got the quote here, we never pursued such a goal. and indeed we never heard of it. i, along with every one of us here was relieved when the administration announced, i don't know if i was secretary kerry were obvious of the team of supporters, announced inspections any time, anywhere. we said, oh, okay, at least we have that. now we learned no american can be part of the inspection team, and we learned that in the u.n. independent agency that will do the inspections and now we've learned that there are off-limits to military and form er weapons manufacturing and research facility that we're not even allowed to inspect. so anywhere, any time has become a farce. and how can you possibly -- that in and of itself would be reason not to vote for this agreement. how do you go home and explain to people any time, anywhere, is a scrubbed version of 24 days at a minimum as long as iran

agrees. it doesn't take somebody with a ph.d. or a law degree or even a senator or a congressman who has delved some into these issues for people to say are you nuts? who would sign an agreement like that? uranium enrichment, we caved there. and then talk about, you know, one of the key witnesses -- weaknesses is the agreement that the centrifuges are to be disconnected and only stored feet from their original positions. they can be reintroduced into the system when the details occur to quickly achieve nuclear capability. this is some of the involved stuff but the bottom line is, almost every thing is in dispute by experts who understand this,

technical application of all this, and they're not persuaded by the misleading leadership coming out of the administration. once again another cave. and fordow. fordow is a place where some nuclear technology pursuit was being undertaken and we wanted to be able to shut that down. but the iranians said, no, no, no, don't think so. so we said, okay. let's cave on that. let's move on to something else. the same applied to military -- undisdisclosed military. so secretary kerry explained his new position now. he no longer was fixated on the past. that was something we talked about months ago. i'm not fixated on that anymore. keep for dougkeep fordow open.

what's next? okay. sanctions relief. this agreement does not generally relieve sanctions pressure, as originally intended, but rather abandons the sanctions regimes entirely all at once. indeed, the multilateral captionsanctions are already go. european nations and others are flocking into tehran to sign long-term agreements that will never be subject to sanctions if they're -- quote -- "snapped back." we lost again. and so the reimposition of sanctions, if we find out that something is wrong here, it's a farce. i talked about snapback here. i talked about snapback here. it not possible. i talked about that back here. let me move forward. this is what i mentioned before

but i can't comprehend it. the deal obligates a p5 plus one, obligates to actually help iran build up their infrastructure during the 15 years before they achieve a free breakout. we are actually helping them construct their nuclear infrastructure which can easily be converted to breaking out a nuclear weapon. in all turn they had actual persistence in pursuing it. they are actually helping iran get to the on. as we hear from our colleagues in the support, this i am voting for this because it's a prevents iran from getting a bomb.

read the agreement. it's not easy, it's not fun to read but it is alarming. remind me, i was out at in the senate in the '90s. the negotiations, actually wendy sherman was principal and the north korean agreements. i remember being told on this floor, by the president of the united states, then president clinton don't worry, we have total verification procedures in place. if they cheat on us we are going to know it. when we know it, we will stop it. here it is, 2015, there's somewhere between 20 and 40

nuclear weapons on top of ballistic missiles and we didn't know it. that makes me skeptical going into it because it's like déjà vu. it's like then don't worry, we will know if they cheat, we'll be able to do something if they stop them. this is an assurance, this is a good deal. that is a hard sell for me. a no cell for me. i didn't end up voting for that because i had suspicions whether or not that would take place. that ought to be a lesson for all of us here. something that is promised by the president of the united states and his secretary of state and his negotiating team, won't necessarily come true and be the case. so the promises that have been made about what this agreement has made, it didn't work out well with north korea but the

same person help negotiate this. i don't know if my colleague from tennessee is standing because i'm running long on this, i have a lot more i would like to say. i am going to try to move to a few last things here. some prominent people have noted for favoring the deal. i think henry kissinger is someone who has had the experience at 90 some years old and a lifetime of diplomacy, i don't have to give his credentials, and george scholz also. they have credibility on this. if you want to listen on one side you should listen on the other.

how will these doctrines translate into a region where sponsorship of nonstate toxins is common, state structures under assault and death on behalf of jihad is a kind of fulfillment. sadly their views have been ignored and not mentioned by anybody else. so there going to mention their guys we will mention our guys. the last thing i want to say before i conclude is there hasn't been much discussion on the consequences, which i think should be a core issue. consequences for israel. our only democratic ally in the region. prime minister was here and he spoke to a joint assembly of congress, he received ace standing ovation for standing tall and hard on their very future existence of my nation is at risk here. he made the point that a bad

deal is not to better than no deal. that no deal - a bad deal is worse than no deal. there are ways around this and we can't ignore it. the major risk that a ran will follow through with their threats of all blood red in israel, a threat threat that was just repeated yesterday. in conclusion, i would ask one minute to conclude. >> is there objection. >> with this agreement, we have paid too much and gained too little. the risks are not added quickly acknowledged and not effectively addressed. i cannot support this agreement, i i cannot approve the misguided desperation that led to it. i cannot understand those that claim this is a great victory for diplomacy, or those those that turn a blind eye for failings because of the appeal

of party discipline. when i read about the bloating, the boastful joy into iran, in iran that all their needs are met and none of their redlines were crossed, i despair. i despair because this misadventure has been a failure of vision, a failure of will, and a historic failure of leadership and i fear these failures will lead to great suffering. we have seen this before, peace at any price is not peace. peace at any price sometimes leads to tragic consequences. in the last century we sought the loss of tens of millions of

lives because the goal was to seek peace at any price. we cannot make that mistake again. i yield the floor. >> thank you for your comments and concerns. i think we ran over a little bit. if i could ask, how much time we have on our side, i think we may need to go to 104 at least. >> 28 minutes for the majority. >> okay so i know you all last 15 please ask to 14 each. thank you all for being here. >> senator from iowa. >> of course this is a critical debate on a nuclear deal. it is going to have long-lasting impact on our national security

and the security of our friends and allies. this debate is happening because 98 senators expressed the desire for this agreement. this will allow the american people to speak through their elected representatives, and i can save the american people overwhelmingly oppose this agreement. new public opinion polls released in just the last few days indicate that americans in general are opposed to this deal by a margin of two to one. only 21% support it. i participated in meetings with part constituents in 25 of iowa's 99 counties. the message i received was overwhelmingly in opposition to this agreement.

that is the same message i am hearing from iowans who have written, or calls since since the deal was announced in july. after many weeks of studying the terms of the iranian deal, also hearing from experts and attending briefings and engaging in dialogue with my constituents, my initial skepticism has been confirmed. i have come to the conclusion that this agreement presented to us is a bad deal that will not increase our national security, or the security of our friends and allies, and then it should be rejected. the united states began the negotiations from a position of very weight real strength. international sanctions were obviously hurting iran. iran wanted out from under those sanctions. the sanction regime that

congress put in place over the objections of president obama drove iran to the negotiating table. the administration leading up to negotiations and throughout the entire process outlined the conditions for a good deal. president obama and secretary kerry, both made important statements about the goals and negotiations. the goal was of course, to dismantle iran's nuclear program. secretary kerry said in the fall of 2013 that iran has no right to enrich and that a good deal with iran would quote help iran dismantle its nuclear program and of quote. now, despite all these dis- assurances that these

negotiations would include any time, anywhere inspections the deal falls real short. president obama then negotiated away from these positions over the course of these negotiations. this agreement accepts and legitimizes iran as a nuclear threshold state. iran will not this mantle many important parts of its uranium enrichment structure contrary to past u.s. policies that iran not be allowed to enrich. iran also is permitted to continue a vast research program. many of the the significant limitations expire after ten short years. leaving iran an internationally legitimate nuclear program. iran could fully abide by the

