nation, not hurt us. every american pays more to pump right now because of the increasing regulations in the ethanol mandates. every american is paying more in gasoline than we should. every american is paying more in electricity because of the cost of the mandates. people ask me why their dollars don't go so far. the regulations are the reason. many people want to know about our energy future. so do i. but i want to talk about our energy present. the goal is a huge goal. we're about 5% right now in renewables. that will still leave us, even if that goal is accomplished, coal, natural gas and nuclear power. on hot, still days when the wind doesn't blow, it's base power. let's keep going. it's a good thing. glad we're able to harness some of that. takes a massive amount of

acreage. we're glad to have it. 15 acres of solar. 15 acres of panels. it powers two neighborhoods. two neighborhoods. and it takes 15 achors get that accomplished. windmills are much more efficient than they've ever been. in fact, they're efficient enough we should probably stop subsidizing them. they're not a start-up anymore. we started subsidizing them 20 years ago saying someday they'll be efficient enough to work. i think we're already there. in fact, there are more than 48,000 utility scale wind turbines in the country right now, 48,000 windmills in the country right now. to give you some perspective, there are 36,000 mcdonald's in the world. we have 48,000 windmills. there are 36,000 mcdonald's in the world. i don't think the windmill is a start-up anymore. i think it's pretty well established.

maybe the need for the subsidy is not there. geothermal is a great energy source. we have yet to tap it for heating and businesses, but we still need natural gas, oil, and nuclear for the foreseeable future. even the obama administration lays out what their anticipated use will be and they anticipate we're going to need gas, coal, oil, basic base power. so let's do it the cleanest way we can, the most efficient way we can so the consumer is not punished for using energy. we should keep innovating for the future but should make rational choices on energy. let me give you an example of an irrational choice. can i do that? here's an example of an irrational choice. the keystone x.l. pipeline. i know, everyone will say we're going to talk about it again. this is day 2,510 of a request to build a pipeline today, 2,510 of a permit sitting on the

president's desk for a pipeline. let me give you an example. all these black lines you see here, those are crude oil pipelines in the united states currently there. this is how many thousands of miles. you want the number on it? more than 60,000 miles in the united states of crude oil pipelines. 60,000. it's another pipeline. why does it take 2,510 days to be able to make a decision on this? it's an international pipeline. that's right. let me add something to it. we have 19 international pipelines currently running. 19 of them. this would be number 20. this is not something new and radical. we're already buying a significant amount of canadian oil. you know where it's coming from? right here. the pipelines coming from the same spot and look at that, they cross the border. and it's been safe and reliable. this has not been a big challenge for us. that oil is not just being

blocked from canada. many people think if we don't bring it in a pipeline, it won't come. it's coming by rail already. it's coming into the country. this is just cleaner and more efficient to be able to move it that way. canada is discussing taking a pipeline over here to drop it to the coast and bringing it by ship over to the u.s. gulf coast. does someone think that's more efficient than bringing a pipeline in? it's not more efficient by rail. it's not a more efficient by this way. if we're going to bring it in and canada is going to sell it, with why don't we have international pipeline number 20 right there and bring it in? i heard multiple people say it's because of the aquifer in nebraska. i've heard this over and over again. we can't run pipelines through the aquifer in nebraska. here is that aquifer that's being discussed in the purple here. every line that you see is an existing pipeline running through that aquifer. this tiny blue line that's the proposed keystone to go right through there as well. they make these comments about

we can't run it through that aquifer because my gosh we can't run a pipeline there. that's how many we already have in that spot. this is not radical. this is not different. in fact, let me give you one more image. this is the number of pipelines that we have in america right now of all types. this is both natural gas, crude, all kinds of petroleum products that move through the united states all the time. every single one of those lines. this is irrational -- irrational energy policy that is knee jerk that says we can't add one more pipeline because it will somehow go over the top and ignores the reality of what we already have in the united states. moving energy by pipeline is clean and efficient. it's also a rational way to do it. we've got to move from freer-based energy policy -- fear-based energy policy to

fact-based energy policy. to look not only at our energy future in the decades to come, i hope nigh car one day runs on a pinwheel on thehood ornament, that would be great. but that's not now. my car still runs on gas. so does everyone else here, every single person here that gets on an airplane every week, it doesn't run on water. it still runs on energy that we pull out of the ground. so the foreseeable future we need to deal with the facts. stop hurting consumers for some proposed future hope of what may happen. let's do it clean, let's go it innovative, but let's not hurt consumers in the process. people want to know where their money has gone. it's being spent away on regulations. let's get to work on an energy plan. i'm glad to have this conversation but it should not be a conversation in the halls

of the e.p.a. this should be a conversation in this room to determine where energy policy is going. with that, mr. president, i yield back.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. perdue: i'd like to talk about seizing the the country for real growth today today. first i'd like to give a little more context. decades of overspending by both

parties and mismanagement by both parties have led to a crushing $18 trillion of federal debt. even more sobering to me is the upcoming $100 trillion coming at us like a freight train. we have a fiscal crisis in this country, everybody can see it and feel it. as an outsider my role is to bring a new sense of urgency to washington to help solve this fiscal crisis. i'm encouraged by the work my colleagues on the budget committee completed this year, we completed a balanced budget for the first time since 2001. it was merely a good first step in the right direction. but we've got a lot of heavy lifting to do. we must act right now to get our fiscal house in order before it's too late. yes, we must cut unnecessary spending. yes, there are redundant agencies and programs that should be eliminated.

