other affiliates are getting their getting substantially more. they say yes. the money is not the important thing but it has to be big enough that it is worthwhile. the person says no. but it is something to talk about. one of the first things that you brought up. but the undercover person says here is another thought we can talk about a specimen from a tissue sample. if we could get a liver pair that is $75 per specimen that is $150.

>> vs if we get another hemisphere to say oh care. that we don't pay for stuff that we can use and also illustrates it has been years so let me just figure out if this is in the ballpark is fine if not we campeau bid up. i will lamborghini. what did you say? he said wanted lamborghini. . . 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 playing politics has become are the way my republican friends are dealing with this most sober issue. now, as you look on the horizon, we know there's a couple of real problems facing us. the budget -- the budget runs out in 14 days. are we going to have a government shutdown because some people don't think women should have a right to choose? are we? i don't know. but we've got 14 days to deal with it. why aren't we dealing with it? we voted on the iran agreement. it's not going to change. it's just politics as usual. people are sick of it. now, let's take a look at the republican budget.

the proposed senate republican budget would cut over half a billion dollars from the environmental protection agency's budget. i just came from a hearing, very important and good hearing, where we looked at a horrible tragedy that happened in colorado. e.p.a. went in there at the request of the state to check whether or not this old mine that hadn't been cleaned up in generations caused a risk of a blowout. and when they started to do their testing, there was a blowout. e.p.a. was devastated with that. and what our committee looked at is, how are we going to move forward? well, we're not going to move forward, i say to my friends, when we cut half a billion dollars out of the e.p.a. budget that could be used to clean up these mines not. -- these mines. when there is a devastating blowout, horrible chemicals get

into drinking water supplies, like cyanide, lead and it destroys communities. why would we want to have a budget that cuts so much from the environmental protection agency that 80% of the people support? it's so popular. congress is so unpopular. the e.p.a. is popular. people want a clean environment. you know, in all my years in office, mr. president, no one's come up to me and said, "the air's too clean, the water's too clean." they say the opposite. they say, "you know what? my kid has asthma, clean up the air." or "i'm worried that i can't drink the water, i have to purify it." so -- so instead of revoting on something we already voted on -- and every member -- it's not like anyone was hiding. we all came out. we were either for the agreement or against it.

and i have to say, my colleagues were wonderful in explaining their positions. and i was proud. but i'm not proud to see us now go right back to the same thing. when we have all of these problems facing us. the republican budget cuts $400 million from community health centers, preventing 620 new clinics from opening and keeping 2.6 million americans from getting preventive and lifesaving care. that's right, $400 million from community health centers. how about the home program, the nation's primary affordable housing program? it would be practically eliminated with a 93% cost. this would mean a loss of about 40,000 housing units across the country. the centers for disease control, we know how important they are when we have an epidemic looming

it would be slashed by the republican budget by $245 million, hurting our efforts to protect communities from diseases like ebola and the measles. we all thought the measles was gone. in came back in california and thank god for the c.d.c. helping us when we needed them. then there's the export-import bank. we extended its life and attached it to the transportation bill, which is great. but the export-import bank expired 78 days ago. and the transit bill, transportation bill that i worked so closely with leader mcconnell on and senator inhofe and senator durbin and others, it's stuck in the house of representatives. and i don't know what to think over there, what they're doing, but they need to get going and get that transportation bill

into conference so we can do this. this is a bipartisan bill. but instead of pushing and working on that, we're revoting on an issue we already voted on. now, the ex-im bank has real consequences. g.e., general electric, announced it will ship 500 jobs overseas because of the bank's closure. so anyone who tells you it doesn't have an impact, they're wrong, it has an impact. 500 families are suffering because the ex-im bank, which we did the right thing on here in the senate, it's stuck on the transportation bill over in the house and they have yet to mark their bill and i hope they will. then we have the debt ceiling, something ronald reagan warned us about over and over again -- don't play politics with the debt ceiling. i want to remind everybody, when bill clinton was president, we balanced the budget. i was here. that shows you how long i've

been around. i didn't have these gray hairs then. so in those years, we balanced the budget, created a surplus. and then what happened after bill clinton? immediately we had this humongous tax cut for the rich and we had huge deficits under republican president george w. bush. and thank god president obama has cut that deficit in half. but we still have a debt. and that's because two wars were put on the credit card and these tax cuts to the rich, which caused huge deficits. so the debt kept climbing up. now, we have to raise the debt ceiling to accommodate the past spending of this congress. and president reagan was right -- don't play politics

