the way. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the chair recognizes senator moran. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. general dempsey, mr. secretary, thank you for the opportunity to visit with you this morning. general dempsey, thank you for your service. ..

today's secretary, to the president, too i says congress and our lives less than 490,000 men and women in uniform. >> absolutely appeared to plan with god now takes an active army of 450000. >> when they make sure you understand the question. in the absence of sequestration with sequestration requires, which you otherwise see a circumstance in which you recommend the $450,000 -- 450,000 personnel to the secretary? is there a scenario in which they'll look good for the safety and security of our country? >> teaching staff of the army and the secretary have a plan that they have put forward where they can meet the national

security interest in the numbers bear. i have supported them in now. general odierno himself would tell you that greater risk than a 490 army. the question really becomes back to my testimony about the security environment. where do we want to maintain the forward presence that we have? if the answer to that as we want to be less worried and more at home, we just incurred risk. as i said the chief staff of the army says he can manage the national security strategy at 450. anything below that he cannot. he would tell you which are like to keep 490, but in the current budget scenario they can't do that. >> our country safer at

491-0450? >> it is almost too stark a choice, senator, to be honest with you. it's almost a at&t commercial. bigger is better than smaller. the army can manage the strategy we have. but if this body were to decide that we would have the resources to stay higher than that, i don't think you would find many of the same note thank you. >> thank you general. mr. secretary i've been interested in cybersecurity. i appreciate your emphasis and know you are out recruiting. one of the things that seems clear to me is the opportunity you mentioned that the response to the chairman's question the national guard to one of the things those components provide in regard to cybersecurity is personnel that have outside experience, that has the latest technologies and advanced and is available in their day jobs and bring that to protecting our country through the work they do then in the guard and reserve.

i think you confirmed that in response to the chairman's question about the value of the relationship and what the guard and reserve can provide in cybersecurity. would you explain why that is important to you? >> it is important because cyberpervades everything we do. none of our equipment or our plan operates properly, just like much the rest of society without the web. and so having the best technology embedded in our military, defending it so others can disrupt it were exploits it using cyber, offensively as necessary and required are all parts of the future of the military. we have excellent people in both military and civilian full-time,

but there is great untapped -- not yet fully tapped resource the one we are talking about but i completely agree with you. a lot of those people are cybersavvy in using them to help us in this mission is a great resource. >> mr. secretary, this can be close to a yes or no answer. in your better buying power efforts, are you beyond the theoretical demonstration of the value of this program and are you ready to pursue acquisition to prove that it works? >> yes. >> thank you. >> thank you senator. senator schatz, you're recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you on the secretary thank you secretary dempsey. i want to especially acknowledge your asia-pacific rate balance.

i want to address what is happening today in the south china sea. china is constructing artificial land in the spratly island and to seize territory and richer on maritime borders in violation of long-standing customary international law, while other countries that lay claim has those small outpost in engaged in minor maintenance therapy occupied in less than one year, china has rapidly exceeded anytime its neighbors have done. china's artificial islands will i love military to land fighter jets and surveillance aircraft that in the military dimension to a complex regional dispute. admiral locklear cautioned the expanded plan features could lead to the deployment of long-range radars and advanced missiles. so what are we doing to deter china's continued aggression in the south china sea and reassure our partners?

>> great question. thank you for her hospitality in honolulu and thanks for your interest in the asia-pacific strategy, which is critical to us because half of humanity and half of the world economy are in the asia-pacific theaters that we pay a lot of attention to the middle east. we forget that is the heart of things. the chinese behavior in the south china sea is something that we oppose because the militarizing of the situation send the confrontation over long-standing land disputes is not the way to resolve problems. we make that clear to the chinese. i say one thing that it is having the effect of that among other things china does having

the effect of increasing the pace and depth with which our allies and partners seek out to work with us. in the case that the philippines, the philippines want to do more with less. that is not unrelated. so it is both that kind of behavior is both a demonstrates -- that chinese behavior demonstrates the need for the rebalance in order to make sure the stability system of asia remains as it has for decades, one of peace and stability. and it is also oddly a source of further strengthening of our partnerships and alliances in the region which we alone have. >> thank you. when you look at the challenges he faced an adversary seed with

aerial capabilities, it is clear we continue to take it and a jumper to logical superiority. investments in technology like unmanned systems play a role in restoring conventional deterrence. they will require continued investments. the dod has invested over 1.5 alien and the unmanned combat air system demonstration program which stood up to mature technologies. the demonstration program is scheduled to conclude this month, but extending the program could make it possible to mature these key technologies and give us an opportunity to learn more about future operations and carrier integration. given the investment we've already made, do you feel a deep premature to close the program now under their additional tests that you think that maybe could conduct that would further by down future risk? >> you are absolutely right. the program which is a

demonstration has reached the end of what it was anticipated to do. i think we will have to however reduce the more research not necessarily in the same airframe for the reason you cite namely unmanned aircraft in the navy are part of the future. we recognize that is that the program is all about and we are trying to determine what the requirements will be for the program and wants the requirements are defined, there will be a passive demonstration that followed so far follows from the definition of the requirements we have not yet finished that process. >> thank you. >> the time of the senator has

expired. senator daines. mr. daines from montana. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary carter, thank you for being here today. many parts of the world including russia and the possibility of the nuclear erwin, the nuclear triad is as important as the end of the cold war. my favorite commander coyness from the 341st airway, which says that his montana scaring the out of enemies since 1962. i applaud the administration for requesting strong funding for modernizing our arsenal but i've been concerned by the president's willingness to unilaterally reduce our arsenal. but the administration's outlook on the future of our nuclear forces and as the president continued to maintaining a strong nuclear triad.

>> yes. the president has expressed a continuing commitment to the tribe and i think that it's important because as he has and i certainly support the nuclear modernization program and sustain the programs that we do in partnership with the department of energy. the three lakes of our triad and the command and control of the nuclear arsenal. i know that slogan well and that you know well, but it speaks the truth, even though nuclear weapons are not in the news every day day goodness, they remain the foundation of our security, so they need to maintain them we need to modernize them and it's important that the programs in the dollars to do that. >> on a talk about afghanistan and iraq for a moment. thank you general dempsey.

last month i was in the middle east was later mcconnell and some other senators. we were in iraq and afghanistan so impressed meeting with our men and women in uniform. i thought very highly of them have been spending with them. it just wasted my expectations an amazing group. but we see a stark contrast between the two countries in iraq and afghanistan. it seems at last is a glassmaking submitted in iraq and are at risk in doing the same in afghanistan. we saw the train and assist commission. we see about working while especially the current fighting system with the taliban. one of the commanders on the ground telling you about the timeline for a withdrawal and i think we're all glad to see the president the flexibility in

