ours. looking at baseline minimum standards in the state has more stringent rules they will apply. they have a process that is true in a wyoming strong beer then we put in place we hope to work in a constructive way to reassure that the activities are safe bet the 40 year-old rules with modern practices does not make sense and we hope that will be heard a thoughtfully by the jobs and others. >> the ap rand and investigation with the blm

that there were so overwhelmed bin is an able to keep withy inspections and in one state wyoming 45 percent of those had not been inspected are you confident they is have improved since then the? >> no. we have the government accountability office that criticized the blm for not respecting the high-risk wells had compiled they have done everything in its power to focus those limited resources we're under resource if you look what has happened to the budget over the last few years you will see we don't have the resources necessary i have asked for something very basic and very consistent

which is matched so if there is a boom that we have seen put day calve and for those resources as well. that has not gone past the committee in congress. a budget has been declining relative to the workload and territorial prices are deepening debt that people expect us to do on public land so that is a quick

snapshot and it makes no sense to not match supply and demand that has a history cover the cost of inspecting these wells and also the cost to process the permits and the tightly period of time to make investments to automate the process it is less work for them and for us. >> is that the goal? [laughter] i have a complicated job.

>> we're not tracking back-and-forth that all. we have expectations put on us over the years that gives us a mandate to develop resources thoughtfully but also protect natural resources. sometimes it is within one agency sometimes it is between agencies u.s. fish and wildlife service job is to understand and they have a toolbox to redress that.

they don't have resources but they read rather because the right thing is certain and the crown to to maintain these ecosystems to maintain and a development and we are of carrying smart phones of some sort. there is a lot in these

devices that coming -- that comes from mining activities and how we do that in a thoughtful way is the way real look at a. safe and responsible development, said the economy of the various states all those factors together and one more thing of the blm that has a. >> that may read that this plan is more with a the mood to he is in love to love it -- development. >> so to keep a very close

eye but over the last two months that shell has been drilling? >> is the agency's church and it has been a lot -- of science here and holding until the nearest. it is to make sure that if this river is an incident that we can address that during the timeframe necessary before the i.c.e. moves in and. that is all going as planned precocial -- shell had a problem and the vessel ran into the ground it had to be

in the theater before they could go in to the hydrocarbon sown. so that worked as planned. they had a storm that occurred three note -- a few weeks pretty epic to shut operations down i think they lost five days because of that but they are taking the things are done save the there and if they're there to validate and if need be. but things are going well in terms of the relationships with a shawl and hold the to the highest possible standard. baggage whip.

mr. cornyn: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, last week we experienced what i

would think is a dark day in the history of the united states senate where on one of the most important national security issues that have confronted the country in the last 25 years, perhaps longer, our friends across the aisle led by the minority leader decided to filibuster the resolution of disapproval on the president's nuclear deal with iran. so just so everybody understands what that means, rather than cast a vote either in favor or against the resolution of disapproval, democrats banded together and decided not to have a vote. presumably they did that for two reasons. one is they didn't want the personal accountability associated with having to cast a vote for or against disapproval because they know at some point iran is going to continue its pattern of misbehavior and people might come back and say, well, why did you vote for this deal when in fact all the

evidence pointed toward how bad a deal it was? and the second reason i believe that our democratic friends decided to filibuster the vote on the resolution of disapproval is they simply wanted to protect the president because they knew that had the resolution of disapproval passed, that the president had threatened to veto the legislation. and so having done so under that circumstance, the president would in fact own this bad deal. well, it's a sad day, as i said, when a political party decides to put partisan concerns ahead of the national security interests of the united states. this is especially true in light of the fact that we voted just a short time earlier to actually provide a mechanism for there to be that up-or-down vote following a debate and review.

and it also had the effect of freezing the president's ability to lift sanctions on iran during that time frame. this legislation negotiated by the chairman of the foreign relations committee and the ranking member was called the iran nuclear agreement review act. and this was not a partisan product, and nor should any of this debate be a partisan activity. it didn't sneak through the chamber in the dark of night. it wasn't the product of closed-door negotiations by one political party against another. rather, it was a product of bipartisan concern over the president's deal with iran and was specifically designed to make sure that congress had possession of all of the relevant documents that laid out this agreement between the president and the iranian regime. and it would ensure a process by which the american people could be informed and the senate

itself debate through their elected representatives whether this deal was a good deal or a bad deal in terms of the national security interest of the american people. most significantly, that legislation that sets up that process passed overwhelmingly. as a matter of fact, i think it was nearly unanimously, not one democrat in the chamber voted against that legislation. so having voted for legislation to create a process by which there would be transparency and accountability and rather than partisanship, the national security interests of the country would be elevated, our democratic friends listening to the white house, including the president of the united states, decided to block that very vote that they had earlier agreed to have. ironically, the same day that the minority leader and his

colleagues blocked the up-or-down vote on the resolution, he lambasted republicans on this side of the aisle for -- quote -- "slowing down the legislation and suggesting that we ought to move on to other matters. well, we could be well on our way to finishing this resolution and move on to other pieces of legislation. we need to consider if in fact our democratic friends would, consistent with their earlier vote, allow us to have an up-or-down vote on the resolution of disapproval. but i think what our democratic friends began to realize is this is an enormously unpopular agreement between the president and the ayatollah in tehran. as a matter of fact, only 21% of the american people said they want to see this deal be turned into a reality. many of them are concerned, as many i, that rather than a

traditional treaty process, it requires two-thirds vote of the united states senate, this has somehow become more of a political document rather than a legal document binding only this president and the iranian regime under some circumstances during the remainder, 16 months or so of president obama's presidency. almost 80% of the country said they're not sold on the deal, and their voices deserve to be heard. and members of congress in the united states senate should be on record whether they are listening to the american people or whether they're listening to the siren's song of the white house and a president who is focused on his legacy to the des des -- detriment of the national security of the united states. even the supporters of this deal were some of its biggest critics. yet, these were some of the same people who voted to filibuster

an up-or-down vote on this resolution of disapproval. many of them made the case better than i could do that an agreement made with a theocratic regime that continues to call the united states the great satan and threatens the very existence of our friend and ally in the region -- israel -- there should be real reason for pause and certainly debate and an up-or-down vote. but here's just one example. so, the junior senator from new jersey, in announcing -- or i should say as a prelude to his announcement that he would vote against the resolution of disapproval said that with this deal, we are legitimizing a vast and expanding nuclear program in iran. we are in effect rewarding years

of deception, deceit and wanton disregard for international law. that's the junior senator from new jersey on september 3, 2015. does that sound like somebody who's for this deal or against this deal? well, miraculously, this is from a senator who voted not just for the deal, but voted to even prohibit us from having an up-or-down vote in the united states senate. and i couldn't agree with these comments more. our colleague cleerm -- clearly understands the nature of the regime and the pattern of troubling behavior characterized by outright deception. and last week, although headlines emphasized the support of several of our democrats for the president's deal, it was clear that many of them hoosiered deep reservations and those vaitions are entirely

justified. here's apcomment that the senior senator from oregon said -- quo said this agreement with the duplicitous and untrustworthy iranian regime falls short of what i had envisioned. that statement was made in 2016. this list was made by somebody who said they were going to vote against the resolution and in fact filibustered our ability to have an up-or-down vote on the resolution itself. and i couldn't agree with this statement quoted here from the senior senator from oregon any more. this is not exactly a resounding endorsement. then, there's the senior senator from connecticut.

