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 has -- i appreciate the way he has conducted himself

through this entire debate. now, mr. president, every several years or so a legislator is called upon to cast a momentous vote in which the stakes are high, both sides of the issue feel very strongly about their views. such is the case with the joint comprehensive plan of action with iran. it demands reasoned and serious debate. over the years i have learned that the best way to treat big decisions is to study the issue carefully, hear the full explanation of those for and against, and then without regard to pressure, politics or party, make a decision based on the merits. that is what i did with the iran deal. i carefully studied the jcpoa, read and reread the annexes, learned from the proponents and opponents and studied the text of the agreement and after deep study and considerable

soulsearching i announced i would oppose the agreement and votey on the motion of disapproval. now, while we've come to different conclusions, i want to give tremendous credit to president obama on on this issue. he and secretary kerry and their teams spent spain taking years pushing iran toward an agreement and years before us assembling the regime that brought us to the table in the first place. it was the farsightedness that brought us to the development of the massive ordinance penetrator, the mop, the antidote to a nuclear iran. regardless of how one feels about the agreement, all fair-minded americans should acknowledge the president's achievements in combating and containing iran. i also have a great deal of respect for the careful thought and deliberation of my colleagues went through before making their final decisions.

while i came to a different conclusion than many in my own caucus, i recognize for them, that this is a vote of conscience just as it is for me. mr. president, i wish to recount my reasoning here on the floor before the vote is taken. i examined this deal in three parts. nuclear restrictions on iran in the first ten years, nuclear restrictions on iran after ten years, an nonnuclear components and consequences of the deal. and in each case i didn't ask what is the ideal agreement. we're not in that world. i asked are we better off with the agreement that we have before us or without. in the first ten years of the deal there are serious weaknesses in the agreement. first, inspections are not anywhere, any time, the potential delay of as many as 24 days before we can inspect undeclared suspicious sites is troubling. it is true that declared sites will be monitored.

that is one of the post office of this deal -- positives of this deal. but if iran is going to cheat it will not be at a declared site. it will be at a nondesignated site and if iran is trying to cheat, it will certainly delay the inspection process as long as possible. even more troubling, is the fact that the u.s. cannot demand inspections unilaterally. we require the majority of the eight-member commission, assuming china and russia and iran will not cooperate, inspections would require the votes of all three european members of the p-5 plus 1 as well as the e.u. representative. it is a reasonable fear. once the europeans become entangled with iran, they may not want to rock the boat by voting to allow inspections. additionally, the snapback provisions of the agreements seem cumbersome and difficult to use. while the u.s. could snap back

all sanctions, there will be instances where it's more appropriate to snap back some but not all of the sanctions. a partial snapback of the multilateral sanctions could be difficult to obtain because the u.s. would require cooperation of the other nations. if the u.s. insists on snap back of all provisions which it can do unilaterally, the europeans, russians or chinese might feel it is too severe of a punishment and not comply. while those who argue for the agreement issue it's better to have a partial agreement than a difficult one. however when you consider this part of the deal, better to have a snap back than nothing. but even f -- but even for this part of the agreement, the weaknesses with both of those proses make the argument less compelling. second, we must evaluate this -- how this deal would restrict iran's nuclear development after 10 years. in my view, in iran's true intent is to get a nuclear

weapon, under this agreement, it simply must exercise patience. after 10 years it can be close to achieving that goal. iran would be stronger financially, better able to advance a robust nuclear program, and unlike its current unsanctioned pursuit of a nuclear weapon, iran's nuclear program would be codified in an agreement signed by the united states and other nations. finally, we must consider the nonnuclear elements of the agreement. this aspect of the deal gives me the most pause. for years, iran has used military force and terrorism to expand its influence in the middle east, activity supporting actions in yemen, iraq, and gaza. iran would receive at least $50 billion in the future and would undoubtedly use some of that known create even more trouble in the middle east and perhaps beyond. the hard-liners could use these

funds to pursue an icbm as soon as sanctions are lifted. restrictions should have been put in place limiting how iran could use its new resources. using the proponents' overall standard, not whether the agreement is ideal but whether it is better to have it or not have it, it seems to me when it comes to the nuclear aspects of the agreement within 10 years, we might be better off -- we might be slightly better off with it. however, when it comes to nuclear aspects after 10 years and nonnuclear aspects, we would be better off without it. ultimately, in my view, whether one opposes or supports the resolution of disapproval depends on how one thinks iran will behave under this agreement, whether contact with the west and a decrease in

economic and political isolation will soften iran's hard line positions, or whether the current autocratic regime use this deal as a way to get relif from onerous sanctions while still retaining their designs on nuclear arms. madam president, no one has a crystal ball. no one can tell withceptor which way iran -- with certainty which way iran will go. it's yo true. iron has a large number of -- iran has a large number of people who want to focus on economic advancement at home. but this desire has been evident for 35 years and yet iranian leaders have held a tight and undiminished grip on iran with little threat. who is to say that this same dictatorship will not prevail for another 10, 20, or 30 years? to me, the very real risk that iran will not moderate and will

instead use the agreement to pursue its nefarious goals is too great. therefore, i will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because i believe war is a viable or desirable option nor to challenge the path of diplomacy. it is because it is far too likely that iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining nuclear and nonnuclear power. better to keep u.s. sanctions in place, strengthen them, enforce the secondary sanctions on other nations, and pursue the hard-trodden path of diplomacy once more, difficult as it may be. for all these reasons, madam president, i believe the vote to disapprove is the right one. i yield the floor. mr. durbin: madam president? i yield 20 minutes to the

senator from delaware. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. casey: i thank the democratic whip for yielding time to me. i want to thank him for his descreerd leadership on this issue. -- for his extraordinary leadership on this issue. i wapt to tak want to take a lia different approach to the serious matter that's before us today just to say in the first week or two of the august recess, i suspect some of my colleagues did but not all, i read a lot of the materials that relate to the agreement. after putting it down, my time wandered back to another time and place where there was an intense effort to end years of hostility and mistrust in the middle east. as governor of delaware and chairman of the national governors' association, i led a trade delegation in 1999 of

business leaders, government leaders, and citizens mostly from delaware, many of them jewish, and we went to israel in that summer, 1999. we came looking to strengthen economic and cultural relations between delaware and israel. briefed by united states state department officials before departing on our mission, i also came looking for an opportunity to seize the day and change leadership in israel in order to try to negotiate the two-state solution that always seems just out of reach. those opportunities came sooner than i ever expected. surely, after we landed there -- shortly after we landed there, we were whisked off to a sprawling 4th of july celebration. among the guests were former general ehud barack who was

about to become prime minister of the country, and benjamin netanyahu, the man he defeated. among other guests, the widow and daughter of yitzhak rabin, shimon peres, ariel sharon and a remarkable assembly of who's who in israel. i spoke briefly with ehud barak and with him later in his office after he assume his new duties as prime minister. the second conversation focused on the negotiations, the negotiations that lay ahead with yasser arafat shepherded by the clinton administration to try to reach a peace agreement once and for all with the palestinians. a delegation a few days later was in ramallah. over that meal i sat with arafat and shared with him the new prime minister's ernest desire to complete the work began by

former prime minister rabin before his assassination. i urged arafat to set aside scwen reagan administrations of conflict and -- generations of conflict and distrust in an effort to find common ground with the israelis to provide greater security for israel and better relations for his neighbors in return for palestinian statehood. the conversation seemed to go well. back in the states a few days later i shared as much with the clinton administration. negotiations that ensued over the course of the next year ultimate lit presented arafat with the best land-for-peace proposal the palestinians would ever receive. in the end, they turned it down. i was later told that "arafat simply could not take yes for an answer." 16 years have passed since then, 16 years. another transformative opportunity has presented

itself. this time to america and to our five negotiating partners -- the british, the french, the germans, the russians, the chinese, as well as the people of iran. we have a chance to ensure that the iranian hopes of developing a nuclear weapons program are put on the shelf for years, maybe forever. iranians have a chance to bring to an end the crippling sanctions that the coalition we lead has imposed on iran for years. the iranians have an opportunity -- another opportunity. that is to shed their status as a pariah among the nations of this world and assume a position worthy of their history and their culture. over the past two years i have had countless meetings with people from delaware and beyond our borders who fall on bone sides of this -- on both sides of this issue. some are vehemently opposed to any deal with iran and others believe we miss have a deal in order to a-- we must have a deal in order to avoid a war.

