the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. mcconnell: mr. president, the issue before us is of immense importance to our nation. the american people are to have this. until recently this was a principle of both parties seemed to endorse rather overwhelmingly. in fact, not a single democrat, not one, mr. president, not a single democrat voted against the iran nuclear agreement review act. we all recall it passed 98-1. they told us this was an issue too important for political

games. here's what one democratic colleague said just last week. as a caucus that was opposed to games and filibusters over the last four years, i would think it would be really regrettable if we didn't ultimately go to the floor and cast our votes for or against this deal. that was last week, apparently. democratic senators just voted to filibuster and block the american people from even having a real vote on one of the most consequential foreign policy issues of our time. it's telling, it's telling, that democrats would go to such extreme lengths to prevent president obama from having to consider legislation on this issue. the president so proud of this

deal? then he shouldn't be afraid. shouldn't be afraid. we all know the amount of time the administration spent up here asking all these guys over here to take a bullet for the team. and, of course, the team is team obama. they all wanted the to have a say. and when it came time to have a say, they said it was more important that the president not have to veto the resolution of disapproval. more important to him than to them. this is a deal which is designed to go around congress and the american people from the very start. we all remember the president didn't want to submit it to us at all. this was going to be an executive agreement, is still an executive agreement, didn't want us to have any say at all. senator corker and senator karen , cardin worked together,

an proposal overwhelmingly proposed and supported to give us a chance to weigh in on this important deal. it would empower iran to maintain thousands of centrifuges and become a recognized nuclear threshold state forever on the edge of developing a nuclear weapon. that's what's before us. that's what's before us. it would effectively subsidize hamas and the regime by the way which is now going to include russian military base in syria, by showering tens of billions of dollars on their benefactors in tehran. to leave iran with enrichment capability just as the, calls for israel's destruction and pray every day for our destruction. this deal is sure to have many consequences that will last well

beyond this administration. and yet as things presently stand, it would limp along with little or no input from congress or from the american people. who, by the way, we know overwhelmingly oppose the deal in spite of the president's best effort to sell it to them. this shouldn't be an acceptable outcome for our friends on the other side, even those who support the deal. i predicted early and predicted earlier today we'll have a raft of new bash-iran proposals introduced by friends on the other side. who are going to be born again iran bashers. so let me make it clear to all my colleagues, we have voted, we're going to vet again but we are voting on this iran nuclear

agreement review act. we're not going to be taking up bills that have fewer than a -- cosponsors to override a presidential veto. if you want to make a law, like we did with the corker-cardin, show us enough cosponsors to make a law. but we're not interested in using floor time forget well efforts over on the other side to try to fool the constituents into thinking, oh, i really, really was serious about iran in spite of the fact that i voted for the deal that you hate. we've only got so much floor time here in the senate. we're going to try to use it on

serious proposals that have a chance 0 of becoming law. now my assumption is the president is not going to want to revisit this issue. he got what he wanted. he's not going to want to revisit this issue. so if we want to do anything further about this iranian regime, bring me a bill with enough cosponsors to override a presidential veto and we'll take a look at it. otherwise, the american people will give us their judgment about the appropriateness of this measure a year from november. because this is not an ordinary issue. this is an issue with a real shelf life. this is a regime that's still going to be there a year and a half from now.

and, of course, we know it's an executive order only. so if perchance there is a president of a different party, i would say to my iranian observers of the debate that it will be looked at anew baseed upon iranian behavior between now and then. as others have said, the iranian parliament apparently is going to get to weigh in. i heard the chairman of the foreign relations committee say that. i guess they're going to get a vote. but our friends here on the other side want to employ a procedural device which is the democratic leader's pointed out is commonly used around here but the question is on 0 not what kind of measure is it used. this is no ordinary measure. this is different. this is different.

so we'll have another opportunity to see whether we want to move past this procedural device. the president's proud of the deal. i don't know why he would be reluctant to veto a resolution of disapproval that's put on his desk. he's having press conferences about it. he's bragging about it. he thinks it's great. i don't know what they're protecting him from. i think he'd have a veto ceremony and invite all you guys down there to join him and celebrate. what are you protecting him from? we'll have a chance next week, one more chance to allow him to say how he feels about the resolution of disapproval. we know how he feels about it already. for the life of me, i can't get why he is reluctant to veto this

resolution of disapproval, in effect underscoring again what a great deal he thinks it is for america. so we'll revisit the issue next week and see if maybe any folks want to change their minds and give us a chance to remove the procedural roadblock and give the president what he's been asking for. give him what he's been asking for. i yield the floor. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: i want to be as respectful of my friend as i need to be. but let's speak reality. we are in a congress that is dominated by the republicans. they control the house by a large margin, they control the senate by a large margin. the legislation that is before

this body was proposed and legislated and brought to us by a republican leadership. it's their legislation, not ours. i've -- i've -- didn't spend all my time in my office visiting people. i watched the speeches. and it was stunning the nonreality that's facing my republican friends. they dwelled a number of them on what's going on in the middle east. not once, not once did anyone ever mention the worst foreign policy decision ever made by our great country, the invasion of iraq. invasion of iraq. it destabilized that part of the world for a long, long time to come, for what? so my friends can blame all the problems in the middle east on the president but they're

blaming the wrong person. we can't take what we have because they want to rewrite history. history isn't -- people write history as it is. part of the history that is -- they're trying to rewrite is the history that's taken place in this body. we offered on two separate occasions publicly before the american people and in this body, you want a vote, we'll let you have a vote. it was both times objected to because in the convoluteed reasoning i guess of my friend, he thinks that people were watching this have no common sense, can't understand the english language. we offered to have a vote on this on two separate occasions. it was objected to both times.

now this is the inane response is you're filibustering us. i know a lot about filibusters because we've had to file cloture more than 600 times because of filibusters by the republicans. never in the history of the country has there been anything close to that. now, what were most of those on? on motions to proceed. on this legislation that came behalf this body we said we don't need a vote on a motion to proceed. go to the bill. go to it. we also said as part of the agreement, let the leader offer the first amendment. and he did that. now, 60-vote threshold. my friend talks as if, oh, wow, where in the world did this come from?

why would they ever consider 60 votes on this? well, mr. president, first of all, i know it's late in the day, i didn't bring the subject up, but my friend, the republican leader is talking about a world that doesn't exist anymore. and who created this world that doesn't exist anymore? my republican friends. july 30, 2011, from senator mcconnell, now look, we know controversial matters in the senate has been for quite some time requires 60 votes. so i'd say again to my friend -- that's me -- pretty hard to make a credible case anything other than a filibuster. a while later, quote -- "i wish to make clear to the american people that the republicans are willing to vote on a proposal within 30 minutes, an hour, as soon as we can get our colleagues to floor. require 60 votes on a matter of

enormous importance, it's not at all unusual, it's the way the senate operates" -- close quote. another one, a few months later, mr. president, i can only quote my good friend -- that's me -- who repeatedly said in 2011 the senate has always been in need for 60 votes. this is my good friend the majority leader when he was the leader in july of 2007 and said repeatedly when he was the minority as leader and the majority as leader that requires 60 votes for matters that are controversial. there is no question, the measure before this body using the words of my friend the republican leader is something that is important. something important. and there is no question this measure has been controversial. it is also, as he -- i am using his word words -- is this legisn of enormous importance? i think so. at least in my mind.

