mr. durbin: mr. president, i'd like to address the issue before the senate. it relates to the divisive and controversial issue of abortion. and it comes at an unusual moment in the history of the united states congress. this week for the first time the pope will be addressing a joint session of congress. it was 50 years ago when the first pope visited the united states and the arrival of pope francis this week is a cause of great celebration. people from my state of illinois and across this nation, because of their respect of his leadership of the catholic church. it calls into question, of course, the relationship between religion and our government. this summer i finished a book called "mayflower" which told the story of the pilgrims coming to the united states, settling in our country, looking for a new opportunity, but looking more than anything for freedom

mr. durbin:, mr. president, reserving the right to object. the president pro tempore: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: would the senator from utah, the presiding officer, advise the senate if we are operating under a unanimous consent as to time allocations. the president pro tempore: at this time the time is equally divided. mr. durbin: between which hours? the president pro tempore: from 10:00 until 5:00. mr. durbin: would the presiding officer be kind enough to tell me how much time has been used by the republican side since 2:15. the president pro tempore: roughly 45 minutes. mr. durbin: i do not object. the president pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. corker: if i could, so i'm really glad the distinguished leader of the armed services committee is going to speak next. he's got probably more knowledge of the middle east than almost anybody in this body. but it was my understanding we were going to rotate back and forth. and we actually have people who have -- senator reid had asked to speak. he decided not to do so. se

mr. durbin:, mr. president, reserving the right to object. the president pro tempore: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: would the senator from utah, the presiding officer, advise the senate if we are operating under a unanimous consent as to time allocations. the president pro tempore: at this time the time is equally divided. mr. durbin: between which hours? the president pro tempore: from 10:00 until 5:00. mr. durbin: would the presiding officer be kind enough to tell me how much time has been used by the republican side since 2:15. the president pro tempore: roughly 45 minutes. mr. durbin: i do not object. the president pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. corker: if i could, so i'm really glad the distinguished leader of the armed services committee is going to speak next. he's got probably more knowledge of the middle east than almost anybody in this body. but it was my understanding we were going to rotate back and forth. and we actually have people who have -- senator reid had asked to speak. he decided not to do so. se

mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: my calculation, it's about 26 minutes before the vote and i would ask on the democratic side be given three minutes and the senator from cardin, three minutes and senator new jersey be given five minutes and from delaware, five minutes. i'm sorry, the senator from carper, from delaware three minutes and the senator from cardin, two minutes. the presiding officer: would the senator please restate those. mr. durbin: flee minutes for myself, five minutes for mr. cardin of maryland, five minutes for senator menendez of new jersey, themes for senator carper, two minutes for senator kaine. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, we listened to the comments of senator mcconnell, the republican leader. he has given us a litany of horribles when it comes to the conduct of the nation of iran. he has given us fair warning that this is a country that we cannot trust because of past conduct. i think the point that needs to be made at this mom

mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: madam president, wednesday night is the deadline. on wednesday night the authority of the government of the united states to do business ends. the funding for our government ends. it's a scary time. we don't want that to happen. most of us, because we know it's catastrophic. there will be people who will suffer if we fail to do our job. now this isn't the first time we've been up against a deadline. we've faced it before. and many times we have to buy a little extra time to negotiate the budget. that's understandable. in this circumstance, though, we actually have announced candidates for presidency of the united states who are calling for a government shutdown. what happens when our government shuts down? well, it's pretty obvious. agencies stop doing business as usual. what we find is that the impact, though, goes far beyond just that simple statement. i went back to illinois this last weekend, and i took a visit to scott air force base. it's the largest single employer in th

mr. durbin: madam president? i yield 20 minutes to the senator from delaware. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. casey: i thank the democratic whip for yielding time to me. i want to thank him for his descreerd leadership on this issue. -- for his extraordinary leadership on this issue. i wapt to tak want to take a lia different approach to the serious matter that's before us today just to say in the first week or two of the august recess, i suspect some of my colleagues did but not all, i read a lot of the materials that relate to the agreement. after putting it down, my time wandered back to another time and place where there was an intense effort to end years of hostility and mistrust in the middle east. as governor of delaware and chairman of the national governors' association, i led a trade delegation in 1999 of business leaders, government leaders, and citizens mostly from delaware, many of them jewish, and we went to israel in that summer, 1999. we came looking to strengthen economic and cultural relations between delaware and israel.

mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the minority whip. mr. durbin: what time is remaining on the democratic side? the presiding officer: 36 minutes. mr. durbin: and how much on the other side? the presiding officer: 41 minutes. mr. durbin: thank you very much. i would like to just respond very briefly, very briefly before yielding to senator nelson of florida. i would say to the junior senator from texas i hope he listened carefully last sunday when general colin powell, former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, a man who risked his life in battle for america, a man who served as secretary of state under republican president george w. bush, same forward and endorsed this agreement that's been proposed before the senate. so to suggest that general powell and so many others are not aware of the security aspects of this agreement i don't believe is a fair characterization. general powell and others understand better than i can, better than the senator from texas can, what it means to face these security issues. and what he said, i'd like to q

mr. durbin: my colleagues may proceed. mr. warner: i rise to join my colleagues on speaking on the joint comprehensive plan of afnlings while this deal is far from perfect, i believe it is the best option available for us right now for preventing iran from obtaining a nuclear wevmena nuclear weapon. i share many of the scerns expressed bconcerns expressed by colleagues but the choice i had to make was between accepting an imperfect deal or accepting serious ramifications if congress rejects the deal. as i reviewed this agreement, i kept two fundamental questions in mind. one, does this agreement advance the goal of keeping iran free of nuclear weapons? and, two, is there a viable alternative that would be superior to this deal? as many colleagues before me have outlined, this deal outlines a significant reduction in iran' iran's physicallable ml stockpile reducing it by 98%. it restricts iran's production capacity and completely removes their ability to produce weapons-grade plutonium. it further limits iran's research and dev

mr. durbin: if i might ask the senator from tennessee to clarify? the last part of his request relates to the period between 3:00 and 3:45? mr. corker: yes, that's correct. mr. durbin: without objection. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. corker: thank you, mr. president. so our side knows what will occur between now and the end of our time, the next 15 minutes will be for senator graham, then ten minutes to senator barrasso and then ten minutes to senator flake. with that, i'd yield the floor to one of the best national security voices in the united states of america, senator graham from south carolina. mr. graham: thank you very much. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: thank you, senator corker. well, i just want to make sure people understand what we're trying to do here at this point. our democratic colleagues are filibustering an attempt to have a debate, an up-or-down vote on the most consequential foreign policy decision in modern history. that's what you're doing. and senator corker in g

mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: is not frr illinois. mr. durbin: how much time is remaining on the democratic side? the presiding officer: 16 1/2 minutes. mr. durbin: thank you very much. mr. president, i don't know that we've faced a debate of this historic importance for 12 years, because it was about 12 years ago that swreeted on the floor -- that voted on the floor of the united states senate on whether to invade iraq. senators don't forget those debates. what's at stake is war. what's at stake are human lives. not only then mi the enemy but innocents and those who are friends. i remember that debate very well. there were 23 of us who voted against the invasion of iraq. one republican, lincoln chafee, 22 democracy. -- 22 democrats. at the time we were told by vice president cheney, secretary rumsfeld and others that iraq had weapons of mass destruction and we had to stop them for fear they would use those weapons against our allies and friends even against the united states. it turned out there were no weapons of mass destruction. none.

mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, i want to take a moment to thank an important member of my staff, her name is dore it's, she comes to the floor. she has worked for knee for 12 years. this year she has worked as my legislative director and she is leaving soon for a new opportunity. there is a reaction, say it ain't so but she couldn't refuse. this week, dina morris will join the disease control as the washington director. her new position i have to admit is perfect. it will allow her to combine her exceptional legislative skills, and her strong commitment to public service in ways that will benefit americans and families and businesses. i already know that dina is going to do well because she has done so much for me for my people of illinois and the people of our nation. there's one thing that really tells you a lot about dina's commitment about public service and public good. dina came to me 12 years ago, left a k street law firm, to work in the senate as a staffer. she took a substantial pay cut to do it

mr. durbin: mr. president, in recent years, we have faced a lot of difficulty filling positions for service to our federal government, not the least of which for critical diplomatic posts around the world. we've seen delays in confirming federal judges. one of the most important duties of the senate. these men and women are chosen for life appointments. the most frustrating part of this is that virtually all of these nominees should be confirmed with overwhelming support. to be nominated by the president or the white house for an ambassadorial spot or even a federal judgeship, you go through a clearance process in the beginning for the white house to choose this person, then a background check, and it is a pretty extensive background check, and then eventually if the white house is satisfied, this person is fit for the job with no obstructions to their moving forward, they send them to congress, and it goes all through this process all over again. so these nominees have been vetted once, twice, three

mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: is not frr illinois. mr. durbin: how much time is remaining on the democratic side? the presiding officer: 16 1/2 minutes. mr. durbin: thank you very much. mr. president, i don't know that we've faced a debate of this historic importance for 12 years, because it was about 12 years ago that swreeted on the floor -- that voted on the floor of the united states senate on whether to invade iraq. senators don't forget those debates. what's at stake is war. what's at stake are human lives. not only then m the enemy but is and those who are friends. i remember that debate very well. there were 23 of us who voted against the invasion of iraq. one republican, lincoln chafee, 22 democracy. -- 22 democrats. at the time we were told by vice president cheney, secretary rumsfeld and others that iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and we had to stop them for fear they would use those weapons against our allies and friends, even against the united states. it turned out there were no weapons of mass destruction. none. after

mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr.eak to the vote that we're going to cast this morning at 10:00. this is a vote to basically extend the authority and budget of the federal government until december 11. this september 30 is the end of our fiscal year, and at least legally the authority to continue the government depends on budget and appropriations bills being passed by the house and senate. that has not happened. so what we're doing is a continuing resolution. it basically extends last year's budget until december 11. now that will keep the lights on at federal agencies and it will avoid the catastrophic outcome of a government shutdown, but it is not good policy. we've done it on our side, on the democratic side, now the republicans in control of the congress are doing it on their side. it buys time to try to reach some sort of an agreement that is longer lasting and more thoughtful. we know now that the notion of a government shutdown is a disaster, but it is not a unanimous opinion in the united states senate or in

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

mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the minority whip. mr. urbin: i ask consent to speak in morning business for five minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, there are many brokenhearted people today in the small town of fox lake, illinois. they're mourning the loss of lieutenant charles joseph glenowitcz. his friends called him joe, and at work g.i. joe. that all identify -- all-american names was nearly 35 years of service in the army and army reserves and to his appearance and demeanor. at age 52, the lieutenant was fit and strong. he stood ramrod straight. he wore his hair high and tight, like a drill sergeant. but the physical characteristics that people mention most about lieutenant glenowitcz, was his smile. everyone knew g.i. joe in fox lake, illinois. he served on the town's police force for 32 years. he was supposed to retire at the end of last month but he stayed on just one more month to ensure a smooth transition to a volunteer youth programs to which he donated over thousands of hours for nea

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

mr. durbin: 3/4 of the republican presidential candidates think closing down the government is a great idea. 3/4 of the american people think it's a dumb idea. today republicans are congratulating themselves that they just might be able to keep the government open until december 11. it's a sad state of affairs when the g.o.p. measures success on not shutting down the government. it's hard to follow what this party's thinking. this is no cause for celebration. the american people have every reason to be appalled by the republican majority in the house and the senate and unable to govern. let's assume the senate will pass this clean c.r., say tomorrow, the house does the same, i don't like to make assumptions about what's going to happen over there, incidentally. we're setting up another deadline in december. it's a holiday gift for america. the prospect of shutting down the government again. there's already talk of another continuing resolution for the rest of the year by house republicans. who aren't yet willing to come to the table. is this how they govern? when the republicans are in the

mr. durbin: mr. president, i'd like to address the issue before the senate. it relates to the divisive and controversial issue of abortion. and it comes at an unusual moment in the history of the united states congress. this week for the first time the pope will be addressing a joint session of congress. it was 50 years ago when the first pope visited the united states and the arrival of pope francis this week is a cause of great celebration. people from my state of illinois and across this nation, because of their respect of his leadership of the catholic church. it calls into question, of course, the relationship between religion and our government. this summer i finished a book called "mayflower" which told the story of the pilgrims coming to the united states, settling in our country, looking for a new opportunity, but looking more than anything for freedom of religious belief. they were followed by scores and thousands of others who came for the same reason. my mother was an immigrant to this co

mr. durbin: thank you very much, mr. president. mr. president, this has been one of the most extraordinary measures that has come before the senate in the time that i've the senate in the time that i've >> mr. president one of the most extraordinary measures that came before the senate. with the historic moment and to raise the question about "war and peace" in the middle east that had been considered so carefully by such a long period of time. when i left for the august recess, most members of the democratic side restore processing and reviewing the proposed agreement. over the course of august they have announced their public positions on the matter. and to which the iran agreement those that are opposed to read. and expect this to happen and surely it is a unique matter i ask mustapha and others i ask them to research a letter said march 9 of this year the 47 republican senators sent a letter to the leader of the islamic republic of iran, the ayatollah. to take you back in history united states of america is in negotiations with ira

mr. durbin: this agreement requires the iaea have 24/7 access to all of iran's declared nuclear facility. this means in-person inspectors, remote cameras, tamper-proof seals, all the world's most sophisticated detection technology. as one nuclear expert commented last week, if a rat enters a nuclear facility in iran, we will know it. critically, this intrusive monitoring goes all the way in to the nuclear supply chain from uranium mines to centrifuge production. we cover it all in this agreement. i see the senator from south dakota is here and i'll wrap up by putting the rest of this in the record. but let me conclude, when i sat down to read this agreement, and i don't know how many of my colleagues have, i was struck on the third page with this statement in the agreement with iran. iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapon. that's quite a statement. it was our goal at this negotiation. do i believe it? some. but i have my doubts. that's why we had to have an inspection regime. from the uranium mines right through the production

