provision last but after failing a second to get enough votes to advance the resolution disapproving of the iranian nuclear agreement. and now live to the floor of the u.s. senate. lack will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. god of grace and love, you guard our lives with your peace. help us to not attempt to build a relationship with you on the basis of our merit and goodness. give our lawmakers the wisdom to make your grace, the foundation for their living. may your righteousness

that comes from faith energize them to dare more boldly, attempting to accomplish great things for your glory. grant that their childlike trust in you will free them to serve others, inspired by your love. o god, you are our help and hope. thank you for your gifts of liberating grace, unconditional love and generous mercy. we pray in your marvelous name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states

of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: in one week, congress will host one of the world's great leaders, great faith

leaders, his holiness, pope francis. every member of congress is looking forward to the pope's historic address. since beginning his papacy, pope francis has been admired for his humility and his honesty. rather than shirk responsibility from important and controversial global challenges, he's confronted them. while he and i don't agree on everything, his statements on climate change, immigration reform, income inequality, have challenged world leaders, and that's an understatement. yesterday, his holiness and the vatican stated their support for the nuclear agreement with iran. a spokesperson for his holiness told the international atomic energy agency that the statement , quote -- that the agreement, i'm sorry, will be a definite step forward to greater stability and security in the region -- close quote -- and that certainly is the truth. supporting the nuclear agreement between the prominent five members of the u.n. security council, germany and iran, is

the best way to ensure that iran does not get a nuclear weapon. that's what the agreement's all about. that's why last week, the senate clearly stated the agreement will stand. no matter how you talk about all these other things, the agreement is to stop iran from getting a nuclear weapon. that's what it's all about. last night, the senate again rejected the republicans' attempt to derail the iranian nuclear agreement. and now for the second time, the republican leader is refusing to accept the reality, and in fact it's going to go forward. he is doubling down and committing the senate to vote on other issues. we've seen this strategy before. it never works. whether it was with homeland security, obamacare and all the other things. all it does is waste time that we cannot afford. when the republican leader tried this approach on homeland security, remember what john mccain, the senator from arizona said, and i quote --

"it's the definition of insanity." what he was talking about was what albert einstein said. if you keep doing the same thing over and over again, knowing you're going to get the same result, it's insanity. today one news report described the republican leader's strategy as the -- quote -- second kick of a mule and said -- quote -- it's not working, close quote. it's unbelievable what the republican leader's trying to do. we have seven working days before a shutdown of the government. why? because we won't have any money. the senate will take no votes today. the republican leader -- if the republican leader has his way, all the senate will do for the rest of this week is take yet another failed vote on iran. at this rate, the senate will end this week with nothing to show for our time but two failed votes. nothing dealing with the most important issue facing this country, and that is how to fund the government. we have seen republicans manufacture crises before, but this one truly is embarrassing. the government runs out of money

in a matter of days. republicans have no plans to avoid a shutdown, and we have almost two score of republicans in the house who said they'll vote for nothing unless it defunds women's health care. women's health care. we have a number of senators over here who are saying that if there is any -- nothing in this to stop the funding for planned parenthood, they'll vote against it. the republican -- i'm sorry, mr. president. the government runs out of money in a few days. to do nothing, no plans to avoid a shutdown, when we're standing around waiting for something to be done on the budget is unwise and wrong, and it's an insult to the american people. last thursday's vote is not going to change. last night's vote will not change. republicans lost those votes. what are their -- whatever their future plans, it will not prevent president obama and his

administration from implementing the iran agreement. there is precious little time left before a government shutdown. it's time for the republican leader to get serious about keeping the federal government open and funded. are we just talking about something that is nonexistent as a problem? two years ago, the government was shut down for almost two weeks -- i'm sorry. almost a month. i think it was 21 days the government was shut down. it's very disturbing. in one week, mr. president, as i've indicated, the pope will be here, and it's time that we make sure that we follow some of the advice and counsel that he's given us. mr. president, the goodwill and humanitarian efforts of the united states is needed all across the world. victims of civil wars, disease

outcomes, natural disasters, depend on the aid and compassion of the american people. and to our credit, we tried our best to help as much as possible. take one example. syrian refugee crisis is the worst humanitarian crisis since world war ii. four million syrians are now refugees because of the country's civil war, and thousands and thousands are fleeing anyplace they can go. most of them are winning up in europe to escape the violence, but there is almost another eight million who are internally displaced. that is, within war-ravaged syria. a lot of them are in cities. they can't go anyplace, they try to leave, they get killed. tragically, 5.5 million of these poor individuals are children. the united states is trying to help. we're the single largest donor of humanitarian aid to the syrian crisis. there's not a close second.

the united states agency for international development known as usaid is one of the principal organizations by which the united states administers civilian foreign aid. this agency plays a central role in administering our nation's foreign policy, and yet will all these tragic events continue to unfold for the world's eyes. senate republicans are blocking the next administrator from taking their place. gail smith was nominated by president obama five months ago. we had hearings weeks and weeks ago, now into months. he was right to nominate her. she is an experienced leader in global development serving on the national security council at the white house. during her time at the white house, gail smith has worked on major typhoons in asia, the ebola outbreak in west africa and ongoing conflicts in syria

and iraq. she has extensive experience in african affairs, both from her time on the national security council and her work as a journalist covering national affairs for more than two decades. during her time as a journalist, she has spent time in active war zones and other conflicts. gail smith's credentials are impeccable. in her hearing on the foreign relations committee in june, it reflected that. in september, she was voted out unanimously by voice vote, and yet here we are post-june -- and that's an understatement -- where her nomination was reported favorably, and she still -- we still have no confirmed administrator. with all the news accounts we watch every day of these thousands and thousands of lost people. the united states is really being hampered in its ability to help because we don't have anyone running the agency. it's just the latest example of

a republican obstruction for obstruction's sake. according to the congressional research service, the current republican congress is confirming far fewer nominees than any congress in memory. why? what are republicans accomplishing by preventing a qualified nominee like gayle smith from leading the u.s. aid agency for international development? they are undoing decades of admirable humanitarian efforts. even more unsettling is the fact that republicans are impeding our act to assist those around the world who need help. it's time for the republican leader and his senators to change course and stop this blockade of the president's nominations. i look forward to senate republicans releasing their obstruction on the gayle smith nomination and working with democrats to confirm her as the next administrator of usaid

immediately. all the republican leader has to do is bring it to the floor, we'll vote on it. people who don't want to vote for her don't vote for her, but it's really wrong to have this -- our great country at the time of this huge humanitarian crisis having no one to lead the agency that does more to alleviate the problems these people face than anyone we have in our government. would the chair announce the business of the day? the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business for one hour with senators permitted to speak therein, with the majority controlling the first half and the democrats controlling the final half.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, i understand there are two bills at the desk due for a second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bills for the second time. the clerk: s. 2035, a bill to provide for the compensation of federal employees affected by a lapse in appropriation. h.r. 36, an act to amend title 18, united states code, to protect pain-capable unborn children, and for other purposes. mr. thune: in order to place the bills on the calendar under the provision of rule 14, i would object to further proceeding en bloc. the presiding officer: objections having been heard, the bills will be placed on the calendar. mr. thune: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, back in may, congress passed and the

president signed legislation guaranteeing congress the chance to take an up-or-down vote on any nuclear deal with iran. that was widely debated here in the senate and in the house of representatives. votes were held. and in the united states senate, 98 senators, 98 senators, both sides of the aisle agreed that we should pass legislation requiring congress have a choice and through congress the american people have a voice in something that is so important to america's national security interests. and yet here we are four months later and the same democrats who have -- who voted for that at the time who joined republicans, 98, 98 united states senators voted for the american people to have their voice heard on this. these same democrats are now chosen to stifle the voices of the american people by refusing to allow an up-or-down vote on

the president's nuclear agreement. twice now, when we attempted to move to a final vote on the deal, thenl only four democrats broke ranks with their colleagues and stood up to the president. that's a deeply disappointing result, mr. president, especially given the stakes on this agreement. i'd say i suppof you're trying to protect your president from making a decision on whether to sign or veto this legislation, maybe they were pushed into that position by the administration, but the fact of the matter is, mr. president, that this is something that was voted on here in the united states senate, overwhelmingly supported, sent to the president, the president of the united states who reluctantly signed it into law, but the understanding was from that point forward when this actually was brought to the tour of the united states the united states senate there would be a vote and

