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?

we know that despite the fact iran claims they are nuclear program is for peaceful purposes that they have violated the international will as expressed by various un security council resolutions and by deceit, deception, handily advanced the program to the point of being a threshold nuclear state. it is because of these facts and the fact that the world believes iran was baptizing its nuclear program at the parching military base as well as developing a covert uranium enrichment facility at fort out built deep inside of a mountain, raising serious doubt about the peaceful nature of their civilian program and there sponsorship of state terrorism that the world united against iran nuclear program. in that context let's remind ourselves of the stated purpose of our negotiations with iran. it was to dismantle

significant parts of iran's illicit nuclear infrastructure to ensure that it would not have nuclear weapons capability and anytime. they said we would accommodate the practical national needs but not leave the region and the world facing the threat of a nuclear armed iran at a time and its choosing. in essence, without the agreement would be rolled back for rollback. you roll back your infrastructure, your infrastructure, we roll back our sanctions. at the end of the day but we appear to have what did we get? and alarm bells should they decide to violate their commitments and the system for inspections to verify the compliance. that is a far cry from dismantling. now, well i have many specific concerns about the agreement, my overarching concern is that it requires no dismantling of iran's nuclear infrastructure and

only mothballs the infrastructure for ten years not even one centrifuge will be destroyed. it will be repurposed. the fact is everyone needs to understand what this agreement does and does not do so that they can determine whether providing iran's permanent relief in exchange for short-term promises is a fair trade. this deal does does not require on to distort or fully decommissioned a single uranium enrichment center. in fact, over half of iran's currently operating centrifuges will continue to spend. the. the remainder, including more than 5,000 operating centrifuges in nearly 10,000 not yet functioning will merely be disconnected and transferred to another hall where they could be quickly reinstalled to enrich uranium. yet we, along with our allies, have agreed to lift

the sanctions and billions of dollars to flow back into the iranian economy. we lift sanctions, but during the 1st ten years iran will be allowed to continue r&d activity on a rangea range of centrifuges allowing them to improve their effectiveness of the course of the agreement. clearly the question is, what did we get in terms of what we originally sought? we live sanctions. at year number eight iran can start manufacturing and testing advanced ir six and a centrifuges that enrich up to 15 times the speed of its current models. at year 15 iran can start enriching uranium beyond 3.67%, the level at which we become concerned about this a material. at year 15 iran. at year 15 iran we will have no limits on its uranium stockpile. this dealthis deal grants iran permanent sanctions relief in exchange from the temporary limitations on its nuclear program, not rolling

back or dismantlement, but temporary limitations. at your number ten un security council resolution will disappear along with the dispute resolution mechanism needed to step back un sanctions and the 24 2040 mandatory access provision for suspicious sites in iran. the deal and shrines and in fact commits the international community to assisting iran in developing an industrial scale nuclear program complete with industrial scale enrichment. i understand this program will be subject under the treaty, i think it fails to appreciate iran's history of deception and its nuclear program and its violations of the mbt. it will, in the long run, run,run, if we believe there is a violation, make it much harder to demonstrate that the iranian program is not in fact being used for peaceful purposes because

iran we will have legitimate reasons to have advanced centrifuges and a robust enrichment program. but then have to demonstrate that its intention is to use and not justified by its industrial nuclear power program. then about a year of iran meeting its initial obligations iran will receive sanctions relief to the tune of $100-$150 billion, not just the release of frozen assets that don't amount to anything, but assets that don't amount to anything, but in renewed oil sales of another million barrels a day as well as relief from sectoral sanctions in the petrochemical shipbuilding, shipping, port sectors, gold, and other precious metal software and automotive sectors. iran will benefit from the removal of designated entities, including major banks, shipping companies, oil and gas from the u.s. treasury list of sanction entities. of the nearly 650 entities that have been designated by

the u.s. treasury for their role in the iranian nuclear enrichment programs or for being controlled by the government of iran more than 67 percent will be delisted within six to 12 months. for iran, all this relief comes likely within a year even though its obligations stretch out for a decade or more. considering the fact that it was president ronnie who acted conducting its physical audit after his election likely convince the ayatollah mitterrand's regime could not sustain itself under the sanctions. they knew that only a negotiated agreement would give iran the relief that a critically needed to sustain the regime and the revolution. the negotiating leverage was and still is greatly on our side. however, the jcp away and

paragraph 26 of the sanctions heading of the agreement says the us administration acted consistently with the roles of the present and the congress and will refrain from reintroducing already imposing sanctions specified in annex number two that it had ceased applying under this jcp away. they will have to refrain from reintroducing our free imposing the iran sanctions act that we passed unanimously which expires next year that was critical and bring your onto the table in the 1st place. into hearings i asked the treasury secretary live and undersecretary wendy sherman whether the united states has the right to reauthorize sanctions something the snapback to. neither would answer the question saying it was too early to discuss reauthorization. it is clear and spelt out

that both the european union and the united states will refrain from reintroducing a free imposing the sanctions and restrictive measures listed under the jcp away. it is understood the reintroduction of reimposition including two extension of the sanctions and restrictive measures will constitute significant nonperformance which would relieve iran from its commitments in part or in whole. the administration cannot argue sanction policy both ways. frankly the overall relief being provided given the understanding of restrictions along with the lifting of the arms and missile embargo well before. in compliance over years established leaves us in a

weaker position and to me is unacceptable. if anything is a fantasy that is the belief that snapback without congressionally mandated sanctions with eu sanctions gone and companies around the world doing permissible business won't have any real effect. as the largest a sponsor of terrorism iran who is exporting its revolution to asada in syria, the hootie in yemen, has blah in iran will be flushed with money, not only to invest in domestic economy but to further pursue their destabilizing hegemonic goals in the region. if iran can afford to destabilize the region with an economy staggering under sanctions and rocked by falling oil prices, what will iran and the kids forced to what i have a cash infusion of more than 20% of