a little while later -- so who gets to decide, my friend says? who's wasting time? none of us. none of us have had authority to decide who's wasting time. if you get 60 votes at some point and you move the matter, the best way is to have an open amendment process. that's the way it place used to operate. that's an editorial comment. two or three months later -- madam president, reserving the right to object, what we're talking about is a perpetual grant proceeding. i'd ask my friend, the majority leader, if he would modify his unanimous consent request, set the threshold for the vote at 60. "as we all know, it takes 60 votes to do everything except the budget process, we anticipate having a vote to proceed to the bill sometime before the end of the year as

well." that was just early part of august this year. so, mr. president, my friend is in dire straits. and i understand that. the house is in a terrible state of disaray. they don't know what they're going to do. they -- on the one hand, what they say they are are going to, the president -- can't send the papers to them, so they voants have a vote on that. en this they turn around and have a vote on the resolution of disapproval. i guess they don't need the papers for that. then they're going to vote on more sanctions. and then they don't know what they're going to do. it is very unusual when the -- when one party controls both branches of the bicameral legislature if they don't kind of work together. but obviously there's no working together here. so i understand my friend's frustration. this is the situation where he's lost the vote. and it's a situation,

mr. president, where he is simply not in touch with reality as it exists. so i want to say to everyone within the sound of my voice, the senate has spoken and has spoken with a clarion voice. that's what this agreement is all about. it is about whether or not iran should have a nuclear weapon and the countries that you wouldn't think would be involved in appellate courting something like this, but they know the importance of it themselves. they agreed to go alopping with this agreement. they helped us negotiate it. china, russia, they agreed to t the senate has spoken with a clarion voice and declared that this historic agreement to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon will stand. so, i say to my fellow americans

-- and i say that with all respect for everybody that's out there listening or reading about this -- our allies, negotiating partners should know that today's outcome is clear, decisive and final. there's now no doubt whatsoever that the united states congress will allow this historic agreement to proceed. efforts by opponents to derail this agreement were soundly rejected by a margin much larger than anyone thought achievable even a few days ago. any future attempts, as my friend is talking about, to relitigate this issue, as i guess we're going to be in a position with the affordable care act, going to try to repeal it 60 times? going to try to break that record? any future attempts to relitigate that issue is -- in the senate will meet the same outcome. it will be nothing more than wasteful time, time we can't

afford to waste. a shutdown looming in a matter of weeks. more disaray from my friends, the republicans. government was closed two years ago for almost three weeks. so we take those threats seriously. and i would hope that we could get around doing something about that rather than having wasted cloture motion on something that we agreed to have a vote. cloture is an effort to -- a filibuster is an effort to stop debate. we have said when i came in here tuesday -- tuesday, wednesday, thursday, you want more time than that to debate, go ahead and do it. we're not in any way stopping debate, as was done by my republican colleagues hundreds of times in years past. so this can be relitigated. let's do it over 60 times to try to break the affordable care act record, if you choose. but this matter is over with.

it's something of so much importance that we should move on to something else. we have so much to do in this body, so much to do. we have our highway situation that is deteriorating. we have hundreds of thousands of bridges that are in a state of disrepair that need refurbishing, some of them need to be replaced. our highway system -- we met today with the regional highway transportation system, someone that represents 80% of the population in our state, and we're in desperate shape all over nevada for doing something about highways. but we're not doing anything about highways. we're fiddling around on that, patching stuff, we got something done -- i was happy to get that done. we have cybersecurity. as we're here talking right now in this body, we have groups, individuals, and countries that are trying to hack us -- and not

trying, they're doing it. we have not had the ability to get cybersecurity legislation before this body. something we did, it was brought up -- it is an afterthought. we have senator burr, senator feinstein -- the bill that they produced is not nigh faimplets i think we could do better than that. but i support their legislation. we've got to do something. let's start someplace, doing something that's important for the american people. so i say to everyone here, it is time we move on to something else. this matter is over. you can continue to relitigate it, but it's going to have the same result. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: as the democratic leader frequently reminded me when he was the majority leader, the majority leader always gets the last word. i enjoyed hearing the democratic leader's history lesson going back, as i recount -- i'm sure

i'll leave some out -- the iraq war resolution, which he voted for, as did hillary clinton, the resuscitation of past debates from obamacare to you name it, including complaining about highways, a bill that senator boxer and i worked on and actually passed that he voted against, which hopefully will soon be in conference. but none of that has anything to do with what's before us today. the issue before us today is the iran nuclear agreement. we know how the american people feel about it. they're over whelmingly opposed to it. we know how the realiz israelist it. they're overwhelmingly opposed to it. we know that our sunni-arab allies are now visiting the russians to talk about arms purchases because they don't trust us anymore. we know the president wanted to

transform the middle east, and by golly, he has. our friends don't trust us and our enemies were emboldened. so the issue is not over. the democratic leader is saying the issue is over. doesn't make it over. this agreement and the foreign policy of this administration, best summed up by jimmy koart a couple of months ago. he was asked to sum up the obama administration foreign policy. this is almost a direct quote. he said he couldn't think of a single place in the world where we were in better shape now than we were when the president came to office. jimmy carter. so foreign policy will be a big issue going into 2016, and this agreement is a metaphor for all of the mistakes that this president has made -- you name the area of the world and you'll see the results.

so no a saying the issue is over -- so no amount of saying the issue is over makes it over. we'll have an opportunity again next week to move past this procedural snag, to give all members of the senate an opportunity to vote up or down on a resolution of disapproval, which we know is supported on a bipartisan basis, and i end with this: there's bipartisan opposition to this deal, bipartisan opposition to this deal. only democrat support. and so if the president is so proud of it, i can't figure out what these folks over here are protecting him from. you guys would all be invited down to the veto signing. break out the champagne. celebrate.