and yes, we do need to have a national dialogue on how we keep the commitments that were made to our seniors while saving those important programs for future generations. however, discretionary spending cuts and long-term reforms to mandatory programs alone will not solve this problem. the crisis -- the numbers simply don't add up to solve this crisis. economic growth is really the only answer. economic growth supports good-paying jobs across the entire country, and economic growth eventually means more revenue nor the federal government without raving taxes. if we were ever going to get out of the hole that washington has dug for our country, we're going to have to grow our way out of it economically. mr. president, one of the biggest opportunities to infuse energy in investment into our economy right now is before us as i speak. just waiting for us to act on it. there are approximately

$2.1 trillion in multinational companies trapped by our archaic tax laws. imagine if we could lure just a portion of that back in terms of capital investment in our economy. the multiplier effect alone could be incredible as it rippled its way throughout our domestic economy. in recent weeks, we've heard a lot of talk about how we in washington get those overseas innings repatriated back to the united states economy. for me the solution is simple. we simply eliminate the barrier to repatriation by eliminating the tax on repatriation. my approach isn't just based on my business career. it's just -- not just based on my desire to give our economy a needed shot in the arm. completely eliminating this tax on repatriation is an absolute necessity for global competitiveness and create a level playing field with the rest of the world.

i rarely compare other countries to the united states. for simple reasons. number one, we have an $18 trillion economy, number two we're the innovator in the world, we have the rule of law, number four, we have a very dynamic and diverse economy. very few countries compare to that. but this is one time where a comparison is warranted because it's about how we compete for economic development in jobs with the rest of the world. a company headquartered in hundreds not only has to pay taxes in every single country in which it does business but when it elects to bring back the remaining profits from abroad, that corporation is forced to pay an additional tax, a repatriation tax. this doesn't happen if the corporation is based in canada, france, germany, united kingdom, australia, japan, or indeed, the remainder of the 39 oecd countries. in fact, there is only one country in the list of 39 oecd countries that has a

repatriation tax -- the united states. the united kingdom actually eliminated their rate patriot ration tax in 2009 and over the last decade have reduced their corporate tax. we continue to see companies leave the united states because the they can go pretty much anywhere in the world and benefit from much lower tax rates than here in america. we've seen a rash of those inversions over the last few years and it's not going to stop until we deal with the underlying problem and that is our corporate tax rate is not competitive with the rest of the world. the repatriation tax is a derivative of that primary causal problem. what i'm talking about today is simply the elimination of the repatriation tax but sooner or later, we have to deal with the fact that our corporate tax rate is simply not competitive. the question simply before us is do we want multinational companies in many cases iconic american brands to continue to call the united states home or

not? as a former c.e.o. of a large branded company that manufactured and in dozens of countries and sold in dozens more, i have firsthand experience and i can tell you, mr. president, that based on that experience we are losing our competitive advantages with the rest of the world. in fact, i see us now at a growing disadvantage for our american companies to compete with companies in other countries. the hostile integrity requirement has -- regulatory environment has forceed companies to go abroad. it has created a punitive atmosphere in which to try to grow businesses or start businesses here in the united states. unfortunately, in typical washington fashion, the dialogue on repatriation is focused on how to get a short-term solution, a

short-term federal tax increase instead of using repatriation as a tool to grow the economy and make us more competitive. in my estimate, this kind of thinking is dead wrong and another example of how we got in this mess in the first place. we should not be looking at repatriation as a way to pay for the highway trust fund or any other things. that kind of shortsighted thinking about only make our fiscal situation worse. it will only cause more american companies to look for a new home. repatriation is a big idea, with a big poe teption impact for our -- potential impact for ow economy. if we encourage repatriation the right way, it means sustained growth for ow economy, it means more american jobs and innovation and ultimately it means an organic increase in federal tax revenues based on pure economic growth. this growth can allow us to deal with our economic and fiscal priorities and finally develop a

long-term plan to begin to pay down our overburdened debt. before i conclude, mr. president, i have one final thought. i hope this thought will compel my colleagues to act with a sense of urgency on this issue. and others that impact our economy. we actually have fewer people working than at any time in the last 30 years. when i go back home, the number-one question that is put before me is, how can i get my hours up? how can i get more work? people back home know we have a crisis. it's not just bureaucrats in washington looking for a few more tax dollars so we can make government bigger. this is about pennsylvania putting people back to -- this is about putting people back to work, helping us compete against the growing economies of india, china, and other rivals of today's world. the congress' approval rating +s in the single digits.

