highway bridge, mass transportation projects nationwide for the next six years. current funding for the program runs out at the end of this month. the house passed a bill to continue funding into december senators received their bill mid afternoon yesterday and have been looking over. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. mighty god, hear our prayers. search our hearts and know our thoughts. teach us to not transgress with our lips. keep the steps of our lawmakers

on your paths, inspiring them to not slip from the way of integrity. hear and answer their prayers, saving them with your right hand. lord, preserve them as the apple of your eye, ordering their steps and bringing them to your desired destination. we love you lord, for you are our strength. we pray in your strong name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to you our 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.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i regret that yesterday's procedural vote on the multiyear bipartisan highway bill was not successful. it wasn't a vote to approve of the bill. it was just a vote to agree to talk about it. we held that vote when we did because we wanted to give the house more space to work on it. but some members said they wanted more time to review it before agreeing to talk about it so we'll take that procedural vote again later

today. and because we're still determined to get this to the house in a timely manner, we expect to work through saturday to ensure that we do. here are the key components of the legislation: it's a bipartisan long-term multiyear measure that will fund our roads, highways and bridges longer than any transportation bill considered by congress in a decade. and this highway proposal will do so without raising taxes or adding to the deficit. it will give state and local governments the kind of stability and certainty they need to better plan road and infrastructure projects into the future while also providing them with more flexibility in pursuing those projects. it will instill real transparency and accountability into the funding process so

americans can actually see where infrastructure tax dollars are going and how they're being spent. and it will help break the habit of washington always looking to hike up the gas tax to fund its spending instead of looking for spending cuts and efficiencies first. because here's what we know, mr. president, about the gas tax. it hits hardest those who struggle just to get by. and too many americans have been struggling the last few years. it's not fair to hit those americans again with yet another unfair policy from washington. some people might be a little shocked to see the senator from california and myself working across the aisle to put this bill together. some might have been shocked to see president obama and republicans working together to pass important trade legislation for american workers or a republican senator from tennessee and a democratic senator from washington helping the senate come to agreement by replacing no child left behind.

but my view is if you can agree on a policy that's good for the american people, you should be willing to look past the "d" or "r" next to somebody's name in order to get it enacted. senators from both parties know that a long-term highway bill, we've all been talking about for literally years is in the best interest of our country. so we're working together to get a good one passed. thanks to the dedication of both republican and democratic senators and their staffs, i'm hopeful we will. now, mr. president on a different matter, i've said that the senate nindz to thoroughly -- intends to thoroughly review the white house deal with iran and take a vote on it on the terms of the iran nuclear review act. this is a review process that allows us to determine whether the administration complied with the law and delivered the complete agreement and its

review process that will continue today. we'll have an all-senators briefing later this afternoon to get more detailed analysis of the agreement. it will be a time for senators to ask questions and get a stronger sense of whether this deal can be verified. i know many are eager to do so. senators from both sides of the aisle have questions for the obama administration. then tomorrow secretaries kerry lew and moniz will come to the senate to testify before the senate foreign relations committee. i know they're expecting a lot of serious thoughtful questions including from members of their own party and they should. because the onus is on any administration to explain why a deal like this is a good one for our country. it's always the administration, not congress, that carries the burden of proof in a debate of this nature. and it seems the administration today has a long way to go with democrats and republicans alike. for instance, many members in both parties including democratic leadership in congress warned the

administration not to have the u.n. vote on this agreement before the american people and the congress they elected had a chance to weigh in first. there was no reason to seek u.n. approval first. but the administration ignored democrats, ignored republicans and did so anyway. why? why did they do that? they need to explain. is this deal really about keeping america the region and the world safer or is it simply a compendium of whatever iran will allow. an agreement struck to take a temporarily difficult threat off the table but one that might actually empower the iranian regime and make war more likely. they need to explain this too because iranian leaders including the foreign minister, hailed the deal as a victory over america. the iranian foreign minister says this is a great victory over america. the supreme leader boasted our policies toward the arrogant

u.s. americans will not change. that's the supreme leader of iran. our policies toward the arrogant u.s. government will not change. and he said that to chants of "death to america" from the crowd below. even secretary kerry was taken aback by the response from iran. we know this about playing to some electorate in iran. we know this isn't about playing to some electorate in iran because the islamic republic isn't truly a republic and the unelected supreme leader has no electorate to report to. so we need to move beyond the rhetoric including that the choice here is between a bad deal and war which no serious person truly believes, and get to real answers instead. so our committees will be holding hearings. they'll begin to shine a light on this agreement and they'll aim toward getting the american people more of the answers they

deserve. tomorrow's hearing will be important, but it's not the end of the process. it's just the beginning. we'll have more hearings. we'll interview more witnesses. we will continue endeavoring to answer the question of whether this deal will enhance or harm our national security. and then we'll take a vote on it on behalf of the american people. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: mr. president, we are -- i'm having a caucus today. we have the bill. we've worked through the night. i wasn't up all night but my staff was. i did spend quite a bit of time on this bill. i think we have a basic understanding of it. so i'm having a caucus today and we'll have my ranking members from finance commerce,

energy banking will report on how they look at this bill. it's my hope that we can work our way through all the issues dealing with this legislation because we have been, i think the main reason that we're where we are now, we have focused on the importance of a long-term highway bill. so i hope that we can work our way through these issues. there is some significant issues i've already been alerted by my staff, some of the pay-fors are somewhat questionable. let's, before we start drawing lines in the sand here, let's see if we can figure out a way to get this done. we will know that sometime early this afternoon. mr. president, alexander hamilton said -- quote -- "the first duty of society is justice."

if that was true -- and i certainly believe it is -- then the republican senate is failing miserably to fulfill its first duty. by neglecting to live up to their constitutional duty to provide advice and consent, it is clear that the republican leader and his party are denying justice for the american people. federal courts depend on us, the united states senate, to do its job so justice can be dispensed in courtrooms across the country. the republicans clearly have no interest in these courtrooms and judicial chambers staffed adequately. so far this congress, republicans have confirmed five judges. by the same point the last congress of george w. bush's presidency under my leadership the senate confirmed 25 judges. five to one seems unfair. and there are rerepercussions when republicans refuse to act. we didn't have judicial

vacancies then. we did it because it was the right thing to do. if there aren't enough judges to hear the cases that are piling up a vacant judgeship is declared an emergency. at the beginning of this year there were only 12 judicial emergencies that deserved priority attention. yet in a mere seven months of this republican-controlled senate that number has doubled and is on its way to tripling very very soon. today there are 28 judicial emergencies, including 4 judges currently pending on the floor. but that's really an unfair view because having them pending on the floor takes into consideration that the judiciary committee is doing their job holding hearings on these nominations, and they're not. this is something that was learned years ago when the judiciary committee was operated by the present chair of the finance committee how he got around having these judicial nominations stacked up on the

court calendar, he just wouldn't do hearings. and that's what's taking place in the judiciary committee. there are real-life consequences to this obstruction. each judge republicans block each nomination they slow-walk results in delayed justice. as the maxim goes, justice delayed is justice denied, and that certainly is true. "the wall street journal" article from april quoted u.s. district judge lawrence o'neill. he is from the eastern district of california. here's what he said -- and i quote -- "over the years i've received several letters from people indicating even if i win this case, my businesses fail because of the delay. how is this justice? and the simple answer, what i cannot give them is this: it's not justice as we know it." judge o'neill is one of 25 judges i worked to confirm in the first six months of the 110th congress with president

bush. he's absolutely right, what is happening now with judicial emergencies across the country is not justice. it is republican politics as usual. we saw it on display last week when the junior senator from delaware came to the floor and asked consent to confirm five consensus judges to the court of federal claims, a really important bloc of judges doing important work for this country. it was not an outlandish request. the committee reported these five nominations twice last year under democrats and again this year under republicans. but the presiding officer a republican objected to that request. his reasoning the court of federal claims doesn't need these judges. perhaps the junior senator from arkansas should ask the chief judge of the court of claims if his court does not need those new judges. the chief judges has pleaded pleaded for the immediate filling of these five vacancies

since they're creating a caseload from the court. but the junior senator from arkansas has made his mind up and blocked every single judge to this important court. one of his home state newspapers "the arkansas times" highlighted his report this way, -- quote --"tom cotton reports in his obstruction ways" -- close quote. yesterday the washington press took note convincely lining up the conservative law firm representing clients before this court. the roll call headline says continues cotton blocks judges to court to his former law firm." i don't necessarily mean to point fingers after all the junior senator from arkansas is only following i believe the republican leader's example. their five judges waiting votes, all five reported out of

the committee unanimously proving they're uncontroversial candidates. why hasn't the republican leader scheduled their confirmation votes? three are classified as judicial emergencies. one from the eastern district of california one -- that's the court judge o'neill serves. the republican leader should bring them to the floor. the record is clear. democrats confirmed all these judges for president bush and the republicans have basically confirmed no one for obama. any objective observer would tell you it's not fair. not only is 5-1 not fair but it's also the fact that hearings are simply not being held. so maybe it's time for a new strategy. maybe it's time for the republican leader to live up to his constitutional duty. do his job and start moving all these backlog of nominations and directing the judiciary committee to hold hearings. the american people need these

judges and they need them now. working to ensure that everyone gets the justice he or she deserves. to allow these i have had nominees to lippinger longer is unfair to the american people, to step more from the republican leadership in congress, they deserve better, we're going to do everything within our power to bring to the american people's attention that the republican leadership isn't doing a very good job in this and other matters before the united states senate. mr. president, what is the schedule of the senate today? the presiding officer: under the previous order the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein up to ten minutes each with the majority controlling the first hour and the democrats controlling the second hour.