he said this is not the agreement i would have accepted at the negotiating table. if you're saying you wouldn't accept, i presume that means you would have rejected it. but then again deferring to the president and deferring to the leadership of the democratic leader in the united states senate, not only did this senator who made this statement indicate his approval of the deal, this senator voted to block an up-or-down vote on the deal in the united states senate. in other words, participated in the filibuster of this vote. so, mr. president, this debate is one that the american people deserve to hear. i know that the press, as they typically do, like to keep score

and like to move on to other things. but this is one that the american people deserve to hear and it's one they've demanded. and, frankly, from what they know so far, they don't like this deal. 21% have said they approve of it. and rather than listen to their constituents, our friends across the aisle have decided to essentially move on, block a vote that prevents the kind of accountability that our constituents deserve and to move on to other issues. but with the future security of our country hanging in the balance, mr. president, we can't just move on. and we can't disregard the will of our own constituents or what common sense or our own investigation and inquiry tells us. this deal is an unenforceable deal. it ignores the fact that iran

remains the primary state sponsor of international terrorism. it releases about a hundred billion dollars of money that's going to help finance terrorism, that proxy war against the united states and our allies that's been going on since 1979 when the iranian regime came into power. and then there's the bogus verification process. first of all, under the bill, under the agreement, 24 days' noaa long with various appeals process, which is a process -- along with various appeals process which is a process only rube goldberg would be able to devise. and then there's the self -- self-monitoring process. it's sort of like -- i call it, it's like a selfie stick that the iranian regime is going to carry around where they conduct their own tests on their

military sites and then they turn that over to the iaea, the international atomic energy agency, at the front gate. because the so-called independent monitoring agency will not even have access to the military sites where a breakout and violation of this agreement are most likely. hardly one that gives you confidence that is going to be conducted with any sort of integrity. and then there's the dramatic change in u.s. policy. prime minister netanyahu, when he spoke to a joint session of congress a couple of months ago, said it used to be u.s. policy to deny iran a nuclear weapon. but this agreement, as he correctly points out, paves the way to a nuclear weapon. again, this is a -- not a rational actor on the international stage. this is a extremist regime, a

thee cat i can regime -- thee cat i can regime driven by a desire to wipe israel off the map and conduct this proxy war against the united states and our allies as the primary sponsor of international terrorism. but then there's the final insult to injury, mr. president. just as our democratic colleagues filibuster the opportunity to have any real accountability with an up-or-down vote in the united states senate, we learn that the supreme leader in iran has insisted that the iranian parliament have the final vote and say-so on the deal in iran. so try to fix that picture in your mind. the iranian regime, the main -- principal state sponsor of international terrorism, a theocratic regime determined to wipe israel off the map and conduct war against what they call the great satan, the united states, the iranian parliament

will have a chance for an up-or-down vote but our democratic colleagues have blocked an up-or-down vote in the united states snalt. -- united states senate. that ought to be deeply troubling to anyone who cares about the united states senate and any sort of sense of democratic accountability. so it's beyond irresponsible for our democratic colleagues to again deny the united states senate to do the very same thing that the ayatollah has said that the iranian parliament will have a chance to do, especially when they all supported this process by which an up-or-down vote would be facilitated. so later today, my colleagues and i will have another opportunity to move this bill closer to an up-or-down vote on the merits of the president's agreement with iran, and i hope the same senators who clearly supported a thorough review of this deal will join me in the

very least in moving this bill forward so the american people can get the sort of debate that they deserve about the number-one national security threat affecting this generation of americans and the american people can get the kind of accountability they deserve when it comes from their elected officials casting a vote on their behalf on such an important agreement. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. scott: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i have watched and wondered in amazement as the obama administration attempts to justify what is clearly a misguided gamble and a bad deal with iran. we saw the signs of how bad this deal is almost immediately. as during the same speech in which he announced the deal, the president threatened to veto any legislation that opposes it.

i've been a business owner, mr. president, and when you lead with threats, you typically are covering a really bad deal. because when you're building support for your product -- in this case, the iran deal -- you don't tell folks that you're talking to that disagree with you that they're crazy. that's simply something you don't do when you have confidence in the deal. if you're leading with threats, you're showing your hand, mr. president, and the president is trying to bluff while holding a 2, a 5, an 8, and a 10. and, mr. president, we didn't even bring a fifth card to the table. i use a poker reference because that's exactly what the president of the united states is doing here -- gambling with our security. gambling with israel's security. and, frankly, gambling with the future of the middle east.

he was also gambling that his national security advisor, susan rice, would not admit that the iranian government would use resources from lifting the sanctions to fund terrorists. but as we saw on cnn, "wolf blitzer" she did. he was gambling that his own press secretary would not tell us that we should trust -- trust -- the iranian government because they would use -- quote -- "common sense" and use sanctions relief to help their economy and to help the iranian people. but he did. even though since we have seen no signs whatsoever previously that the iranian government cares actually about helping the iranian people and their horrific record on human rights has only worsened -- worsened -- in the recent years. and the president is gambling

that he could use international pressure to convince people that he was on the right side of the issue along with russia and china. and that brings the deal to the united nations before the u.s. congress would somehow show congress that the deal was acceptable. another bad gamble. but it didn't work. the longer we have to study the deal, the worse the deal gets. the longer the american people have to learn about the deal, the stronger their opposition becomes to the deal. there's just not much good news, mr. president, as we look at this deal, as we look at the polling information 2-1 in opposition to the deal, the american people. and yet the president refers to those on the opposite side of the deal as crazies, referring to the american people, the vast

majority of those folks around our country, so many of us, almost unanimously on the republican side and even some good friends on the left. as i said earlier, the president gambles with our security and we've seen how bad his hand really is. as i suggested, he has a 2, he has a 5, he has an 8 and he has a 10. a 2 because iran will be able to double their oil exports and, therefore, double their oil revenues, increasing by more than a million barrels a day. in other words, -- $15 billion to $20 billion of revenue to fund nefarious behavior in the middle east. mr. president, that's more terrorism in the middle east. a 5 because without any question, in the year five of the deal, they gain access to more weapons as the weapons

embargo is lifted. an 8 because in year eight of the deal, iran will be able to purchase ballistic missiles. and a 10 -- yes, mr. president, a 10. in year 10, iran can begin installing advanced centrifuges for enriching uranium. simply put, this deal legitimizes iran's nuclear program and guarantees a time line for iran to secure the bomb. if congress signs on this deal deal -- signs off on this deal, we can all take out a big red pen and mark on our calendars almost the exact day that iran will have a nuclear weapon. this isn't a republican or a democrat issue. just listen to some of the quotes from my friends on the other side of the aisle.