came to support this agreement only after considering all of these points of view. reviewing the text of the deal again and again, hundreds of pages of additional documents and taking in dozens of briefings from experts on iran and nuclear proliferation. two years of negotiations have produced an agreement that israeli prime minister netanyahu and most of our republican colleagues denounced almost sns the ink was -- as soon as the ink was dry on it and well before they ever read it. they said that america should reject the deal and negotiate a better one. to that, let me just say, "good luck." last month, along with a number of other colleagues, i met here in washington with ambassadors and representatives of the five nations who were our negotiating partners. to a person, they argued persuasively i thought that this was a deal we should not reject. in fact, they urged us to learn from arafat's mistake and this time take "yes" for an answer.

they're not the only ones who believe we should support this deal. dozens of their -- dozens of former israeli national security and military officials, including retired israeli navy admiral amid. spvment ayalon, the c.e.o. of the israeli meeting, the person in charge of the navy in the last decade. i'm an old navy guy, spent 23 years in the navy. i was interested in what he had to say when he came to my state. here's what he said, among other things, "the best possible -- the iran deal is, "the best possible alternative from israel's point of view, given the other available alternatives." now, look, he's one significant israeli leader who believes this is the right thing for israel. as it turns out, there are dozens -- actually scores of former israeli military leaders and intelligence leader whose agree with him. not all, but a lot. and we should listen to their voice. i have listened to him. those who think there are dangerous people in iran who

want this deal so they can exploit it i remind them that the revolutionary guard is vehemently opposed it-to-this deal. a lot of people in delaware think that, well, the revolutionary guard, the hard-liners in iran, well, they're for t as it turns out, they're not, quite the opposite. here is a photograph of major general mohammed ally jafari, commander of iran's revolutionary guards. he said, "we'll never accept it." that's not exactly a voice of endorsement for this agreement. i think this is all the more reason that we should vigorouslien force this agreement -- vigorously enforce this agreement to make for years to come in order to ensure that the iranians comply with every element required of them by this deal. this deal blocks four pathways to a bomb. let me mention what they are. the iranian facility in in a tan

blocked, the uranium facility at for dough blocked, weapons-grade proulx to enium blocked, covert attempts to make a bomb blocked. intrusive inspections. sanctions relief only after iran meets obligations. if they cheat, the economic sanctions, the harsh economic sanctions snap back. who can snap them back like that? we can. the united states and any of our negotiating partners as well. we don't need their concurrence. we can do it alone. iran currently has 10,000 kilograms of enriched uranium and nearly 20,000 centrifuges. that puts them months as way from a nuclear bomb. without a deal, it stays that way. without a deal, it stays that way. with a deal, that enriched uranium and stockpile must shrink to 300 kilograms and iran must cut their number of centrifuges by two-thirds. the ones they end up aren't the advanced centrifuges. they're actually the most

elementary centrifuges. that blocks their pathway to a bomb, keeping them at least a year away to the next 10 years, later longer. our negotiators made the following points repeat i hadedly: if at the end of the day, the agreement is implemented, the iranians violate its provisions later on, we will know it. we will know it by virtue of our own intelligence, the intelligence of our partner nations and the intelligence of the realize as well. when it becomes apparent -- if it becomes apparent that the iranians have cheated, any six of our nations can reimplement the economic sanctions regime against iran, the same ones -- the same crippling sanctions that brought them to the table two years ago into this hard hard-fought agreement today. 35 years ago the united states imposed sanctions against iran that were largely unilateral. it was just us. and then we began ratcheting it up over time. unilateral sanctions by the u.s.

were clearly a nuisance to iran, but they did not alone bring iran to the table. only sustained multilateral sanctions joined in by our five negotiating partners and others around the world succeeded in bringing iran to the table in the mood to talk. in fact, under the agreement that's been negotiated, if necessary, they could be be set up by the u.s. in their entirety, at our request, our request, if we're convinced the iranians are cheating. this agreement guarantees that if they're ever needed again, any of the six can trigger it again. the capabilities, we lose the support of the rest of the world in imposing sanctions in the event that a future government in iran elects to pursue a nuclear weapons program. i don't know about you, but that makes no sense to me, no

sense. it also makes no sense to our negotiating partners. almost every american who is alive on 9/11 which we will commemorate tomorrow, remembers a horrifying images of that tragedy. to make matters worse, we had to endure the spectacle through the day and night of tens of thousands of arabs across the world taking to the streets to celebrate the death of thousands of americans. lost among those images, however, was the remarkable different gathering that took place at another nation. it took place in of all places tehran, the capital of iran. that night thousands of iranians gathered at a vigil, a candlelight vigil in solidarity with the united states. with the united states. most americans have no idea that ever happened. i've never forgotten it.

a half dozen years later the iranian leader living with his family, an iranian ambassador to the u.n., we did not have relations with them, we still don't have an exchange of ambassadors but they had an ambassador to the u.n., who lives in new york city. the university of delaware -- not delaware, of denver as well. he spoke fluent english, winter mine. he was educated here as well. and pressed to that, i said to him why don't you come down to washington and meet our colleagues in the senate. he said the bush administration, the george w. administration wouldn't let us come. i said that's easy to fix. it wasn't easy to fix.

they wouldn't relax their travel ban. so later i would ask in a conversation we had, this is when be a dina read, a figure tri, should be blown off the face of the earth, i said how do you get along with your president, be a zoney dad. he said not good. i'm not going to be here much longer. and he was right. the next time i reached out to him, he was gone. he was gone. seemingly without a trace, i found out years later he was recalled to tehran and to private life, writing, lecturing, largely out of sight. the final, he looked for who would replace him.

a plan never heard of him. never thought he had a chance to run. he got to run, and not only did he run, but he won more votes than five candidates combined. and the question was would the supreme leader let him society. he did. what kind of cabinet would he put together, surround himself, as the leader of iran. and when he did, we're watching to see who would be minister of this or that over there, and he submitted the names to the parliament, his submission for foreign minister was my friend. sarif. could have knocked me over with a feather. never thought it would come. the man who had led the negotiations with our five negotiating partners the past two years is a man i've known a

half dozen years or more. the negotiating team has been led by secretary of state john kerry, by his side, however, for much of the year has been the less well known secretary, secretary moniz, who has played a role among the talented team. dr. moniz has never sought electricitied office. i met him almost a decade ago at m.i.t., a professor in physics, and he testified one day at a field hearing about spent fuel and up came back and said what was he like, i said this guy moniz is a genius, and he is. turns out he's not just a genius, he led the national labs but people just as smart as he is, knows about all things nuclear and any other country in the world and turns out they were harnessed. led by moniz. as it turns out, ironically,

among the graduate students at m.i.t. during his career there was a young iranian name aleah akbar salahi. and he would become dr. moniz's iranian counterpart in the negotiations with the u.s.-led team. saliiz's counterpart was moniz, one of his friends at m.i.t. and thus was created maybe not a bond but a connection and a shared trust that went back to one person that both m moniz at m.i.t. and a former graduate student trusted enormously. didn't take long for secretary moniz and his, after he joined the team this year to assemble the team known as the tutorial,

a tutorial on all things nuclear, known that they, quote, had met their match. add noting moniz was a an act of genius. and he participated with men's and -- members and bolstered the team in ways that maybe no other american could do. much has been made of whether we can trust the iranians to do what they've committed to do. john kerry, dr. moniz and other members of our team say they have, have hammered out it is not based on trust. say it again. it is not based on trust. it is based on mistrust. we realize some future iranian regime may ponder whether to violate the agreement and launch

another covert program for capabilities. that actually -- should they attempt to do that, will we know it? and why consequences are severe enough, are the consequences for iran severe enough to deter them from going forward with it. i am convinced the answer to both questions is yes. today, iran has much more than the hard-line revolutionary guard that whose influence has begun to wane. almost 70 million people, their average age is 25. most of them were not alive in 1979 when the iranian revolution. they don't remember the brutal shah we propped up for years and came to our country when his regime fell. this new generation of iranians are ready to take yes for an answer. i think we should, too.