i believe this is because this town's priorities are not aligned with those who sent us here. folks back home know that shortsighted, short-term solutions to big problems is how washington got in this mess in the first place. so today we can continue to argue about temporary ways to pay for trust funds that are going bankrupt every few weeks, or we can simply finally get serious about solving this systemic problem before we have to hand it to our children and our children's children. i know the american people expect the latter. in fact they're demanding it. that can happen, but we must make real tax reforms right now that will set us on a new course for economic growth for generations to come. the time for bait about repatriation has come. we have an opportunity, mr. president. i implore my colleagues to debate this earnestly and move on this right now and put people back to work, make america more

competitive for our children and our children's children. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. exi exi thanmrs. capito: thank , mr. president. yesterday president obama and his environmental protection agency announced their final clean power grab continuing the economic assault on energy-producing states like west virginia. yesterday alpha natural resources, one of the nation's largest coal producers, filed for bankruptcy -- the same day. as of the end of 2014, alpha had 4,870 employees at 33 active mines and 13 prep plants in west virginia. alpha follows patriot coal, jim walter resources and james river mining, all of which have filed bankruptcy since 2014. according to the mine safety and

health administration, coal mining employment has dropped from 143,437 in 2011 to 98,310 in the first quarter of this year. that was -- that represents a 31% drop over the last four years. earlier this year when murray energy's announced hundreds of layoffs in northern west virk the wheeling intelligencer newspaperrer reported that the impact would mean almost $62 million in annual income lost wages for residents. nicholas county, a stall county in my state, was forced to lay off sheriff deputies because they could no longer pay their comuments because of the decline in coal severance revenues. several have retired due to e.p.a. policies. the electricity is enough to power 2.7 million homes.

put another way, the units that have already closed in west virginia would generate enough power to power the entire state of hawaii. mr. president, these are not the staple old talkingpoints, a the administrator of the e.p.a. hand the president said. these are not stale. this is not motivated by special interests. these are real americans, real jobs, real families, and real communities that have been negatively impacted by this administration's overreaching regulations. people like tammy rowan who wrote me a letter, "my whole family has concerns about the regulations that seem to be out of control. e.p.a., government officials, and the president are putting our families out of work." or patrick sparks who said, "i know the e.p.a. has been trying to force strict regulations on coal. it's hurting a lot of people, not just here in west virginia but a lot of businesses are

suffering from it." and teresa simmons, her family has worked in coal mines for generations. she wrote, "my husband was able to provide for our family with just his income. we were able to donate money to local charities and help needy families around the holidays. now that's going to be my family looking for donations." end quote. put sumly, yesterday's announcement will make an already bleak situation in our state much, much worse. working families across the nation woke up to the sad news that their jobs just don't count. much has been said about the open process that led to this final rule. in fact, west virginia -- which is one of the most deeply affected states by this regulation -- was not even visited by the e.p.a. after having extended many -- me and others extended many invitations. instead, they went to cities like chicago, boston, san

francisco. talk about special interests, talk about being bold. the administration's final clean power grab will force states away from affordable, reliable energy towards expensive intermittent power source, many of which are heavily subsidized by the taxpayer. it provides benchmarks that are less attainment. our emissions was to drop 20%. the final rate requires us to drop by 37%, a drop almost twice as veer. there is no way for vest which are to comply with this -- for west virginia to comply with this without significant cuts to our cut productio coal productid use. coal's share of electric generation will go to 27% by 2030 under this rule as compared to 39% which we currently have -- or did in 2014.

if this misguided final rule is ever implemented, pain will be felt by all americans, with fewer job opportunities, higher power bills and less reliable electricity. studies of the proposed rule projected that the clean power plan will increase electricity prices in a state like mine 12% to 16%. what does this mean for american jobs? a recent study by the national rural electric cooperative association found that a 10% increase in your electricity prices can mean as much as 1.2 million jobs lost. roughly a half a million of these job losses would be in rural communities like those of west virginia. put simply, affordable energy matters, especially to those -- affordable energy matters, especially to those who the

administration incorrectly says will benefit the most from this rule, which is the low- and moderate income. more than half of west virginia's households take home an average of less than $1,900 a month and already spend 17% of their income on energy. these families are especially vulnerable to the administration's clean power grab. while states are given additional time to comply under the final rule, it does not change the fact that the e.p.a. is picking winners and losers in the energy economy. and the losers will be the american families who rely on affordable, reliable energy. we can and we should innovate for the future, but not with a sledgehammer bearing down on us. thankfully there are several legislative options that congress can pursue to challenge this rule. tomorrow the e.p.w. committee will be taking up my legislation, the arena act. let me smain that briefly. this -- let me explain that briefly. this legislation would empower the states to protect families

and businesses from electric rate increases, reduce electric reliability. it will force e.p.a. to reconsider this misguided rule making. the arena act requires the agency to issue state-specific model plans, demonstrating how each state will meet the required reductions. it gives states the ability to opt out if the plan hinders economic growth. for existing power plants, the arena act delays implementation of the clean power plan until the courts determine the legality of the rule. recently the supreme court ruled that the e.p.a. had unlawfully failed to consider cost when formulating the regulation. because the rule went forward while it was still being litigated, millions of dollars were spent to comply with a rule that was ultimately deemed illegal. states should not be forced to proceed under the legality of the rule until -- until the legality of the rule has been determined. and i hope that many states will

follow leader mcconnell's suggestion and delay implementation of this rule until the legal process is completed. mr. president, -- mr. president of the united states, your clean power grab will devastate already-hurting communities in my staivment i state. it will cause economic pain for working families across the country. it will forever harm our energy landscape. the proposed rule is bad. the final rule announced yesterday is even worse, doubling down on the destruction of ow economy. there's no question that we must take steps to protect our environment. it simply cannot be at the expense of our families. we can do better. like congress, the elected representatives make these decisions. that's the way it should be. i ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the arena act and sending these overreaching e.p.a. regulations back to the drawing board. thank you.

mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, as the senate prepares for the month of august in our home states, i want to discuss tonight what i believe to be an urgent issue: the west is on fire. and there is a really serious prospect that my part of the country is going to get hit by what i call "the terrible trifecta. : drought, high temperatures, and enormous fuel load on the forest floor." and when you couple that with a

lightning strike, which is not exactly a rarity in my part of the world, all of a sudden you can have on your hands an inferno, and the fires are getting bigger, and they're lasting longer, and they're doing more damage. and senators here, on both sides of the aisle -- democrats and republicans -- have come to realize that our system for fighting fire is a broken, dysfunctional mess. what happens is historically prevention gets short s shrift. you don't do enough thinning. you don't do enough of the preventive work to reduce the forest load on the floor. then you have one of those lightning strikes.

when all of a sudden there is a huge fire because the fuel buildup is so great on the forest floor. the agencies run out of money to put these fires out, because they're getting bigger and they're lasting longer, and the problem gets worse because you've robbed the prevention fund in order to do it. in other words, the agencies borrow from the prevention fund, and the problem gets worse because you've shorted the prevention fund and created the prospect of still more big fires in the future. now, with the west burning, the western governors association -- a bipartisan group -- just put out a new update of how big the recent fires are. so far in 2015, nearly 6 million

acres have burned. that's an area bigger than the state of new jersey scorched in massive fires. in my home state, a wildfire in douglas county -- in southern oregon -- has spread to over 16,000 acres with 1,400 crewmembers battling the blaze that's threatening more than 300 homes. according to recent reports, 20,000 acres were scorched by one single fire in northern california in a matter of only five hours. that's 20,000 acres, nearly the size of the entire city of bend, oregon, burned in the time span of an extra inning baseball game. now, with the forest service

budget effectively flat lined and the higher cost of fighting fires producing this robbing other programs that i've described, the fire burrowing, what you have is a vicious self-defeating circle of fire fighting, shoddy budgeting, in effect causing even bigger crisis in the future because you've shorted prevention fund. in ten years, if this isn't fixed, what's known as fire burrowing, the forest service says it will be spending two-thirds of its entire budget on suppressing wildfires. and my constituents say that they're going to be calling the forest service the fire service because that's essentially what they'll be.

this is particularly serious right now, which is why i came to the floor tonight, mr. president, to try to drive home the urgency of this issue because it is so dry in the west. this year governor brown of my home state has declared drought emergencies in 23 of our 36 counties. all 36 counties are experiencing severe drought, according to the national drought center. it is a very dangerous mix of factors, what i've come to call the terrible trifecta of drought and temperatures and fuel. they all come together to turn the west into a virtual tinder box. now to try to fix this, our

colleague, senator crapo, and i have worked for quite some time to in effect say that what we ought to do is in effect break this dysfunctional system of fighting fire and go with a different approach. what we would say is that the biggest fires, the one or two percent of the megafires, you ought to fight them from the disaster fund because they really are disasters. use the prevention fund for what it's intended, which is preventions so you keep from having those megafires. the good news is that the congressional budget office, which, as we know, my colleague is new here, but he already knows that the congressional budget office, our official scorekeeper, says that there

really aren't added costs for this approach because while you would spend a bit more money trying to put out those megafires, you would save some money by not cheating the prevention fund and not having so many fires in the first place. so in effect, it's a lot smarter for the agencies to focus on keeping our forests healthy and clear the fuels that go up in flames when lightning strikes so that we do the preventive work and we no longer are shorting it by all the fire burrowing which i have just described. now senator crapo and i have been able to get well over 250 organizations to go on record in support of our idea. these are groups associated with

forestry policy, environmental folks, industry personnel, people across the political spectrum, more than 250 groups have said that they're in support of this. the under secretary of agriculture, robert bonny noted in a recent letter that the proposal that senator crapo and i have offered is one that both fixes fire burrowing and provides the resources needed to prevent these catastrophic whield fires -- wildfires down the line. 15 of our colleagues here in the senate have supported the bill, 123 in the other body. the administration is on board. the agencies that battle these fires are waiting for the congress to act. and each day the reality in the west is immensely brave men and women on the ground fight fires

and risk their lives to keep our homes and communities protected. it is long, long, long past time for the congress to step up, fix this budgetary mess and guarantee that the funding is there to fight fires and to prevent them in the first place. mr. president, i filed our bipartisan bill as an amendment to the transportation bill. i filed a wildfire amendment to the budget resolution. i filed the senate interior appropriations wildfire language as an amendment to the transportation bill. and i believe this is the fourth time in recent weeks that i have been on the floor talking about this issue, and that's in addition to talking about it in the budget markup and in several hearings in the natural