2015. what are your thoughts about the president's plan to drive down by january 2017? >> first of all, thank you are going and visiting. i'm not surprised to find it. we all do. my assessment and i don't want to speak for general campbell, but what i see there is great promise in afghanistan that we are going to achieve the object if we set ourselves. that is an enormous tribute to our men and women who have been there many years now. in addition to the performance of ira horace, the important ingredient is the performance of the afghan security forces because the whole idea is to build them so they can keep the peace in afghanistan.

that is so to speak i take it to an orderly, we will never become from afghanistan because we would be a security partner for a long time. the afghan security forces are performing well and a key part of that is the fact that president connie and chief abdullah have come together in a national unity government and they pay attention to the military. they also by the way thank us for what we've done. i think our strategy is paying off in afghanistan. >> do you think the current plan to withdraw within amnesty presents only, does that put us at risk of watching the same scenario played out in asking and we saw play out in iraq? >> we allow, including the president, continually assessing progress in our plans against the process. the change he made in the plan to keep the force level up about

three months ago was a reflection of bad and also a reflection of the importance placed on not. >> on behalf, again so proud of the men and women serving over there in that region. can you assure his situation on the ground and not a political calendar is withdrawing their troops? >> everybody wants success and to have gotten so close, to have gotten to the five-year line and fumble a ball nobody wants to do that. nobody is going to do that. i think things are -- i don't want to be too rosy about any name, but i can see the success we have stranded for so long ahead in afghanistan. >> thank you.

>> the time of the senator is expired here at the senator from california, ms. feinstein. >> thank you, mr. chairman. to the chairman i want to wish him the very best. i want to thank you for your intellect and your good sense. it is a unique combination and is very much appreciated. thank you. to our new secretary, it is good to see you in a new capacity. i only see you at the aspen strategy group otherwise. it is nice to see you here. i have a question. i understand the inclusion of the 1.2 billion for research and development for the long-range stealth bomber. this would replace the b-1 and b-52 and we know this is necessary. what i don't understand is the air force proposal for a new air launched nuclear-capable cruise

missile. as i understand that for the first five years the development costs are 1.8 alien. but this is only half the cost because this particular missile will be capable of carrying a high yield nuclear weapon. the air force missile decision is striving to life extension program at the department of energy for the dead bu 80 warhead, which is project did to cost another 1.8 billion over the next five years. this is allergic bends in funding with the nuclear non-proliferation program. i question why we need this cruise missile. it can deliver a nuclear warhead for great distances and at addition to the gravity bombs submarine ballistic missiles we find ourselves with. i absolutely think it is a

mistake to divert our limited budget resources from non-proliferation efforts which is going to have read for this purpose. here's the question. why does the military believed this long-range standoff nuclear missile is necessary to maintain our nuclear deterrent. >> u.s. about the military. infers that the general wants to answer as chairman. the reason for the man's cruise missile is to replace the cruise missile that exist now in recognition to the fact that air defenses are improving around the world and i keep being back capability to penetrate air defense with our nuclear deterrent is an important one and you are right to dead bu 80 warhead will go in the advanced

missile and its sudanese work in that work is done by the department of energy and paid for out of the department of energy budget and non-proliferation activities in the department of energy budget. my hope is we can accommodate those because it is important to have -- continue to have the penetrating come in air breathing cruise missile for nuclear deterrence, but also non-proliferation midsize import as well. >> i'd share that energy and water sub committee and i watched the nuclear costs go up all over whether its uranium plutonium, every project starts out in the hundreds of millions and billions. i really question adding nuclear cruise missiles to all the problems we are behalf. i have a very hard time voting for it. i just want you to know that. my belief is we have enough new

air weapons in this country and they are huge and hopefully they will never be used and i don't know that deterrent argument is met by another cruise missile. this one is nuclear-capable and standoff. i don't know the size of the warhead, but i will find out. >> this will require much more comprehensive answer, but it is part of sustaining the triad and the joint chiefs all of us have rendered advice that in order to preserve our concern capability must be sustained and we shouldn't negotiate any further reductions until we are joined by those other nuclear-capable nations in the world. our deterrence has worked the past 70 years and i would never recommend changing the

unilaterally. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you on the senator. the senator from missouri senator blunt. >> thank you mr. chairman. and i thought you were fairly cautious and overall observations about how the rest of the government should be sunday. it doesn't reflect a lot of what you do. senator moran and i at least served with the congressman from georgia, max collins who one of his favorite sayings was you have to finish your court. i've never held anyone -- heard anyone say that, but i understand it. if i have my numbers right cannot and i'd be glad for either one of you to correct me if i'm wrong on this. you requested $534 billion for defense which last year was a little less than 500 billion.

i believe the budget resolution i voted for yesterday gives you more money than you requested. do not want more money than you requested? >> senator, two things. first comment defense is my responsibility as you indicated. however it is national security, which is my responsibility come which is why i indicated i think about things more broadly. that is good and necessary in today's world. i do think more broadly about that. we think the amount of money requested in the manner we've requested meets the national security strategy of the united states. i will repeat something the chairman said in the reason we are so insistent upon the necessity of getting through the budget wilderness is that we are having gone through this

herky-jerky history over the last few years. we are on the edge of being able to accomplish this strategy as we now have the. we bought testified and it's really true. we need to get a longer horizon. it is not just money for this year. it is money as requested in a multiyear budget plan. that is what we are asking for. we don't have a one year at a time approach. you can't do defense or national security. >> i voted for the budget so i am for national defense and i am for looking for ways to help do that even within the current law. in both restriction on the advantage of the current law is the law. so the beyond that we do have to get somewhere else. i think that current law does lay out a 2% increase now for

this year because the average that out last year. the bus for $534 billion i think the congress has expressed in the joint budget resolution the desire to give you more than that if you have need for more than a end it will be interesting to see how the discussion goes on. in terms of what we are doing senator moran asked about the right size force. general dempsey, i will let you respond to this first. he and others from the reserves last week talked about how the reserve component fits into that. one of the things that came out of this discussion with you and says the full-time force gets smaller and it would possibly make a lot of sense to look at

the reserve force in the national guard force in a new way so when you need them. doesn't seem logical as the full-time force gets smaller that we want the guard and reserve to get smaller as well? >> actually, this is a good opportunity for what they senator from kansas and i spoke about. my responsibility is to say how do all these things fit together? to senator collins point about the navy. even though i dress like a dress on a big fan of the need is a big fan of the army. >> one day of the year if you were not. >> more than one day a year. we've played each other frequently in sports. i'm the one on behalf of the secretary and finally with his decision isn't it all together into a joint force and that includes active guard and reserve. in the world in which we live on