there would be a vote. and all that's i think simply expected by the american people as an opportunity to be heard from in an up-or-down vote through their representatives here in the united states senate. i would think that even if democrats here in the senate, you know, object to or to the vote we would have on a resolution of disapproval and want to support the president's position, that they would allow it to be voted on, and the president to veto it and if the president is so proud, why would we not have an opportunity to vote on this veto for this. democrats are doing their best to protect the president from having to make that decision. notwithstanding the president's assertions that this is a wonderful deal for our country, a wonderful deal for our allies. of course, the facts tell us a different story. mr. president, a nuclear armed

iran is a direct threat to the security of the united states and our allies in the middle east and the american people deserved that chance to have their voices heard. now, i want to take just a moment to read some of the statements that have been made by iran supreme leader over the past weeks. this is are direct from the twitter feed from the khamenei. it's -- and i quote -- "you will not see the next 25 years" -- end quote. that's the supreme leader. he goes on "god willing there will be nothing of the zionist regime in 25 years." again, coming directly from the twitter feed of the iranian leader. and of the united states something he's said before, "the u.s. is the great satan" -- end quote. this is exactly coming from the

supreme leader, the eye cola khamenei. and i challenge my colleagues to reflect on these statements. not only do they straight their situation, but that demonstrate another point, that is that iran is playing the long game. president obama and secretary kerry may be thinking the next few months and about their own legacy, but the iranian regime is thinking in terms of years and decades. while this deal may slow iran down in the short-term, it may lead them shorten their breakout period for a bomb. this agreement in ten years iran will have transitioned from an ar-1 centrifuges which is 1960's technology, to production of

ir-10 which is four or five times faster than what iran has today. in addition this deal gives iran the building more advanced ir-6 and ir-8 down the road which gives 14 times faster. without once violating this agreement, in a decade iran will have reduced its breakout period for a bomb from a few months to a few weeks. this agreement also allows iran to keep the fortified stockpiles and conventional arms in delivering a warhead far beyond its borders. and in this agreement they have full access to the technical things, and right now it can only access through black market

channels. this is their long game and it's a very good deal for iran. let's be clear about iran's intentions regarding its nuclear program. iran is not -- iran is not simply interested in pursuing a nuclear enrichment program for civilian needs. iran is interested in a bomb. make no mistake about it. if iran were only interested in energy, they have no need for a program. look at other countries that have it. sweden, for example, has 10 functioning power plants but does not have a domestic nuclear enrichment program. finland. finland has four nuclear power plants but does not produce its own enrichment.

and they gave up their own, has 15 nuclear power plants. does not conduct its own enrichment. mexico, bulgaria, the czech republic, all these countries have nuclear power plants but none of these countries conducts its own nuclear program. and none of these countries needs to conduct its own enrichment because the fuel they need to be be obtained on the world market which can be easily gotten. no one worries that these countries are on the verge of building a bomb because their intentions are clear. they're only interested in the nuclear power and they don't need to enrich their own uranium. another striking example can be seen on the korean peninsula, south korea, a thriving

democracy has 23 operating power plants but does not have a commercial enrichment program or even a spent fuel reprocessing facility. north korea, on the other hand, chose to pursue an undisclosed program in north korea has produced a nuclear bomb. mr. president, based on iran's behavior, is iran trying to be more like south korea with its multitude of power plants or north korea? which failed to provide its people with energy but still built a nuclear bomb. if iran really wants a peaceful civilian nuclear energy program, it does not need to be enriching uranium. plain and simple. the only reason, the only

reason iran needs a nuclear enrichment program is if they want a weapon. if iran wanted to silence all its critics and wanted to really prove that it's operating in good faith it could demanual its system all together. and if president obama reached a deal that accomplished this, the senate would not have sought a vote on a resolution of disapproval. instead, the republicans and democrats alike would have been supporting the president and praising the negotiations. but that's not what happened. instead, the president agreed to a deal that validates iran's enrichment program, and explicitly permits iran to continue researching on centrifuges. in other words, in a few short years this gives iran everything

they need for a speedy development of a nuclear weapon. if iran genuinely wants a peaceful program it can put everyone's doubts to rest and put an end to the enrichment. short of that, iran is saying to the world that it wants a nuclear bomb. mr. president, i want to shift gears for a moment and shift to secretary kerry has made numerous times during the debate. one of the points of contention is the side remember agreements between iran and the iaea that remain a secret. nuclear deal inspections at the sites but the details of these inspections are being kept secret between the iaea and iran. secretary kerry has asserted

that keeping these side agreements is typical for the iaea but is that really the case? are private agreements between iran and them the norm? i wanted to find out so i sat down with the deputy director of the iaea, and discussed the policies and procedures of the iaea with him at length. mr. hanen is a director of experience and had been able to tell me keeping side agreements secret is not normal for the iaea, it is an exception that has periodically been used to protect proprietary things for commercial reasons. i repeat, in spite of what secretary kerry is claiming, refusing to disclose these side

agreements is not the cow's, it is unique. and it is not at risk, iaea's practice is to make the details public. so why is the iaea keeping its side agreements with iran a secret? so far as we know, no pro prior taxpayer concerns consist which leads to the inevitable conclusion that these are kept a secret because of the weak inspections regimes which won't stand to scrutiny. according to the leaked documents, the agreements with the iaea allowed iran to detect its own -- conduct its own samples with cameras recording the process. iran will then deliver these to

the iaea to be tested for radioactive material. if that's true, mr. president, there's a reason to be deeply concerned because a process like that would give iran the opportunity to hide its activities from the iaea. it's like having the fox guard the henhouse. one of the agreements with secretary kerry during the 24-day wait period that came up is the traces of radioactive material could not be hidden in 24 days. that was secretary kerry's argument. samples taken from surfaces that take place will still have radioactive traces after the materials themselves are taken away. that's been the argument made by secretary kerry. and secretary kerry is right about that, mr. president. traces of radioactive material do remain. but what the secretary doesn't

mention is they can be hidden. if tabletops, floors or walls are ipainted over with certain materials not just once but several times, samples of their surfaces will not reveal material and it makes their situation very dangerous. and the human iaea inspectors looking not only for illicit activity but signs of trying to cover up activity is pretty easy to identify newly painted services and know that something is amiss. that's the difference between actual and direct mentions by the iaea and having iran collect samples and having cameras cover it. if as reports suggest the iaea has agreed to letting iran

collect it, it will be very difficult for the iaea to pick up activities on such services. if the iaea's secret side deals allow iran to conduct its own inspections, no wonder that iran wants to keep such deals a secret. mr. president, given the possibility that these secret side deals weaken the regimes, it's imperative, imperative that the contents of these deals be made public. in addition if these agreements are not made known, the iaea will be setting a dangerous precedent that undermine its position going forward. and it if the iaea allows this what happens the next time a rogue regime wants to produce uranium? i'll tell you. that nation will ask for the

same inspections deal that iran got. if the white house is serious on any level about preventing future nuclear proliferation, it needs to be very careful about what it's doing right now because right now the white house is establishing a precedent that allows them that pursues a nuclear bomb to eventually allow the community to validate that and possibly even allow the country to conduct its own inspections. that is incredibly dangerous precedent to set. mr. president, we form our views, that sometimes the pressures come to play. but it's very unfortunate that

so many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle chose to ignore the text of this agreement. the truth is that this agreement will provide a hostile nation with an expressed hatred of the united states and israel with a clear path to a nuclear bomb, and i am deeply disappointed that senate democrats could not even allow a vote on a deal of this magnitude, a deal that will shape the situation in the middle east for years to come. as we move forward, republicans will do everything we can to protect our country and our allies from the worst consequences of this agreement, starting with leader mcconnell's amendment to require a show of good faith from tehran before congressional sanctions are lifted. i hope, mr. president, the democrats will join us.