the joint comprehensive plan of action legitimizes iran's nuclear program. another quote -- "whether or not the supporters of this agreement admit it, this deal is based on hope. hope is a part of human nature but unfortunately it is not a national security strategy." and finally, "to me, the very real risk that iran will not moderate and will instead use the agreement to pursue its nefarious goal is too great." mr. president, in what the administration would call an exchange for this, we see the economic sanctions will be lifted, arms embargo will be lifted, and iran will have more money and more dangerous weapons to route to groups like hezbollah and insurgents in

iraq, both groups responsible for the deaths ofupsesponsible for the deaths of many american soldiers. that's not just a gamble, mr. president. that is the wrong direction at the wrong time and the wrong deal, and absolutely, positively unequivocally not in the best interests of this country. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: mr. president, i am glad to be here and hear the comments of my friend from south carolina, senator scott. made me glad that i get to sit by him on the senate floor and to hear the reasons -- and they are good and they have been repeated many times -- about why this is not a way forward for the united states, it's not a way forward for the middle east. in fact, senator scott did a

great job talking about what was in the deal. but what wasn't in the deal. what wasn't in the deal was nothing the president said would be there when the negotiations started. when the negotiation started, the administration said that iran would never be allowed to have nuclear weapons, that we'd find out everything iran had ever done to try to develop nuclear weapons. that we'd have anywhere, any time inspections. and that sanctions would only be lifted when real progress was made in those first three areas. that was the framework. that was what we were negotiating for. and, mr. president, none of those things happened. none of those things are in this agreement. i think the question that you and i and others in the senate are hearing from -- when we're home, when we're talking to people about this agreement is is -- one question is, is the congress giving away its power? how is it possible that something like this could happen and the congress, a majority of the congress couldn't do

anything to stop it? and, of course, the other question is, or is the president giving away the power of the united states of america to lead? i think it is as clear from this agreement as it is so many other things that leading from behind doesn't work. a view that the united states of america is just any other country in the world is not a view that leads to a peaceful, more stable world. in fact, our friends don't trust us and our enemies aren't afraid of us in a world where there is vast agreement. there are more potential bad things that could happen from more potential places than any time ever before. that's not just republicans. that's the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. that's the head of the national director of intelligence. that's the head of the c.i.a. they all come up with that same conclusion. and we look at the president's foreign policy, that this is just one symptom of, remember

the red line in syria, that if the syrians do this, we're going to do that? well, the syrians did what we said we wouldn't allow them to do and basically we didn't do much of anything. in fact, what happened was that when the united states of america takes that kind of position and doesn't move forward, assad is emboldened. i think the latest number of syrians that have been killed by assad is now around 250,000 people. from chemical weapons to barrel bombs to every way they can think of to massacre their own population, a population that has been displaced in the millions both inside and now outside the country. so an emboldened assad. russia, putin looks at this and before you know it, putin has taken control of crimea and putin has russian troops in the -- in ukraine. and this week, putin puts russian troops and tanks in syria.

every american president since president truman, whose desk i'm standing -- one of the desks president truman used as a senator on the floor is this desk right here with his name carved in it, president truman in 1946 did whatever was necessities -- whatever was necessary to force the soviets out of iran. every other president until right now has done whatever was necessary to keep the russian influence in the middle east at a minimum, and they're building a base right now, they're unloading equipment right now, things are happening because they think, why? because they think they can get away with it. the chinese, the asian pivot that chinese are build on an atoll in the sea in striking distance of the philippines, why, because they think they can get away with it.

and the more we're faced with this agreement, the more we look at the consequences of the agreement, the more we wonder about it, but why aren't we able to stop it? one, mr. president, is no future president is bound by it. for weeks now on this floor and around the country, people have talked about the destabilizing impact this will have on the middle east and the world, and the only administration that's bound by it is this one. it's not a treaty. if i it was a treaty, as it should be, we would be voting in the senate on a treaty and two-thirds of the senators would have to approve the treaty and the next administration would be bound by it as well. when presidential candidates say i'll reverse this the first day, they absolutely can

reverse it the next day. what policy is that to put place that has this kind of destabilizing effect without the sense the united states for the long term is committed to it. the president believes that by the time he leaves, every president would want to keep this but i don't know how you could listen to this and think that. it does dramatically change the middle east, neighboring countries don't trust iran, they'll want to have whatever weapons iran has and senator scott just made a point and made it well that you can circle the date on the calendar when iran is likely to have a nuclear weapon if this agreement goes forward, and more importantly, the hope that maybe the government will change, it might, but that won't change the neighbors from deciding they have to defend themselves. you know, if north korea wasn't bad enough, the 1994 agreement

with north korea wasn't bad enough, they have a missile announced today, they have a better missile they were never going to have, if that wasn't bad enough, we have let the genie out of the bottle here. because the neighbors will decide they have to have it when iran does, and believe that iran will cheat and even though iran is theoretically on a 12-month clock, it might not be 12 months from now, we'll be working into full weapons mode and 12 months have a weapon from there. and you'll have three or four countries in a short period of time in my view that will have nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons capability that don't have it right now. at the munich conference in 2014, a conference that had a handful go to and i went to that

year and we were meeting with the secretary of state, john kerry, and he said we'll be able to know everything that iranians are doing, we'll be able to monitor this with such detail that there's no way they'll be able to do anything that we don't know about. i said to the secretary, you won't -- even if that was true and i don't believe it is true, but if that was true, you wouldn't be able to contain enrichment. once you let iran to do this, other countries that are perfectly happy where they are right now will feel like they have to do the same thing. there are well over a dozen countries that have the nuclear power that don't have what we're about to allow iran to get in place to do. we have been able to control this because the world has understood this needed to be controlled but we're now in the beginnings of letting it out of

control. so what is it all about? it's not a treaty. why are we voting at all if it doesn't bind the next administration, why are we having this debate? the congress would like to be involved or the administration would like to have us involved in about 2023. that was another comment made before the law was passed. that congress will eventually have to be involved because eventually we'll have to decide whether to extend the sanctions regime which was approved in 2013 is on the books until 2023, so the ideal day for this administration for the congress to be involved was about -- about seven years after they leave office. that would have been the involved we would have had if congress had not stepped up and

said we want to insist, we'll get involved, the congress said in 2006 took back some of the authority -- this is not the first congress to lose authority to the president. took back some of the authority that the president had and put into place the sanctions that had been imposed by the president at that time and we made them not just president bush's idea but a law, and i was there when that was negotiated and one of the things we did when we negotiated that was to insist that that be codified, become the pattern and that did for all the sanctions to follow. but the pattern that congress followed was also a pattern that had almost every case since world war ii followed, here's what we're going to do, do what the president and we should do and we're going to give the president national security waiver authority. and that's the authority the president has decided to use.

without congressional approval, without changing law but following the law, he's decided he's going to waive these sanctions and the congress could weigh in about 2023 if the president would have had his way totally. and so what are we doing here? the president of the united states is about to prop up the number-one story of state terrorism in the world. this is an inarguable point. nobody argues that iran is not the number-one sponsor of terrorism in the world. number two, they look at stronger at the end of this deal than at the beginning because they are stronger. the president is about to release billions of dollars about the number-one sponsor of terrorism in the world can use for terrorist causes. with the support of a minority in congress -- and, by the way, the minority in congress all

happens to be one side. in nothing like this, mr. president, in the postwar history in the world, where the country steps forward in this way in this big of a thing and not only is a majority against it but the partisan majority is against it and the minority is blocking the president from even having a vote while the partisan -- bipartisan majority wants to vote and they want to vote to disapprove this deal. even the president then could still veto the disapproval but the president doesn't want to do that. the president doesn't want this on his desk. i think i read the story the other day, it's the first time the congress couldn't get the 60 senators necessary to have the vote, the white house said something like the vote today ensured that the president's iranian deal would go forward.

my concern about this process the whole time is it will look like that by not stopping it the congress was for it. we may not be able to stop it, mr. president, but i can guarantee the american people is not for it. so the question we can ask ourselves would the congress be better without this poor substitute for overseeing an meaningful foreign policy? this is clearly not producing the kind of result we should result in a democracy. and i think you could argue that it is a weak response, but why did it have to happen? i cosponsored the initial bill that required the congress to approve the deal. but, of course, the piece of legislation has to be signed by the president and senator corker

and senator cardin finally came up with a piece of legislation that the president would sign but it's almost always guaranteed to ensure that the debate would go forward. so would we have been better off without it? people have asked me, what are you guys doing, why can't you get the foreign policy of the country under some control, i wondered several times if we would have been better off without it. but as i've thought about that, mr. president, it seems to me that corker-cardin bill has produced a number of things, one 60 days of debate that we wouldn't have had otherwise. the congress would have had to weigh in when? eight years from now, had a debate eight years from now. but have 60 days of debate, well over 50% of the people in the country are proposed to going forward with this, only about 21% are for going forward.