a it may seem counterintuitive because i sat in my testimony i can't sit here and tell you it's going to happen next, but i can tell you with certainty it will happen more quickly. we have to balance the active component because they are ready to go tonight in the guard and reserve who do incredible work, they have to be increased to be deployed. if you want to keep the guard and reserve, they will cost the same thing. i believe we have done the right balance among active guard and reserve. >> you mean the guard and reserve cost the same thing when they are called active duty? >> if you want them to be the same state of readiness as an active component soldier, you have to pay them to give them more drill days and give them

the opportunities to prepare. >> well, maybe i'm missing in my question because i'm talking about the number reserves that are ready to ramp up when they need you, not when they would be active at all times. >> i understand. what i'm suggesting what we've done in the budget commission is found what we believe to be the right number of active guard and reserve for requirements we see coming and from combatant commanders with security threats in wartime contingency plans. we've done exactly what you said i might point out the active component has been reduced to a much greater rate than the guard and reserve. the guard and reserves if i could use the term advantage in the budget process. we be taking too much risk if

they migrate to much more from the active to the guard and reserve. >> out of time. thanks for the answer, general. his thank you, senator. the next questioner is jon tester from senator of montana. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome to you and your support staff sitting behind you. i know how important they are the jobs you do care i don't know if there's going to be any flyfishing in your future, but we've got some pretty good fishing holes in montana. >> thank you first airbase. it is interesting as they come off on the budget and we've got the defense department here and i can't thank you enough for the work you guys do a national security. you are exactly correct. i look at the figure and i know

the talk around the budget msdn candidates in the middle east in the pacific and all over the world tend to make me not want to sleep at night and i'm sure it has a much bigger effect on you than me. i am also concerned about the investments we make in this country in infrastructure and housing and highways and electrical grid in the list goes on and on and on. my concern as we look at the military budget you are for most. your appeared. you've got the most senior members on appropriations on this committee. we think it is important. we tend to put infrastructure and affordable education and all those things that have made the country great do much to the g.i. bill in the background and that his father's son too.

i say look at china spending $400 billion on infrastructure a little over three times that this on their military. we've got some problems and i don't ask i.t. to solve that. one of the things that is also bothered me as we go into places like the middle east as leader of the free world i get all that. my question is are other countries stepping up and helping? quite frankly isis is just as big a threat in china and russia and brazil and india as here. these are bad guys. are there countries stepping up or do we continue putting our young men and women on the line and the wind share of the risk and the lion share of the money or is it a shared and ever? quite frankly i compare it to be in on the playground. as somebody else beat up the bully i sure ain't going to walk up to them.

talk to me. >> i have a lot of sympathy for what you just said. we are a great country. we assume great responsibilities. we have now is that others admire and are worthwhile for people everywhere next i sat around the world. it does feel like the lonely mission. that you mentioned some countries but just to take the middle east, for example we need our partners to step up and do more. there's no question about that. we stayed in syria and iraq in the reason this burden sharing. there's another reason as well which is nothing stakes if it is just done by us. if you have peace in iraq and defeat isi l.

-- isil. at the end of the day it has to be this. at the end of the day what you say is important. >> arrhythmic our budget go further if you had allies sticking up in a bigger way. it is my understanding the pentagon is exploring how to close combat missions for women and reported findings in congress. where we have enough process? >> you are absolutely right. we are opening a to win in just as many possibilities -- positions as they possibly can in the military. we are down now to a fairly restricted at important category in the army and marine corps and the leadership there is looking at what is possible, what the implications are. from my point of view and i

think this is widely shared, we want to do as much as we can so that presumption not to be women can serve everywhere in the military. there may be exceptions to that. we are still working our way through that in the army and the marine corps and the process isn't complete yet. i think it's an important evolution in something that are very good people are written with great dedication and determination looking now. >> we will have a recommendation to the secretary in september. the one thing we've done that is important to note as they scrutinize standard so we know we've got the standard is correct and make a determination who can meet them. >> to make this crystal clear

come in carrying out these nations combat missions, is very valuable role and has there been a valuable role for women in uniform? yes. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> the time of the senator has expired. the senator from alaska ms. murkowski. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general dempsey, thank you for your service and i was reminded of big fish on my wall and my office, there's more in the waters here there's no flyfishing in montana but we would welcome you any time. thank you for your service. i want to talk about the arctic. i just came from a made in my office. primarily men and women from the war college who want to talk about issues. i said if you read my chair today but was u.s. secretary and general dempsey. without question that was the arctic. where are we in the arctic when it comes to u.s. investment?

the general opinion is whether it is talking about icebreakers for communication or even wheeled vehicles that operate in arctic environments, the united states may be 40 years behind depending who you are talking to. i was at the arts council meeting last week with secretary kerry and all anybody wanted to talk about was precious arctic push and what were we going to do without regard and i think we're all trying to understand exactly what russia is doing there. we have had money of art takes studies. secretary hagel completed in arctic strategy. we got a few expenditures out there with respect to the arctic. i'm not aware of any comprehensive strategy to address how we deal with

national security deficiencies in the arctic. i know north commerce working on a paper to identify some of our national security needs in the arctic. it is a little vague at this point in time as to whether it is a full-fledged fan or whether it's simply a planning document. i think we are beyond the time to be doing plans and quite honestly am not interested in more studies. i think we need to be moving forward. the question to you secretary carter general dempsey if the committee were inclined to give you some meaningful guidance here on how we would move onward to implement and arctic national security strategy within this bill, what do you suggest we do? i think you agree we have plenty of issues from a military and defense and national security is

in the arctic. other nations look at us and say where's the united states? how do we respond? >> first of all, let me associate myself with the point of view you are expressing. it is going to be a major area of importance to the united states strategically and economically in the future. it is fair to say we're late to the recognition of god. but i think we have the recognition and now you're asking what is coming in and that is just the right question and i don't want to give you an off-the-cuff answer but i would like to work with you that you obviously have a lot of expertise and i appreciate you going to the arctic council meeting. i think a plan that is more than aspirational is needed and so i would be happy to work with you to that end.

