of salem while providing

inspiration to others through his or her dedication, integrity and courage in the manner exemplified by chief ganley himself during his time on earth. sheriff downing leaves behind a wonderful, wonderful family. he leaves behind a legacy of service. my thoughts and prayers go out to his wife heidi and their five children jennifer, jessica caitlin, kelsey and michael along with six grandchildren charlotte, bella jacob logan t.j. and max. and also his parents delbert and theresa downing. we are all deeply saddened by the loss of our friend mike an extraordinary man a proud new hampshire son who served our nation and served our state with honor, distinction integrity and dedication. he represented the very best of our state the very best of law enforcement and i join my

colleagues that i had the privilege of serving with when i was attorney general, law enforcement throughout the state in sending our condolences to the downing family. the legacy that mike left for the state of new hampshire and for our country will not be forgotten. and, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that my full statement regarding michael downing be entered at an appropriate place in the record separate from the comments i am about to make about the pending legislation. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. ayotte: thank you mr. president. mr. president, i would like to talk about the important legislation that we have pending right now on the senate floor. i do not see a greater threat to our security interests in this country than a nuclear armed iran. and our national security interests require a permanent

and verifiable end to iran's nuclear weapons program. and so today i come to the floor to support the legislation that i was proud to be an original cosponsor of that will ensure that congress has review of this agreement, if there is an agreement, reached with the iranians and that we will have a voice on this agreement. because without congress' involvement in this, i believe that it would be a huge disservice to the american people to not have their elected representatives weigh in on such an important matter. and what matters most is is this agreement one that is transparent, verifiable and will actually end their nuclear program? because the contract of iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. we cannot give one of the most

dangerous regimes in the world "the" most dangerous weapon. iran has described the united states of america as the great satan. iran has said that it wants to annihilate or wipe out the state of israel. iran is a country that is supporting terrorist groups around the world. and we can only imagine the devastation that could be wrought if iran gets a nuclear weapon. and so the stakes could not be any greater with what is happening right now with the administration negotiating with this regime one that is not one that we can trust unfortunately. and so the terms of this agreement matter. and the elected representatives of this country need to have a vigorous debate about this agreement in the congress and we need to make sure that it's not an agreement that allows them to continue their march toward a

nuclear weapon. some of the information that's been released so far about the framework that the administration has put together have raised a number of red flags about where in the agreement is going and it is my hope that this legislation passing will ensure that congress is able to review the agreement to make sure that it is one that ends their nuclear weapon. but some of the concerns i already see with the framework agreement suggest that the administration is moving in a direction that would not fully force iran to dismantle its nuclear infrastructure nor require iran to address its long history of deception regarding its nuclear program. including long-term questions about the program's military aspects. it also, the framework that has been released, would not address iran's support for terrorism

its intercontinental ballistic missile program nor its stated desire to wipe israel off the map. in order to ensure that we have an agreement that would end iran's nuclear program and hold them accountable we cannot have a situation where iran keeps so much of its infrastructure and can then run up to a nuclear weapon or walk to it instead of running to it. even worse as we look at the framework of this agreement, you know and the inspection framework of what the agreement would require we cannot have an agreement that does not allow unlimited inspection of iran's nuclear program at any time, unannounced. because this is a regime that's not a trustworthy regime, and yet, as i look at the terms of the framework that the administration has announced it seems like we have a "mother

may i?" approach to asking iran whether we should go in and inspect their facilities. well, that's going to be unacceptable. we need to ensure that the terms of this agreement if reached make sure that we can show up any time anywhere, at any time, without notice to iran to inspect their facilities to make sure that they are adhering to the terms of agreement. in short the framework of this agreement that's been released by the administration suggests that this potential deal could eliminate hard-fought sanctions that we worked together on in this congress on a bipartisan basis, economic sanctions that brought iran to the table which would take years to restore. in return for concessions that have only reversed iran's program by days or weeks. iran would retain a massive

nuclear infrastructure and they don't seem to be answering the tough questions about their support for terrorism or their missile program. iran's activities during these negotiations in supporting terrorism have continued. as their diplomats sit at the negotiating table and smile for the cameras their government continues to support terrorist organizations like hezbollah provide arms and funding to the murderous assad regime in syria that has murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people. it has continued to destabilize yemen. it has been imprisoning innocent americans and developing an intercontinental ballistic missile whose obvious purpose is to potentially deliver a nuclear weapon to the united states of america. i intend to offer an amendment to the pending legislation that

will address iran's icbm program because one of the concerns i have is that there doesn't seem to be any mention in these negotiations of iran's development of icbm capability that the could be the delivery mechanism to deliver a nuclear weapon to hit the united states of america. and i will offer that to say to this administration that this issue needs to be on the table that we need to not only stop their nuclear program but we need to stop iran's icbm program, which some of our intelligence estimates have been that that program could be successful as as soon as as the end of this year. that's the testimony we've heard in the armed services committee and so there's real urgency that we stop not only their nuclear weapon also their support for terrorism and their work on an

icbm that could deliver harm very grave harm, to our country. in fact, in february iran has actually successfully launched a long-range missile system and used a space launch that could be a potential manner in which they would deliver a nuclear weapon -- a nuclear weapons capability to our country. and so this is a real concern that we address their missile program in the context of this agreement. in fact, on january 29 of 2014 the director of national intelligence,if james clapper testified that we judge iran would choose a ballistic missile as its preferred method of delivering nuclear weapons capability. and one of the real important issues that we need to debate and address when it comes to their state sponsor of terrorism

is what is happening in yemen right now. as we stand here, we've had a situation where iran has been harassing and threatening cargo ships in the region, challenging a core american national security and economic interests in the freedom of navigation particularly in key choke points like the strait of hormuz and the mada strait. and if you look at our interest in with what has happened in yemen, iran has supported the hooties -- human righties that -- huthis in yemen. why is that important to us? it's important was bee had to leave yemen in part as a result of iran's support of terrorism in yemen. and who presides in yemen? who is one of the great presences in yemen? al qaeda in the i rainian peninsula, a group that has vowed to attack our country a group that has made attempts to tea tack us in our country and iran is paving the way through

their terrorism there to give al qaeda in the saudi arabian peninsula more space to conduct attacks that can harm our interests and the interests of our allies. so this legislation that's pending on the floor right now if we were to not pass it, i think people need to understand the implications of it. the implications of not paragraphing this legislation that's on the floor is that congress would not have any say on these issues that are so important, would not have any say on whether the agreement that the administration is negotiating with iran actually will end program actually will dismantle their nuclear program actually will have a verifiable inspection regime that allows inspectors to go anywhere unannounced at any time to ensure they are not cheating on whatever agreement is reached between us and the

iranians. so this bill could not be more important. i want to thank the sponsors of this bill, i certainly want to thank senators corker and senator cardin for their leadership in the foreign relations committee to ensure that the people of this country through their elected representatives on something of such importance when it comes to the national security of the united states of america that their elected representatives perform our important oversight role here. and so i am hopeful that we will pass this legislation that the united states congress -- that i hope the administration with some of the concerns i've raised about this framework really toughen what they're doing in this framework to end their program, to have a transparent transparent, verifiable inspection regime, to address the icbm program to address iran as a state sponsor of

terrorism. i hope that they will do that. but i know that on behalf of my constituents that it's important if any agreement is reached that we have that debate here, that we have a voice smith on -- in it on behalf of the american people and in doing so we'll protect the national security interests of this country to make sure that whatever agreement is entered into is really a good agreement one that protects our country which protects our allies, and ends iran's nuclear program as none of us can look in the mirror and think about one of the most dangerous regimes in the world having the most destructive weapon in the world. that's something that as i think about all the national security issues this is on the top so i can't think of a more important debate we could have here now or more important legislation that we could work on. and with that i appreciate it