this has produced bipartisan opposition to this bad agreement and senator cardin, the top democrat on the foreign relations committee, senator corker -- menendez, and senator manchin voting with the 54 republicans, 58 senators don't want this to happen, 60% of the house of representatives are opposing this agreement. the white house would have liked to have congress to have its say almost a decade from now. mr. president, we have had our say. we should have our vote. we have had our say, we should have our vote. we should be allowed to put this bill on the president's desk and if he wants to veto it and defend that veto, that is how this process should work.

i hope there is still a chance that two more of our colleagues will step forward and say while i'm going to be on the other side at the final vote, i think the congress should vote. 98 members voted for this bill that said the congress should vote to either approve or disapprove this agreement. let's have that vote, mr. president, and let's have that vote today. i yield. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: mr. president, i agree with the distinguished senator from missouri, and hope we get our wish to have that meaningful vote later on today. i thought i would take a few moments to explore a history lesson. you know, edmund burke said famously those who don't know history are destined to repeat it. i think most people would agree with that statement.

which is why i found so many variations of this quote. one of my favorite variations is by mark twain, history doesn't always repeat itself, but it does rhyme. i think the history of events leading up to the world war ii is an appropriate period for examination during today's iran debate. and i believe it's important to explore the question of whether the disastrous history lesson of the munich agreement can be instructive to americans and even to our allies during the current debate. munich has been cited numerous times in opinion pieces about the iran agreement and been mentioned on both sides of the debate in this chamber. furthermore, we've been scolded by opinionmakers around the country that we dare not make comparisons between munich and the current situations.

in this view even uttering the words neville chamber lynn or newtownic bring such painful pictures from the west that we should not speak. but i disagree. we should look for parallels today. for those who may not have recently studied the years ladingen to world war ii, let's review the munich agreement. in september of 1938, hitler's aggression was already under way. in his sights at the moment was czechoslovakia. four european leaders met in germany at ostensibly to avoid war. those were adolf hitler himself, frame minister delallitie and prim minister neville chamber lynn.

, the agreement was that nazi germany would be given control of the german-speaking portion of czechoslovakia known by some as the sudatan land. in return, hitler agreed to stop his advance and not to make war. against the backdrop of all of germany's aggression to date of its violations of the versailles treaty, he gave his solemn assurance in writing that there would be no more expansionist activity. we all know that upon his return to london, chamberlain announced triumphantly that there would be peace for our time. the bold headline across the top of the daily express displayed the word "peace" with an exclamation mark. of course, a number of wise people immediately saw the false dream for what it was. soon after winston churchill

rose in passionate opposition on the floor of commons. he first made it clear that he held the opponents of the agreement in high personal regard, as many of my colleagues have also done already during this debate. then he launched into a scathing denunciation of the bad deal, characterizing it as a total and unmitigated defeat for britain and france, not to mention a betrayal of defenseless czechoslovakia. he went on to predict correctly that rather than preventing war, the munich accord would assure war. sadly, for millions and millions around the globe, winston churchill was correct and neville chime lan chamberlain wy mistaken -- tragically mistaken. within months, hitler was at it again, annexing the rest of czechoslovakia and setting his sights on poland and beyond.

i think it is appropriate to ask ourselves, what would churchill have said about today's debate? and what would chamberlain be saying if he could speak to us today? let's look at the parallels. at munich, britain and france abandoned a steadfast ally. similarly, today's agreement has been reached over the strenuous objections of israel, our most reliable partner in the middle east. and i must emphasize that this opposition comes not only from the current prime minister and his likud-governing majority but also from his opponents in previous elections, from virtually every point on israel's political spectrum, from labour and from center-left voices. here is the near-unanimous outcry from our israeli friends: iran poses an existential threat

to israel, and this bad deal makes matters worse. it makes us less safe. it makes our friends, our neighbors less safe. as the whole world watched the munich agreement sent a chilling message to the rest of europe and to the rest of the world about what could now be expected from france and england. today our sunni-arab friends in the middle east are mystified and dismayed by this iran deal. understandably, their public reaction has been guarded and even muted. most are hedging their bets. but make no mistake, this is not the strong anti-proliferation nuclear agreement they had hoped for. this current deal and the munich deal are also similarly when we consider the history and behavior of the parties to the agreements. like hitler, the current iranian

regime has repeatedly demonstrated that they have evil motivations and that they cannot be trusted. consider the most recent activities and pronouncements of the iranian supreme leader and his team. this deal has been made with a regime that still leads cheers saying "death to america." and they believe in the destruction of the jewish state. the mul moolahs and the ayatolls and the people in charge of iran have shown that they cannot be trusted. a new book was published making it explicit that it is iran's foreign policy to obliterate the state of israel. just last week, he called america the great satan and said israel would not exist in 25 years. israel would not exist in 25

years. according to the other party to this agreement. under this agreement, embargoes will be lifted in five and eight years respectively allowing the biggest importer -- the biggest exporter of terrorism to build up conventional weapons. and have we forgotten the fact that iran has been cooperating with north korea on glisms for years? of course, the scene in 1938 is not entirely similarly with that of today, as has been pointed out. 77 years ago nazi germany at least gave lip service to leaving the rest of the world alone. wise people knew this to be a lie, but at least the nazi dictator signed such a promise. today the iranian leadership makes no pretense of abandoning

its goal: the complete elimination of israel from the map. and this bad deal gives them the wherewithal to do just that. $100 billion stimulus. the lifts of sanctions, which the united states and our eager european allies have agreed to, will expand iran's gross domestic product by roughly one-fifth, not to mention relief from sanctions on deadly conventional weapons and ballistic missiles. in 1938, chamberlain said, "peace for our time." we may wish he had been correct, but such an outcome was so unlikely, the deal so risky and ill-advised that it was merely a wish, albeit a dangerous and deadly wish. in 2015, secretary john kerry has called the current deal "a plan to ensure that iran does

not ever possess or acquire a nuclear weapon." did you hear that, mr. president? not just for our time or for a decade but never, according to the distinguished secretary of state. president obama says this agreement marks one more chapter in this pursuit of a safer and more hopeful world. such statements have a familiar and troubling ring. such words could have been uttered in 19348. 19-- in 1938. and i wonder if mr. chamberlai mr. chamberlain's followers ever said in defense of o the action, this isn't such a good deal but what other choice do we have? i'm willing to bet some people actually said that. the other choice might have been to stand up against a murderous

bully, to stand by a friend. mr. president, this resolution of disapproval is not just an opportunity to sound off. it has not been about sending a message. this procedure was designed, as the distinguished senator from missouri said before me, as the only way to prevent a bad iran deal from actually going into effect. we always realized it would take a bipartisan majority to succeed. there are currently 58 democrats and republicans who are willing to say officially to the president, start over and get our nation a better deal. we, frankly, need nine more courageous senators to step forward and say "no" to this deal. we're told the dye is now cast, that the votes simile are not

there. but i will say to my colleagues today, there's still time to do better for the american people. the doubts have been repeatedly been expressed by senators who have said they will, nevertheless, vote with the president. senator booker, in announcing that he will support the president, said "we are legitimatizing iran's nuclear program and rewarding years of bad behavior." yet he will vote to support the president. senator coons, "i'm troubled and deeply concerned." senator bennet, "none of us knows" -- and "i have deep concerns," according to senator bennet. senator wyden, "it's a big problem having to deal with iranian leadership that wants a nuclear enrichment program." senator peters, "enrichment of uranium is a stark departure from america's nonproliferation policies. qulings close quote.

