to the nature of the iranian regime, including its human rights abuses, it's unjustified detention of american citizens, its threats against israel and its destabilizing actions in the region, including its support for terrorist groups. over the last several weeks, i have reviewed the joint comprehensive plan of action as agreed to by the p-5 plus 1 nations and iran. i have attended briefings with national security and nuclear experts. i have spoken with minnesotans who hold strong views on both sides of this issue. finally, i have met with the ambassadors from the other five nations involved in these negotiations and asked detailed questions about what their countries and others would do if congress does not approve the agreement. after a lot of thought and discussion, i have concluded

that an iran in possession of a nuclear weapon would make an already volatile situation much worse by greatly increasing the danger to israel and our other allies in the middle east. if we were to reject this agreement, iran would be able to continue all of its destabilizing activities while continuing its pursuit of the most destructive weapon in the world. i have deep respect for those who hold different views on this subject and acknowledge that this was a difficult decision. and as i have proven through my votes and my actions since coming to the senate, i am deeply committed to protecting israel's security, including full aid funding and support for security measures like iron dome. in conjunction with my support for this agreement, i will push the administration and my

colleagues in congress for additional assistance to israel and other regional allies to strengthen their security. i will also continue to support efforts to combat terrorist groups in the middle east. these are the reasons that led to my decision. first of all, i believe this agreement, while imperfect, curbs iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon. before negotiations began in 2013, we were moving steadily closer to the nightmare scenario of iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. even under the pressure of massive economic sanctions, iran was continuing to build its nuclear infrastructure. it was installing more and more centrifuges, accumulating a stockpile of enriched uranium and building a reactor capable of producing spent fuel that can be reprocessed into plutonium. that point deserves to be emphasized. the situation prior to the

negotiations was not a good one. we have the strongest sanctions regime in place, and it has brought iran to the table, but iran was still on the path to developing a nuclear weapon. we've heard that without the restrictions imposed on its program, iran could produce a weapon in as little as two to three months. this negotiated agreement will put the brakes on iran's development of a nuclear weapon. as recently noted in an open letter by 29 top american nuclear scientists, including six nobel laureates, the agreement contains -- quote -- more stringent constraints than any previously negotiated nonproliferation framework -- end quote. specifically, the agreement requires iran to, first of all, give up 98% of its stockpile of enriched uranium and non-enriched uranium to the levels needed to create nuclear weapons. it would require iran to

disconnect two-thirds of its centrifuges with restrictions on where and how it can operate the remaining ones. it limits uranium enrichment to a single facility. fordow, the fortified site that iran long sought to hide from the world will be converted into a research facility. the core of iraq, the heavy water reactor, will be removed and filled with cement, rendering it unusualable for the production of weapons-grade plutonium. it will open its nuclear facilities to continuous monitoring and allow stringent inspections of its uranium supply chain. and it will permanently commit to never seeking, developing or acquiring nuclear weapons. secondly, if iran cheats on this deal, sanctions can be reimposed or, as i say, snapped back.

in addition, and this is very important to me, u.s. military options remain on the table just as they were before the deal. we're not bringing back ships. we have not agreed to do anything to take the military option off the table. this agreement by no means limits or lessens our country's ability to use force against iran if it violates this agreement and pursues nuclear weapons. if iran attempts to develop a nuclear weapon, the terms of this agreement will have given us more information and more limited targets in the event that military action becomes necessary. it should be also noted that this agreement does not in any way constrain the ability of future presidents or congresses to authorize military force against iran. third, rejecting the agreement would lead to a splintering of the international partnership that has been critical to preventing iran from obtaining a

nuclear weapon. that has been critical to bringing them to the table, that has been critical to these economic sanctions. they would not be nearly as affected if we had done them alone. some have argued that we should reject this deal so we can return to the negotiating table. yet i recently met with the ambassadors representing the united kingdom, france, germany, russia and china, and not one of them believed that abandoning this deal would result in a better deal. instead it would allow iran more time to build up its nuclear infrastructure. the countries that have been our partners in this effort would no longer be unified. the sanctions regime would start to fray, splintering the international consensus on iran and leaving its nuclear program unconstrained. finally, this agreement must move in parallel with increased commitments to security assistance for israel and our

other allies in the region. in my view, the most troubling issue with this agreement, one my colleagues have addressed, is that the sanctions relief that iran will receive after it implements key restrictions on its nuclear program will provide it with additional funds, and a certain portion of those funds could be fund into iran's destabilizing activities around the region. i am deeply committed to the security of our allies and want to ensure that we are taking steps in parallel with this nuclear agreement to enhance our allies' ability to defend themselves. i want to see further enhancements of our security assistance to israel, greater defense cooperation with our arab allies and stronger actions to counter iranian militant activities. we are in the midst of discussing other initiatives in this chamber to provide additional assistance and enhance the security of israel and our allies in the region, and i will work with my colleagues and the

administration as we move forward. and that is how i will end. i call upon the administration and all of my colleagues to work together to help ensure that this agreement works and to help ensure that we provide the assistance necessary to protect israel and our allies. as i said earlier, i have deep respect for people that have different views. we have had a lengthy debate. we have look at this agreement now for over a month and have time to ask questions of the energy secretary and the secretary of state and anyone that we could about this agreement, and so the time is now here where i believe this agreement should be approved and again we have differing views, and i think it is very important given the heated nature since the times of this debate that we would come together when this is over to stand up for israel. our beacon of democracy in the

middle east and to continue to work together on a bipartisan basis on our mid eastern policy. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, i'd like to thank the majority leader for scheduling this debate about the agreement struck by the obama administration and the leaders of the islamic republic of iran. and it's important to highlight right up front what this deal is. it's nothing more than a political agreement between president obama and the current leaders of iran. this deal does not have the support of the american people, nor will it have the consent of their elected representatives here in congress. at no point in the course of negotiating this deal did the obama administration seek the advice and consent of the united states senate or display any respect for the constitutional

limits of the executive in foreign affairs. nevertheless, i'm glad that the senate has been debating this agreement because this is how the senate is supposed to function, on the basis of open and robust deliberation. and i hope it's how the senate will function well into the future on matters of national security and domestic policy. but if the debate that we're trying to have today could be congressional deliberation at its best, the obama administration's deal with iran is the product of diplomacy at its worst. as the negotiations neared completion earlier this year, president obama began building his case for the deal on the specious claim that the only alternative to the deal was war. this black or white setup, the notion that the art of statesmanship is a little more

than navigating a series of binary either/or propositions is plainly absurd. it misses the mark. we learned this from the fiasco following the new start treaty in 2010. at that time president obama and secretary clinton warned that it was the only way to reset the relationship with russia, but now five years later we know it was, in fact, the starting point for the worst era of u.s.-russia relations since the cold war. but the obama administration has repeated this my way or war maxim with such faithful devotion and emotional conviction that it appears at some point along the way they began to believe it themselves. they actually started to believe this, even though it was wrong. now, just look at the facts regarding this deal. fact number one. the centerpiece of the agreement is the lifting of significant