the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president ahead of tomorrow's hearing in the foreign relations committee with secretaries kerry moniz and lew on the president's announced nuclear deal with iran, i wanted to take a few minutes to address just how far the administration has moved its open goalposts in terms of this purported deal. over the last few years, the administration has made extensive public statements about what would and would not be acceptable in a final deal with iran. and today it's clear that the final deal falls short not necessarily of other people's expectations but of their own

standards and their own stated expectations. so as senators consider this proposed deal and whether it should be approved or disapproved, i think it's important to have a good understanding of where the president and his team did not meet their own expectations. from the early stages of the negotiation, the obama administration made clear that a key part of any, -- quote -- ," good deal, would be dismantling iran's nuclear infrastructure. before the house foreign affairs committee, secretary kerry noted back in december of 2013, he said the whole point of the sanctions regime was to help iran dismantle its nuclear program. however, president obama in previewing the deal in april of this year essentially admitted it would fall short of this

standard saying iran's not simply going to dismantle its program because we demand that it do so. but weren't our negotiators actually demanding that iran dismantle its nuclear program? that this been our stated policy as the united states government. wasn't that in secretary kerry's own words the whole point? so as prime minister netanyahu of israel pointed out instead of dismantling the nuclear infrastructure of iran, the number-one state sponsor of international terrorism and threat to the safety and stability of the middle east, this deal legitimizes it paves the way for their nuclear program and its enrichment capability. in fact, by the time this deal expires, the rogue regime in tehran will have an industrial sized nuclear program. for the duration of the

agreement iran will be able to conduct research and development on several types of advanced centrifuges. in the year eight iran can resume test of its -- testing itsos advanced centrifuges and year nine start manufacturing more of them. that is hardly dismantlement. that is the opposite of dismantlement. so i also want to address another important point that's been made concerning inspections because as we know, iran will cheat and so inspections take on an especially important role in enforcing any agreement that is made and in particular i want to address this issue of any time, anywhere inspections. president obama announced a good deal had been struck between world powers and iran and -- quote -- "it presented iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon." this is known as the framework

deal a recursor to what was announced last week. a few weeks after this announcement secretary ernest moniz, who was the secretary at the tape with secretary kerry in negotiating this deal, he said "we expect to have any where -- i should say" anywhere, any time access." he said that on april 20, 2013. this is a particularly clear statement from anyone familiar with the negotiations process and of course% well received because this is at minimum what needs to be done in order to keep iran from cheating. but by the weekend the administration was singing a different tune. this is what secretary kerry said when he began to backtrack from what what was said by

secretary moniz on april 20. he said any time -- any time, anywhere inspections was -- quote -- "a term that honestly i never heard in the four years we were negotiating. it was not on the table." i don't know whether secretary moniz and secretary kerry actually talked to each other or not. they spent an awful lot of time together in vienna and supposedly would be on the same page. but for secretary kerry to say this really incredible statement that he never heard of this idea and this was not on the table is just simply incredible. so, of course, my question is, were anywhere, any time inspections on the table and if not, why did the administration tell us they were, including the secretary of energy, and if they were not on the table, why is this deal actually a good

deal? why can we have any sense of conviction or belief that iran won't cheat especially given this rube goldberg sort of contraption involving notice and this process that will lead up to a 24-day delay between inspections that are requested and before inspections actually can be done. we know from our experience with saddam hussein in iraq that it's easy to move things around and avoid the inspectors at the iaea. so this deal today provides that inspectors will have -- quote -- "managed access" whatever that means to suspect sites but as i said allows up to 24 days for iran to stalin expecters before it actually grants them access, if they ever do. this is another way of saying that iran will be able to cheat with near impunity. the administration has also led

us astray the president on a third item and that is iran's missile capability. this is the ability to launch a weapon to hit an enemy in the region or even further. last year the negotiator wendy sherman testified before the foreign relations committee that iran had -- quote -- "not shut down all of their production of any ballistic missile the issue was -- and she said -- quote --"indeed going to be part of something that has to be addressed as part of the comprehensive agreement." ballistic missiles as we know can be useed to deliver a nuclear weapon and now under the current deal the arms embargo own iran will be completely lifted in just eight years' time including on ballistic missiles. i don't think the administration simply changed their minds and decided this wasn't an important

issue. i think they simply caved on yet another important item to our national security, and that of our allies. earlier this month, for example, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff martin dempsey testified -- quote -- "under no circumstances should the united states relieve pressure on iran with regard to ballistic missiles capabilities and arms trafficking." so with this purported deal that the administration apparently has caved once again on something that the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff who is the number-one military advisor to the president of the united states said should be off the table. under this negotiation apparently it is on the table and part of the deal that we will have an opportunity to vote on in september. one more example. the president's repeatedly said from the beginning no deal is better than a bad deal and i agree with that.

yet right now he and the rest of the administration are telling members of congress and the american people that there is no other option on the table and it's either this deal or war. there is a third choice mr. president. there are tougher sanctions that will bring iran to the table for a better deal and a good deal. it's simply unacceptable for the president to be misrepresenting what the options are to congress and the american people by saying it's either this deal or war. as bad as this deal is. obviously, no one wants war. but we do know that iran is an exist engines threat to our ally in the middle east, the nation of israel and iran has been engaged in proxy wars with the united states since the early 1980's, since the early days of

the current regime. well, the president is supposed to be commander in chief of the armed forces and the number-one person in the united states government when it comes to national security. he took office with a promise to restore america's relationship with our allies around the world and clearly his promise has not come true. instead, what the president has delivered during his time in office has been that our allies increasingly do not trust us and our adversaries no longer fear us. as evidenced by the coercion and intimidation engaged in by -- by mr. putin in eastern europe. mr. president, i'd ask unanimous consent for two more minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: even president carter president jimmy carter in a recent interview admitted that the united states' influence and prestige and respect in the world is probably lower now than it was six or seven years ago.

this isn't some republican criticizing a democrat president. this is jimmy carter, former president of the united states and a member of the democratic party who is saying the united states' influence and prestige and respect in the world is probably lower now than it was six or seven years ago. this this is a difficult statement to take in, and president carter has been wrong about an awful lot of national security issues, but i'm afraid he's right on that one. so now congress has an important role to play, and i can't think of a single more important national security issue we will have an opportunity to act on than iran's aspirations for a nuclear weapon. this is a true game changer in terms of the stability and peace in the middle east and our own safety and security. and i know that i and the rest of our colleagues will take full advantage of this opportunity

given to us for 60 days to review this agreement, to put it under a microscope, and we will have no trouble voting it down if we conclude as many of us now are starting to do, that it jeopardizes american security and paves the way for a nuclear armed iran. mr. president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to be recognized for up to five minutes. the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mr. isakson: mr. president i first of all want to commend the majority whip cornyn on his outstanding speech addressing the iran nuclear deal. i rise in a number of capacities one as a member of the senate foreign relations committee which will undertake the reap view of this act and ultimately vote as will the entire senate. i rise as one who voted for the new start treaty and went through those negotiations in this administration. i rise as a grandfather of nine children with a commitment that they live in a world that is as safe free and productive as the united states of america is for me today. i will go through all the due diligence provided for in the iran nuclear agreement review act and i want to at this point commend senator cardin and senator corker on the outstanding work they did to ensure the american people would

have oversight and the congress would have a vote on this deal. but i want to be sure we have a vote on this deal that's meaningful and not superficial. the president decided for reasons that are his own to not call this a treaty and to originally try to avoid any congressional input at all. i don't know what those reasons were but those were his and his alone. yet that's the same president who agreed to a treaty with russia to limit nuclear weapons and bring a vote to the united states senate floor an agreement which i might add which has inspection provisions which are robust, has russian inspectors in america and american inspectors in russia and has the trust and belief that you can have in any nuclear deal. i'm worried that the deal we're talking about making with the iranians has neither. i'm extremely concerned the president will say in answer to the people who condemn the treaty well, if you don't like it, what would you do differently or it's this treaty or this agreement or war. we need to do our responsibility. it's not this agreement or war. it's this agreement or doing the right thing for the american