their gdp, the equivalent the equivalent of an infusion of 3.4 trillion and our economy? and if there is a fear for in the region it will be one fueled by iran and its proxies and exacerbated by an agreement that allows iran to possess an industrial sized nuclear program and enough money and sanctions relief to significantly continue to fund its hegemonic intentions throughout the region, which brings me to another major concern with the jcp away. namely the issue of iran coming clean about the possible military dimensions of his program. for well over a decade the world has been concerned about the secret weaponization efforts conducted the military base. the goal that we in the international community have long sought is to know what iran accomplished, not necessarily to get them to declare culpability but to determine how far along they were in their nuclear weaponization program

addressing the iaea concerns about the military dimensions of iran's nuclear program is fundamental to any long-term agreement, an agreement that sidesteps the military issue would risk being unverifiable. the reason he says that an agreement that sidesteps the military issues would be unverifiable is because it makes a difference if you are 90 percent on the road in your weaponization efforts for only 10 percent. how far advanced iran's womanizing abilities are has a significant impact i want iran's breakout time to an actual deliverable weapon will be. the list of scientists at p5 plus one want to the iaea to intervene.

afterafter waiting over ten years to inspect they are now given three months to do all of their review and analysis before they deliver a report in december of this year. how the inspections in soil and other samples are to be collected are outlined into secret agreements that the u.s. congress is not privy to. the answer as to why we cannot see the documents is because we have a confidentiality agreement which they say is customary. if this issue is anything but customary in according to a story of august the 14th, and they say the agency will be able to report in december, but that assessment is unlikely to be unequivocal because chances are slim to rommel present all of the evidence the agency wants or give it the freedom of movement needs to follow-up allegations. still, the report is expected to be approved by the iaea board which includes the united states

and other powerful nations that negotiated the july 14 agreement. they do not want to upend there july 14 deal and will see the december report as closing the books on the issue. it would seem to me what we are doing is sweeping this critical issue under the rug a willingness to accept this process is only exacerbated by the inability to achieve any time anywhere inspections which the administration held out as one of the essential elements we would insist on it could rely on. we have a dispute work if a resolution mechanism that shifts the burden of proof to the united states and its partners to provide sensitive intelligence, possibly revealing our sources and methods by which we collected the information and allow the iranians to delay access for nearly a month, one that would allow them to remove evidence of a violation, particularly when

it comes to centrifuge, research, development, and weaponization efforts that could be easily hidden and would leave little or no signature. the administration suggests other than iraq a country was subjected to any time anywhere. but the defiance as recognized does not make it any other country. it is there violations and the security council resolution that created the necessity for a unique regime. the willingness to accept these limitations are dangerous bellwether of our willingness to enforce violations. what president obama said, more relevant fear would be that in your 13,13, 14, 15 advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly with by that time a trunk down to zero it seems to me in essence this does

at best nothing to kick today's problem down the road.road. at the same time undermining the arguments and evidence of suspected violations because of the dual use nature of the program to convince the security council and the international community. it is erroneous to say that this agreement permanently stops around having a nuclear bomb. what the agreement does is to recommit iran, not to pursue a nuclear bomb, promise they have already violated in the past, recommence them to the npt treaty an agreement they've already violated in the past, kw security council resolution outlining their obligations but they have violated those in the past. the suggestions of permanence in this case is only possible for so long as

iran complies and performs according to the agreement because the bottom line is this agreement leaves ron with the core elements of its robust nuclear infrastructure. the fact is, success is not a question of iran's conforming and performing according to the agreement. that was all that was needed we would not be faced with this challenge now. the test of success must be if iran violates the agreement an attempt to break out, how well will be the positions to deal with iran at that point? trying to reassemble the sanctions regime, including the time to give countries and companies notice of sexual activity which have been permissible up until then would take up most of the breakout time assuming we could even get compliance at the significant national and private investment has taken place. that would be a fantasy. ita fantasy. it would likely leave the next president upon iranian decision to breakout one of two choices, except iran is

a nuclear weapon state or take military action. neither is desirable. a more consequential actor in the region and with greater defensive capability like the s 300 missile-defense system be sold to them by russia. the suggestion of permanency and stopping iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon depends upon performance, and based upon the long history of the broken promises that is helpful. significant dismantlement, however, would establish performance up front and therefore the threat of the capability to develop a nuclear weapon would truly be permanent and any attempt to rebuild would give the world far more than one years time. the. the president and secretary carry have repeatedly said the choices between this agreement or war.

testified before the senate foreign relations committee and support the deal. suggest the force. if the p5 had not actually achieved an agreement would we be at work? i don't believe so. i believe we could still get a better deal, and here's, and here south. the can disapprove the agreement without rejecting the entire agreement. we should direct the administration to renegotiate by authorized the continuation of negotiations in the joint plan of action. the lifeline which have accrued benefits to the tune of 10 billion. iran will continue to want such relief as well as avoid a possible military attack so they are incentivized to come back.

we can provide specific parameters for the administration to guide there continued negotiations and ensure a new agreement does not run afoul of congress the immediate gratification by ron of the additional protocol to ensure we have a permanent international agreement with iran for access to suspect sites, a bana ban on centrifuge r&d for the duration of the agreement to ensure iran does not have the capacity to quickly breakout and snapback sanctions. the sole purpose was to harden iran's nuclear program to a military attack we need to close the facility and foreclose the ability to use the facility. they should not need to put a deep under.

the full resolution of the possible military dimensions of the iranian program, an arrangement that is not set to whitewash the issue. they must resolve the issue before permanent sanctions relief in favor of iran. fifth, extend the duration of the agreement. one of the single most concerning elements is the restrictions with offramp starting your eight. we were promised the duration and got less than half what were looking for. six,six, we need agreement now about what penalties will be collectively imposed a clear statement as to the so-called grandfather clause in paragraph 37 of the jcp away to ensure the us position about not shielding contracts entered into legally upon reimposition of sanctions is shared by our ally.