he goes on to say, "the agreement could set a dangerous precedent." we need these senators to change their vote and to vote for the resolution of disapproval. senator blumenthal said, "not the agreement i've sought." senator merkley said, "significant shortcomings." according to senator gillibrand, "legitimate and serious concerns are there." and senator franken acknowledges, "it isn't a perfect agreement." mr. president, alan deas dersho" hardly a neo-con, summed up the president of the united states' deal with iran in this book -- in his book, "the case against the iran deal." he said this: "hope is different

from faith, though neither is an appropriate basis on which to roll the dice on a nuclear deal that may well threaten the security of the world." "that may well threaten the security of the world," according to prefer dershowitz. "the deal as currently written about not prevent iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. in all probability, it would merely postpone the catastrophe." "postpone the catastrophe. the" for about a decade while legitimatizing its occurrence." he concludes, "this is not an outcome we can live with." i appreciate people like alan deash owe witdershowitz having o

write a book saying why america should not be willing to live with this deal. i say we should heed the warnings of people like alan dershowitz. we should heed the warnings of history. there is still time to reject this ill-advised agreement. there's still time to get a better result for our people, to get a better result for our future. thank you, mr. president. much. i appreciate that. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: i'm going to be very brief, and i've made these points earlier today, but i just would like to remind people as to why we are having this vote this evening. almost unanimously on four different occasions, since 2010, congress passed sanctions both sides of the aisle supported

strongly, sanctions being imposed upon iran to bring them to the negotiating table. that was something that was very, very strongly bipartisan. when it came time to bring them to the table and grin -- and ben negotiations, the president declared -- and begin negotiations, the president declared that the goal was to end their nuclear program, and they began negotiations. and, by the way, we celebrated that goal. i think there'd be unanimous support for the agreement had that goal been achieved. but the president then declared that he was -- instead of bringing this as a treaty, which typically would be the case for an international agreement, or bringing it as a congressional executive agreement, he declared that he was going to call this to be an executive agreement; that only he would be involved in it. that being known to this body -- again, in a very strong

bipartisan way --98-1 we voted for the first time, since i've been here, to take power away from the president to keep him from invoking the national security waivers that he had with the sanctions and to say, no, we want 60 days to go through this deal, and we want the right to approve or disaprove and to vote our conscience. let me say one more time, had the president achieved his goal, you'd have unanimous support here supporting the deal itself. we would be all supportive of ending their program. but the administration squandered that opportunity and instead has agreed to the industrialization of their program, their development of intercontinental ballistic missiles, their development of even faster centrifuges to ensure that they are a nuclear threshold state. what the public may not understand is taking place here now, we've had a debate -- we

had 12 hearings in the foreign relations committee. we've had all kinds of senators debating -- as a matter of fact, senators know more about the iran deal than probably any international agreement in modern history. it's been studied. it's been debated. so the minority, 42 senators -- i might say, a partisan minority, because they're all democrats -- 58 senators bipartisanly, the two senators that know more about foreign policy issues than any other senator on the democratic -- senators on the democratic side oppose this deal, and now, in keeping with the iran review act, the majority, a bipartisan majority, is wishing to have the opportunity to vote on the substance of the deal. what is happening -- and my friend, the minority leader, is here. he began saying in august that he wanted to filibuster this. and my understanding is the

administration has supported that. and so what we have now is a partisan minority of people that are keeping the spirit of the iran review act from coming into play by blocking our ability to actually vote up and down. so that's what's happening. i want to make sure the american people understand that. i know members of this body understand that. and i just want to close with this: our majority leader at every occasion when there's been an opportunity for this to devolve into something that was partisan and there was concern on the other side of the aisle about certain things that were occurring, at every point the majority leader has acquiesced and agreed for things to progress in a way -- progress in a way that the minority would feel that this was not a partisan effort.

i want to also point out that the majority leader, when we brought this cloture motion to the floor, filled the tree, filled the tree. my friends on the other side of the aisle did not want a bunch of amendments. they wanted only to vote on a motion of approval or disapproval. in this case, since there is a bipartisan majority in support of disapproval, that is what we're hoping to be able to vote on. but, unfortunately, what is happening -- again, it appears tonight based on the spirit -- i hope something changes -- but just last week 42 senators blocked the ability of the senate to end debate and actually vote on the substance of the deal. so i hope that chaiption. i hope tonight -- so i hope that changes. i hope tonight a at least two senators on the other side of the aisle will give us the ability to express ourselves on the substance of the deal and not block a bipartisan majority.

hwho wants to express themselves for a vote of disapproval. i yield the floor. mr. durbin: the senator from tennessee is my friend. i said so on the floor, and i said it privately among my colleagues, i want to for the record make it clear, though. senator reid and the democrats said there will be no cloture necessary on the motion to proceed, no motion to proceed vote necessary last week to go to this measure. we had an opportunity to obstruct, to block, whatever you want to say, and did not do it because we believe that what we had heard repeatedly is this would be a 60-vote final passage was ultimately going to be the standard. there is nothing in the statute that brings us to this measure that in any way eliminates the 60-vote requirement. it is just not there. there's nothing that does that. when your side discovered they did not have 60 votes, which was the beginning of last week, they changed the standard and said, we want a majority vote and

anything less than that is a filibuster. so that was your decision based on the fact that now 42 democratic senators see this issue differently. i would say this: we've had eight weeks on this issue. and we should have had eight weeks on this issue. it is that important. and every snorks i think, should stand -- and every senator, i think, should stand up and say where they stand on the one hand this issue. and every senator has stood up and said where they stand on this issue. this has not been glossed over. people aren't trying to find someniquey way to avoid responsibility. -- some sneaky way to avoid responsibility. i know where you stand, you know where i stand. that goes for every one of our colleagues. why are we going through a replay of what we did last week and now with threats of amendments? now we're going to have a run of amendments. they won't be on the iran agreement per se, which was the underlying statute. it could be on something else. to say we haven't taken the time, dealt with it in a

bipartisan way, allowed open debate ... we have done it and we've cooperated in doing t you don't like the result? i happen to think it is a result that reflects where we should be. i support the president. i believe we ought to have two goals here: stop iran from developing a nuclear weapon. stop america from going to another war in the middle east. that's what i want to achieve. i think we can achieve it through thisemp this agreement. it is subject to inspection, to reports. the if the iranians decide they want to breach this agreement, then we start back on the sanctions, we're back where we started from. but i would say to the senator from tennessee, having, as he has, faced these conscience votes on the floor about war, about the deaths associated with it, i conclude, first try diplomats. if diplomats -- diplomacy. if diplomacy does not work, then you have to pursue whatever is necessary for national security. but i believe -- we have said,