people. there are three concerns i want to mention. the first is as a businessperson i learned a long time ago the best deals i ever made were the ones i made away from before i made it. the worst deals are the ones with my arm behind my back and someone said get it out of the way and do it. yef one of -- every one of those i was asked and every one i was asked back to the table was good for the simple reason if you can't play hard to get in an negotiation, you'll be easy to get. tedry roosevelt said walk softly and carry a big stick and he was right. the last of the negotiations all of a sudden appeared new relief of the u.n. embargo on the convention of oil sales by the iranians at the end of five years. this was a nuclear weapons treaty. this was not some agreement about conventional weapons. we don't want to lift the sanction against the iranians for selling conventional weapons in the middle east but yet this agreement contained that. i think that was a concession we made to them to keep them at the table. we reversed roles. the largest super power in the

world lost its clout and the eye it tow la khomeini and the iranian government gained their account because they were willing to walk away from the table. and the trigger eight to eight and a half years and as that time passes the iranians will be able to do some fissionable material construction, some of the restrictions of the treaty that take place in the beginning go away. working towards an end where at the end of two years it basically is an end to any agreement that would limit nuclear weapons production or nuclear weapons work towards the production of a nuclear weapon by the iranian people. this started out as a deal top keep the iranians from getting a nuclear weapon, stop nuclear proliferation in the middle east and not allow the middle east to become a nuclear armed camp which it will if this agreement is adopted in the form i understand it. if the question is what would you do, i would sail go back to the table. i say the sanctions got you to the table to begin with. let's review whether or not we

should let the commission on arms embargo go away, let's see if we should allow the rework of fissionable material at the end of year eight. let's see if the for dow facility should be reactivated. all those triggers along the way to allowing iran to become what we said we didn't want it to be, to be a niewrm armed power -- nuclear armed power. i'm afraid this is a staged platform for this to happen. i will listen to every word by this administration. i will go to every briefing. i will do my due diligence as a senator of the united states and a representative of the people of georgia. when i cast that vote it is going to be in the best interest of my children, grandchildren and yours. it will be making the best deal we can make for the american people doing everything we can to limit the proproliferation of nuclear weapons and get those who say death to america to understand america is the greatest democracy on the face

of this earth. we will walk softly but carry a big stick and do a prolife racial that is not -- a proliferation that is not good for the other side but america as well. i yield back. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you mr. president. mr. president, on monday the united nations security council voted to accept the agreement that was negotiated over iran's nuclear program. i think it's very telling that president obama decided to take his plan to the united nations before bringing it to the united states congress. and i think the president is hoping to force congress to bully congress, to go along with

his plan without actually giving it serious debate. well, we are going to have a serious debate. i believe president obama and his negotiators failed to get the strong deal that they promised and it remains to be seen whether this deal is good enough. the united nations ambassador samantha power called me after the deal had been agreed to by the president and by iran, and she told me that the greatest weakness of the deal was its complexity. so i have to say why is the president in such a rush. the american people have every right in the world to have their voices heard on this important issue. i was at home in wyoming over the weekend and i got an ear full about why this deal is so bad and about the risk it poses to our own united states national security. congress also has the right and the responsibility to provide oversight on this plan, and

there has been bipartisan skepticism and concern on this floor about this specific deal. so we need to take a very close look at the agreement over the next two months. we're going to listen to our constituents and we'll have hearings to make sure that all the facts are clear. starting tomorrow in the foreign relations committee. while the senate does its part in evaluating the deal, i think we have to keep in mind two key questions. first, do we believe that this is a good deal that will protect the american people, protect our allies far into the future and not just for a few years? and second, what evidence is there that the iranian regime plans to change its illegitimate and dangerous behavior in any way? this agreement accepts iran as a nuclear threshold state on the premise that we can build a better relationship with the country's leaders.

mr. president, how realistic is that iran is still holding americans hostage. iran continues to support bashar al-assad bashar in syria. iran continues to support palestinian terrorist groups. even president obama admits that this behavior is likely to continue under the deal that he negotiated. can we afford to allow this iranian regime to have the nuclear program that it will get at the end of this deal? president obama wants to put off the answer to this question until after he's left office. congress needs the answer now. people on both sides of the aisle raised many appropriate concerns about this deal. one issue one issue is that before the agreement was announced, iran had more than 19,000 centrifuges to enriched uranium. after the deal is fully

implemented, iran will still have more than 19,000 centrifuges. not a single one will be dis disdis -- -- mantled. iran can continue to conduct research and development on more advanced centrifuges. it says in the deal that -- quote -- "iran will continue testing advanced centrifuges and it can actually manufacture them for specific purposes. once the restrictions end iran can produce as many of these advanced centrifuges as it wants. they will have already done the work and they will know how to build them and how to use them. president obama had the leverage. he had the leverage to push for more on this point. why didn't he use it?

this deal doesn't dismantle a single centrifuge. it does dns mantle the sanctions against iran. there is another concern a lot of people have. while it won't happen overnight iran is likely going to gain access to what will eventually amount to more than $100 billion. this massive injection of resources is ultimately a direct deposit into iran's terrorism accounts. why was there nothing in this agreement to stop iran from using this money in ways that could harm america and our allies? and there is the extremely important issue of whether this agreement allows us to inspect iran's nuclear facilities anywhere and any time. president obama said that's how we would verify that iran was living up to its promises.

it turns out that the reality is very different from what the white house has promised. now the president said that inspections will have access where necessary when necessary. that's a big difference. who gets to decide what's necessary? under the actual agreement the international atomic energy agency can request -- can request -- access to a location in iran if it's worried. that's not anywhere any time. that's anywhere, any time iran chooses. iran can refuse to give access to the site and it gets two weeks to negotiate what inspectors can do. if the two sides can't work it out within 14 days, and the issue gets turned over to a commission of eight countries and that part of the agreement then the commissioners have another seven days to resolve the issue by a majority vote. after that, iran gets another three days to comply. it's as much as 24 days in

total. so we went from anywhere, any time. 24/7 to 24 days. now a former deputy administrator at the national nuclear security administration recently wrote an op-ed in the "wall street journal" about this very subject. he said "24 days is ample time for iran to hide or destroy evidence." 24 days, which is what the president agrees to, is ample time for iran to hide or destroy evidence. president obama says we'll be able to tell if iran was violating the agreement. that's an important difference of opinion. and congress is going to have to resolve that over the next two months. it's very clear that president obama and secretary of state kerry were desperate to get a deal with iran even if it was a very bad deal. both the president and the secretary of state are lame ducks and they are looking to build their legacy.

iran knew that, and iran took advantage of that fact. at the last minute, to make sure they could actually get a deal signed, at the last minute the president and the secretary of state agreed to let russia sem iran ballistic missile technology. this technology could be used to attack our allies and even to threaten the united states. it end up as part of the deal? why did the president yet again ignore the advice of his

military commanders on this vital national security issue? at the end of the day this deal does not take away iran's pathway to a nuclear weapon. it merely gets iran to promise that for the next few years it will walk down the path very slowly. president obama may think that this deal is good enough to help his legacy. there are still a lot of questions about whether it is good enough to keep the american people safe and the rest of the world as well. our goal all along should have been an agreement that was accountable, enforceable and verifiable. at this point i have serious doubts about whether this deal is good enough. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: mr. president back home this weekend in indiana i took the time to very carefully read through all 159 pages of the agreement made with iran as well as a lot of supporting material written by foreign policy experts who had an opportunity to also look at this. i read carefully because words mean a lot and as concerned as i was when we started through this process i became much more concerned after reading through the fine print that is now called the agreement with iran.

today -- yesterday i returned to washington to start the session this week, i've had the opportunity as a member of the intelligence committee to look over the classified annexes of this there is still one outstanding that we'll be looking at as soon as we receive it. and the more i read, the more concerned that i am that we have struck not a good deal, not a passible deal that we have to accept but a bad deal. a bad deal that is clearly worse than no deal. four presidents, three previous presidents and this current president, have declared over the years of their service that a nuclear armed iran is unacceptable. each person, each president used that very word, "unacceptable." but this deal intends simply to slow down iran's march to nuclear weapons credibility but even the white house has

conceded now that it will not permanently stop iran's nuclear ambitions. this in and of itself should raise major questions and concerns about this agreement. but perhaps more concerning is what the negotiations conceded in order to reach an agreement with a regime, a regime that calls america its enemy brazen ly violates u.n. resolutions, sponsors terrorism, threatens israel's exist epps, led by people who proclaim death to america is responsible for more than 1,000 american military deaths since september 11 2001. this is the regime we're dealing with. and here six of the major powers in the world led by the united states -- at least we thought they would be led by the united states -- having all the leverage of their status in

world affairs negotiating with a country that violates all that i have just listed, that cannot be trusted that simply is in a weak position given the sanctions, thankfully that the congress has imposed and other presidents have imposed as put -- is put in a situation where it should have the weak hand. turns out they've had the strong hand against the weakness and the lack of will and resolve of the six nations -- france, the united kingdom, germany, the united states china, and russia. that was on one side of the table, that group. and the leverage they would have against iran that has simply not gained the trust of anyone except its loyal followers a nation that is staggering because of the sanctions that have been imposed, ends up being the strong hand, working

against a weak hand. the will and resolve to stand tough and to achieve an agreement that was in the benefit of not just the united states but the world for a more secure middle east and prevention of nuclear weapon possession by iran has been negotiated away. clearly in the coming weeks we'll be down here talking about various aspects of this agreement and the time is limited today so i will just go into a couple of things. the period covered by the deal is way too short. the promise that iran would not have the capability to develop nuclear weapons is simply now on a path way to acquiring them. president obama has admitted that in these future circumstances, iran's breakout time to nuclear weapons will be essentially zero. that's what he said some time ago.