steel mba nuclear threshold state, contrary of what we were promised by this administration. the initial goals that were announced by the president. now, with respect to inspections, international inspectors have not, will not have any time, anywhere access. they will have what is termed managed excess. the deal provides iran with a 24 day process to further delay, you know what will happen, find prohibited activities. iran has a track record of cheating otherwise i couldn't say those things. they have cheated have cheated on past agreements. this deal allows iran to stonewall the inspectors for up to 24 days. the agreement also include side

agreements between iran and the international economic agency that we cannot review and even the administration has not seen them. people in this country expect us to read before we vote. of course we can read the agreement but you can't read side agreements the law requires to be given congress to read under the special law. so we are going to be voting on things that we haven't seen in the law says we should see. the iran nuclear agreement review act which pass the senate, 98 to one, requires the administration to provide to congress access to all, appendixes side agreements, implementing material,

documents, guidance, technical or otherwise, and any related agreements and of quote as part of our agreement with the president. it seems in this case we are being asked to put our faith in the iranian regime to not cheat, contrary to what we know about them. iran has not provided details on the past military program. even though the u.s. position was very simply, that iran had to come clean about that history before any sanction relief. it is critical for a robust verification regime to work that the internationalist, atomic energy agency have a full accounting of iran's past efforts and stockpile.

yet, it appears iran will be allowed to supervise itself by conducting its own inspections and collect samples from secretive military facilities where much of the military dimensions of its nuclear program have been carried out. i also oppose the last minute decision to lift the embargo on conventional arms and ballistic missiles. this is what general martin dempsey, chairman, joint chiefs of staff testified before the armed services committee in july. that, quote we should under no circumstances relieve pressure on iran, relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms traffic king, and of quote.

so, they didn't listen to the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. so under this agreement, after just five years, the conventional arms embargo will be lifted. after just eight years, the ballistic missile embargo will be lifted. iran has long sought the technology to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles which would be a direct threat to the united states and its allies. iran's past army, arms trafficking to the hezbollah, hamas, and other terrorist organizations has long threatened the state of israel. other middle eastern allies as well and of course it threatens others in the region. once iran has complied with the initial restraint on its nuclear program many sanctions will be lifted.

this will release around $100 billion of frozen iranian assets. the lifting of sanctions and release of the funds will only access for bait iran's exasperate their position of terror with iran having access of tens of billions of frozen assets bolstering its conventional military and further supporting global terrorism. even obama administration officials have said that iran is likely to use some of the funds to purchase weapons and fun terrorism that would threaten americans and israelis. now isn't that something. so this administration, negotiating

an agreement where it is assumed that we are going to give them further resources to support efforts to kill americans and western europeans. the concept of snapping back is another issue that is being discussed. the sanction also appeared less effective on the issue of snapping back then originally claimed. the complicated process to reimpose sanctions is unlikely to work even if iran fails to comply with the agreement. iran views snapback sanctions as a grounds to walk away from the agreement. so any efforts to reimpose sanctions will be regarded, by all parties as to whether or not dissolve the agreement and impose sanctions. i support a robust diplomatic effort that will prevent iran from developing nuclear weapon capabilities. i also strongly disagree with proponents of this agreement who argue that the only alternative

to this, is war. that of course is a false choice, and intellectually dishonest. iran came to the negotiation tables because it desperately sought sanction relief. if this deal were rejected, we could impose even tougher sanctions allowing our diplomats to negotiate a better deal that would more adequately safeguard our nation's security interests and that of our allies. a better deal would not legitimize iran as a nuclear threshold state, it would not trade massive sanction relief for limited temporary constraints. it would not provide concessions that would trigger a regional nuclear arms race. it will reject the steel, if we reject this deal we would push an international agreement that would truly dismantle iran's nuclear program and verifiably

prevent iran from rick acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. a better deal would not ignore iran's past bad behavior. iran has for many years, been the most largely state-sponsored terrorism. it has an egregious record of human rights violations. it continues to imprison u.s. citizens. at least 500 u.s. military military deaths in iraq and afghanistan are directly linked to iran and its support for anti-american militants. this agreement, this agreement, will free up tens of billions of dollars of these frozen iranian assets without addressing any of these issues. we know iran will use some of that money to support terrorist

activities throughout the middle east of those are extended into the united states and europe. iran provide support for the asad regime in syria, and provides weapons and funding support for hamas. this deal appears to be the result of desperation on our side for a deal, any deal and the iranians knew that. >> your time has expired. >> i can't even finish from our page,, i'll let you put it in the record. thank you for your consideration >> the deal as a result of president obama's philosophy of leaving from behind. as a result of this philosophy we now have enemies who don't paris and friends and allies who don't follow us because they question our credibility and they question our leadership.

we have a more dangerous world because of it. pres. obama himself said it is better to have no deal than a bad deal. this deal, has far too many shortcomings and will fail to make america and our allies safer. it will will not prevent iran from developing nuclear weapons, while providing a windfall that will allow them to ramp up their bad behavior. so, as obviously you know, i oppose this deal and i hope we can send a signal to the administration and iran that we need a deal that improves our national security and the security of our friends and allies, and response to the common sense of america who threw the polls showed that they know this to be a bad deal. i yield the floor. >> senator from kansas. >> mdm. pres. we all come here to make a difference. we have on the floor to senators

have done just that. senator parker on the democrat side and was a good friend of mine, history will note in solitary terms what both of you have contributed to leadership, persevered perseverance and trying to make a bad situation better. i think you for that. madam president i rise today disheartened about the vote, or to be more accurate not even having a vote regarding the issues before is that affects our national security and others worldwide. we have before us the joint comprehensive plan of action, an executive agreement whose original his original goal was to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear armed state. in keeping with our constitutional responsibility in senate tradition, what we should have before us is a but we do not.

with the senate taking up a treaty we could be having a debate on rational common sense and effective amendments that would protect our country, and reduce the claims of turmoil in the middle east and in europe. but we are not. we are voting on a resolution of disapproval. we may well end up voting not to vote at all. a probability i found inexplicable, and outrageous. in the senate's 226 year history it has taken up almost 1900 treaties and only rejected 22. many of which have dealt with subjects of much less consequence. i deeply regret the administration would not even consider the senate allowing a vote on this crucial foreign-policy and national security issue as a treaty. during during debate on the iran review act, i voted in favor of senator johnson's amendment to do just that. we had the opportunity the senate failed to sit.

i believe this agreement to be deeply flawed and to fix what is in it reflects our responsibilities. in this in the pay seven agreement, or deal that is already adversely affecting the daily lives and well-being of individuals all around the world. refugees refugees throughout the middle east recognize the united states as yielding both power and persuasion to i ran and they are fleeing for their lives. as a failure to consider this agreement is not enough. now consider the fact that those in this distinguished body who will try to block culture, in doing so prevent even a simple yes or no vote on the resolution. talk about an upside down, alice in wonderland exercise. the senate has already voted 9822 to have a boat yet we stand here today to aggravate that vote.

so we are debating a pullout agreement samiti to us by the president, we are not amending, or voting on the agreement at all, we're just debating. the path which we take today, a deed to her into a box box canyon achieving nothing has been forced upon us by the same senate. where on earth has the senate gone. the president has been breaking arms and political legs urging colleagues to you senate procedure and deny senators the right to vote. it is pretty simple. the president doesn't want the senate to vote no on what he considers his foreign-policy legacy. however, on occasion, the senate has put partisanship aside and debated issues with deep conviction. this could be one of those times. but it is not.