>> we should extend the authorization we should immediately implement the security measures while preserving israel's qualitative military edge. the pres.edge. the president should unequivocally affirm, and congress should formally endorse a declaration of us policy that we will use all means necessary to prevent iran from producing enough enriched uranium for nuclear bomb as well as building or buying one both during and after any agreement. after all, that is what iran is committing to. they should authorize the means for israel to address the iranian threat on the room. we must send a message to iran that neither their regional behavior for nuclear ambitions are permissible. if we push back regionally they will be less likely to test the limits of our

tolerance toward any violation of the nuclear agreement. the agreement that has been reached they'll do it she is the one thing it set out to achieve. fails to stop iran from becoming a nuclear weapon state at a time of its choosing. in fact, it authorizes and supports the very roadmap iran will need to achieve this target. i no that the administration will say that our partners will not follow us. the sanctions regime will collapse and allow iran to proceed as if our allies were not worried about iran crossing the nuclear weapons capability threshold anymore i heard similar arguments from secretary carry when he was chairman, wendy sherman and david cohen and others well is leading the charge to impose new sanctions. did not happen then, and i don't believe it will now. despite what some of our ambassadors of said in trying to rally support for the agreement clearly since they want this deal they will not tell you they are

willing to pursue another deal, echoing the admonition that it is a take it or leave it proposition. our proposition. our partners will still be worried about the iranian nuclear weapon desires and the capability to achieve it, and the us is the indispensable part to ultimately ensure that does not happen. they and the businesses from their countries and elsewhere will truly care more about their ability to do business in the us economy of $17 trillion than an iranian economy of 415 billion, and the importance of that economic relationship is palpable as we negotiate the transatlantic trade nms partnership agreement. and at this juncture it is important to note that over history congress has rejected outright or demanded changes to more than 200 treaties and international agreements, including 80 that were multilateral. whether or notwhether or not the supporters of the

agreement admitted, this deal is based on hope that when the nuclear sunset clause expires iran we will have succumbed to the benefits of commerce and global integration, that the hardliners will have lostthe power and the revolution will end its hegemonic goals , that the regime will allow the iranian people to decide their fate,, unlike the green revolution of 2009. hope is part of human nature , but unfortunately it is not a national security strategy. the iranian regime led by the ayatollah wants above all to preserve the regime and its or pollution, revolution, so it stretches incredulity to believe they sign on to a deal that would in any way we can the regime or threaten the goals. i understand that this deal represents a trade-off, i hope that things may be different in ten to 15 years maybemaybe they will desist from nuclear ambitions, stop exporting and supporting terrorism, stop holding innocent americans hostage, burning american flags, the leadership. chanting death to america in the streets of toronto, or maybe they won't. in many respects it would be

far easier to support this deal, as itdeal, as it would have been to vote for the war in iraq at the time, but i did not choose the easier path then, and i'm not going to now. my devotion to principle they once again leave me to an unpopular cost but if iran is to acquire a nuclear bomb it will not have my name on it. >> mr. pres. >> mr. president. >> the senator from tennessee. >> just inquiring, it is my understanding that the senators are speak now. is that correct? >> there is no order to that effect. >> it is my understanding we have agreed. >> this time is under control of the democratic leader. >> how much time? that is what i was getting at.

>> in response to five. >> the assistant democratic leader. >> to the chair and the senator from tennessee to my it is my understanding we have two five-minute segments. senators warner and coons have each sought five minutes. >> it is my understanding then that we will have that and then move to an alternating session until the time of the vote. >> equally divided time until the vote. after the time allotted for the democratic -- >> ten minutes left on the democratic side. >> that's correct. >> fifteen minutes left. >> fifteen minutes left. >> assistant leader. >> my colleague could proceed. >> the senator from virginia. >> i rise to join my colleagues in speaking on the joint company and supply of action. while this deal is far from perfect, i believe it is the best option available for us right now for preventing

iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. i share concerns that have been expressed by my colleagues, but the choice i openly had to make was between accepting an imperfect deal or facing a serious ramifications throughout the world of congress rejects a deal that has the support of the international community, including many allies. as i as i review this agreement a to fundament of questions in mind, does this agreement advance the goal of keeping a ran free of nuclear weapons? and two, is there a viable alternative that would be superior? as many college performing have outlined, this deal outlines a significant reduction in the iranian fizzle material stockpile reducing the uranium stockpile by 90 percent and restricts iranian production capacity and completely removes their ability to produce weapons grade

plutonium. it further limits the iranian research and development activities. these reductions and restrictions will extend there as breakout time for matter of months to at least one year over the next 15 years. this agreement also establishes a verification regime that includes inspections and with the assistance of our intelligence community verification that goes beyond the four corners of this agreement. what this meanswhat this means is we will have significantly more information about iran's nuclear program with this deal than we would have without it. .. ask is, is there a viable alternative to this deal? and i have given those opponents numerous opportunities to convince me that there was a viable alternative. the conclusion i've reached is there is not. i've been a strong supporter of tough international sanctions to help bring iran to the gorkting

table in the first place. since i've been in the senate, i have supported every important piece of sanctions legislation passed by the congress. but during my deliberations, i've spoken with representatives of many foreign governments, not the e.u. or the p-5 plus 1 entirely but also those nations particularly in asia whether they would be willing to uphold sanctions to pressure iran if we turn this deal down. in virtually every case, the response i got from allies and some adversaries was that if congress were to reject this deal, the vast international sanctions that we have in place would fall apart. and as we saw in the literally dozens of years when it was just the united states, unilateral sanctions alone with not enough. i have determined that moving em isrd with this international

>> >> i know we have other members that what to speak. while i support this deal there are actions they should take to strengthen it to make sure to respond to any activities from the inspection provided to give us better insight there is more that we can do. with the efforts to shore up the points that congress retains ineligibility for nuclear misbehavior i hope the future legislation will

spell out the disagreement will not shield the country's it stations must be reimposed because of violations and also including how it uses the funds received from sanctions relief. moving forward and work with both sides of the aisle to ensure israel's security. and israel preserves a qualitative military edge to strengthen our commitments to support initial efforts from of fancy a nuclear agenda to destabilize the region. to be sure this is the beginning not the end to keep iran free from having a nuclear weapon and.