and i would yield the floor -- and i would yield the floor. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president the 114th congress is just a little over a hundred days old now but we've actually seen watchet be called the world's greatest deliberative body get back to work and begin producing results for the american people. a few months into this session we've passed important legislation from a budget, we will perhaps as early as tuesday pass the first budget since 2009. we repaired something called the doc fix which maybe is inelegantly named but basically fixed a problem that had been lurking since 1997 when somehow

we got the idea that you would be able to save money by cutting the reimbursement rates to doctors and hospitals. and then we were shocked absolutely shocked that some doctors wouldn't see medicare patients and some hospitals couldn't afford to build or expand in rural areas and the like. we got that off the table as well. and then i'm glad to say last wildcard we were able to pass some major anti-trafficking legislation which, of course, dealt with the victims of being human trafficking which the profile is about a 12- to 14-year-old girl who is literally in human bondage. so we've done i think good work and there's a lot more we need to do. of course the present legislation that enjoys brought bipartisan support is the iran nuclear agreement review act of 2015. and i too, commend the chairman and the ranking member of the

foreign relations committee. i know this this can be a frustrating process because other members of the senate now have ideas they want to offer by way of amendment. and we are working through this and i think this will test their patience and ours in the process. but this chamber is poised to continue in the spirit of bipartisanship on other important issues as well. trade promotion authority which to me is the essential link between us and the ability to pass important trade agreements. texas as the presiding officer knows, is the leading export state in the nation and we benefit from that because we understand when you have markets for the things we grow or the livestock we raise or the manufactured goods that we make that it's good for our economy, it's good for job creation. well trade promotion authority will be good for hardworking texas families and families all across the country.

but there's another area that may not seem of great significance but i think is important, i think where we have another opportunity and that has to do with patent reform and particularly lawsuit abuse reform. now, patents don't just affect the technology sector. they don't just affect the financial sector in wall street. they literally is a main street problem because you have restaurants now you have real estate agents, you have hotels motels, you have construction companies that have been sued by patent trolls, people that don't make anything merely they hold a license to a patent and use that to file -- frequently frivolous litigation in order to literally shake down the defendant. and many times it's people who can't really adequately defendant themselves, maybe they're a start-up business, an

innovator that's come up with a new idea or better idea, and they are thinly cappized -- capitalized and can you imagine when he they get sued by the patent trolls, it's a sad and short story. either they cap it you'll out and pay the ransom or go out of business entirely. but pharmaceutical reform is a time that has come again and it's one i've been involved in for a number of years in the senate. in 2011 the congress passed the american evins act. this is something that makes america unique. as texans, we believe in property rights. well what we're talking about is sexual property rights but when somebody smart or creative or innovative comes up with a better idea, our constitution and our laws provide a means to

protect that against people who would take it or steal it or infringe upon it. and that's why patents, patent law is so important. but one of the issues left unaddressed was this rising tide of lawsuits and the threat of litigation. of which a wider and wider swath of stakeholders are now complaining loudly. again, not just the big technology firms but restaurants, hotels, motels, builders, real estate agents, and the like. so in 2013 a number of members of congress began working on this legislation to address those frivolous claims which really kill jobs because it kills innovation in the process. bills were introduced in the house and the senate, targeting various aspects of this problem but focusing primarily on lawsuit abuse. lawsuits brought not to vindicate a legitimate claim by somebody who has lost something of value but merely somebody who

a holder of a license and using it to shake up these small start-up companies and innovators. we were able to see the passage in 2013 of something default the innovation act in the house of representatives. that legislation passed overwhelmingly 325-91. with almost all republicans and the bulk of democrats supporting the bill. and here's the other thing -- this isn't just a democrat or republican issue. this is something the administration wholeheartedly supports. in fact, this is one of the stories that i told last year as i was traveling around texas and elsewhere, and as evidence of the dysfunction because i said if republicans are for something and democrats are for something, but the majority of congress is for it, and the white house is for it, why is it we can't get it done? well the obstacle to getting it

done was eliminated with the new majority in the senate and so i think we're poised to take good action here very soon. we are at a new congress with new leadership and a new majority and that is everything when it comes to reforming our broken patent system. so today we had a broad bipartisan group of people from the ranking member and the chairman of the judiciary committee, the former chairman senator hatch senator schumer who is in the leadership of the democrats in the senate, senator klobuchar senator lee all of us announced this broad bipartisan support spore a new piece of patent reform legislation designed to attack this problem of lawsuit abuse and the shakedown of america's innovators and job creatorrors and technology creators. republicans and democrats alike have come to realize under the

status quo too many of our most promising innovators, not to mention other businesses, are wasting time and money in frivolous, costly litigation. this legislation takes a number of commonsense steps to exploit -- that ends the exploits of these so-called patent trolls. many of these are not particularly earth shaking but the culmination of them i think will have a real positive impact on this problem. first, it would require plaintiffs in patent cases to simply explain the substance of their claim when filing the initial lawsuit. what frequently happened is a lawsuit would be filed with no real detail as to the nature of the claim or the infringement of the patent and then there would ensue costly and time consuming discovery until finally the plaintiff would figure out some -- some claim they could make to hang their hat on. we limbate that by -- eliminate

that by requiring upfront what the nature is in the nature of the claim. secondly it would stay cases against the end users including restaurants motels, hotels construction companies and the like, and would give the party with the major incentive to defend the case the opportunity to do so. so the person who actually was responsible is the manufacturer of a product let's say a wifi device, the manufacturer would defend that case and not the hotel or motel that happened to deploy that device in their hotel or motel. third, it would bring greater fairness to the discovery process by limiting it until the court determines threshold motions in the case. this is important because the court is going to have to make a decision whether is a legitimate case that could go on and authorize the time consuming discovery and if it's not a legitimate case, that's the time for the court to address it by a motion to dismiss or some

other legal device. and fourth, it would curb the practice of sending abusive demand letters. what i've learned is that in patent litigation these days, there would be demand letters which literally would carpet bomb the people who are using some of this innovation in an effort to shake them down. it causes a lot of expense and delay and consternation. fifth, this is perhaps one of the most critical elements, it would allow courts to shift responsibility for the costs of patent litigation more often to the losing party but when the court finds that the claim was not a reasonable claim to be brought. in other words, it was a frivolous claim. no longer can you file a lawsuit and pursue it, even though it's a bogus case, without any fear of actually having to pay the cost of the other side who prevails in a case involving an unreasonable use of the legal

process. so i believe as many of my colleagues do that this -- that these are sensible reforms and it's one way we can take a step to better protect access to justice for plaintiffs with legitimate claims of infringement and deter those who simply abuse the system. so there is -- this is another promising area where i think the 114th congress can distinguish itself from the 113th and previous congresses by showing we can actually work together to try to solve real problems in a bipartisan way that hopefully will improve life just a little bit for the people we represent. entrepreneurs in texas and throughout the country need this legislation to protect them from abuse of patent litigation practices that have burdened america's private sector for far too long. the last point i would make, mr. president, i saw this morning the news that basically america's economy did not grow in the last quarter.

basically, the gross domestic product was i think .2% increase. that is simply too slow of economic growth to create the jobs we need for the population increases we're seeing. and so if we're going to get our economy growing again, which is the best way to raise the wages of hardworking american family planning services, we're going to need to be able to do a number of things. reform our tax system. we'll need to rein in overreaching regulations, which is a wet blanket on the private sector and job creation. and we're going to need to do things like patent reform like this litigation reform legislation that i have just been talking about. that will unleash this sleeping giant of the great american economy for the benefit of all americans once again. mr. president, i yield the floor. and i'd note the absence of a

quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: thank you. if i could i'd like to speak about the pending business before the senate. of all the things we will do, mr. president, probably in our political lifetime, i can't think of anything more important than getting the iran nuclear ambitions right. i stand in two camps. i would love a good deal and a bad deal would be a nightmare. what's a bad deal? a bad deal would be one that would result in a north korean outcome where you lock in a capacity in the hands of the iranians to be monitored by the international community and one day they break out and you wake up and they've got a bomb. a bad deal would be too much capacity in the hands of the

iranians that would spook the sunni arabs to want to go buy a bomb of their own. i cannot tell you the consequences to the world and our nation if you have a nuclear arms race in the middle east. that's what a bad deal leads to. a good deal allows us to wind down a hotly contested dispute between iran and the world over the last 20 years without firing a shot. a good deal would be allowing the iranians a peaceful nuclear power program what they claim they want, with no real capability in a year or any time to make a bomb. if all they want is a peaceful nuclear power program i do not object. i do object to the capability to enrich uranium in a fashion that one day they could break out like north korea did because i don't trust the iranians.