they still have that chance. i really do hope that they will. this is that important. it's important to america's national securities interests. it's important to our allies in that region of the world. this agreement is a bad agreement. it needs to be rejected. and at a minimum, it needs to at least be voted on by the people's elected representatives of this country, something that 98 senators agreed to do just four months ago, and now all of a sudden, because the president evidently doesn't want to have to deal with a decision about whether or not to veto this resolution of disapproval, democrats have dug in here in the united states senate and are preventing the very thing that 98 of them, 98 of us as senators voted to allow to happen just four months ago. that is wrong. the american people deserve better. mr. president, i yield the

floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: mr. president, i rise to address this issue that the senator from south dakota has been speaking on as well. i'm just extremely disappointed and frustrateed, as the senator from south dakota is and many of us are, that 42 of our democratic colleagues would choose to block the senate from even being able to consider and having a vote, an up-or-down vote, on whether or not we should proceed with this incredibly important, in my view extremely dangerous deal with iran. despite the fact, as has been observed, that 98 senators voted to create this very mechanism, a mechanism by which we could consider whether or not congress wanted to pass a resolution of disapproval to prevent this dangerous deal from going forward, but they nevertheless subsequently voted not to allow the senate, and it is just mystifying. we know what the outcome would

be. we know there is a bipartisan majority in the senate that opposes the deal, as there is a bipartisan majority in the house that opposes the deal, as there is a bipartisan majority across america that oppose the deal. but somehow we have to, i guess, pretend that's not the case and avoid a vote that would clearly manifest that bipartisan majority here in the senate, which if we did have that vote and we passed the resolution of disapproval, it has passed the house, it would go to the president and he would veto it. he's made that clear. and those of us who disapprove of this deal don't have enough votes to override the president's veto, so in the end the president would still get his way but somehow we have to hide from the fact that there is a clear bipartisan majority in both houses of congress that reflects the wishes of the american people about this. so that's pretty frustrating and

pretty surprising and strange that my democratic colleagues who say they're all for this deal nevertheless are afraid to acknowledge where the consensus really is. well, i want to talk a little bit about the specifics of the deal, but mostly, mr. president, i want to talk about the context of entering into a deal with a regime like the iranian regime. there's a few things that i think we ought to bear in mind when we are entering into negotiations with any other country. first and foremost, let's remember this isn't an agreement with switzerland. this isn't an agreement with canada. this isn't an agreement with the regime in iran. and the first point i would make about this regime is to remember how hostile they have been to the united states. 36 years ago, radical islamists in tehran overran the u.s. embassy, stormed the compound, took 52 americans hostage and held them for 444 days. and i would argue, mr. president, that our

relationship with iran has not improved a whole lot. they're still holding american hostages today. they have killed over 500 american troops in iraq and afghanistan. they regularly call for death to america. they call us the great satan. this is a very, very hostile regime indeed. the second point that we ought to keep in mind is the consistent demonstrated aggressive nature and the regional ambitions of this regime. this is, after all, the world's number-one state sponsor of terrorism. they actively support hezbollah. they actively support the assad regime as he massacres his own people. and when the government in yemen was cooperating with the united states, cooperating with us in attacking and killing terrorists who were trying to kill americans, well, the iranian regime, during the midst of the negotiations, decided that that was unacceptable, so they essentially overthrew the

government in gemmen and launched a civil war which rages to this day. of course, they continue to consistently threaten the very existence of israel that has been a consistent message from this regime. the third point i would make, how fundamentally untrustworthy this regime is. they are currently in violation of over 20 international agreements, and we think they're going to comply with this one? it escapes me why we think that history isn't going to repeat itself. even during the negotiations, they were caught trying to buy nuclear parts that is a violation of their own commitments. they were recently caught again using hezbollah to supply arms to assad in violation of agreements to which they have committed. the bottom line is very clear. this regime in iran cannot be trusted. but maybe the fourth point that i want to make here is the most important in some ways. it seems to me my experience in business and in life, north to

to -- in order to successfully complete a deal of any kind starts with a meeting of the minds. it starts with an agreement about the desired outcome. that's true in business, in multinational organizations. it's true in negotiations we engage in here in congress. the starting point is agreeing on a fundamental objective. when two parties reach that agreement, then you can document it. you can draft the legal documents that manifest and bring that agreement about. in my view, -- and i think this is a widely shared view -- the iranian regime has not decided to abandon their pursuit of nuclear weapons. and that makes all the difference in the world. i take a contrasting point that i think is worth thinking about, is a case of moammar qadhafi. i think we can probably all agree that moammar qadhafi was a

really bad guy. probably a human being with no redeeming qualities at all. but after the united states went into iraq and when our government presented him with the evidence we had about the libyan weapon of mass destruction program, moammar qadhafi came to a conclusion. his conclusion was it was in his interests to abandon his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction because he was afraid of what we would do to him if he didn't. he didn't become a good guy, but he made a rational analysis of his situation and decided it was in his best interests, his ability to hold onto power was enhanced if he gave up those programs. and so he did. and we reached an agreement, it was documented, and there was every reason to believe that he had disagreeded because he had decided it was in his interest to make that agreement. mr. president, i don't think the iranian government has in any way come to the conclusion that

they have to give up the pursuit of nuclear weapons. they have been at it for decades, and the very conditions that they insisted on in this agreement, in my view, make it clear that they have every intention of continuing to pursue nuclear weapons. so to summarize these points, when you're dealing with a country that is extremely hostile to the united states and our allies, is aggressively seeking to dominate this region, has demonstrated by its actions that it's completely untrustworthy and it shows no evidence of having actually decided to abandon the pursuit of nuclear weapons, given those aspects, the reality that we face, it is very, very difficult to complete an acceptable negotiation to ensure that that country will be nuclear free. at a minimum, you would need an absolutely bulletproof, air-tight agreement in order to be successful. instead, what do we have? we have an agreement where we give many tens, maybe over $100 billion virtually up front

which iran will certainly use, at least in part, to fund their terrorist activities. the agreement allows them to retain an industrial scale uranium enrichment program. you don't need any industrial -- or any uranium enrichment to have peaceful nuclear energy. there is a very dubious inspection and verification process which allows up to 24 days before inspectors can get to certain sites. the whole deal is temporary. after iran gets its money, iran can walk away from the deal with 35 days notice at any time. there is a little process they have to go through. that's 30 days long. and then they can give 35-day notice and just walk away. that's codified in the agreement. of course, i think it's extremely dangerous for israel and diminishes the ability of israel to defend itself, and i think it's very likely to lead to nuclear proliferation throughout the middle east. so those are plenty of reasons, in my view, to oppose this deal, but, mr. president, those are

the parts that we know about. what's truly amaze, what's absolutely shocking to me is that we don't have all the documents. i don't know how anyone can support a deal when they know they haven't seen some of the important documents that are part of the deal, but we know that's the case. there are two documents negotiated apparently between the iaea, which is responsible for enforcement of essential parts of this agreement and iran, that not only has congress not seen, the administration hasn't even seen. secretary kerry has not seen. our negotiators haven't seen. nobody has. and, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to have an additional two minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. toomey: thank you, mr. president. so it is shocking to me that we would proceed and that people would support an agreement when they know that there are

essential parts of enforcement and discovery about the previous military dimensions that are unknown to us, but there's another point that i need to make and i'll close with this, mr. president. we had the minority leader, the democratic leader was here last time we had this vote saying this was over. you guys need to accept it, deal with it. this deal is going forward. there is nothing you can do about it. it's done. and, mr. president, i want to strongly disagree with that. this is not over. we're not finished with this. and the reason we're not finished with this is because the president made a conscious decision. his decision was not to treat this as a treaty, not to respect the constitutional requirement to get two-thirds of the senate to support this, which had he brought us in early on we might very well have been able to get there. instead, he decided to circumvent the constitution, the congress, the united states senate and the will of the american people. and so the result is if the president goes forward with this, which it certainly looks as though he will, this deal will not be binding on the

united states past this administration. that's by advisor -- virtue of the decision the president made. he could have gone a different way, but he didn't. and so the deal can be undone by the next president and with bipartisan majorities in both houses of congress, that's entirely plausible, but there's another consideration, and that is that the president will be doing so in violation of the law. the law of the corker-cardin legislation, clearly and unambiguously requires the president to turn over all documents to congress before the 60-day window even begins, and only after that is he permitted to lift the sanctions, but the president has not given all the documents to congress. in fact, he hasn't even gotten all the documents himself. this is a clear, explicit violation of the law that we all passed. i know the administration says but it's customary for the iaea to enter into the secret negotiations. well, as the senator from south dakota indicated a little while

ago it is not at all clear that that is customary, but more importantly that doesn't matter. the law of the united states of america is more important than whatever is customary between the iaea and other parties. so, mr. president, i think this is a very, very dangerous deal. i am very disappointed that we don't have a chance to have a clean up-or-down vote on this as we should have, but it's important for companies thinking about doing business with iran and countries around the world to realize this is a deal between the current administration and iran, and it does not necessarily succeed this administration. and number two, if the president goes ahead and lifts sanctions, he is doing it in violation of the raw that he signed. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: i come to talk about a recent top pick, the import export bank.