we should find a path for that enables bipartisan accord by as the legislative body. that path starts when respect comes from partisanship. i regret that is not today. , not this week, not this issue, not this president. given the fact we are where we are, it is imperative we fully understand how i ran interprets this agreement. the shoe is on the iranian foot and judging by the statements of their leader they believe it fits just fine. we have heard in detail from secretary kerry, we have heard from the president, but but members should also know what iranian president and the supreme leader told the iranian people after the agreement was finalized.

the difference is both pertinent and remarkable. speaking before his constituency, his people in tehran, the president of iran articulated the negotiations and where the u.s. made enormous concessions. according to him we did not negotiate at all. we conceded. mr. president, madam president pardon me, it is a paradox of enormous irony that in order to know the truth highly praised by this administration, well received by a determined minority in the senate to let the end fortunate truth of who negotiated and who conceded, we have to read and understand the iranian president to get the full picture. he stated in the beginning we capped the centrifuges to 100, today they are allowed over 6000. our original restriction original restriction was separate 20 years, today it is

eight. with regards to research and development the u.s. abandon any limits and instead iran is free to develop centrifuges at the highest level they desire. the administration placed a red line on heavy water in the iraq facility, today the reactor will continue operating and produced having water. we said sanctions would be lifted incrementally, today they are nonexistent. soon iran will receive a windfall a windfall of $100-$150 billion of 100 to $150 billion for what ever use it wishes. terrorism, of greatest and portents what happened to the inspections regime. this administration set anytime, anywhere. but iran walked away holding the key of who, how, and when inspectors will get in. it is not so much what we in the u.s. know or believe, it is

rather what iran believes and the words of their president and supreme leader. the remarks put into absolute focus what the iranian government understands is their responsibility in regards to this agreement. it also puts into perspective which side demanded and which they conceded. the administration will argue that are but a show to the iranian public, that iran wants to claim it can become a stable influence in the unit middle east. sure tell that to israel. the question remains, are we voting on an agreement, or are we voting on concessions. according to the iranian president it is the latter. perhaps the proud boast enough the president is one thing but the vows of the ayatollah are another. his speech punctuated by cheers, death to america, death to israel followed regardless of the deal's approval, or not iran would

never stop supporting their friends. the exact places that iran had found in terrorist organizations which led to its listing as a state-sponsored terrorism by the state department. i've just listed the concession and bows that have been made public, what about the ones that will never be revealed? the agreed-upon arrangements between iran and the un atomic agency. today all senators should be gravely concerned about these negotiations and agreements. do we have access, no. no. do we have information, no. do we have transparency, no. do we know what the processes will be allowed, no. well actually we do. under the agreement dispute bracket resolution it sets up a tortured path that doesn't just involve the much-publicized 24 day waiting period, after 24

days any dispute would be referred to a joint commission where there will be a 15 day waiting period. then the dispute will be referred to the ministers of foreign of tears with another 15 day waiting period. finally the dispute would end up before an advisory board where you'll take another 15 day waiting period, all of this could be delayed for further discussion. instead of resolution, we have an unending series of switchbacks to get to the top of a mountain which in fact, we will never see. the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting different results. we have try a iaea inspections with iran before and they have burial miserably, it seems nothing short of insane to say we can trust them today. this deal does more than give iran self power, it gives them

the ability to remain on a countable and rogue. this debate is not just about what the administration, this body or the the american public thinks an agreement of iran, it is very much about what the iranians think we have and will accept. i worry we are looking at this agreement through rose colored glasses, based on hope and misguided idea that any deal is a better than no deal because the alternative is war. why do i i say rose-colored glasses, it is because civilized nations, nations like america, nations in europe, we naturally want to believe disaster and chaos will not happen. unfortunately they do. fourteen years ago, tomorrow while heading into work i heard the news of the world trade center being attacked and my

heart fell and my stomach turned. as a member of the intelligence committee at that time i've been repeating over again that no oceans no longer protected us. at the time of the attacks coming up i could see black smoke billowing from the pentagon and i knew, the capital would be next. if it were not for the heroes of flight 93 who made the declaration let's roll, my instincts would've been right in the capital would have been hit. the probability would be i would not be making these remarks today had that happen. now mr. president, my colleagues, everybody watching, close your eyes, close your eyes imagine the terrible ramifications had that plane hit the capital. where we sit today would have been rubble. now imagine that happening tomorrow.

throughout our history periods of peace, stability and prosperity have been the operation not the norm. as a result we have learned the hard way as americans have made the ultimate sacrifice in so many conflicts throughout our history. around the world we have witnessed man's heat inhumanity to man, holocaust, cambodia, and cambodia, and now with the islamic state with iraq and syria threatening almost on discriminant lean against all those who does not subscribe and especially to our best i lie in the region, and israel. my colleagues, despite colleagues, despite her best efforts our hope, our optimism and the song it can happen, i would only remind you that history tells us it has happened and will happen again. unless, we have the courage to take off the rose colored

glasses and come to the realization with regards to the consequences of what we are doing, or more aptly put not doing and who we are dealing with. today we are dealing with a state-sponsored terrorism and they will continue. iran will become a nuclear armed state. as we mark the 14th anniversary of the horrific terrorist attacks and loss of over 3000 americans on september 11, 2001, tomorrow, i want to make it clear i do not trust iran, i will never support concessions which will allow them to become a nuclear armed state. it is my hope to vote yes on the resolution of this disapproval. every senator here should. >> the majority's time has expired. >> i asked for 30 seconds. >> every senator here should have the opportunity to vote on this issue given the irony that

iran's leadership has given that power and privilege to its own parliament. at least give me and others the privilege today as a senator, to cast the most important vote of my 35 years in public service. >> our citizens are president, and i believe every single member of congress stand united in our commitment to block iran from securing a nuclear weapon. the question here is the pathway that is best for ensuring that outcome. as at the international agreement negotiated between iran and the p5 +1 nations? is that the best strategy for blocking iran's potential pursuit or is there some other route that yields better probability, better outcome?

that is that is the issue we are considering. over the last month that i've looked at every argument and counter argument, i've met with intelligence analysts, advocates and investors of our partner nations. i have sought and received the council about sides of this issue. taking this into account, this deal is the best available strategy for blocking iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. the plan strength is that for 15 years it creates an effective framework for blocking iran free pathway for securing a nuclear weapon. uranium path, plutonium path, it blocks uranium path by requiring iran to dismantle two thirds of its centrifuges. more partly to reduce its stockpile by 97% and it limit its enrichment of uranium. it blocks iran's plutonium pathway by requiring them to

pull the core out of the reactor and filled with concrete. to build any replacement reactor with a design that will not prove weapon grade plutonium. the cold bert path of instructions this includes on-site inspections anywhere it is suspected. procedures are put in place to guarantee iran cannot indefinitely do these stall these inspections. a number of days that guaranteed ensure that we can detect radioactive materials. the results by it is very likely that for any future effort by iran to pursue nuclear weapon,

even a program would be detected properly. as many pointed out, here on the floor today the agreement is not without shortcomings. it is not sustained the current un ban on iran impartation of arms. it does not dictate how iran can spend the dollars that reclaims from assets that are frozen. it does not permanently retain bright lines of iran's nuclear researcher program lifting the 300-kilogram stockpile limit after 15 years. these exclusions are troubling. it is possible, perhaps probable that iran will use some of that additional cash and access to conventional arms to increase support for terrorist groups. it is possible iran will you use a nuclear research program and a nuclear energy program to provide a foundation for nuclear weapons program. that is a substantial concern. for this reason, many have