portions of the multilateral financial energy and transportation sanctions currently imposed against iran. lifting these sanctions and lifting them prior to any meaningful action by iran in exchange will immediately give the world's largest supporter of terrorism access to tens of billions of dollars in currently frozen assets. and that's just on day one, mr. president. welcoming iran with open arms to the global marketplace will provide untold future riches to tehran's revolutionary government. the current sanctions are not perfect, but they're in place for a very, very good reason. to restrict iran's access to resources that we know its radical leaders will use to acquire nuclear weapons and continue exporting terrorism, not only throughout the region

but throughout the world. this isn't a matter of speculation. it's not a matter of hyperbole. it's exactly what iran's own leaders have told us in no uncertain terms. these sanctions were originally put in place in response to iran's repeated violations of previous nuclear agreements, and it's complete fantasy to believe that they can be revived in the future when, not if but when they cheat on this deal. fact number 2. nothing in the agreement will prevent iran from developing a nuclear weapon, and it won't. under the terms of this deal, the iranian government will be allowed to conduct research on more advanced nuclear centrifuges after only eight years. and after 15 years, there will be no limits whatsoever on their nuclear fuel production, no limits whatsoever. to believe that this deal will

stop the iranian nuclear weapons program requires an act of blind faith. in fact, it requires us to disregard the facts altogether. fact number three, this agreement will increase iran's access to conventional weapons and ballistic missiles. this will do this by providing for the removal of the u.n. conventional arms and ballistic missile technology embargo. if this seems out of place in an agreement that was supposed to be about iran's nuclear weapons program, well, that's because it is. it's entirely out of place for this type of agreement. it was never supposed to be part of the deal. but, you see, in the 11th hour of negotiations, the ayatollah demanded it, sensing rightly that the obama administration was unlikely to object. mr. president, this deal is not the work of savvy negotiation.

no, this deal is the product of desperate capitulation. for years, this administration has been dead set on reaching a deal, any deal with the mullahs in iran. and that's why they got the deal they did. an agreement that fulfills a wish list for the iranians and the sprawling network of terrorist groups including hezbollah, hamas, the houthis in yemen and bashar al-assad's tyrannical regime in syria. and what does the united states get in exchange? well, we get a promise from the ayatollah to abandon iran's 35 35-year quest for deliverable nuclear weapons, weapons they claif for -- crave, for the explicit purpose, as they put it, of wiping israel off the

face of the earth and fulfilling their infamous motto -- death to america. evidently, this is good enough for the obama administration and for supporters of this deal. but it's not good enough for the american people. not even close. in fact, the public opposes the proposed deal by a 2-1 margin but not because they're clamoring for war with iran. the truth is that most americans would prefer a diplomatic solution to the problems posed by iran's apocalyptic nuclear ambitious theocracy. but this is not a diplomatic solution. this diplomacy won't solve anything. i would note, mr. president, that the public's overwhelming opposition to the iran deal did not catch the obama administration by surprise. in fact, public opposition to the deal was one of the primary administrations -- one of the

primary reasons why the administration decided not to submit the agreement to the senate for ratification as a treaty. when secretary kerry testified before the senate armed services committee just a few weeks ago, i asked him to explain why the agreement with iran was not submitted to the senate as a treaty for ratification, ratification requiring two-thirds of the members of this body to support it. his answer was, in effect, to say that the deal does not amount to a tracy because it's a multilateral -- a treaty because it's a multilateral agreement, one that involves more countries than just iran and the united states. but the inclusion of multiple parties to an international agreement has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether it can be considered a treaty. there's no shortage of examples of this, of examples of multilateral agreements that have been ratified by the senate, including the chemical weapons convention, including the nuclear nonproliferation

treaty. in fact, as i pointed out to secretary kerry at the time, the state department's own web site provides a definition of the word "treaty" that includes multilateral agreements. which is why i think the more honest and the more troubling answer was the one that he provided just one day earlier when congressman reed gribble of wisconsin asked secretary kerry the exact same question, why does the obama administration not consider the iran deal to be a treaty? this was the secretary's response to that same question asked just one day earlier in the other chamber. secretary of state john kerry said as follows -- quote -- "well, congressman, i spent quite a few years trying to get a lot of treaties through the united states senate and, frankly, it's become physically impossible. that's why, because you can't pass a treaty anymore."

this, mr. president, is indefensible. secretary kerry's appeal to expedience shows either an ignorance of or disdain for either principle in the senate. the senate has not lost its ability to ratify treaties. no, the senate is perfectly capable of ratifying treaties, as it did 160 times just during the george w. bush administration. it's just reluctant to ratify unpopular treaties and treaties that undermine u.s. interests. there is a distinction between these two types of treaties. from the obama administration's perspective, this is a problem with the senate. but from the constitution's perspective, this is the purpose of the senate. and it's exactly why the framers included the senate in the treaty making process. article 2, section 2, of the

constitution states that the president -- quote -- "shall have power by and with the advice and consent of the senate to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the senators present concur." the sharing of the treaty making power between the executive and the senate is not a quirk nor is it optional. it is a constitutional command. both branches are essential, they're essential to this process. without both branches, you cannot make a treaty and have it take effect. the executive is best suited to manage negotiations with foreign nations but only legislative consent can grant the kind of broad political consensus necessary to ensure that the united states lives up to the terms of an agreement in the long run. in the federalist, alexander hamilton defended the sharing of treaty making power between the executive and the senate.

he wrote -- quote -- "the history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion of human virtue which would make it wise in a nation to commit interests of so delicate and momentous a kind as those which concern its intercourse with the rest of the world to the sole disposal of the president of the united states." of course,not all international agreements are treaties and those that aren't do not need legislative consent in order to go into effect. but historically agreements that make long-term commitments or include significant changes to the united states relationship to another country have been considered treaties and have, therefore, been submitted to the senate for approval. as i see it, the iran deal fits both of these categories quite comfortably. the terms of the deal purport to extend well beyond president obama's remaining time in office

and, according to the administration'swn reckoning, this agreement will fundamentally alter the relationship between the united states and iran. people of good faith can disagree about whether the iran deal should be considered a treaty or merely an executive agreement, though not on the farce cal grounds provided -- farcical grounds provided by secretary kerry. but this debate that's worth having, this is the debate that we should be having. it's worth it. for the sake of our national security and for the health of our political institutions. and it's the debate that must include the senate just as the constitution itself requires. the past few months have been a case study of the dysfunction and the danger that result when the executive chooses to ignore instead of engage with the senate in order to determine