42 out of 46 senators, we support diplomacy. to argue this is -- first, and to argue that this is somehow part isn't because four senators see it differently, is think there may be some partisanship in the fact that not a single republican member of the house and senate supports the president's position. not one. i think there may be some partisanship that 47 republican senators on march 2015 sent a letter to the ayatollah in iran and said, basically stop negotiating with the united states of america. there's no point in it. that has never, ever, ever happened in diplomatic history. 47 republican senators would prejudge a matter under negotiation with the president of the united states, but they did. so the fact all 47 voted against this agreement is no surprise. theynnounced in march they were against the agreement no national what it said. i think that's the reality of what we face today. i don't know why we're going to keep repeating these votes over and over. there are a lot of things we should take up.

we have nine legislative days left until this fiscal year ends, and we end up closing dwown the government. -- closing down the government. i think it's time for us to move ton important issues that should command the attention of the senate. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i'm going to proceed under my leader time. i want to -- the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. mcconnell: i want to congratulate the chairman of the foreign relations committee for an incredible job in giving the senate an opportunity to actually express itself on what the president had described as an executive agreement. i think it is important for everybody to ngd the next president of the united states is is going to take a new look at this, bu because it doesn't e the force of law of a treaty. but the president didn't want us to have anything to do with it at all. and the chainders o -- and the f the foreign relations committee, senator corker, skillfully negotiated with the other side

to give us an opportunity to actually express our views on his unilateral action with the range government. -- we've proceeded, as the senator from tennessee pointed out, in a manner that respected the process and gave the senate an opportunity to vote on that deal only, even though technically it was open for amendment. and yet, we've been denied the opportunity to get an up-or-down vote on the agreement that the corker-cardin bill gave us an opportunity to express ourselves on. so i want to congratulate the senator from tennessee. it's been an extraordinary legislative performance. the senator from tennessee, as we all know, is someone who admires and respects and is willing to talk to the other side, and frequently good things come about as a result of it.

but we are where we are. this evening senate democrats will have one more opportunity to do the right thing and end their blockade of a vote on the president's deal with iran. we know that a strong bipartisan majority of the senate would vote to reject it. the democratic leaders are determined to do anything they can to prevent that vote from happening because democrats know the deal is indefensible -- indefensible -- on the merits. the president's iran deal would allow the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism to retain thousands of centrifuges, to enrich uranium, to conduct their research and development program for advanced centrifuges, and to reap a multibillion-dollar cash windfall which would help it

fund terrorist groups like hezbollah. here's what the iranian defense minister said just last week. just last week. i officially declare that under no circumstances will we refrain from providing material and moral support to hezbollah or to any other group of the resistance to the u.s. and israel. we say this loud and clear. that's the iranian defense minister. the assault on israel and assault on the u.s. continue unabated. in other words, president obama's iran deal would likely entrench iran's nuclear capabilities, essentially help subsidize terrorism and threaten israel. for what? for what? it's not as if the iranian regime is about to change its

behavior. the supreme leader crows that change -- quote -- "will never happen." as he rails against the great satan -- that's us -- and promises israel's demise. now the scary thing about this is that he's serious. he really means it. the scarier thing is that the president's deal could empower his regime. this is a gravely serious matter. the american people deserve to know where their respective senators stand on the president's deal. democrats seem to think they can end the discussion by blocking an up-or-down vote, then turn around and pretend they care deeply about israel and human rights. well, if they vote again to deny the american people a final vote, they'll have a chance to

test the theory. i will file an amendment that would prevent the president from lifting sanctions until iran meets two simple benchmarks. it must formally recognize israel's right to exist and it must release the american citizens being held in iranian custody. let me say that again. if cloture is not invoked, i will file an amendment that would prevent the president from lifting sanctions until iran meets two simple benchmarks. it must formally recognize israel's right to exist and it must release american citizens being held in iranian custody. now the president has so far resisted linking his deal, a deal that fails to end iran's enrichment program while leaving

it as an american-recognized nuclear threshold state. to other aspects of iran's conduct. but linkage is appropriate. and in this negotiation, it would have been wise to have linkage. indeed, senators say they understand the importance of standing up for an ally like israel in a dangerous region, and the senate voted unanimously just a few months ago in calling for iranian leaders to release these americans. here's what one american prisoner wrote earlier this year. this is an american prisoner in iran wrote earlier this year. as a fellow american and combat veteran, i'm writing to bring to your attention my situation. this is a prisoner in iran, one of ours. and that of along list of my fellow americans. for nearly three and a half years, i've been falsely

imprisoned and treated inhumanely. while i'm thankful that the state department and the obama administration has called for my release and that of my fellow americans, there's been no serious response to this blatant and ongoing mistreatment. by strong preference, it's for our democratic friends to simply allow an up-or-down vote on the president's iran deal. i don't know what they're protecting him from. he's proud of this deal. as i suggested last week, he could have a ceremony down there while he vetoed the resolution of disapproval. he's convinced them to protect him from what he's bragging about. but if they're determined to make that impossible, then at the very at least we should be able to provide some protection to israel and long overdue relief to americans who have

languished in iranian custody for years. so let me just say this, mr. president. either way, this debate will continue. this is an issue with a very, very long shelf life. and it will be before the american people for the next year half and certainly be a factor in their determination of who they want to lead our country as president in the next election. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: mr. president, it is hard for me to comprehend how my republican colleagues, with a straight face, can talk about let's have an up-or-down vote on this. we agreed to allow republicans to have an up-or-down vote. i asked ask consent on this fle-

floor on two separate occasions and make the same request now. we're willing to have a 60-vote threshold. that was the arrangement we made. but, mr. president, for my friends to say we want an up-or-down vote. an up-or-down vote under the miracle number of 60 is what they created. we didn't draft this legislation. it was brought through committee to this floor. they, the republicans, thought everything was fine until they realized they didn't have enough votes and suddenly they changed direction dramatically. 50 votes wasn't good enough for trying to do -- raise the minimum wage. certainly a simple majority wasn't enough to do anything about the overwhelming debt that faces the american people. it's not credit cards. it's student debt. no, couldn't debate that. we had to have 60 votes. equal pay for men and women, no, we're not going to allow that to happen. what we want is to have 60 votes.

that is the reason that we had to file cloture more than 600 times, because the rule had been established by my republican friend, the republican leader, during the entire obama administration that that's the rule. here's what he said -- and i've read on this floor all the multitude of statements he's given saying it wouldn't be 60 votes. -- quote -- "we're not interesting in using time for get well efforts. we only have so much time on the senate floor. if this isn't a get well issue, i don't know what would be. we had debate that took place over a long period of time with this issue. it was debated during the august recess. it was debated all last week on the floor. and the decision was made that the measures brought before this body did not get enough votes. it didn't get 60 votes. that is the threshold here. we've agreed to have that vote and suddenly the rules are suddenly attempting to be changed here. and they're not going to be

changed, mr. president. it is a situation where i wonder if the republican leader has bothered to look at the calendar lately. we have eight days now until we're at the end of the fiscal year. eight days. we have 32 republicans who have written to the speaker saying we're not going to allow a bill to pass unless we get rid of planned parenthood. health care for women, we have had statements from people running for president over here who are saying there will be nothing done on, paying the government's bills unless we do something about planned parenthood. other people made statements, they want riders dealing with e.p.a. and on and on. it would be different, maybe we wouldn't be as concerned except you did it once. you did it once. they closed the government for almost three weeks two years ago. the government was actually shut down for almost three weeks ago. we have staring us in the face a debt ceiling which is going to