this is a good deal for america. and our allies. and that only proves america's greatest allies. that could beat the war with iran hands down. about a year and a half ago, up in new york and the house that senator durbin visited with me, we talked about the upcoming negotiations and we said zarif, you have a choice. you can have a strong, vibrant economy for your country again, or you can have a nuclear weapons program. you can not have both. you can not have both. and we're not going to accept a nuclear program. whether they cheat, they have the ability to right back in

place the crippling sanctions, and if that doesn't do the job we have other -- other alternatives at our disposal, other alternatives at our disposal. nothing is off the table. sometimes around here we talk about voting our fears. of voting our hopes. i'm prepared to vote my hopes. i think the hopes for our nation and the iranians' as well. thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i thank my colleague from delaware. that was a very thoughtful presentation and as he alluded to many times he has taken a personal interest and made a personal interest in this issue. i thank him for his insight. i now yield the time, 10 minutes to the senator from michigan. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. appearance: mr. peterson: i have voted i will oppose the

resolution of disapproval despite the resolution. mr. peterson: i did not reach this easily or quickly. although there are many positive aspects to this deal, there are many whose flaws in the months and years ahead. mr. peters: the period has served a useful purpose. the people hundred-on my side of the aisle have raised important points about this deal and administration's negotiators. i commend senators cardin and corker for their bipartisan efforts to establish this review and for affirming congress' role in shaping our nation's foreign policy. after this debate is over, it is my hope that moving forward the senate will form a consensus and act with unity of purpose. we must work together and take action begins iran if they fail to live up to their obligations under this agreement and we must work on legislation and

multinational and lateral efforts to combat iran's sponsorship of terrorist activities and hegemonic activities. we must look no further than the crisis with syria 0 to see the havoc that their proxies are wreaking on a troubled nation. we must work together to stem the provision of it through nuclear states and from iran in particular. nearly 20 countries produce safe, nuclear power without domestic enrichment. america's long-standing policy is that nuclear nonproliferation treaty does not provide for the right to enrich uranium. and while in the short term this helps reduce iran's capacity to enrich and fix the vast majority of their stockpile i am

concerned that other nations will view this agreement as a precedent that will lead to proliferation and lead other nations to emerge as threshold nuclear states. just a few years ago the united states signed and ratified a 1-2-3 agreement that will help them build a capabilities without explicitly providing them uranium on their soil. the united states must take a leadership role in setting a threshold of acceptable levels of enrichment of uranium for the safe production of nuclear energy. as more nations look to meet growing energy needs while minimizeing carbon output, a comprehensive policy to ensure only safe levels of uranium enrichment with safeguards is critical to global security. no nation faces a more severe threat than iran's nuclear

ambitions than the state of israel. for decades the regime has made it their mandate to eliminate the israeli state. we must make sure this never happens. we must to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and smuggling arms to proxies in the region. as the middle east falls deeper into chaos, our allies with israel, the nation that shares so many of our values, has never been more important. america must reaffirm our long-standing commitment to israel's security by renewing our memorandum of understanding, providing israel with upgraded defense capabilities to submit its qualitative edge in the region and bolster their edge to deterrence against iran. the jcpoa is not the end of our multilateral efforts against iran and its illicit behavior.

america must work with our allies to ensure multilateral sanctions against iran for its terrorist activities particularly of hezbollah and hamas. we also must need to set clear understanding how it's will be prohibited from sanctions. we must continue working with coordinated fashion to ensure unity of purpose with their ambition, terrorist activities and destabilize the region. we must also work for pressing the release of all u.s. hostages currently imprisoned in iran including amir hekmati, congress must address these issues. in 2009, congress debated whether to pursue sanctions or diplomacy with iran first, with military force always being the last resort but a necessary final deterrent. i was proud to cosponsor the

efforts of past sanctions in 200 and helped pass additional sanctions in the years since. a as new member of the senate, is joined a group of bipartisan senators ready to pass additional sanctions against iran as they continue to drag out negotiations. iran needed to know that the patience of the united states was not limitless. the jcpoa is a product of complex negotiations and painstaking compromise. but let's be clear. either rejecting or accepting this deal comes with a set of distinct risks. however, those who oppose this deal have been accused of supporting war over diplomacy, and those who support this deal have been likewise portrayed as supporting containment and capitulation. well, foreign policy is rarely so simple. and it is certainly not so simple in this case.

as leaders of this great nation, we owe it to our citizens and the men and women in uniform to never let ourselves become so fractured by partisan politics on issues of such importance to national security. i look forward to working with senators on both sides of the aisle to protect the interests of our allies and the safety and security of this great nation to ensure that the united states of america remains both united in our goals and indivisible in our purpose. i yield the floor. mr. durbin: madam president, i yield ten minutes to the senator from mainement. the presiding officer: the senator prosecute maine. the senator from maine. mr. king: i would ask unanimous

consent for floor privileges for a fellow in my office. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. king: i want to talk about this arrangement and agreement with iran and cover several points and what i think are important realities that have not been emphasized in this debate. but first i want to address the issue of the 60-vote margin. first, i think it should be on the record that the minority leader offered to the majority leader a unanimous consent agreement that there would be no filibuster, no filibuster on the motion to proceed and there would be a 60-vote threshold required for final passage of the bill. as i understand it, that offer was rejected. that means the only alternative is the technical rule of the filibuster i. it is absolutely clear from the record of the corker-cardin bill that everyone involved in that

discussion including the senator from tennessee understood that a 60-vote margin would be required in the passage of this legislation. there was just no question about it. there are quotes in the record. everyone dwhrood from the beginning of the consideration of the corker-cardin bill. finally, every major issue that's come before this body since i've been here has required 60 votes, whether it was immigration or background checks or extension of unemployment benefits or the minimum wage. all of those have required a 60-vote threshold. that has been the standard in this body. we could debate whether that should or should not be the standard, but it is; it has been, and this is not a time to decide that we're going to arbitrarily abandon that. and i must say, i'm sort of amazed to hear people discussing this, as if this is some kind of new imposition of a rule, and it reminds me of "casablanca," i'm

shocked, shocked to understand there might be a 60-vote requirement on this piece of lels. that has bee-- legislation. that has been the standard in this body as long as i've been here. we can discuss whether that should be the standard but that's what it is and no one should be surprised that that is the way that we're proceeding here today. okay, let's talk about the agreement. five quick realities. number one, iran is a nuclear threshold state today. there is a lot of argument -- i sat through the long debate yesterday afternoon about what happens in 2030, what happens in 15 years, and would iran be somehow legitimatized nuclear threshold state? they are a nuclear threshold state today. the risk to the world is imminent. it is not in 15 years. it is today. and that's why this agreement is so important. because basically it freezes and

rolls back iran's nuclear capabilities for at least the next 15 years and probably longer. number two reality: iran is a rogue nation. it foments terrorism around the world. it is a state sponsor of terrorism. everyone knows that. and under this agreement, as has been pointed out, because of the nature of the negotiations, which was roll back your nuclear program in exchange for relief from the sanctions, they will indeed receive relief from the sanctions. and that will give them additional funds for their economy and possibly for their nefarious purposes. but i would submit, madam president, that the only thing worse than a rogue iran is a rogue iran armed with nuclear weapons. and that is the essence of this deal. it prevents their opportunity to

gain nuclear weapons, to create sufficient fissile material. it rolls back what they already have, and i should point out that they became a nuclear threshold state during the imposition of various sanctions regimes. so it's clear that sanctions in and of themselves are never going to prevent their achievement of become ago nuclear weapon state. number three, this is a multilateral agreement. all the discussion around here acts like it is the united states and iran, obama and the ayatollah. it indeed involves the world's major powers. it involves great britain, france, germany, china, russia, and other countries that have helped to enforce those sanctions and make them effective. if we walkway from this deal, we are doing so alone. we had an extraordinary meeting before the recess with

ambassadors from the p-5 plus 1 countries. they made it clear that they had accepted this agreement, and that if we re-yecte rejected itr willingness to go back to the table, reinforce the sanctions -- i believe one of the ambassadors used the term "far-fetched." it is not going to happen. the sanctions are going to erode starting now, no matter what we do in this congress. and i can't figure out any way that a weaker sanctions regime, which is inevitable -- because other countries involved in the sanctions have already started to make moves towards doing business with iran -- i don't see how a weaker sanctions regime is ever going to bring iran back to the table to get us a better deal. reality number four: this agreement is flawed. it is not the agreement that i

would prefer. there are elements of it that i wish could be improved. i wish 15 15 years was 20 or 30 years. but that's -- this is the agreement that is before us, and the analysis to not be strictly of the agreement itself and within its four corners but compared to what? that's really the basic question here, not is this a good deal or a bad deal. the question is how does this deal, no matter what its flaws, compare with the alternatives that are out there? and all of the drama and all of the argument and all of the speeches and rallies that we've heard, no one has yet come up with a credible alternative. i have not yet heard a credible alternative. the only thing i hear is, we'll reimpose sanctions and bring them back to the table and get a better deal.