whether an international agreement should be considered a treaty. the president's go-it-alone approach has become all too familiar in the realm of domestic policy. president obama has spent much of the last 6 1/2 years justifying his will to power presidency on the basis of expediency. constitutional restraints and historical precedent have only slowed, never stopped, the president's routine abuse of power to unilaterally impose his domestic policy preferences on the country. and now with this iran deal failing to receive the support of even half the senate, the president appears willing to extend his imperial presidency even to the area of foreign policy. mr. president, we must do everything in our power to stop this iran agreement from receiving congressional sanction the facts are clear. this is a bad deal for global security. it's a bad deal for our allies,

including and especially israel, our strongest ally in the middle east, and it's a bad deal for the american people. but we must also learn from this experience. later this year the obama administration will negotiate a major climate change agreement, what will be known as the paris protocol. already the administration has indicated it does not intend to submit the protocol to the senate for ratification, even though the agreement will call for a significant expansion of the already broad powers of our federal regulatory regime. it would empower unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats to seize even more control over the american energy sector and insert themselves ever further into the everyday lives of the american people. on account of its expected size, scope, cost and effect on the american economy, failure to

submit the paris protocol to the senate as a treaty would be an unprecedented and dangerous abuse of executive power. now is the time to make clear to ourselves, to the white house, and to the american people that the senate understands and plans to defend the centrality of the treaty making process to the negotiation of international agreements and the full and rightful role of the united states senate in that important process. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from the great state of alaska. ms. murkowski: thank you, mr. president. i join my colleagues this

afternoon in speaking on the joint resolution on the joint comprehensive plan of action with iran. and while we recognize that the anticipated vote that we would hope to have had on this, as 98 of us agreed would have, that we're going to see that delayed due to the failed cloture vote this afternoon. i wanted to make clear my position on this agreement. and we use the term "deal" around here talking about the iran deal and i almost feel like we need to put it in quotation marks. because in my mind, "a deal" is something that has been negotiated in give-and-take back and forth and that there is an agreement that is relatively

evenhanded or fair on both sides. and, mr. president, i do not believe that this deal is a fair deal. and it is with that, that i will support the resolution the disapproval when we have that opportunity for that vote. this is not where i had hoped that i would be on this because i do believe, and believe strongly, that diplomacy is the way that we solve disagreements around the world. and i think that most of us were actually very hopeful when the administration began negotiations some years ago with the aim and with the purpose that iran would cease its nuclear program and end its progress towards a nuclear weapon. i believe that our world would be safer if we were able to achieve those goals, without

question. and these are goals that the president himself articulated. he stated specifically that that was his aim. but unfortunately this agreement fails to meet those goals. simply put, this agreement is not in our national interest. after considerable study and considering the terms of the agreement and the views of experts on both sides, the many closed hearings that we had, the many public hearings that were out there, i have concluded that this is not just a bad deal, mr. president. i think this is a sad deal. i think this is a sad deal -- a sad time for us because of this deal. in fact, this is a deal that borders on capitulation and appeasement, a deal that rewards nuclear extortion.

those are pretty tough words but that's where i feel we are. a deal which is far worse than no deal at all. and i reject, i absolutely reject out of hand the statement from our president that we have no choice, that it is this -- it is either this deal or it is war that is a false choice and i think it is wrong to put it that way before the american people. certainly these -- these negotiations were hard, they were very difficult. that's the nature of these negotiations and deliberations. it is hard to push for more, to ask for more. but, mr. president, other options do exist, and we have been here on the floor for several days talking back and forth, well, what else is there?

well, first of all, there's the sanctions that got iran to the table here in the first place. there are stronger sanctions. there's continued diplomacy. it is not an apt description to say it is this deal or it is war. before i discuss my specific objections to the agreement, i would like to place my views on this agreement in context with my views on international agreements in general. i am certainly not opposed to joining with international partners in making the world a better and more peaceful place. on issues ranging from the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities to the new start treaty, i've worked with the administration. i've been there. and i approach these issues with an open mind and an open heart,

and i have strived to maintain an open mind on this agreement. but quite honestly, it is hard. it is really hard, if not possible, to maintain an open heart when it comes to iran. iran is not a country that is open to resetting relations in a world that clearly is seeking peace and a civil society, and iran before it entered into this agreement, it wasn't talking about a reset here. and it has shown no evidence of changing its ways because of where we are with this agreement now. we see it every day, every day. iran's senior leaders -- these are not people in the street that we might not know who they are or their name. they are iran's senior leaders

that are leading the chant "death to america." and they said this before the agreement. one would think maybe now that there has been this agreement, that that tone would change. but no. in spite of all the efforts, secretary kerry and others, they are still chanting "death to america" today. that hasn't changed. in fact, just yesterday the supreme leader calls again for the obliteration of israel. and again, mr. president, these are not -- these are not unknown persons in the street, rabble rousers in the street. these are leaders in iran who are calling repeatedly for death to america.

to wipe israel off the map. let them say what they want about the purportedly about modern rouhani, but it's in the history. a man has been in jail since july 14, iran continues to hold him since trumped-up charges. and he's not alone. iran also holds an american pastor, a u.s. marine who traveled to iran to visit family members. and it's believed to hold robert levinson, who was kidnapped from an island off of iran's coast. it continues. iran continues to persecute christians and baha'is in its own country. flagrant human rights violations this does not suggest to me that this is a regime that is ready for reform. this is not in historical

context, this is here, this is now, these persecutions, these human rights violations, these -- these imprisonments are right here, right now. and if this were not enough to cause one to question whether we can trust iran to change its ways, consider this -- iran is a key funder of hamas and hezbollah, committed, committed to the destruction of the state of israel, it funds the rockets which are launched into israel's sovereign territory from gaza, southern lebanon, from syria, and these rockets don't threaten iran's sworn enemy, the state of israel. they also endanger civilian populations by inviting if not demanding immediate retaliation from israel. so you have to ask the question, is this a nation that

is committed to peace and good global citizenship? hardly. it just is not. now, i think we recognize, and you, mr. president, and your capacity before coming to the senate have been engaged in diplomatic negotiations, and you know that in diplomacy you often end up negotiating with those who don't share your views, don't share your values, so it's important i think for us to look at what iran gives the world in return for this agreement. in light of the progress that iran has made in its quest to develop a nuclear weapon, it was imperative to me that an agreement, if we're going to get to an agreement, the agreement must not simply arrest iran's nuclear ambition but require the abandonment of nuclear ambitions.