into thinking for his efforts to spend a great deal of time the last two weeks of august how we could build upon this agreement to receive assurances from the president as reworking on to move beyond those that we can look back to recognize not the issue of peace but security going forward. >> mr. president of with like to thank my colleague from the great state of virginia who have dedicated a great deal of time to reflecting and consulting what is the best path for word? with the minority ranking

member my colleague says iman many whom i have closely consulted just prior to decline that is fraught with challenges that have worked together to address i am eager to do everything we can to deploy the full measure of economic capabilities to insure the security of israel as it is properly and thoroughly implemented. is now scheduled cloture vote at 345 today on historical issues like the nuclear agreement i think the american people deserve to know how individual members will vote as their

representative there have been far too many issues decided by a procedural cloture votes rather they get to the substance of the overlying issues to have incredible issue like this complex deal with a procedural vote so as we proceed to that vote later today that if the cloture vote fails as i believe it will in means we continue the debate next week. making a fair offer to have a single up or down votes to clearly shows the american people to allow was to vote on the substance and i hope the majority leader will reconsider to have the opportunity to have the

upper down throat to know exactly where each stands to insist of the effective deterrents to find a path together to join the international committee. and with that i yield the floor. >> mr. president. i'm here to do speak on the agreement on iran's nuclear program to co-sponsor the bill that gave the opportunity to evaluate the agreement because of that legislation we had an extensive discussion. in 2003 iran operated centrifuges that no enriched uranium.

but over the next few years congress passed tough sanctions with the administration and to its credit to set out and implement its force i helped to write and pass this sanctions and by 2013 with the toughest international sanctions regime that country had 19,000 and 10 balms of enriched uranium. the harsh reality that today it stands on the threshold of a nuclear weapon. it is clear to prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon like the consultation and process. because the agreement is more likely to prevent from acquiring a nuclear weapon and for that reason i will

vote to support the agreement. it is no surprise to meet there are differences of opinion about the merits of this steel. i have deep concerns with the shape of the program book might be on the 15 years but i also believe the implementation of this agreement is of this option if congress rejects this they will receive billions of dollars of sanctions relief with no oversight it is an unacceptable results. said that united states should reject the agreement but this only holds if the international coalition in polls and everything i heard tells me that what happened. although it has flaws it is clearly better than the alternatives to acquire a

nuclear weapon of all the options to day it does not eliminate my deep concerns about the horrific act of terror with the hegemonic pursuits but all acts would only be more dangerous if backed by a nuclear weapon. also with the state of israel money be clear it is essential to the security of the jewish people and as far as i am concerned it is essentials to rule our humanity and for our own security to allow iran to zero have a nuclear weapon and in fact, we will have more credibility and more

the judges see you with an international coalition to respond to iranian she being. there are a successful limitation and now they must work together i already have worked with others in the senate and delacorte virtue work with the chairman and ranking member of the foreign relations committee to do so. my grandparents and my mother had everyone and everything they knew taken from them with the holocaust. they were the lucky ones they had a chance to rebuild their lives in a country that let them succeed the on to anything they had. with a sad day coulisses strategy that addresses the

security concerns in the region it is threatened by a sectarian violence a refugee crisis and axle of barbaric brutality we should seize this opportunity the young men and women who sacrificed so much none of this can doubt they would rise to any challenge anywhere in the world. i believe the owner their courage in a spirit of sacrifice by exhausting diplomatic options. it is not a sign of weakness but of the strength to hp us rallied the allies but ultimately to turn to military action. to prevent iran to make sure israel is safe and a possible for a another war

in the middle eastern represents an important step to accomplish those goals. also how much we appreciate the efforts on this matter. i yield the floor. >> mr. president make no mistake there isn't a single member that would complain about as recently as october october 2012 to begin negotiations with iran. i quote the president our goal is to get iran to recognize it needs to give up the nuclear program to abide by the resolution that is in place. the deal we will except is the end to the nuclear program and is very straightforward. the deal we got is anything

but straightforward ending nuclear program. i have listened to the classified briefings like to request for access to be made is in good faith and kept to the minimum necessary for those responsibilities. just a couple of days ago to save it very well not only will they retain a nuclear capability but a far richer nation one that has more conventional weapons technology this doesn't end the nuclear program. it has a pathway paved to

industrial nuclear complex in iran with the blessings of the community and a flourishing economy, a conventional arms embargo, lifting of ballistic missile embargo embargo, and that is a good deal for us? over the last several days i have heard a colleague after colleagues supporting the deal to say it is flawed flawed, it's not the best and needs improvement. since when does that option become the only option in the united states senate? since when did second, a third or fourth or fifth best become a the best for this country? several months ago and had the opportunity to visit with prime minister netanyahu said tripwire that

will be set up because this does not end the nuclear program. we have given up the golden nuggets of leverage sanctions that are beginning to work and the briefings that we all attended where analysts have said our sanctions are for the support daily bringing them to the table and the deal that we have allows continued uranium enrichment to remove it from their agenda and that is the benefit of the bargain that u.s. is about to enter into. we were talking the last several days of status quo of the hypothetical. a status quo that in five years allows conventional arms to resume that will

allow ballistic missiles to resume and centrifuge research to continue and how it could replace with the radio isotope purposes. why do they need ballistic miss alzheimer's for radiation treatment we d-listed numerous individuals conglomerates of companies are under this deal the company that distinction not because of nuclear arms that

conglomerate is the sanction and. but as we have heard today or the day before and that is why we have to enter into this deal we have a snap back provisions. one of the things that hasn't been talked about the last several weeks is the letters secretary carey sent to every senator the same day a neff votes were achieved to block or sustain the president's filibuster. in the first paragraph of the letter that everybody recognizes. we share the concern

expressed by many in it is propping up the as side regime -- to a nine regime and in the very next sentence to say we have no illusion that will change of the joint agreement. we have no illusion that iran's behavior will change. that is the status quo. the letter goes on to detail after it is entered into. focusing on counterterrorism the goal to build political support so we will enter some deals but this is in