with the debt. even thinking that you will hurts our economy. the last time we played these games, it cost us a fortune. and it caused huge uncertainty in the markets. so we have the budget crisis, we have a republican budget with huge cuts to programs we need, like the center for disease control. we have a transportation bill, the authority for which runs out in october. we've got all of these things and yet what are we doing today? we are voting again on iran. no one, in my view, is going to change their mind. now, i was thinking maybe some of my republican friends might come over to our side in favor of the agreement since colin powell is for the agreement and

richard lugar is for the agreement and john warner is for the agreement and brent scowcroft is for the agreement. these are all leading republican voices and others, many others. i don't see that happening. and for those people who say that it's been partisan, it has been partisan. several democrats joined republicans against the agreement. not one republican -- not one -- despite all the leadership on their side outside the senate, joined us. so the partisanship has been coming from the other side of the aisle. we're voting again on iran. and so maybe, i thought next week we could take up some of these serious issues that i just outlined, these pressing, pressing issues -- the budget,

the debt ceiling, the ex-im bank, all these unbelievably important issues that are facing us. but, no, next week the majority leader has decided to take up abortion. abortion. and what we're going to be faced with is a bill that says to a woman, you cannot have an abortion after a certain period of time. it's a ban. no exception for the health of the woman. and i want to talk a little bit about that today. the bill, as it is coming forward, is extreme. it's a direct attack on women, on doctors, on the law of the land called roe v. wade. it's unconstitutional because it offers no health exception. it just bans abortion at a certain point in pregnancy. with no exception. no health exception.

no help for a woman facing cancer. no help for a woman facing kidney failure. no help for a woman facing blood clots. or other tragic complications during their pregnancies. this is a war on women and that's what they're going to. they're not going to the debt ceiling. they're not going to the budget, which must be fixed. they're not going to ex-im, even though jobs are leaving the country. this bill that they're taking up next week will revictimize survivors of rape and incest by assuming they're lying and forcing women to go through multiple medical visits to prove that they've been victimized. it would throw doctors in jail for up to five years for helping a woman after a certain point in her pregnancy when that doctor knows she risks paralysis,

infertility. a woman who has cancer whose life would actually be in danger if that pregnancy is continued. but, you know, don't take it from me. take it from the women who have had to have these abortions, women who desperately wanted a child like tayise from california who learned at the 20-week ultrasound there were multiple tragedies facing her baby's heart and lungs. the baby had no diaphragm, which means her baby would have suffocated to death once outside the womb. you would force that woman to go through a pregnancy, not to mention the impacts on the baby. then there's emily from south carolina, a 26-year-old mother of two girls.

during her third pregnancy, she suddenly had extreme health symptoms, including blurred vision and intense abdominal pain. after testing, she was diagnosed with preclamps ya which -- which posed a serious threat to her health. under this bill, she could not have been spared the risks to her health. so when we say there's a we're on women, we mean it. we're not just saying words. and, frankly, i'm confused with everything else facing us. we had such a bipartisan breakthrough on the transportation bill. i was so proud to work with the majority leader, so proud of the product that came out of that. i was proud to work with the democrats and republicans on the environment and public works committee, every one of whom was involved and who supported the deal that went through.

as a matter of fact, we had a majority of both caucuses. why can't we build on that bipartisanship. why do we have to go back to the usual corners here? it's sad. and unnecessary. but you know what? we're going to be voting on iran so i'm going to tell you why i'm backing the deal. i've got to go through it again. i'm going to go through it again. the key points of this agreement agreement -- one, it cuts off the uranium pathway to a bomb. it cuts off the plutonium pathway to a bomb. it uses the most intrusive inspections regime ever negotiated. and when people say, "oh, but they have 24 days to stall if somebody wants to look at their past program." let's be clear.