take credit for it. you own it. i yield the floor. mr. reid: [inaudible] i'm going to be fairly short here. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: i'm glad my friend brought up my vote on iraq. i've stated on national tv, i've stated every chance i get, my biggest mistake i've ever made in my public service is voting for that bill. i said i learned it quickly. it was just a matter of a few short months after i voted that i realized i had been misled in voting for that. doesn't mavment matter. i voted for it. and some say in some of circles, i've repented publicly for having done that. and so my feeling about the iraq war has not changed. the mere fact that i voted for

that. i would also say this: in closing, i hope the one thing that we can agree on here, as democrats and republicans, is the ability of iran for the next 15 years to build nuclear weapons is pretty well taken care of. but the one thun thing i hope wn agree on is i would hope we could work together to make sure we continue, as indicated in the letter that senator kerry wrote to everybody, all of us, and the cardin legislation -- i hope everyone will take a look at that because, as said in a statement i gave on tuesday morning, i looked at what was suggested in the kerry letter, more safe, more secure, and some of the suggestions that senator cardin had in his utline. these are things i hope we can

work together on. put this to one side, for the time being. but let's hope in the future we can work together to make sure the only true democracy in that part of the world is an ally of ours. we'll continue everything we can to make sure that, i repeat, they're safe and secure. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senate majority leader. mr. mcconnell: there's no question the israelis need a lot of reinforcement. no question they need to know for sure that we're on their side. because this administration has just entered into an agreement that by all objective standards could even threaten their very existence. so i think it's -- there's no question the israelis need every reassurance we can mr. presiden?

the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. i'm sorry. the senator from mississippi. mr. cochran: mr. president, i intend to support the resolution of disapproval of the comprehensive plan of action negotiated by the obama administration with the islamic republic of iran. the agreement falls woefully short of the international goal to improve global security by stopping iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. the american people and congress were promised an inspections regime providing anywhere, any time access to facilities where tests were conducted. instead iran can delay access to facilities for up to 24 days.

this is inconsistent with the obama administration's claims that no part of this agreement is based on trusting iran at its word. a credible agreement would include stronger verification measures to ensure that the iranians play by the rules, particularly given that government's well-documented efforts to conceal its nuclear activities and ambitions. we're also concerned about the consequences of lifting the economic sanctions that forced iran to the negotiating table. this agreement is an issue offing long-term -- issue of long-term significance. our country and our allies will be forced to deal with the repercussions of a strengthened iran for the foreseeable future. this agreement is a bad deal for

us and our allies, and i will not support it. mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: mr. president, i've been a member of this body for nearly four decades. during that time i've had the honor to participate in numerous debates that changed the course of the future, but i think think of none more important than the one in which we are now engaged. the iranan regime is one of the our most dangerous foes. it has repeatedly proclaimed its

intent to wipe israel off the map. it perpetrated violence against american servicemen and civilians alike. it has sown conflict across the most volatile region of the world. and it has suppressed its people by some of the most ghastly methods imaginable. indeed, mr. president, we should remember throughout this debate that our quarrel is not with the iranian people. the iranian people are our friends, and we should remember throughout our plight their desire for a comparative relationship -- cooperative relationship with the united states and the rest of the world. it is the dictatorial and fanatical regime that seeks to build and even use nuclear weapons to destabilize the entire region and to kill americans and israelis. given the threat posed by this rogue regime, preventing iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons

capability is absolutely critical. it is a goal shared across party lines as well as amongst many of our friends and allies abroad. all of us here prefer to prevent iran from acquiring this capability by diplomatic means if possible rather than by armed conflict. in light of this shared desire to resolve the iranian threat without a war, i examined the obama administration's proposed agreement, hopeful, skeptical that i could support the deal. nevertheless, the duty incumbent upon us as senators is not to accept or reject this deal based upon knee-jerk reactions or blind partisan loyalty, but rather to determine our stances based on thorough examination and reasoned judgment. regrettably, after much study, i have concluded that this is a catastrophically bad deal that i

must strongly oppose. at the outset i should note that the media is reporting that president obama has gathered the votes to support his iran deal. in reality, he has done no such thing. were this a treaty, it would fall well short of the necessary two-thirds requirements. it won't and it can't even muster a majority in either the house or senate. there is nothing bipartisan about support for this deal. only the opposition is bipartisan, and only the opposition is a majority. and the deal lacks the most important kind of support, that of the american people. a strong majority of americans oppose this deal, and they're right to do so. far from blocking the iranian regime's path to nuclear weapons capability, this agreement actually secures what mark

devowitz, executive director for the foundation of defense for democracies calls a -- quote -- "patient pathway" to nuclear weapons capability. consider the time line. from day one the iranian regime will be able to use resources containing thousands of centrifuges and conduct research and development. after eight years iran will be allowed to begin building hundreds of advanced new centrifuges annually. it will be allowed to expand its ballistic missile program. after 15 years, iran will be permitted to stockpile significant quantities of enriched uranium, use advanced centrifuges to enrich uranium on an industrial scale and build heavy water reactors according to the state department's own facts sheet. and after only ten years, iran's

breakout time to rush for a nuclear weapon drops -- quote -- "almost down to zero" as president obama himself admitted mr. president, in the words of former deputy national security advisor juan zuratay, this deal stalls, then enables, and then validates an iranian nuclear program. unquote. all that the iranian regime has to do is abide by the terms of the agreement to achieve threshold nuclear weapons status with an expanded infrastructure for the production of nuclear material and a visible means of delivering a nuclear weapon to targets as far away as the united states. moreover, the deal's means of ensuring and verifying the iranian regime's compliance with these temporary limits on its nuclear programs are, frankly, pathetic. our only peaceful means of recourse under the deal, the

so-called snap-back mechanism, involves an incredibly cumbersome process, and everybody here knows it's not going to be snapped back once business as usual begins in iran. it allows the iranian regime to delay international inspections for up to 24 days without recourse, a critical gap that some experts -- or that experts such as former international atomic energy agency deputy general for safeguards hyman and former deputy administrator for defense nuclear nonprovision will i can't be toby assert would allow iran to hide evidence of illicit nuclear activities. other parties could drag out the snap-back mechanisms for two months before reimposing nuclear sanctions approximately the same as obama's breakout time.

furthermore the deal makes the snapback mechanisms available for instances of -- quote -- "incidents of nonperformance" leaving no mechanisms for the achieving that go characterized the iranian nuclear program so are if a. perhaps the most troubling, it remains unclear whether weapons inspectors will even have access to all iranian nuclear facilities in the first place. senior officials of the iranian regime have repeatedly claimed that the deal does not allow access to military sites. the agreement's language appears to have been left deliberately vague on this point. hardly an encouraging development. moreover, press accounts of an iaea side deal with iran indicate that the international watchdog has already agreed to rely on the iranian regime to

conduct its own inspections of the parchin weapons testing site providing the iaea with only photographs, videos, and environmental samples. former iaea deputy general hyman may have put it best when he observed -- quote -- "if the reporting is accurate, these procedures appear to be risky, departing significantly from well-established and proven safeguards practices. at a broader level if verification standards have been diluted for parchin or elsewhere and limits imposed, the ramifications is significant as it will affect the iaea's ability to draw definitive conclusions with the requisite level of assurances and without undue hampering of the verification process." unquote. that's troubling. regarding these troubling reports, i have a number of outstanding questions and concerns that have only been

amplified by the obama administration's steadfast refusal to share the text of the agreement with congress. this intransigence amounts to an evasion of the spirit and possibly the text of the bipartisan of the iran nuclear agreement review act, a development that rightfully sows doubt and concern about what else the obama administration might be hiding. in light of these incredible concessions to the iranian regime, i am very, very concerned about a number of other factors. and i have to say i'm also deeply troubled by the great benefits the iranian regime stands to enjoy from this deal. to use the succinct words of one scholar -- quote -- "president