it's going to be very hard, madam president, to reimpose those sanctions without the support of our international partners. now, if we enter into the deal and iran cheats, then we can bring the international partners back with us. but to do so, to try to think that we could do so now is just unrealistic. i wish there was a better alternative. i also wish i could play tight end for the new england patriots, but it is not going to happen. it's simply not realistic. there is no credible alternative. finally, we have to talk about what happens after the deal. congress has a responsibility. the administration has a responsibility. we cannot trust iran. everyone knows that. no one argues that. and there's been a lot of discussion about the iaea.

i serve on the intelligence committee. we had a briefing just yesterday morning with the heads of our intelligence agencies. it is not just the iaea that is going to be watching this agreement. it is the world's intelligence community. and we have significant capability to know if they're cheating over and above and in addition to anything that the iaea brings to the table. this is not trust. this is verification based upon the iaea's experience -- worldwide experience but also based upon the considerable intelligence assets of the united states and other countries that are supporting us in this effort. finally, there are risks, madam president. i understand that. there are risks on both sides. there are severe risks. this is not an easy call. it is one of the hardest decisions i've ever had to maifnlg but imake.but if you ane alternatives and weigh the risks, i believe that the risk

of not going forward with this agreement are significantly greater than the risks of giving diplomacy a chance. going forward with this agreement, which can be verified, if there is cheating, it can be caught, number one, and punished, number two, and if the agreement doesn't work, we have the same options that we have today. this is a difficult decision, madam president. it is one that has weighed on this body and on this country, but i think this is a tremendous opportunity for us to avoid a nuclear-armed iran and secure at least that part of a peaceful middle east and more secure world. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mr. durbin: madam president? the presidinpresident?officer sm illinois. mr. durbin: meet me thank my colleague from maine for his presentation. i'd like to ask how much time is

remaining. the presiding officer: seven minutes. mr. durbin: i am going to yield to the senator from ohio. i hope seven minutes is adequate. if not, i will ask unanimous consent to extend that and offer time to the other side, whatever is necessary. let me yield to my colleague from ohio. mr. brown: i thank you. madam president, i thank the assistant democratic leader. i rise in support of the international agreement designed to prevent iran to get a nuclear weapon. no one in this body trusts iran. nobody disputes that iran is a leading state sponsor of terrorism. it denies israel's right to exist, it destabilizes the middle east and violates the human right of its people. that's why we need to prevent a nuclear-armed iran, which would pose an exponentially greater danger to the security of the united states, to our longtime, important ally israel and to the entire world. this agreement is the only viable option, as senator king said. no one has answered the question, well, of the hundreds

of calls i've made and the dozens and dozens of briefings and discussions i've had with people on both sides of the agreement, from israeli officials to american security people to activists, engaged citizens on both sides of this, nobody has answered the question, well, what do we do if we vote -- if this agreement is killed in the united states congress? what is the alternative? i'm incredibly proud of the diligent work my colleagues on - in the democratic kaw quo's have done in researching and questioning this deal. no knee-jerk reaction on our side where people all just went the same way almost immediately when the agreement came out. people on the democratic side of the aisle listened to experts, they listened to stakeholders, we came to thoughtful, informed decisions. i made my decision after serious study of the agreement's contents it, after listening to ohioans on all sides of this, after consulting with nuclear

experts like the energy secretary and nobel-prize physicist secretary moniz. i attended hours of briefings from the president, the energy secretary, from treasury secretary lew, from secretary of state kerry, of other administration officials. i consulted u.s. intelligence officials, outside arms control experts, met with over an hour with israel's ambassador to the united states. i met with all five of the ambassadors of the p-5 plus 1 countries, those who have been longtime allies of us from france, england, and germany, those who are allies from time to time from china and from russia. allies on this issue, if not a number of others. all -- every one of them individually, collectively, warned that the united states -- it would be the united states which would be isolated internationally if congress rejected this agreement. my colleagues, many of my colleagues talk about iran's sponsorship of terrorism, it's

human right right abuses, its pt of nuclear missiles. of course we'd although of to solve those issues. sanctions on those issues will remain in place but that was not the focus of this nuclear agreement. let's be clear. when i hear opponents say that iran 10, 15 years from now would be a threshold nuclear state. maybe they will, maybe they won't. that's certainly debatable. it's not debatable that iran have a threshold nuclear state now. they're two to three months from being able to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon. the agreement provides for comprehensive restrictions today, beginning today, beginning when congress allows this agreement to move forward, to block iran's pathway to a bomb. they include reducing iran's installed centrifuges by two-thirds for at least ten years, cutting its stockpile of enriched uranium by 98% for 15

years, reconfiguring its plutonium reactor to render it inoperable. for the first time the deal requires 24/7 access. the united nations inspectors will say that of the 120 country inspections they've done, this is the most comprehensive and most intrusive. the deal provides time-certain access to suspicious sites in iran. it's a permanent prohibition on iran requiring developing a nuclear weapon. it's a -- provides a permanent ban on nuclear weapons research. if iran violates the deal, the united states -- the agreement gives the united states extraordinary power to snap back both u.s. and international sanctions without fear of veto by other nations. the president made clear if 10 or 15 or 20 years from now iran tries to build a bomb, this agreement ensures the united states will have better, better

tools to target it. americans strongly -- americans fundamentally don't want another war in the middle east. americans strongly prefer a diplomatic solution, which this agreement is all about, that ensures that iran cannot obtain a nuclear weapon. at the beginning of my remarks, madam president, i spoke about the serious way with great gravitas that democrat after democrat after democratic senator, the serious way we pursued coming to a decision on this. let me contrast for a moment on this, one of the most significant national security issues congress will face in a generation. i've been in the house and senate for 20 years now. this will be the second, one of the two most important decisions i have made on foreign policy. the first was my vote against the war in iraq. it was clearly the right vote. overwhelming public support for it. the president and -- we know that the information we were presented wasn't exactly right in the end, even though huge

support in congress, a lot of public support for going into war with iraq. i thought about that a lot. i made a decision that i thought the iraq war would be disastrous for our country. that decision clearly was right. it wasn't so partisan back then, although we had a president that certainly pushed us -- and a vice president especially that pushed us into that war. but this agreement should not be subject to the kinds of reflective partisan attacks we've seen in recent months. just a few months ago 47 of my republican colleagues signed a letter signaling their opposition to the emerging deal. not just that, they signed a letter to the ayatollah, to the leader of the enemy -- iran -- suggesting that it wasn't quite on the up and up because of the president of the united states. they signed a letter that was teaching the ayatollah, if you will, some american civic lessons. imagine, madam president, if democrats in the senate in the early 1980's had written a

letter to president gorbachev saying don't negotiate with ronald reagan. imagine if we had done that. madam president, i ask for two minutes additional time, unanimous consent. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. imagine if that had happened. we start off with 47 republicans writing to the ayatollah saying fundamentally don't negotiate with president obama. we have seen, madam president, now not a single one of my colleagues is in support of this agreement even though secretary powell supports it, even though former senator lugar who is as respected as anybody in this country as a former republican senator. it's not just at this point not a single one of my republican colleagues, but the first day the agreement came out, i hear talk radio saying read the agreement, read the bill. the first day that this agreement came out, 19 republicans that first day came out in opposition to this agreement. there's no way they could have read it. i know how complicated this agreement is. i read it. i assume that every one of my

democratic colleagues who in an arduous, focused, difficult, persistent way studied this issue. and then i see what happened on the other side of the aisle when it was, as timothy krause said as the press does in the boys in the bus, one of them flies off the telephone wire, they all fly off the telephone wire. that's what happened. i see senator corker here, one of the people who didn't sign that letter and one of the people who thought about this issue. but what i saw in the contrast the way we looked at it, it was pretty disturbing. madam president, i will conclude. my time is running out. this agreement will matter for our country. it's clearly in our national interest. i think there is no good -- there's been no good answer offered on what happens if we walk away. that's why this congress -- i ask my senators to vote ". coat? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: madam president, i want to thank my colleague, senator corker, for his diligent

efforts that have consumed literally hundreds if not thousands of hours of that effort as chairman of the senate foreign relations committee in helping guide us through this very important process, very difficult process. i was on this floor earlier saying this is an issue that rises above partisan politics. this is something that each of us as a senator has to weigh carefully. i have spent i don't know how many hours and how much time reading through, parsing through, trying to analyze and understand this agreement, side annexes and everything connected with it. i would like to now state to my colleagues perhaps with an appeal that they at least, at the very least set aside this. the deal was done. you lost. therefore, we're not even going to allow a vote on this matter. this is one of the most historic, consequential measures that anyone in this chamber will