>> well i welcome mat. it is more than timely. someone suggests we are so far behind on us that we have no excuses. just to the discussion about making sure that we maintain the forward pressure you have mentioned, general dempsey. as you know we've had this thing groups around the country. some 30 different base is viewed as potential candidates for reduction of forces moving from the 492 to 450. we are in a unique position in alaska. with the convergence of three different combatant commands. north com european command. none of those commanders over the past several months as we have been discussing with them think it is brewed and say we have for strength bair and

alaska between alice then and wainwright. the question to you is as we are ensuring as we are making sure the forward presence, we are making sure we are not withdrawing from the world i secretary carter has said. people listening to at the combatant commanders are recommending when it comes to being prepared for the security issues that present themselves in the high north. >> i am reminded of the plaque that is under the fish in my office they said that said if i only kept my mouth shut i wouldn't be up on this wall. the answer to your question senator, is absolutely we are listening. we really just started this two years ago and we probably are late, but we are hard at it.

north com has the most prominent voice because they are the partners of canada and thus it turns out mexico. we've got some work to do. >> knowing that we stand ready to work with you, but to have further discussion about what the arctic push is and have a better strategy moving forward. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. senator from vermont. >> thank you. general dempsey, i think i join everybody else in complimenting you on your service. i'm going to miss the breakfast on st. patrick's day. we pass the jokes back and forth. you are welcome to come fishing in vermont. we do have lake champlain in

some great spies. you know i am not the person among the members here talking about how we have to do more in less than secretary carter you must groan every time you hear that because i'm afraid some say we do everything with nothing that you had prior to your conversation. there's never been a time in my 41 years here in the senate when the military has been as small as it is now. it is not just important because it costs every dollar wisely. so going back to our earlier discussion where are we in the process of deciding what

equipment it needs for the requirements that governors have for national guard forces and equipment and domestic emergency of the air guard actually saving our state with earthquakes and others in the line. are there currently plans for how the national guard persona without the use in a domestic event. >> it is actually several years ago when i was deputy secretary asked for national guard to look at the question you are racing namely. the card has a national security function but a very important defense support, which i respect them for the 200 odd years the national guard has been in

existence and is critical for flood and other disasters. the question you are asking is we have never been down what it is that is required to respond to those disasters and potential disasters and that is the process general grass has embarked on. he took the state disaster assistance plans that now is looking at the regional disaster assistance plan and trying to create an overall disaster existence plan to use that to inform the resources of the guard and civil concerns. >> of course a country as large as ours we tend not to have earthquakes in the north these do look in some parts of the last if you look at tornadoes in the south and so on. general dempsey, you have to sit there as chairman of the joint

chiefs and juggle all of the demands and requirements with all of the different departments including general grass. is an issue that comes up to you question your >> absolute need. over the last several years the commander of the north can't ask a greater voice inside of our processes for the distribution of the forest and shaping of it. the other thing that gets very little notoriety but it's very powerful is the partnership between fema, federal emergency management agency and northern command and the guard hero and the southern region of feedback are well part are to respond to crises inside the home. >> i will never forget after we got devastated a few years ago flying into towns that have been totally cut off, bridges torn

apart and going in with our governor and general dooley as our adjunct general and seen the guard building it and then fema arriving. it was a salvation especially in some of those places because there's no medical care that can get through otherwise. general dempsey you have pushed hard on changes to work on the issue of sexual assault in the military. if you could let your staff like i know what you found it.

it's an issue that come up so often that you terry on both sides or not is a question i always ask. >> i would give the best answer possible. happy to do it. use the past tense push. i can assure you it is the present push. >> that is the important part. lastly, secretary carter talked about jet engines. i needs than a proponent. general welsh says it is a game changer. i watch it because like many other states how do something this important wind up in the cutoff list? >> i think you are referring to the ad bit program.

he had been program is an important one. the reason is we need more fuel-efficient jet engines in the future and the reason we pursued the at-bat program was in part as a follow-on and a competitor to the athlon 35 in the joint strike fighter. it is important for us to stay competitive in the jet engine area for military, by the way, not the reason we do it, but commercial competitiveness also. >> thank you senator leahy. if there's other questions, but they think the panel for your cooperation, your appearance today in your presentations. they will be helpful to us as we proceed the appropriations process. we are grateful for your service

and look forward to continuing the dialogue is necessary during the 2016 appropriation process. senators may submit additional questions which we will forward on to you and request that you respond to them in a reasonable time. the subcommittee stands in recess. >> thank you mr. chairman. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

>> yesterday, senator in 2016 presidential candidate ted cruz spoke on the senate floor in opposition to an agreement with iran over its nuclear program. he and senator patty may offer an amendment that places extra conditions on any nuclear deal with iran. senator cruz remarks. >> mr. president, i rise today seems to sound a note of warning about the nation of iran. consider the following facts. the supreme leader, ayatollah khamenei has accused america of

whining. we learned that the iranian regime has been actively arming and supporting the anti-american houthi rivals in yemen since 2009. the regime held equipment that featured chance of death to america and death to israel. the iranian regime charged to unjustly detain an american citizen. other crimes including propaganda against the established. the defense minister of iran declared the iaea inspectors would be barred from all military sides even those who know to have nuclear facilities. the ukrainian navy a cargo ship

industry cap hormuz saline under they seized another cargo ship industries of our ms. saline under the flag of our colleague the balkan islands. the foreign minister of iran accused the united states and allies as being the biggest danger to the international community. great britain informed the u.n. sanctions cannot shoot that iran has an active nuclear procurement network linked to two blacklisted firms and the iranian navy harassed the u.s. warship and military plane off the coast of yemen. mr. president these are not even from 1979 r. 1983 or 1986.

these are in chronological order the aggressive anti-american action of the islamic republic of iran in the last month. every one of those occurred in the last month. at least these are the ones we know of that have been covered in the media. this relentless drumbeat of hostility has gone on unabated for 36 years and that the legislation before this body committee every nuclear review lacked off the mark clear care insisting the only way congress has is to say of her president obama is proposed iran deal. i agree that it is of paramount importance to give congress the proper role in international agreements of this magnitude and to make their president obama must persuade congress and the american people to support his

deal if he wanted to be binding. which is why i have been supportive of the process so far. but i'm here to tell you is the legislation stand this legislation is unlikely to stop a bad a bad deal. the problem is an all too familiar one in washington d.c. which is that the every nuclear agreement act contains a provision that started at the insistence of senate democrats which will allow congress to appear to vote against the deal while tacitly allowing it to go into effect. the bill allows congress to adopt a quote resolution of disapproval of president obama's iran deal. a service that sounds reasonable for what we know publicly of the deal, i certainly disapprove of a strong way.

but a resolution of disapproval, even if it passed a 60-vote threshold with grand claims of bipartisanship would not be the end of the matter. the president was certainly detailed it and once he did it would require 67 votes in the senate and 290 votes to override the veto. no wonder the white house has lifted its objection to the legislation. all the president would have to do to force a bad iran deal on america is hold 34 senators of the democratic party or 145 members of congress. if he could do that, a patio that undermines national security country that endangers our friend and allies would go into effect and he could claim

he was simply following the process that congress required. that is not an oversight. that is not an accident. this bill is drafted will provide some political cover. the senate democrats say they have voted to provide strict scrutiny and congressional approval of an iran deal and yet it is currently drafted is a virtual certainty that no matter how terrible this deal is it will go into effect in this legislation is unlikely to stop it. our first priority should be stopping a bad iran deal that jeopardizes the lives of millions of americans and millions of allies. there's nothing more important in the body can consider. not trade, not the budget. the first responsibility is to

protect the national security of the country to protect the lives of the men women and children across this country and the president iran deal deeply jeopardizes the safety of americans. from what we know publicly in the details are still shrouded in considerable secrecy. from what we know publicly under this deal, iran will keep its enriched uranium. it will be allowed to keep its centrifuges and reactors. .. america. tehran will receive even more economic relief reportedly including a $50 billion signing bonus. mr. president, who in their right mind would give a $50 billion signing bonus to iran?