of course, now the president the secretary of state and the white house are making public statements saying, well, that's really not what we meant and they've said a number of things to aassure the american people that trust us, everything's going to be okay. what particularly grabbed my attention was the inspection regime. clearly on any time of agreement of this type there has to be the tightest reg then of inspections. iran has cheated in the past, will try to cheat in the future will interpret every nuance every word in this agreement as something different than what we will describe it and therefore verification of their ability to live by the word of the agreement as bad as it is, has to be verified completely. and when you look at the

sections necessary to accomplish that it raises real concerns. i will spend more time on this floor later given the constraints here to talk about this inspection regime but let me address an issue that has just come to light. i was sitting through and plowing through this agreement and when i came to section 78, it started talking -- listing the time frame for how we would proceed if we found out or had information to suspect that iran was cheating on the agreement. and you've heard the 24 days the maximum, which, by the way is longer than just about any other agreement we've entered into, arms agreement. many of these have been nine hours. everybody knows and we've given up the anywhere, anyplace, we now have to have iran's approval

before we move forward without a convoluted, byzantine process of getting to the point where resolution is made. we now know reading through section 78, i believe it is, to 82, it doesn't add up to 24 days. it adds up to 54 days. we're talking nearly two months or more. i was interested to open up "the wall street journal" this morning, iran inspections in 24 days not even close. i was sitting there a -- been pounded into our head by the secretary of state, 24 days, that's all it is, 24 days. we're on top of this, we can get it resolved, don't worry they can't move their stuff somewhere else or cover their tracks or remove evidence of what we suspect is a violation of the agreement. over and over and over the secretary of state and the president of the united states said 24 days. first of all, 24 days is not a good deal as i just mentioned.

it ought to be 24 hours or less. any time, anywhere. what did we do to any time? we stretch it out to 54 days. despite what the administration has said about this, i can't believe that a clear reading -- read section 78 to 82, i believe it is -- add it up, it's 54 days of time if all time is used to come to agreement. what can you do in 54 days? when you've been accused of cheating? you remove the evidence and that's exactly what they will do. this is a huge revelation here that is now in print and why the administration keeps insisting this is not the case, don't worry, folks we've got it covered on income, is not true.

and the sanctions relief they opted for the so-called snapback provisions that would punish iran for cheating. read the agreement. the convoluted, byzantine scheme for such a return to sanctions would be exceedingly time consuming. it's an illusion and more on this later. arms embargo lifted, on and on it goes. mr. president, i just outlined a couple of concerning, very deeply concerning issues here that need to be discussed. unfortunately, we've been put in a box by this administration they ran straight to tuning to get approval -- the united nations to get approval without america 's elected representatives and the american people having an opportunity to present the deal to them and let them make the decision. so five of the six nations involved here, even if the united states comes to the point where we defeat this effort, if

we are possible to do so, five of the six now have the full green light to go forward. germany rushed over with its contracts in hand with their commerce minister and heads of major corporations are signing up deals like you wouldn't believe. those aren't going to be snapped back. we now have an opportunity to review this pending deal and i would urge every member of the united states senate to take the time to sit down and read this thing through carefully. look at what the experts of foreign policy -- foreign policy experts have said about it where the flaws are let's sit down and discuss it, let's look at those top-secret, classified annexes and every remember here as the opportunity to do that if they so choose. and bring forward to the american people that which we are allowed to bring forward that's not classified, bring

forward the flaws of what has turned out to be an agreement that simply was not in the interests of the future of the american people. my time has expired. let me wrap up by saying the president has defended his deal by challenging critics to put forth an alternative. how about this -- how about exercising american leadership and making it clear that crippling sanctions will be maintained and strengthened in the nuclear activity continues. congress should reject this bad deal. we then could enact more vigorous sanctions to persuade the iranian leaders to reconsider their positions or to persuade the iranian people to reconsider their leaders. mr. president, i apologize for going over on my time. i yield back and i see my colleague from maine is ready to speak. my colleague from north carolina trumps my colleague from maine in terms of order. with that i yield the floor.

mr. tillis: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. tillis: maybe in terms of order but in no other terms. mr. president, i've come here to talk about what i think we've reached here as a tipping point in terms of president obama's legacy. recently even jimmy carter emphatically charged that president obama has weakened us and brought us less respect everywhere in the world. when president carter makes a statement like that, i don't think that our president obama should be spiking the football in the rose garden. why do you think president carter made those statements? maybe he's looked at the legacy over the last six years as many of the american people have, ukraine is on fire. china is threatening its neighbors. al qaeda is stronger than ever. isis is massacring christians and muslims with a genocidal savagery the likes of which we haven't seen since the second

world war. the jewish people are facing the greatest threat since the holocaust. the president got this deal with the ayatollahs no matter how dangerous and no matter how destabilizing the final accord is. he's claimed a victory and the media vanguard is right behind him and he's going to late-night comedy cable shows to build his case but ladies and gentlemen this is no laughing matter. now, you're going to hear a lot of speeches over the next few weeks in the 0 days we have to -- 60 days we have to review this deal. there are going to be a lot of technical things that, quite frankly, a lot of members of congress don't understand. but i hope over the next 60 days we can communicate to the american people so that they understand why this is a very dangerous deal. here's some questions i hope you'll look into inform your own opinion. one question is there truly a dismantlement of iran's nuclear

program? i've looked at the summary of the agreement. i haven't read the full text yet. i'll be doing that this week. but it's very clear this isn't a matter of whether iran can have a nuclear weapon or not it's a matter of when they can have a nuclear weapon. that's not dismantlement. that's scheduling. now, there's another one and i think my colleague from indiana just spoke about it. it has the inspections. we terms like snap-back and everything else but let's put this in very simple terms. imagine the police in your community suspect that a criminal enterprise in some house. imagine instead of being able to get a warrant and then quickly go and knock on the door and identify that criminal activity that the police would send a letter to the criminal saying "in the next four or five weeks three or four weeks we're going to do a surprise inspection on your house." what's the likelihood that that criminal presence or that

criminal activity's going to be there? that's the nature of the inspections regime with a nation that still continues to chant "death to america." they're not a good player. they're not a good actor. giving them time to prepare for a so-called snap inspection seems to make to sense to me but that's what's in this deal and it's written out in plain english. another question is, why hasn't the president done something as basic as have the iranian people or the iranian leadership, i should say -- this is not about the people, it's about the leadership -- show good faith by releasing american prisoners in iran? now, about the ballistic missile program. ask the president ask the people who negotiated this agreement will iran have a ballistic missile program? the answer is yes. they've actually got backorders for missiles that could reach europe. and over time, they'll develop a program that will reach the united states. this agreement has no treatment for that.

ask them if i'll dismantle the iran terror network. the iran terror network operates throughout the world. the iran terror network is funded literally through the government of iran. over $300 million have been identified by canadian intelligence agencies that are funneled to terrorist organizations like hezbollah hamas and a number of others. are they going to dismantle it? no. as a matter of fact, i believe that with the sanctions being removed, it's going to provide them more money to fund those networks. now, did the president -- why would the president release $140 billion -- with a "b" -- in sanctions? why would we do that? why would we provide money to a nation that says they need money but they can spend money on terror and a number of other things -- not education, not fixing roads not beth health care for iranians -- better health care for iranians but spreading more terror around the

world? why on earth would we give them more money to do that? you know, the president has given berth to the middle east nuclear arms race as well. ask yourself this question -- do i you think it's likely that saudi arabia turkey egypt and other gulf states are going to stand idly by when a hostile regime is going to have a nuclear capability over some period of time? of course not. they're going to do what they need to do to feel like they're protecting their citizens and it will give rise to an arms race. and we'll be talking about this if this deal goes through i think in my tenure as senator over the next five years. so president obama has willfully ignored 40 years of hostility from tehran. the president may not recognize that we are at war but the iranians certainly do and they say in public statements that they're going to continue their fight against america. their chief response -- they're a chief sponsor of global terror.