argued that the united states instead of implementing the agreement should withdraw from it and negotiate a better deal. the prospects for that are slim. our p5 plus one partners, i met with all of their ambassadors to explore this issue have committed the good eighth of their governments behind this agreement. they believe this is the best path, the best opportunity to stop iran, they plan to honor the deal they signed onto with or without the united states as long as iran does is let. iran has every reason to honor this agreement even if the u.s. rejection because it sets the stage for valuable trade investment partnerships. if iran were to follow this course it would gain many benefits while leaving the united states adult with the balance of our partners undermining a dramatic and international fashion and american influence with security

consequences throughout a large spectrum. on the other hand if they exit disagreements and our country then is the one that stands in the pathway of a potential diplomatic solution to this incredibly important international security issue. it would be the u.s. blocking a plan with high confidence of stopping iran from acquiring a bomb, nuclear bomb. furthermore the international support sanctions would frame. giving iran some of the economic relief it is seeking without the burden of intrusive inspections. in shorts, this course would both shatter diplomacy, impact and diminish american leadership, and shred our leadership increasing alliance on one left over tool. at at the same time dramatically diminishing our confidence of the actual state of the iran nuclear program. less information and more

reliance, less confidence would be a dangerous combination. most effective strategy for blocking iran's access to nuclear bombs is to utilize this agreement, to maximize america participation to hold iran strictly accountable, not through the first 15 years but through the next decade that follow. where iran is still completely constrained by its commitment to never develop a nuclear weapon. after 15 years, iran will be subject to the deal requirement that it will never seek, developer acquire nuclear weapons. it will continue to be a subject for for ongoing intensive monitoring and verification by the international i.e. iaea. but we, the united states can strengthen this framework. the u.s. could backup the plan

in the first 15 years and strengthen the iaea's after the first 15 years. they could leave the international community in defining the boundary that constitutes the boundary between a nuclear research program and a nuclear energy program, versus a nuclear weapon program. those bright lines that are diminished. the united states can assure the national community. >> your time has expired. >> in conclusion i asked for 30 more sections. >> no choice comes and guarantees. the the future whether we approve or reject this deal is on noble and carries risk. this agreement, with its verification, with full participation offers the best prospect for stopping iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon at any point forward. for that that reason i will support it. thank you mr. president.

>> mr. pres. >> senator from west virginia. >> when i go home to my state of west virginia i've always said if i can explain it, can't vote for. when this process began i was supportive of diplomatic efforts, i've always believed to truly be a superpower you must engage in super diplomacy. whenever able i i would choose diplomacy over war because stakes are so high for west virginia and our entire country. in our state of west virginia we have one of the highest rates of military service in the nation. as i struggle with this decision, i cannot ignore the fact that iran, the country that will benefit most from sanctions being lifted, refuses to change is 36 years of sponsoring

terrorism. for me the deal has. for me the deal has to be more about preventing iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, it had to address the terrorist actions. without doing so would reward their behavior and do nothing about their destructive activities. in fact during the process unfold, it has continued to hold for american hostages, to support terrors around the around the world, and acquire arms from russia. the continued actions by iran have proven to me that when we catch iran violating the agreement, and i believe we will, i have great doubt that we'll have unifi committed partners willing to prevent iran from obtaining in a weapon. i also cannot good conscious agree to them receiving a hundred billion dollars in funds which everyone knows, will be used at least in some part to increase terrorism. the administration has accepted

what i consider as false choice. this is only about nuclear weapons and not terrorism. the fact of the matter is we are concerned about iran having a bomb, because a large part it is the world's largest state-sponsored terror. asking us to set aside the terrace question is irresponsible and misses the point. over the past and last 36 years, iran has carried out thousands of active terror that has killed thousands of innocent lives. not just. not just in the middle east but around the world. despite sanctions and treaty, continue to call for an attempt to destroy the state of israel, bomb diplomatic buildings and murder innocent people. on top of it all they are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of soldiers. the deal does nothing to address those.

after ten to 15 years iran will be able to produce enough enriched uranium. for a bomb. i hope iran will conduct itself differently for the last 36 years. it is because of that belief that i that i must cast a vote against the steel. i do not believe supporting the still will prevent iran from acquiring a weapon or been a leading sponsor of terrorism against america and our allies. to those who are upset with my deliberations i would simply simply say that the decision to pursue diplomacy is every bit consequential as it is to pursue war. the choice to abandon the first path leads inevitably to the second.

i have already seen too much american sacrifice in the middle east to push us down the path towards war. however, however, i don't believe a vote against this bill forces us to abandon the diplomatic path. we must continue to pursue peace but on terms that promise lasting peace for us and our allies. i spoke to every expert i could, every briefing made available to me, i spoke with representatives of middle eastern countries and most importantly i listen to the good citizens of west virginia. i think all of my constituents who reached out to my office and to the advisers who took their time to reach this decision. i will continue to listen to my constituents and i will support a path to peace and diplomacy over war and aggression. make no mistake about it, i will vote vote to use all of our military might to protect our homeland and everett was threatened, and to prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

to be a superpower you must possess super diplomatic skills and i believe we can use the skills to negotiate a better deal. we need a deal that citizens of our country and the world will make us safer. and to that ideal. >> senator from indiana. >> thank you mr. pres. as indiana sen., my top priority i most fundamental responsibility is to ensure the security of the people of indiana and our nation. as well the security of our friends in l.a. including israel and the gulf state. it is through the lens of these solemn obligations but i have carefully reviewed and evaluated the proposed nuclear agreement. in making this decision i bring to bear not only my responsibility as the united states senator but as a ranking member of the armed services subcommittee on strategic

forces. overseeing our nation's own nuclear arsenal and global on tis con,ationld allir questions about iran's intentions, the most responsible course of action is to give this agreement the opportunity to succeed. it is not the agreement i would have written but it is the one we have to make a decision on. and i believe the alternative is much more dangerous to our country and to israel. while reasonable people can disagree on the substance of the agreement, we can all agree that a nuclear-armed iran poses an unacceptable threat to global security and the iranian leadership should not and cannot be trusted. the question then becomes, how can we most effectively eliminate iran's nuclear threat.

this agreement rolls back iran's nuclear capabilities, shrinks its program and gives us unprecedented access with the most intrusive inspections and verification regime ever put into place. iran must get rid of 98% of their stockpiled uranium, more than two-thirds of their centrifuges and the existing core of their heavy water plutonium reactor. these measures not only give us the opportunity to restrain iran's nuclear capabilities but also, according to our military leadership, improve the effectiveness of our military option should that one day become necessary. without this agreement, we risk the -- we have the risk of both world. the front we have formed with the international community against iran's nuclear program would break apart. the agreement would dissolve. sanctions relief flows into iran

from those countries who are no longer willing to hold the rhine and iran is left with tens of thousands of centrifuges capable of producing highly enriched uranium, a heavy water reactor capable of producing plutonium. while i support this agreement, i realize the only true guarantee that iran doesn't become a nuclear-armed state is the steadfast resolve of the united states and our allies to do whatever is necessary to stop them and to put in place the policies to make that happen. with or without this deal, the day may come when we are left with no alternative but to take military action to prevent iran from crossing the nuclear threshold. the burden and danger would, as always, be on the shoulders of our service members who put their lives on the line for our country.