resources committee that i had the opportunity to chair in the last congress. and i see my colleague, my new colleague in the chair, and he's been doing good work on this fire burrowing issue. and i just come to the floor tonight to say that i think it is very important, even with everything else that we're dealing with here in the senate that we focus on a way, an actual way to leave with an agreement on how this is actually going to get fixed. how this is going to get done. in this regard i've been talking in the last day or so with colleagues of both political parties and i think there now is this sense of urgency because

you see it. not only on tv but every time you're home, when you go to a fire briefing. and as my knows, even fire briefings have changed very dramatically. used to have a fire briefing in july. now you have a fire briefing, as i did, in winter because the forest service and the folks at b.l.m. often say they are not even sure when one fire season has ended and the next one has begun because these challenges have gotten so great. so, mr. president, senator crapo and i with this bill that's gotten more than 250 organizations sponsoring it have talked just in the last few hours. we want to work with all our colleagues to make sure that we

get some sense, because our constituents are going to ask about this. they're going to ask about this this summer. how's the senate actually going to get this done? how's the senate going to fix this broken, dysfunctional system about fighting fires where in effect year after year, and i gather there are going to be new analysis coming out basically showing that the entire budget for the forest service is going to get eaten up in fighting these counterproductive fires. senator crapo and i have a proposal that received a favorable score from the budget committee. i know my colleague has also done very good work on these issues, as have a number of senators on both sides of the aisle. given the goodwill that i've seen among senators here in the last couple of days as we talked

about what this really means, given the urgency -- going home and seeing constituents in august -- i'm convinced we can have an agreement on how this is going to get fixed. and that's why i wanted to come to the floor tonight because there's a lot of topics that are still going to be tackled in the next few days before the senate wraps up. but i want it understood that our part of the country is on fire. it is on fire. we've got communities burning up. business as usual is unacceptable. senator crapo and i have offered a proposal that we think that -- that we think will turn this around. and other colleagues have very good ideas as well. what's nonnegotiable, what's

nonnegotiable is just saying maybe we'll take care of it end of the year or on standard congressional time. that's not good enough for the west that's burning up. and i invite my colleagues here as we move in the last few days before the august recess to join me, join senator crapo, to join colleagues of both political parties in making sure that people see, as we go home to talk to the people that we have the honor to represent that this is now going to actually get fixed, that the senate is coming together to make sure it actually gets done. and we're going to turn this around so that we can do more to prevent fires in the rural west, number one. and, number two, fight them in a more cost-effective way.

mr. president, with that, i yield the floor. i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. rounds: i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rounds: i ask unanimous consent that the senate be in a period of morning business with

senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. officer sper without objection. -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rounds: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 159, s. 1297. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 159, is $12 the 7, a bill to update the commercial space launch act and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without t objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. rounds: i ask that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed torque the bill as anded be read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rounds: i ask unanimous consent that the committee on armed services be discharged from further consideration of s. 267, and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 267, a bill to authorize the transfer of

certain items under the control of the omar bradley foundation to the decendants of general omar bradley. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. rounds: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rounds: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the agriculture committee be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to s. res. 232. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 232, expressing the sense of the senate that august 30, 2015, p observed as 1890 land grant institutions quo's croix centennial restitution day. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure.

mr. rounds: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider to reconsider be laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rounds: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. wednesday, august 5. following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. following leader remarks, the senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 754. finally, that the time following leader remarks until the cloture vote be equally divided between the two managers or their designees. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rounds: mr. president, if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until

9:30 a.m. tomorrow. i was concerned that the chief justice can of worms argument. we recommend extracting the one with a pair of tweezers and then

shutting again. to the case of 1996 movie the people versus larry flynt. >> we have a commentary. if jerry falwell can sue when there's been no speech then so can other public figures and imagine if you will against johnny carson for what he says on the tonight show. >> the watergate case from all the presidents men. >> they were appointed to the case. [inaudible] and the loving story about the landmark civil rights case invalidating the law prohibiting interracial marriage. >> what are the things that can

be done together that they can't do in virginia. >> they had a major civil rights case. >> just wake up in the morning or go to sleep at night knowing they will not be shining a light on their face. >> link mac earlier today senator bill nelson expressed his support for the agreement with iran. his attempt is to say he will vote for the deal.n

i rise to announce my decision t on the nuclear agreement, the joint comprehensive plan of action. this decision of mine comes after the considerable study ofg the issue as have our colleagues and senate taken us quite seriously. i've talked with folks on all sides of the issues. these include colleagues as well as constituents. it includes experts on the middle east and central asia, arms control experts, foreign allies, and as we say in my constituency it includes just plain folks. i want to say that the nuclear businesses has been especially

helpful. needless to say bob lovins and a former fbi agent missing for eight years i wish they had been part of an agreement to return them. they are anxious for information and hope to return. this is personal for me. i recognize that country as one of america's most important allies did for the u.s. and our

allies. and i am blessed to represent florida which also has among our citizens a strong and vibrant jewish community including many survivors and victims families some of whom i've worked with to help them get just compensation from european insurance companies which turned their back on them after world war ii and what not honor their insurance claims and in our state we are also proud to have a miami beach resident as the ambassador to the u.s..