so to senator cardin and senator corker you've navigated this pretty darn well. we've got a democratic president who i think wants a deal way too badly, and we've got a congress that i think wants to have a say. we have created the congressional sanctions and we should have a say as to whether or not they're waived based on the deal, the quality of the deal that they may negotiate with the iranians, the p p5-plus-1. since we created the sanctions i don't think it's unfair to this president or any other president to say you need our vote you need a debate to occur before we'll agree to do that. now, is it a treaty? i don't think so. i would love it to be a treaty, but it's not. the one thing i don't want to do in the process of dealing with a very dangerous situation in the middle east is to turn the rules upside-down here because i like a particular outcome.

senator johnson sincerely believes it's a treaty. i do not doubt his motivations at all but i have come to conclude and right or wrong that it doesn't meet the definition laid out by the supreme court and presidents of the past. when we did a deal with north korea, it wasn't a treaty. maybe it should have been but it wasn't. so i don't think we're going to be able to change the rules just because we've got a very dangerous moment in american history, world history and a president some of us don't trust or like. condoleezza rice says it's not a treaty. i don't think she would have said that if there had been any doubt in her mind. i have had discussions with other republicans who have served in prior administrations and they have come to the same conclusion. so we had a vote, which was a good thing and the concept of it becoming a treaty was voted

down. the debate was worthy of the senate and i applaud all those who were involved. there are aspects of amendments that are pending that i would embrace in a new york minute but i believe that some of these amendments no matter how much i support the concept would break apart a bipartisan coalition that's taken a year to form. to senator cardin and corker, you've struck a balance that i think makes sense to me. a democratic minority i don't believe is going to turn all the power regarding this deal surviving or being struck down to the republican majority. if i were in your shoes i would not do that. and to my colleagues who ask that the democratic minority

with a democratic president cede the entire process to us as republicans, that's probably a bridge too far. i don't think a republican president would like that outcome. i don't think a republican minority would turn over to a democratic majority the ability to act unilaterally on something of this consequence. so what have senator corker and cardin been able to do? they brought the bill to the floor without a filibuster allowing the debate and hopefully more votes. to my democratic colleagues, don't shut my republican friends out. they all have a say and i will vote with you against some of the amendments that i like, but i just think would break the deal apart. let's get the senate back in business in a reasonable fashion. what i would say is that the construct of this bill makes perfect sense to me.

you need 60 votes to disapprove the deal. 60 votes is required of any major action in the senate. that's been the historical precedent of the senate. so the democrats are not asking us to do something that hasn't been around as a concept for a long time. what does it require? it requires the 54 republicans if we are together to convince six democrats this is a bad deal. i think if it truly is a bad deal our democratic colleagues, for the good of the nation and the consequences of a bad deal, are understood by them, will join with us to say this is not what we want, mr. president. try harder. rejecting a bad deal doesn't mean that we want to end diplomatic efforts. it means that we believe the deal in question fell short. so to senator corker, you did a good job because i don't think

anybody in your shoes could have convinced the democratic party to basically deal themselves out. to senator cardin, you've made it possible, along with senator menendez for us to have this debate and create, i think a standard of disapproval consistent with the traditions of the senate. there may never be a deal, but if there is one it has to come back here, and every american will get to hear the contents of the deal, why some think it's good and why others think it's bad, and you will not have to wonder what we are doing regarding the iranians. if the republican party cannot convince enough members of the democratic party that it is a bad deal, then we will be disappointed but that is democracy. israel is very worried about the

framework. the sunni arab states are very worried about the framework. it's not a final deal yet. three things i think have to be there for me to be on board. any time inspections in iran by international organizations of our choosing, including military facilities. no up-front signing bonus in terms of money until the iranians comply with the initial phases of the deal, because they'll take the cash and put it in their war machine. and whenever the inspection regime is supposed to terminate ten years, 15 years whatever date you pick, at that moment the then-existing president whoever he or she may be, has to certify that iran is no longer a state sponsor of terrorism because you would not want to end an inspection regime if they were still involved in state terrorist activity. so the two leaders on this bill from my point of view have of the crafted a pretty good piece

of legislation. people dislike it for different reasons, which means it's probably the balance we need. and i can't think of a better way to do this. and to those who think they have a better way the only thing i would tell you you better get some democrats to agree with you, because if you can't it's just all talk. and what bob corker and ben cardin have been able to do is they have given the senate a voice that we haven't have otherwise. they've given the american people a chance to understand a deal better than p any other -- better than any other opportunity i've known of and they have given us the power that any senator should want in this regard, a chance to have a say and be recorded in history. the outcome may not please you but this is the best process i could think of, given the way the senate works and the way democracy works which means both parties are going to require a say in something this

important. so well done. i look forward to voting for this bill and any amendment you will bring to the floor, i will vote for it if i think it is a good amendment that will not deconstruct the deal or unravel the deal. i will vote against the amendment if i think it will break the deal apart even though i'm sympathetic to it, because my goal is to get this right to make sure that any final deal with the iranians is explained to the american people through the house and the senate debate that can only happen if this bill becomes law. with that, i yield. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: i just want to say while the senator from south carolina is on the floor that look, at the end of the day this bill is the -- the grand vision. i mean, the fact is this is graham-corker, corker-graham. it's evolved so we could have the kind of support that we need to pass this into law. but i want to thank senator graham for his pushing to make sure that we got to this point. there's no question.

and look, you have been on this for months. you have pursued this. you have sold this publicly. you've worked with us as we have caused this to evolve to get the number of votes that we may get to actually cause this to become law. i don't know if anybody in our caucus or anybody in the senate senate -- of anybody in our caucus or anybody in the senate that has more of a foreign policy national security background no one. and i want to thank you for your efforts to ensure that we do everything we can to make sure we have a voice in this -- this -- this agreement that may happen on june 30 or a few days thereafter. so i thank you. we wouldn't be here without your continual pushing. and i will yield the floor to senator cardin. mr. cardin: before senator graham leaves the floor i just want to concur in senator corker's observations. it was several months ago that senator graham grabbed me on the floor of the senate to talk about this being the most important responsibility we have to have a way to oversight any potential agreement.

so i really just want to thank senator graham for his attention to this issue. we wouldn't be here today if it weren't for your leadership on this issue and i thank you for the manner in which you have brought this issue forward so that we can reach a way of getting this done in a constructive way. mr. rubio: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: thank you mr. president. i, too want to begin today by thanking the senator from maryland, the senator from tennessee for the work they've put into this process. this is important. it is important that congress have a role in reviewing any deal that the president concludes with iran. this is an extraordinary threat to the world. this is a nation that is run not by the individual that they're negotiating with. this -- iran is a country that is governed and run by a radical shia cleric who has ideas about the future of the world that are frightening.