ever be confronted with. i know for me it is the most because of of the historic consequences that may occur if we don't get this right. it's important that we debate this and have ample time to go through every bit of this and have each member of this weigh carefully what we hear from each other and what we come to understand on the basis of our own personal examination. and i hope that will be the case. to deny us the opportunity to even let our yes be yes or our no be no before the public i think would be a tragic mistake. i would like to just go back a little bit and talk about my history with all this. when i returned from my ambassadorship to germany and actually had to deal with this as one of many different issues, because even back then there was great concern among both the united states and the german government over iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons capability. and i engaged in a number of

discussions and diplomatic efforts there in working with our ally country germany on this issue. but when i did come back, and i suppose partly because of my engagement there, i was asked by the bipartisan policy committee that had just been formed to chair a task force on this very issue. iranians pursued -- the iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons. i obviously wanted this to be bipartisan, so i recruited my fellow senate colleague, chuck robb, then retired senator from virginia. and together we cochaired that. later we were joined by retired four-star general and deputy, supreme a lead commander in europe, chuck wall. europe, chuck wall. we put together a who's who of experts on the middle east, experts on nuclear capabilities. we had renowned experts from

across the spectrum have been present to us. and all that resulted in three major reports tied with meeting the challenge, you as public towards iranian nuclear development. the second one, meeting the challenge, time is running out. the third, meeting the challenge, when time runs out. there is a treasure trove of information here about how iran has violated u.n. treaty resolution, violated this proliferation treaty agreement. we've talked about the consequences of all this and made recommendations to the administration. as it turns out these recommendations were both on republican administration under president george w. bush and the obama administration under our current president. clearly we had outlined an interest the time i won't be

able to go back through all of this but let me just state a couple of the conclusions here relative to all of us. absent necessary leverage we believe it unlikely to supreme leader khamenei will reciprocate president obama conciliatory gestures in a meaningful way. we talked about, first of all, we enforced diplomacy to its ultimate, but we recognize that diplomacy has its limits. we consider the table to talk cannot come to agreement for decades and we have been trying to diplomatic efforts with iran and they were not succeeding. so then we talked about the necessity of having sanctions and ever ratcheting tightening sanctions to bring iran to the table, included in that was the

threat of use of force if all else fails. none of us on the committee were warmongers. we want to do everything possible to prevent conflict in this come in solving this problem. so we laid out a long framework, and perhaps if this continues into next week i'll be able to go through some of this framework, but they key here on this, stated here somewhere in my, the key to this, i'll just state it by going through it. they key to all this was about you had to the combination of tough diplomacy, which we figures up and will continue that, backed up by ever ratcheting sanctions to show iran that there was a price to pay for not coming to agreement, and then back to old to me by the threat of force if we could secure an agreement which would

reach the goal. and the goal is to prevent iran from having nuclear weapons capability, going to stabilization that would take place in the middle east and historic impact this would have and the consequences this would have as come if we allow that to happen. now, let me move on to what i believe are major problems with this deal. we know iran's misbehavior, it's violations of six u.n. treaties, that a degree two, it's violation of the nonproliferation treaty, its support for terrorism, it is a bad actor, perhaps the world's worst bad actor. engaging in weaponization that killed american troops. we are not dealing, we are dealing with a rogue nation. and i don't know how my

colleagues react to this but when they cut a deal with the united states and they are cheering in the streets of tehran and the supreme leader comes out yesterday and basically says well, don't worry to -- don't worry, israel will not be around the next 25 years. they would be wiped off the map. this is the party that we just negotiated an agreement with. if we negotiate an agreement that achieve our goals, i would say good for us. we finally, the sanctions work. we came up with a good agreement but as i read through this document and parsed over every word and tried to find every meaning, and over the annexes and talk to the experts. i served on the intelligence committee. earlier i served on the armed services committee. i've had more than a decade experience in this. i was hoping to read through this document, spent almost the

entire weekend carefully reading this, opening we have achieved at least some, if not the most important goals that we had. and to my dismay we ended up not achieving any of those goals. the goals were to present iran from having nuclear weapons capability that could break out and totally destabilize the middle east. what we have come up with is agreement that puts them on a path to do exactly that, justified now by this agreement, justified by the security council after you and i said there were two major things that needed to be talked about before we talk about somebody specifics. first, the false claim we must choose between accepting this failed agreement or war, and the second is that the agreement prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.

this is the sales pitch from the white house. this is the sales pitches that is being made to the american people and neither of these is true. it has to be a desperate administration that has chosen to force this agreement on us by arguing that it's a choice between this deal and war. i'm disgusted by the administration's failed strategy for this agreement and those who are led down the path of belief that the only option here is war and, therefore, no matter what we gave away, this deal is better than the alternative. the false choice is among the most infamous, cynical, and blatantly false and manipulation the obama administration has used and in historic important debate. he ought to be unshaved for using the stock -- out to be

ashamed for using this tactic. this deal makes future war far more likely, not less because by abandoning of the tool of economic sanctions and giving away a strong principled negotiating position, the administrations desperate tactics is reducing our options when iran does go nuclear as we have put them on the path to do. president obama and secretary kerry have repeatedly said over the past year that no deal is better than a bad deal. and never argued that in deal is better than no deal yet that is what they ended up conceding. we have the strength of six of the most powerful countries in the world, united states, great britain, france, germany, china and russia sitting at one side of the negotiating table. on the other side was and iran crippled by sanctions. oil falling into the range of $40 of their which cost them

more to extract it and sel so tn they could get back. they were desperate to achieve some kind of relief from these sanctions. we had the negotiating leverage. we gave away that leverage in these negotiations, desperate to conclude anything whatsoever so that we could avoid making some difficult decisions down the line in terms of what we had said we must do. for presidents, including this president, to democrats, to republicans, said it is unacceptable for iran to achieve nuclear capability. we gave that away just to get them at the table. just to get them at the table. we took off use of anti-force, anti-leverage or additional sanctions are continuing of sanctions in order to just get to the table. not negotiating to get what we needed but just to get to the table. the administration has accepted in my opinion a deeply flawed

deal, then set in motion with a u.n. security council resolution on the next day well before congress could even respond to it. thank goodness senator corker, senator cardin were able to convince their colleagues on a 98-1 vote to give congress the right to say in this issue. had that not happened the president by not declaring this a treaty is simply declaring this as executive agreement the president would unlock this thing in the form even had a chance to read it, before the american people have a chance to know what it was except what the president told them that it was for the second estate told him that it was. we are having this debate thanks to these two men, these two leaders, one a republican and what the democrats let the courage to stand up to this president and say no, the american people deserve to have a say. and boy, what is it is. i don't know about others, my mail is running into went

against it. maybe i'm talking to the wrong people, i don't know, but the more they learn about this agreement the more they say, are you crazy? you gave up that? for what? what did we get back? i want to go over some of that. try to move this is because i know, i know time is of the essence here, but this idea that war is the only alternative. and in the sales pitch that i've heard someone my colleagues and others who support the deal say, you know, i'm for this because this prevent iran from having a nuclear bomb. it's just the opposite it gives iran the pathway to have a nuclear bomb. is has a sunset clause in it and releases all the sanctions. there's a sunset clause this is after 15 years they can do whatever they want to do. you can't we impose sanctions.

what kind of a deal is that? the false narrative that this will not allow that agreement, the analysts say we have to help iran achieve nuclear research, nuclear research that can help them move toward it. i looked at the annex and said, shortly i'm reading this wrong. -- shirley. we are committed to help and other nations to is to wants to take action against this because they think it will be extinguished from the face of the earth as the iranians have told him that's going to happen, want to take action. we actually are required to try to convince the israelis not to do that. we side with the iranians. you can't write this script. this is beyond comprehension. those two false narratives are

what we all, although, i to say wait a minute, let's not go forward with this deal. surely we can find a way to negotiate a better deal for us. now, our bipartisan policy committee, i want to read from this because we looked into this very question and this was the conclusion. even if iran were to on all of its obligations and fully comply with all the restrictions in the agreement, jcpoa, the deal would not prevent a nuclear iran indefinitely. starting in year 13 iran will be able to break out, produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon in about 10 weeks, down from one year. in your 16th iran without nuclear weapons capability and a breakout time of less than three weeks. that was the conclusion, not of republicans. that was the conclusion of a

nonpartisan, bipartisan group of experts chaired by a republican, former senator at the time and democratic former senator at the time. what we have said actually has come true. the sunset clause should by itself be enough to persuade hopefully a majority of us to reject this deal. it just doesn't make sense. if president bush in 2001 have presented to the american people the same deal with iran and secured the votes to pass this deal, today iran would be having breakout, unrestricted breakout assisted by the agreement, and we are going to call the diplomatic victory? 15 years is going to go by very fast. they will have breakout cases much or even that.