the years but the conventional arms embargo lifted in five years and we will work on missile technology with the guidelines of sensitive systems like missile technology yet this deal allows ballistic missiles in eight years. u.s. support for israel and gulf partners as never been an issue and we believe these proposals would receive bipartisan support. this is a partisan deal with bipartisan opposition and i would submit the only element of bipartisanship on the senate floor today is the opposition. i urge my colleagues to vote to invoke to -- invoke

cloture united states people deserve to know where their member stands with united states. i yield back. >> mr. president i rise today to speak of the plan of action an agreement i ask unanimous consent that the entire statement be included in the record. i want to comment has been moved forward i deeply regret the proposal offered by the democratic leader was rejected so that every senator could vote that

could be so determined but would be called the record touche show where reach a deposition and now that we are so entangled and parliamentary maneuvering really using site how we should proceed with government. enough about procedure and process. this boat is the most serious that i have taken any number of years because it would be irrevocable. with enduring consequences always my questions have then how does it deal with the safety and security of the united states with the viability of the state of israel all the time i have

been and waving supporter of israel with those sanctions have brought iran to the table and have been insisting and persistent of military assistance to israel to maintain that military edge on missile defense with the horrors of thou holocaust in mind i am deeply committed for a jewish homeland for the state of israel that has the inherent ability to defend itself that israel can always count on the united states of america as the unwavering partner in its defense i have always been and will always be to those principles but this deal does block before pathways

to bring nuclear bomb. it does create the extensive verification system ever produced by a the iaea iran would be the most heavily inspected nuclear state that has existed in the history of the iaea. the conditions for lifting of the sanctions are strict and verifiable then i believe the snapback could work so looking at all alternatives i would declare i would support the agreement let me tell you how i get there. looking at every aspect i

actually read the classified and unclassified every single page the neck with u.s. diplomats national security staff i met with constituents on both sides and went to every classified and unclassified briefing and actually to vienna and spent a great deal of time with their integrity and independence i did my homework to ask the tough questions doesn't have a nuclear bomb? yes i believe it does there are no -- no shortcuts in blocks iran's ability to have weapons-grade plutonium

the reactor will be redesigned it drastically cuts in radian enrichment capabilities and third equally as important for what it takes to build a nuclear bomb the iranian supply chain and it does it 25 years and reduces the iranian stockpile below the levels to make a bomb. is it verifiable to detect and over and over violation?

yes, i believe it does. and has extensive access to declared nuclear sites with the detection of a covert program more likely with direct access to conduct inspections on short notice. does the iaea and have capacity and capability and integrity to do this? talking to those in the nuclear field i would say yes. i believe it has sufficient expertise to implement the deal but i also must caution my colleagues for the iaea to do its job we will need to monitor the resources of the agency to not engage in

bin shenanigans to defund the iaea to derail the deal. if you don't like it then vote today. so what sanctions would be lifted and under what conditions? under the agreement sanctions would be suspended everybody has to understand this. they will be suspended and terminated. iran has to take certain steps with the iranian end enrichment program. after iaea completes the assessment will it be possible to suspend

sanctions. to do i think snapback will work? they share a common interest i believe they would support a setback if they were identified and verified but that mechanism is not tested that takes into the alternative it is a magnificent deal? not so sure but what are the alternatives? that they are extremely limited with limited efficacy the two alternatives that some have suggested if we reject the deal to impose unilateral sanctions to force iran back

to the table i think it is unclear with either russia or china or others to continue sanctions then they will work for the same reason that there is the possibility of military action that should be on the table as an option. absolutely to take steps against iran would only set the program back three years and would not terminate the iranian nuclear effort we have to realize where it is iran now? we are blocking their pathway to a bomb. but that is the best option available and for this i will support the deal with my vote.

>> please advise both sides of time remaining. >> republicans of 11 minutes 20 seconds. >> mr. president over the past five months we have learned much about the joint comprehensive plan of action that terrorist to have killed americans will be relieved of international sanctions and those deals that we have yet to use a major thrust the iranian regime to trust their own samples of the most secret facilities allowing iran instead of on independent inspections we know the

right to enrich at all will trigger an arms race in the middle east just this week the ambassador told the chairman that if this deal goes through they may no longer abide to begin the enrichment program and other countries may follow suit renos the ayatollah fresh from the negotiating table with a chance of death to america to issue threats to our president and our people and get me know the deal will expire unleashing a nuclear capable iran on the world free of international sanctions without the restraints of american diplomacy as it is cultivated over the past decade but in the end our

vote will not turn on any particulars alternately this though it is not about the centrifuge numbers or in richmond levels or the scope of sanctions relief. it is about history and responsibility of the senate where we won the course of history for children and grandchildren after all the iranians chant death to america not democrats or republicans or our president but america. they label america once again so is but a towering and in the bullhorn regime we're seizing the moment to change history to have this deal approved in a few years they could test a nuclear device as number three it

did after our similar agreement then to announce its status in a nuclear race we have tried so hard to prevent this if iran goes nuclear the road and not remember the beliefs about the flawed sonorities mechanisms and it will not remember soft rationalization -- rationalization that it is worth nothing but there will be remembered your vote that if you open and a gate to the nuclear weapon that you flipped a strategic balance of the middle east and it will remember you as when given the chance to obtain the worst weapon to be

confronted with this evil with the terrifying process -- prospect and our partners and training hamas to do its bidding who sadly killed or maimed and to have of unrest through the middle east to create a crisis that has engulfed the entire region. it has done all this without nuclear weapons and should be allowed to conduct research and development? the ayatollah will go more brazen and insulated and upon expiration of the deal

the strategy of terror and intimidation will become nuclearized. that is the world we may face in a few short years because of your votes and the threat we confront the huge store your blessing on the anti-israel regime. so we should recognize the context of the vote that it comes to a close to the context is the broad sweep of history and winston churchill spoke those of soothing expedients of delays coming to a close for entering a period of consequences there were as

true today as they were then as a period of consequences and those may well be nuclear and god help us all if they are. >> i am pleased surely we have a chance to vote viper is on the final passage of the resolution but i regret to that was not agreed to. i will vote will i think is in the best interest of our country to keep iran becoming a nuclear weapon states the best chance to avoid a military option and i have indicated i oppose the agreement by one to talk about what happens in the