the ambassador grew up in miami beach. his father and brother are former mayors. he is someone i've enjoyed getting to know and have had several conversations over the years and spend time i've spent time talking to him about his opposition to this joint agreement. i acknowledge that this has been one of the most important preparations and will be one of the most important votes that i will cast in the senate because of the consequences are both huge for the u.s. and our allies and unless there is an unexpected change in the conditions and factors before the vote is called in september, and it will be called on the very first day that we return in

september unless there is an unexpected change, i will support the nuclear agreement between iran and the p5 plus one which is uk, france, russia, china and germany because i am convinced it .-full-stop iran from developing a nuclear weapon for at least the next ten to 15 years. no other available alternatives accomplishes this vital objective. the goal of this negotiation: david in this deal the goal was to deny iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. this objective has been fulfilled in the short term.

for the next ten years iran will reduce its centrifuges and machines that enrich the uranium by two thirds. they will go for more than 19,000 centrifuges to 6,000. only 5,000 of those will be operated with all of the most basic models. the deeply buried facility will be converted to the research lab no enrichment can occur. it is enough for ten bombs will

be reduced by 90% to only 300 kilograms. research and development into the advanced centrifuges will also be limited and taken together these constraints will lengthen the time that it will take for iran to produce a highly enriched uranium for the so-called breakout time will reduce it from two to three months that they can break out now to more than one year. that is enough to detect and if necessary stop iran from racing to about. the ability to produce the bomb using the plutonium will also be blocked under this deal could

produce enough plutonium for one to two every year. it will be redesigned to produce no weapons grade plutonium and iran will have to shift out the fuel from the reactor forever. iran signed the new clear nonproliferation treaty in 1968 in which they agreed they would not pursue nuclear weapons. iran has reaffirmed the principle and the joint agreement. they also say that they want to eventually make low-grade nuclear fuel as other compliance nations do in order to produce electricity. if they comply they will be allowed to do so under this

joint agreement and our expectation is that in 15 years when iran can look the limit of 300 kilograms of low enriched uranium if they haven't cheated they will continue to abide by their obligations and use the fuel only for electricity and medical isotopes. if they deviate from those civilian purposes then harsh economic sanctions will result and very possibly u.s. military action. the world will be a very different place in ten to 15 years. if we can buy this much time instead of iran developing a nuclear bomb in the near future,

then that is reason enough for me to vote to uphold this agreement and if they walk away from this multinational agreement, i believe we would find ourselves alone in the world little credibility but there are many more reasons to support this agreement. the opponents of the agreement say that the war is not the only alternative. indeed as articulated by the israeli ambassador they say we should oppose pay refusing to lift the economic sanctions. they will stay in place and iran will continue to feel the economic pinch and therefore will come back to the table and

negotiate the terms more favorable to the united states and our allies. there is no question in the senator's mind that the sanctions will start to erode and may collapse altogether. we just had a meeting with all of the ambassadors to the u.s. and they reaffirm the fact. sanctions rely on more than just the power of the united states economy. they depend on an underlining political consensus in support of a common objective. china, russia and many other nations eager to do business with iran with our economic

sentience because they were temporary to pay until iran agreed to the deal. that is in support of u.s. policy is likely to fall apart if we jettison this deal so it's unrealistic to think that we can stop these oil hungry countries in asia from buying this oil especially when they were offered bargain basement prices and it is equally unrealistic to think we can continue to force the foreign banks that hold the iranian oil dollars in banks and china and india, japan, south korea and taiwan that have

sequestered the oil dollars. it's unrealistic to expect they would hold onto that cash simply because we threaten them with u.s. banking sanctions. how would such be taken seriously when the countries taken together hold nearly half of america's debt making any decision to sanction them extraordinarily difficult. so, killing this deal means that the sanctions will be weaker today but stronger and the united states cannot simply get a better deal with iran with less economic leverage and less international support. that is a fact that we are having to face. and of course, if the rejected

it all of this would probably happen while iran would be racing to build the bomb. without this, the breakout time could quickly shrink for months to a handful of weeks or days. it's reasonable to ask why iran would agree to negotiate a delay in the nuclear program that they have advanced over the years at the cost of billions of dollars. the simple answer is they need the money. the economy is hurting because the sanctions and the supreme leader needs to satisfy the rising expectations of average iranians that our restless to

have a bigger slice of the pie with more and better goods and supplies. so they have an interest in striking the deal. but does that mean that we trust the government lacks no, not at all. it encourages the hard-liners to chan death to america and israel they are built on trust and we must have a good enough mechanism in place to catch them when and if they cheat. in other words, don't trust, but verify. i believe the agreement sets out