i want to thank the senator for his strong leadership, and we'll hear from senator mccaskill, this is a bipartisan effort, i want to thank the other senators who have joined this effort, senator graham, senator kirk. mr. president, the reason i'm here today is to say that america needs to be a country that exports, a country that thinks, invents, builds things, 95% of our customers, the world's customers, live outside our borders. and there is literally a world of opportunity out there for u.s. businesses. and we simply can't afford to pass this up. we know that there are about 85 credit agencies over 60 other countries, so all of these other countries, over 60 countries, major, major developed nations, have an ex-im time bank.

and our companies are competing against companies in those countries. so we are bid fogger a contract, they can say, well, we may not be a huge business but we can get financing from our country's bank whether in germany or in china. what we have to say, our companies have to say, well, it's lapsed. we can't get financing. if you don't think their competitors know this, oh, their competitors know it. we've heard from companies that have to go to the negotiating table and lost contracts because the shortsightedness of letting the ex-im bank lapse. so they are competing against foreign businesses backed by other countries and they often have subsidies. so why, i ask this, would we want to make it harder for our own companies to compete across the globe and create jobs here at home? in 2014 the ex-im bank provided

import for $27 billion of u.s. imports. that sounds like a lot but the same year -- ready for this -- china financed more than double that amount, $58 billion. their ex-im bank financed 58 billion, ours only $27 billion and now we're only doing nothing. and their exports were more than the exports we did in the united states. so if we don't get this done and reauthorize the ex-im bank, they're going to eat our lunch. that's why my colleagues would like to reauthorize the ex-im bank in the bills that we must pass to keep the government operating. we need the united states ex-im bank to be operating, too. this is about jobs. i led a steering outreach

commitment on the bank. a lot of my constituents were with me. we heard from constituents all over the country, they did not mince words and were frustrated watching some senators throw up block aids, to stop the ex-im bank. these business owners like the small business owners in my state say the ex-im bank is essential for them. it is essential, these are small businesses, they don't have exports to every country in the world, they are relying on the ex-im bank to provide that expertise. now when they go to the ex-im bank, this is what they get. this is on the web site right now. due to a lapse in authority, as of july 1, 2015, the bank is unable to process applications

or engage in new business or other activities. for more information, please click here. then you click here, and it says to customers, in the united states, this is the united states of america, it says due to a lapse of authority as of midnight july 30, the export-import bank ceased to process new applications. last week congress adjourned without reauthorizing. both the senate or the house returned july 27. this means they'll be on their portfolio. who else is doing that? our competitors all over the world. they're able to show to people hey, look at what the united states is doing with their ex-im bank. sorry, we're lapsed. we can't do anything. that's what these companies are

seeing from other countries. we heard from new hampshire, orbital, they all said the same thing, most of them headed boo republican c.e.o.'s. they said this, the export-import bank is critical to their businesses all over the world. they said they would lose business, not be able to get contracts and may have to lay off workers if they lose the ex-im bank. now it's not just delaying off workers, that's happening in our country due to the problem with the ex-im bank. at the end of june when the export-import bank expired, a total over $9 billion of financing pending. letting the charter expose, the urine workers will be doing the

jobs that americans are now doing. my colleagues, i don't think we can wait any longer. i'll put in the record the evidence from my own state and what this meant in my own state, i've given speeches on this before but we can't move any -- fail to move. as i said, i see senator cantwell on the floor, 16 times in the history, every time with broad bipartisan majorities. and export-import has support to reauthorize the ex-im bank and 250 have cosponsored bills for the ex-im bank. it is time to stop the procedural games so our companies don't have to go to a web site and say due to a lapse in authority, the bank of the united states, the ex-im bank

of the united states is unable to process applications for new business. we're all about new business in this country. that's what we've all been about. it's time to change that with reauthorization of export-import ms. cantwell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: i want to thank the senator from minnesota for her work and her leadership position in the senate and focusing on economic policy and constantly doing the research and legwork about how we're moving forward or what is needed to be done to move forward. why she is here this morning to talk about the export-import bank and the great economic challenge, i certainly very much appreciate everything that she's doing. she comes from a state where they have businesses that are exporters. minnesota has a lot of exporters, so she knows this is a big challenge. and my colleague, senator

heitkamp is speaking out on this issue as well and i think senator mccaskill will be joining us maybe. as everybody knows, i'm not sure the american people know, but the export-import bank lead us to products overseas not really through financing them so much as helping private banks finance them when the banks won't take all the risk, it works just like the s.b.a. does does, the small business administration, with financing, it helps small businesses who are trying to export their products overseas and get these the possibility to do that. it has expired, and cutting off the opportunity in the united states to grow jobs. you think about it, with 90% of customers outside of the united

states, the biggest opportunity is to sell those consumers their products the united states makes but they have to have financing in the developing country. so the policies over $2 billion that are expired july 1 if we don't reauthorize the export-import bank and this is -- these are programs that are underway and as this shows there are pending deals we could do, if we had approval that would equal $9 billion and companies grow their bottom line. with washington companies, the state of washington, we have seen that a lot of businesses are looking at maybe 20% of their revenues coming from overseas markets. so clearly having the ex-im bank is important and every time i talk to them what is it this

program goes away, most of them will say that 20% of our business will result in layoffs of those people who are associated with that business. soy right now what -- so right now what we need is businesses in their fourth quarter to have the ability to compete on the playing field of what is called the global economy. if you're not interested in that, think just to sell our products to u.s. people, i guess that could be your strategy. i think it's a wrong-headed strategy. but here today we're here to talk about the impact on small businesses, big businesses, and what we need to do to get this authorized. why are we here this morning? because yesterday, yesterday we heard news from a major manufacturer that basically talked specifically about what is going to happen. it's not the koch brothers are going to win or, it's g.e. and

others will ship their jobs overseas so they can get financing of their manufactured products they make. what happens? g.e. basically has said it's forced to move 500 jobs from u.s. to france, china, and hungary. why? why are they moving jobs overseas? because they still have a credit agency. france has one, and is willing to provide financing as a great component of wind turbines produced in the united states. and hungary has a credit agency, and so they are going to meet customer demand. i worked in business for five years, i know what it's like to ship products and meet customer demand. you can't wait for congress to get your customer application filled.

you either do it or lose business. and that's what's happening today, the american economy is losing business because people here are playing politics with an important tool that helps u.s. manufacturers. g.e. isn't the only one. boeing is also facing job loss. on july 31, boeing announced it lost a contract for a satellite which provides millions of people in asia pacific region. so we know that this is important business, satellite communication, you think about the world and places like pacific islands and papua new guinea, it is ex-im bank's lapse, the reason they did something besides going with a u.s. manufacturer. these will be launched, they will be massive growth in asia that demands it and they will continue to get a product.

it just won't be from a united states manufacturer. why? because, again, we've chosen to let the export-import bank fail. all in all, the ex-im bank is on track to fund 58,000 fewer jobs in 2015 compared if they were able to continue. so the fact is boeing and g.e. may be moving but they'll come up with strategies that work well for them because that's what you do when you're a big company. you figure out how you can compete. but the small businesses in america that might be the job engine of growth in the future they're not so easily able to move their company or move overseas to get the financing. for example, since 2007 export-import bank authorized

2700 in the state, and these companies aren't going to be able to all of a sudden stop what they're doing and open up and go to france or to another country and starting a manufacturing facility just to get the credit. so the damage done to small businesses in america now is acute and we need to make sure that we get this ex-im bank reauthorized. an example of this, we visited red mill. everybody in america if they don't know about bob's mill they know because they've bought a product when they buy oatmeal or grains. and export revenue is 25% since they started working with the export-import bank in 2012. you think about that, 20% outside the united states, they wanted to consume more

products, red mill's products, i personally think they're the kind the united states ought to be in, we're still number one in agriculture, should be sending agricultural products around the world, this is one of the easiest opportunities, feeding the world with a product like bob's red mill. no, bob's red mill will lose business because they don't have an export authority. i doubt that bob at his age, great man, very vibrant guy at 80-some years old, i doubt that he's going to start a business somewhere else, in europe or in africa, just to export to that market and try to get the financing. texas air tractor-trailer will lose 25% of their sales because the export-import bank is stopping. pennsylvania systems customs components which manufactures parts for the nuclear industry says it has over 100 jobs linked to their ability to service people with export-import

financing. so this is a loss of real jobs. and when people talk about what we're dealing here with our fiscal crisis, the fact that people are talking about shutting down government, to me you want to be a good fiscal steward, then reinstitute the export-import bank. in 2014 alone, export-import bank paid -- i'm sorry. paid $675 million into our treasury. that is deficit reduction. in fact, in the previous, i think, five years, it had generated something like $5 billion in deficit reduction. so not only are we taking away a key tool, where are you going to plug the hole in our budget from the hundreds of millions of dollars this year, to say nothing of next year and the next year and the next year that you don't have from killing the export-import bank. now, people need to realize, these people, small businesses,

big organizations seeking financing have to pay a fee. that fee generates revenue. that revenue is used to pay down the federal deficit. so not only do we create jobs, not only do we reach market access, we actually have a government program that is helping us pay down the federal deficit. why would you not want to reinstitute that? so the good news is the senate voted to do that, and from what i hear there are enough people over in the house of representatives. it's just that people have continued to hold this program hostage because people are anxious about the politics of the heritage foundation or the koch brothers or people sending out emails or challenging them when in reality you just need to stand up and speak for the fact that you want u.s. job creation and that you believe that u.s. manufacturers making and building a product and selling it overseas is a winning economic strategy for the united states of america. it is. and to boot it pays down the deficit.