obama is agreeing to dismantle the sanctions regime permanently. in return, tehran is agreeing to slow the development of its nuclear program temporarily." unquote. the current sanctions regime imposed heavy costs on the iranian economy. oil exports dropped by 60%. the inflation rate has risen to 40%. and foreign companies deterred by harsh penalties have avoided investing in iran, thereby isolating iran from the global economy. along with the threat of military action, these sanctions played a critical role in bringing the iranian regime to the negotiating table and we should thus be very careful before sacrificing this leverage. foolishly an exchange for minimal temporary concessions, the influx of -- i have to say

seriously in return -- exchange for these minimal temporary concessions, the iranian regime stands to reap enormous rewards in sanctions relief. according to figures cited by president obama, the iranian regime will regain control of more than $150 billion -- that's with a "b" -- currently frozen in the world's financial institutions. sanctions relief will also allow an influx of international businesses into iran, bringing about a stronger economy and greater revenue for the tehran regime. where should we expect this money to be spent? will it go to the long-suffering iranian people who are the victims of this regime? people who have contributed to

the civilization and good of mankind, people who we really do appreciate? people whose true spirit has been repressed for almost 40 years, people who have paid a high price because of radical fundamentalism of their leaders, the people who look to us for strength in the defense of our ideals, not capitulation to this heinous regime. unfortunately, we cannot expect such an outcome. if history is any guide, we should expect the iranian regime to use sanctions relief to pursue its dangerous aims, including to support its terrorist proxies that represent a dire threat to the stability of the whole region, such as hamas and gaza and hezbollah in lebanon, the houthis in yemen and the murderous assad regime in syria. to encourage the -- quote -- "swarming of foreign businesses to iran" which the iranian foreign minister believes will make it -- quote -- "impossible

to reconstruct" broad international sanctions, to take advantage of the lifting of the u.n. arms embargo to take advantage of sufficient weapons systems which would make american or israeli military action against the iranian nuclear program even more difficult than it already would be, and to shore up political and financial standing of the most radical elements of the iranian regime, reducing the likely hood of internal reform and a more constructive iranian foreign policy. mr. president, if the iranian regime suddenly becomes flush with cash, what incentive will it have to change priorities 15 years from now? doesn't this deal reward what the obama administration called -- quote -- "bad behavior" in one of the most astonishing

understatements that i have ever heard. in the words of one experts, when in the course of human history did getting $150 billion at the stroke of a pen ever convince anyone that they have been wrong all along? for a deal built on the unfounded hope that the iranian regime will change its ways, i see very little reason to expect success. and for a deal that would supposedly reinforce the position of iranian moderates and bring relief to the iranian people, i see only the prospect of strengthening the hand of the hard-liners and of sanctions relief diverted for more, for more violent misadventures rather than for the benefit of the iranian people. reflecting on this spectacularly bad deal, i can only conclude that the obama administration officials prove to be weak negotiators because out of absolute desperation for a deal,

almost any deal. these massive concessions to the iranian regime for so little in return were produced by this administration's knee-jerk aversion to the prospect of using military force, a preoccupation demonstrated by the constant rhetoric that we hear from the white house that the only alternative to this deal is war. mr. president, that claim is patently false. we canned should go back to the negotiating table. by reassembling the sanctions coalition that this agreement throws away will not be easy and may not even be fully possible. a nation as strong as ours still has plenty of tools at our disposal. our unparalleled economic and military might give us significant leverage to get a better deal, and we should not be misled by overly simplistic rhetoric to conclude otherwise.

war is never a happy matter to contemplate, especially from a position of responsibility such as in the united states senate. in this body, we are saddled all too often with the sorts of decisions in which real people's lives hang in the balance. those of our friends and neighbors, our fellow countrymen, our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, and even those in far away and distant places that look to america as a guardian of freedom and speech. what abraham lincoln called the last best hope of earth. mr. president, none of us relish the prospect of war, especially in an age inform our weapons of a power almost too terrible to contemplate. in particular, neither i nor any of my colleagues seek a war with iran. as i said before, the iranian people are not our enemies. the people themselves are good.

they are decent, they are honorable. they are even friends of the united states. they are our friends. no people have paid a higher price for the regime's record of terrorism, mass murder, corruption and duplicity than the iranians. the cost protect of conflicting -- inflicting collateral damage on our long-suffering friends counsels further against any course of action that leads to war. it is not a cavalier attitude about war that leads me to oppose this deal. it is my own wavering judgment that this deal makes war much more likely that leads me to oppose it. let there be no doubt -- a deal that paves rather than precludes iran's path to nuclear weapons capability makes war more likely. a deal that makes the iranian regime more confident of its ability to protect its nuclear

program from military pressure and action makes war more likely. a deal that funnels tens of billions of dollars to terrorists bent on destabilizing the middle east makes war more likely. a deal that provokes a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region in the klobuchar makes war more likely. a deal that surrounds israel not only with a nuclear iran but also eventually with numerous other regimes with nuclear weapons capability and a genocidal attitude towards a jewish state makes war more likely. in a deal that puts the iranian regime and its terrorist allies one turn of a screwdriver away from a nuclear weapon and a means of delivering it across the ocean makes war more likely. war may come, mr. president, but it is not inevitable. as members of the world's greatest deliberative body, it is our duty to discern the

wisest course of action that preserves the security of the united states and our allies, that reduces the risk of war, that does not let us -- but does not let the strong desire for peace we all share cloud our judgment about how we best preserve that peace. in this solemn debate, it is my hope that the voice of reason will have the power to change minds and overcome the pressures of our politics that so often color our debates. i'm encouraged in my hope by the fact that almost every member to come out in support of this deal has noted its significant flaws. that includes those who are going to vote for it, and the opposition to it an unambiguous, strong and bipartisan, and a majority in both the house and the senate opposes this.