what is more frightening in my mind is the information that we've received from this administration about the framework that they agreed to on the 2nd of april. it's a framework, for example that would allow iran to retain thousands of centrifuges and grant them the right to enrich uranium. it's an arrangement that would allow iran to avoid dismantling its key facilities. it's an arrangement that allows iran to continue to deny its past work on nuclear weapons. it's an arrangement that would allow iran to retain a significant ballistic missile program including efforts to develop a missile capable of hitting the very spot that we stopped on right now. -- stand on right now. it's an arrangement that does nothing whatsoever on the cases of those americans who are currently unjustly detained in iran. it's an arrangement that does nothing to impact iran's state sponsorship of terrorism or its brutal treatment of its own people. in fact, it's an arrangement that if it goes through, will

turn over billions and billions of dollars into the hands of the chief state sponsor of terrorism on the planet. and it's an arrangement that will do nothing to bring to iran -- to an end iran's self-proclaimed support at the highest level of their government for the destruction of the state of israel. since april 2 of this year, by the way the iranians have made very clear that they are not willing to do many of the things that the white house themselves has claimed is part of this deal. and we're going to get to that in a moment. but understand that when the white house announced this deal, they put out a fact sheet. they said, this is what the deal is about. iran is disputing it. they're not the same fact sheet. in essence what iran is saying was agreed to and what the united states is saying was agreed to are apparently at this moment two very different things. that alone should be concerning. and in addition to that this deal is going to be a dangerous

deal. a bad deal not just for the united states and our allies in the region, especially our allies in israel and that's why it's important the congress take a stand and ensure that this deal is not implemented unless it's -- its fundamental flaws are addressed. that's why i supported this legislation in the committee because i voted on it so that we could be here on the floor to strengthen it. not in a committee of just 20 members but here, with all of our colleagues over a number of days potentially weeks so the country could see what's at stake. the first amendment that i'm going to offer up today and hope that we can overcome objections to is pretty straightforward. here's what the amendment says. it says that the president -- that no deal can go forward unless the president certifies that the iranian leadership has accepted israel's right to exist as a jewish state. why is that important? because you're going to hear an argument that this has nothing to do with nuclear weapons that this has nothing to do with the

nuclear capacity of iran. i'm going to make the argument that that's not true. the first reason is we have to understand why it's important for israel to exist as a jewish state. israel's not just a country, it is a homeland for the jewish people created in the aftermath of the holocaust. with the belief that never again would there not be a place for the jewish people to go and seek refuge and be able to live if they faced persecution as they have for thousands of years as they do even now. but especially in the aftermath of the holocaust. so israel's not just a country it has a special and unique purpose that sets it apart from any other nation on earth. it was created as a homeland for a persecuted people who survived despite the death of 6 million human beings in the holocaust maybe more, and now has a homeland where they will be safe. it's also important to remember that beyond that, it is in the national security interest of the united states because what is israel? his israel is a pro--american

free enterprise democracy. i promise you that if there were month pro-american free enterprise democracies in the middle east, our lives would be a lot simpler and the world would be a lot safer and a lot better. but there is one and this country must always be firmly on the side of that one country. that's free enterprise, pro-american democracy in the midst of a region in chaos and in uncertainty. so why is that relevant to this deal? here's why it's relevant. because this is not just a deal about what iran is allowed to do in their nuclear program. this is a deal that would lift billions of dollars worth of sanctions off of the iranian government. so what is the iranian government going to do when they get access to these billions of dollars? are they going to donate it to charity around the world to feed the hungry and house the homeless? no. are they going to use it to substantially improve the rights of their people in their own country? no. they're going to use those

billions of dollars to do what they are doing now with less money to export terrorism in every corner of the globe. today iran is an active sponsor of terrorism in lebanon in syria, in iraq in yemen in bahrain in latin america and in europe. this is the same government that tried to assassinate the saudi ambassador here in washington d.c. this is the same iranian government that blew up a jewish center in buenos aires. this is the same iranian government that tried to detonate a bomb in uruguay. they use terrorism the way normal countries use diplomacy and now we're going to turn over billions of dollars to them? and the reason why it has something to do with israel is, what do you think they are going to do when they have even more money to carry this out? they're going to invest it not just in their nuclear program they're going to invest it in their sponsorship of terrorism and they're going to invest it in their long-range rockets.

and what have they told us they want to do with this increased capacity? what have they told us is the chief goal of this government in iran? why do they need this terrorism? why do they need these weapons? why do they need these long-range rockets? well let's take them at their word. here's why they need it. they need it because according to the ayatollah in july of 2014 2014 -- this was a tweet -- "this barbaric wolf-like and infanticidal regime of israel which spares no crime has no cure but to be annihilated." in november of 2014 the supreme leader on his twitter account he posted a chart. it had nine key questions about the elimination of israel. i'm holding it here but you can find it on-line. why should the zionist regime be eliminated? what does elimination of israel mean in the viewpoint of the immam? meaning him. what is the proper way of eliminating israel? who will the proposed

referendum -- he's talking about a referendum -- he's actually calling for a referendum in israel. but the jews can't participate in the referendum, according to him. why do we oppose compromise proposals? the point is, this is a country led by a leader that has made it very clear repeatedly time and again that one of their main objectives is the destruction of israel and ending israel's existence as a jewish state. and you know, when someone says that over and over again, we should believe them. this is not for domestic consumption to make him look good in iran the way some in the administration would argue. i believe they mean it. do you know why i believe they mean it? because they sponsor terrorism in an effort to kill jews and israelis. in january of 2015 a suitcase full of explosives were found near the israeli embassy in uruguay. the day after an individual left a suitcase bomb near the embassy. a senior iranian diplomat by the

name of imad sabadgol left the country. authorities clarified a report that he had been expelled from the country. they said, no, they suggested that, in fact, he was a person of high interest with whom they would like to speak but that he left the country on his own. and so the reason why the existence of israel as a jewish state is directly tied to this deal is simple -- we are about to turn over billions of dollars into their hands and we have every reason to believe that they will spend a significant portion of that money to destroy our strongest and most important ally in the region and one of our most important allies in the world. and so the first amendment i have offered is pretty straightforward. it calls for any deal to require that iran recognize israel's right to exist as a jewish state. the second amendment i will propose is even more straightforward even more on point. here's what it requires. it requires that this final deal

be the deal the president says it is. here's what i mean by that. i filed an amendment that basically took the white house's own fact sheet. and, by the way, i have problems with that fact sheet. the deal as the president describes it is not a deal that i believe will work. it's not a deal that i believe will prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. but just to take them at their word just to improve this point and to ensure that we are building safeguards into what we are doing here i took the white house's own fact sheet what they said the deal was about and i say from this amendment that the final deal must be about those points that the white house already says it is. for the life of me, i don't understand why that would be controversial. my amendment is basically this. it says the deal has to be what you say it is. that's all my amendment says. and yet somehow i've been told that this is going to box the white house in. if it does, it boxes them in with their own words. but here's the reason i'm doing

this. because iran apparently negotiated a very different deal than the one the white house thinks we have. for example the white house says that this deal will impose permanent inspections on iran. the state department fact sheet -- quote -- "iran's adherence to the additional protocol of the iaea is permanent including its significant access and transparency obligations." but the iranian fact sheet says, "iran will implement the additional protocol on a voluntary and temporary basis for the sake of transparency and confidence building." doesn't sound like the same deal to me. how about the inspection of military sites? the deputy national security council, ben rhodes, on an interview on cnn said -- quote -- "if we see a site that we need to inspect on a military facility we can get access to that site and inspect it." an iranian brigadier general hussein degan on april 9 said,