not one country in the world who's a party to a nuclear agreement has any deadline, even the united states. if there's a suspicion of a past program being hidden, you can stall it off. but not this one. you've got to let them in in 24 days or they are in breach. there's a mechanism to require iran to provide the iaea with access to the suspicious sites. that is not present in any other agreement. it requires the iranians to disclose their past nuclear activities before they receive a penny of sanctions relief. and the u.s. and our allies, we have the ability to snap back multilateral sanctions. now, the bill that's now going to come before us for another vote talks about how we cannot

lift sanctions in this deal until certain conditions are met. but it ignores the fact that there's a whole other set of sanctions that are in place for iran's terrorist activity, and those sanctions are not touched. don't conflate the two and confuse people. there are sanctions for their nonnuclear activities, which include their horrific support of terrorism, and then there's sanctions for their nuclear activities, which we will be lifting if -- if -- they agree and carry out these agreements, particularly since they will not have one penny lifted until they disclose every bit of their past activity. so let's see what else i can share with you as to why i support this deal.

i have to say, at a time when congress is not trusted, has the worst, worst approval rating -- i'm so embarrassed by it -- i have come to the point where i look at third parties to make my case. 29 of the top -- of our nation's top nuclear scientists, including six nobel laureates, say this is a good deal. 60 bipartisan national security leaders say this is a good deal. over 100 former u.s. ambassadors say this is a good deal. three dozen retired u.s. gener generals and admirals say this is a good deal. 340 u.s. rabbis say this is a good deal. 53 christian leaders and the u.s. conference of catholic bishops -- and we're going to be

seeing the pope here next week -- say this is a good deal. the religious leadership on the side of this deal for the most part is overwhelming. because our religious people who lead us here, want peace in the world, they don't want to see an escalation of war. we've seen what war brings. we lost in the iraq war more than 4,000 of our people. i ask unanimous consent for one more minute. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mrs. boxer: this is what our allies are saying. "if the u.s. were to walk away from this deal, international unity would disintegrate, the hard-liners in iran would be strengthened, and we would lose the most effective path to stop iran from developing a nuclear weapon." that is a direct quote from philip hammond, the u.k. foreign

secretary. and he speaks for all of our partners in this, 100 nations who support this deal, 100 nations who support this deal. why would we want to stand with the hard-liners in iran? i know my colleagues wrote to them -- and they are partners with them, make no mistake. the hard-liners here and the hard-liners in iran. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mrs. boxer: i believe, if you are a moderate person, support this deal. i yield the floor. mr. cotton: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. cotton: i have eight unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cotton: i feel at times as if i have exhausted my words against the nuclear deal with iran.

i'vi inveigh against the wickeds of the ayatollahs, their support for terror and their attacks on israel and other american allies. it is the height of folly, weakness, and credulity to give iran tens of billions of dollars in sanctions relief and to put them on the path to nuclear weapons. indeed, i feel as if i can say nothing more than i've already said. but, fortunately, the democrats, who support the iran nuclear deal, have supplied cogent arguments against the deal. thus, rather than speak myself, i will simply let the democrats speak in their own astonishing words. here are the democrats on the expiration of the deal. "i remain extremely concerned that after 15 years the restrictions on how much uranium iran can enrich and to what level it will expire and iran will once again return to its

current status as a nuclear state with a breakout time of just a couple months if not weeks. it is disconcerting that iran can achieve this status without breaking the rules or bending the agreement. to be clear in 15 years iran will be allowed to be a legitimatized threshold nuclear state. my fear is that 15 years from now america and the world will face an iran that seize its enrichment -- that sees its rein itchment powers legitimatize, that is more economically powerful and an iran that is weaponized as icbms." senator peters. i acknowledge that legitimate concerns have been raised about iranian activities after the first ten years of the agreement, sometimes referred to as the out years. during this time, iran's breakout time could shrink substantially." senator reed of rhode island. "when key restraints begin to expire in 10 to 15 years, a

blink of an eye to a country that measures its history in millennia, our country will still have to deal with an iranian leadership that wants to build an industrial-scale nuclear enrichment program. that's a big problem." senator wyden. "none is off us knows what lies 10 or 15 years on the horizon. i have deep concerns about p what the shape of iran's nuclear program could look like beyond this horizon." senator bennet. here are the democrats on iran's financing of terrorism. "iran will be disruptive in the middle east and fund terrorist activities. this regime will continue to deny israel's right to exist. the quods force will still be listed a as a terrorist organization." senator gillibrand. "let's be clear, iran is a sponsor of terrorism and an abuser of human rights. this deal doesn't change that." senator height cap.