indiana's home to the nation's fourth largest national guard contingent with more than 14,000 hoosiers standing ready to serve their communities and our country. these men and women and the thousands of hoosiers who serve in the reserves and on active duty across the country and around the world have been called to serve time and time again. they have done so with honor and distinction. they make up the greatest fighting force the world has ever seen. and i have every confidence in our ability to meet any challenge put before them. if the day does come that i am faced with a vote to authorize military action against iran, i owe it to our armed forces and to the people of indiana to have tried all other options to stop iran before we consider putting our service members into harm's way. we stand ready to take military action if needed but we owe it to the young men and women who protect our country on the front

lines. from terre haute and angola and evansville and indianapolis, to at least try to find a peaceful solution. they should be able to expect at least that much from us here in the senate, and if that solution does not succeed, they stand ready. while i share the concerns expressed by the agreement's critics about what may happen 10 years or 15 years or 20 years from now, i cannot in good conscience take action that would shift the potential risks of 2026 and 2031 to 2016. i believe this agreement is, as my predecessor and friend, former u.s. senator richard lugar, recently said, our best chance to stop an iranian bomb without another war in the middle east. i owe senator lugar and my other fellow hoosier former congress

man lee hamilton, a great debt of gratitude for their input and expertise throughout this process. this deal will not resolve every problem we have with iran >> >> and other proxy across syria and iraq and lebanon yemen and elsewhere. i remain committed to working with my colleagues and friends on both sides of the aisle to confront the challenges with the clear and decisive strategy in the of italy's. thank you, mr. chairman president i yield back. >> i rise today to express strong support for the joint comprehensive plan of action

with a diplomatic agreement that our international partners reached in july. to reject the resolution of the approval this isn't a decision i came to light leases of agreement was announced i a consultant with nuclear and sanctions experts inside it outside government date officials including secretary of state john kerry and ambassadors from other countries that have negotiated -- side of the us intelligence community's advocates, will sides of the issue. my constituents with my colleagues in the senate and

i share some of those reservations. but it is strong. to say no deal is better than not bad deal fed is on the deck and to pay for that with the use of a nuclear weapon is the most effective and realistic. and after 15 years, we will still have every option we currently have up to and including the use of military force to prevent iran from

getting a bomb. moreover, while critics have eagerly pointed out what they see as flaws in the deal, i have heard no persuasive arguments that there is a better alternative. the agreement imposes a series of physical limits on iran's nuclear program, especially its production of the fissile material it would require to make a bomb. in-- the agreement's verificatin provisions are strong. monitoring of and unfettered access to iran's nuclear sites and ongoing surveillance of iran's nuclear supply chain. let me briefly review the central limits on its nuclear program that iran has agreed to and the verification provisions. together they are designed to prevent iran from trying to get a nuclear weapon and to detect them, if they do, with enough

time to respond forcefully andel >> >> the agreement will prevent iran from using weapons-grade plutonium as a fissile material for a nuclear weapon by requiring a rancher redesigned and rebuilt the nuclear reactor. which is completed as plant could produce enough weapons-grade plutonium for warner to bombs each year under the agreement cannot do that they have to pull out the core of the nuclear reactor and fill it with concrete to destroy it and they cannot get any sanctions relief until it does that. the agreement significantly reduces him limits their

uranium that could also be used in a bomb. currently they have 19200500 centrifuges capable to enrich uranium and has stockpiled about 10 tons of low enriched uranium is. iran has to go down to 5,001st generations as a centrifuge and down to 300 kilograms of low enriched uranium and iran is not get any sanctions relief until it does that. right now it would take to recruitments to get weapons grade uranium.

this will increase of breakout time for the first decade as they tried to cheat at the nuclear facilities almost instantaneously to have more than enough time effectively the nuclear facilities are subject 24/7 monitoring with unfettered access by the inspectors of iaea the limitations on the nuclear facilities with strict verification make it impossible for iran to dash or a nuclear facility for the next 15 years but the verification provisions are important for another reason

making it difficult to build a bomb in secret the monitoring of unfettered access to international inspectors will be guaranteed access to any site is now iran that they have suspicions about including military sites if whole lot has been made about a provision in the agreement to involve disputes to access suspicious sites. to be confused and misleading things have been said about this. first of all, with continuous monitoring of the declared nuclear sites that

is now with the controversy is about. to dispute the iaea demand access for suspicious undeclared sites. but it's like getting this with prime minister netanyahu of a drug dealer 24 days' notice before you check the premises that gives them time to flush them down the you cannot hide radioactive material it leaves traces behind that you can't detect for far longer than and 24 days. as one expert has said if

iran were to flash the evidence on the tour that if they would rip out the twilit to never really active role in the ground. it has a half life of over 700 million years. the half life of uranium is 4 billion years the iaea will catch iran after 24 days. it is true there are some ideas - - nativities that don't use nuclear materials is a genuine challenge but the fact is you can move a computer in 24 seconds when

to have those under the agreement to face severe consequences if they get caught. so the bottom line is guaranteed access to suspicious sites will help to support the verification of the river and. more for me to have ongoing surveillance for the nuclear supply chain in order to make a nuclear weapon iran would have to reconstruct every individual piece of the chain of mining, milling, the centrifuge and more. and is secret. and not to be caught.

with the intelligence efforts to make it unlikely ally iran could get away with any of that. would therefore risk losing everything gained with the read position of sanctions to say nothing of a military attack you don't have to trust the regime's intentions to understand the reality would face to carry the overwhelming likelihood to get caught with the various consequences if it does. we still have work to do to diminish the threat iran poses to national security. and of course, to the safety of our allies in the middle east beginning with israel. so that threats to the

region could grow we would need to bolster our support such as saudi arabia and we will need to maintain the terrorism related sanctions ever affected by the deal we also need to work closely with israel our greatest friend in the region to ensure its security being jewish appeal a deep bond with israel and as senator i have worked very hard to strengthen our country's bond with the nation and i will continue to do that. in nuclear arms to iran would be a grave threat to israel so i believe this agreement will contribute to the security of israel because it is the most effective available means of preventing iran from becoming nuclear arms and so

do experts including former heads of the security services. no doubt in my mind it is a significant step for our own national security what has been raised when many of the restrictions expire. there will still be major tax on the iran nuclear program was specific provisions necessary to build a bomb the nuclear program will still be subject to heightened monitoring by the iaea and the nuclear supply chain to

monitoring to limit the ability to have nuclear materials without being detected iran as never ever have a nuclear weapon and we still have every option of to and including the use of military force but we also must begin to make the case of the danger to every new weapon will not expire in 50 years to remind iran should begin to take away steps such as enrichment inconsistent with a peaceful program we stand ready to intervene. we don't know what the world will look like in 15 years as long as this regime will power iran will represent a

dangerous threat to our security but it is possible by 2031 n/a note the -- may no longer be ruled by those against our interests but 60 percent is now under the age of 30. the show and iranians are increasingly well-educated and pro-american. we don't know how this will work out but if we reject this agreement you will lose this opportunity with the people of iran if we back out of the deal we have agreed to it will only emboldened the hard-liners self-inflicted damage to american global leadership of international diplomacy the alternatives i have

heard run the gamut from unrealistic to horrifying for example, some say should the senate reject the agreement we are in a position to negotiate a better one from the deputy chief for each of the five nations who helped to broker the deal with us. they all would free it is not the case and said the diplomats have told me we will not come back to the bargaining table at all in the sanction regime would erode or fall apart completely to give the leaders more money and leverage drop the world with a real leverage. that is just the reality.

of course, iran could move forward to endanger the interest in the region to make it far more likely we will find ourselves engaged in a military conflict if iran sheets and we are a part of it we have a say in the international response now most opponents of the agreement to not seek or want war with iran even if it makes such a war more likely but some of them do. one of my colleagues

suggested we should attack iran now exercise that is quick and painless compared to operation desert fox over and done within a matter of days. this is pure fantasy compared to what experts tell us and not what anyone should have learned from the disastrous invasion of iraq. the middle east is largely an predictable unfriendly region and to bring very painful unpredictable consequences why we should give diplomacy a chance and get a number of my eight colleagues oppose such a diplomatic solution before an agreement was reached.