so we know that american businesses are obviously working hard to try to communicate this. everybody from the manufacturers association to individual work force organizations trying to express this. i know my colleague senator heitkamp has been working very hard on this on the banking committee. and so we have to say to our colleagues with just a short period of time left before whatever this proposal is to shut down the government, which i certainly don't support, that you either have to get this on the highway bill, which it is as part of a package that we passed out of the united states senate and get it back -- get either the package that was passed here in the senate passed by the house or come up with another vehicle that gets this done, as my colleague from minnesota just suggested on the continuing resolution or some other bill so that we actually know that we are giving american businesses

the opportunity to continue to compete. so i hope that we will get a long-term solution here. the fact that we have sent this message around the united states and the world that there is no longer financing available has really hurt our competitive opportunity at a time when america really needs to embrace the fact that there is so much business in these developing middle-class markets around the globe. so you can sit here and trade away our opportunity to compete by saying i would -- i don't want u.s. job creation or deficit reduction. instead, i want to shift jobs overseas. i don't get the strategy. i don't get what someone thinks is smart about allowing u.s. jobs to be shipped overseas just because they can't get financing here, and if the market were willing to take those risks without some of the security put

forth here, obviously people would want to see that, but that's not happening because if you're selling grain silos like we are to african nations, there's no bank there that's financing that deal. if you're selling product to asian countries that are just developing, whether it's seafood or whether it's grain like bob's red mill, they're not always able to get financing. so this is a way for the united states to win. all we have to do is embrace this and make sure that we pass the export-import bank as soon as possible. i thank the president and i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president, how much time is remaining in morning business? the presiding officer: the democrats have nine minutes remaining. mr. durbin: thank you, mr. president. i want to thank my colleague from washington for taking the floor supporting the reauthorization of the export-import bank. she has been diligent in coming

to congress and explaining that this agency not only facilitates exports from the united states, which creates jobs and helps businesses here, but it also generates a surplus for the treasury. what's wrong with that picture? why would the republicans be so opposed to an agency that helps american businesses large and small export more goods and doesn't cost the federal government any money? why do they want to kill this agency? why do they want to kill these jobs? i don't understand it. well, we had a vote on the floor of the senate a few weeks ago on the transportation bill to reauthorization the export-import bank, and it passed. we've sent it over to the house of representatives, which sadly has become the graveyard for big issues, important issues when it comes to the future of america. i -- i hope it changes. i hope they'll listen to business leaders, that republicans in the house will listen to business leaders.

not just boeing aircraft. of course i'm inttd in that, headquartered in chicago, major employer in the united states. but large and small companies alike feel the same. export-import bank finances deals so we can compete with other countries. when we decide or some in the united states senate decide to take us out of the export business, who's going to step in and create the jobs? sadly our competitors. china. they're not waiting around for their legislature, whatever it may be to give permission for them to dramatically increase exports. they're on the road to do that. so i support what the senator said from washington. on the floor we're going to return in a few minutes to the debate on the iran agreement. this agreement, of course, has been in the works for a long time. president obama set out to create a set of sanctions, punishment against iran to force

them to come to the table and to negotiate with us and other nations so they wouldn't develop a nuclear weapon. the president invested a lot of capital in it and it worked. the president and congress imposed sanctions. it's an amazing alliance of nations trying to stop iran from developing a nuclear weapon. it included china, russia, united kingdom, germany, france, the urine -- european union. they all joined us in sanctions and the negotiating table and worked with us until we reached an agreement. and that agreement didn't rely on trusting the iranians. no. it relied on inspectors, real inspectors from the united nations who have a sterling reputation. it was those inspectors, incidentally, who warned us before we invaded iraq that there were no weapons of mass destruction. the bus-cheney administration

paid no attention. we paid a heavy price for that dereliction of duty. now these inspectors are in place -- will be when this agreement moves forward, and we cannot only find out what's going on in iran when it comes to nuclear weapons, we can make sure we discourage them from ever violating this treaty or agreement. should very -- they violate it, automatically the sanctions will snap back. it takes only the vote of the united states in in the united nations to reimpose all the sanctions. inspectors, snapback on sanctions and i hope it results in what we want to see. stop iran from developing a nuclear weapon, number one, and avoiding the united states from going to work again in the middle east. those are our two deals. those who oppose the agreement come to the floor and stay stop it, don't do it, walk away from it, it's nothing but bad. every single republican in the house and senate, every single

one of them, has come out against this agreement. not one is supporting it. it shouldn't surprise us. on march 9, 2015, 47 republican senators -- 47 of them -- said a letter to the ayatollah khomeini. do you know what they said? don't negotiate with the united states of america or this president or other nations. whatever you do is going to be subject to congressional review and there's no guarantee we'll support it. and even if it is supported by congress, no guarantee that any future president would enforce this agreement. you may even hear it tonight in the republican presidential candidate debate. isn't it interesting that this was the first time in the history of the united states, the very first time, that a group of senators intervened in a presidential negotiation in national security. the first time that's ever happened. 47 republican senators, including every member of the leadership, signed by -- signed that letter. what would have happened if 47

democrats have sent a letter to saddam hussein prior to the invasion of iraq, saying don't pay any attention to president bush? what do you think the reaction of vice president cheney would have been? he'd have us all up on charges, treason. well, that's exactly what happened here. a letter from 47 republican senators saying, don't negotiate with the united states. the president ignored it. the negotiations continued. the agreement's before us and there was a key vote last week, a critical vote. every single member of the united states senate has publicly declared where they stand on this agreement. after some eight weeks of deliberation and debate the vote took place last week. but it wasn't enough for senator mcconnell. he demanded we replay the vote last night and we did. same result. so i don't know how many times he's going to bring this before us but may i suggest to the republican leader, there are some items that he might consider moving to.

we're eight days away, eight legislative days away, from shutting down the government of the united states. should we be discussing that? most americans would say so. most americans think it's embarrassing that the united states government would shut down because a willful group, a small minority, are determined to get that done. too many people suffer when that happens. we've got to do everything we can to keep this government open. let's get beyond this debate. we've already established what the vote is and the republicans didn't come up with the 60 votes necessary to move forward. that's the story. they don't like the ending but that is the ending. now let's move forward in a responses i believe way -- responsible way to do two things. first, to make sure that iran lives up to this agreement and do everything in our power to enforce it and, second, get on with the business of government. let's fund this government. let's not become a nation that people look at and say, who's in charge here. if a republican congress would shut down the government for a

second time, as they did just a couple years ago? who's in charge? let's get into that issue and let's do it in a responsible and a bipartisan way. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mrs. mccaskill: mr. president, i rise to talk about something very important to missouri. i hear an awful lot of talk from my friends on the other side of the aisle about small businesses. and there's going to be a republican presidential debate tonight. but here we are today confronting the failure and job losses associated with us not embracing the export-import bank. president eisenhower, president ford, president reagan, president george bush -- both president george bushes. this was not controversial. and it's really easy to

understand why. the export-import bank has never been controversial. this is a credit agency. there are 60 other credit agencies around the world that support companies in their countries. 60. around the world. it is not a level playing field in a global economy if america decides we are no longer going to support our manufacturing economy and the small businesses associated with that by removing this important tool. for exports. it's real jobs, mr. president. this is not fairy tale stuff and this is not crony capitalism. this is a -- an analysis of risk done by a credit agency and that credit agency when it analyzes the risks, we can keep track of it. we can figure out if, in fact, they are taking good risks or in

fact it's scratching somebody's back. by virtue of the fact that $7 $7 billion has been put in our treasury after the bank has covered its expenses. the presiding officer: all time for morning business has expired. mrs. mccaskill: i'd ask consent to speak in morning business for up to a couple more minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. mccaskill: in 2014, this credit agency that all the other countries in the world have access to put $674 million in the united states treasury. so let me count off here. it creates jobs, it supports manufacturing, it adds money into our treasury. what is the problem? my staff and i have met with nearly a hundred companies in missouri. 90% of ex-im's work directly supports small businesses. let me say that again. 90% support small businesses. let me just give you a couple of examples, mr. president.