these had to stop, those nuclear ambitions. and the agreement before us you'd -- viewed in the absolute right, in the best we've pushed a pause button towards becoming a full-fledged nuclear state. and even then, even then to regard that pause as meaningful requires me to suspend disbelief. i have to suspend my disbelief that iran can be trusted to live up to the terms of the agreement. i must believe that even though iran is not required to fully disclose the military dimensions of an existing program, the international verification mechanisms indeed are effective. i can't do that. i also have to believe that

other nations will be inclined to meaningfully call out iran on violations and not simply rationalize them away in order to keep up the appearances that this deal is working. i don't think that's going to happen. each of these assumptions is just a bridge too far. i can't get there. and i hear from alaskans as i know that you do, they're asking me, hey, what happened to these any time, anywhere inspections that this administration was promising? now they're not there? they're asking about these snapback sanctions, and it's a are pretty catchy word but what exactly does it mean? how feasible is it? is it practicable in its implementation? and i can't look them squarely in the eye and say surely, you can rely on those sanctions to

come into play. even if we could get them into play, we know that those sanctions would be less effective than we have now. and they're saying what about these side agreements, these side agreements between iran and the iaea? houk only they know what's going on there? and when we can't go back to our constituents, when we can't go back to the good people of the great state of alaska and say with -- with confirmation that yes, we have these provisions that -- on verification that gives us that security, that yes, snapback sanctions are plaque kabul -- practicable in effect, and there aren't any secret side agreements, we can't do that. and prior to the release of billions of dollars of foreign assets and allowing sanctions to

expire, i need some clear, some convincing and really some unequivocal evidence that this agreement will achieve what it set out to achieve. and ideally i seek iran's commitment to change its ways, act as a responsible player on the world stage. it's through sanctions, we keep hearing this, on both sides whether you support the agreement or don't, that it's the sanctions that brought iran to table in the first place and we lose our leverage with iran once those sanctions are dialed back. so whether it is nine months or longer, we lose that leverage. so i am so concerned about where we are with unfreezing assets and releasing sanctions. now, many of us have spoken on the floor here about how iran will now have billions of dollars to spend creating further chaos in the middle east or arming israel's enemies or

developing rockets which someday might be used to deliver those nuclear weapons. you've got to count me as one of the skeptics that iran will somehow choose to do good with these new-fund sources of revenue. that now -- new-found sources of revenue. that somehow they're going to put these resources into rebuilding roads and hospitals and infrastructure. i am that skeptic and i think i join so many here in saying what we have seen when iran didn't have access to those resources and the revenues that they funneled to direct and finance acts of terrorism throughout the middle east. more money in their hands to do more mischief? count me as a skeptic. as you know, i focus a great

deal on the energy issues as chairman of the energy committee. i'm very concerned about the opportunities that this agreement forwards iran's oil sector. opportunities that come at the expense of america's economic opportunities and economy in the near term. the energy information administration here in washington and the international energy agency in paris estimate that lifting sanctions on iran could raise iranian output by some 700 barrels per day. we recognize that production is going to take some time to ramp up and bring back on line. perhaps in the next year and beyond. but it will come. but what we do have in place ready to go is iran's floating storage facilities. they are ready to go now and move that oil out onto the market.

these supplies will do what? they will work to push down global oil prices, we know that's going to be a good thing for consumers everywhere, but, mr. president, what do we do here in this country? we banned the exports of our own oil. in fact we sanction ourselves. we let iran have access to the global oil market, put some 700,000 barrels a day of oil out there, gain new revenues to help their economy and also do whatever else they may do, create that havoc and mischief, terrorism, and what we're going to see, mr. president, oil tankers will be filling up at karad island instead of galveston. our diplomacy, our diplomacy,

mr. president, is going to benefit iranian producers while our antiquated policy is going to harm american producers. this misalignment, i've referred to it in several white papers out there, we can correct that. legislatively and the administration can correct that and now that the president thinks he has this veto-proof margin, now we can do that, and one of the issues that i believe, i look at this and i say iran is looking at this as a good deal for them. they got the most out of this negotiation and gave the least. iran's strategy with nuclear extortion has not been disabled. on the contrary, it's been

rewarded. what do they get? what do they get? they get a pathway to nuclear weapons, icm, sanctions gone, better economy, a pretty good deal for iran. sounds like a pretty good deal for iran but not for the security of this country, not for the security of our allies. i would suspect that many of my colleagues, even some who are voting for this agreement, concur with my conclusion here that iran is getting a better deal here and we've seen a flurry of comments not only in print but we've certainly heard great discussion here on the floor that this agreement is flawed, it's not what we wanted, it's not what we negotiated, but the comments from colleagues that are supporting this are saying we

have to take it because there is no option out there. and what the president has said is, i.t. this or it's war. if you don't like this plan, what's your plan? and then they say, we can't -- we can't have the administration walk away because american prestige will suffer if congress forces the administration to walk away from this deal. mr. president, this is not about american prestige, and this should not be about a president's legacy. this is about our security as a nation. just thorp this morning i met wa family, three young girls in high school -- they're from jun- from ju nevment au, alaska.

and we were talking and letting them know i'm finishing the comments on my statement here. and we got talking about this agreement. and they wanted to know my position on it. i said, quite simply, i cannot support an agreement that fails to make our nation a safer place, fails to make the world a safer place. it has been suggested that this agreement is better than no deal. in other words, that a bad deal is better than no deal at all. and i cannot accept this. i cannot accept that. and i don't think that this is a situation where we're holding out for the perfect, to use the expression, we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. i'm not looking for a perfect deal. i'm not looking for a perfect deal, but i am demanding one

that makes our nation a safer place. safer with the deal than without. and this agreement doesn't do t and i plays the blame firmly with the administration. the president did not work with this congress. he did not, throughout the course of the negotiations, try to align our expectations with the direction that he was taki taking, to really determine what a good agreement might look like, that we could all concur with. so, mr. president, i am -- i'm not surprised that this deal remains so unpopular with the american public. there's a whole bunch of polls out thereto. the latest one from pew says only about 20% of the american people support this agreement. i do think that it is important that on this floor, in this congress, you do have a

bipartisan majority of members in the senate and in the house that oppose this deal, and i think that that is important. and i do think that it's unfortunate with the vote that we took just hours ago that we're not able to get to that resolution of disapproval at this point in time, something, again, that 98 of us agreed needed to happen, that we as the representatives from our state and representatives from our respective states around the country here would be able to speak to this issue by way of a vote. the american people want iran out of the nuclear weapons business. it's pretty simple. and that means dismantlement. and the american people want

their president to demonstrate backbone in the negotiations, not capitulation. not appeasement, appeasement of iran, whose leaders seem to take continued pride in this pattern of unacceptable and often reprehensible behavior. mr. president, this deal sumly does not get us there, and that is why i join so many others in opposition. i thank you for the privilege and the time on the floor and would yield the floor. mr. enzi: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: i rise today to urge my colleagues to oppose this agreement with iran, and they're going to have another chance. traveling around wyoming during august and part of september, i talked to hundreds of people.

i found four who thought maybe we ought to give this a try ... until i asked them this key question. i said, do you trust iran? now i have 100% of the people saying, no! a contractor who had done business in iran said that right after he signed the contract over there, the iranian that was working the negotiations with him said, you do realize that when you sign the contract is when the negotiations begin? that's who we're working with on this. iran's nuclear program is one of the most significant threats facing the united states and the world today. the implications of this deal will have serious consequences for the middle east and especially our allies in the middle east. now, russia and china are especially interested in this deal because of how it changes the international playing field.