>> i ask unanimous consent for another two minutes. thank you mr. president my colleagues to the unprecedented step of sending a letter to regulators just as they were nearing an accord. with the attempt to undermine diplomacy as they oppose any deal the matter what the terms it isn't surprising that this point they refused to of knowledge to take responsibility for the dire consequences that will almost certainly result and it is possible to reject the agreement but what seems undeniable if we are to walk

away from an agreement renegotiated that would be a severe blow to our leadership in the world diplomacy requires compromise you don't negotiate with your friends but with your enemies. no one has any illusions about the nature of the iranian regime any more than the president's the made the nuclear agreement of the communist regime there. for a long time that looked like our only option was to have a nuclear weapon or bomb the country ourselves. this agreement represents a chance to break out of that scenario to take the extraordinary step to reject that because clearly

unrealistic expectations because of a hunker to send americans into another war is another mistake years macaulay's to except the resolution from going forward and vote in support of the agreement. >> mr. president? fisa ports did join comprehensive plan of action that we have agreed to with our international partners and with iran. this agreement is implemented effectively is the best option we have to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon and. i sit on the armed services and intelligence committee we have had numerous hearings and i have met with

the international partners and steadied the deal to read the commentary from all different perspectives and ask hard questions and based on the facts before us. this decision was not an easy like members of the body in committed to israel's security and concerned about the statements against israel and support for terrorism. nuclear proliferation is one of the most consequential of national security matters facing the world clearly a nuclear iran is unacceptable to all of us. i would suspect that any agreement to a stop iran from getting a nuclear weapon is given

serious, thoughtful consideration. by yet there are those in this body to oppose the idea of a diplomatic solution negotiated from the obama administration even while they are taking place. but the first time i am aware of dozens of senators signed an open letter the a government of an adversary to state that any agreement reached would be undone. that was their message than the same voices that oppose negotiations started to denounce that as the bad deal.

if others said no deal is preferable despite the fact iran was with interest payments to get a nuclear bomb. lamp fairly certain the read did you before they made such statements that is not how we should conduct foreign policy the security of israel and the stability of the middle east are too important to turn into a campaign ads as we prepare to vote this afternoon and set politics aside and focus on the facts. for if this agreement is the best option we have to stop iran from getting a nuclear weapon. with the backing of our partners in china and russia and i along with my colleagues have met with the ambassador and i ask them

point-blank which to bargain for another agreement if united states walks away? they said no. it is the one that congress should be supporting the ambassador also said no. and remind my colleagues after decades of unilateral sanctions against israel lung international sanctions the force iran to the table. meet our partners to make this work and they have committed if we choose the path they will stand with us. the terms of this agreement cut off iran's ability to create a bomb we will have unprecedented oversight over

the entire nuclear supply chain intelligence community has indicated valuable insight and with the affirmation to be garnered through this agreement this community can provide information to enable us to make sure that iran stands up to abide by the provisions of this deal we will know it comes then and what goes out the unprecedented oversight provisions have the support of alarm to control experts experts, and diplomats military all of the you believe this will make the difference. >> i ask unanimous consent for one more minute.

>> it is about trust the requires verification never iran sheets with international support many repeat it does not prevent the u.s. from taking military action if needed it is not perfect however tear risk the cooperation and security and ability one nuclear weapon. putting politics aside i urge my colleagues to join me to oppose the resolution before us today to support the agreement i yield the floor. >> mr. president?

>> for more than half a century the united states has led global efforts to stop the spread of the weapons international community has a rules and procedures to stop them from spreading from international and civil war. to dave we face this challenge in iran in nuclear weapon is a real and dangerous threats to with the entire middle east and all of humanity that iran must never become a nuclear weapons state they have given us good reason that has misled though world about the nuclear program and is a destabilizing force in the middle east. with the threat posed would increase exponentially

because of the factors which cannot trust iran if they're given a free pass on the destabilizing activity but as we have seen they have the capability to develop a nuclear weapon that with that agreement it will no longer be possible. lie believe our negotiators achieved as much as possible and if it is strictly implemented it can do the job and on either hand if we walk away now the coalition will fall apart ganda prospects with those that joined in the effort to reach this agreement with china and russia. it was unified if the united states walks away right now

we are on our own. . . including six nobel laureates, this agreement contains -- quote -- more stringent constraints than any previously negotiated nonproliferation framework. the agreement puts strict limits on iran's nuclear program for the next 15 years. it reduces iran's existing nuclear program to a fraction of its current size. it virtually eliminates iran's plutonium capabilities and reduces its uranium capabilities by two-thirds. it pushes back the time required before iran would be capable of building a nuclear bomb from three months to more than one year. but as i said earlier, this agreement is not based on trust. agreement is not based on trust. >> but this agreement is not based on trust. it imposes the most invasive, stringent, and

technologically innovative verification regime ever negotiated. it empowers inspectors to use advanced and intrusive methods to monitor compliance. this verification system will provide an unprecedented amount of reliable information and insight into iran's nuclear program, program, ensuring that if iran ever tries to develop a nuclear weapon we will find out about it in time to stop them. after 15 years under this agreement and the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, iran will remain bound never seek nuclear weapons. in paragraph three of the agreement iran categorically makes the following binding obligation, and i quote, under no circumstances will iran ever seek, develop, or acquire nuclear weapons. under the agreement iran will be required to give the iaea detailed plans for how

it intends to develop nuclear technology for peaceful use. it will remain forever subject to iaea inspections to verify that it never seeks nuclear weapons were engages in any nuclear weapons related activities. and if the iaea ever finds anything suspicious such as ten or 15 or 25 or 40 years but forever, it will be the iaea duty to promptly reported suspicions to the world. the iaea ability to verify iranian compliance is the key to this agreement. it will be critical to provide international inspectors with the support they require to detect, investigate, and respond to any suspicious nuclear activity before iran has time to cover up the evidence. with our support, the iaea can and must aggressively investigate likewise we must

be prepared to react at any time that the iaea sounds the alarm. i supported the tough sanctions that brought iran to the negotiating table in the 1st place, and there are mechanisms in this agreement to snapback sanctions quickly and prevent a chinese or russian veto. even with nuear weapons -- even without nuclear weapons iran poses real risks, particularly to israel from our closest friend in the region, andregion, and to our partners in the arabian peninsula. the administration has assured us that it is working closely with regional partners to enhance security. congress must be an active, insistent, and bipartisan partner in this effort with

this pres. and his successors, increase security assistance to israel to unprecedented levels. i have always been a strong supporter of israel. when saddam hussein was developing nuclear weapons in 1981, i supported the israeli decision to bomb the reactor. when israeli more funding for missile defense system in 2010, i voted to accelerate the development of the iron dome system. i supported israel's right to self-defense. qualitative. our understanding. likewise we must strengthen our relationships with all of our regional partners, the countries of the arabian peninsula require our assistance to counter threats from iran. countering violent extremists interdiction must