there's a small company in joplin, missouri. these kids started in their garage. they build skateboard parks. they now have a manufacturing facility and they are manufacturing skateboard parks for around the world. they can't go to their local community bank to help their customer in indonesia. they need what other countries have, a credit agency that analyzes risk on a global basis. i toured a small kansas city company now run by the third generation of the same family. they rely on ex-im bank to help them manage their risk of extending credit in foreign markets. 60% of their sales are exports. we want to shutter this company? is that what we want to do? we want them to have to cut their employee base by 60% because they can no longer export? there's a st. louis company that makes cutting-edge play equipment for children and uses the insurance from ex-im bank to work with customers in south america, australia and beyond.

another small st. louis manufacturer that was founded as a family-owned company in 1951. they sell electrical components to saudi arabia, brazil and thailand. they depend on ex-im bank. what is going on in this place? how has this become controversial? this was never controversial. and there's one representative that's in a key position in the house of representatives that's shutting this whole thing down. the american people ought to be outraged. we can vote on iran as many times as you guys want us to, if it makes everybody feel better. i got no problem with that. it was a tough decision for me. i've made up my mind. but to be wasting time on political posturing when these jobs -- and i've got really example of contracts that aren't going through now because ex-im's not there. so i plead with my friends on the other side of the aisle, make time in your busy schedule

of scoring political points on the iranian agreement to reauthorize export-import bank. jobs in my state depend on it. yes, we've got unemployment down to 5% in this country but that doesn't mean jobs aren't still not what we should be focused on every day in the united states senate. so with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and ask for the help of all my republican colleagues to help us get ex-im bank across the finish line so small businesses in this country do not suffer at the hands of global competition that figures out that this ought to be easy. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of h.j. res. 61, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 170, h.j. res. 61, joint resolution amending the internal revenue code of 1986 to exempt employees with health coverage under tricare and so forth.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 12:30 p.m. will be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: mr. president, i rise today to speak about the agreement before us and i find in this line of work that repetition sometimes is useful. i know my friend from illinois was mentioning we ought to be focused on something else but i think all of us understand that there's an assumed deadline on this topic of tomorrow. and i would say to my friends on both sides of the aisle, the likelihood is that after tomorrow, we'll move on to the other types of business that we need to deal with. but this is not, as my friend from missouri mentioned, an issue of political points. this issue with iran is one of the most significant, if not "the" most significant foreign policy issue that we likely will deal with while we're here in the senate. and so i think it is important

while this is before us to spend as much time as possible talking about this issue, focusing on this issue, debating this issue, making sure that everyone understands what the consents of this iranian deal are. but let me just walk through, if i could, for a few moments and and -- and lay out why we are where we are today. first of all, four times -- i know the presiding officer is new here, brings a wealth of national security experience in previous posts that he had with the state department prior to serving here. but what brought us here really was us acting almost in unanimous ways to put sanctions in place four times. this body four times since 2010, working with the house of representatives, put sanctions in place because we knew that iran was -- was doing things in the area of nuclear development

that were going to be damaging to the world. and so we sanctioned them, we punished them, we put crippling sanctions on their economy. and we did that collectively. this is something that very few people on either side of the aisle objected to. we acted in unison. and it's those crippling sanctions that we put in place together that really brought iran to the table. let's face it. their economy, the standard of living, people there were becoming restless. and so finally iran said okay, it's time to talk. when these talks began, our president stated that what we would do in these talks is we would end iran's nuclear program. and just for what it's worth, i think people on both sides of the aisle celebrated that goal -- ending iran's nuclear program. and for people who may be just tuning into this, i might remind people that iran has 19,000

centrifuges right now, 10,000 of those are operating. they've built underground bunkers at a place called fordhow so that it's, you know, it's hard to get to it, it's hard to take those out with munitions, if you will. they built a plutonium facility called arak -- a-r-a-k. by the way, much of this was done in a clandestine way, all of it was done violating u.n. security council resolutions. and let me just say, everyone here understands fully that iran has zero practical need for any of this. iran has one -- one -- one -- nuclear facility. one. and everyone knows that it would be so much cheaper for them just to purchase enriched uranium to fuel that one facility. but, you know, they say, no, we want to be leaders in medical isotopes. well, just for what it's worth, if -- if iran wanted to really

develop the expertise around medical isotopes, they would have 500 centrifuges. 500. so we all know that the purpose of this program has not been for civilian purposes. it's been to cause them to be a threshold nuclear country. we know that. everyone knows that. they know that. we know that. every country involved in the -- in the discussions with iran knows that. so, first of all, we know what their goals are and so when the president says that in these negotiations, what we're going to do is we're going to end iran's nuclear program, i think most people in this body would celebrate. and so he began the discussions. as he started moving along, it became very apparent to those of us paying attention that what he planned to do was to enter into what's called an executive agreement. now, just for people who don't do what we do on a daily basis,

there are three ways that you can enter into an international agreement. one is through a treaty, which requires a two-thirds approval by this body. a treaty is interesting because it binds future presidents. it binds future congresses. but the president decided that was not the route that he was going to take. there's a second route you can take. it's called a congressional executive agreement. and while it's not as strong as a treaty, it does create a law that is binding on future presidents and future congresses. the president decided he was not going to go that route. the president decided that he was going to do this unilaterally through what's called an executive agreement. and as we know, an executive agreement is something the president can do if he chooses on his own. the problem with it is, it doesn't survive his presidency. another president can do something very different. in this case, however, as

everybody's analyzed this deal, everyone understands that we lose all our leverage over the next nine months, we give it away. and so when people in this body began to realize that we brought iran to the table, or at least played a heavy role in bringing them to the table, and when we realized the president was going to use what's called a national security waiver to waive away all the congressional sanctions so that he could enter into this executive agreement without ever talking to us, we achieved something else that was very important. as a matter of fact, it's the first time that it's happened since i have been in the united states senate. there's a lot of misunderstandings about this. first time that what congress did on a strongly bipartisan basis, we took power back from the president. we said, mr. president, we know that you can enter into executive agreements, but in

this particular case, since we put the sanctions in place that brought them to the table -- by the what i, -- by the way, over your objections -- we want a chance to go through this agreement in detail and we want the right to either approve or disapprove. but you have to present us with this and it's got to sit before us for 60 days, as it's going to do as of tomorrow, and we want the right to weigh in as to whether we believe the substance of this deal, the substance of it is something that we believe is good for our nation. and so we had 98 senators in this body vote for that. one was absent who supported it. that's 99. but that's pretty remarkable that, again, in a bipartisan basis, 99 senators said, no, we want this to play before us because -- we want this to lay before us because we believe that this is one of the biggest foreign policy issues we're going to deal with. we believe that this is a vote of conscience. and we believe that every

senator and every house member, which is unusual with these kind of agreements, should weigh in and be able to voice their opinion. and so we've gone through the deal. and what's fascinating about it is -- i hate to be pejorative -- but we had almost unanimity on putting sanctions in place to bring them to the table. we had almost unanimity on the fact that we should be able to weigh in. it's my belief that -- my strong belief that in lieu of the president achieving the deal that he did, the goals that he stated -- to end iran's nuclear program -- obviously we've done anything but that. and so what's happened is we have squandered -- squandered -- totally squandered -- an opportunity to unite this nation and others around ending their program and instead our nation,

our nation with others, other -- quote -- "great nations" have agreed to allow iran not only to not end their program but to industrialize it. we've agreed to let them develop intercontinental ballistic missiles so they can deliver a nuclear weapon. we've agreed to let them do research and development. right now these using these old ir-1 centrifuges which are old. but we're allowing them to do ir-2, ir-3, ir-4, ir-6, ir-8, which are way faster. we've lifted the ballistic missiles embargo. and for some reason, just throwing it in for good pleasure, we are allowing them for the first time to begin testing. and so what's happened is now in this body, there's some tepid

support -- i see my friend from michigan over there and i have other friends, and i haven't heard anybody come out and say, god, this is a great agreement. what they say is, well, you know , not necessarily the senator from michigan, but others saying, well, you know, this is -- you know, we are where we are. we are where we are. this is not a very good agreement. it's flawed. even though congress 200 times has sent international agreements back to the executive branch -- 200 times. in this case, well, you know, we are where we are. and our friends in russia -- by the way, has anybody seen what our friends in russia are doing? they're really good friends. has anybody seen what china is doing in the south china sea? building their airstrips in the territorial waters. our friends and our allies.