and particularly i want to pay tribute to four of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have bucked significant political pressure to vote their consciences against this bad deal. mr. president, we still have a chance to change course. all that is required is the bravery and good judgment to lead our nation and the world to an agreement that can actually preserve the long-term peace. i urge all of my colleagues to join me in opposing this disastrous deal and supporting a better way forward. and not use phony excuses knowing how bad this is to vote for it. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. corker: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: first of all, i want to thank our honored president pro pro tempore for his outstanding comments, but while our distinguished friend from illinois is here, i thought i would talk through a unanimous consent. i think it has been cleared. i ask unanimous consent that

time be further ditchedded as -- divided as follows. from 10:00 until 11:00 would be republican time. from 11:00 until 12 would be democrat time. from 12:00 until 1:00 would be republican time. from 1:00 until 2:00 would be democrat time. from 2:00 to 230republican time. from 2:30 until 3:00 would be democrat time. from 3:00 until 3:45 be equally divided between the leaders or their designees, and that senator menendez be given 15 minutes of the republican time and 15 minutes of the democrat time. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. durbin: if i might ask the senator from tennessee to

clarify? the last part of his request relates to the period between 3:00 and 3:45? mr. corker: yes, that's correct. mr. durbin: without objection. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. corker: thank you, mr. president. so our side knows what will occur between now and the end of our time, the next 15 minutes will be for senator graham, then ten minutes to senator barrasso and then ten minutes to senator flake. with that, i'd yield the floor to one of the best national security voices in the united states of america, senator graham from south carolina. mr. graham: thank you very much. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: thank you, senator corker. well, i just want to make sure people understand what we're trying to do here at this point. our democratic colleagues are filibustering an attempt to have a debate, an up-or-down vote on the most consequential foreign policy decision in modern

history. that's what you're doing. and senator corker in good faith got us here in a bipartisan manner and senator reid has come out of nowhere to change what was the common understanding of how we would proceed, get 60 votes, a simple majority, let the president act as he wishes. but no, we couldn't do that. we're more worried about protecting barack obama from having to veto this than you are about having a debate on the floor of the senate. now, let me tell you a little bit about who you're dealing with here, folks. and if i hear one more comment from my democratic friends about how much they love israel. with friends like this, you don't need an enemy. here's who you are dealing with. this was yesterday. the iran supreme leader predicted wednesday that israel would not exist in 25 years and

ruled out any new negotiations with a satan to the united states beyond the recently concluded nuclear accord. in remarks published wednesday on his personal web site -- at least the ayatollah has gotten in modern times, and post on twitter, the supreme leader -- do you know what they call him supreme leader? because he is. ayatollah khamenei responding to what he said claims that israel would be safe for that period. where do those claims come from? it came from this administration, my colleagues on the other side. you're telling everybody in the world that this is the best deal for israel. guess what? nobody in israel agrees with you, who is in the current government. everybody who is in the current coalition government understands this is not a good deal for israel. why don't you listen to them? you want it to be a good deal for israel. well, it's not. and you wanting it doesn't change it.

so let's finish to what he said. the ayatollah claims he would be safe for that period under the nuclear agreement reached in july. after nuclear negotiations, the zionist regime said they will not be worried about iran in the next 25 years. after nuclear negotiations, the zionist regime said they will not be worried about iran in the next 25 years. israel didn't say that. people over here said that. the ayatollah wrote i am telling you first you will not be around in 25 years, and god willing, there will be no zionist regime in 25 years. second, during this period, the spirit of fighting heroism and jihad will keep you worried at every moment. clearly, somebody who is on the course of change, somebody we should give $100 billion to, create a pathway to a nuclear bomb in 15 years let him buy more weapons in five years and build an intercontinental ballistic missile in eight years. clearly, this is the man that

has changed course and you have empowered. at least, at least chamberlain can say hitler lied. at least chamberlain can say i negotiated with the furor, he -- with the fuhrer, he told me to my face if you give me, i'm done. we all know that chamberlain was a chump and hitler actually meant what he said when he wrote a book. the question is does this man mean what he says when he tweets yesterday? the ink is not dry on the deal. one thing you can say about the ayatollah, who is crazy, who is a religious nazi, at least he's honest. he doesn't want you to be confused as you vote as to what he wants to do to your friend israel. see, he doesn't want you to mistake what this deal means to him. you obviously are writing him off. you obviously believe he doesn't mean it. i guess he has a polling problem in iran. he's got to get his numbers up.

he needs to say these things because he doesn't mean it but he has to keep his people happy because they like hearing this stuff. all i can tell you, his people tried to rise up against him in 2009, and our president said on the sidelines it didn't do a damn thing. the biggest moment for change in iran came in 2009 when young people and women took to the streets demanding a fair election that was stolen from them by the ayatollah and his response was to beat them, shoot them, put them in jail and torture them. this is the guy that you're going to give $100 billion to. a clear pathway to a bomb. he doesn't even have to cheat to get there. and buy more weapons to attack us. at least chamberlain lied. this man is telling you what he's going to do as of yesterday. and between these, the time the negotiations have started to now, has he given us -- shown us

a little leg about real change? during the negotiations he has toppled four arab capitals. during the negotiations, he supported the houthis in yemen who destroyed a pro-american government, and we've lost eyes government, and we've lost eyes stuart: if ever i said it was the black market, this is the lab market. a moment ago 0.8. how about the price of oil appeared $44.80 a week. the gas continues to go down believe him. i cannot believe that you made the biggest miscalculation in modern history by empowering a religious fanatic with the ability to attack our nation, destroy our friends in israel and keep the mideast on fire for 15 years. what are y'all thinking over there? all i can say is that the last 9/11, 3,000 of us died because

they couldn't get weapons to kill three million of us. if you let this deal go forward, before too long the most radical regime on the planet will have the most lethal weapons available to mankind. they will share that technology with terrorists and it will come here. and why do they need an icbm, folks? what are they going to do with it? they're not going to send people to space. what are you thinking? what are y'all thinking over there? you're taking the most radical regime on the planet, a theocracy. this is not a democracy. the moderates were shot down in the streets. they were gegging are you with us or with you with him, president obama? president obama is absolutely the most poor champion of freedom and the weakest opponent of evil in history. evil is flourishing on his watch. president obama said you'd have to be crazy not to support this deal. let's walk through whether or

not we should follow his advice about radical islam. this is the president who was told to leave troops in iraq to make sure our gains would be maintained, and he pulled everybody out because he wanted to get to zero. he turned down every commander's advice to get to zero because he made a campaign promise. this is the president that was told by his entire national security team three yearsing a, establish a no-fly zone and help the free syrian army because assad is on the rope. at the time when it would have mattered when there was a free syrian army to help. obama said no thanks. this is the president who drew a red line against assad after he backed off and said if you use chemical weapons and cross that red line, you'll pay a price. here's the facts: assad is going to be empowered and obamacare -- and obama gg to be gone.

the last guile standing is going to be assad. this is the man who said don't worry about side of the siel. they are the j.v. team. at what point do you realize that president obama has no idea what he's talking about? at what point in time is it obvious to anybody in the world who's paying attention when it comes to radical islam, he has no clue? so this is the guy we're going to send in to negotiate with a radical ayatollah, a guy who in the eyes of the world is a complete weak defender of freedom and a very poor adversary of evil? and if that's not enough, the iranians are rubbing this in john kerry and barack obama's face by tweeting this out hours before you vote on this deal, just to remind you that no matter what you say on this floor about israel, nothing's changed in his mind about israel. and when you claim israel's

safe, he's telling you no, they're not. but you're not link because you -- you're not listening because you don't think he really means it. i can tell you right now, you better be right. and how about this idea, when it comes to the ayatollah, assume the worst, not the best. and to our friends in russia, john kerry said one of the big benefits of this deal is that we'll bring russia in, and iran will be a partner in the mideast. and we'll have a major breakthrough where iran begins to help us with problems like syria. here's russia's response before you vote. they're sending russian troops, maybe fighter planes into syria to prop up assad before you vote. taking everything john kerry said about what would happen if you do this deal and rubbing it in his face. tell me how you fix syria with assad in power?