reasonable assurances that iran will not be able to hide the development of the bomb that declared or undeclared sites. the international atomic energy agency inspectors would have immediate access to declare sites, the iraq reactor committee and richmond facilities, and for the next 20 to 25 years, inspectors will also have regular access to the entire supply chain including the mines and mills and a centrifuge production assembly and storage sites. that means inspectors will catch iran if they try to use the facilities that we know about to build a weapon or if they try to divert the material to a secret

program. this agreement ensures that inspectors will have access to the specific sites with no more than a 24 hour delay. i know there's been a lot of conversation about that. it is broken off and at the end of the day it must be a physical access. would a senator preferred that they get him instantaneously clocks of course. good iran hide activities relative to the research? possibly. but to actually make a bomb, the secret activity would have to enrich the fuel for the device

and they couldn't cover that up if they had years, let alone in a few weeks traces of enriched uranium and the program do not suddenly vanish and they can't be covered up with a little paint and asphalt. under the agreement, they cannot cheat and expect to get away with it. at the top of this unprecedented iaea inspection established by this deal is the vast and little understood world of american and allied intelligence. the the senators senator served on the intelligence committee for six years and now has clearances on the armed services

committee. i can state unequivocally that u.s. intelligence is very good and extensive and will overlay the inspections. these are the kind of inspections put in place by the joint agreement. so if they try to volley the commitment of its commitment not to build nuclear weapons. and if the iaea doesn't find out, i am confident our intelligence apparatus will. what about the part of the joint agreement that allows the conventional arms embargo to be lifted in five years and missile technology to be lifted?

i understand it was always going to be tough to keep these restrictions in place and i don't like that those restrictions were not there. but fortunately even when the arms embargo expires the other united nations resolutions passed and in 2004 will continue to be and forced to prohibit iran from exporting to the militants. these have had some success albeit limited as in the case of the u.s. navy stopping arms shipment. the same un resolutions will stay in place to block the future arms shipments to others. we also had nonnuclear sanction tools we can and we must

continue to use to go after that traffic in the arms and vessels. while mr. president will this allow iran to continue to be the state sponsor of terrorism. i believe that it is in the u.s. interest that iran is not a nuclear power sponsoring terrorists. as dangerous a threat that iran is to israel and our allies, it was pale in comparison to the threat posed to them and to us by the nuclear armed iran.

what i prefer are the deals that dismantled the entire program forever and that and all of the bad behavior. of course they would. >> about, how do we get a better deal that the opposition wants? we don't have that opportunity if the sanctions for and that is exactly what would happen if we reject this deal. iran would emerge less isolated and less constrained to build a nuclear weapon. under the deal we keep most of the world with us. that means we know that we can snap back the economic sanctions and cut off the money.

this declares that they will never be able to develop a nuclear weapon if they break their agreement ten or 15 years every financial and military option will be available to us and those options will be backed by an ever improving military capability and more and better intelligence. mr. president, when i look at all of the things for the agreement and against the agreement, it becomes pretty obvious to me to vote in favor of the agreement. mr. president, i yield the floor. >> one of the most consequential decisions that i as a member of the senate and my colleagues would make this the topic and the concern of the negotiated agreement between the p5 plus one and iran and the proposed joint comprehensive plan of

action with iran. the deal and implicitly concedes that iran will become a nuclear power and will gain the ability and legitimacy to produce a weapon in a matter of years. those will put in place to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear power. those sanctions for output in place to create a path guideline by which iran could become a nuclear weapon capable country.

they could be held out of the hands of the government and the key to that is keeping the nuclear weapons permanently, the capacity permanently disabled it on and remove the technology used to produce the nuclear materials. this deal fails to achieve the goal by allowing iran to meeting the nuclear facilities. some of it would be used to enrich the matter that wouldn't be destroyed or removed from the country. this allows the infrastructure to remain on standby for nuclear development when the restrictions expire. also troubling is the agreement lack of research and on nuclear research and development. iran seeks to replace its technology with the more advanced centrifuge that more efficiently enriches the nuclear material. by failing to restrict research and development now, we are

priming the program to hit the ground running towards a bomb when the restrictions were lifted in a matter of years. also the inspection regime agreed in this negotiation is dangerously accommodating. the agreement provides a great deal of flexibility regarding the materials might just like those where the past development work took place. the deal allows iran to hold inspectors at bay for weeks if not for months before granting access to a location suspected of being a site for nuclear development. the value of any access to the sites that international inspectors ultimately receive the depend upon the understanding of the nuclear weapons research. the comprehensive disclosure of the dimensions are necessary to understand the current

infrastructure and its critical for the ability to rule out any roll out any future efforts to produce nuclear weapons. the international atomic energy agency iaea has not made public the nuclear developments. this is an aside i would say none of us should agree to this without seeing, reading and building the content of that agreement. under the proposed deal the vital full disclosure may not occur diminishing the value and increasing the risk of another covert weaponization would take place. painfully absent from the agreement requirements are the release of american hostages. the freedom of americans unjustly held should have been a

strict precondition for sanction relief instead of an afterthought. in return for very limited concessions, this deal is iran way too much. if implemented, it would give me your complete sanction relief up front. common sense tells us this isn't a republican or democrat issue. common sense tells us you don't give away the leverage until you get the result you are looking for areas and disagreement provides sanction relief up front, delivering billions to the government and boosting the economy. included included in the reliever sanctions related to the revolutionary guard corps which were to be lifted only when iran ceased providing support for international terrorism. sanctions relief in this proposal not only failed to.