"visiting military centers are among the red lines and no visits to these centers will be allowed." how about the scope of the sanctions relief? the state department fact sheet says -- and i quote -- "the united states and the european union nuclear related sanctions will be suspended. all past u.n. security council resolutions on the iran nuclear issues will be lifted simultaneously with the completion by iran of nuclear related actions addressing all concerns." but iran says according to their reach solutions "after the implementation of the comprehensive plan of joint action, all the u.n. resolutions will be revoked and all the multilateral economic and financial sanctions by the e.u. and the unilateral ones by the u.s. will be annulled." so are the sanctions limited or total? we say they're limited. iran says they're total. and finally are the sanctions phased -- well, there's two

more let me point -- three more differences. on the timing of the relief. the united states in the president's news conference on april 2 -- this is a quote from the president -- "in return for iran's actions the international community has agreed to provide iran with relief from certain sanctions our own angsz sanctions and -- sanctions and the international sanctions imposed by the united nations security council. this relief will be phased as iran takes steps to adhere to the deal." the president's basically saying every time iran complies with a portion of the deal an additional sanction will be phased out. it will be in steps. they do something sanctions come off. slowly. trust but verify. that's what the american government says. that's what the president said in his own words. but iran says "we will not sign any deal unless on the very first day of its implementation all economic sanctions against iran are lifted all at once."

how about restrictions on enrichment? are they restricted for 10 years or for 15 years? the united states and the state department fact sheet says "iran has agreed not to enrich you're uranium over 6.37% for at least 15 years. they have agreed not to build any new facilities for the purpose of enriching uranium for 15 years. iran has agreed to not enrich at certain facilities for 14 years. they have not agreed to enrich uranium at fordhal for 15 years." that's a lot of 15 years. what does iran say? well its foreign minister, on an iranian state df channel on april -- tv channel on april 4 said "the limitations are for 10 years and then enrichment will continue its own scientific progress. we have accepted 10 years of limitations." last but not least research and development. is it limited or not limited? 6 the united states --

the united states in our fact sheet says its limited. iran will not use ir-2, ir-4, ir-5 i rf-6, or ir-8 modeled to produce enriched uranium for at least 10 years. iran will engage limited research and development with advanced centrifuges according to a schedule and parameters which have been agreed to by the p5-plus 1 the group that negotiated all of this. that's what the united states fact sheet says. but what does iran say? iran says no, iran will continue its research and development on advanced machines and will continue the initiation and completion phases of the research and development process of ir-4, ir-5, ir-6, and ir-8 during the 10-year period of the comprehensive joint plan for action." so these are at least -- one two, three four, five, six major points of difference where iran is saying, the deal says one thing and the united states says the deal is saying another. and what my amendment does is it takes what we say the deal is

and puts it in the bill and says any final deal must be what you told us it is. not what iran and yet somehow parntsly that's controversial -- and yet somehow apparently those controversial. this is not a game. this is a very serious matter. because this is a country $and i mean its people, not its leaders, that have shown the willingness to do atrocious things all over the world. when you read in the up newspaper being gassed and killed in syria, you know why assad is able to do that? because of the help he gets from iran. when you read about those rockets that flood into televeef tel aviv and jerusalem as hezbollah launches attacks hiding behind human shields while they're trying to kill israelis, you know what they're able to do that? because of the help they get from iran. when you read in the newspaper

that yesterday the iranian military hijacked a vessel in international waters, when you read that they tried to kill the saudi ambassador in washington d.c. when you read that they tried to set sov off a bomb in uruguay, when you read that in 1994 they did set off a bomb in argentina, this is who we're dealing with here, and now they are on the verge of being able to enrich weapons-grade uranium and reprocess weapons-grade plutonium, and now they are headed towards building a long-range rocket capable of reaching not just israel but europe and the united states -- let meal at the you, that is very -- let me tell you, this is a very significant moment because this president is about to sign a deal that will place in their hands billions and billions of additional dollars and if this is the terrorism and the nuclear activity that they're pursuing now with sanctions on them, imagine how much more they will be able to

afford to do once the sanctions are lifted? and that's why it is so relevant on both this point of israel but also on the details of this deal. and, by the way as i said -- and i'll repeat it -- the state department fact sheet what the president says the deal is i am not comfortable with that either. i don't think that will work. it's not like i'm celebrating what they say the deal s all i'm asking though, is at a minimum before you bring and sign a deal, at least be what you say it is. don't come back here in six months and surprise us and say by the way, it was the iranian fact sheet that had it right and not amplest ours. i think these amendments are relevant to the debate ware having. i think they are relevant to the decision we're being asked to make. and it is about time that this body takes this up. congress has an important role to play. the people of florida that i

represent speak on these issues on this floor through me and the senior senator from florida. we have a right to have these issues debated. but this is not some minor issue that we're talking about. this is the security not just of our strongest apply in the rooj -- in the region, but of our very own country. so i hope we can have an opportunity to have debate on these amendments. what you hear people say is, well if these amendments pass, we're going to lose the support of the bill, the president might veto it. well you know what? if you want to make that argument make that argument. but let's have a vote on it. what's wrong with having a vote on the amendment? if you disagree with me, stand up and say you disagree and you vote no. if you agree with the amendment but you're going to vote against it because you think it unravels this agreement put in place say that. if you don't want to vote on things don't run for the senate. if you don't want to vote on things don't run for office. be a come a columnist get a talk show.

everyone who runs for office knows that what we are called to do here is rote on vote on issues that sometimes we're uncomfortable on. there is a microphone here on your desk. come here and explain to the world why you are voting against a deal that requires israel to have a right to exist. if you say that you believe that israel has a right to exist but you are voting gunshot it because you don't want to unravel the deal, people will respect it. you can make your argument, but vote. but don't tell me we can't have votes on these things. you can argue that we shouldn't pass them, and i'll argue against you but don't tell me that we can't even vote on it, because then what you're sag is, you want to be protected from taking a position on it. you don't want to take a position that you think is tough. and that i find to be un-seineable. -- unacceptable. and so mr. president i ask for unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment in order

call up the two amendments i just described amendment 1141 and amendment 1148 en bloc. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. cardin: mr. president reserving the right to object -- and let me just explain to my friend from florida a very valued member of the senate foreign relations committee, we have two pending amendments. we have also been working to get a vote on senator barrasso's amendment dealing with terrorism. we are trying to work through senator corker and i many amendments that we can clear that members have brought forward. they're, working with us where we can consider them. for an orderly process -- so many amendments have been filed. i might say they've all been filed by republican members of the senate. we need to make sure we have an orderly way to consider these amendments and vote on these amendments and for those reasons, mr. president i do

object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. rubio: well, mr. president, just for a point of clarification, i am a member of the committee that heard these amendments, particularly the one are israel's right to exist. they were able to me at the time. i chose not to offer them, in consultation with the senators that had worked tow hard to put this together. i could have offered my amendment in the committee. i did not, in order to work in a cooperative way to move it from the committee and on to the floor. i will admit that i did not speak to senator cardin about this in particular, but i was told by multiple members that the right place for me to offer this amendment would be on the floor, not in the committee because the hope was to get it to the floor as quickly as possible. so in an effort to move this to the floor i held back on filing this particular amendment with regard to israel's right to exist on the assurances and on the conversations that we had that in fact when we get to the floor these amendments will be heard. now, if in fact it turns out that today is not going to be the day we vote on the amendment, i understand that. i know there are a lot of other

people with ideas they want voted on. mind something that there are -- my understanding is that there is potentially the three or four amendments. i am note saying that's what the senator from maryland is arguing. i hope that at some point as the sord established i will continue to make this motion, in the hope that this amendment not just will be pending but will be part of the debate. i respect the views of my colleagues some which will come to the floored and say they agree with me on the substance but they don't want to vote because they think it endangers the agreement we have in place or the bill that's in plasms but i do think it deserves a vote and i do think it deserves that debate. i hope in this orderly process as it's established that in fact these two amendments -- i have filed seven -- that these two will get the consideration that i believe it deserves fnlt deserves. mr. cardin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: as senator rubio pointed out we had no discussions about this, so i