it's worth noting that even under one of the strictest regimes of international sanctions iran was still able to marshall the resources to become one of the world's leading state sponsors of terrorism. we can only imagine what iran will do with this new source of funding, which will certainly flow to hamas to hezbollah and to the human houthis as well as their proxies mr. president, i would note this deal goes into effect and tens or hundreds of billions of dollars flow into iran including $50 billion signing bonus and that money is given directly to radical islamist terrorists. the blood of the men and women and children who will be murdered by those terrorists will be directly on hands of this administration.

if we allow tens and hundreds of billions of dollars to flow into the hands of terrorists it places complicity for that terrorism on this administration. care is no topic more serious that his body can consider them preventing the murder of americans. terrain is behavior speaks for itself. they are right now today unlawfully imprisoning multiple american citizens. patrick's i eat obligating me -- under brutal conditions and their withholding information on the whereabouts of the robert levinson. they have killed americans across the globe and they plotted to kill us here at home. and they're explicitly threatening to wipe our allies, the nation of israel, off the

map. indeed, in its that is negotiation missing iranian general said the annihilation of israel is quote nonnegotiable. given that there's no way on earth we should be allowing billions of dollars to flow into a radical terrorist organization that has declared its object destroying israel which they call little satan notably destroying america, which they call us the great satan. they are telling us they want to kill us not 10 years ago or 20 years ago. they are telling us this right now. if history teaches any principal with a bunt and clarity, it is that if somebody tells you they want to kill you believe them. and they are not being subtle. these are the people the obama

administration are putting on a path to having nuclear weaponry the most fearsome weaponry known to man. make no mistake. that's what this deal with you in less congress steps in to stop it. not another showboat come not to pretend to disapprove but to actually stop a bad deal that jeopardize our safety. mr. president kasea this scenario is likely to play out we don't have to speculate. we need look no further than to the recent history of north korea. in october 1994 the clinton administration reached another agreed framework with north korea over that nation's nuclear program. then secretary of state madeleine albright insisted she had gotten a deal that would freeze the military component of the program, and through economic incentives and diplomatic outreach entice the

hermit kingdom to joint international community and reject their pursuit of nuclear weapons. at first all seemed to go well as north korea eagerly accepted the influx of hard occurrence as well as the promised civilian nuclear reactors. secretary albright, and accompanied by then policy coordinator for north korea wendy sherman even visited north korea in 2000 to celebrate the progress. despite all the diplomatic initiatives, despite all of the champagne those the north koreans were cheating we now know, they were cheating on the framework from the get-go. when the george w. bush administration figured out economic sanctions were reimposed, but they had no affect. neither did yet more additional rounds of negotiations while they continued and continued and continued to enrich.

kim jong-il had gotten the resources he needed because the clinton administration relaxed sanctions that allowed billions of dollars to flow into his hands. and in 2006 north korea tested its first nuclear weapon. two more tests have followed. in 2012 when kim jong-un came to power then suggested hillary clinton suggested that kim jong-un might be a transformative leader. and the state department reportedly assured the president that he they would be more concerned with economic improvements than with his inherited nuclear program. in less than two years this, too, was proven wrong. kim jong-un has been wished no interest in before. ps instead resolutely pursued his father's policies. just last week we learned from the chinese that north korea is

well on its way to having some 40 nuclear weapons. by 2016. as the ability enriched uranium is significantly more sophisticated than had been believed. in addition, they are hard at work at their icbm program and may soon be able not only to threaten our regional allies, but also to strike the west coast of the united states. and with sony weapons in their arsenal it seems only logical that this rogue regime may in turn offer some of those weapons were sailed to the highest bidder. all of this proves the fallacy of the clinton administrations repeated basic assumption that the north koreans would act in the best interest economically, for which for albright and

sherman meet reaching the diplomatic agreement to achieve diplomatic relief. unfortunately, they were dead wrong. and the result is a united states faces an escalating strategic threat in the pacific. we are now in grave danger of history repeating itself with iran. we be sherman from the very same person who negotiated the failed north korea deal the obama administration brought her back from the clinton administration to be our lead negotiator with iran. think about that. the person who led the failed north korea talks, the talks that led to north korea getting nuclear weapons, is president obama's lead negotiator with iran, and her negotiation will certainly lead to the same outcome. indeed when secretary clinton

brought with him -- wendy sherman.com wendy sherman followed the exact same playbook for the negotiations that she had followed under the clinton administration with respect to north korea. you know, albert einstein famously said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. we negotiate the same failed to deal we will get the same failed outcome. iran has already enjoyed significant economic relief and legitimization on the international stage while america's demands have dwindled from dismantling iran's nuclear program to now merely curbing it around the edges temporarily and unverifiable he. it may only be a matter of time before secretary john kerry no doubt a company by undersecretary wendy sherman pays a courtesy call on tehran

to echo history and to show the world how quote civilized the whole arrangement is. and only a matter of time until the iranians cheat just like the north koreans, their way to a bomb. and yet the grim reality is that as bad as the situation is with north korea, with iran it is qualitatively worse. the kim dynasty is brutal dictator. but they do seem to be motivated at least to some extent by self-preservation. and so to some form there is at least a possibility of rational deterrence. and therein lies the phone with -- fundamental difference in a rented the mullahs in iran are radical. for whom the eradication of those same israel, and the great satan america is a solemn religious duty. and with radical religious

zealots, ordinary cost-benefit analysis doesn't apply the same way. with zealots who glorify death and suicide deterrence doesn't work the way it works elsewhere. death to america is not just a slogan. it is a religious promise. the risk that the ayatollah will use the economic windfall of billions of dollars courtesy of the u.s. of a. to pursue nuclear weapons that he would either use himself or give to terrorists surrogates to use is intolerably high. the consequences of this deal mr. president, could very well be an iranian nuclear weapon used in the sky of tel aviv or new york or los angeles. the consequence of this deal could very well be millions of