it would remove sanctions from the iranian guard despite the top supporter of the groups around the middle east and below the p5 plus one acceptance of the demand for the relaxed arms embargo is both perplexing and scary. this would relax the trade restrictions on missiles after eight years while immediately while the development after just eight to ten years. the deal grants the ability to more efficiently produce more material just as it gains the ability to access the delivery of the weapon system. earlier this month the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff general art and dempsey said under no circumstances should we believe pressure on iran relative to the ballistic

military capabilities and arms trafficking. similarly, they have said lifting the un arms embargo was, quote out of the question. yet just one week leader they announced the lifting of the embargo in five to eight years or less. i wonder what has changed. unless the increased flow of weapons in and out of iran to somehow decreased during the intervening week the consequences of the sudden capitulation should have us all greatly concerned. this increased money flow to the organizations linked the government is not based on merely an outside possibility. it is a likelihood. last week the foreign minister said whenever it is needed to send arms to our allies in the region, we will do so. more money and more weapons are the fuel for increased violence and further destabilization of the conflict torn middle east.

we will have little reason to behave the behavior would change as a result of this agreement and in fact the chance would become more real. since the announcement of the agreement of the leader of iran has been openly antagonistic to the united states. the title, excuse me, has promised to cite unrest and set the policy towards the fact that the u.s. will change. these statements come from the leader whose commitment to the administration is relying on for the nuclear accord to work. it should trouble every american that the administration is asking us to support a deal that relies on the total cooperation of those who as i say strongly say and stayed there commitment to america. in the obama administration efforts to immediately push through the deal, this deal through the united nations and

restricting influence through this congress and the decision. it concedes too much insecure as too little. it's to antagonize and pursue a nuclear weapons program. president obama used here in seeking support for this agreement and the warning has been a vote against the policy is a vote for war with iran.

the scare tactics are not only untrue but also illogical. we were not at war with iran when the agreements were in place before the negotiation. the absence of agreeing to these negotiated - the negotiated agreement would mean that we are at the war thereafter. the claims under my numerous statements that the administration made about the negotiation process and the nuclear program and that the proposed agreement prospects for success. if true, the foreign policies could have led america into a dangerous position. we would expect to provide as many alternatives to the war as possible, not just a single risky one such as this agreement. according to the president the only alternative is this agreement. the deal that results in better financed terrorists a weekend arms embargo and the need for

boosting u.s. weapons sales to the regional rivals. if this prospect of the war is his concern for the president would benefit by reevaluating the geopolitical consequences of the deal and seeking out much better options. i had hoped that these negotiations would result in a strong but fair deal both dismantled iran's nuclear infrastructure. again the purpose of placing sanctions on iran was to get rid of the nuclear capability as far as the delivery of the nuclear material across the borders. it puts them on a promising path towards that nuclear capability. regrettably, that kind of deal was not reached. now it's my hope that we are able to reverse some of the damage that's already done and that this agreement is rejected. i would say that they would be

isolated by this agreement, but that other countries would approve the united nations may prove this is an issue of such importance that we need to do everything possible to see that iran doesn't become a nuclear power, and we need to have the character and the fiber to say no to this agreement.

concerns in the can of worms argument we are extracting the one with a pair of tweezers and quickly closing it shut again. >> from the movie the people versus larry flynt. >> we have a long history of the country of commentary. if jerry falwell can sue when there have been no rivalry speech on the motion of distress than so can others. and that is against people like gary and johnny carson. the watergate case from all the presidents men.

[inaudible] and the drama of a the story about the landmark civil rights case invalidating the law on the interracial marriage. they were handing him a major civil rights case. they are shining a light interface in the privacy of their bedroom.

when you listen to the tactical communications they have problems with their morale not long after they burned the captain a member of the foreign fighters have rebuild kind of brutality and they were executed by the central government, the central element. there was during the period of

time a moment in the campaign when everyone said that we were going to lose that it was going to be great to. and it's again you listen to the telephone it was to be killed by the defenders were to be killed by coalition air and recent activities along the border in syria rendered other similar messages. there were places in the infrastructure where it is not good and as we begin to strangle the defenses and finances to disdain that is going to create additional problems.

if detroit had taken taken a $25 billion out of 2005 and 2006 when the stock market went down to 6700 suggested in an index fund standard and pours, whatever, they are now 18,000 almost three times what it was. not only would it have tripled their money but it could have paid the tensions and got back in the business of the 13. it would give a 13th check at the end of the year in addition, so it could have fixed itself if there were some sort of a super management going forward.

it takes a lot of effort. >> she changes the name from the executive mansion to the white house. edith roosevelt this sunday night at eight eastern on c-span the original series first ladies influence an image into the lives of those that filled the position of the first lady. sunday at 8 p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span three.

.. ..