easily declare that we breached the agreement that they're pulling back and, therefore, they're going forward. and they will have well over $100 million to achieve to achieve that effort. they will have sanctions relief, total sanctions really. they will be able to export all the oil that they want, and iran wins. now, for our something to cure -- there are some particular problems with this into been listed by people on the right, charles krauthammer, on the left or lease in the middle, david brooks, "new york times," not exactly the republican brand, david brooks not necessarily a far right-winger, a sickly saying every single major goal that we had going into this agreement has been given away in a desperate attempt to achieve

any agreement so that we don't have to deal with this, this, what we have to deal with can be pushed down the road. so on that basis i went through the agreement and looked at some of these areas, and i would like to identify for the record those that we had the leverage to achieve, a goal, stated goal by the administration and by others negotiating to achieve, and we caved on every one of them, everyone. first, verification inspections. most people understand that anytime anywhere means anytime anywhere. actually now it means well, at minimum 24 days if iran agrees with us initially that we should go through this convoluted process which iran helps make the decisions like giving tom

brady and the patriots the right to determine whether not their footballs were deflated. i'm from indiana, the colts and they whipped us in the super bowl and i'm probably biased in that statement. on the other and just to simplify for people, if you have an adversary that you don't trust and you want to have the ability to find a whether or not what they say or do is true, you don't say go ahead and check it yourself and then tell me what you think and we will take that for an answer. talk about anything, anytime anywhere on inspections. the administration also argued this principle of short notice. secretary kerry when asked at one of our meetings here, basically said no, i think i got the quote here, he said we never

pursued such a goal. and, indeed, we never heard of it. i along with everyone of us here was relieved when the administration announced, i don't know if it was secretary kerry or one of his supporters announced inspections anytime anywhere. folky, at least we have that. now we learn no americans will be part of the inspection team. now we learn that ewing independent agency will do the inspections. and now we have learned that are off limits to military and former weapons manufacturing and research facilities that were not even allowed to inspect. and so anywhere anytime has become a farce. and how can you possibly, that in and of itself would be reason not to vote for this agreement. how do you go home and it's going to people anytime anywhere is a scrubbed version of 24 days

at a minimum as long as iran agrees? it doesn't take somebody with a ph.d or a lot of great or even senator or congressman who has delved into these issues for people to say, are you nuts? who was signed a deal like that? uranium enrichment, we caved better. and then, and then talk about, one of the key witnesses, weaknesses is the agreement centrifuges are to be disconnected and only stored feed from their original positions. they can be reintroduced into the enrichment system when the earlier expiration dates whenever they choose to move quickly to nuclear capability. this is also highly technical stuff but the bottom line is almost all aspects of these enrichment details is in dispute by experts who understand this

technical application of all this, and they are not persuaded by the misleading leadership coming out of the administration. once again for another cave. fordo. what is four to? fordo is a facility in which some nuclear technology pursuit was being undertaken and we wanted to be able to shut that down. but the iranians had no, no, no, don't think so. so we said okay, let's cave on that. let's move onto something else. the same apply to military dimensions. undisclosed military facilities. secretary kerry explained again, explained his new position, his new position now. he no longer was fixated on the past ago something we talked about months ago. i'm not fixated on that anymore. scratch that would often don't worry, keep fordo open from no

problems. what's next? okay. sanctions relief. disagreement does not generally release sanctions pressure as ritual intended to her brother abandoned the sanctions regime entirely all at once. indeed, the multilateral sanctions are already gone. european nations and others are flocking into tehran to sign long-term agreements that will no longer be subject to sanctions if they are quote snapped back. we lost again. the position of sanctions but we find that the something is wrong, it's a farce. i talked about step back here. i'm going to move forward on that. this is what imagine before but it still cannot comprehend it. video obligates the p5+1, that's

the six nations that were negotiating, obligates us to action help iran build up its nuclear infrastructure during the 15 years before they achieve a three-week break out. we are actually helping them construct their nuclear infrastructure which then can easily be converted to breaking out for nuclear weapons. and in return for altering their timetable for nuclear industrial development, the iranians secured not just the international acceptance of that activity but actual assistance in pursuing it. that's incredible. we are actually helping iran get to the bottom? as we hear from some of our colleagues who support the agreement, i'm voting for this because this prevents iran from getting a bomb. we the agreement. it's not easy to read. it's not fun to read, but it is alarming to read.

i was in the senate in the '90s, and the negotiations, actually wendy sherman who negotiated along with secretary kerry on this agreement was principle in the north korean agreements. i remember being told on this floor by the president of the united states, i meet through the president of the united states, then president clinton, his secretary of state and others, don't worry, we have total verification procedures in place. if they cheat on us we are going to know it. and when we know it we will stop it. well, here it is 2015. north korea has between 20 and 40 nuclear weapons sitting on top of ballistic missiles, and we didn't know it. so that makes me a skeptic going into thing because it's like

déjà vu. it's like being told the same kind of thing, don't worry, we'll know if they cheat, we will be able to do something to stop them. this is the assurance that this is a good deal, so that's a hard sell for me. it is a no sale for me because i didn't end up voting for that because i had some we all suspicions about whether or not that would take place. i checked that ought to be a lesson for all of us here have something that was promised by the president of the united states and to secretary of state and his negotiating team will not necessarily come true and be the case. and so the promises that have been made about what this agreement is and what isn't and what we will be able to do, i measure those in what did we work out well with north korea and get the same negotiator do that, helped negotiate on this. out of that my colleague from

tennessee to stand because i'm running along on this. i've got a lot more i would like to say. i'm going to try to move to a couple of last things here. some prominent people have been stating, noted here as favored the deal. i think henry kissinger is someone that probably has the experience at the age of 97 years, lifetime and diplomacy and i don't have to get his credentials. and george shultz also have some credibility on this. if you want to listen to one side, you ought to listen to the other. they said quote previous thinking on nuclear strategy assure the existence of stable state act of how this document strengths and to reach were sponsorship of nonstate proxies is, to a state structure is under assault and death on behalf of jihad is a kind of

fulfillment? sadly their views have been largely ignored and not mentioned by anyone else. so if they're going to mention better guys, we will mention our guys. look, the last thing i want to say before i conclude is there has been much discussion about the consequences, which i think should be a core issue, consequences for israel. are only democratic ally in the region. prime minister netanyahu was here. he spoke to a joint assembly of congress. he received standing ovations for standing tall and standing part and dissenting the very future existence of my nation is at risk here. and he made the point that a bad deal is not better than no deal, that no deal, a bad deal could

be worse than no deal and there were ways around this. and we cannot ignore the major risk that iran will follow through with their often repeated threats of obliterating the state of israel, a threat that was just repeated by the supreme leader yesterday. in conclusion, i would ask one minute to conclude. >> is there objection? >> i thank my colleagues. with this agreement we have paid too much and gained two little. the risks are not adequately acknowledged and not effectively addressed. i cannot support this agreement. i cannot approve of misguided desperation that led to it. i cannot understand those who claim this is a great victory for diplomacy, those who turned a blind eye to it, it's obvious this is because of the appeal of party discipline nor those who have fallen prey to the obama administration manipulation of the deal with the u.n. prior to

congress having any say in this. when i read about the bloating, the boastful joy in tehran, in iran, in tehran, the capital, that all their needs were met and that none of the red lines were crossed, i despair. i despair because this misadventure has been a failure of vision, a failure of will and a historic failure of leadership. and i fear that these failures will lead to great suffering. we have seen this before, peace at any price is not peace. peace at any price in some time leads to tragic consequences. in the last century we saw the loss of tens of millions of lives, because the goal was to seek peace at any price. we should not make that mistake again. i yield the floor.

spirit if i could, trying to thank you very much for your passionate comments ander crenshaw from day one about this agreement. i think that we ran over a little bit i know senator brown from iran over. if i could ask, which some have on our site. >> twenty-eight minutes for the majority. >> okay. so i know you all each asked for 15 to advocate may be considered 14 each so it's equally divided. we will turn to -- >> twelve. >> senator roberts will enjoy the. this will be equally divided between our distinguished senator grassley and senator roberts. thank you both for being here. >> madam president? >> the senator from iowa. >> of course this is a critically important debate on the nuclear deal that's going to have long lasting impact on our national security and the security of our friends and our allies. this debate is happening because