americans murdered. there is no more serious topic we could be addressing. now, president obama and his two secretaries of state have had the chance to negotiate with iran and they have squandered it on the same approach that was so spectacularly unsuccessful with north korea. they changed very little. they just replayed the same failed plan. once again assuming that they can reason with a rogue regime. they are on the verge of sealing a deal that could result in a significant threat to our nation in the 21st century. the administrations claims that tehran will not use the economic windfall to pursue a nuclear program or support terrorism and that if they do quote snapback sanctions will fix the problem. are hardly reassuring. especially as we know from the example of north korea that the

opposite result is far more likely. having gotten what they wanted, the mullahs will string of the economic benefits for as long as they want and then when they are ready test a nuclear bomb. the iranians know perfectly well what a very, very good deal this is for them. and they are doing what they can to prevent congress from disrupting it. in march i was proud to join with 46 of my colleagues in signing a letter written by senator tom cotton of arkansas that explained the constitutional role of the senate approving the treaty or of both houses of congress passing legislation into law for any deal to be binding on the united states of america. judging from the reaction, tehran does not appreciate our free system of governance. the foreign minister responded that the authors of the letter

may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of the respective states, responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfill the obligations they undertake with other states that may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations. speaking last week an audience at nyu he reiterated his opinion that is a matter of international law, president obama have to abide by the dictates of whatever deal is struck, and that congress is powerless to stop it. he also said that he quote does not deal with congress. as a matter of the united states the law mr. the reef is wrong. it is true in the nation of iran would have a supreme leader and ayatollah with the ability to

string you up or shoot you if you disagree, the work of the supreme leader is binding but we have no supreme leader in the united states of america. we are bound by constitution and rule of law that keeps sovereignty and we the people. and if mr. zarif wants sanctions agreements, the only way to make that binding is to do with congress pursuant to the constitution of the united states. but if we pass the iran nuclear agreement review act as it stands right now he won't have to. it's time to tell the american people the truth. enough games. this legislation is not a victory for congress. this legislation advanced will slow down slightly a terrible deal from being put into place. that's the very best outcome is a slight delay in the president's national president putting in a terrible deal that

jeopardize american security. it's not a guarantee that president obama will have to submit his deal. and honor the will of congress. in fact it provides a backdoor path for a minority of congress one-third of congress, to ensure that the deal goes into effect over the bipartisan will of the majority. and even worse, the president will be able to claim that they satisfy the terms that congress itself set. that is hardly the message we want to send on iran's nuclear program. and this issue is far too important to pass a bad bill simply to send a message. by prioritizing bipartisan compromise over our national security we are endangering the safety and lives of americans across this country. now i will note there is a silver lining.

in 20 months mr. obama will no longer occupied the oval office. and in january 2017 with a new president enters the white house he or she will have full authority to rescind any international agreement with iran that had not been ratified by the senate were passed into law by both houses of congress. mr. president, any man or woman who is fit to be commander-in-chief of the united states of america should be prepared to rescind a bad deal with iran on day one. no president of the united states should jeopardize the lives of millions of americans or millions of our allies. now congress could act right now to stop the bad deal. we could come together and assert our constitutional role and we can do so through a very simple mechanism. right now the current bill

provides that if congress doesn't overwrite president obama's veto, a terrible iran deal goes into effect. i have joined with senator pat toomey of pennsylvania in filing an amendment that simply reverses that default that simply says the president cannot lift sanctions on iran unless a deal is affirmatively approved by congress. that is the constitutional structure. mr. president data to be a provision supported not by 51 senators or even 60 senators board 67 senators. that ought to be a provision supported by all 100 senators. what a strange development in our modern policy that the congress of the united states is content to effectively neuter itself. mr. president, you and i are both members of the republican party. i feel quite confident that if a republican president were in

office we would not be content to give up the constitutional authority and responsibility that is given to this body to ratify treaties or pass laws. and yet i'm sorry to say on the democratic side of the aisle our friends are perfectly content to forfeit the constitutional authority to the president. if this deal is a good deal it most assuredly is not, but if it is the president should be able to get congressional approval. and yet the reason that senate democrats are terrified of requiring congressional approval is they know full well you cannot defend a deal that allows iran to keep tens of thousands of centrifuges come to keep enriched uranium, to keep developing their icbm program, to keep remains the world leading'sleading state sponsor of terrorism, to keep working to annihilate the nation of israel.

that is not the sensible on the merits. one simple change would turn this legislation into something meaningful. one simple change that would say the president is free to negotiate a deal the likes but before it goes into effect, bring it to congress and get the of for mobile agreement of congress. don't have a fig leaf vote and let the presidents bad deal go into effect identified our nation security. have a meaningful vote that requires the affirmative approval of congress. i arch my colleagues to adopt this amendment which is a common sense fix that will give this bill real teeth by removing the resolution of disapproval. and instead would allow iran deal to go into effect only if

congress approves. in the spirit of this legislation is purely procedural. so it is germane to this bill. and yet senate democrats have blocked a vote on it. they refuse even to vote on this amendment. all this amendment does is ensure that the burden is on president obama to persuade congress and the american people that the deal is a good one, or at a very minimum is not a terrible threat to the national security of the united states of america. this should be something we come together, not as republicans, not as democrats, but as senators who have a responsibility to protect our constituents to protect the american people come into defend the constitution. we should come together with one voice and say we will not allow

a bad iran deal that ensures that iran will acquire nuclear weapons that could be used to murder millions of americans or millions of our allies. they should be unanimous. and so mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate resumes consideration of h.r. 1191 that i be allowed to offer my and emmett number 1152. >> reserving the right to object. mr. president, first i thank my friend from texas. and i share the same goal and that is to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state. there are three basic problems with my friends a minute. if that were to be adopted. want it would either defeat the bill which is very possible because it changes the fundamental of this bill. we are looking at redoing it

agreement that does not require consent because congress may, in fact, decide it is not what you take this issue. that's an option. secondly, if the were adopted it could very well within our ability to negotiate with iran. they may say gee we got integration with the president and america negotiate with the congress at our negotiating partners good on other circumstances might very well say that's the end of negotiations and in the united states is blamed and we are isolated as the country that prevented a diplomatic solution to this very very difficult problem. third, it puts our negotiators in a position because they don't have the united states and into for we will about the to negotiate the strongest possible deal. for my friend who says it's just simple for congress to pass a bill in order to implement this we've been on this bill for two weeks that came after the committee 19 this year added on cnn get insight.