what the russians are doing are eninsurance company he will stay -- are ensuring he will stay in power longer. the longer he stays m power the more refugees the world will have to deal with. the syrian people want two things. they want to destroy isil and want assad gone because he destroyed their families. secretary kerry, how well is this working with this new engagement with iran and russia? things are really changing. look at the tweet yesterday. what are you going to tell the american people this means? interpret the ayatollah for me. this is just all talk? he has to say these things? he doesn't get elected. he doesn't have to worry about the next election. he says these things because he believes it. he's a religious fanatic compelled by his version of islam to destroy everything in his religion that he doesn't agree with, to destroy the one and only jewish state and attack

democracies like ours. and you're giving him more to do that with. this is over time a death sentence for israel if it's not changed. and if i had $100 billion to negotiate with, for god's sake, could i get four people out of jail? i could get people out of jail here with $100 billion. who's negotiating with iran? this idea we're going to separate all of their bad behavior from the nuclear program was the biggest miscalculation in modern foreign policy history. to suggest that we don't need to look at iran as a whole unit, that we're going to ignore the fact that they have four hostages, u.s. personnel held in sham trials, a "washington post" reporter, that they are the largest state sponsor of terrorism, they detaibles the region -- destabilize the region, driven our friends out of yemen. they are supporting heez blah, a mortal enemy of israel, taken

over the lebanese government. we're not going to worry about that. what do you think they're going to do with the $100 billion? do you think they're going to build roads and bridges? the next indication of the next 15 years is the last 35. when you separated their nuclear ambitions from their destructive behavior, giving them access to moral weapons and $100 billion, you made a huge mistake because you're damning the middle east and giving the largest state spror -- sponsor of terrorism more money and more weapons to attack us. and you couldn't get four people out of jail. the iranians must -- the only reason they're not dancing in iran, the yiet, he just doesn't -- the ayatollah, he doesn't believe in dancing. i've got friends over there who i respect and admire. i have no idea what you're thinking here. i have no idea why you believe

the ayatollah doesn't mean what he says given the way he's based. if they will shoot their own children down in the streets to keep power, what do you think they'll do to ours? and the only reason 3,000 people died on 9/11 is they couldn't get the weapons to kill three million of us, and they're on course to do it now. i've never been more disappointed in the body than i am today. a body known to be the most deliberative body in democracy in the history of the world, and you won't let us have a vote. you won't let us have a debate. and please stop saying this deal makes israel safer. that's cruel. and your response to this deal is to give them more weapons because you know they're not safer. i find it a bit odd that in response to this deal we're

selling the arabs every kind of weapon known to man. if you really thought this was such a good deal, why do you have to arm everybody who is in the cross hairs of the ayatollah? when they write the history of these times, they're going to look back and say that president obama was a weak opponent of evil and a poor champion of freedom. they're going to look and say that the united states senate refused to debate the most consequential foreign policy agreement in modern times. and people in israel are going to wonder where did america go? has it ever crossed your mind that everybody in israel who is in power, who is running the government today objects to this agreement? the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. graham: senator corker, thank you for trying to have the

debate we need. to my p democratic friends, you own this. you own every "i" and every "t" and every bullet and you own everything that is to follow, and it's going to be holy hell. mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. i'm proud of my colleague from south carolina for the remarkable speech that he just gave to this senate about the concerns about this president's deal with iran. the president's nuclear deal with iran, that's what the senate is debating right now, a deal that president obama negotiated with iran, and whether that deal should stand or fall. this agreement could affect american foreign policy in the middle east and beyond for this generation as well as the next.

it will affect america's relationship with our allies as well as with our enemies. other countries are wondering, will america accept a flawed agreement that gives iran almost everything it has asked for. or will we or will we as the united states of america stand strong against outlaw nations with nuclear ambitions and dreams? as senators prepare to vote on this legislation, we should ask does this agreement do enough to stop iran's nuclear weapons program. does this agreement do enough to protect the security of the american people and our friends around the world? mr. president, i believe the answer is "no." it would be irresponsible to support such a weak, such a naive, andhhhhhh deal. the original goal of ending

iran's nuclear weapons program was a good one, and i wish the president had actually stuck with that goal. i wish the president had done a better job of negotiating with the iranians. he did not. during the negotiations, this administration was far too willing to make concessions, concessions that put our own national security at risk. we were in a very strong position during these negotiations from the start, and the obama administration squandered the advantage. the president badly wanted to strike a deal with iran, and that's a problem. because president obama has shown once again that if you want a deal bad enough, you will end up with a bad deal. the president fell in love with this deal, even though it is deeply flawed.

and deeply flawed is a description that our democrat colleagues continue to make about this deal. the president cannot see the flaws that our colleagues on the senate floor can see because i believe that the president is blinded by deal euphoria. he is in love with the deal. the agreement that president obama has negotiated will legitimize iran's nuclear program. it will accept iran as a nuclear threshold state. to me, mr. president, this is inexcusable. it's not the deal the president should have signed. it's not the deal the president could have signed. it is not the deal that president obama promised that he would sign. president obama once said that iran didn't need advanced centrifuges in order to have a limited peaceful nuclear program. under this agreement, his administration didn't negotiate that iran will not eliminate a single centrifuge. it will continue to research

more advanced centrifuges, and it can even start building them. so how did it happen? how did this happen? it was on the day the agreement was announced, the president of iran bragged -- bragged about how he had gotten the obama administration to surrender on this point. to surrender, that's the language that i'm hearing around the state of wyoming and certainly the language that we're hearing from iran. the president surrendered. in the beginning, the president said that the united states said iran would only need 100 centrifuges, then the number went to 1,000, then 4,000. then be eventually allowed more than 6,000. when it mattered most, the obama administration wanted a deal so badly that it was willing to concede on point after point after point. and this proves if you want a

deal bad enough, you will get a bad deal. and that's what we have here today. the same thing happened with ballistic missiles. general martin dempsey, who is the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff of the united states military, told the senate armed services committee -- quote -- "under no circumstances, under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking. under no circumstances. defense secretary ash carter also testified at the same hearing. now, this hearing, of course, was six days, only six days before the final deal was announced by the president. the secretary of defense said we want them to continue to be isolated as a military and limited in terms of the kinds of equipment and materials they are able to get. six days before the final deal was announced. so what happened? what did the president surrender

on? the president of the united states surrender on? with this agreement, iran will have access to ballistic missile technology in as little as eight years, even though the secretary of defense said no, even though the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said under no circumstances. you know, that's when russia and other countries are going to be able to start selling this deadly technology to iran, and i believe that iran will use it. now, this was a last-minute demand that iran made, and it should have been easy for president obama to reject it, but he did not. he surrendered. the president was so desperate to get a deal that he gave in once again. it's always the same story with the obama administration. if you want a deal bad enough, you're going to get a bad deal, and they have. when the obama administration is negotiating with countries that need a deal, much more than we do, the president of the united

states surrenders. this administration has no red lines when it comes to negotiating. they will give away anything to get a deal. there have been too many concessions for anyone to be comfortable with this agreement, too many red flags. president obama cannot see the defects that are obvious in this plan. he refuse toss see what is so clear to the american people. after this agreement, iran will be a nuclear threshold state and a military and an industrial power. it will have the money to support terrorists around the world, more money than it's had in the past. it will have the freedom to pursue its nuclear ambitions. even some democrats who have said that they support the deal are doing so with great reservations. they say they know it's not a good deal, but they say it's the only option we've got.