they've never stepped back from their desire to obliterate the united states and our great friend and ally, israel. this is the obama doctrine. the president sees america as the problem. he views israel as an obstacle to peace and iran as another oppressed constituency with legitimate grievances against the west. in fact, so much so, when millions of iranians took to the streets to proceed i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed -- protest the leaders of iran, the president was silent. the old american alliances are collapsing in confusion and fear. and the only answer from the administration seems to be a clear path towards iran possessing a nuclear weapon. in his 1987 state of the union address, president ronald reagan warned "our approach is not to seek agreement for agreement's sake but to settle only for agreements that truly enhance our national security and that

of our allies. we will never put our security at risk or that of our allies just to reach an agreement. no agreement is better than a bad agreement." so there you have it, mr. president. our allies, israel, saudi arabia, the gulf states, jordan, egypt are worried. tehran is on the march and moving closer to a nuclear weapon. as charles krauthammer noted the one great hope for middle east peace the strategic anchor for 40 years the united states is giving a green light to terror. ladies and gentlemen and mr. president i don't think that's a legacy that anyone should be proud of. thank you mr. president. ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you mr. president. mr. president, i send a bill to the desk and ask that it be

appropriately referred. the presiding officer: the bill will be received and appropriately referred. ms. collins: thank you mr. president. mr. president, i rise today to introduce the federal information security management act of 2015. i'm very pleased that senator warner, senator mikulski, senator coats senator ayotte and senator mccaskill are joining me in this bipartisan effort to strengthen cybersecurity in federal agencies. i very much appreciate their input into this bill and their support. mr. president, the cyber attack that stole sensitive personal data from millions of current former and retired federal employees from the poorly secured databases at the office

of personnel management underscored the extraordinary vulnerability of our federal computer networks. but for the more than 21 million americans infected and indeed, for our country the threat from this theft continues. whether it is the risk to the individual of identity theft or the impact on our nation of the compromise of the identity of those dealing with classified information or the potential for espionage or blackmail the threat remains extremely serious. worst of all mr. president are better -- worst of all mr. president, better security of computer networks at o.p.m. might well have prevented this

terrible breach. the negligence of o.p.m. officials who ignored repeated warnings over years from the inspector general that its networks were vulnerable is inexcusable. as the f.b.i. director testified before the intelligence committee during an open session earlier this month this breach is a huge deal and represents a treasure-trove of information for potential adversaries. but this cyber hack also points to a broader problem and that is the glaring gaps in the process for protecting sensitive information in federal civilian agencies. thus we join together today to introduce this bipartisan bill. our bill would strengthen the

security of the networks of federal civilian agencies by taking five important steps. first, our bill would allow the secretary of homeland security to operate intrusion detection and prevention capabilities on all federal agencies, on -- agencies on the dot.gov domain without waiting for a request from every single agency. today, mr. president if an agency is uncooperative with d.h.s. or simply does not want to make cybersecurity a priority , there's little that can be done to strengthen that agency's vulnerable network. i have visited the center at d.h.s. that monitors some of the civilian networks and you could see the attempted intrusions in

realtime. and yet i was told by some of the officials there that when they call the chief information official of that agency sometimes the answer is very lackadaisical almost indifference. that cannot be allowed to continue. second, mr. president our bill directs the secretary of homeland security to conduct risk assessments of any network within the dot-gov domain. this provision would ensure that no federal agency can be unaware if it is operating an insufficiently secured network and, thus, jeopardizing sensitive data. third, our bill would allow the secretary of homeland security

to operate defensive countermeasures on these networks once a cyber threat has been detected. currently d.h.s. can deploy technical assistance to assist agencies to diagnose and mitigate cyber threats only at that agency's discretion and sometimes there are legal impediments for doing so. fourth our bill would strengthen and streamline the authority that congress gave to d.h.s. last year to issue binding operational directives to federal agencies especially to respond to substantial cybersecurity threats or in an emergency where an intrusion is underway. finally, while d.h.s. oversees

the protection of federal civilian networks, the service of management and budget has the ultimate responsibility to enforce government-wide cybersecurity standards for civilian agencies. our bill would require o.m.b. to report to congress annually on the extent to which o.m.b. has exercised its existing authority to enforce government-wide cybersecurity standards. congress has already given the o.m.b. the authority, for example, to recommend increases or decreases in an agency's funding or to exercise administrative control over information resources if such actions could increase the degree of compliance with cybersecurity standards.

but i regret to say mr. president, that the evidence that o.m.b. has actually exercised this authority is pretty slim. the primary problem that our bill would solve is that d.h.s. has the mandate to protect the civilian federal networks but it has only limited authority to do so. now, as the presiding officer is well aware this approach stands in stark contrast to how the national security agency defends the dot-mil domain. by the way our legislation does not affect the dot-mil domain which covers the department of defense and our intelligence agencies in any way. the director of the n.s.a. has

the responsibility to protect the dot-mil domain but he also has the authority from the secretary of defense to monitor all d.o.d. networks and to deploy countermeasures when necessary. if the director deems that an agency's network is insecure he can shut it down. now, contrast that to the inspector general at o.p.m., which last fall issued a report saying that o.p.m. ought to shut down parts of its network because it was so insecure and nothing happened. o.p.m. didn't take any action and d.h.s. lacked the authority to do so. that stands in sharp contrast to how we protect our defense and

intelligence agencies' net works and, as a result, our military and intelligence networks are better-protected from foreign adversaries than are our civilian agencies' networks. although the secretary of homeland security is tasked with a similar responsibility to protect federal civilian networks he has far less authority to accomplish that task. yet think about it, mr. president. federal civilian agencies like o.p.m. the i.r.s., the social security administration medicare the patent office are the real estate postories of -- repositories of vast quantities of sensitive personal and economic data belonging to the

american people. we have to do a better job of protecting that data as well. when the intelligence committee on which i served as the current director of -- asked the current director of n.s.a. how we might improve the protection of the dot-gov domain he emphasized the responsibility for protecting civilian agency networks. the secretary of homeland security, jeh johnson similarly has said that obtaining clear coppingal authorization for d.h.s. to deploy protective capabilities to secure civilian agencies' networks is one of his priorities. i heard the same message from his predecessor secretary janet napolitano when i was the

ranking member of the homeland security committee in 2012. by the way mr. president that year former senator joe lieberman and i urged our colleagues to pass the cybersecurity act of 2012, which we drafted and which included, among other provisions, major reforms to improve the protection of federal networks. we will never know if the o.p.m. breach that compromised the security clearance background information of more than 21 million people could have been prevented if the senate had passed our bill at that time. of course, no bill, no law can protect against every cyber breach but i believe we would have been far better positioned had we acted then. what we do know is that once a

mal-ware signature is identified, it was d.h.s.'s intrusion detection system known as einstein and other d.h.s. recommended tools that played key roles in identifying the massive compromise of the o.p.m. data. without these tools o.p.m. might still be blissfully unaware that it had been subjected to a major hack. the government's response to the breach demonstrates the urgent need for our legislation. the five agency networks that were monitored by einstein 3 were protected and capable of blocking the mal-ware the moment the dangerous signatures used in the o.p.m. breach were loaded

into their systems. for every other civilian agency, however, this was not the case. d.h.s. had to call the chief information officer responsible for every one of these networks that were not covered yet by the einstein 3 system. then the bad indicators had to be passed on to each c.i.o. and each c.i.o. had to search their agency networks for the harmful mal-ware. mr. president, cyber threats move at the speed of light. no organization that takes cybersecurity seriously would rely upon a game of telephone tag to guard the security of their information. i would also note that at the time the o.p.m. breach actually

occurred the latest version of einstein had been deployed on less than 25% of the dot-gov network. mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to proceed for three more minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: thank you mr. president. so even if the government had detected the mal-ware immediately, the government civility to protect all of the networks would have taken that much longer because d.h.s.'s best intrusion system was not deployed widely enough. and, inexplicably, to this day it is still not installed at o.p.m. despite the information it stores as the chief federal officers for federal employees and real estate tirees.

mr. president, if we fail to give these much-needed authorities to d.h.s., the unacceptable status quo will prevail, and under the status quo, each agency, however competently or incompetently monitors its own networks, can only ask d.h.s. for assistance if it sees fit to do so. and let me describe just how poorly that approach has worked so far. we no he that information -- weigh know that information security incidents in the federal government have increased more than 12-fold from 5,500 in fiscal year 2006 to more than 67,000 in fiscal year 2014 according to the government accountability

office. that undoubtedly understates the real number since these are just the incidents that we are aware of. 19 of 24 major agencies have declared cybersecurity as a significant deficiency or material weakness for information reporting purposes. at the same time, federal agencies have failed to implement hundreds of recommendations from the g.a.o. and inspectors general that could enhance the security of their networks. i could go on and on, mr. president citing the breach at i.r.s., at the postal service, at f. f.a.a., at noaa, not to mention the o.p.m. breach. it is unacceptable that we are putting important data belonging

to the american people, as well as our economic edge, at risk. we simply have to take action now. it is incredible that o.p.m. implausibly asserted earlier this month that there's no information at this time to suggest any misuse or further dissemination of the information that was stolen from o.p.m.'s systems. that incredible statement which implied that the perpetrators of this lengthy and extensive attack have no intention of ever using the stolen data suggests that o.p.m. still has yet to recognize the gravity of this cyber attack. but, mr. president congress, too, has the responsibility to make the job for those securing