so at the same time this bill prevents the president from exercising his of labor authority under the sanction regime while congress is reviewing it. so in effect delay tactics could be used by minority to prevent agreement from being considered for the senate. so for all those reasons the well intended and then would have i think the reverse affect, but from a procedure point of view as i've explain earlier we've been working to try to get amendments up and for all those reasons, mr. president, i do object. >> objection is heard. >> mr. president we are a little confused that you are scheduled. i know i was supposed to be speaking at 5:05. i know my good friend from ohio wants to be recognized next for a short period of time so i would ask unanimous consent that he be recognized now and that be

followed by my good friend from delaware to be recognized for his time and in that i would be recognized that the end of his remarks for such time as i would consume under morning business. >> the senator from texas still has the floor. is there objection? >> mr. president, i will wrap up momentarily and then happily yield to my friend from oklahoma for his very reasonable time allocation suggestion. you know i would note that the senator from maryland suggested that the the problem with carpers of criminally approving this is that it could be subject to delay, congress might not take it up. i would note to my friend from maryland i would certainly be amenable to a friendly and emmett to my amendment that required expedited consideration of an iran deal. without the ability to filibuster, but with the requirement that it received the affirmative approval of both

houses of congress as to the specific problems my friends are maryland suggested to be avoided and we could put in as short and expedited time period as necessary but what is critical i would suggest is is that congress has ultimately prove this, that we take responsibility if the deal is a good one and matured of congress should support. and if it is not a good one then it will not receive the approval of the majority of congress. and so i would ask my friend from maryland if that would be a friendly amendment that he would be open to reaching a compromise on. >> mr. president speak with senator from maryland. >> i appreciate the feminists from my friend from texas but i must tell you -- friendliness. we have to go back. this is an expedited process in regard to congress taking action if there is a violation of a rant of an agreement. we do have an expedited process

in the bill that is currently before us so that we can snap back sanctions quickly and congress received not only certifications but notices from the administration as to whether that our material breaches. so we already have that process in the bill to deal with any violation of any agreement. a balance here is that congress does not know what process the user to we imposed sanctions we might want to take up modifications to the sanctions, we may want to take up and approve a resolution, we may want to take up a disapproval. we might want to pick up something totally different with iran. that's our options. so it would be impossible now to predict an expedited process when we don't know what the action of the congress is going to be in regard to the agreement being submitted by the president of the united states. so even though it is a very friendly suggestion i can't take you up on it. >> i would note mr. president, a result of this and not being

taken up is that congress is abrogating our authority and responsibility to approve this deal. because the results of this bill is drafted we couldn't look at a crystal ball know exactly what's going to happen. a couple of months the demonstration is going to come forward with the details of its terrible deal with iran. this summer will have debates in this body of a resolution of disapproval will be introduced and it will not get 67 votes in this body. there will be enough members of the president own party will stand with him no matter how terrible the deal is for our national security. and right up under this legislation but that deal will go into effect. ideal that has the potential -- the deal that has the potential to result in the murder of millions of americans. there are few topics we address that come anywhere close to the

gravity of this topic. and it is disappointing to see democratic senators putting partisan politics above our national security. we should stand together and protect america. the next 20 months are going to be very, very dangerous in this nation. and yet i am encouraged in 20 months america's going to embark on a different path. america is going to return to defending our nation come to defending our constitution comes to defending the men and women across this country. i yield the floor. >> the u.s. senate is about to gavel in for the day. to take continued work on iran nuclear deal bill that would require the obama administration to submit any nuclear agreement with iran to congress for

review. a procedural vote on that bill is scheduled for 10:30 a.m. also possible today debate on trade promotion authority legislation which was brought to the floor yesterday by majority leader mitch mcconnell. and now live coverage of u.s. senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. today's opening prayer will be offered by guest chaplain, his holiness aram i from new york, new york.

the guest chaplain:: in the name of the father, and the son and the holy spirit. amen. almighty god, we ask you to guide our reflection, our action and all our endeavors; and we ask your guidance especially in the deliberations and decisions of this noble body, because strong, wise and visionary leadership is essential for the well-being of nations.

this year is the centenary of the armenian genocide, the first genocide of the many that followed in the 20th century. in commemorating one-and a half million armenian martyrs, we claim justice. indeed, justice is a gift of god, and violation of justice is a sin against god. we beseech you, o lord, to bless the united states of america and its people. empower them to continue serving humanity through your goodness as they did when they sheltered the remnants of the armenian

nation and all those who sought freedom and justice. o, lord, give your children wisdom, love and compassion so that they may live and prosper with the gifts of your spirit - justice, truth, freedom and righteousness. may your name be praised forever and ever. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to

the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., may 7 2015. to the senate, under the provisions of rule 1 paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate i hereby appoint the honorable dean heller, a senator from the state of nevada, to perform the duties of the chair. signed orrin g. hatch, president pro tempore. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to h.r. 1314.

the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 58, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 and so forth. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we the we, the undersigned senators in in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to h.r. 1314, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 and so forth signed by 17 senators. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that the reading of the names be dispensed with. the presiding officer: objection? the senator from rhode island. island senator senator reed:i'm honored to be here today with his

holiness aram i from the apostolic church in america. his holiness will be visiting the apostolic church in america in providence on may 30 and members of the armenian community in rhode island look forward to welcoming here. he is an accomplished scholar devoted humanitarian and h strong spiritual shepherd. we marked the 130th anniversary of the armenian genocide it exiled over half a million survivors and deeply impacted all armenians throughout the world. on this centennial, reflect on this exceptionally grave tragedy and looking to the future continue to work to promote peace and human rights worldwide. and there is no one better able to help us to do so than the catholicos. it is an honor to welcome his holiness hear his words of prayer and reflection and go forward h knowing he is a

powerful force for tolerance and decency. i thank him for being here today and for sharing his words of wisdom with the senate and the nation. and i yield the floor and thank the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: it's good to see that the senate -- mr. reid: mr. president, if i could ask the distinguished majority leader if he would be willing to go in a quorum call for a brief conversation. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president it's good to see the senate will soon be passing another important piece of bipartisan legislation. the iran nuclear agreement review act offers the best chance for our constituents through the congress they elect to weigh in on the white house negotiations with iran. and make no mistake they need to have that opportunity. the american people were led to believe that these negotiations would be about ending iran's

nuclear program and and its enrichment capability. but the current interim agreement makes one thing very clear -- these talks have devolved into something else altogether. instead of ending iran's nuclear program, the interim agreement would actually bestow international blessing for iran to continue it. rather than meaningfully roll back tehran's enrichment capability and dismantle its nuclear infrastructure, the interim agreement would actually permit iran to become a nuclear threshold state poised right at the edge of obtaining a nuclear weapon. now, iran would love nothing more than for the international community to recognize its threshold program and the

iranian regime would also love to be rid of the crippling sanctions that forced it to the table in the first place. iran would of course divert those new funds to support the assad regime, finance terrorist proxies like hezbollah modernize its conventional capabilities and further support the houthis in yemen. this would only reaffirm the fears of moderate sunni allies that america is withdrawing withdrawing in the face of iran's determined effort to expand its sphere of influence. and for all this, what would the united states gain from such an agreement from iran? we would have given up our best leverage over the regime, and for what? that's a very good question. a very good question. if a final agreement is reached that looks much like the interim

agreement we've seen, it's not hard to foresee the possibilities of negative consequences. but let me be clear -- a bad agreement seems far more likely to eventually lead to the kind of military conflict everyone wants to avoid than no agreement at all. president obama would also be leaving the task of dealing with violations of an agreement to his successor. i say all this to underline the need for a bipartisan iran nuclear agreement act which is before us today. if we didn't face the threats of filibusters or the blocking of amendments or the specter of presidential vetoes, this bill would be a heck of a lot stronger i assure you. but the truth is we faced all those things, we do. that's the frustrateing reality. the response to this should not be to give the american people no say at all no say at all on a deal with iran.