well, that's not a good enough reason for me to accept all of the risks and all of the concessions that the obama administration allowed to this agreement. the president says the choice is the iran nuclear deal or war. he has said it time and time again. it is fearmongering. it's not true. there's an alternative. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said so. general dempsey was asked about that at a hearing of the armed services committee. in answer to a question is it this or war, he said i can tell you that we have a range of options, and i always present it, present them to the president. we have a range of options. it's not a choice between this deal or war. it's a choice between accepting a bad deal or rejecting it. if the only choice is to take

this deal or leave it, then we must leave it. the obama administration doesn't want us to have a vote here in the senate. the obama administration knows it signed a bad deal, and it wants the whole thing to disappear from the front pages before it causes them any more embarrassment. so instead of having a full and honest debate on the floor of the senate, the president and the senate democratic leader are trying to hide behind a filibuster. that's not how the senate should handle this important resolution of disapproval to disapprove the iran deal. every member of the senate should be willing to cast a vote up or down on this iran deal. we should stand up, we should represent the people of our state in this nation, and we should cast our votes. the obama administration has made its arguments and it has failed to make its case. the president has not shown that america will be better off with this deal, and i believe we would be better without it.

we have heard the administration's excuses. we have heard all of the ways that the final deal fell short of their promises. america can't afford to let iran have the nuclear program that this agreement will allow it to obtain. we should vote to disapprove the iran deal. the president should drop his veto threat. the president should send his people back to the negotiating table as this deal proposes and poses too great of a threat to america's national security for us to do anything else. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. flake: as we continue the debate on one of the most important foreign policy matters this body has addressed in some

time, i would be remiss if i didn't mention how honored i am to be a part of it. it's not unusual for the congress to engage in debate over matters like spending bills or to authorize various federal agencies or executive branch judicial nominations or other business that we routinely attend to around here, but it's only on occasion that this body gets to have the opportunity to weigh in on some of the more pressing foreign policy matters. when it does, the legislation it considers often has lasting consequences for the united states and for the rest of the world. take, for example, the taiwan relations act passed by both chambers in 1979 in response to normization of relations between the u.s. and china. this piece of legislation remains a cornerstone of the u.s.-taiwan relationship to this

day. likewise, this body has considered a number of arms limitation treaties over the decades between the united states and russia. a strategic arms reduction treaty or start was approved by this body in 1992 by a vote of 93-6. start-2 was approved in 1996. i'm sorry. the former was 1992. start-2 was approved in 1996 by a vote of 87-4. most recently, the new start treaty with russia was approved in 2010 by a vote of 71-26. these bills address subject matter that was highly controversial. i am sure there was a fair amount of disagreement between democrats and republicans and between the congress and the white house, but in instances too numerous to count, senate deliberation ended with a bipartisan vote to set u.s. foreign policy in place for years, even decades, and signal that america was speaking to the

rest of the world with one voice. i deeply regret that the jcpoa will not build on this history. unfortunately, the administration elected to negotiate this deal as an executive agreement rather than a treaty. that was the administration's call. of it does mean, however, that the administration did not need to negotiate the jcpoa, mindful that it would need the support of 67 senators. it also means that the senate did not have the opportunity to offer so-called rud's, reservations, understandings and declarations that can accompany treaties and clarify its interpretation of the agreement. now, to be sure, there are several troubling aspects of this agreement that could have been approved -- or i'm sorry, improved had the senate had the opportunity to consider the jcpoa as a treaty. for example, the text of the

agreement clearly states that any rei am position of sanctions specified in annex two would be viewed by iran as a violation of the agreement. it would promptly -- i'm sorry. and would likely prompt iran to cease abiding by its obligations under the agreement. the sanctions in annex two include the influential sanctions such as those on iran's central bank. these have had a profound effect on iran's economy. in hearings and briefings by the administration, i've asked whether the united states could reimpose these powerful sanctions at some point down the line for nonnuclear behavior by the iranian government to penalize iran for regional activities or for committing acts of terrorism. this regime, as we know, is made achieving regional hegemony its calling card since its inception in 1979, but the administration has assured me that these

sanctions would be available in the future, but unfortunately that simply does not square with the text of the agreement. the question of rei am position of sanctions raises the further question of how this agreement might bind the hands of future congresses and future administrations. as i previously mentioned, although the jcpoa has already been adopted by the united nations, it will never be the supreme law of the land in the united states because it is not a treaty. a treaty that has been agreed to by at least 67 senators gives the treaty a critical i am paramature that insulates it over the life span of the treaty. the jcpoa will benefit from no such impramatur. and what if a future congress or a future president wishes to reimpose sanctions against iran or take some of their actions

that might legitimately cause iran to accuse us of legitimately violating the jcpoa? a future congress or president could be put in the position of either having to preserve an agreement that neither of it had been negotiating or taking action that would result in iran walking away from its nuclear obligation. it would be beneficial for u.s. foreign policy to steer clear of those lose-lose propositions. the current administration has already expressed reluctance to push back iran's interpretation of the agreement even before it has been implemented. i have serious concerns that if there is reluctance to push back now, there will be even more reluctance to push back on iran's regional behavior once the deal is in place. this gives iran more leverage than it currently has moving forward, and it could have disastrous consequences to the middle east.

these are issues that could have been addressed in a positive manner by the senate if the agreement had been submitted as a treaty. now, when this agreement was announced, i said that i would take every opportunity to learn more about it. i attended every hearing held by the senate foreign relations committee. i want to commend chairman corker and ranking member cardin for holding these hearings and going about this in such a deliberative and serious manner. i attended every classified congressional briefing, several other briefings and had discussions with numerous experts and administration officials. after these discussions, these hearings, these briefings, i believe that it's a much closer call on this agreement than most want to admit. there are positive aspects on the nuclear side. unfortunately, unfortunately this deal suffers from significant shortcomings. hoping that iran's nuclear

ambitions might change after a 15-year sabbatical might be a bet worth taking. believing that iran's regional behavior will change tomorrow while giving up tools to deter or modify such behavior is not a bet worth taking. it is for these reasons that i reluctantly oppose the jcpoa. i do hope that we can make up for this unfortunately partisan vote by working together and with the president to pass a regional security framework agreement that will not only assure israel and our allies in the region but solidify this agreement throughout the duration of the jcpoa. the united states is strongest when we speak with one voice on foreign policy matters. and with that, mr. president, let me turn to another issue very briefly since i wouldn't have time otherwise today.