98 senators expressed the desire to have a say on this agreement. this process will allow the american people to speak through their elected representatives, and i can say the american people overwhelmingly oppose this agreement. new public opinion polls released in just the last few days indicate that americans in general are opposed to this deal by a margin of two to one. only 21% support it. i participated in meetings with constituents and 25 of iowa's 99 counties during the august work period. the message i received was overwhelmingly in opposition to this agreement. that's the same message i'm hearing from iowans who have written or called since the deal was announced in july.

after many weeks of studying the terms of the iranian deal, also hearing from experts and attending classified briefings and engaging in dialogue with my constituents, my initial skepticism have been confirmed. i have come to the conclusion that this agreement presented to us as a bad deal that will increase our national security or the security of our friends and allies, and it been should be rejected. the united states began the negotiations from a position of very real strength. the international sanctions were obviously hurting iran, and iran wanted out from under those sanctions. the sanction regime that congress put in place over the objections of president obama drove iran to the negotiating

table. the administration leading up to negotiations and throughout the entire process outlined the conditions for a good deal. president obama and secretary kerry both made important statements about the goals of the negotiations, the goal was, of course to dismantle iran's nuclear program. secretary kerry himself set in the fall of 2013 that iran has no right to enrich, and that a good deal with iran would quote help iran dismantle its nuclear program, end of quote. now, despite all these assurances that the negotiations would include anytime anywhere inspections, the deal falls we'll short. president obama then negotiated

away from these positions over the course of these negotiations. disagreement accepts and legitimizes iran as a nuclear threshold state. iran will not dismantle many important part of its uranium enrichment infrastructure, contrary to past u.s. policies that iran not be allowed to enrich. and iran also is permitted to continue a vast research and development program. many of the significant limitations expired after 10 short years. leaving iran and internationally legitimate nuclear program. iran to fully abide by this deal and be a nuclear threshold state, contrary to what we were

promised by this administration, the initial goals that were announced by the president. now, with respect to inspections, international inspectors have not, will not have anytime anywhere access your they will have what's termed managed access. in fact, the deal provides iran with a 24 day process to further delay, and you know what will happen, prohibited activities. iran has a track record of cheating or otherwise i could say those things. they have cheated on past agreements. this a deal allows iran to stonewall the inspectors for up to 24 days. the agreement also includes side agreements between iran and the international atomic energy agency that we can't review.

and even the administration has not seen that. and people in this country expect us to read before we vote. and, of course, we can read the agreement but you can't read side agreements avalon requires be given to the congress to read under this special law. and so we will be voting on things that we haven't seen and the law says we should see. the iran nuclear review act which passed the senate 98-1 requires the administration to provide to congress access to all, quote, indices, side agreements, implementing material, documents, guidance, technical or otherwise, other understand this, and any related agreements, end of quote, as

part of our agreement with the president. it seems in this case we are being asked to put our faith in the iranian regime did not cheat, contrary to know pashtun contrary to what we know about them. iran has not provided details on the past military dimensions of its nuclear program, even though the u.s. position was, very simply, that iran had to come clean about that history before any sanction relief. it's critical for a robust verification regime to work that they atomic energy agency have a full accounting of iran's past efforts and stockpiles. yet it appears that ran will be allowed to supervise itself by conducting its own inspections

and collect samples on the secretive military facilities in parchin where much of the military dimensions of its nuclear program had been carried out. i also oppose a last minute decision to lift the embargo on conventional arms and ballistic missiles. this is what general martin dempsey, chairman, joint chiefs of staff, testified before the senate armed services committee in july that, quote, we should under no circumstances relief pressure on iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking, end of quote. so they didn't listen to the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. so under this agreement after just five years, the

conventional arms embargo would be lifted. after just eight years the ballistic missile embargo will be lifted. iran has long sought the technology to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles which would be a direct threat to the united states and our allies. and iran's past arms trafficking to the hezbollah, hamas, and other terrorist organizations has long threatened the state of israel. other middle eastern allies as well, it is of course threatens stability, very much so in the region, once iran has complied with the initial restraint on its nuclear program, many sanctions will be lifted. this will release somewhere around $100 billion of frozen iranian assets.

the lifting of sanctions and release of the funds will only exacerbate iran's support for terror, tradition of terror with iran having access to tens of billions of frozen assets, bolstering its conventional military, and for the supporting global terrorism. even obama administration officials have said that iran is likely to use some of the funds to purchase weapons and fund terrorism that would threaten americans and israelis. now, isn't that something, for this administration negotiating an agreement worked it is assumed we will give them up for the resources to support efforts to kill americans and western europeans? the concept of snapping back is

another issue that's been discussed. these sanctions also appear less effective on the issue of snapping that been originally claimed. the complicated process to read impose sanctions is unlikely to work, even if iran fails to comply with the agreement. iran views step back sanctions as grounds to walk away from the agreement. to any effort to impose sanctions will be regarded by all parties as to whether to dissolve the agreement and imposed sanctions. i support a robust diplomatic effort that will present iran from developing nuclear weapons capability. but i also strongly disagree with opponents of this agreement who argued that the only alternative to this is war. got of course is a false choice, and intellectually dishonest.

iran came to the negotiating tables because it desperately sought sanctions relief. if they still were rejected, we could impose even tougher sanctions allowed our diplomats to negotiate a better deal that would more adequately safeguard our nation's security interests and that of our allies. a better deal would not legitimize iran as a nuclear threshold state. it would not trade massive sanctuary for limited temporary constraints and it would not provide concessions that will trigger a regional nuclear arms race. it will rejected this deal, if we reject this idea we will push for international agreement that would truly dismantle iran's nuclear program and verifiably prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. a better deal would not ignore

advanced past bad behavior. iran has so many years been the most active state sponsor of terrorism. iran has and egregious record of human rights violations, and the persecution of religious minorities. it continues to imprison u.s. citizens. at least 500 u.s. military deaths in iraq and afghanistan are directly linked to iran and its support for at the american militants. disagreement will free up tens of billions of dollars of these frozen iranian assets without addressing any of these issues. we know iran will use some of that money to support terrorist activities throughout the middle east, and those our extended into the united states and western europe. iran provides support for the brutal assad regime in syria,

and who' who the rebels in yemed provides weapons and funding support for hamas and hezbollah. this deal appears to be the result of desperation on the side, on our side for a deal, any deal, and the iranians knew that, and took advantage of our -- >> your time has expired. >> i can't even finish one more page? i will put it into record. thank you for your consideration. >> go ahead. >> well, the deal is result of president obama's philosophy of leaving from behind you as a result of this philosophy we now have enemies who don't fear us. and friends and allies who don't follow was because the question our credibility and the question our leadership. we have a more dangerous world because of it. president obama himself said that it's better to have no deal

and the bad deal. this deal has far too many shortcomings and will fail to make america, our allies safer. it will not prevent iran from developing nuclear weapons, while providing a windfall that will allow them to ramp up their bad behavior. so, as obviously you know, i oppose this deal and hope we can send a signal to the administration and iran that we need a deal that improves our national security and this saturday of our friends and allies, in response to the common sense of the american people who, through the polls come have shown that they know this to be a bad deal. i yield the floor. >> madam president? >> senator from kansas. >> madam president, we all compared to make a difference. we have on the floor to senators have done just that -- we all come here to make a difference. senator corker, the democratic

counterpart, history will note what both of you have been ticketed in regards to leadership, perseverance and try to make a better situation, or a pretty bad situation much better. i thank you for that. madam president, i rise today concerned, disheartened and fearful about the vote, to be more accurate, not even having a vote, regarding the issue before us that affects our national security and that of others worldwide. we have before us of the joint comprehensive plan of action, an executive agreement whose original goal was to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear armed state. in keeping with our constitutional responsibility and the senate tradition, what we should have before us is a treaty but we do not. we could be having a debate on rational commonsense and effective amendments that would protect our country, and reduce

the claims of turmoil in the middle east and in europe. but we are not we are voting on a resolution of disapproval and we may well end up voting not to vote at all, a probability i find inexplicable and outrageous. innocent its 226 year history it is taking up almost 1900 treaty's, and only rejected 20 to. many of which have dealt with subjects of much less consequences. idea program the administration would not even consider the senate allowed to vote on this crucial foreign policy a national secret issue as a treaty. and during a debate on the iran nuclear review act in april i voted in favor of senator johnson's amendment to do just that. we had the opportunity, the senate failed to seize it. i believe this agreement to be deeply flawed at our failure to truly debate and fix what isn't

represents an application of our responsibility this in the face of an agreement or a deal that is already adverse affecting the daily lives and well being of individuals all around the world, refugees throughout the middle east recognize that the united states is yielding both power and persuasion to iran, and they were fleeing for their lives. as a family to consider this agreement is not enough, now consider the fact that there are those in this distinguished body who will try to block cloture. and in doing so prevent even a simple yes or no vote on the resolution. talk about an upside down alice in wonderland exercise. the senate has already voted 90-to back to the vote and yet we stand to get it ready to advocate that the boat. of my colleagues from what are we doing with your simply debating a flawed agreement submitted to us by the president. we are not demanding.