-- senator heitkamp. "phs probable that iran will use its additional resourcesources d being a he is to additional arms to increase its support for terrorist groups." senator merkley. "i do share concerns about parts of the agreement, including how iran could use funds from sanctions relief to continue funding hezbollah and other terrorists around the world. it is clear they have been funding these activities despite crippling sanctions. and we are right to be concerned that additional funds from sanctions relief or any other sources from other countries, if this agreement is to the approved, could be used to continue these outrageous activities." senator stabenow. here are the democrats on iran's continued nuclear activity and enrichment. request, with this deal, we are legitimating a vast and expanding nuclear program in iran. we are in effect rewarding years of deception, deceit, and wanton disregard for international law by allowing them to potentially

have a domestic nuclear enrichment program at levels beyond what is necessary for a peaceful civil nuclear program." senator booker. "it is certainly possible that iran will use its nuclear research or nuclear energy program to provide a foundation for a future nuclear weapon program." senator merkley. here are the democrats on iran's adherence to the deal. "iran is a bad and dangerous actor, we all agree on that." senator boxer. "critics insist that america cannot trust iran. i agree. i still have serious doubts about their government." senator carper. "we need not and indeed should not trust the iranian regime. implementation of this agreement may be challenging, and we need to be prepared for the possibility that iran will violate the agreement." senator casey. "when iranian extremists chant death to america and death to israel, the first question we have is, how in the world can we

trust them to live up to an agreement? the answer is, we cannot." senator stabenow. "even under the deal we should expect that iran will cheat when it can, particularly at the margins, that it will continue or even ramp up its destabilizing achivities in sponsorship of terrorism with the additional resources provided by sanctions relief. that it will seek to break out if the opportunity presents itself after 15 years when inspections fade and many limits on its nuclear program are lifted." senator booker. "iran has misled us in the past when it comes to their nuclear program." senator markey. what a condemnation of iran. what an indictment of this nuclear deal with iran. but this indictment comes from the supporters of the deal. despite their own words, these democrats have chosen to give iran billions of dollars that will be used to fund terror and

war and ultimately put iran on the path to nuclear weapons. so let there be in mistake for history about the consequence this these democrats' choice. when iran detonates a nuclear device, these democrats will bear responsibility. when iran launches a missile capable of hitting the united states, these democrats will bear responsibility. when iran kills more americans, as it has in ir iraq and afghanistan and elsewhere, these democrats will bear responsibility. when iran imprisons american hostages, these democrats will bear responsibility. when iran attacks israel through hezbollah's missiles or hamas' tunnels, these democrats will bear responsibility. when iran kills jews around the world in places like argentina and bulgaria, these democrats will bear responsibility. when iran kills its own citizens, these democrats will bear responsibility.

president obama and these 42 democrats bear a direct political, moral, and personal responsibility for the coming crimes and outrages of iran's ayatollahs. there will be brave consequences for them and

for them and pontiff to address the house of representatives and senate during a joint meeting. watch live on tv or online and c-span.org. >> epa administrator dana mccarthy testified about the hazardous waste water spill caused by an epa cleanup team at

the gold king mine in colorado. senators spoke about the impact of this bill on their home states. this environment and public works hearing is 90 minutes. >> [inaudible conversation] >> [inaudible conversation]

>> [inaudible conversation] >> we will come to order. we will hold our opening statements until we hear from the four senators who have made a request to be here. senator gardner first called this to my attention so what we are going to do is here from you senator gardner and go across and hear from those are special concern and interest in your recognize. >> thank you mr. chairman for holding this hearing today to examine the august 5, 2015 spill that occurred on gold king mine in southwest colorado. i appreciate committee for providing us to make statements with the impact this bill has

had in our states and the representatives here who will testify. this bill had a impact on the southern indian tribe and the navajo nation. from the outset of the spill, it was crucial the environment, epa focused on investigation and slowed the flow of contaminants. water testing testing shows service water of the water has returned but many uncertainties have remained for heightened contamination in spring runoff. if you have seen pictures of recent days where you can disrupt the riverbed, you can see material still being picked up. once the national press disappears from the area there are still serious concerns that exist for colorado's.