yesterday, we were able to pass on a bipartisan basis, in fact unanimously a bipartisan bill to help put veterans back to work as customs and border protection officers at understaffed u.s. ports of entry. earlier this week, secretary of homeland security jeh johnson confirmed that the agency has not yet filled 1,200 of the 2 now new c.b.b. officer positions created by congress in 2015 to improve security and reduce trade-stifling commercial traffic at the ports. secretary johnson has attributed these shortfalls to delays associated with applicant background investigations, and so we were able to pass legislation to -- to force the military to work with the department of defense and the department of homeland security to work together with this legislation. now they will do so and hopefully improve the

backlogs that we have at the border. i applaud my colleagues for making this happen and cosponsors john mccain, chuck schumer, richard blumenthal, dianne feinstein and others. thank you for passing this legislation. it will improve the situation on the arizona border. thank you, mr. president. i yield back. mr. corker: mr. president? i know the time has ended. and senator daines wanted to speak very briefly, senator durbin is allowing that to give back time in just a moment, if we might have three minutes so -- okay.

mr. daines: senator corker, thank you and senator durbin, thank you as well for that. the presiding officer: the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. daines: the deal reached by the obama administration sets iran on a course to do so. from the time this deal is agreed to, iran has ten years to fill their coffers with tens of billions of dollars from newly sanctioned oil sales in pursuit of capabilities. as the world's leader of state sponsored terrorism, it will only be a matter of time before iran achieves its ultimate goal and that is obtaining a nuclear weapon. and these are bipartisan concerns. this deal will not prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and the american people deserve a better deal. this deal is stacked against transparency. it provides up to 24-day delay before iran is forced to comply with ininspections of sites.

this is a long, long ways from anywhere, any time the american people were promised. can you imagine if the e.p.a. or the f.d.a. came knocking on a montana farmer or business own ear door and said, well, you can't come and inspect right now but come back in 24 days. that is what we have set up right now with the iranian government through this deal. through this deal the american people are being asked to enter into a binding trust agreement with the world's leading state sponsor of terror. in fact, just yesterday i looked at my twitter feed and my supreme leader of iran has called -- is called the supreme leader for a reason. ayatollah mccaina said i expect you, the israelis, will not see the coming 25 years and god willing, there will not be something named the zionist regime in the next 25 years and

then he went on to reiterate calling america the great satan. this is who the united states is making this bad nuclear deal with. it is not a mistake to push for suffer sanctions. the american people deserve a better option. last -- two nights ago i had a town hall meeting with hundreds of thousands of montana households, overwhelmingly, by 3-1 they oppose this deal. and as we close, let me say this -- as i step back and look at the numbers today, it was looking at the united states senate, about 58 senators are opposed to this deal. just 42 supporting it. those 58 who oppose it are bipartisan. the house numbers are similar in ratios. so the point is this -- there is bipartisan opposition to this deal, both democrats and republicans joining together. the only support is partisan. it is a mistake to not push for

a better deal that can be supported by more than just one segment of one ptor from illino. mr. durbin: for those following the debate this morning. the democratic leader, harry reid of nevada said for the second time offered to the republican side the following, that we will bring this critically important vote to a measure before the united states senate for an up-or-down, clean up or down vote and a margin of 60 votes. 60 votes is the margin used for every major and i might add controversial measure before the senate. so what we're asking is not out of line, in fact, the republican side had supported the notion of a 60-vote margin until they didn't have 60 votes. now they're calling for some other approach. so here is what we face. this afternoon about 3:45 we'll have a roll call vote, it's on the procedural question of whether we end debate on one aspect of this issue, it's known as a cloture vote and

we'll see how it turns out. but we have made a good faith offer to the republicans to finish this important debate and bring this to a 60-vote close. every single member of the senate on both sides of the aisle has announced publicly in advance where they stand on the issue. no one is trying to avoid this tough vote and it is a challenging vote. everyone is faced it squarely and honestly and that's where we should go. the republican side objected to this and we will face a procedural vote at 3:45. what is troubling we are in disarray now in congress. this statute that brings us to the floor of the united states senate, on the agreement, passed the senate with a vote of 98-1, a strong bipartisan agreement that this is how we would grove he approach it. this is what the senator from mcconnell is working off of, but look at what's happening

across the rotunda. yesterday the house of representatives dissembled, to move to the same vote we are face being, they fell apart. the republican caucus was in disarray and now they are proposing not the underlying statute which we're considering but three brand-new different approaches to this. this is no way to run a congress. no way to run a serious foreign policy issue, one of the more serious issues of our time. my colleagues here are to speak and i'm going to yield the floor to them. i've spoken from time to time but i will say this. what we're trying to achieve here, we're not putting a seal of approval on iran and their conduct and their activity. that will never happen. instead what we are saying we have one goal in mind, shared by many nations around the world to stop iran from developing a nuclear weapon. that is the goal.

i believe this agreement comes as close to achieving that as we can hope for at this moment. i wish it were stronger and better, but in the course of negotiation, we don't always get everything we want. but think of what happened here. we met in switzerland at the table with five other nations, china, russia, the united kingdom, germany, france and the european union i might add, to negotiate this agreement and walked away all nations involved in the negotiations saying this is a good agreement and should move forward. in addition to that we've had support from the security council of the united nations, over 100 countries have enforced this and yet it's been categorically rejected by the republicans in the house and the senate. the first phak stun was march of this year, while it was underway.

47 republican senators sent a letter to the supreme leader, the ayatollah, saying don't waste your time negotiating with the united states senate. -- the united states of america. this is the first time it's happened in the history of the united states. never. a i've asked historians to check it. never, have we sent a letter in the midst of negotiations saying don't pay attention to our president, to our nation, never happened before. 47 of them made it clear even before the agreement was reached that they were rejecting it. that doesn't show good faith. it doesn't show an effort to try to be objective and honest about this. well, here we stand today with the first procedural vote this afternoon. there are two things we want to achieve with this vote and with this agreement. number one, stop iran from developing a nuclear weapon and

we do it. by shutting down the production for facilities, shutting down their centrifuges and sending scores of international inspectors roaming through iran during the entire pendens of this agreement looking for violations that trigger the sanctions would be incurred. secondly, to bring peace and stability as best we can when it comes to the nuclear issue to the middle east and particularly in support of our friend and ally, the nation of israel. i think the president's good-faith effort here reaches that goal. i support this and i'll be voting on the procedural side this afternoon to support the president's iran agreement. i yield the floor. mr. schumer: thank you. my dear friend and colleague -- the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: thank you, madam president. my friend and i have disagreed but he