the president was so pleased that russia signed on. well, of course they did. they get to sell unlimited arms and technology. they gave up nothing. and ultimately this deal will have serious consequences for the national security of the united states. i ask you, do you trust iran? now, several of my colleagues say there's no other alternative. that's how it always is with a contract or a treaty or an agreement. you have to vote for or against it. i'm really disappointed in our negotiators. i don't think they were negotiators. i remember the president saying that we would be able to have inspections any timtime. that's just as believable as when we were going through obamacare and he said, if you like your insurance policy, you can keep it. nobody got to. this is in that same category, except this is more serious. we're talking about world peace,

we're talking about security. sanctions brought them to the table. it was leverage. it worked. then we gave that up so we could sit down and talk to them and then we didn't leave the table when they wouldn't agree to things that were absolutely needed? what kind of negotiation is that? that's where you trust the iranians. iran's goal is to use its nuclear program to extort its neighbors and threaten its enemies and it's made it very clear that it considers the united states their number-one enemy. we cannot afford to take that kind of strategic blunder that would give iran a nuclear weapon. we should not give up the advantages that we have that we're working to prevent iran's nuclear ambitions. that's why we should oppose this deal. again, i ask, do you trust iran? president obama has said that if we don't accept this deal, then

the only other option is war with iran. but this isn't true. i don't think anybody believes that. it's the president's way of trying to convince the american people that his way is the only way. just like obamacare. and that's not true. one of the advantages of the iran nuclear agreement review act that was passed out of the senate committee unanimously is that by requiring the president to submit the deal to dporng review -- to congress for review, both the house and the senate, as well as the public, can see what's in the deal -- well, kind of see what's in the deal. and i really object to the other side saying we dints read that. we -- we didn't read that. we read what was available. i reviewed the deal. i've heard the administration's arguments in favor of it, and i don't believe this deal is the best way to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon. i don't think it prevents them from getting a nuclear weapon.

i've heard from experts in diplomacy, from experts in arms control and proliferation, from experts in the military, from national security and intelligence experts who say this deal is not the only way to prevent iran's nuclear ambitio ambitions. you trust iran? i mentioned that the iran nuclear agreement review act is important because it requires the deal and all its documents to be sent to congress for review, but i do understand that there are separate side agreements between iran and the international atomic energy agency, and so far as i can tell, nobody from the united states has looked at those. those have not been reviewed by congress because they haven't been submitted for our review. i'm told that these side agreements deal with the military dimensions of iran's nuclear program.

the parts of iran's program that will allow them to launch a nuclear weapon against israel or american forces in the middle east or eventually, with enough work, anywhere in the world, including america. you don't sell someone a weapon who's intent to kill you. do you trust iran? i'm deeply concerned that we don't have all the facts about this deal. we need the facts about iran's military program, facts about how confident the administration can be that iran is complying with the rules. we should not move forward with any agreement until we have a full understanding of all of the components that are part of it and are convinced that it's a good deal. do you trust iran? understanding all the components of this deal isn't just about the documents that were submitted to congress. it's also about understanding

what happens when iran has the freedom and resources to grab for power and position in the region. do you trust iran? the administration has said that this deal is a pathway to security and stability. unfortunately, this administration has consistently misjudged critical moments in the region, most recently for not taking the islamic state seriously and developing a real strategy to defeat it. agreeing to this deal is yet another example of the administration misjudging a difficult and dangerous situation in the middle east by believing that iran will not take advantage of the situation to attack our allies and undermine american interests. there are unanimou numerous wayn take advantage of this deal, such as, mentionedh f infusion that comes with this deal to

support hezbollah or buying arms from russia. this agreement is not a pathway to peace or stability. it's iran's spring board to grow into the middle east's most dangerous bully. there's even a little provision in here that any contracts entered into before snapback can't be broken. how many contracts do you think they'll hurry out and do if they get the right to do them? they'll do every one they need to do exactly what they want to do. do you trust iran? for more than a decade, the united states and our allies have used sanctions effectively to prevent iran from achieving its nuclear ambitions. those sanctions took years to implement and demonstrated the commitment of our international

partners to prevent an outcome that would be a disaster. under this agreement, we would be giving up those sanctions in exchange for the "hope" that we can trust iran. it sounds to me like we're giving up the most important tool we have to prevent a nuclear-capable iran in,change,n exchange for nothing. do you trust iran? i urge my colleagues to oppose this deal. it's not the best that we can get. we will have another opportunity to vote. it ignores the reality of the complex and dangerous political situation in the middle east, and it relies on nothing more than hope that iran will keep its promise, despite all the times iran has failed to do so in the past. it trades an effective system of sanctions that's worked to prevent iran's nuclear ambition for nothing.

it gives iran everything it needs to pour money and resources into attacking our allies and making the region more dangerous. i don't trust iran, and i didn't find anybody in wyoming who does. i yield the floor.

ms. murkowski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from the great state of alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate p in a period of morning business and senators be permitted to speak up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 188, s. 1461. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 188, a bill to provide for the extension of the enforcement instruction on supervision requirements for outpatient therapeutic services and so forth. ms. murkowski: i ask consent that -- the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. ms. murkowski: i ask consent that the committee-reported amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amend, be read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 190, s. 1629.

the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 190, s. 1629, a bill to revise certain authorities of the district of columbia courts and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. ms. murkowski: i further ask that the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. friday, september 11, for a pro forma session with no business conducted. further, that when the senate adjourns on september 11, it next convene on tuesday, september 15, at is:00 p.m. -- at 1:00 p.m. 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

h.j. res. 61, with the time until 6:00 p.m. equally divided between the two leaders or their designees and finally, that notwithstanding provisions of rule 22, the cloture vote on mcconnell amendment 264, occur at 6:00 p.m. -- excuse me, mr. president. finally, that notwithstanding the provisions of rule 22, the cloture motions filed during today's session on the mcconnell substitute amendment number 2640 and h.j. res. 61 ripen at 6:00 p.m. tuesday. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: 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 mrccon:m. tomorrow.majority lea.