never takes place next week and at that time i hope everyone recognizes that it is important to point to division aside. to avoid have been 14 years ago with a vote for a rack i voted against that resolution am proponents terrain together to support the troops under the leadership of president bush to give america the best chance for foreign policy to succeed. win the votes are over i hope democrats and republicans will work out congressional involvement working with the president to give the best opportunity to prevent them from becoming a nuclear weapons state that gives the least

risk of the military option. they allied that very clearly we must have that option and to have federal consequences i hope they can work together because that is in the best interest of the united states senate i look forward to working with senator corker in the united states senate to see how congress can work together with our president so we can achieve that goal. i yield the floor. >> the senator from florida. >> will be brief i know the senator replied to close for carrying that has been said has already been said i do want to be recorded for

history purposes that i know what will happen. iran will immediately use the money it receives to build up capabilities and establish the most dominant military power in the region besides the united states and raise the price of as operating there. rockets to destroy aircraft carriers and ships and continued to build with the of those unable to swore to make a harder for troops to be in the region and work with other terrorist groups and they may or may not deny they are involved to raise the price of the presence there also continue to build long-range missiles and will continue to build them as they have been doing and to

then they will build a nuclear weapon and do so because at that point they have become an you know, because the price of doing so will be too high it is not just the work of imagination but called north korea with a long-range rocket and we cannot do anything about a is an attack on hawaii oregon or california so we must live with a lunatic imposition of a nuclear weapon in this is the goal iran has as well to reach the point they are immune to any threat because the price of a strike is to hide it may become the power never in the history of the world has such a regime ever possessed weapons so capable of destruction led by a

supreme leader who is a cleric not a geopolitical actor because of ambition to have a religious vision of the future that calls for trade delaying -- triggering a conflict between the muslim world he feels especially obligated to trigger to possess nuclear weapons? this is the overt -- the world beyond the verge to leave our children per cry want to be recorded for history to say those that oppose this deal understand we're making a terrible mistake and i fear the passage will make it even harder to prevent and i hope there is still time to change our mind but iran may have a supreme leader but ameritech does not have a republican soon we will have

new leaders in the executive branch i pray on there first day they will reimpose the sanctions to back them up with military force or history will condemn us for not doing what needs to be done. i yield the floor. >> lot has been said about the impact of this agreement like to speak that there was no agreement would if they had their way and the agreement goes away? iran is still a nuclear threshold state if you stop the agreement the results literally will be leaving iran a capacity to build 10 nuclear weapons today and the timing before they have a fissile material that is

hardly a surprise if we walk away from this agreement for inspection to develop a nuclear weapon that is the reality. if they had their ways how could that possibly make the middle east safer for israel? how couldn't make it safer if we as a coalition who have worked so hard fail? but what i have listened for is any suggestion from the other side of the aisle as what is the alternative? some are bold enough to say it is military but one senator said for days is all we need to take them out. i have heard that before before the invasion and of iraq as we were greeted as

liberators before the troops come home and it did not turn up that way. what we're trying to do to avoid the military option and avoid the war that is why i am supporting it because i think it is the right thing to do. i am sorry the vote is procedural and twice senator reid has asked to have a straight up and down clean vote but twice he has objected but insisting on a procedural vote. we know where everyone stands everyone has publicly declared where we stand and that should be the role call that we take next but unfortunately we are purves -- for six weeks i have contacted them asking them what they will do for this

important question and any wine critical of the senate to believe it is too superficial i will tell you they took their time and read the agreements every fact and they made up their mind to announce their position publicly it was a proud moment because that is what we all believe to be our responsibility as we close this debate i ask those of they support the agreement to vote no. i yield the floor. >> mr. president before a may closing comments i will read ask consent before the cloture call. >> so ordered. >> to want to begin by faking the vast majority of this body the fourth time

since 2010 members of the body almost unanimously passed sanctions have brought iran to the table of both sides of the aisle and i want to thank people for that. ability thank this body that when we realize the president would negotiate with the iran and do so through a non-binding political commitment to take this agreement to the u.n. security council would not cause it to ba treaty put in an agreement he could execute because of the fact we brought iran to the table , we rise up that allowed us to go through that process i want to thank senator carted who is an outstanding member and

senator menendez before him who was a chairman and ranking member. what this agreement said we would do is debates and i want to stop their people bull's-eyes of the ideal handle themselves and i am proud of that. to lead all the people know where we stood. we have a bipartisan majority that disapproves this deal the most substantial on the democratic side oppose the deal we do we do this under regular order and what that means there is a procedural vote with the senate decides the debate has ended and

we're at that juncture but on a 98 / one now we're allowed to vote yes with a majority basis where we stand on this issue the dealer has then initiated is not in the national interest of this country that all of them will have that opportunity to proceed on a final vote within the next few days with that i yield the floor.

>> with the role that medicine is the most famous case it existed as on land was slavery.

>> to take presidential orders with troops and marshall's and the courage of children and. >> we wanted to pick cases that will change the direction. >> associates told them they have to have a search which they refuse to do than there after the police officer handcuffed her. >> i cannot imagine a better way to tell human stories

with the first in german and japanese americans during world war ii per rafter convicted for failing to report he took his case all the way to the supreme court >> it is quite unpopular. >> if you had to pick one freedom that is most essential to the functioning of a democracy it has to be freedom of speech go through cases that illustrate dramatically when a means to live in a society of 310 million people to stick together