although the epa has acknowledged the magnitude initial lack of communication and events leading up to and following are suitable for congressional oversight. effective communities deserve transparency, particularly in understanding where epa was during the first hours and days following the spill. for example, the colorado department of public health was the first to notify the city of durango of the gold king release on august 5. the colorado dnr was first to notify the southern indian tribe of the release on august 5. they closed public access to the river on august 6. the questions we must ask, where was the epa during the initial notification closer of the river? did they follow plans of notification and implementation of response to this disaster?

was there anyone within the epa with crisis management ask beer and still dispatched to the area? were made aware of this bill? these are a few of the questions i hope will be addressed today. in the first days following the spell it was largely state, local, tribal officials responding. it was not until august 10 that the august 10 that the epa established a unified command center in durango. along with a can fusion was the need for timely release of monitoring data from the epa. my personal experience with the epa is that of local communities. no one from the epa attempted to contact me until days after the spill. upon learning of the spill i attempted to speak with the administrator but was told she was unavailable. i was then told they would contact me and that came several hours later.

i visited the site on august 9. this was four days after contaminants were released and yet there is no response planner team in place. it was that sunday morning briefing we're sitting with epa officials who couldn't answer basic questions, including how much water was still leaking into the river. we said that the epa should be held at the same standards which means tough questions must be asked. when those questions get asked their must be answers. among the questions are whether the epa knew it was likely water was behind the portal and a blot was possible? whether the health and safety plan of the mind was adequate? why did it take several days of the epa to revise the

contaminant water? they they originally set it was 1 million gallons and then several days later said it was 3 million gallons. how long has agency been tracking the drainage and publicly by measuring it? before concluding i request a statement from southern youth tribal been included as part of the testimony. >> without objection. >> you'll be testifying this afternoon on the gold king mine spill. lastly i think you for being responsive during this time and while this hearing is to examine the incidence and epa's response, this bill shows a greater need for legislation that would allow good samaritans assist with cleaning up these a bit then mines across the west. i hope we can continue to work together. thank you for the opportune t to be here. i look forward to hearing the answers as we continue to

address the serious situation. >> thank you senator gardner. senator bennett. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you also the ranking member for allowing us to speak this morning. it's a privilege to be here with my colleagues. mr. chairman the blowout at the mine was a disaster that affected many communities in colorado and new mexico. although epa was trying to remediate the mine, there is no denying that they cause the spill. that is entirely unacceptable. it's also clear that the agency was slow to get water quality results are water to farmers who needed it quickly enough. when we traveled four days later after the blowout, the river was still bright orange and close to the public. the river really is the lifeblood of durango. rafting companies lost business, farmers could water crops, moms

are still keeping their moms out of the water. these families deserve to have the full attention and resources of the administration committed to the cleanup. in the week after the spill we wrote to the epa and president, we appreciate mr. mccarthy listened and came to address the community. following a crisis and attempting to point fingers we must hold agencies accountable for any mistakes that happen. as the communities recover it is critical to look at the bigger picture. identify what went wrong to make sure it doesn't happen again. we need to put this in context, the blowout released 3 million gallons of acid. the same amount was being released, and the poor mines in the air release acid into the

river every year this has been going on for more than a hundred 30 years. at one point the quality was so poor it switched to a different river for their drinking supply. there than 23,000 abandoned mines in colorado including 400 in the san juan mountains. we need solutions to address the asset mind drains coming from all of the mines. in the upper watershed we need an immediate solution. that's why we have asked for prioritization of a treatment plan. we also need to pass good samaritan legislation to encourage counties, nonprofits, nonprofits, companies to clean up abandoned mines route the west. will work with senators to establish guidelines to help them be liable.

unfortunately it hasn't produced action. last year we produced a bill to give them that certainty while holding them to certain standards. we are working to introduce a bill this congress. we need to reform the mining law to make sure that companies pay due diligence to the taxpayers. thank you for holding this hearing. >> thank you, senator udall. >> chairman and ranking member of boxer thank you very much for focusing on this issue. it it is an important issue not only for state, but also important for the in nation and the west. because this impacted the navajo nation in new mexico, i would like to recognize the president of the navajo nation.

russell is seated in the row right behind the two colorado senators. they in particular have been very concerned and on top of this. he is going to testify this afternoon in the indian affairs committee. sitting back and looking at this, trying to give you the big picture as i listen to two colorado senators were looked working closely with. here you have big mining companies who have been extracting minerals we use in everyday life. many of us believe some of these are very valuable and we need them. but who says they are entitled to pollute the sacred waters of two native american tribes, the navajo nation and the you tried. who says they should be able to pollute ranking water that our two states use on a daily basis.

that really in the big picture is why we are here, to fix fix this, to make sure it never happens again, that is a big task. this has been going on for a long time. this mining and the pollution from it. people have been working on for decades. we have not been able to solve this problem or come to grip with it. in the west, rivers are our lifeblood. our drinking water, our irrigation,. the river which was mainly polluted here in the san juan, autonomous means the river of souls, the san juan is an important part of the navajo tradition. the navajos have a saying, water is life. our hispanic community in new mexico says the same thing. water is life.

we all know how important water is to the west and to all of us. this is a disaster on many levels to our water, to our economy, our culture. i very much appreciate working with this committee and with the senators to try to get to the root of what we need to do. i appreciate very much as a two senators have said, epa taking responsibility for the spell. we all know mistakes were made, there were delays in notification, confusion across three different epa regions. there is delays in testing and providing much-needed water for irrigation. the epa has reese accepted responsibility here also. at the same time, the epa is not the only responsible party. what happened at the mine is part of a much bigger problem.

abandoned mines in the west are a ticking time bomb, slowly leaking hazardous waste into our streams and rivers. the mine owners who left this mess are no longer around. epa is not in the mining business, it's in the cleanup business. to show you the wake-up call that all of us are facing, there are ten mining projects similar to this that epa analyzed and said they believed their similar conditions. ten of these mines, the work has been suspended so we can see something similar like this happening. three are in california, for in colorado, two in montana and one in missouri. this is a big national issue and it needs to be addressed. let me finally say one of the

key parts of this which we all have been battling for a long time is the 1872 mining law. that law continues to allow mining corporations to take hard rock minerals like gold, silver, uranium from public lands without pain any royalties. zero royalty. meanwhile coil, oil and yes companies pay royalties for many decades. senator has been working on this for a long time. i will be working closely with him to make sure we put in legislation very soon on that. very much appreciate once again, to holding this hearing. >> senator heidrick i want to thank you for holding this important hearing today. i want

to thank all of my colleagues here as well as the president of the navajo nat important hearing today. i want to thank all of my colleagues here as well as the president of the navajo nation for the work they have done to shine a light on this and begin dealing with policy issues that require legislation issues. we have had a good team effort from colorado and new mexico delegation. last month, a large plume of bright orange mind waste and i will give credit to pres. mugabe for sharing this photo with us, you can can see him in the foreground. it spilled into the samet creek and then into the animus river and then into the san juan. it polluted the entire four corners region. i share the enormous anger and frustration over this terrible incident. when i toured the affected areas

following the spell, i visited with impacted residents including farmers in places like aztec, as well as san juan leaders and mexico and navajo nation president. in the southwest, water is our most precious resource. you can imagine the impact this disaster has had on our community in colorado, new mexico, navajo nation, and arizona. take a look at this photo. i have demanded the epa act with a sense of urgency. this must be our first and our top priorit@ ar and oversignew of the epa's response is completely warranted and appropriate. we must also look over the horidn and take action to address the hundreds of thousands of similarly contaminated mines that littered

the west and are leaking toxins into our watersheds. their estimates that 40% of western watersheds have been polluted by tctiic mining ways. reclaiming and cleaning up abandoned mines across the west could cost upwards to $72 billion. i want to share with you a couple of maps. colorado and new mexico. as you can see from these maps, thto th show all of the abandond hatht rock mines and the waters impacted by hard rock medals. you can see in southwestern colorado, for example, where the goal king minus, there are literally thousands of on reclaimed hatht rock mines. if you look at new mexico, you'll see a similar state. if you look across the west, the mad mi would not be dissimilar.

in 1975, in a larger accident than the goal king blowout, near silverton spilled 50000 tons laden with tctiic heavy metals into the animus river watershed. in 1979 a breach dam nurture truck new mexico, on the navajo nation sent more than 1000 tons of solid radioactive waste and 93 million gallons of acidic liquid into the river. for decades before the spill last month it leaked heavy metals into samet cresâ over the last ten years and and average of 200 gallons of highly polluted water per minute, or more thansee 00 million gallons per year h