be upon us quickly. but, no, we're told what we're going to deal with next after this. we're going to do something that everyone knows -- everyone knows has no chance of passing, and that's something dealing with abortion. i guess they want to do that before the pope gets here. but it's not going to change the pope, how he feels about the fact that republicans have ignored poor people in america. it's not going to change the pope, how he feels about what's happening to our great world that we live in, that we know dealing with climate change. republicans have denied that, denied that climate change exists. so they can have a fake vote on abortion. it's not going to change how pope francis feels about what's happening, and it's all being directed toward the republicans. he doesn't need -- everyone knows what the problems are. mr. president, the republican

leader has threatened us. we lost, and we're going to make you suffer. just like you lost obamacare, we have over 60 votes to get rid of that. we may have more than that to get rid of this agreement. they magnified this agreement. they had this agreement, it's doing all kinds of things. the purpose of this agreement everyone knows is to stop iran from having a nuclear weapon, and that's what it does. that's the sole purpose of this agreement. and it's an agreement that is so important, that's so important we got russia, we got china and the other, our allies -- germany, france -- to sign off on this. and great britain. to think -- to think -- after all the years of negotiating with out of our friends and allies, including the good work that's been done on this regarding russia and china, to think that suddenly it's going

to be back to the way it was. every one of these countries said if you don't move forward on this agreement, we're through. sanctions are gone. so i -- this is not an intelligent debate, mr. president, because my friend, the republican leader, is trying to change the rules that he developed. he created these rules. he created the 60-vote threshold. we've tried to change that hundreds of times. but, no. and let's also remind everybody, we did not filibuster this bill. we let the republicans go to this bill. we let them go to the bill. we let them go to the bill. there was no motion to proceed, which sounds -- people watching -- what is that? what the republicans did time and time again, even on measures that they wanted passed, they would make us file a motion to proceed, have cloture on that. that ate up a week's period of time. in their mind, that was really tasty.

it was good because it stopped obama from moving his program ahead. anything to stall for time. well, the 60-vote threshold was created by the republicans. that's the rule of this body, and we're sticking by the rules of this body. it was created by the republicans. so we can be -- i repeat -- threaten all the republican leader, my friend, wants to threaten us. whatever he wants to do, he has the right to do that. we're not going to be stalling for time. if he wants to tear down the tree, remember the tree -- oh, reid was the bad guy. he filled the tree. i can't even -- i can't number the times my friend, the republican leader, has filled the tree, something that he said would never happen. he said bills wouldn't come to this body unless there were hearings and reported out of committee. of course that's not true. being majority leader is not as easy as giving speeches. so, mr. president, what is going on tonight is a charade by the republicans to try to change the rules in the middle of the game.

the republicans have lost. they lost this measure. and we should move on to something else. and it should be trump.

this is one hour.trump. -- criticisms made by donald trump. this is one hour.

[no audio] >> i am really behind you. ms. fiorina: thank you so much. i really appreciate that. there is the new baby.

>> carly, thank you so much. >> how are you? bob marshall. >> carly, we are so honored to have you here. ms. fiorina: thank you so much. i so appreciate you. >> it is a very special day for us. ms. fiorina: me too. >> you can see this olive garden here. >> that is just my hobby. you do a very good job. it is truly spectacular.

>> how much is money involved? --the race, we have trouble there and all kinds of potential backing. how much does that play when you are in politics? ms. fiorina: you have to have enough, but we will be money alone does not win a race. if you do not have the right candidate with the right ideas, money is not going to fix that. >> when you get the message out, it affects when people spend a lot on tv ads. it affects the outcome. ms. fiorina: sometimes. i am not denying that money is important. as i think jeb bush is finding out, money is not everything. his strategy was shocked and awe. we will have all the money and

we will lock this thing up and it is not working. there are lots of ways to get your message out the it used to be the only way was a relatively small number of television stations and ads. now there are lots of ways. in general, candidates underestimate the ground game and overspend on the air. in the end, people have got to come out to vote. ads do not necessarily bring them out to vote. >> democrats, that is who we are competing against. you have the grassroots and crazy things like that that i never thought would happen. ms. fiorina: it is also true that in too elections, people do not come out to vote. >> do you think we will be able to get past hillary waste on --

based on benghazi. ms. fiorina: i do not know. how are you? cool. there you go. that is the camera. how are you? >> i get a second look at the next president. ms. fiorina: anytime. will i have some money for you by the end of the year? ms. fiorina: that would be awesome. you have a few questions. problem we should have seen coming.

lead, theca does not world is very dangerous. u.n. estimates we have 60 million refugees around the globe escaping conflict zones. this is entirely predictable. administrations -- secretary of state clinton, they did not catch this three years ago. when you do not take advantage of your options, guess what happens over time? you do not have any options. i think the united dates -- the united states needs to lead on this crisis. the united states cannot just say, let's bring in 10,000 refugees. we do not have a way of vetting these people. this is a conflict zone. in thise terrorists zone. we have to be concerned about security and the safety of our nation.

yes, it is heartbreaking, but we have to be thoughtful and careful while working with our european allies. hi, benjamin. >> we were assigned a school project and our job is to advertise your thoughts and your opinions. i was wondering if i could get a picture with uv -- a picture with you. ms. fiorina: if you are going to advertise me, you have got to have a picture. >> thank you very much. ms. fiorina: you are welcome. thank you. thank you so much.

maureen mooney. thank you for your phone call. ms. fiorina: thank you. >> a founder's academy charter school, we would love to have you visit. that would be fantastic. thanks for all you do. and a pro-life woman -- ms. fiorina: that matters. >> it does matter. you are representing all of us out there and you are doing a great job. ms. fiorina: thank you so much. appreciate it. very good. thank you. i have a lot of new york friends who are big fans of yours and will be happy to see your photo on my facebook page. >> it is a pleasure to meet you.

>> certainly stands for all the causes of liberty. >> a pleasure to meet you. >> so glad that you met. we need your help. ms. fiorina: what is your name? westover. ms. fiorina: westover. ok. ok. are you voting age yet? >> not quite. ms. fiorina: do you want a picture to go with your signature? is your brother back here? come on. do not be shy. how pretty you look today. there you go. how is that?

>> thank you. >> carly. ms. fiorina: how are you? >> if you are president, what are we going to call him, the first husband? >> the way our country is right -- ms. fiorina: i think we have to do three example once -- three things at once and they are related. we have to get the economy going again and we have to lead the world again. i cannot prioritize. they are urgent and have to be done. >> can i have a picture? ms. fiorina: of course. >> thank you. ms. fiorina: you are welcome.

thank you. ok. thank you. that is what it takes, a big team effort. >> thank you so much. >> i am from texas. i love your boots. they are beautiful, gorgeous. i wore my big girl shoes. [laughter] ms. fiorina: who has got your camera? >> it is my camera right here. they were so jealous that i was going to get to be here today to meet you. you are a big hit in texas.

ms. fiorina: i spend every summer in texas at my grandmother's. she lived in calvert. you know where calvert is. >> i sure do. i am from that part of the state. you have a lot of support down there. ms. fiorina: lovely to meet you. thanks for being here. senator, how are you? thank you so much for doing this. my gosh. that i amwant to say aghast at the way you have been treated by a certain jackass this week. ms. fiorina: well, you do not need to apologize for him. >> i feel terrible about it. ms. fiorina: honestly, i have met men like him all the time. >> stay tough.

ms. fiorina: i will. don't you worry. anyway, thank you so much. >> we are looking forward to your remarks. ms. fiorina: thank you. means old. icon means ano, large, important, influential figure, which you certainly have been. >> he served two terms. servedrina: well, you for a time and then you went home. >> he understood what washington was about the -- was about. people tell me all the time, i want to run for congress. i say, my advice is, do something else. do anything else.