don't know what senators he's referring to. but let me just talk briefly about some of the points that senator rubio mentioned because i think they're important that we respond to. first, the bill we are considering, s. 615, is a bill that doesn't deal with the merits after potential deal. it deals with the right way for congress to review a potential deal that is reached between the united states and our trading partners and iran considering its nuclear weapon program. that is what this bill does. it doesn't say whether the president's agreement is a good one, a bad one, et cetera. it's a process for us to review it and take it appropriate action because we are the ones that imposed the sanctions. only the congress can permanently change or eliminate the sanctions. therefore, it is important that we have an orderly way to review

the potential deal. that's what it does, nothing more nothing less. it will by the way gives us the opportunity to give notice of material breaches and be able to take action to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear weapon state if they in fact breach the agreement. so the two points that senator rubio mentioned -- the first is that there are different interpretations being given -- one by the united states and one by the iranians. well the first amendment that we filed we think is going to deal with that. it's pending right now. it requires us to get every official document of a poe teption deal in the language -- potential deal in the language agreed to. that amendment is pending. it's filed by senator corker and me for the reasons senator rubio mentioned. that is, we want to see the original text. we don't want to have the interpretation by the iranians. we want to know what the language says. that's our responsibility. the we're going to get that once

we take up this first amendment. i hope it is approved -- that will give us the original language text of every agreement and exib that's agreed to twain the parties. the second issue that senator rubio mentions is the -- israel's right to exist and iran acknowledging israel's right to exist. i fully agree with senator rubio rubio. i don't think there is a member of this body that doesn't want israel legitimated by every country in the world. it is our key ally in the middle east. it is a country that shares our values. it has a strategic relationship with the united states and i could go on and on. since 1948 the united states and israel has enjoyed a very close important relationship and we've taken so many actions in this body in order to protect israel's right to exist. and that's why we included your language and senator boxer's language in this bill. where we say the president

should determine the agreement in no way compromises the commitment of the united states to israel's security nor its support for israel's right to exist. we had that in the bill. now, what senator rubio's amendment would have us do -- and let me just explain this. what his amendment would have yous do is require -- us do is require that the president certify to us before he could submit into any agreement enter into any agreement that iran has recognized israel's right to exist. now, this agreement that we're negotiating with our -- with the p-5, our negotiating partners in iran is to deal with iran's nuclear weapon program. i know in my kefertions confers conversations with the israeli government they think that's the most important thing to their existence the mrtant thing: that iran does not become a nuclear weapon staivment that's what israel needs and that's what we're trying to get.

the rubio amendment although it is not intended to do that, would say no, that's not the most important thing. the most important thing is to negotiate the language, what iran says about israel, not their nuclear weapon program. and that the president must achieve that and you're negotiating the more things you put on the table the weaker position you're in. in achieving the most important point, and that is making sure we have a strong agreement that iran can never become a nuclear weapon state. that's why this amendment will accomplish just the opposite, as far as israel's security is concerned. yes, it is a poison pill. yes, it is defeat this bill. that also happens to be true. and, yes it'll mean it will be almost impossible for the president to negotiate a nuclear agreement with iran. i think most people in this body and most people in america believe the best course is a

negotiated agreement with iran. the unintended consequences of this amendment would make it virtually impossible to have that agreement completed. so yes, we can get into debate on the specifics of your amendment. i'm more than happy to do that. but we have an orderly process here and there are a lot of amendments that have been filed and we are trying to work out a way do this. we have been on the floor senator corker and i now four, five days debating this issue and we'll debate any member who wants to come by, because we want to make sure that we have an open debate. but we're going to follow an orderly process. and this amendment amendment as well-intended as it is, is an amendment that would very much compromise what we've tried to do in a bipartisan way and that's to make sure that this senate and the house has an orderly way to consider any deal struck between our negotiating partners in the united states and iran. that's our responsibility, and

we're going to stay focused on that and we're going to end with a bipartisan product that is -- i think in the best traditions of the united states senate. so i resp -- so i respect very deeply my colleague's commitment to israel. i do. all of us are committed to israel. but let's think about what is the most important thing for israel. and that is having a strong agreement that prevents iran from becoming a nuclear weapon state. let's focus on that because that, i think this bill helps us achieve. i yield the floor. mr. rubio: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: and i appreciate the senator from maryland's passion and he makes points that i think are very relevant to the debate once we are on the amendment. that's all i'm asking for is a vote on the amendment and he's made an argument why he things we should not pass the amendment. i didn't think coming to the floor and try to get my amendment pending somehow unravels this orderly process

but i'm more than happy to work within the orderly process as long as i can get a vote on my amendment. whatever that process entails. i'd be happy to have it explained to me where i fit in in this orderly process and we'll have the amendment. but i want a vote on the amendment and the argument that you made here can be made. the only other point i will make is it is true tragically there are a number of countries in the middle east that do not recognize israel's right to exist. the difference is those countries aren't trying to build a nuclear weapon nor do they use terrorism as an instrument of state craft. nor do every friday do they hold ceremonies in which their top leader chants death to israel and death to america. nor do they actively support terrorist groups around the world who exist for the sole purpose of destroying israel itself. nor do they have billions of dollars in sanctions that are about to be released. and so at the end of the day there is a big difference

between what's happening in iran and the billions of dollars we're about to turn over to them and these other countries that unfortunately do not recognize israel's right to exist but are not going around actually actively trying to destroy the state of israel. and the last point on the differences in the details listen, i don't think that the fact sheet the house -- the state department put out is sufficient. i think the deal as described by the president isn't good enough and won't lead to the prevention of a nuclear weapon. but all i'm asking for in my amendment is for the deal that he submits to be the one that says he says he negotiated. he has told us already we have reached a preliminary agreement. he's announced it to the world what that preliminary agreement is. and all i'm saying is what you submit to us must be what you told us it is. and here's why i say this. because this negotiation has been going on for awhile, and every month that goes by, iran gains more concessions and our position slips further and further. if you look where we were at the

beginning of this process to where we are today it's a very different place from where we were not that long ago. we are in a very different place than we were in terms of what we originally said. when this whole thing started ten years ago 12 years ago the united nations security council put sanctions on iran that said you're not allowed to enrich and reprocess. now they're allowed to. if these negotiations keep going on we're going to end up building a bomb for them at the rate it's going because every year and every month that goes by they gain more and more concessions. all i'm trying to do is at a minimum freeze this thing in place and say mr. president you've told us that you have negotiated a deal. mr. president, you put out a fact sheet that told us what the deal is. you've represented it to the american people as the deal. and now all this will say is what you submit to us must be

what you told us you agreed to on april 2. don't come back here in six months and submit to us a deal and as it turns out the iranian fact sheet is the one we should have been relying on. and all i'm asking, even though that i don't think what he agreed to is sufficient, all i'm asking in my second amendment is that the deal he submits be the deal he says it is. nothing more and nothing less. i hope that through this orderly process that the moment will arrive before we vote on passage of this that my amendments can be heard and voted on. and i respect the arguments that others make about why they can't support it and what they think it will ultimately do to the process. all i'm asking for is votes on these amendments and then everyone is free to vote the way they want and for the reasons they want. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: thank you mr. president. mr. president, i, quite frankly share the senator from florida's frustration, and i urge us to fully debate and begin voting on

important amendments to this bill. i'm all for any productive, orderly process but i want it to be productive, to be inclusive and to get going. and so i share the frustration that has been expressed on the floor that that's not quite happening right now. and in light of that, mr. president, i want to be assured of moving forward and getting a vote on a very important amendment for me. so i send a second-degree amendment to the desk, vitter amendment number 1186 as modified and i ask that it be a second-degree amendment to corker amendment number 1179 and ask for its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the corker amendment is not pending. mr. vitter: point of parliamentary inquiry mr. president. what is the pending business?