or voting on the agreement at all. we are just debating. the past which was we take today, a detour into a box canyon achieving nothing has been forced upon us by the very same people who made the senate swallow the nuclear option. where on earth has the senate gone? the president has been breaking arms and political legs urging my colleagues use of senate procedure and deny senators the right to vote. it's pretty simple. the present doesn't want the senate to vote no on what he considers his foreign policy legacy. however, on occasion to send it has put partisanship aside and debated issues of deep conviction and diverging opinions. this should be one of those times. but it is not. we should find a path forward that enables bipartisan accord as a legislative body, but that

always starts when respected trumps bipartisanship. i regret that is not today. not this week, not this issue, not this president. given the fact that we are where we are i think it is imperative we fully understand how iran interprets this agreement. the shoe is on the iranian foot, judging by the statements of their leaders, they believed that fits just fine. we have heard in detail from secretary kerry, we have heard and then lectured by the president, but never should also know what the iranian president, mohammad, and the supreme leader, khamenei, told the iranian people after the agreement was finalized, the difference is both pertinent and remarkable. speaking before his constituency, his people in tehran, president rouhani

perfectly articulated what the u.s. began the so-called negotiations and whether u.s. made enormous concessions. according to them we did not negotiate at all. we conceded. mr. president, madam president, pardon me, it is a paradox of enormous irony that in order to know the truth about this agreement, highly praised by this administration, well received a determined minority of the senate, to learn been fortunate truth about who negotiated and to conceded, we have to read and understand the remarks of president rouhani of iran to get the full picture. president rouhani state is beginning the u.s. capped a number of centrifuges to 100. today it is, iran is allowed over 6000 where of racial restriction of that were set for 20 years, today it is eight. with regards to research and development the u.s. abandoned any limits on developing system for enriching uranium. iran is treated develop

centrifuges to the highest level they desire, the ir-8. the administration placed a red light on heavy water production at the arak facility today the reactor will continue operating and produce heavy water. we said sanctions would be lifted incrementally. today they are virtually nonexistent the soon iran will receive a windfall of approximately 100-$150 billion for whatever use it wishes, read terrorism, read and type -- what happened to the inspections regime? this administration said anytime, anywhere but iran walked away holding the key to who, how and when inspectors will get him. it's not so much what we in the u.s. know or believe. it is rather what iran believes endorsed by the president and supreme leader. better remarks only put into absolute focus by the iranian government understands as better

responsibility in regards to this agreement, but it also puts into perspective which side demanded and which side conceded. now the administration will argue president on his statements are but a shill for the iranian public, that iran wants to claim they can become a stable influence in the middle east are sure, tell that to israel. but the question remains, are we voting on an agreement or are we voting on concessions? according to president rouhani it is the latter. perhaps the proud boasting of president rouhani is one thing, but the balance of the ayatollah are quite another. his speech punctuated by cheers, death to america, death to israel, vowed the regardless of the deals approval, or not, iran would never stop supporting their friends in palestine, yemen, syria, iraq or lebanon, the exact places iran have been

found to be backing terrorist organizations which led to its listing as a state sponsor of terrorism by the state department. i have just listed a concession and bow vows iran's leaders have made public. what about the ones that whenever the revealed? today all senators should be concerned about these negotiations an and agreements. do we have access? no. do we have information? no. we have a transparency? no. do we know what the processes will be allowed? no. well, mr. president, actually we do. under the agreement dispute resolution, mechanisms this agreement sets up a tortured path that does not just involve the much-publicized 24 day waiting period. after 24 days any dispute would be referred to a joint commission where the wood a 15 day waiting period.

than the dispute would be referred to the ministers of foreign affairs with another 15 day waiting period. and, finally, the dispute would end up before an advisory board where you guessed it, another 15 day waiting period. all of this of course can't be delayed if the parties agreed on an extension for further discussion, which they would. instead of resolution weapon and getting series of switchbacks to get to the topi top of the mounn which impact we will never see. the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. we have tried iaea inspections with iran before and they failed miserably. it seems nothing short of insane to say we can trust iran today. mr. president, thi this bill dos more than give iran how to self regulate, filibuster and vote inspections it gives them the ability to remain unaccountable and rogue. this debate is not just about

what the administration, this body or the american public thinks of an agreement with iran. this is also very much about what the iranians and think we have and will accept. i worry we are looking at this so-called agreement through rose-colored glasses, mr. president, based on health and the misguided idea that any deal is better than no deal because the alternative is war. why do i say rose-colored glasses? it is because civilized nations, nations like america, nations in europe, we naturally want to believe that disaster and chaos will not happen. unfortunately, they do. 14 years ago tomorrow while heading into work, i heard the news of the world trade center being attacked, and my heartfelt and my stomach churned. because estimate of the senate intelligence committee at the time i've been repeating over and over again that the oceans

no longer protected us and a nation of warfare was dramatically changing. at the time of the attacks coming up on 395 i could see black smoke billowing from the pentagon, and i knew, i knew that the capital would be next. if it were not for the heroes of flight 93 that made the declaration let's roll, a national rallying cry, my instincts would've been right in the capital would've been it. the probability is i would not be making these remarks today had that happen. now, mr. president, my colleagues, everybody watching, close your eyes. close your eyes. imagine that terrible ramifications had that plane hit the capital where we sit today would have been rubble. now imagine that happening tomorrow. throughout our history commentary to peace, stability prosperity have unfolded in the

aberration, not the norm. as a result of the hardware as americans have made the ultimate sacrifice in so many conflicts throughout our history. around the world with what is man's inhumanity to man, the holocaust, cambodia, rwanda, and now with iraq and syria and the savage caliphate threatening almost indiscriminately against all those who did not subscribe to their sharia law and especially tour best ally in the region, the state of israel. my colleagues, despite our best efforts, our hope, our optimism and the siren song it can't happen, i would only remind you that history tells us that it has happened and it will happen again. unless, mr. president, and less we have the courage to take off the rose-colored glasses income to the realization with regards to the consequences of what we are doing, or more aptly put, not doing, in who we are dealing with. today we're dealing with a state

sponsor of terrorism and it will continue. iran will become a nuclear armed state. i want to make it clear i do not trust iran. i will never support concessions which will allow them to become a nuclear armed state. it is my hope to vote yes on the resolution of disapproval as my good friend and colleague senator cornyn emphasize yesterday. every center here should -- >> the majority's time has expired. >> i ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds. >> without objection. >> every center here should have the opportunity to vote on this issue given the irony that iran's leadership has given the power and privilege to its own

parliament. at least, mr. president, at least, my colleagues, at least give me and others the privilege today as a senator cast the most important vote of my 35 years in public service. spent i believe every single member of congress stand united in our commitment to block iran from securing a nuclear weapon. the question we're debating here is the pathway that is best for ensuring that outcome. is at the international agreement negotiated between iran and the p5+1 nations? is that the best strategy for blocking iran's potentials pursuit of nuclear weapon or is there some other route that deals better probability, that outcome? that is the issue were considered over the last month of export every occupant and count argument. i've met with both experts and

intelligence analyst, advocates and the ambassadors of our partner nations. i have sought and received of the council of our to me and pashtun oregonians on both issues. taking all this into account, this deal is the best available strategy for blocking iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. that plans strength is tha over5 years a creates an effective framework for blocking iran's three pathways to securing a nuclear weapon. the iranian path, the tony path and the covert path. epilogues viewing path that requires iran to dismantle two-thirds of centrifuges or were poorly reduce its stockpile of uranium by 97% and limit its enrichment of uranium are the little which required for nuclear weapons. it blocks the plutonium pathway and requiring them to pull the cord out of the khamenei reactor into the with concrete and building a replacement react with a design that will not produce weapons grade plutonium.

and to forgo the processing spent fuel which is essential to the plutonium path. and agree to blocks the covert path by extensive inspections and monitoring. this includes on site inspections anywhere a violation is expected. .. days for access and to ensure we can detect any rate yes active materials. the result attested to by nonproliferation experts is it is very likely that any future effort by iran to pursue nuclear weapons even in a clandestine program would be detected promptly. but as many pointed out the agreement is not without shortcomings. it is not sustained the current