continue and be enhanced. over the past two months i have consulted with many stakeholders,stakeholders, groups, advocates, and concerned constituents on both sides of this debate. without exception of passion is born of an unwavering desire to secure a lasting piece for the middle east, israel, the united states, and the world. and this is the passion that i share. the world has come together in an historic way with the agreement we gain much, but most important, we avoid missing the significant diplomatic opportunity to ensure iran never emerges as a nuclear weapon state. with this agreement, we will maintain the international solidarity that will enable

us to reimpose sanctions if iran ever does try to get a nuclear weapon. we will keep and continue to improve all capabilities required to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear weapon state, including our military option. i thinkoption. i think secretary cary, secretary monies, and the entire negotiating team further hairless effort and service to the country and health reasons. i also want to thank president obama for his leadership and commitment to diplomacy. i urge the senate to come together to support this diplomatic effort to prevent iran from never getting a nuclear weapon forever. we must be ever vigilant to ensure that every part of this agreement is verified. i thank you, mr. pres., mr. president, and i yield back the balance of my time. >> a been watching this debate as carefully as i possiblyi possibly can. i think it is interesting that members of this body have read at the same agreement and come to a different conclusion. it is not surprising no one

can really know exactly how things will turn out. does not surprise me that people have come to different conclusions. conclusions. i also agree with the members of this body when they say this is one of the most important votes they will ever take. we are talking about a nuclear iran and how we can potentially prevent that. that obviously would be a threat to world piece. i heard members of both parties declare definitively we cannot allow iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. i also agree with president obama chastising those of us who don't agree with him when he said this is a pretty simple decision. a comment from aa totally

different perspective and obviously dry completely different conclusion from that. but let me just read a couple quotes that have been broughtput forth by members of this body during this debate. this agreement cannot be based on hope or trust. history relies both in our experience. this deal is not the agreement i have long sought.sought. other similar, legitimizing a vast and expanding nuclear program in iran. we are rewarding deception, deception, deceit, and wanton disregard for law. another senator, this agreement with the duplicitous and untrustworthy iranian regime fall short of what i envisioned. and another. this deal is not perfect, and no one trusts iran. mr. president. in my four and a half years

in the united states senate i've been trying to find those areas of agreement. i read those comments. what is surprising about these quotes, they are from individual senators that are going to vote to approve this awful deal. something else we can all agree on is that iran is our enemy. let me just detail a couple other quotes. earlier this year after his congregation broke out with a death to america chant, the supreme leader ayatollah said, yes, of course, death to america because america is the original source of this pressure. death to america. death to america. and two days ago the supreme leader said, i see that you will not see the coming 25 years, and god willing there will not be something name is zionist regime in the next 25 years.

so ii agree, we cannot trust iran, the supreme leader command i agree iran is our enemy. my decision to vote for disapproval of this deal rests on a simple premise. why in the world would we ever enter a deal that will inject tens of billions and eventually hundreds of billions of dollars to our enemy? our avowed enemy? one that i have to remind this body was responsible because they are ied's for the killing of a hundred and 96 troops in iraq and many more wounded and maimed. the regime take 52 us hostages for 444 days. that regime has not changed

its behavior in all those intervening years. they are our enemy. let me.out, why in the world ever agreed agree to a deal that will strengthen our enemies economy and our enemies military? it seems pretty obvious, and i agree with pres. obama. this is a simple decision. he think it's think it's a good deal. i think it's a bad deal. of my remaining time i want to be respectful of my colleagues and talk about what this debate -- what this vote is actually about. this is not a straight up-and-down vote to approve an international agreement that will be deemed the treaty. this body gave up our ability to deem this a treaty and provide the advice and consent when we voted on my amendment to

demon treaty. president obama on his own authority, article two powers said something this important inconsequential is not a treaty but an executive agreement, and i can go it alone. and he basically did until the senator from tennessee and maryland came together and recognized the fact that part of this deal, a key part of this deal is the waiver or lifting of the congressionally imposed sanctions that we put in place against the president's objection and 2012. what this debate is all about is whether or not president obama can retain that way for authority regardless of how this turns out, president obama again negotiated this deal, runs the united nations security council and got them to agree. thethe process will be put in place to lift those sanctions from the united nations. by the way, they were put in

place and resolutions that would require for the suspension or halting of the uranium enrichment capability, which is not part of this deal unfortunately. it is extremely important for the american people to understand that we are not debating or voting on the actual deal itself but on something that is pretty weak and minor involvement because president obama is pretty well blocked us well blocked the american people from having a voice in a deal that is so important, consequential, and what i believe is going to be so damaging to american long-term interests, interests, and i believe it really will put iran on a path to obtain nuclear weapons. we will be lifting the arms embargo. already lifting the embargo on ballistic missile technology and once again, we will be interjecting tens

of billions and eventually hundreds of billions of dollars to strengthen the economy and the military of our about enemy. it is a simple decision for me, which is why will vote to disapprove this bad deal. with that, i yield the floor. >> mr. pres. >> the senator from ohio. >> thank you, mr. pres. i think. i think my colleague from wisconsin for his comment. i rise today in opposition to this agreement, and i do so because ii believe it is bad for our country and that for the world. there are very few votes i take here in the united states senate that have such a profound effect on national security and the kind of world our kids and grandkids will inherit as

his upcoming vote we will take next week on this nuclear deal. over the past couple of months i have taken the time to read the agreement carefully, attended the classified briefings, listens to my colleagues, talk to experts on both sides of the issue. i took my time and coming to a decision because i was hopeful that we would be able to have an agreement that i could support and others could as well. i have also listened to my constituents back home in ohio. they have looked at this agreement, too. they understand what is at stake. and they have strong views on it. my calls and letters and e-mails are overwhelmingly opposed. through the process, what i did was measured the agreement not based on some abstract concept i might have but on the actual objectives and criteria set out by the international community, the united nations, united states of america, our government.

i lookedi looked at it based upon the red lines that we had drawn. in one of my great concerns about this agreement is that those red lines of not been honored. the broader goal, of course, the biggest red line is not congress, the obama administration, the united nations security council, everyone was clear that iran must stop and dismantle its nuclear weapons program. that is the most basic red line. you have to remember that when congress on a bipartisan basis enacted is crippling sanctions it was not just to bring her into the table, which was the result but to get them to abandon their nuclear weapons program. that was the point. i supported tougher sanctions to give leverage to the obama administration even though curiously they did not want to leverage. they resisted congress increasing sanctions. in fact, they initially opposed any role for congress in reviewing the

agreement. the general from tennessee is here and will tell you. they are somehow reluctant for congress to even have aa role here to help them to be able to negotiate a better agreement. that was probablythat was probably an indication of the foregoing. despite that resistance, syria's sanctions were enacted and iran did come to the table. i hope that it would confirm the leadership from the front, notfront, not behind, we would be able to bring the international community along to ensure that we did meet those criteria i talked about earlier. unfortunately, after reviewing the terms of this agreement is explicitly clear these objectives, criteria we set out have not been met. we have an obligation to reject this deal and begin to restore the consensus at home and abroad that the iranian government must be isolated economically and politically until it agrees

to long-standingthe long-standing terms on which the united states and international community have long insisted. some will say that is fine but impossible. i respectfully disagree. i respectfully quote president obama who has said repeatedly, no agreement is better than a bad agreement, meaning keeping a sanctions in place is better than a bad agreement. i think that is where we are this is a bad agreement. among the many serious flaws of the steel is a fact affected iran cannot continue research and development on more advanced centrifuges and to resume enrichment and 15 years provided, providing at best only temporary relief. inspections, one of the most important safeguards we have are not anywhere, anytime. under this deal iran can delay the inspection of suspected nuclear sites are up to 24 days. if the iranians cheat, as they have in the past, we