our federal civilian networks easier to do in light of the extraordinary threat that foreign adversaries international criminal gangs and other hackers pose to government systems and the privacy and safety of our citizens. this bill is the first of many steps to strengthen our nation's cybersecurity, and i urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan measure. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you mr. president. mr. president, i am on the floor today to discuss the path afford -- the path forward on my bill, the women veterans health services act of 2015. this is legislation that would ban v.a.'s decades' old ban on

fertility services and would take critical steps to ensuring that we are doing everything we can to support veterans who have sacrificed so much for our country, have suffered injuries on the battlefield that prevent them from having children on their own. i introduced this legislation because i believe strongly that our commitment to service members doesn't stop at the end of their tour. i believe that commitment doesn't stop at all ever. and a critical part of this commitment of what our country should do to make sure those who sacrifice so much for us can live the lives they've hoped for in helping seriously wounded veterans start families. so that those who put their lives on hold and on the line have the opportunity to achieve that important goal. mr. president, caring for our veterans should never be a partisan issue and helping our wounded warriors start families

should rise above the petty political fights we see too often here in washington d.c. so i was very proud to work with republicans on the veterans affairs committee on a bipartisan compromise, one that should have allowed my veterans health care act to pass through the committee today with strong bipartisan support as it has in the past. and until yesterday that was exactly what i thought was going to happen. my bill was on the agenda. it was going to come up for a vote and i thought it was going to pass. that is why i am so disappointed and truly angry that republicans on the veterans' affairs committee decided yesterday to leap at the opportunity to pander to their base, to poison the well with the political cable news of the day and turn their backs on these wounded veterans. just a few republicans with just a few poison pill amendments

have turned our bipartisan effort to help wounds veterans into a partisan effort a tack women's health care. -- to attack women's health care. i find that shameful. that's why after it became clear that there was not a path to et going those political -- not a path to getting those political amendments approved today i spoke with chairman isakson and asked him to pull the bill from the markup rather than see it become a vehicle for partisan political attacks. mr. president, i know some republicans are trying to use this latest issue as just one more opportunity to roll back the clock and take away women's health care options. we can have that fight. we've had it many times before. but we should not be putting veterans into the middle of it. don't take something that should be above politics -- our sacred duty to our veterans -- and pull it down in the muck of petty politics. it is not fair to these veterans, it is not fair to their families who have been hoping and praying for the

opportunity to have children, it's not fair to the veterans and service members who don't want to see their health care become just one more political fob,football and it is certainly not fair to our constituents who send us here expecting us to stand together and support those who sacrificed so much for all of us. mr. president, i'm going to keep fighting for them and for this effort. i am not going to let those who want to put politics ahead of our veterans and service members get their way and i truly do hope that republicans reconsider this absolutely shameful approach today and work with us to get this bill done. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: i want to join my extraordinarily dedicated and distinguished colleague from washington state in expressing my regret that this bill will

not be on our agenda today and i want to thank her for champion championing a cause that matters so vitally to our military men and women, which is the cause of fairness to our veterans and putting our veterans above politics. the bill that she has advocated steadfastly and so eloquently provides services to wounded women warriors who want to have children and cannot do so because of those wounds of war. it makes availab -- it makes available to them modern medicine just as we're trying to do in other areas where the signature wounds of war inflict such damage on our wounded warriors. they deserve that right to

treatment that enables them to have families, enables them to overcome those wounds of war that interfere with their ability to have children. and that's important not only to them but to their families, to their husbands. many of their husbands are themselves veterans. this issue has ramifications way beyond the individuals involved. it is a matter of putting our veterans above politics which traditionally has been our practice on the veterans' affairs committee. i'm very proud to serve as the ranking member of that committee and to have worked with senator murray and her tireless efforts on this bill going back years. she has been rightly recognized for those efforts. and today i very much regret that the tradition of our committee -- putting veterans

abovely politic -- has succumbed to this threat. that the bill offered by senator murray will become mired down in issues that have nothing to do with providing i.v.f. services to our wounded women warriors. the amendments that have been offered are completely irrelevant and extraneous to the objectives of the bill. make no mistake, they have nothing to do with protecting women. they have nothing to do with enabling our women veterans to have children and the overcome those wounds of war. they are completely irrelevant, indeed contrary, to the objectives of that bill. and yet they will now cause this bill to be removed from the agenda. i just want to say to my

colleague and fellow member of that committee that i am absolutely determined to find a path forward for this bill. it will be a priority of mine personally. i know it is a priority of the senator from washington. and i will join her in assuring that our colleagues know that we are determined to move forward to find a path to pass this measure. and to make sure that our women veterans are recognized for the heroes that they are. these amendments are a disservice to them very simply they are disrespectful to the women who have sacrificed so much who have suffered the same wounds as our men who receive less respect by virtue of this bill being withdrawn. i am hopeful that we will work with senator isakson the chairman of the committee, to

find that path forward. he has been very bipartisan in his approach and i thank him for his efforts in that respect. and i will redouble my efforts to make sure that we keep faith with our women veterans, enabling them to overcome those injuries that prevent them from having children and giving us the benefit of their being such great parents and giving our nation great children. which is our obligation on this committee, in this body and in this country. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor.

mr. blumenthal: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call in progress be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: in a moment i'm going to be going over and concentrating on some of the things that are in this bill. just concentrating on the bridges, something that people are not as aware of as they should be. what i'm talking about mr. president, is that sometime today we're going to be repeating the vote that we had yesterday except this time we should be able to get it passed. i don't criticize any of the democrats who voted against the motion to proceed to the highway bill yesterday. because they did not get information in a timely fashion. it was our fault that they didn't get the information until

about 30 minutes before the vote and i understand that. now they've had 24 hours to look it over and i think they'll be pleased to support the long-term highway bill. so i wasn't one who complained about that but that bill -- that vote will take place today. that will get us to the bill where we can start on amendments i'll ask as many of my -- our members to bring down amendments if they have amendments so we can get them in the queue to discuss. i want to be clear about the fact that we now have the largest piece of this bill, there are three committees involved the very largest piece of the bill is the environment and public works committee, which is the committee that i chair. and when i say the vast majority of it, talking about 80% of the bill. so that has been available for

inspection by the public, by all the members since june 24 and that's -- june 4 is when we passed this bill out of committee that i chair the environment and public works committee unanimously. every democrat, every republican on the committee voted for it. now, we -- there are some people i suppose who are going to be playing politics with this thing, on this vote and i don't know what statements they'll be making but they have to realize this is -- this is something that needs to be talked about. i would say this, that there are two things that were voiced as objections. some voted no because they didn't get everything they wanted in the bill, some thought they would be able to get a better deal. let me just address that. the bill is too important to play politics with. and if we wait until we have

more -- more time, we're going to be in trouble where we're going to miss a construction season. the problem with this is that particularly those northern states will miss an entire construction season if we do the alternative. what is the alternative? the alternative is to go back instead of a six-year funded reauthorization bill, they'll go back to short-term extensions. short-term extensions cost about 30% more, so that's not the conservative position, as this bill is, but they also -- they would miss an entire construction season. understand that the house is talking about trying to do an extension to the end of the year. if they do that, the states like pennsylvania and that's where congressman shuster the chairman of the committee over there is from, they'll miss an entire construction season. so i think that's really

critical. if you talk to any governor, any mayor any state department of transportation about the urgency of the timing of this bill they'll tell if you we miss this opportunity to authorize the six-year bill with three years guaranteed funding this summer we will miss the not 2016 construction season. the strongest supporters are the people closer to the people at home the mayors, the governors, the state departments of transportation. so that's what we are going to be faced with and to address the seconding point an objection i've been approached by many members on both sides of the aisle who say they're planning to vote no today because their particular program didn't get enough funding for amtrak or bike trails or sidewalks or something else in this bill. and we didn't go far enough to do toward their project. look i'm the same situation. this will be my sixth highway bill that i've actually been --

that i've authorized, that i've -- three of those he i was the primary sponsor. i can tell you these are about compromise. not everybody gets exactly what they want. i didn't get everything i wanted in our unanimous e.p.w.man-up markup with senator boxer. keep in mind senator boxer is a very proud liberal i'm a very proud conservative, and yet we agreed wholeheartedly on this thing and we led the fight to come out with a unanimous bill. the house is watching us very closely, they're even discussing about taking our good work and doing it over and taking it up in the house. i think that's what would happen. there are a lot over there saying no, they don't want to do that, they want a short-term extension to the end of the year because they think they can get that in through some tax reforms. again, you miss a construction season and you're throwing away about 30% of the money. we really don't want to do that.