>> [inaudible conversations] >> banks for coming we have debbie wasserman shows her last visit was made 2014 and

we thank her for coming back. >> she grew up in van queens we will amend the for the next time. she attended the university of florida. to of a master's degree of political science to become the youngest woman elected and once told them he she never wanted to do anything other than be a member of the legislative body. and with the leadership roles as said chief deputy whip interim policy committee share of said

pnc's since may 2011. with a biographical portion of the program has always year on the record please space save paula deen are flying while the breakfast is under way to give us time to listen there is no embargo when the session and. we will either kill several pictures as soon as the breakfast is over and please send me a signal if you like to ask a question. then we will move to questions around the table. >> i was the floor of leader i've always wanted to be a veterinarian and talent to college that i decided to

get into politics. so i digress also thank you for your new standing the few months ago with of morning of the shooting and so it was not a day for politics so thank you for allowing us to reschedule. it is most important because i am a member of congress for it the intent being votes i have gone through the most exhausting to the

british of process i have ever gone through rights 23 years san congress to reached the conclusion that said deal was worth the of my support to be the most consequential in the most difficult decision i have ever made i wrote a lengthy op-ed published on sunday in outlining the process going through that concerns to help my constituents understand and one that is designed for meet tuesday escher to get a nuclear weapon and i concluded that the best way to do that is

moving forward and i had many conversations one on one with secretary secretary moniz and many intelligence briefings and in the economics field with academics with my constituents and ultimately there are concerns that we still have. to have the most intrusive monitoring and inspection and process to ensure that iran is years into the future their weapons ambitions is pushed back years into the future to

reassure they get the relief when it is a shared it has been certified by the budget iaea to make sure we can closely monitor they have complied. also to reach her that they focus to stop the terrorists ambitions in the world could stop the ambitions. i'm sure we will talk more about things politically oriented but it is so multifaceted it is hard to get everything. but to return to a couple of

other things, i am sure because it continues to be one of the most interesting things with the fact to continue but i do want to focus on the candidate on the other side of the aisle which is jeb bush because to focus like he did when he was governor to cut taxes for the wealthy and most fortunate. and when it comes to structuring that people can reach the of to let them eat

cake focusing on the trickle-down economics and while jab was governor this is exactly the tax plan day muscled through with the undying devotion to do his bidding and because florida ended up suffering in the great recession among the most to have the most reaction, i his / standard tax policy to take the taxes down make it much more difficult for florida to climb back out to operate without a net.

although we do tenuous situation and then that became reality. and other things he has ben fact check dash and called out when he was governor of florida that was not true. and to decide to highlight touche show that also what has been clear as we criticize most of the jobs that immediate the evaporated as soon as the economy turned down. with good paying jobs with

the of balance of the working life can jab bush's only focused on the wealthy and most fortunate population in our country and in our state has an interest to help people reach the middle class. and there is the provision in the tax plan and that is another example particular the with housing and florida that is a huge part of our economy. to have the opportunity to get a roof over their head and then jack of bush's plan does nothing so to touch on the debate to attend the

debate it is an important to you draw a contrast to of the cornerstones of affordable health care that everyone wants to repeal to make sure if you work hard am played by the rules you can have an opportunity to succeed to have a roof over your head with the good job that pays a living wage and equal pay for equal work and the republicans led to horrendous damage to make it harder not easier to reach the middle-class. looking forward to the debate that there is a lot of enthusiasm about so we will have the first one on october 13 posted by cnn and

i think that will be m. moss biggest at the al with hotel and i look forward to your questions. >> we will pick up with your debates. there are a number of candidates that have not been happy with the debate schedule and i am wondering if you are considering if you plan to add additional debates? you said you're willing to consider but where does that stand? >> we do have some much enthusiasm in the up it dnc sanction to debates there also a number of other forums we had about one dozen as the candidates already could participate by various groups there are at least half a dozen more than our schedules or pending and

there are many venues and opportunities for candidates to interact in we expect there will have an opportunity to participate in many different ways and especially to put a premium on the retail nature to have a chance to kick the tires to make sure they have the time to engage is incredibly important so we will have the debate schedule and may encourage other organizations as all the schedules authority airing september 19 on their convention the florida democratic party has a convention later in the year we have a women's leadership forum that is in october. there are many opportunities

where we are enthusiastic about it. to handle the fight to the nuclear deal? >> i am the first jewish woman to represent congress and i a.m. confident with that intricate inter twined relationship that yes this

is a difficult place by i.m. confident the ties that bind us are so strong is that we will get through this matter who the leadership is they are committed to maintain that it continues forever and ever. >> how bad of a price will you pay? i have a longstanding belief he get the feedback to give them the respect it deserves in then they weigh in on the job and i am not afraid to go through that process.

but to run for reelection. >> now we get to alex. >>. >> i assure you looked very closely. with the up close to the you

with the herb broader review to make sure we are successful modeling with the presidential cycle we have won five of the last six elections and they do include 2,000 and have gotten the confidence of america's voters. we have gone to the appointment of the task force that i appointed to do a thorough review it is wrapping up to now to issue that implementation report as we move forward to look

to those things they identified to raise the floor on the professionalism you want to consistency -- consistently relied the campaign will feel like with a completely separate operation where they are able to sink with the campaign to be effective. also to take is a good hard look at their ability they have not had trouble raising money so resources are less

of a problem it is less of a dynamic to factor in the dark many and super pacs that in spite of the fact despite gaining support from voters to run raise the republican opponent still is drowned in the super pac many that we believe changing that concept to more transparent is more important creditor messaging and candidate recruitment to focus on there is of more organized field awhirl to reaches and a retail way and i will say from their perspective working very closely with the other committees we owned a the obama e-mail list with the

day then transferred at the end of 2013 we have developed tools that we are sharing to do take the tools the ground so those of the kinds of things they're looking for to pack up seats that us democratic nominee. that is the long answer. >> why is senator sanders doing so well? there has been analysis written for the consternation can you

address those points? >> want to be careful because i am the chair and i have to function neutrally and i try to read here to that commitment so it is not that appropriate for me to comment specifically why one candidate would be doing better than another but i will say that the crowd he is attracting is one example of the importance that voters place on a message that says there want to make sure as president that you have an opportunity to succeed with a decent wage of equal pay to make sure you have access to quality affordable health care, a message that resonates and dirty sanders is to mean a

great job in so many different venues obviously he has been reaching people and a special way and touching people and we think it is fantastic for the nominee whoever it is. >>. >> i presume those that disagree with that position so the possibility of a 15th of a potential threat and also about the process the reverse is taking this on privately? >> as you saw, we have a variety of opinions across