would have to employ a convoluted process to convince the international community to restore sanctions, a process i do not think can rely on. it is also important to note that other than re-imposition of sanctions, the agreement does not specify any clear mechanism to enforce outcomes of the dispute resolution process, nor does it identify penalties for failure to comply. this means that really the only realistic punishment for any violation of matter how big or small is full reimposition of sanctions. and no way, as i look at this it is like having the death penalty is the only punishment for all crimes. i do not think it is realistic and you will not get the international community to go along. that is why worry about the compliance and sanctions. given that only a full-blown iranian violation would likely convince all countries to reimplement sanctions, i don't think this subverts iranian

sheeting designed to test international resolve and establishing a baseline for acceptable behavior. and this is likely. in addition, of course, the inspection regime is subject to side deals. the international atomic energy agency and he ran. contrary to the iran review act that passed congress and was signed into law by the president, the language of the legislation is clear and requires the president to transmit to congress the agreement as defined including all materials and annexes, and when it talks about what that means it says, including annexes, appendices, codicils, side agreements, impementing material understandings and so on so forth. it is all here in the agreement that we have with the president of the united

states because it was part of the review act that he signed in the law. basedbased upon recent press reporting we're also hearing herein will be allowed to self inspect to report on possible military dimensions of past suspected nuclear activity of one of the most secretive and important nuclear facilities. allowing a country accused of hiding a secret and illegal nuclear weapons program to implement verification methods certainly undermines the presence claim that the air india is not built on trust, it is built on verification. perhaps most troubling is that this agreement ends the international isolation without ending the behavior that caused iran to be isolated in the 1st place. asplace. as the world's leading state-sponsored terrorism based upon our own state department analysis whereas nuclear program is just one part of a broader strategy

that is dangerous and destabilizing. he ran will receive up to $150 billion in sanctions relief early in the agreement. with or without sustained compliance. which will encourage the iranians to cause trouble, to further support terrorist groups that they sponsor. national security advisor susan rice acknowledged something that is pretty plain, he ran is sending money to these groups now and will have more money when the sanctions are relieved. that is the national security advisor. within five years the agreement lives the embargo on conventional weapons allege the ballistic missile embargo than eight years, last-minute concession in a rush by the administration to get to yes. atyes. at a minimum this deal will ensure iran remains the threshold nuclear power. with a new set of tools and more resources to hurt our interest in those of our ally in the region, including his room.

i believe is good that the deal as currently written we will set up a nuclear and conventional arms race. the president says the alternative is more. in. in fact, a middle east bristling with arms will increase the risk of what, increase the risk of war because of this deal. i have been involved in international negotiations. as us trade representative, i understand that they can be tough. i know that both sides have to make concessions. but i also know that that does not mean that the united states of america concedes on fundamental principles. we have to have the courage to stand behind our legitimate public pronouncements, whether it is with the use of chemical weapons, the violation of both minsk cease-fire agreements by the russians in the proxies in eastern ukraine, or our commitment that iran must stop and dismantle its march toward nuclear weapons. these are

all things you negotiate and have to be firm and tough on. it is not easy. as americans, that is what we do. there was a speech written that was never given that was meant to be given on november 2, 1963, the day john f. kennedy was assassinated. hehe said in a speech about america's role, our generation, our nation by destiny rather than choice are the watch guards on the walls of freedom. it is who we are. we have got to be tough in his negotiations and stand tall. other countries look to us to be tall thought to help build a consensus. that is what we had to do and i believe we did not do and what i'm sure was a difficult negotiation. we have to honor our redline , if we expect them to be effective at promoting piece and stability. in particular, we have to say what we mean and mean what we say if we're going to stop nuclear proliferation.

the way this agreement developed will encourage other countries who are interested in pursuing nuclear weapons to say, i don't care what the un says, what i see here is everything is negotiable. that is the message, i am afraid, this agreement will send. the administration's position that the only alternative is more, that is what there saying. if anything, this agreement will further destabilize an already turbulent region, but there is an alternative. a better deal. supporters of this agreement have compared this agreement to ronald reagan's arms control negotiations with the soviets. i want to touch upon that for a moment. i take a very different lesson from that analogy. president reagan succeeded by raising the pressure, now

reducing it. he increased the cost of bad behavior until a changed, he did not strike a deal unless it fulfilled the core goals that he laid out, his redline. he did not want to deal for a deal sake. and he was patient. at the reykjavík summit ronald reagan walked away from what would have been a major nuclear disarmament agreement because he felt that the cost to us national security was too high. he was criticized for walking away, but he kept trying, held firm, and successfully concluded negotiations on the intermediate nuclear forces treaty. this body must not sign off on an agreement that fails to honor our redline, strengthens the destabilizing influence and does nothing to address the behavior that threatens our allies. we should reject this agreement and tighten sanctions on a bipartisan basis. the president should then use the leverage that only america possesses to

negotiate an international agreement that does meet the long-standing goals of the united nations, the international community, the united states of america, this congress, and the president himself. we cannot afford to get this one wrong. we owe it to our children and grandchildren to get this right. as noted in the beginning of my remarks, this is about what world they will inherit. i urge my colleagues in the senate to join me in rejecting this deal and pursuing a better way. i yield back my time. >> mr. president. >> the senator from new jersey. >> mr. pres., 423 years as a member as a member of the house foreign affairs and senate foreign relations committee i have had the privilege of dealing with major foreign policy and national security issues. many of those have been of a

momentous nature. this is one of those moments. i come to the issue of the joint comprehensive plan of action as someone who has followed iran's nuclear ambitions for the better part of two decades. and unlike pres.president obama's characterization of those who have raised serious questions about the agreement, i did not vote for the war in iraq. i opposed it, unlike the vice president and secretary of state, who both supported it. my vote was a popular at the time, but it was one of the best decisions i have ever made. ii have not hesitated to diplomatically negotiate with adversaries are enemies , as is evidenced by our vote with a new start treaty with russia. i also do not come to this question as someone come, unlike some of my colleagues who oppose everything the president proposes. in fact, i have supported president obama 98% of the

time in 20132013 and 14 on key policies ranging from voting for the affordable care act to wall street reform to supporting the president supreme court nominees to defending the actions, shepherding within one week authorization for the use of military force to stop pres. asad's use president asad's use of military weapons when i was chairman of the senate foreign relations committee. my support is not and has not been driven by party loyalty but rather by principled agreement, not political expediency. when i have disagreed made is based upon principled disagreement. the issue before the senate is whether to vote to approve or disapprove the agreement struck by the president and our p5 plus one. this is onethis is one of the most serious national security nuclear nonproliferation arms control issues of our time. it is not an issue of

supporting or opposing the president. it is much greater and greater than that and deserves about. with this agreement i believe we have now abandoned our long-held policy of preventing nuclear proliferation, and proliferation, and we are now embarking on preventing it but on managing or containing it, which leaves us with a far less desirable, less secure command a certain world order. i am deeply concerned that this is a significant shift in our nonproliferation policy and about what it will mean in terms of the potential arms race in an already dangerous region. why does iran, which is the world's fourth-largest proven oil reserves with 157 billion barrels of crude oil in the world's second-largest proven natural gas reserves with 1,193,000,000,000,000 cubic feet of natural gas in nuclear power for domestic energy?