>> >> the issue before us is an immense consequence to our country. the american people are entitled to a real voice to know where their senator stand on this issue. until recently, it was day

principal members of both parties to endorse overwhelmingly and not a single democrat, and not one to have voted against the iran nuclear agreement it was 98 / one but they told us this was an issue to the important for political games. here is what one democratic colleague said last week. >> as the caucus opposed to the filibuster over the last four years i think it would be regrettable if we ultimately did not go to the floor to cast their votes for or against this deal. >> that was last repair of a. democratic senators just voted to filibuster am block the american people from

even having a real vote on one of the most consequential when dash consequential foreign policy issues of our time. it is telling that democrats would go to such extreme lengths to even consider legislation on this issue. he should not be afraid we know the amount of time the of administration has spent asking for these guys to take a bullet for the team and it is steve obama. they all want to have a say. with -- when it came time they said it is more important that the president not have to veto the resolution of disapproval.

more important to him than to them. the deal was designed to go around congress and the american people from the start. we remembered he did not want to submit to was at all as an executive agreement he did not want us to have any say at all senator corker and senator carted work together to develop a proposal to support to give us a chance to weigh in on this important deal purple would empower iran with their centrifuged to become a recognized nuclear threshold states. that is what is before us. to effectively subsidize assad regime which by the way is now going to include

a russian military base in syria by showering tens of millions of dollars on their benefactors in tehran. to leave iran with a rich man capability just does the leadership calls for israel's destruction and for our destruction. this deal is sure to have many consequences that are well beyond this administration. and yet as things presently stand with little by yen from congress or from the american people. by the way we know overwhelming the base -- oppose the deal despite the president's best efforts. there should not be an acceptable outcome for our friends on the other side, and even those who support the deal.

i predicted earlier and again today we will have of rash of new iran proposals introduced by our friends on the a decide. they will be born again iran bashers. so let me make it clear to all of our colleagues, we have coated and we will vote again but we're approaching on the iran nuclear agreement review act. your not taking a bills that have fewer than enough co-sponsors to override a presidential veto. if they want to make a lot like we did, show us enough's co-sponsors to make a lot. we're not interested in using for time or efforts

from the other side. to try to fool their constituents into thinking i really was serious about iran despite the fact i voted for the deal that you hate. we only have so much for time here in the senate. we will use it on serious proposals that have a chance to become a lot. my assumption is the president will not want to revisit this issue. he got what he wanted he will not revisit. so if we want to do anything further about this iranian regime, bring a a bill with enough co-sponsors to override a presidential veto and we will take a look at its. other wise american people

lilith give us their judgment about the appropriateness of this measure one year from november. is not an ordinary issue but an issue with the real shelf life. the regime that will still be there a year and a half from now. it is an executive agreement only so by chance there is the president of a different party, i would say to the iranian observers it will be looked at based on iranian behavior between now and then. as the others have said i heard the chairman of the foreign relations committee say that.

and i guess they will get a vote but our friends on the other side once a procedural the voice that is commonly used around here but how? this is no ordinary measure. it is different. so we will have another opportunity to see if we want to move past this procedural device. the president is proud of the deal at and why he would be reluctant to veto a resolution of disapproval that is on his desk. he is having press conferences and bragging and thinks it is great. what are they protecting him from? i think he would have a veto ceremony and invite you down to join him and celebrate.

what are you protecting him from? you will have a chance next week, one more chance to allow him to say how he feels about the resolution of disapproval. we know already but for the life of me a -- i cannot get why he is reluctant to veto the resolution of disapproval especially if it is such a great deal for america. we will revisit the issue next week to see if maybe anyone was to change their minds to remove the roadblocks to give the president what he has been asking for. give him what he has been asking for. i yield the floor.

>> democratic leader? >> i want to be as respectful of my friend as i need to be. but let's speak reality. we're in a congress that is dominated by the republicans they control the house and the senate by large margins. legislation before this body was proposed and legislated brought to us by republican leadership. it is their legislation. not ours. i did not spend all my time in my office. i would watch the speeches and it was stunning. day 12 on what is going on in the middle east but not once did anyone mention the

worst foreign policy decisions ever made by our great country was the invasion of iraq. we have destabilized that part of the world for a long time to come. for what? so my friends can blame all their problems on the president but they're blaming the wrong person we cannot take what we have because they want to rewrite history. part of history is taking place in this body we offered on two separate occasions publicly before the american people if you

want to vote we will let you. the in the convoluted reasoning i guess they think they have no common sense and cannot understand english language we offered to have a vote on this on to separate occasions and it was objected both times now the leading response is you are filibustering. we have had to file cloture more than 600 times because of the filibuster's from the republicans never time has there and never been anything close to that. on motions to proceed. with legislation before this body they said we don't need

to vote. go to the bill. go to it and we also said is part of the agreement with the leader of for the first amendment and he did that. now a 68 vote threshold where did this come from? would ever consider 60 votes on this? first of all, mr. president, i know is late in the day. but my friend is talking about a world that does not exist anymore and who created that? my republican friends. july 30th, 2011 from senator common - - senator mcconnell.

it required 60 votes. it is pretty hard to make the critical case to deny a vote on your own proposal with a filibuster. then i wish to make clear to the mitt american people they are ready to vote in 30 minutes. now as soon as we get the colleagues to the floor we are ready to vote it is a matter of the enormous importance is the with the senate operates''. >> another one. >> mr. president i can only'' my good friend, that's me that there is always a need for a 60 votes. and he said repeatedly as the minority and the majority beaters' 60 votes. mr. president there is

something that is important and there is no question of this measure to be controversial. and i amusing his words is this of enormous importance? i think so and a a little while later. who is wasting time on your? none of us. i will to make things happen if you have 60 votes the best way to do that is to have the open amendment process. i say used to operate. that is an editorial comment. to three months later, madam president any right to object talking about matters

of this level always require 60 votes so i asked my friend if he would modify his consent for a simple threshold of the vote at 60. as we all know it takes 60 votes to do everything we anticipate having a vote to proceed sometime before the end of the year as well that was just august this year. my friend is in dire straits and i understand that. they don't know what they're going to do. on one hand what they say the president cannot send the papers to them because they want to vote on that but then it went to vote resolution of approval but i guess they don't need papers for that then vote on more

sanctions and they don't know what they will do. it is very unusual when one party controls both branches of the bicameral legislature but don't work together and obviously they're not working to gather here. this is a situation where he has lost the vote and a situation where he is simply not in touch with reality. so i will say to everyone within the sound of my voice the senate has spoken that it will stay and that is what this is all about. it is about whether or not iran should have a nuclear weapon for countries that

you do not think would be involved they know the importance of it themselves to go along with this agreement and to negotiate. china, russia, the senate has spoken with the clear voice to declare this will stand. so i say, my fellow americans, i say that all respect for everybody listening in will read about this, our allies around the world should know the outcome is clear and decisive and final. now no question united states congress will allow this historic agreement to proceed it was rejected by a margin much larger than anybody thought even a few

days ago other attempts to revisit this issue the may friend was talking about for the affordable care at will try to break that record 60 times. in eight attempts to legislate the issue will have the same outcome and is a waste of time. time we cannot afford. with the disarray of my friends, we are not making this up. it was close to years ago for almost three weeks so we take those threats seriously. i would hope we could get around to do something about that rather than having wasted cloture motion on something we agreed to have a vote. cloture is the effort, led the filibuster is the effort to stop the boat when i came

tuesday, tuesday, wednesday thursday, if you one more time, go ahead. we will wait but to stop the debate has done by my colleagues hundreds of times in years past. so over 60 times tried to break that affordable care act but this matter is over with with something of so much importance that we should move on to something else we have so much to do with the highway situation is deteriorating and hundreds of thousands of bridges and the state of disrepair and some need replaced today we met with the transportation authority that 80 percent of the population in our state and