the presiding officer: the pending amendment s&l -- pending amendment is 1155. voit voit in that -- mr. vitter: in that case i call for regular order with respect to the corker amendment. the presiding officer: amendment number 1179 is pending. mr. vitter: thank you mr. president. now i send this second-degree amendment to the desk, vitter amendment number 1186 as modified to be a second-degree amendment to corker amendment number 1179, and i ask for its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from louisiana, mr. vitter, proposes an amendment numbered 18-- 1186 as modified to amendment number 1179. mr. vitter: i ask for waiving reading of the whole and i'll be happy to explain the substance of the amendment.

the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. vitter: thank you mr. president. mr. president, this is about verification obviously a really crucial part of this debate. many of us who have concerns about the priz -- president's proposed agreement do not think we have adequate means to verify any agreement in the context and the structure he has proposed. so clearly those verification issues are very, very important. this amendment tries to address those in a substantive and significant and meaningful way. what the amendment does is actually specifically list documented reports from groups like the iaea, u.s. defense force, science force task force and others which have highlighted specific verification problems. and the amendment would require the president to report in a very detailed specific way on

those documented verification problems and make certifications regarding making progress on and solving those verification problems. again, i think this is absolutely necessary because i believe the present deal as it's being put together does not have adequate verification capability. and so this would help fill that hole. i'm not sure it would completely fill that gap, quite frankly mr. president, but this is a good-faith attempt to address those very real issues by, again, delineating specific documented verification problems and requiring the president and his administration to address them to report on that and to make certifications regarding how they are addressing those specific documented verification

problems. i urge strong support of this good-faith amendment mr. president. this would dramatically, in my opinion, improve this agreement by helping address those verification concerns. i believe they are very legitimate concerns shared by many many people on both sides of the aisle and i urge strong consideration and ultimately approval of this verification enhancement. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: i would also note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. thune: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendments and to call up my amendment number

1180. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. corker: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: i know the good senator from south dakota knows we're working right now on the other side to get a number of amendments ready to vote on today and certainly we appreciate his constructive efforts in letting us know what he's doing. i object to making it pending because the other side right now -- and i'm doing this on their behalf -- wants to work through the tranche that we have right now. i certainly would hope that he would discuss it and maybe we can make it pending a little bit later today. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: i thank the senator from tennessee who is managing this bill. i know they are trying to find a way forward and i hope that that would include getting us some votes on amendments, including this one. i think this is a very reasonable amendment one that certainly that fit fits within what we're trying a ccomplish here. this is an important debate, mr. president, that the senate is in the midst of because we began this week a discussion on the role of congress approving

or disaapproving a nuclear agreement with iran. any agreement we reach must ensheer onemustensure one thing: that iran will never be able to acquire a nuclear weapon. that should be everything that this discussion is b a nuclear-armed iran would threaten the safety, security, and stability of the entire world and pose a direct threat to the united states and to our allies in the region. given the stakes of this debate, it's critical that congress have a role in reviewing any agreements. so if the american's people's advices could be heard. that's what this is all about giving the american people's voice. i want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the senate foreign relations committee for forging together a bipartisan path forward to allow for such a congressional review. and while i support the underlying bill and appreciate the work of our bill managers, i

do believe the bill could be significantly strengthened. the amendment that i'm introducing today will help do that. my amendment number 1180, is one way the senate can strengthen the underlying bill. this amendment would require the secretary of state to verify whether the iaea, which would be in charge of inspections in iran under any agreement would have access to iranian military bases. there have been recent reports that have indicated that the iranian military is hostile to any inspection of military facilities. general hossein salami, deputy of the iran's revolutionary guard, recently told the iranian media, "they" -- meaning the inspectors -- "will not even be permitted to inspect the most normal military site in their dreams." end quote. that again from general hossein salami, who is the deputy head of iran's revolutionary guard.

so mr. president if the administration enters into an agreement that doesn't allow inspection of military sites the american people and our allies will have very little reason to bleb that iran will comply with any agreement. without such an agreement iran can conduct research on nuclear weapons systems on military bases outside the reach of international inspectors. that is not an acceptable scenario. we must ensure that any deal with iran is verifiable, enforceable and accountable and promotes stability and security in the region and around the world. that goal is hard to achieve without a robust inspections regime that allows for international inspections of iran's military sites. so accordingly mr. president i encourage my colleagues to support my amendment that will help ensure that iran cannot

circumvent an agreement conducting research on nuclear weapons systems at military facilities. a nuclear-armed iran is a threat to the safety, the security, and the stability of the entire planet and so i hope that when the agreement is reached about how to proceed with regard to amendments that this amendment will be included among those that is allowed to be debated and voted upon because i do think it would strengthen the underlying agreement and i certainly look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides not only to get this amendment adopted but also to ensure mr. president that iran never acquires a nuclear weapon. that is, first foremost, and what this always needs to be about. with that, mr. president i yield the floor and i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: i request proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: i am here on the floor this afternoon with my good friend from north dakota and i want to speak to an issue as it relates to the iranian sanctions bill that we have on the floor in front of us. this is about an issue i think that so many of us care deeply

about, about our own domestic production here, about the strength of our economy the strength of our national security and how the united states in a global environment really stands toe to toe in good strong competition around the world. i want to speak today about u.s. oil. the ban on u.s. oil and how this all intersects with iran, iranian sanctions, and specifically the sanctions on iranian oil. i am introducing an amendment it's a bipartisan amendment to allow u.s. oil to compete with iranian oil on the global market. and i'm pleased to be joined in this effort by senator heitkamp heitkamp senator hoeven,

senator lankford, and hopefully others as this discussion progresses. iran's government is largely dependent on its exports of oil for its revenue source. it sends oil to countries such as china japan india south korea, and the sanctions that have been imposed have really hurt. they have -- they have hurt iran's economy. they have really been what has brought iran to the table here. the sanctions that have been in place have cost the government in tehran some $40 billion in lost export revenues in 2014 alone, and this is according to the treasury department. but under the sanctions regime and the joint plan of action, countries are still able to purchase iranian oil and i don't think a lot of folks understand that. they say okay, the sanctions

are in place so iran can't be driving -- deriving any forest their oil exports. but in fact countries are able to purchase iranian oil up to 1.1 million barrels per day and no surprise, countries have purchased up to that limit nearly every month since the j.p.a. was imelemented back in november of -- implemented back in november of 2013. iran is still deriving the benefit of being able to sell iranian oil to other nations. it is worth pointing out this is only possible because the state department does not include condensate in its definition of crude oil. if you crew the condensate, then the 1.1 million-barrel per day limit was breached back in january of 2014, in february, march, april june, july -- no june, excuse me, and also in february of 2015 according to reports that came out of the

international energy agency. mr. president, it simply does not make sense for us the to lift sanctions on iranian oil while we keep them on american oil. it just doesn't make sense that we would tell iran we're going to allow these sanctions to be lifted over there but by keeping our oil export ban in place we are effectively imposing sanctions on u.s. oil producers. this is -- this is a de facto sanctions regime against ourselves. now, you can understand why we have imposed sanctions on certain places. on tehran, on moscow, damascus. but, mr. president we're

effectively talking about sanctions on the permian on the utica on the neobrara on regions where we have the ability to produce a resource that helps this country helps create jobs, helps with all aspects of our economy. and we're going to say iran, it's okay, we're going to relieve sanctions on you but we're going to keep in place sanctions on u.s. oil producers. so what this amendment does, mr. president, it adds a third section to the corker-cardin iran review act of 2015, it would require a d.o.e. report on iranian crude oil and it would lift then the de facto ban on u.s. crude oil and condensate

exports. it still preserves the emergency authorities of the president to prohibit exports if it's warranted. so there is that safety valve there. the deadline for submission of this report to congress would be 60 days following the enactment of the act it would still be required even if an agreement with iran was not reached and it would effectively address two issues. the ability the relative ability of u.s. and iranian oil producers to compete in the global market, which is pretty important out there and the extent to which any agreement with iran would increase iranian oil exports through the lifting of sanctions. so as we know, american oil producers are generally prohibited from exporting overseas. alaska is the one exception to the oil export ban very limited amount is exported over the years. iran, on the other hand,

currently exports over a million of barrels of oil per day over the global markets. now, we had a hearing in the energy committee a week or so ago. as the presiding officer, you were there. you were also there at the hearing. and we heard from the u.s. energy administration, e --ly and they said lifting sanctions would increase the oil from 70000 to to 1 million barrels per day. so if we lift that, eaia estimates that iran will now be in a situation where they would be able to put out on to the market two new -- basically to new purchasers a million barrels per day. think about what that does. giving them new markets for their oil and as they have new markets for their oil they get paid for it. eaia estimates given where the price of brent is in this range

right now that it would be $25 billion per year to iran from the ability to put out on to the market, gain new customers, an extra $25 billion. how comfortable are we with that mr. chairman? how much of that $25 billion is going to fund terrorist organizations, terrorists in areas that we are -- we are fighting directly and immediately today? what kind of sense does this make that we would say we will remove sanctions on iran allowing you to move your product to new customers gain potentially $25 billion additionally into your treasury to do who knows what with?