what would we do without our friends and allies. i could go on and on. i just cannot believe that our nation, our great nation, with -- quote -- "our friends from great britain, germany, and france" and, -- quote -- ," our friends from china and russia" squandered our opportunity with a rogue nation, had a boot on its neck. and now with our approval they can industrialize their program -- as a matter of fact, they don't have to violate the terms of this deal. they can just honor the terms of this deal. their economy will flourish. by the way, it's hard for me to believe this, but i think most people understand that we are giving them back $100 billion of money. we're going to do that in the next nine months. we're lifting the major sanctions that have crippled them. we're doing that without us even

asking them to do much. i mean, we -- you know, from that point on, by the way, the leverage shifts from us to them. we're very concerned about p what they're doing in syria. by the way, they've doubled down on that since the agreement was reached with the nuclear file. we're very concerned about what they're doing with hezbollah in lebanon. we're very concerned about what they're doing with hamas, allowing rockets to be fired into israel. we're very concerned about p what they're doing with the houthis. we're very concerned about what they're doing in bahrain where we have thousands of men and women in uniform trying to keep the strait open. in nine months if we express our keynesconcerns, what are they go do? we've got our money, you've lifted the sanctions, if you press back against us for violations in this agreement that are minor, we're just going to start our nuclear program again. so i.t. just kind of unbelievable -- so it's just

kind of unbelievable that we've ended up in this place. what's happening again on the floor, we have a process here in the united states senate which says that at the end of debate -- by the way we've had a lot of debate on this. we've had 12 hearings in the foreign relations committee alone. the presiding officer serves on the armed services committee. they had hearings. the intelligence committee had hearings. we've had hearings as a body. we've had personal meetings. as a matter of fact, i would say that this body knows more about this international agreement than any international agreement in modern times. as a matter of fact, thanks to us pushing back against this administration, the american people know more about this agreement than any agreement in modern times. it's an amazing thing. thank goodness -- thank goodness we passed the iran nuclear review act. otherwise none of this would be known, none of this. so where we are today is, we all said this was one of the biggest

foreign policy issues to come before us. we want the american people to know where we stand on the substance of the deal. so for people tuning in, here's how the senate works: when a bill becomes -- when a bill comes before us -- and right now since there is a strong bipartisan majority of people who oppose this deal -- as a matter of fact, the two most knowledgeable democrats on foreign policy issues, the ranking member and the former chairman and ranking member, who know more about foreign policy than any democrat in this body, both oppose the deal. so on a strong bipartisan majority, we have a group of people that think we can do better, just like the 200 times-plus that we've sent agreements back to say, hey, do better, we're saying, we think we can do better. so here's what's happening: when a bill comes -- or a vote comes before the united states senate, we have these rules, and

there's a rule that says that there's a cloture vote. and what cloture means is that people say, okay, we've heard enough about this. we believe it's time to take a vote. now, i just heard the senator from illinois say that we've been talking about this way too long, i.t. tim it's time to movd it. he left out a minor detail. and that is, it takes 60 members of the united states senate to say, we've heard enough about it. it's time to vote. but what's happening is, we have 42 members, all of one party, that are in the minority -- 42 senators that are saying, no, we're not going it allow this to move to a final vote. we're not going to do it. now, we know i.t it's not about debate. we know that -- as a matter of

fact, here the second-highest officer on the democratic side said, we need to move on to other businesses. i.t. timit's time to move on tor business. and what we need to do is invoke cloture, and leat vote. -- and let's vote. i've said this several times. it's taken on kind of a tammy wynette -- tammy wynette kind of flavor. you know, let's stand by our man. let's stand by our man. we don't want the president to have to deal with a resolution of disapproval. we want to protect him from that. we don't want to embarrass him that there's a bipartisan -- by the way, the smartest, most well-versed, deep in foreign policy on his side of the aisle agreeing with the vast majority of the senate, 58 senators saying this is not good for our

nation. this does not end the program. by the way, if this ended the program, you know what would be happening here? we'd have 100 senators saying, let's vote to approve this. the president achieved his stated goal. but since that isn't the case, what we want to do is send a release of disapproval to the president -- a resolution of disapproval to the president. but we've got 42 senators saying, let's move on and let's deal with funding government. but, on the other hand, are not agreeing to a final vote. so we've got one more chance. we've a lot of partisan thship t happens here. let's face it. we do. i've got to say hon this kairks the majority leader -- i've got to say on this case, the majority leader has allowed me to work with my friend on the other side of the aisle. he's allowed me to move this through in an appropriate way. at every juncture when why -- wn

my friends on the other side of the aisle felt like something that was occurring that was adding unnecessary temper or maybe something was getting out of line and we needed to alter our course of action, at every juncture, the majority leader said, corker, if you think this is the best way of moving ahead to keep the bipartisanship that i've had with senator cardin and senator menendez and so many others, have at it. i just want to real estate mind people today that -- i just want to remind people that today that to remind people today that when we entered this debate, -- what he did is he kept there from any inflammatory amendments. the only thing that's been buffs smser i know he's filed an amendment now after two times the minority will not let us move to final vote. i know there is he a going to be one that's maybe tough.

i don't know if it's that tough for us to vote on this thursday. but the purpose has been for us to move to a final vote. and we've got 42 senators over here that will not allow us to have that vote of conscience. i want to say again to those listening in, the process vote in any debate, that's not a vote of conscience. that's not a vote of conscience. the vote of conscience is when you take the final vote, do you believe that this iran deal, the president's iran deal, is something that's good for our country, will create stability in the region, and certainly will keep them from getting a nuclear weapon? 58 of us don't think so. actually, i got to believe, just listening to the comments of many of my friends, when they talk about how flawed it i think there's actually a whole lot of concerns, even though sometimes -- and i understand this, when

you have a president of your own party, sometimes it is hard to go against. but where we are, american people, and where we are, my fellow senators, is we want to move to a final vote, an up-or-down vote, which, by the way, by the rules of the senate is a majority vote. we want to move to that. we have 42 senators who are keeping us from that. what i hope is going to happen over the course of the next 24 hours, a couple of senators, a few will say, look, we did vote 98-1 to register our feelings about the substance of this most important agreement. we did. we really did do that. and maybe it is appropriate that we on behalf of the american people not get stuck on this procedure issue, this cloture vote the. we have debated this plenty.

let's go ahead and move to a final vote. that's what i hope is going to to happen. i am thankful, though -- i do want to say one more time, i thank people on both sides of the aisle for having the gumption to buck the administration and to put in place four tranches of sanctions to get them to the table. thank you, both sides of the aisle. by the way, led by senators menendez and kirk. we did that together. i want to thank people on both sides of the aisle for putting us in the position to actually have the documents, to know what this deal is about, to have this debate, to be able to weigh in, and i want to say one more time, had the president done what he said he would do -- and, that is, negotiate to end the program -- we'd have 100 people supporting him. but he didn't. we all know that. everyone knows that's not what has happened. we've agreed to industrialize

their program, let them do research and development, let them create delivering mechanisms to make sure they can send these nuclear warheads that they're going to be on the verge of developing long ways across the owe hance to places like -- a shans to places -- owe shangs to places like -- oceans to places like america. we believe that is an agreement that will stand the test of time? is that something that is good for our country? and do we believe this is really something that if iran wishes to will keep them from developing a nuclear weapon? with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and look forward to the comments of my friend from michigan. ms. stabenow: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: mr. president, first of all, let me agree with the distinguished chairman of the foreign reels committee that -- foreign relations committee that in fact we did come together on strong sanctions against iran that has brought us

to this situation in a bipartisan basis. we did come together on the process that would create legislatively a way for us to make addition. that was done i on a bipartisan basis. what i regret is at this point, even though we are following through on the legislative process that we adopted, it now has become so partisan, which is not good for america, it's not good for israel. it's not good for the world. while agreeing on part of what the g.d.p. chairma distinguishe, i have to agree on man disagreey things. the process we're use something no different than any other bill, financial services reform ... and it was set up in what we passed. so we can fly to make it some partisan -- so we can try to make it some partisan issue now. we have all taken a position. we have voted. everyone knows everyone's

position, and so now we're just in the process right now, unfortunately, i believe, of politics, which does not help us move forward for our country or for our allies. and so i want to speak to what i'm deeply concerned about, which is the next vote we're going to have on thursday. and speak to a very important young man who is an american hero, who is caught in the politics of what is happening right now. mr. president, amir akmani is an american here roarks served his country as a marine between 2001 and 2005 in iraq and afghanistan. he served with valor. he served with honor. he was awarded the combat action ribbon and the good conduct medal. but this morning, amir woke up in an iranian prison. he's been in that prison for four years and 19 days.