we are in desperate shape all over nevada about the highways but we're not doing anything about highways. patching stuff cybersecurity as we are here talking right now in this body we have groups and individuals and countries that are trying to attack us and they are doing it. we have not the ability to get cybersecurity legislation before this body. that was brought up as an afterthought we have senator feinstein i think we could do better but i support the legislation we have to do something let's start some place for the american people. so i say to everyone hear it is time to move onto something else. this matter is over you can

continue to litigate but it will have the same results. >> mr. president. >> majority leader. >> as the leader frequently reminded me when he was the majority leader, the majority leader always gets the last word. [laughter] i enjoyed hearing the democratic leader history lesson going back i am sure i will leave some now with the iraq war resolution which he voted for as did hillary clinton, the recitation of past debates from obamacare, you name including complaining about highways a bill that senator boxer and i worked on and he voted against which hopefully will soon be in conference but none of that task to do with what is before us today. the issue today is the iran

nuclear agreement. we know how the american people feel about it. we know how the israelis feel about it. we know the sunii arab allies are talking about arms purchases because they don't trust us any more and to transform the middle east our friends don't trust us and enemies are emboldened. the democratic leader says it's overdoes a makeover. this agreement and the form policy of this administration best summed up by jimmy carter a couple months ago was asked to sum up the obama administration foreign policy almost a

direct'' he concedes -- she said he could not think the single place now we're better off than we were. and jimmy carter. foreign policy will be a big issue going into 2016 and this agreement is a metaphor for all the mistakes as president has made. you name the area of the world, and you will see the results. so no amount saying the issue makes it over it is on the floor of the senate we will have an opportunity again next week to move past this procedural snag to give all members of the senate an opportunity to vote upper down to the resolution of disapproval which we know is supported on a bipartisan basis. the bipartisan opposition to

this deal only democrat support so if the president is so proud of that i cannot figure up with these folks over here are protecting him from? you should all be invited to the veto signing. break out the champagne. celebrate. take credit for it. you own it. i yield the floor. >> time glad my friend brought up that i stated on national television every chance i get the biggest

mistake is voting for the bill. a few short months after i voted it doesn't matter i've coated for it and i have repented publicly for having done that so my thinking has not changed. i would also say this. in closing, i hope the one thing that we can agree on is democrats and republicans is the ability of iran over the next 15 years the weapon is taking care of but what are we can agree on, i hope we would work together to continue what senator kerry

wrote to them with the card in legislation i hope everyone will take a look at that. i looked at what was suggested in the letter to be more safe and secure and the suggestions senator herb cardin had. but let's hope and in the future we can work together to make sure the only true democracy in that part of the world is an ally of ours who will continue everything we can to make sure they are safe and secure. >> mr. president. >> and turvey leaders. >> no question the israelis need a lot of reinforcement. no question they need to know for sure we are on their side.

because this administration has just entered into an agreement that i their own objective standards, could threaten their very existence. i think it is no question that the israelis need every reassurance we could possibly give them. i yield the floor resident?

the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. i'm sorry. the senator from mississippi. the senator from mississippi. >> mr. president, i intend to support the resolution of disapproval and the comprehensive plan of

action, and negotiated by the obama administration with the islamic republic of iran. the agreement falls short of the international gold by stopping iran's nuclear ambitions. the american people and congress were promised and inspections regime providing anywhere anytime access to facilities where tests were conducted. instead, iran can delay access for up to 24 days. this is inconsistent with the obama administration's claims that no part of this agreement was based on trusting iran. incredible agreement with the verification measures to

ensure that the iranians played by the rules particularly given in the documents well documented efforts to conceal nuclear activities and ambitions. we are concerned about the consequences of lifting economic sanctions have forced iran to the negotiating table. it is an issue of long-term significance this will restrict iran for the foreseeable future. it is bad for the allies and i will not support it. >> mr. president i have been

a member of this body for nearly four decades and during that time i have had the honor to participate in debates over the course of the future but none is more important than what we are now engaged the iranian regime is one of our most dangerous foes and has declared united states to be a great satan and has repeatedly proclaimed the intent to wipe israel off of the map it has perpetrated violence against americans servicemen. it is in conflict across the most polished tile region of the world and has suppressed its people and indeed we

should remember throughout this debate that our quarrel is not with the iranian people. they are our friends. we should remember their desire for comparative relationship and cooperative relationship with the united states and the rest of the world it is more than a fanatical regime to destabilize the entire region to kill americans and israelis. given the of threat posed by the regime with a nuclear weapons capability is absolutely critical it is a goal shared across party lines. all of us here prefer to prevent iran for its capability by diplomatic means rather than conflict i

a look at the proposed agreement hopeful and skeptical that i could support the deal. the senators and are not to except the deal based upon knee-jerk reactions but to be based on thorough examination. regrettably, after much study it is a catastrophically bad deal and i'm strongly opposed. at the outset i should say the committee is reporting that president obama has gathered the votes and in reality he has done no such thing and to fall well short of the necessary two-thirds

requirements but it cannot even muster a majority in the house or senate? there is nothing bipartisan about support for this deal. only the opposition is a majority. that is the american people the strong majority oppose this deal and their right to do so so from blocking the capability -- capability for a defense of democracy call it halfway to the capability so the reagan regime using thousands of centrifuges to

conduct nuclear research. after eight years iran will be allowed annual days to expand the ballistic missile program and after 15 years iran will be permitted to stockpile quantities of enriched uranium and use those centrifuges on the industrial scale. and heavy water reactors according to the state department's own fact sheet. after only 10 years of breakout time for a nuclear weapon in drops down to almost zero'' as president obama himself admitted. in of words of former national security adviser, this deal stalls and enables then validates the iranian nuclear program

''. although i read in regime has to do is abide by the terms of the agreement to achieve nuclear weapon in status with the expanded infrastructure from the production of nuclear material to deliver a nuclear weapon and the deals the only means of recourse of the snap back mechanism and all say cumbersome process and everybody knows it allows the iranian regime to have inspections up to 24 days without recourse land a

critical gap that some experts as the director general safeguards and former national deputy administrator for defense non-proliferation would allow iran to hide evidence of nuclear activity. other parties could drag out the slotback mechanism before reimposing sanctions approximately the same as the breakout time according to president obama. furthermore this deal makes us now back mechanism for instances of significant nonperformance using no mechanism to respond to the cheating that is characterized with the nuclear program with us for our. the most troubling, every

means unclear if the inspector even has access to all facilities in the first place. so the officials of the regime have repeatedly claimed it does not allow access to military sites. in the agreement swang bridget deliberately was left vague on this point. partly an encouraging development. with jetty levin side deal the international watchdog has agreed to rely on the iranian regime to conduct its own inspections providing the iaea with photographs and videos and samples. further deputy general may

have put it best to say if accurate these procedures seem to be risky from the practices and that are broader level if the standards had been diluted and limits imposed it is significant as it will affect the iaea ability with the level of assurances with undue handling of the verification process. that is troubling. regarding these reports i have a number of outstanding questions and concerns with the steadfast refusal to share the text of the agreement with congress. this amounts to an invasion of the spirit and the text of the iran nuclear agreement act that gives dow

and concern to what else they might be hiding. besides these concessions of land very concerned about a number of other factors and i have to say lamp also a deeply troubled by the benefits the regime stands to enjoy from the steel. to use the words of one scholar, president obama agrees to dismantle the sanctions regime permanently and in return to ron is agreed to slow the development of the program temporarily. '' because the sanctions regime has heavy cost of the iranian economy.