you are a good example. thank you. is probablyrina most well-known for her time as the ceo of two attack -- hewlett-packard. a was the first female ceo of fortune 500 company and let the company through the economic recession, when a lot of them went bankrupt. during her ceo, revenues doubled, innovation tripled, and growth more than quadrupled. that is a good record in my mind. being an accountant, i like those numbers. it is no surprise that fortune magazine named her the most powerful woman in business in 1998 and she remains first place on that list for six years. so congrats. hewlett-packard, she was recruited by the cia director to serve as chairman of

the cia external advisory board. i find it rather interesting, as chair, she worked closely with cia top brass to bring more transparency and accountability to the intelligence agency. we could certainly use a lot more of that there these days. in 2008, she joined condoleezza rice to found the one-woman initiative. the organization was later merged with opportunity international, where she served as the chair. over the past 15 years, opportunity international has created 10 million jobs through 6 billion loans, most of which have been about $150. she also became chairman of good 360 in 2012. before i bring her up, i would like to introduce betty lamontagne, who wanted to share a few words about carly and then we will bring carly of u. --p.

-- up. >> thank you for that terrific description of her resume. you can hear all of those accomplishments. i would like to thank the humphreys for posting this. they are icons in this state. they have done so much for conservative politics. thank you very much again. this is the first time i have been able to be at an event with carly and i am delighted. before she announced, i wanted her to run. i encouraged her to run. she has been a terrific spokesman for the conservative movement, for women, and she is a different kind of candidate. she comes from business, but she understands how politics works. i tell everyone she is the outsider that can get things done inside. by only a few

political candidates. carly is one of them. i am thrilled to be here with her. i cannot wait for you to hear from her. she is unflappable and she will be terrific in the next debate. please give her a warm welcome while i invite her up here with you. [applause] ms. fiorina: thank you so much, that he. -- betty. thank you kathy. patty for gordon and opening up your beautiful home. and thank you all for being here. it has been quite a week, hasn't it? no, i am not talking about my face, actually. but i am looking forward to that debate next week. [applause] whenever i come to a setting like this, whenever i come back

to new hampshire -- i was here over labor day weekend and here again on such a beautiful early fall afternoon, at a beautiful home -- whenever i come to new hampshire, i am reminded of what america is all about. i say that not to pander to you. i say that because this is a place, you are people who take government"itizen seriously. it means, as citizens, you have to participate in politics in a serious way and participate as well in government and governance in a serious way. i think that is inspiring. sometimes i must tell you it can be a little frustrating. all of you have said, i got to see you three times at least before i make up my mind. well, you are in my top five,

top three. that is good. i know a lot of you are supporters. some of you may not have yet made up your mind. in your heart of hearts, wherever you are, you all know you want to see me debate hillary clinton. [applause] i am running for the presidency of the united states because i think our nation has reached a pivotal point and i think the american people know it. if you look at recent polling data, what you would find is that 75%, 75% of the american people now think that our federal government is corrupt. gallup has been asking that question for two decades and that is the highest number they have ever seen. now think we have a professional political class that is so concerned over the

protection of its power, position, and privileged, that they are not getting to people. i agree with them. i am keenly aware, having traveled and lived and worked all over the world, i am keenly aware that it is only in the united states of america that a young woman can start out typing, filing, and answering the phones for a nine-personal real estate firm in the middle of a deeper session -- a deep recession and go on to become the chief executive of what we turned into the largest technology company in the world and run for the presidency of the united states. that is only possible in this nation. [applause] ourit is possible because founders knew something that my mother taught me many years ago and that i have learned over and over throughout my life. my mother taught me, when i was about eight years old, what you

are is god's gift to you. what you make of yourself is your gift to god. i have learned over and over that everyone has god-given gifts. everyone has potential. usually far more than they realize. it is worth asking, why have more things been more possible for more people here than anywhere else on the land -- on the planet? it is because our founders knew what my mother taught me. they knew that everyone has potential and so they built a nation on a visionary idea and the idea was this -- that here, in this nation, you have a right. a right to find and use your god-given gifts to fulfill your potential. they spoke about that in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. part -- theadical radical part of that idea was and itht comes from god

cannot be taken away by man or government. ladies and gentlemen, i believe we have come to a pivotal point in our nations history with the potential of too many americans, the potential of this nation is being crushed by the way, the power, the cost, the complexity, the ineptitude, and the corruption of a federal government and political class that is either unwilling or unable to do anything about it. [applause] whatever your issue, whatever your cause, whatever festering problem you hoped would be now, theby professional political class has failed us. ask yourself, what is the issue that you care most about western mark is it debt -- you care most about? the deficit has been getting bigger every year. now thousands of

pages long. how many times do you hear candidates talking about a great idea for tax reform. how often have we been hearing there is bipartisan appetite for tax reform and yet it never happens. 73,000 pages long. the regulatory thicket becomes more and more impenetrable. we talk about reforming education, whether it is no child left , common core, they have all turned into big, your credit programs out of washington, d.c. the quality of our education continues to deteriorate. do you care about veterans? i certainly do. remember 18 months ago, when the scandal at the arizona v.a. burst and we learned that veterans had died waiting for appointments? americans were so outraged they put pressure on the political system and politicians passed a bipartisan bill that said you could fire 400 senior executives

at the v.a. for failing to do heir jobs. guess what? here we are, 18 months later, two people have been fired. we just learned last month that 300-7000 veterans -- 300-7000 307,000 veterans have died waiting for health care. it is an ineptitude that no longer serves the people who pay for it or this nation. [applause] i know a lot of us worked really hard to restore historic republican authorities to the house, to return a majority to the u.s. senate. still, there is no bill that protects an unborn child. that bill. planned parenthood remains

funded. it reminds me of the difference between managers and leaders. managers are people who do the best they can within the status quo. managers are people who operate within the system. managers are people who tinker around the edges of a problem. they do what they got to do to get through the next day, but they do not ever really solve the problem and they do not ever really challenge the status of. we have a lot of managers and business and a lot of managers in life and a lot of managers and politics. leaders do not accept what has been broken just because it has been that way for a long time. how do you go from secretary to ceo? i will tell you. you challenge the status quo every day, solve problems, produce results, can you leave the -- you lead. it reminds me of something one of my great heroes, margaret thatcher, said. she addressed her countrymen and women at a pivotal in that nation's history and she said,

"i am not content to manage the decline of a great nation." ladies and gentlemen, neither am i. i am prepared to lead the resurgence of a great nation. what a leader, this leader will do in the oval office. we must get this economy going again. that means we must recognize that crony capitalism is alive and well in washington, d.c., and it has gotten worse under publicans and democrats alike. when you have a 73,000 page tax code, and impenetrable regulatory thicket, law after law being passed, dodd frank, what happens? we see it in the data. the big, the powerful, the wealthy, the well-connected get bigger, more powerful, wealthier , and better connected. only they can afford to hire the

accountants, the lawyers, the lobbyists to figure out how to make it work for them. of a $90ief executive billion firm, if i did not like something, i could go higher an accountant, a lawyer, and a lobbyist. the real estate firm i started out in, they cannot. guess what is happening? that the small are getting crushed. what is the consequence of. odd-frank? it did not fix anything. wall street banks have become even bigger wall street banks, better connected. thousands of community banks are going out of business. to get the economy going again, we have to recognize where economic growth and job creation come from. it is a nine-personal real estate firm, the family-old auto body shop that my husband started. it is the small business, the new business.