the response should be to overcome these challenges in a way that will give congress and the american people the best possible chance to review any possible deal and affect its outcome. so i would urge both -- members of both of our parties here in the senate to join me in supporting this bill, and make no mistake, that will not be the end of the support either. this congress is determined to pursue other avenues to address iran's aggressive campaign of expansion and intimidation in the months to come. on the topic of aggressive campaigns in pursuit of expansion and intimidation, there are several other countries that come to mind around the world. china, for one. china's determined to dominate its neighbors. china wants to diminish american influence in the pacific. and china wants to substitute american-style rules of global economic play for chinese-style

rules of monopolistic cartels and mercantilism. that's not an outcome any american should be willing to accept. we are a pacific nation. we have important allies in the region nations like japan australia, south korea and new zealand that are today just as much of a modern democratic market-oriented west as we are. the 21st century also promises to be an asian-pacific century. if we care about preserving and extending american leadership globally then we cannot cede the most dynamic region in the world to china. one way to preserve our leadership would be to invest in the weapons systems and platforms that would fulfill the obama administration's would-be pivot to asia. another important way would be to demonstrate our economic leadership.

that's just one more reason why passing the bipartisan congressional trade priorities and accountability act is so important. the united states is currently negotiating an agreement with a whole host of pacific nations. not just japan and australia but also countries like canada and chile that would cement and enhance our role in the world's fastest growing region. the so-called trans-pacific partnership would lower unfair trade barriers to american-made goods and american produce sold in the pacific. that would represent a huge win for american workers and american farmers to say nothing of the far-reaching geopolitical implications for our country. but our trade negotiators cannot bring this specific agreement back to congress for careful review and deliberation unless congress assures our trading partners that the agreement is

going to get a fair up-or-down vote. that's just what the bipartisan congressional trade priorities and accountability act would do. this bipartisan bill would also force america's trade negotiators to meet congressional objectives and consult with congress regularly throughout the process and it would ensure that an agreement like the trans-pacific partnership could not be enacted without explicit congressional approval. it's a commonsense bill that was supported by large numbers of republicans and democrats in committee, passing by a vote of 20-6. so there's no reason we shouldn't turn to this bill and then pass it. the other countries in the region have made clear that they will have regional trade agreements with or without us, whether we participate or not and if we walk away, china will step right in, no question about that. so we will turn to the

bipartisan congressional trade and priorities and accountability act and when we do we'll have a choice to make. would we rather see chinese workers and chinese farmers or american workers and american farmers reap the economic benefits of selling more to this dynamic region? now, on one final matter. i'd like to bid a fond farewell to one of the smartest guys around here, don ritchie, who will be leaving us later this month. he has been the senate's historian since 2009. don's only the second one we've ever had. his immediate and only predecessor, richard baker hired him when the senate historical office came into being in the mid 1970's. there were a lot of applicants to be baker's number two back then but don quickly rose to the top of the heap. baker said he received several

extremely heartfelt letters of recommendation for don that were just literally over the top. one, he said, was from a leading diplomatic historian who said that in his whole 30-odd years of teaching, he had never encountered a more perceptive or diligent or brighter student than don. no more superlatives, he said, could have been used. apparently no more superlatives were needed because don ritchie got the job. and so it's clear he hasn't disappointed. even if he did have to wait three decades for the big promotion. don came into the senate with all the hype of new coke, but his performance and staying power have had more of a coke classic feel. don likes to say he has a front row seat to the best show in town. don is the only one we turn to when we want to learn more about

where the senate's been so we can chart a better course for where it's going. he has been a great resource for my staff and for me over the years, and don's office is there as a resource for the american public too. he's the guy you see on tv explaining the historic significance of events like swearing-in ceremonies and inaugurations. i don't think any of us would want to face him on "jeopardy." his depth of knowledge really is something to behold. i'm sure he has gained a lot of that knowledge from the part of his job he loves the most, which is conducting the senate historic office oral history project. he's interviewed just about everyone you can imagine from senators to clerks to police officers. he even got to interview a man who once worked as a congressional page -- listen to this -- during the presidency of

william howard taft. that page provided some very good information don said, even if he kept falling asleep several times during the interview. here's how "roll call" once described don ritchie -- the senate's memory keeper. it's fitting then that the senate voted recently to designate don ritchie as his for i don't know emeritus. it's not like -- as historian emeritus. it's not like he plans to slow down in retirement anyway. historians never retire, don says. they just have more time to research. along with the research, don also plans to spend more time with his three beloved grandchildren and to do some traveling with his wife ann. the senate wishes him the very best in retirement and sends its heartfelt congratulations to a man who has been an institution around here for four decades. four decades. the senate would also like to offer its congratulations to betty coen who has been

announced by the secretary of the senate as our next senate historian. we also wish kate scott well in her promotion to associate historian. employment the democratic leader. mr. reid: three decades ago when senator robert byrd began drafting a series of lectures on the history of the united states senate who did he go to for help? don ritchie. ten years ago when dan bowen the popular author of the bestseller "the da vinci code" wanted information about the capitol for his new novel where did he go? don ritchie. even now when famed his for i don't know and biographer robert carro needs facts for his five-volume work on lyndon johnson, he goes to don ritchie for help. for 39 years any person needing valuable insight into the united states senate and its history has known where to go. the senate historian don

ritchie. don has obliged sharing his wealth of knowledge with anyone who asks -- senators, staff authors, historians, visitors. but after nearly 40 decades don will officially retire from the senate historical office at the end of this month as the senior senator from kentucky has just stated. from his first day in the senate, don ritchie made this institution a better place. the first ever senate historian don's predecessor richard baker once said -- and i quote -- "march 8 1976, that's a date like my wedding anniversary that i remember." indeed, that was the day don ritchie was hired as an associate historian in the newly formed senate historical office. don ritchie a former marine, was fresh out of graduate school at the university of maryland having received his ph.d. in history a year later. he was getting a start in the profession driving all over the d.c. area, teaching