i want to get into some detail here. talking about our bridges. there are over 60,000 right now structurally deficient in this country. the first chart shows the -- the diagram there yeah, the darker color that's where they have the more serious problems right now. and just look at my state of oklahoma. for a western state we have a greater problem than many of the states have. in fact, only one out of every four bridges in america is structurally deficient. or efficient and safe and sound for use. the society of civil engineers give our bridges overall a very low grade of condition. how did we get there? president eisenhower's legacy system was built with a 50-year lifespan. this is 1956 we're talking about. so it's already exceeded 20 years beyond, we're out of

warrant, i say to the chair -- warranty you i say to the chair. map-21 was the right step for bringing us into the 21st century. but a long-term solution has been needed to fix the $112 billion in backlog for rehabilitation of our nation's bridges. 430 of the 435 congressional districts -- we have 35 members of the house -- we have 435 members of the house -- have structurally deficient bridges. this means all but five members in the house of representatives have bridges back home in need of major repair in their district. in my state of oklahoma, we have two of the top 10 worst districts by number of deficient bridges. we are ranked second in the nation. in congressman frank lucas' district, he has a district that covers about half of the state but there aren't many people in there. there are over 2,000 bridges

just in one congressional district. in congressman mike wayne mullins' district, there are 1,200 deficient bridges. i know firsthand oklahoma's department of transportation is working tirelessly to address the needs for bridge safety but they need a longer-term certainty and a federal partnership to make this happen. that's what this bill is all about. in light of the condition of the nation's bridges we've got to do more to prioritize safety and stability. we can't wait around for another collapse to fix the crumbling bridges. a bridge collapse or closure brings significant and sudden economic impacts. the economic cost of the i-35 west bridge collapse in minnesota -- and we all remember that. that was all over the news. that was in 2007. it averaged $400,000 a day of loss economic loss. and minnesota's department of transportation found that the state's economy lost $60 million

as a direct result of the collapse. now, this is that bridge. you remember this was -- had a lot of publicity at the time. and then all of a sudden it was kind of a wake-up call. people realized, this is for real, we need to do something about this. in the 2013 skagget river bridge collapse on interstate 5 in washington state it had similar effects on the local economy with an estimated impact of $8.3 million during the 26-day closure in repairing this bridge. the brent spence bridge that is a huge one that connects cincinnati ohio, to kentucky and this -- this is the bridge. this is the old bridge. you can see just by looking at it, the bridge. that's one that would have to be replaced. it would be impossible to do that in anything except a

long-term bill. you can't do that with short-term fixes. and nobody argues that point. that's a fact. the rob portman of ohio and sherrod brown in ohio are very much concerned about the -- the rand paul -- no, the -- let's see. which bridge is this? it's still the brent spence bridge. that's right. we've got sherrod brown and rob portman, both from ohio, yeah, they're on one side of this bridge and then you have kentucky that's mitch mcconnell and rand paul, and this bridge is functionally obsolete. it was built in 1963. the bridge is more than 50 years old and designed to carry 85,000 cars a day. but by 2025, it's expected to carry 200,000 cars a day. according to the american transportation research institute, the brent spence bridge -- that's the one we're talking about here -- is the

fourth-most congested truck point in the united states infrastructure grid. the cost in congestion is staggering when you consider the $420 billion of freight that crosses the bridge every year. freight haulers bear the brunt of congestion costs delays associated with just traveling across the bridge costs a trucker almost $40 during the rush hour. what we're talking about there is when cars and trucks are going over this bridge they're stopped. it's -- it's -- it's a choke point. and so they're sitting there. they're idle. the engines are idling and a tremendous cost is there. so in the aggregate the delays on the bridge cost travelers over $750 million each year in wasted time and fuel. each year, 1.6 million gallons of fuel are wasted due to congestion on -- on this bridge. the i-10 mobile river bridge, that's in alabama. do you have that one?

yeah. in alabama that's where jeff sessions and richard shelby are certainly very much concerned about. currently traffic is carried through the george c. wallace tunnel the i-10 crossing under the mobile river in alabama. constructed in the 1970's, the tunnel was designed with an anticipated daily traffic count -- this is the tunnel -- of 36,000. currently, the tunnel averages approximately 80,000 vehicles a day and can reach as many as 100,000 vehicles in peak season. the traffic volume causes heavy congestion. and, by the way, this is the projection of what it would look like when all this is done. this is as it is today. there is a proposed project to relieve this congestion and increase mobility but needs to -- it's not going to happen unless you have this bill pass. arlington memorial bridge --

that connects virginia to d.c. d.c. -- probably most people that are here today have been across this bridge. they see what condition it's in. it was built in 1932. the arlington mem -- memorial bridge is well beyond its design life structurally deficient and we know what the traffic is like on that bridge. the bridge serves as a significant part of the national highway system, a major evacuation route and carries more than 68,000 vehicles each day including commuter, residents, dignitaries and official ceremonies. my staff tells me this bridge is on the local news on a regular basis due to progressive deterioration. the government has had to conduct emergency lane closures and enforce a load limit. repair work would take six to nine months. the i-264 bridge in lynn haven parkway, that carries traffic to

virginia beach a popular vacation spot. a lot of people here go there with regularity and they know what this bridge is about. i've been across this bridge many times. one of the 10 most heavily traffic deficient bridges in the state of virginia. carries just under 135,000 cars a day. the magnolia bridge, the magnolia bridge is in seattle washington. i always wondered why they call it the magnolia bridge. there are any mall -- magnolia trees that far north. but it was built in 1929. imagine that, 1929. everyone recognizes the dangers that are involved. the bridge carries 18,000 cars a day and is structurally deficient. while the bridge is in a residential area and the community, it hasn't received necessary funding to construct construct -- reconstruct the 86-year-old bridge that it is. greenfield bridge. that's in pittsburgh. that's in the -- in the area of

the chairman of the transportation and infrastructure committee of the house of representatives. it's -- pennsylvania has the most structurally deficient bridges in the country and this is just one of them. it was built in 1921. now carries 7,700 cars a day. the 10-inch chunk -- a 10-inch chunk of concrete went through a car windshield in 2003, injuring the driver. later that year, the city spent some $652,000 to build a temporary bridge to catch whatever came through the nets. in other words they put a bridge under this bridge to -- this same thing happened in my state of oklahoma. the bridge in oklahoma city. it wasn't long ago -- and by the way that bridge was taken care of in the 2005 bill which was the last long-term bill that we've had. and i -- i recall vividly a mother and three children driving under it a chunk of

concrete fell off and killed the mother instantly and, of course, that got everyone's attention. and when we passed the last reauthorization bill which is 2005 we put that in there. and so that's taken care of. this is the same thing. they have to build a bridge under the bridge. and this is the pittsburgh greenfield bridge. so it's one that is very, very very -- it's high on our list that needs to be done. again, none of these can be done with short-term fixes. court avenue bridge in des moines iowa, that happens to be where i was born. it's represented right now by senators grassley and joni he -- joni ernst. iowa has the second-most number of structurally deficient bridges in the country. and the -- you might remind me to mention that to grassley, too, because they may not be aware of that. it was built in 1918. carries 3,900 cars a day. while the state recently

increased gas tax it will still require a federal partnership to ensure progress on fixing this bridge. it's not going to be done without this. the brandywine bridge. that's 1-95 in wilmington, delaware, not far from here. senator coons and senator carper should be very much concerned about that. that's a 50-year-old bridge. the bridge deck is deteriorating the -- the viaduct which carries travelers on i-95 -- that's a major -- if you go from here to to -- to new york city, you're talking about i-95, one of the most traveled interstates. it goes through wilmington and has experienced serious concrete corrosion. the structure the substructure, has cracks and is in need of repair, another danger site there that's not going to be done in the absence of the passage of this bill. the chef -- i can't pronounce that. how do you pronounce that?

montour pass. that's in new orleans. bill cassidy and senator vitter i'm sure are concerned. it's structure -- it was built in 1930, carries 1,800 cars a day across high 90, a -- highway 90 a major intersection. then there's the caesar chavez bridge in san francisco. it was built in 1951. again, 3,200 cars a day one of the older bridges on the west coast. that one can actually be repaired as opposed to rebuilt. little rock, arkansas, getting out pretty close to my area, tom cotton and john boozman are very much concerned about this, or they should be and i'm sure they are, it's structurally deficient. it was built in 1961 to carry traffic over railroad tracks. 116,000 cars a day. arkansas is delaying projects because of uncertainty at the federal level. and that's what this bill is all about.

the stooral dry bridge in boston massachusetts. senators warner and mackie will be concerned. it was built in 1951. this structurally deficient bridge carries 57,000 cars a day the storrow drive bridge earned its structurally deficient rating because of the corroding support beams that support one of the many highly trafficked bridges in the nation. and i have been across that one several times. you have the u.s. 1/9 over the passaic river in newark, new jersey. senator booker and senator menendez will be -- are concerned about that. the -- herbert hoover was president when the bridge was built in 1932 with an estimated design volume of 5,500 vehicles a day. it's now up to 62,000 vehicles a

day. the -- how do you pronounce this one? good for you. the calcasieu river bridge in lake charles nasrallah, was built in 1952. the bridge now carries 70,000 cars a day. its steep grades have been cited as traffic concerns, especially given the high volume of trucks the bridge carries along the major east-west corridor. the brooklyn bridge -- everybody knows about the brooklyn bridge. you know, you guys are too young to remember this but back -- that was back when johnny wisemiller was tarzan. you see any of the old movies? he would dive off the brooklyn bridge. and i remember that when i was your age. and anyway, do you know when that was built? that was built in 18383 -- 1883. now, this structurally deficient bridge now carries 135,000 cars a day. that's one of the real oldest ones around.