during that time, amir has been tortured. the prison is notorious for its de-ploabl conditions and while he was there, his father in flint, michigan, has been battling terminal brain cancer. the iranian government is playing politics with amir's life. unfortunately, though, now, today, the senate republican leader is also playing politics with amir's life. the imprisonment of this veteran, this american hero, is being used by the senate majority leader in a transparent effort to score some cheap political points, in my judgment. and it's appalling. no american should ever be used in this way. none of our hostages. this is a young man whose parents are desperately worried about his safety, who have been waking up every day for the last

1,479 days hoping this would be the day -- this would be the day that they would learn that their son amir would be freed. how does it show respect for amir's mom and dad to use their son's plight and possibly threaten the negotiations that are going on now in order to make a partisan political point and jeopardize his release? mr. president, we have had a vigorous debate on the international iran agreement, and i know from talking to colleagues and being in many, many meetings that those on our side have been very thoughtful and thorough, and certainly the chairman has as well, in coming to our positions in a highly charged, difficult and very

complicated situation. i spent many weeks myself, and we all have, in classified briefings, meetings with nuclear experts, meetings with ambassadors and personally calling each of those involved in the negotiations in the p-5 plus 1 countries. meeting with constituents in michigan who feel very passionately about this issue on both sides. and i made my decision. the decision that i believe is best for america and for israel and for our other allies. i did not make my decision on the day the agreement was announced, before i had ever read it or even before it was announced. regrettably, as many republican colleagues in the house and senate did. so we've had a vote in the senate. we've had two votes now on this issue. and today or tomorrow we will have a third vote not because

the majority leader expects a different result. we've all taken our positions. but because he wants to score political points and bring in, as part of that vote, four american hostages and what's happening to them. and those political points will be scored at the expense of amir hekmati from flint, michigan, who has served his country honorably. mr. president, i've gotten to know the hekmati family and i know how much their son's freedom means to them. any of us who have children can understand what they are going through. i have personally talked with the president and other officials at the highest levels of our government who are working tirelessly to secure

amir hekmati's release and return him to his loving family along with the other americans held hostage. this is a diplomatic mission. it's a humanitarian mission. and yet, the majority leader is on a political mission that is not going to help. he wants to interfere with and destruct the international nuclear agreement with iran. i understand that. i understand his position and others. but they are willing to use amir and other american hostages in the process, and that is wrong. this political stunt by the majority leader does not help bring amir home. it doesn't help bring the other three americans home. it just adds more politics to

the situation. now, what's very disturbing to me, after always having bipartisan support, one of the things that i could always say to my constituents is that when it comes to the issues around israel and the middle east, we always have been together in a bipartisan basis. until now and what's happened in the last few months. and unfortunately, what's happening on this debate and the voapt we'll have tomorrow, bringingment american hostages into this debate on iran is not the first time we are seeing partisan politics interjected into this debate. and i still will never forget -- never forget -- the 47 republican senators who wrote a letter to the supreme leader in

iran, our enemy the ayatollah, to tell him not to pay any attention to the president of the united states. i have to say, mr. president, if it were reversed and it were 47 democrats, everything would have halted in this chamber. there would be impeachment hearings. we would be called traitors. it would go on and on and on. it is shocking to me if this had happened, if we had written a letter to saddam hussein when we were debating going into iraq and saying don't listen to the president of the united states or anybody else, for that matter, any other president, that would be a national crisis and there would be outrage. and yet, somehow 47 republican senators can write to the ayatollah in the middle of an

international negotiation that was difficult at best when we know that iran is within three months of having a nuclear weapon right now, by the way, that we should all be concerned about. and i know we are, except some of us act like we can go back and renegotiate something which will take years when they're going to have enough materials within three months. and so in the middle of all of that, in the middle of all of that, almost half of this chamber writes to the people who are funding terrorism and who are opponents and enemies in terms of the ayatollah -- hey, by the way, the president of the united states, don't listen to him. don't listen to him. interestingly also in that letter, interesting in that letter, senator cotton said in that letter that of course it would take 60 votes to pass

anything in the senate. which of course it does and which of course we're debating now and folks are acting like it doesn't. but the ayatollah was sent a letter that said it would take 60 votes. whoever wrote him might want to check in with him. so here we are now, we've seen the ultimate politics of members in this body writing to our enemies saying don't listen to the president of the united states. and now we're in a situation after voting twice on a very serious, difficult, emotion, controversy issue where there are people, serious, thoughtful people on both sides, because the vote's not going the way the majority wants, so now they bring in the four hostages. mr. president, there is a tradition in this country when it comes to issues of national security and the lives of member

who serve america. and a quote was coined by former michigan senator arthur vandenberg, "politics stops at the water's edge." this picture we are very proud of. it is right outside here, in the reception room. very few united states senators have their portraits painted on the wall in the reception room. and i'm very proud that one of those is a former republican senator from west michigan, senator arthur vandenberg. he was the great nemisis against president f.d.r. he hated the new deal. he went after president roosevelt at every turn on his domestic agenda. but as chairman of the foreign

relations committee, when we were being attacked in pearl harbor and world war ii was happening, he stepped up and said politics stops at the water's edge. and for over 70 years that was the way the united states of america was operated. that's the way the senate operated. we have lost that, and i am deeply concerned not as a democrat but as an american for where we find ourselves today on matters of such seriousness, international threats to our country. we can debate them. we can have differences. ment if someone loses the vote, it becomes time to come back together and find a way to move forward to keep america strong.

there are many opportunities for us to do that, many opportunities on this agreement to make it stronger, to focus on the nonnuclear sanctions and other things that we need to do together against iran. to focus on bringing our americans home. but this is not the way to do it. this is not the way to do it. so i stand today to reject what i view as a political stunt and to vote tomorrow is deeply concerning to me and to people in michigan who want to bring amir hekmati home. this is not politics. this is somebody's life. it's about the future, national

defense of our country and our allies and the world. the vote is the vote. we have taken our positions. it's time to come back together as americans. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: thank you very much, mr. president. i want to thank my colleague from michigan for pointing something out today that i have not heard before, which is that this vote that we're going to have tomorrow, which is a revote on the iran nuclear agreement adding -- adding -- a couple of pieces regarding hostages and sanctions regarding israel is actually a dangerous vote. a dangerous vote. and i agree with her completely. it's a political vote.

if you ask the people in the street what they think of congress, we just are not thought of very well because the people see through this. they see through the politics of this. you know, we have already voted on this agreement. my friend, senator corker; my chairman -- i serve on that committee, proud to serve with him. he says all we want is a vote on the agreement. we gave him a vote. we wanted an up-or-down voapt on the agreement. -- vote on the agreement. senator reid asked for that twice with a 60-vote threshold. oh no. suddenly, even though senator mcconnell has said over the years every single important vote is a 60-vote threshold, suddenly this is an important

vote. how well i remember. how well i remember. a vote cast here on climate change legislation where we got, counting people who weren't here who said they were for it, 56 votes. we fell four votes short. wouldn't it have been nice if i went to the floor and said this is outrageous, this is outrageous, let's have a 51 vote threshold. well, we knew we needed 60. we didn't play games. we didn't play games with it. that's what we're having here. we're playing games with an agreement which already has been voted on. and we have enough people voting in favor of the agreement, if i can say, to derail the republican plan. now, derailing this agreement, in my view, means war. and i see my friend on the floor here from arkansas. he was the one person who said

it. essentially said we can bomb this thing away. if he is honest about it, other people say just go back and get another agreement. that is code word nor no addition for war. and we have spoken out on this very clearly. and it isn't as if we don't have other issues we need to deal with. the fact is, enough senators said they support the agreement to derail the effort to stop it. grow up, accept the fact and move on. using it in your campaigns, just as we'll use it in our campaign. i do not think the people of this country want another war in the middle east. and i feel very strongly. this is a conscience vote. so bring it up 10 times, i'm not going to change my vote, especially when i see