thought inflation rate has risen to 40% and foreign companies have harsh penalties to avoid invest in every and thereby isolating them from the global economy. the threat of military action they played a critical role to break the iranian regime to the negotiating table if we should be very careful before sacrificing this leverage. foolishly in exchange for these concessions, the influx in exchange for those concessions the iranian regime seeks to have enormous rewards for according to figures cited by. president obama of the regime will regain control of more than $150 billion

currently frozen in the world financial institutions. it will also allow the influx of international businesses into iran to bring them a stronger economy and greater revenue for the tehran regime. where do we expect the money to be spent? the long suffering iranian people for the victims? the people who have contributed to the advancement of civilization for the good of mankind to the people we really do appreciate their true spirit is continually repressed for almost 40 years? those that pay a high price because of the radical fundamentalism of their leaders? they look to us for strength in defense of their ideals not capitulation to this regime.

unfortunately we cannot expect such an outcome and if history is any guide we should expect the iranian regime to sanction relief to pursue dangerous aims to support the terrace proxy that represent a dire threat such as tomas and cause us and has blocked and lebanon. and the murderous assad regime in syria. swarming for businesses to iran that the iranian foreign minister of police will make it impossible to reconstruct for international sanctions to take advantage of the lifting of the embargo after five years of the russian air defense system to make israeli military action against the program even

more difficult than it would be and to with the financial standing of the iranian regime to reduce the likelihood of internal reform with foreign policy. if ever she suddenly becomes flush with cash, what incentive does it have to change priorities in 15 years? doesn't this deal reward bad behavior was one of the most astonishing of understatement i have never heard? and in the words of one expert to give a hundred and $50 billion with the stroke of the pen to ever convince anyone all along it to believe the iranian regime

will change its ways i don't expect success. so to supposedly reinforce of the moderates to bring relief to the people really see the prospect to strengthen the hand from hard-liners for more violent misadventures rather than the benefit of the iranian people. beyond this bad deal i can only conclude that the obama and administration officials proved to be weak negotiators at of desperation for a deal, almost any deal. these concessions for so little in return was produced by the knee-jerk aversion to the prospect of using military force a preoccupation demonstrated by the costa rhetoric we hear from the white house

and the only alternative to this deal is war. mr. president, that claim is definitely false. we can and should go back to the negotiating table to resemble the sanctions coalition will not be easy or even fully possible is still has plenty of tools at our disposal the unparalleled economic might give say some of the leverage to get a better deal and we should not be misled by rhetoric to conclude otherwise. war is never especially from a position of responsibility in the united states senate we are saddled too often in which real people's lives hang in the balance. those of our friends and

neighbors and fellow countryman airmen and marines to look to the freedom of speech and abraham lincoln called the last best hope. none of us relish the prospect of for especially in the age of weapons of power are almost too terrible to contemplate we don't see the war with iran and the people are not our enemies. the people are good and honorable and decent the people themselves and friends of the united states. they are our friends. they have paid higher price for the record of terrorism and mass murder and corruption that the iranians. the prospect of collateral

damage goes against in the course of action now leads to war and it isn't that attitude of for that allows me to poke -- oppose the deal but my unwavering judgment it makes it much more likely that these me to oppose it. let there be no doubt it paves rather them precludes their nuclear we bent - - weapon capability. the deal the makes the regime with its ability to protect the nuclear program the international pressure and military action makes more more likely in the deal then to stabilize the middle east makes war more likely and provokes a nuclear arms race to make war more

likely. the deal that surrounds israel with a nuclear iran but also with other regimes with nuclear weapons capability with the genocidal addis it one dash attitude toward the state makes war more likely and puts the iranian regime and terrorist allies won screwdriver away from a nuclear weapon makes war more likely. war may come, mr. president come, mr. president, but it is not inevitable as the world's greatest deliberative body is with the widest course of action for security in united states and our allies that it does not let the strong desire for peace that we all share debate how we best

preserve the peace. the voice of reason will be able to change minds of our politics that so often color our debates i encouraged by the fact that almost every member has noted its significant flaws. and that opposition is the unambiguous, strong and bipartisan majority. and in particular want to pay attention to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who voted their conscience against the bad deal. mr. president, we still have a chance to change course to lead an agreement that

connection preserve long-term peace. macaulay showing me to oppose this deal with the better way forward. >> i yield the floor. >> first date you for his outstanding comments while our distinguished friend from illinois is here i thought i would block that unanimous -- and unanimous consent the that's okay but i ask that time be fully divided as follows between 10 and 11 republican time and 11121 dash 11 and 12 is democrat and 12 and one is republican time and one and two is democrat time between two and 230 p a republican time and teethirty threw 3:00 is democrat time.

33345 be equally divided between the leaders and senator menendez be given 50 minutes of republican time and 15 minutes of democrat time. >> is there objection? [inaudible conversations] >> please clarify if the last part of his request relates to the period between 3:00 and 345. >> yes. correct. >> faq. with that our side knows

what will occur the next 16 minutes is for senator graham then 10 minutes to senator grasso then 10 minutes to senator flake and with that i yield the floor to one of the best national voices in north america. senator graham. >> i just want to make sure people understand what we're trying to do with this point. our democratic colleagues are filibustering an attempt to have that and debate on the most consequential for a policy decision in modern history. that is why you're doing. but the common understanding with a simple majority to

act as he wishes but no. they're more worried to protect barack obama to veto than debate on the floor of the senate. but who you were dealing with it if i hear one more comment about how much they loved israel with friends like this you don't need an enemy. here is to your dealing with this was yesterday. said it would not exist but for the sake of his state's and posting on twitter.

. .s the best deal for israel. guess what? nobody in israel agrees with you, who is in the current government. everybody who is in the current coalition government understands this is not a good deal for israel. why don't you listen to them? you want it to be a good deal for israel. well, it's not. and you wanting it doesn't change it. so let's finish to what he said. the ayatollah claims he would be safe for that period under the nuclear agreement reached in july. after nuclear negotiations, the zionist regime said they will control, the about iran in the regime said they will not be the worried about iran in the next 25 years. israel didn't say that. the people over here wrote. the ayatollah wrote