while at the same time what this does is the it harms american producers who are unable to compete with iranian oil due to this outdated ban on u.s. exports that was imposed 40 years ago. so we're going to let a 40-year-old policy sanction us, sanction our economy and benefit iran. lifting the ban on u.s. oil exports would let american oil compete with iranian oil. it would reduce iranian revenue from oil exports. it would send a strong signal to u.s. allies that still depend on iranian oil that alternative supplies are available and the lower global oil prices, which would decrease the price of gasoline and other consumer fuels. mr. president, just a few hours ago in the -- on the other side of the -- of the hallway here over in the house of

representatives, we heard from the prime minister of japan. japan is currently purchasing, able to purchase from iran oil. don't you think that our friend japan would much rather have security and diversity of supply if it were to come from their friend the united states? i sure think so. the -- the amendment that we have introduced lifts the ban by requiring after 30 days have elapsed from the enactment of senate bill 615 that crude oil exports may be authorized on the same basis that they're currently authorized for petroleum products, whether it's gasoline diesel, jet fuel, whatever it is. but currently these petroleum products, they can be exported without a license. in fact, we are here in this country the largest exporter of petroleum products in the world.

so think about this as -- as just kind of a you shake your head and on. we're the -- what's going on here. we're the largest exporter of refined products but yet we impose a flat ban an outright ban on the crude itself. so again we've got a safety valve in the amendment that preserves the president's emergency authorities which derive from the international emergency economic act the national emergencies acted the energy and conservation act and they prohibit exports under these various proposals if needed for the safety and security of the nation. and we don't -- we don't touch those. we don't impact them in that amendment at all. so it's important to recognize that what we're doing here is we're looking at an outdated policy 40 years old. we are moving into present time and space where we have a situation where a -- a country

that we have tried desperately to -- to bring to the table, to be a -- a nation that will work with us rather than against us and yet part of what we're considering is an action that would remove sanctions on them and continue to keep in place sanctions on this country. makes no sense to me. i would hope that my colleagues would consider it. i know that my colleague from north dakota has given great thought about this, has great understanding about the issue and also great passion about how we ensure that from a national security perspective we're covered in all corners. so i would ask my -- my colleague from north dakota as she has reviewed again an antiquated and an outdated policy how from a producing

state like north dakota where you are working to advance the opportunities not only for north dakotans but for people all over this country how people in north dakota feel when it's suggested that we are imposing effectively domestic sanctions on them while at the same time we would relieve sanctions on iran? ms. heitkamp: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. ms. heitkamp: heitkamp: i want to thank my good friend from alaska for giving me an opportunity to talk about this policy of sanctions that is wrong wrong wrong on so many levels. when we -- when we first look at it we need to understand that the embargo or the limitations on exportation of crude oil in this country is a policy decision made by the president initially, president nixon in response to a number of producers going around oil price

support controls. so this is a 1970's policy. unfortunately, when we transitioned away from price supports for crude oil we never removed this embargo we never removed this restriction. that was a mistake at this time and it continues to be a colossal mistake for our growth towards energy independence in this country and our ability to use our energy and our oil for soft power to actually provide a consistent and ready supply of crude oil to our allies so they are not beholden not only to iran but not beholden to companies like -- or countries like russia. and so it is -- it is critically important that we examine some of the concerns i think that people have about lifting the embargo. obviously north dakota we -- we don't see any logic because we're kind of a commonsense state, we don't see any logic behind not allowing crude oil to be exported but allowing every refined product that we could produce in this country access

to a foreign market. i mean, that makes absolutely no sense. if -- if the logic behind this is to try and maintain stability and a lower gasoline price then we should lock down gasoline. we shouldn't export gasoline. i mean, the -- the antiquated policy that we're talking about today didn't have a lot of logic after we deregulated oil. it has even less logic in the dangerous world that we live in. we know that so many of our foreign enemies rely on oil revenue -- rely on oil revenue -- to basically fund their terrorism activity, to basically fund their government to supply the necessary government services that keep them in power. and we have an opportunity to say to our allies, whether it's japan or in europe, don't worry about whether somebody is going to hold you hostage because you won't be able to heat your homes in the winter or provide

gasoline to your communities and your consumers don't worry about that because we've got your back. but we can't have their back if we don't have the ability to export our crude oil. and the bottom line is that on -- on every level in terms of foreign policy, in terms of what we should be in this country on every level a policy of maintaining an embargo a restriction against exports of crude oil makes no common sense absolutely none. but let's talk about domestic policy because i think some of the -- some of the concerns that have been expressed to me by my colleagues and i'm sure senator murkowski's colleagues have been well, won't this increase gasoline prices? and i have to applaud senator murkowski because very early on she heard that and she said, let's have some real intellectual work done. just don't rely on my, you know, economics 101. how about we actually get economists from brookings

economists from the aspen institute economists all over the country who have come to one single conclusion which is that it will not raise gasoline prices. in fact, the conclusion is quite the opposite that allowing us access to an international market could in fact, reduce gasoline prices. why would that be, you wonder? because for the -- for i think the fluke of how we refine crude oil in this country most of our refineries are based on heavy sour crude. the crude we produce in north dakota is light sweet crude. it doesn't have -- we don't have a big refining capacity for light sweet crude so we -- we have a price reduction in our country. so -- so how is gasoline prices, how are they established? they're based on that higher crude oil price because they're refining crude oils that come in from other places like saudi arabia they're refining crude oils that come in from venezuela

and they're charging an appropriate price. some people would say there's a little bit of -- of price creep here as we're looking at gasoline prices and the ability to get our crude to market is absolutely critical. now, there's a lot of people who also think that we should keep a captive market on a lot of our resources and we've heard this argument in natural gas and we've heard this argument in crude oil and they think we should have a captive market. and i -- i have a constant reply. i say, i have a lot of hog farmers who like low corn prices. the solution for low corn prices have never been to not export corn. this is the only commodity that is traded on a global price that doesn't have the ability to find its market. now, what's the consequence of that? i would tell you to my friend in alaska -- and i think she sees this -- is that one of the things i sincerely believe is

that the ability to produce oil our domestic production of oil had a lot to do with driving iran to the negotiating table. they saw that we could in fact, infiltrate the markets take market share. that's threatening to a lot of the -- the former opec countries who are wanting that captive market. and so we were able to maintain maintain -- if we had access to that market, we'd be sending a message. and so why don't we -- why don't we do the right thing here? why don't we understand how this export ban on american crude oil is restricting our ability to use crude oil as an appropriate soft power opportunity? why don't we talk about how -- actually allowing for the export of crude oil could drive down gasoline prices in the united states of america and continue the energy renaissance? because if we can't find our market if we can't find our market in north dakota for this production, guess what happens? it either goes into storage or