but i remember so well when johnny wisemiller was chased by the police and dived all the way down. i always wondered what happened to him. but anyway, that's enough. the bay bridge, san francisco to oakland. california. it was built in 1936. this bridge is now functionally obsolete yet it carries 204,000 cars a day and there are many fears that the bridge may collapse. now, you know, that's what happened up in minnesota. and you can't wait until that happens to avoid the disasters that would come with it. just imagine this, this bridge collapsing. there are people -- people are concerned about it because that's right in the middle of earthquake country. and if you take something that is already structurally deficient and you give it a little bit of tremor, it could go. missouri. senators blunt and mccaskill would be concerned that one state that would significantly benefit from the long-term

certainty, missouri has the fourth-most structurally deficient bridges in the country with 3,310 of them. furthermore, missouri has three districts ranked in the top 20 for worst bridges. districts of representative graves in the house representative smith in the house and representative hartsler. dennis heckman the missouri d.o.t.'s state bridge engineer, agrees that the state needs to seriously address their aging bridges. clear when he says they are in dad condition, they are just worn -- bad condition, they are just worn out. broadway bridge in kansas city. prime example. structurally deficient bridge desperately in need of reconstruction. this bridge is beyond its design life and has to support 54,000 cars a day. we don't have that one? okay, we have the interstate 70

bridge over havana street and the union pacific railroad is in denver. cory gardner is very familiar with this, as is senator bennet also. this is the most traveled structurally deficient bridge in the state of colorado, built in 1964. it has 183,000 daily crossings every day 3.7 million coloradans cross this structurally deficient bridge. this drive act would work to make these bridges safer for almost 4 million people just in that state alone. then getting toward the end here -- and there are a lot more, but the russell street bridge is in miss sula, montana -- is in missoula montana. i was up there, i was during steve daines' election recently. the transportation for america rated the deck of the russell street bridge a 4 and the

soundness scale of 1-10. the russell street bridge was built in 1975, carries 257,000 cars day. according to the american society of engineers in their 2013 report, driving on roads in need of repair costs montana motorists nearly $200 each year for repair. this is the people who are using the bridge. now, in light of these decaying bridges, the drive act will provide adequate infrastructure, investment for our nation's bridges. senator barbara boxer and i made that a top priority in the drive act, and i just think it's something that we need to keep in mind. we have an opportunity to move to this bill this afternoon. the vote hasn't been scheduled yet, but it's going to happen today, a understand ilt going to -- and it's going to be a motion to proceed to the highway reauthorization bill, and it's one that will get it so that we can now start working on amendments. we have a lot of amendments.

a lot of people are using this. they know that the bill has to pass. this falls into the category of a "must pass" bill because everybody knows for the reasons i've been talking about for several days, that it's going to have to pass. so there are a lot of people that have amendments that have nothing to do with bridges nothing to do with roads. that's okay. if this is a vehicle that they can use to try to get other programs few -- in fact, i may be guilty of that myself. nonetheless, we can't do any of that until we get to the bill. that motion to proceed has to pass and as soon as it does, i encourage all of the members to come forgot forth with their amendments so they can be heard before any deadlines pass. with that, i will yield the floor and suggest -- mr. president, i have 12 unanimous consent requests for committees to meet today during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the

majority and minority leaders. i ask that these requests be agreed to and these request be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: and with that, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. tillis: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. tillis: thank you mr. president. mr. president, i was sworn in in january -- oh, i request that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tillis: thank you mr. president. we were sworn in, mr. president you and i both were sworn in in january. and you and i have gone do you

thinkout totower states and try -- have gone out to our states and to try to get an idea of what our constituents face. one area that i have focused on is veterans affairs. i'm concerned that we have a problem with priorities. i'm concerned that maybe the focus isn't where it needs to be to make sure that we take care of the most pressing problems for our veterans, whether it's the choice act whether it's just providing ambulatory care, ptsd mental health, a number of other things. we have shortages and we have some need to actually get the veterans administration focused on solving the most pressing problems. so that's why i decided that we needed to produce some amendments that would have been held or would have been heard today in the veterans' affairs committee for a bill that would affect the v.a. now, why would i want to do

that? when out of the blue a proposal for some $500 million in unanticipated costs that could potentially be considered today i get worried and i'll talk about the various things that make me worry what would be lost if we were to reprioritize a half a billion dollars with all the things we already have on our plate to deal with the v.a. now, the amendments that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were talking about earlier today were my responsibility. they referred, i guess in deference to republicans and the reality is, they were amendments that came out of my talk a little about what these amendments were. they were referred to as political games. three of them were very focused on good government. one of them is to make sure that we do not implement policy that moves a priority or moves something ahead of the lining of the other critical priorities -- ahead of the line of the other

critical priorities. all it said is we would not fund this project until we had certification of that the most pressing priorities had actually been addressed. another was just reporting. all too often we pass policies here and we never measure the result. that's what's wrong with washington. we don't think through the full consequences of a lot of the policies that we implement here, so it was simply just to provide a reporting mechanism so that we could follow-up on those policies see what it costs see what the real benefits were over time. the last one is something that i know mr. president you and i are very familiar with. you are a very successful businessman. in business we would never think about balancing the books for this year or next year based on what the business is going to do ten years from now. but that's exactly what nearly half of the $500 million that was going to be used for this amendment would have done. it's reaching all the way out to 2025 to assume that some savings

achieved there could be used to pay for something today. that's not the way we need to be budgeting in washington. we've got over an $18 trillion deficit, or i should say debt. and a lot of that is this kind of thinking that's been going on in washington for too long -- and i might add under republican and democratic leadership. we've got to change. the other amendments were fairly straightforward, too. the other three were things that i think most americans would agree with. one would simply prevent taxpayer funds from being used -- the whole bill, i should have meptionmentioned, has to do with providing in vitro coverage for veterans. one of the amendments said you cannot use taxpayer funds to do any form of sex selection with respect to determining which embryo may be able to come to life versus other ones that

couldn't. another one has to do with not having the v.a. work with organizations that take human aborted babies' organs and sell them. it wasn't to kill in vitro fertilization. i know others who have brought babies into the world through inveto feater fertilization. at the heart of my problems, is goes back to the long list of broken promises that sooner or later this congress has to fulfill for our veterans. now, let's talk a little bit about those. we're talking about taking a half a billion dollars and spending it for some priority that's not even on the books today. what about these priorities? i worry about the 120,000 claims that are currently in the v.a. backlog. these are people who served our country, who are looking for medical help, who are in the backlog waiting to get treatment. what about that priority?

what about 22 veterans on average a day commit suicide? most of them are related to ptsd. we passed the clay hunt suicide prevention bill as a first step towards trying to address this chronic problem. at the time that we passed it, we all being a nounalled that the funding that -- we all being a nounalled that theacknowledged that the funding we gave it west african enough. what-- gave it wasn't enough. what about the men and women suffering from trauma? you know, i also worry about the -- wcialg well, actually we've got unemployment problems. 75% of the iran and afghanistan veterans who are dealing with unemployment once they transition into the private sector. initiatives to get them back to work take care of them and their families. i could go on and on. at camp le jeune down in my great state of north carolina, we have identified something.

it occurred over many years. it was exposure to toxic substances that have been linked to cancer. i had a meeting just last week with the secretary of the v.a. only 13% of the requests for coverage are being fulfilled. we think it should be closer to 50% or 60%. what about the funding for making sure that those folks who contacted cancer as a result of toxic substances on camp le jeune? don't they deserve to be somewhere high on the priority list? you know, i could go on and on. the wait times the critical medical services that we need, the promises that we've made to veterans today should be our top priority. at some point in time, it may make sense to add another half a billion dollars for this medical treatment that's been proposed by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle but not until we're absolutely certainty that the promises we've already made are going to be fulfilled. that's all we attempted to do today. and in some respects, i regret

that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle considered it political. i don't consider it political. i don't think it's political when you're trying to live within your means or political to make sure that you report and make sure that the policies you're implementing actually work the way you intended. or actually spending money over the next year or two versus ten years from now. i think that's responsible government. and the gimmicks and the old rhetoric in this chamber need to stop. we need to start focusing on fulfilling promises, first and foremost to the men and women who have served our country and defended our freedom. that's what my proposed amendments were about and that's what they'll be about if this measure ever comes up again because if i can fulfill no other promise my promise to the men and women who have served this nation are paramount and all the things that i do here in my service in the next five and a half years in the senate. this was a threat to my being able to fulfill this promise

and i'm glad we're going to be able to move on. thank you mr. president. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: