protecting these sites. it was also a pleasure to work with him and he was a loyal and trusted legislator partner. worked after leaching the government before running for the senate so we got to know each other better about that. a great career as senator brown has said. what i admired about him most was his interest and ability in getting to a result. he was not about giving fancy speeches or rhetoric. he was about coming up with solutions for the people he represented in cleveland. i think in his heart, well beyond cleveland, and that's why he was so effective. he didn't get sidetracked by the partisanship, the political attacks. he kept focus and therefore he made a big difference and had a meaningful impact on lives in

his district and well beyond. all you have to do is go through cleveland to see his impact because it's hard not to find a landmark named after him or his brother carl. among those is the louis stokes annex to the cleveland public library, the louis stokes health sciences center at case western university. i remember going to his retirement party from the law firm, from the squires sanders law firm. as i arrived, i said let's just name the town after lou stokes. i was on stokes street and went by the stokes library and the stokes health sent. but those were all a testament to his impact that he had on his community. he was a very strong family man. a loving husband to his wife jay, beautiful wife jay of more than 50 years. he was very proud of his kids. each of them in their own right have gone on to distinguished careers. his grandchildren spoke at the funeral where senator brown and

i were, and, boy, they were articulate. just really impressive. he had so much to be proud of. you know, i had the opportunity to visit him just before he passed and the last thing he said to me is i am so lucky, rob, i am so lucky to have had a great family. that was what he -- what he talked about to me in our moments together. he was determined and he was successful, no question about it, but he did it in a gentlemanly way. he had a great smile, good sense of humor. his laughter could light up a room and did. i was just very grateful to call him a friend and to have him as a respected colleague, to watch an echgive leader. he has had an impression on me. he has made an indelible impact on our great state of ohio.

he will be missed. as an effective leader, a great leader for ohio and a loyal friend. i yield back my time. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, right now, we are on a course for yet another republican government shutdown in just 13 days. we know what this looks like and how damaging it is because we just saw it two years ago. when tea party republicans dug in their heels and tried to use shutdown threats to repeal the affordable care act. we know that during the 60-day shutdown that followed the tea party tantrum, workers across our country didn't know when they would get their next paycheck. businesses felt the sting of fewer customers, and families across our country lost even

more trust that election officials in our country could even get anything done. after all that, after all the damage families and communities felt, we also know that the 2013 government shutdown actually did nothing to stop the affordable care act. mr. president, once that shutdown ended, i was proud to work with republican budget chairman paul ryan to do what we shouldn't have needed a shutdown to get done, and that was negotiate a two-year bipartisan budget deal that prevented another government shutdown, it restored critical investments in priorities like education and research and defense jobs and showed families that their government can get something done when both sides are willing to come to the table and compromise. i was hopeful that after the economy-rattling exercise and futility and the bipartisan deal that came out of it, republican leaders would learn a few lessons.

well, two years later as our bipartisan deal is set to expire, here we are with another republican government shutdown around the corner. and what are the leaders doing about this? what is their plan to avoid a repeat of 2013? are they working with democrats to keep government open and negotiate a budget deal like we have been pushing them to do for months? unfortunately, the answer is no. instead, just days away from a looming fiscal deadline, republicans are back to their partisan corners and are engaging in their favorite political past time, attacking women's health. mr. president, instead of spending the coming week working to avoid a budget crisis, which is what we should be doing, republicans are unbelievably planning to vote on yet another restriction on women's health and rights. this is transparent pandering that is bad for women, it's bad

for our economy and it is bad for our country. people across the country are watching this and they are appalled. this particular bill that is coming to the floor next week is an extreme unconstitutional abortion ban which would restrict a woman's constitutionally protected right to make her own choices about her own health and her own body. that bill would mean that if a young woman endures rape or incest, she would have to go to the police before getting the care she needs. and it would take away the right to choose for adult victims of incest entirely. and finally, that bill would allow politicians in washington, d.c., to get between a woman and her doctor by making it a crime for doctors to provide health care their patients need. now, this kind of dangerous, extreme legislation might appeal to the tea party, but it is going nowhere. voting on it certainly will not

keep the government open, and just like the republican attacks on the affordable health care act two years ago, this latest effort to turn back the clock on women's health is a dead end. a new report from the c.b.o. shows that if republicans get their way and planned parenthood loses funding, as many as 630,000 women will not be able to get birth control. 630,000 women. and hundreds of thousands of women, many of them who do not have convenient access to health care republicans or providers besides planned parenthood, would experience reduced access to their health care. it is appalling that in the first, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are pushing to take health care away from women who need it. so let me be very clear. democrats are not going to let republican political pandering come before women's health and rights, not on our watch. now, i want to be sure that families and communities across

the country heard something that the majority leader did say yesterday. he said, and i quote -- inevitably, democrats and republicans will have to work together to reach a bipartisan budget deal. well, mr. president, i think the workers and businesses who struggled through the last government shutdown are wondering what the holdup is. why do we need another round of drama and brinkmanship before we can work together? why do we need to see countdown clocks once again counting down the days until another shutdown? and why once again do women and their health care have to come under attack before republicans can do the right thing? i'm certainly wondering, i know my democratic colleagues are, and i just see this as clear. republican leaders have a choice. as their leader said, they inevitably will have to work with democrats now or later, and the only question is how much pain they are willing to put workers and businesses through before they drop the politics, stop pandering and come to the

table. democrats are ready to get to work, and i hope that finally republican leaders are as well. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: mr. president, i would like to discuss my bill, s. 2035, the federal employees fair treatment act, and i would ask consent that i could speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: the legislation i have filed, s. 2035, the federal employees fair treatment act, will help alleviate some of the fears from federal workers on a government shutdown. i am pleased to have senators reid, baldwin, carper, gillibrand, hirono, kaine, leahy, mikulski, shaheen and warner as original cosponsors.

the bill is simple and straightforward. it requires that all federal workers furloughed as a result of any lapse in appropriations that may begin as soon as october 1 will receive their pay retroactively as soon as it is practicable. it's the right thing to do. it's the fair thing to do. federal workers don't want government shutdowns. they don't cause government shutdowns. they are dedicated public servants who simply want to do their jobs on behalf of the american people. they shouldn't suffer because some republicans want to shut down the federal government in the misguided notion it will somehow prevent planned parenthood from providing health care services to low-income women and their families. two years ago, these same individuals thought that shutting down the government would prevent the affordable care act from being implemented. they were wrong then and they are wrong now. that's the -- as the

congressional research service has reported, in historical practice, federal workers who have been furloughed as a result of a shutdown have received their pay retroactively as a result of legislation to that effect. the language in the federal employees fair treatment act is similar to the language used to provide pay retroactively to workers furloughed in previous shutdowns. i am pleased that it is supported by the american federation of government employees, the national treasury employees union, the national act of a retired federal employees association. the federal employees fair treatment act includes a new provision that allows exempted employees. those who are required to work during a shutdown to take authorized leave. they, too, would be paid retroactively as soon as possible after lapse in appropriations end. during previous shutdowns, exempted employees have been

prohibited from taking leave for any reason, including planned surgery or major family events, like a wedding that may have been scheduled weeks or even months in advance, causing many of them to lose money on nonrefundable plane tickets, hotel deposits, et cetera. mr. president, i'm using the prosper miscible under rule 14, the standing rules of the senate, to place s. 2035 directly on the legislative calendar. i am doing that to expedite consideration of a bill so that the hardworking middle-class family employees know that they will be treated fairly if there is another shutdown. they shouldn't have to worry about whether they will be paid when a partisan gridlock prevents them from doing their job. since 2011, federal workers have contributed $159 billion to deficit reduction. they have endured a three-year pay freeze and two substandard pay increases since then for a total of $137 billion.

they lost another billion dollars in pay because of sequestration-related furloughs. employees hired in 2013 and since 2014 are paying an extra $21 billion for their mentions. and each and every federal worker is being asked to do more with less as agencies' budgets are frozen or cut. this is happening to hardworking, patriotic public servants, mostly middle class and struggling to get by like so many americans. enough is enough. since the 1950's and 1960's, the u.s. population has increased by 76%, and the private sector work force has surged 133%, but the size of the federal work force has risen just 11%. relevant to the private sector, the federal work force is less than one half the size it was back in the 1950's and 1960's. the picture that emerges is one

of the federal civilian work force whose size has significantly shrunk compared to the size of the u.s. population it serves. the private sector work force and the magnitude of federal spending. i would make the additional point that shutting down the government hurts veterans. over 30% of the civilian federal employees are veterans as opposed to just 7.8% of the nonfederal work force. in texas, for example, veterans comprise 37.5% of the civilian federal work force. kentucky is 33.9%. florida, 38.9%. south carolina, 37.11%. is this how we want to honor the men and women who have stood in harm's way to defend our nation, by telling them to stay home involuntarily and having then to worry about whether they will be paid? preventing federal workers from doing their jobs just doesn't harm them. it harms all americans, because federal workers control our

borders and make sure our air and water are clean and our food and drugs are safe. they support our men and women in uniform and care for our wounded warriors. they help our manufacturers compete abroad. they discover cures for life-threatening diseases. they prosecute criminals and terrorists. they maintain and protect critical infrastructure. they explore the universe. they process passport applications. they make sure social security, medicare and other programs are functioning properly. when federal are working, everyone is better. it is very simple. we need to keep our nation open and these people on the job. we need to raise the debt ceiling to make the credit limit. we need to repair regular order and make a budget deal to

replace the sequestration, that allocates it a fair way and holds people harmless over the past several months and years. mr. president, mr. president. something our people do, it is not rocket science. we know the various options. president lyndon johnson was famous of saying let us come together and reason. that is what we do. we can acknowledge our differences but at the end of the day people have trust he entrusted us with governing, with being pragmatic. let's do our job so the federal workers can do their jobs on behalf of all americans. mr. president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: mr. president, today marks the 228th anniversary of the signing of the constitution 228 years ago. 39 brave and wise men set their names to the document that has divided our nation and our politics ever since. with each passing year i'm increasingly atownsed by the wisdom of our founders. the world was a different place, no was no electricity, no railroads, no air conditioning. crossing the nation took days. and there were only 13 states with only four million people. that's the population of roughly oklahoma today. despite these vastly different circumstances, the framers created a system that has

endured over 200 years and become be a an example to world as strength. enshrined in the population things and the source of rights, coupled with an objective, honest rule of the failings of human nature. the framers recognized that our right comes from god, not government and that it is the role of government to secure, not create, rights. they recognized that government, unrestrained, is a threat to liberty and that in order to protect citizens from government's constant tendency to expand its sphere, ambition must be made to counteract ambition. barriers, as madison famously intoned, will never suffice. thus, the framers created the separations of powers, federalism, checks and balances,

an independent judiciary, a bicameral legislature, and an executive that, while unified, lacked the power of the purse. each branch of government would have to share power with the others, just as states and the federal government would have to share power as well by preventing any one branch or any one level of government from being able to act unilaterally in its affairs. and by doing that, the constitution ensured that no one individual or group would be able to run roughshod over any other. and just as important, the constitution ensured that no major policy change could occur without substantial support from large numbers of americans at all levels of government and society. the genius of the constitution lies in its insight that prosperity requires stability. temporary majorities come and go. their favored policies may or may not be wise.

some years ago there was a great concern that the earth was cooling. now there's worry in the same quarters that it is warming. policies that may have seemed wise at one point in time later reveal themselves to be foolish, even dangerous. by dividing power among branches and between states and washington, our constitution helps avert sudden large mistakes as it enables more modest improvements supported by broad coalitions. the constitution's division of powers also protects against the natural inclination toward self-aggrandizement. this inclination occurs both at the government-wide level and at the individual level. an unchecked federal government bent on remedying all of society's ills will tend naturally to swallow the states, each of whom has -- each of which has far fewer resources than the federal leviathan.

officeholders competing for power and prestige battle against each other as they try to enact their visions into law. our constitutional system ensures that the federal government does not altogether consume the states by limiting and enumerating the federal government's powers and by promising that all powers not dedicated to the fgh federal government are reserved to the states. the constitution also forces rival officeholders to work together and is designed to prevent any one person from unilaterally making, changing, or eliminating laws. madison famously said that if men were angels, no government would be necessary. he further posited that if -- quote -- "angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." unquote.

well, as everybody knows, we're not angels, and we need controls on government to keep it in its proper sphere. the constitution provides these controls by dividing and diffusing power and by forcing those who seek change to work with others who may not share their views. unfortunately, there are some today who view the constitution as an obstacle to overcome, a barrier to supposed progress. these individuals find fault with the fact that the constitution makes change difficult and requires broad, long-lasting consensus in order to enact major reform. surely the exigencies of the day, they argue, weren't bypassing or even separatin igne single payer reagan administration o -- the separatn of powers or other critical elements of our infrastructure

of power. these are fundamentally misguided. the fact is that the constitution is not an object -n obstacle. it is a guide, a guide to how we should approach our contemporary problems, for how we should think about our roles as constitutional protectors -- our roles as citizens and legislators or how we should conduct ourselves as we debate the problems of the day. the constitution limits government in order to preserve freedom. it makes each branch the equal of the others and the states the equal of washington washington,. it provides a check on all government action. it provides power among multiple sources because no one individual or office can be trusted with all authority. and it requires cooperation at all levels and all stages to ensure that changes in law are

thoroughly vetted rather than rammed through by temporary majorities. these are the principles that should guide us as we seek solutions to our nation's challenges. these principles apply in any number of situations. a law that coerces states into creating or expanding programs against their will by threatening to cut off all funding for noncompliance makes states the subordinates, not equals of the federal government. executive action that purports to suspend vast swaths of our nation's immigration laws does not honor congress as a coequal branch, nor do statements threatening that if congress does not act, the president will. the constitution does not give the president a blank check. it requires him to work with congress, a coequal branch to move the ball forward. executive hubris is the

antithesis of fidelity to the constitution. more in line with what the constitution teaches is a willingness to reach out, to include fellow officeholders. a president who works all levers of government to find broad agreement understands the constitution's lessons. president reagan did this with tax reform and entitlement reform. president bush did it with education reform and financial sector reform. legislation that preserves the separation of powers rather than delegating vast law making authority to an unelected bureaucracy also honors the constitution's teachings. regulations that stay within the bounds of agency authority. when agencies exceed their statutory mandate, they actually do violence to the constitution's careful system of checks and balances. they assume power that is not

theirs, not theirs to take, and remove decisions from the give-and-take of the democratic process. this is particularly problematic when the obvious purpose of the agency action is to bypass congress. e.p.a.'s recent carbon rules are but one example. when the administration found itself unable to pass cap and trade even though -- even through a democratic congress, it turned to administrative fiat. it mattered not that the clean air act provides no authority for the administration's exceptionally hard rules, rules that will depress economic growth and cause energy costs to soar. i might add, what mattered was the goal of reducing carbon emissions, but the constitution does not give the president power to right all wrongs. it requires him to work with congress so that the two bodies together can address our

nation's problems. cooperation, the constitution teaches, yields better results than imprudent unilateral action. more generally, all laws that expand government risk ignoring the constitution's -- ignore the constitution's lessons. when we vote to expand government, we set ourselves against the very purpose of the constitution, to restrain the powers of the federal government. true, the constitution created a more robust government to remedy the defects in the articles of confederation, but in creating a more robust government, it placed check upon check upon check upon check on that government. a government that can compel citizens to purchase products they do not or to provide products re-pugnant to their most deeply held religious

beliefs is a danger to liberty. whenever we carry out new -- carve out new space for the federal government, we must be exceedingly careful not to upset the constitution's careful balance. the constitution also provides more subtle lessons on how we should conduct ourselves as senators and elected officials. the overarching genius of the constitution, as i have said, is its recognition that flourishing requires stability. unchecked majorities are dangerous, not only because they tend to invade minority rights but also in their enthusiasm for change, they may enact policies that cooler reflection would reveal to be unwise. the ongoing debacle of obamacare is an example of this inaction. flush with the presidency, the

majority in the house and their first filibuster-proof majority in the senate in over 30 years, democrats enacted fundamental changes to american health care that have forced millions of americans off their own plans, caused premiums to skyrocket, and further insinuated government into decisions that should be made between doctors and patients. had my colleagues on the other side of the aisle paid greater heed to what the constitution has to teach, they might not have rushed so headlong into these problems. the constitution teaches the virtue of prudence and incremental reform rather than seeking fundamental changes, as president obama promised during the 2008 campaign. democrats should have focused on retaining those aspects of american health care that work well, including doctor choice, innovation, and quicker access

to treatment. even while attempting to correct deficiencies. a more package that sought to preserve what worked rather than anomalous bills so large that no one actually had the time to read it could have avoided many of the problems obamacare is now causing. it might even have attracted some republican votes. instead, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle chose a party-line vote using an obscure legislative procedure that became necessary only after the people of massachusetts -- massachusetts -- elected scott brown to block the bill. and they did so in such a rush that, as speaker pelosi so memorablely revealed, they didn't even know what was in their bill. my colleagues across the aisle, along with the rest of america, are now paying the price for their imprudence. mr. president, my remarks on this constitution today are

focused on the less songs the constitution has to etch -- the lessons the constitution has to teach as well as the dangers we risk when we ignore its wisdom. i would like to call by calling on my colleagues to pay greater heed to the constitution's lessons when writing and voting on legislation. there is an unfortunate tendency, in my view, to think of the constitution as the court's domain, to leave it entirely up to the courts to decide whether a law is constitutional or not. we here in congress just write laws. it's up to the courts to do the constitutional stuff. this tendency to leave things to courts diminishes our role in the constitutional system, and this is the many lessons the constitution has to teach. the judiciary's role in assessing constitutionality is a narrow one. courts do not ask whether a law is consistent with the constitution's overall spirit or

the principles. rather, they ask whether it satisfies some legal rule announced in a previous case. is the regulated activity commerce? is the punishment for noncompliance a tax or a penalty? the fidelity to -- but fidelity to the constitution is about much more than narrow legal reasoning. honoring the constitution involves looking to the principles that undergird it, values like individual liberty, separation of powers, federalism, respect for a civil society, and democratic accountability. in determinin determining whethn course of action is wise, all of these things are important. obamacare, again, provides an example. obamacare in my view, is unconstitutional, not only because it exceeds congress' power under the constitution but also because it violates many of the enduring principles made manifest in the constitution.

it invades liberty by compelling individuals to purchase insurance against their will and undermines federalism by coercing state governments to expand medicaid. it dilutes the separation of powers by expanding authority to the executive and on and on. the same is true of the president's orders suspending immigration laws for up to five million illegal immigrants. it attempts to transmute legislative authority to determine who may lawfully enter our country into an unbounded executive prerogative not to enforce the law. it end runs democratic accountability by ignoring the wishes of the people's duly elected representatives and it undermines the respect for civil society by sanctioning conduct contrary to our laws. whether or not a law meets whatever legal test the supreme

court has set forth does not end the inquiry for those of us who seek the constitution as our guide. we would do well to revive what james caesar and others called political constitutionalism. the notion that it falls mostly to political actors such as ourselves making political decisions to protect and promote constitutional goals. for some programs such as obamacare, it means repealing the program root and branch and replacing it with one that is both more effective and more in line with our constitutional values. for other programs that have become more embedded in the fabric of american society, advancing the cause of constitutionalism will involve the more incremental reform. all of our entitlement programs need improvement. we must think hard about how we

can reform these programs to better serve those for whom they were intended. mr. president, james madison called the constitution a miracle. i think he was right on point. the constitution is a miracle because it has endured for over 200 years. it is a miracle because of what it teaches about prudent government and the need to guard against human failings. it is a miracle because the lessons it provides are just as relevant today as they were 228 years ago. i have to say it's a miracle because well over 160 nations in this world have tried to copy it, and under none of those nations has it worked as well as this country. and in some ways we are starting to lose the constitution because of some of the actions and activities of those who want to

win at any cost. may we ever look to the constitution for guidance and pay an increased if i dpelty as we -- fidelity as we discharge our duties here in washington and across this great land. i want to thank you, mr. president, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: mr. president, i'm not sure -- are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. coats: i ask that that call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. coats: mr. president, a lot of talk around here about the iran deal. it's over. we made our best effort. we fully exposed exactly what is in this agreement. we had hours and hours, days and days, weeks and weeks of debate

over this. it's been on our plate here for now ever since the beginning of the negotiations. some of us started to express alarm and concerns about the direction of those negotiations and what was potentially being given away, but we really weren't sure exactly until, fortunately, thanks to the corker amendment, the congress had to weigh in and had to -- was required for the administration to give us the ability to look at every word of this agreement, the annexes and everything attached to it. later on, we found out there were two secret side agreements which we weren't able to see. that alone in my opinion should have been enough to vote against this amendment. how can you enter into any kind of contractual relationship with a nation or with a car dealer if that person you're negotiating with says well, you know, there are a couple of secret things over here that you can't have access to, but don't worry, it really won't mess things up. no one is going to sign an

agreement like that except the president of the united states and the secretary of state, apparently. so we have made a valiant effort here to defeat this. many of us have poured our heart and soul into this. not just for days, not just for months, but for years. and yes, the american people have learned a lot more about this. a lot more than what has been whitewashed out of the white house or marketed out of the white house in terms of how good this is for the future of america and for our national security and for the future of the world. and i think we have exposed in many, many ways -- i listed at least ten -- major issues that we conceded that were goals, that we wanted to achieve going into the negotiations and we conceded on every single point. and i'm not going to go back over that in the interest of time here. all i'm here to do is say i guess i'm not ready to give up. i said earlier on the floor, i

quoted yogi berra, it ain't over until it's over. everybody said it's over. but the consequences of this are not over. the results of this are not over. we will be living this out for the duration of this agreement, and at the end of this agreement, iran will have completed exactly the goal that it's trying to reach. in fact, they may complete it much earlier than that. and that is the legitimatization of their possession of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapon capability. this is a country that says we only need to develop this for medical isotopes to fuel a reactor that's going to produce electricity for our people, despite all the sun, the wind and the unlimited amount of oil and gas underneath their soil that can provide that much cheaper than any other form, so there is no justification for their going forward except for

achieving that one goal that we know they have worked for for years. we know that they have lied about in terms of -- to organizations. we know that have been sanctioning this. and we have simply now given them a pathway to achieve this and a legitimatization of their achievement of this. so to say that all the consequences will be good because iran will abide by every part of this agreement, and you know throughout this process there's going to be a major change in iran. the theocracy will be overthrown. they will become a responsible neighbor and nation. and this is the pathway to achieving that. that's the vision of the president. that's the dream -- and frankly, mr. president, i hope that my assessment of this is wrong. for the sake of the future of

the united states and for the sake of the future of israel and for the sake of the future of the world, i hope i am wrong. but there's nothing in this agreement and there is nothing, nothing that has been said or done by the iranian regime that would give us any indication, any hint at all to any kind of change in their behavior. and in fact, as they deride our agreement, our negotiators and embarrass our president, day after day after day with death to america and extinction of israel, we ought to be all the more concerned that something like the administration has wished for and hoped for by extending the hand of friendliness that would happen. i simply don't think it will. and so what will be the consequences? as i said, i have discussed at length what i think is wrong with this bill.

i won't go over that again today. it's in the record. but there will be consequences that i don't think we have fully discussed, and i will lay out some of those. for iran, liberation. liberation from all sanctions. back in business. and they will become rich. they will become rich with the release of hundreds of billions of dollars that are now sanctioned and will be released, and they will be using that for any number of purposes. there will be any number of by the republican guards, this is not exxon, this is not mobil, this is not any of our international oil companies. this is a republican guard, a military organization, dominates that oil industry. they will be free to exploit one of the largest oil reserves in the world. their income will spike, their

coffers will increase by and be well funded. we all know iran's efforts to come nature the nominees and be a world power, they will have all the money to feed their proxies fighting for them in syria, in yemen, in iraq, and a number of places throughout the middle east, and their terrorist threats resonate through the globe. after nearly a decade of international efforts to get iran to give up this dangerous activity, iran now has a green light. a pathway built for them by u.s. concessions in this agreement to reach nuclear weapons capability. we have entirely conceded to iran their right to fissile

material that have only one reason, nuclear weapons. we the region, and the impact of this on the region. we haven't really had a great deal of discussion on this, the consequences. i've talked briefly during my time early in this week and last week. but the iranian continuing revolution all affect the middle east and all affect the world and it's dangerous and it's irresponsible. former secretary of state baker and, well recognized as global experts and international experts, they discussed the

this in in a joint paper last week. they say secretary kissenner said that they will expand their opportunities and proliferate in response. and their response. and get dragged into middle east wars, except these times will be nuclear. previous thinking of nuclear strategy, they explained, assume the existence of stable actors. iran is anything but stable. however, these documents affect throughout the nonproxies similar, through the assault and the death of jihad is a kind of fulfillment.

wise words from wise people who have a lifetime of experience. unfortunately, these seem to have largely been ignored if not completely ignored by this administration because it didn't fit the purpose, their purpose to complete a deal no matter what, no matter what we had to give up, they wanted to complete this deal. in fact, the state department's spokesman was quoted as disparaging kissinger saying they're just big words and big thoughts and that the two were not living in the real world. not living in the real world. i think that application applies just to secretary of state and the president than to former secretaries of state kissinger and schultz. the agreement that puts them on

a path to a nuclear weapon, the wrung out of the region, what else can be possibly argued that iran now will never be permitted to develop these weapons technologies without a response from others? if i were the king of saudi arabia, if i were the prime minister or president of any major country in the middle east, i'm not going to stand by and watch iran achieve nuclear dominance. we're going to take -- they're going to take their own action and we have now basically shredded the nuclear non proliferation policy. this is a blow to that treaty but in nearly half a century, half a century to defend, it's gone. let's look at syria and the impact on syria.

america's appalling lack of response to the open wound that is syria is paralysis born out of that obsession, the obsession with the single-minded obsession of finding accommodation to the iranian regime. iran is the principal actor in the syria regime. they could not have stayed in power these years without iranian support. and i fear that negotiations with iran have taken on such an overwhelming priority with the administration obsessed with legacy that it caused them to paralysis in syria. it caused them about their shaw was not about the brutality. that's true in some cases. but carefully reading of the

annexes and the agreement by doing so we now know that the administration went well beyond just discussing the nuclear capability issue. they did not address the hostages that were being held by the iranian regime, the americans. it did not address the ballistic missile development and proliferation. those are things that had nothing to do with the agreement itself according to the administration proposal and statement that we wouldn't go outside of that particular issue. so they did go outside of that issue. the negotiations between ayatollahs and the great satan -- that's us, according to the ayatollah -- cannot happen -- could not happen in a vacuum. the negotiators were affected by

them and a stupefying passivity. it caused them to ignore during the joint negotiations with iran. but worse, our obsession with a deal has leashed a russian exodus. it causes another threat to american interests. just days after the concluding this deal, the commander of iran's elite forces flew to moscow where he was sanctioned not to be able to do but did anyway by the u.n., to threat get them to crumble in in syria. it worked. they're now in syria in force, bringing in tanks and hard weapons. they together are assad's best

friends, perhaps his savior, and in syria, enriching up and them as a negotiating partner, it's a perfect storm. this is the price of dealing with the devil. lastly, let me talk about israel. because the consequences must return to what should be a core issue, the core issue, the consequences for our only and best friend in the middle east, israel. the only democratic ally in the region. we cannot ignore the major risk that will follow through with their offer to obliterate the state of israel, repeated by the ayatollah in no uncertain terms just this week. is this hyperbole as the administration claims? this israelis don't think so and i don't think so. we have to assume that an

extremist, violent state like iran and a decade of creating terrorist organizations shall continue their assault one day now we know with nuclear weapons. one day others may look back through the smoke and their ashes created by this deal and wonder how could we ever have been so blind? how could we ever have conceded to an agreement that violated every goal that the previous four presidents -- previous three presidents and current president had said we must not concede on, that is totally unacceptable for iran to have possession of a nuclear weapon capability. two democratic presidents, two republican presidents over two decades, three decades of time have made that statement.

it was the goal of the united states to do everything in its capability to prevent iran from having the nuclear weapon and we signed an agreement that gives them the pathway to that nuclear weapon. does it possibly delay their achievement of that? yes. but does it reach the goal of preventing them from having it? no. so after all the shouting and all the effort and all the examination of the agreements, we stand here and are told to give up. it's a done deal. the president used his -- quote -- "executive authority" to make this a executive agreement, not a treaty which is a farce in and of itself. but we're now told give it up, we've got to move on, other things to do, you made your

best efforts, we won, you lost. no, america lost. america will be paying a price year after year after year as we watch the flow of money into iran, the flow of oil out of iran with money in return supporting proxy wars through the middle east, igniting a nuclear weapons race in that tinder box of the region and we will rue the day that such an agreement was made and we signed a deal with iran. thank you, mr. president. with that i yield the floor. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: mr. president, i am going to make a unanimous consent request. i was going to tell the body why i was doing that, then make the unanimous consent request. but my colleague who was going to object to it from texas, my colleague and friend, has a plane to catch, so i'm going to

make the unanimous consent request, let him object, let him explain why he objects and i'll explain why i was for it, a little unadore knocks but won't change it. so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the president proceed to a executive session to consider the following nominations, 139, 140, 141, that the senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the motions in the order listed, that the motions be considered and reconsidered upon the table without intervening action or debate, no be in order to nominations, that any statements be printed in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's actions, and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: reserving the right to object to the senator from

new york, i would say president obama's term of office has confirmed more nominees than at any point in 2007. our pace simply follows the standout set by the other side established in that year. in the judiciary committee we've had more hearings and moved for nominees than we did last year. in terms of the nominations, it's true at the end of last year at the lame-duck session, our democratic friends ran through -- rammed through judges. in the regular order they should have been considered at the beginning of this congress. that's what happened last year when 13 nominations were returned to the president. if we request had not confirmed during the lame duck, we would have outpend it this year year to 2007.

after chairman -- on behalf of chairman grassley, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. schumer: mr. president, i regret my colleagues' objections. hope they change their minds. i must rise to address the growing crisis of judicial vacancies in our federal and district courts. mr. president, as we all know, it is the job of the senate to responsibly keep up with the needs to confirm judges. unfortunately, my friends on the other side of the aisle have slowed the judicial confirmation process to a crawl. they did their best to slow the pace of confirmations when the senate was under democratic leadership and now are sluggishly moving nominations even more so in a senate they control. it's resulted in a nearly 10% -- 10% vacancy in judicial positions throughout the united states. there are 31 -- 31 districts that are considered judicial emergencies, meaninghe