our party about the approach how this presidential campaign should unfold and that is the duty of our party that we embrace a wide variety of opinions. as they went through the process i will tell you this from personal experience to the last cycles to take a look at the precedent set from other national party chairs, six debates is the was sanctioned in the previous cycle with the primary without the incumbent president in 2004 and 2008 we had six sanctioned debates and one thing with previous party chairs we consulted that it was very important for the national party that we make sure that we not let the

debate process get out of control and in 2008 there were 26 essentially and i don't think that 26 debates was helpful. it was important for the candidates. it is labor-intensive to prepare. a responsible candidate you have to devote time and staff and resources to be prepared. so because of the window with the early primary states that have that for much of campaigning that is also labor-intensive it is important to make sure that they have a schedule that allows them to engage in the process. so like the republicans have done, they also have a sanctioned debate process

with the a exclusivity rule and we have the same one that both parties leadership believe it was important, while we were trying to manage neutrally and effectively the nominating context and this is the decision that i reached absolutely i consulting communicated with many people including our offices and decided that this was the best way to approach it. coupled with the many other opportunities like candidate forums and other venues they will have an opportunity to reach the voters. >> i don't think a candidate is opposed to that is there any flexibility to change

that? or what is there a threat hands and they're not sanctioned? >> we're really glad our candidates are enthusiastic about the debates of real looking forward to them participating. they will have other opportunities and we encourage other organizations to host forums to give people an opportunity to look at our candidates and hear from them but our process it will be a sixth sanction and a debate process the candidates will be limited to fit in those debates and will have other opportunities and other forms. >> the republican national

committee has out raised by 20 million so far this cycle. can you talk about the disparity? what is the cause so substantially into is that something you are concerned about? they talk about the early ground game for the minority of reach will that be a disadvantage heading into 2016 with a fund-raising event hitch? >> i am confident we will have the resources we need for our candidates and we're on track to make sure that is the case. i don't measure our progress by comparing what we raised to the rnc. as you can imagine and. they have a different message and type the fund-raising. they are quite reliant on the extremely wealthy, this super pac oriented voters.

much of their focus is on the high end but ours are much lower grass roots. we have an average come i cannot quote it to you now i am confident we will have the resources that we need and that is also important. i have a party i have to read while managing the primary process i also get the party ready to support the nominee. for example, to reject joint fund-raising agreement year in the process of negotiating a similar agreement with the verdi sanders campaign am looking forward to that with our other candidates to bring resources to the party and in addition we just said deal bomb but e-mail list

transfer to our ownership you know, the research says that it generates and we have access the knowledge before now we control the use so i am not of all concerned. looking back over the previous cycle there were a number of months we beat the republicans but that is not how we measure our success. >> we are clear that decision is finally will not revisit the number of six. and wherry has declared his candidacy is he a major democratic party candidate there should be included? >> the threshold reestablished is six weeks before a debate you have to

achieve 1% in the polls and three national polls said he is not at that threshold so i don't suspect he can participate in the debate. >> you were accused of rigging the primary process you say you tried to remain neutral so what is your respon to governor o'malley? >> a couple of days ago the drug report suggested i obviously delayed the debates from the october because of joe biden and. [laughter] every day somebody will say something about my intentions. i have a party to run to several cc make sure we are getting ready to make sure the party is prepared to support our nominee and manage a neutral nominating

context that i will do. i make decisions that will make some people happy or some people not happy but i have to do what is best for the election. >> so what about that charge ? >> i want to -- [inaudible] the surprise to doing so well and would you attribute to? >> i think his extremas some is basically a holding up a meager to the republican party of today and reflecting for all the world and the countries to see whether a republican party

is today he started his campaign by accusing mexicans to be rapist. not only has he not been damaged by the insults he has hurled and the people he has offended but the rest of the republican field has rushed to agree with him to outdo him and jeb bush used day vulgar term that trump had previously used about immigrants. and to follow-up on "the donald" trump misogynist it, it's about women, and jeb bush suggested we should spend less on women's health care and we should defund planned parenthood. he has doubled down repeatedly because he sees the republican party voter

is standing by the right wing extremist and all of them who started out pushing through comprehensive immigration reform bill and the senate then could not run away fast enough. the teapartier base that will give me the nomination nomination, they don't like this. so that showed what a check in marco rubio is sandblasting voters will want to do is select a chicken who will wait to see which way a blows the last time i checked the president has a high-pressure job and cannot turn tail with tough decisions. >> he is that 32 percent today it is not for me to

comment if they could win the nomination but he appears to have some sustained support and has built on that to be more and more extreme. so no major rethink it doesn't have been the end point very soon but it is continuing, instead of the republicans calling him out and having the nerf and the courage to call him on some other horrendous things he says but they raise their hand to say meet to. that is a stark contrast from our candidates who are focused on helping to reach the middle class and we cannot repeal the affordable care act but major people have access not turn medicare into a voucher

system. imagine the former governor of florida to say we should phase out medicare. but ours are talking about the issues that matter to people so they can have confidence in their future. >> what did you think is a difference between a democrat and a socialist? >> i will give you the same answer that the important distinction for this campaign is the difference between republicans and democrats. that they will take the good hard look at. on a matter which candidate you talk about they talk about bread-and-butter middle-class issues that appeal to make sure they

build the corner store and - - the cornerstones with the affordable health care to have a good job that pays a living wage. although the republicans to try to outdo each other and belief to go back to the same policies that goddess into the worst economic crisis in the first place and obama his leadership has helped us to climb mount and with another seven year low of the. that contrast is what is important and what i will continue to talk about. that distinction is to talk about in the presidential campaign is a line drawn between democrats and republicans. >> how much damage do think

hillary clinton and e-mail scandal is to the democratic party? >> i think secretary clinton's campaign martin o'malley, lincoln chafee, bernie sanders is focusing on issues that matter and that is what is reflected in and polling after poll and i have said that many times there is not the presidential election cycle that i have overseen. . .