mr. durbin: the senator from tennessee is my friend. i said so on the floor, and i said it privately among my colleagues, i want to for the record make it clear, though. senator reid and the democrats said there will be no cloture necessary on the motion to proceed, no motion to proceed vote necessary last week to go to this measure. we had an opportunity to obstruct, to block, whatever you want to say, and did not do it because we believe that what we had heard repeatedly is this would be a 60-vote final passage was ultimately going to be the standard. there is nothing in the statute that brings us to this measure that in any way eliminates the 60-vote requirement. it is just not there. there's nothing that does that. when your side discovered they did not have 60 votes, which was the beginning of last week, they changed the standard and said, we want a majority vote and anything less than that is a filibuster. so that was your decision based on the fact that now 42 democratic senators see this issue differently. i would say this: we'v

with that i will yield the floor to i thought senator cotton but it looks as if maybe senator durbin. >> mr. president? >> minority leader. excuse become majority leader. >> mr. president, i was asking in wisconsin that the senator from arizona be recognized and i be recognized following his remarks. >> mr. president, preserving the right to object. >> -- reserving. >> senator from illinois. >> with the senator from utah advice visit if we are operating under unanimous consent as two-time allocations? >> at this time the times equally divided. >> between which hours? >> if i could? >> time until 5:00 it is equally divided. >> could you don't how much time has been used by the republican side since to 15? >> -- 2:15 p.m.? >> roughly 45 minutes. >> i do not object. >> if i could -- >> without objection, so ordered. >> i'm really glad the distinguished leader of our armed service committee is going to speak next. he's got probably more knowledge of the middle east than almost anybody in this body. but it was my understanding we were going to rotate back and forth come and we actually have peop

you'll hear speeches from majority leader mitch mcconnell, dick durbin, and also john cornyn. mr. mcconnell: two weeks ago, i asked the obama administration to step back from the iran negotiations, press pause, and re-examine the point of having the talks in the first place. that would have been the most rational and reasonable approach for the white house to take. especially considering that its own allies in the senate were using phrases like, deeply worrying, to describe the direction of the talks. but instead of taking the time to re-examine basic objectives with its partners and agree on the nonnegotiable element of any deal,-- elements of any things like complete disclosure of previous military related nuclear research and relief of sanctions tied to a nanny and -- iranian compliance, the white house acquiesced and sat in artificial deadline after artificial deadline and opportunity after opportunity for iran to press for additional concessions along the way. the result is a comprehensive nuclear agreement announced today. given what we do know so far, it appears that republ

senators durbin corker cardin and collins weigh in on the iran nuclear accord. >> the assistant democratic leader. >> thank you very much mr. president. mr. president to suspend one of the most extraordinary measures that is come before the senate in the time that i've served here. it is rare to have an issue of this historic moment, that this importance, one that literally raises a question about ward and peace in the middle east and one that has been considered so carefully by both sides of the aisle for such a long period of time. when i left for the august recess here in the senate most of the members of my side of the aisle on the democratic side were still processing and reviewing the proposed agreement and over the course of august these members announce their public positions on the matter. as of today there are 41 of these 46 democratic senators who have announced that they will support the iran agreement. there are another four crew are opposed to it and one who has yet to announce her position. we expect that to happen shortly. this is a unique matter. i asked my staff and others to research one particular aspec

durbin: thank you senator sessions: thank you. i believe senator lee has yielded. senator cruz. senator cruz: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, senator lee. thank you to the witnesses for being here. the testimony we have heard today is powerful. ms. saldana, you are a texan. you were a prosecutor in our state. had you a good reputation as a prosecutor. you are serving an administration that consistently refuses to follow the law. we heard this morning the very real consequences of that. now, in march when you were testifying before the house, you were asked about sanctuary cities. cities like san francisco that defy federal law and because of their defiance of federal law, kate steinle is no longer with us, she was murdered because of the refusal of local officials to recognize federal law. you were asked in that house hearing should federal law compel state officials to comply with federal law? and your answer, and i want to quote, verbatim, was, thank you, amen. yes. in my view, that was the former federal prosecutor speaking. and giving an answer. yet the next day you issued a statement retracting what you said

durbin is a dear friend of mine. the two of us have foughthts together on human rights around we have fought for civil liberties here in the united states. many important issues including mr. president, there are memberh on both sides that have reachedn different conclusions. but we are all committed to making sure iran does not become a nuclear weapons state and we honestly believe that our view is the best way for that to be accomplished.acco i don't challenge any other members decision. and i certainly don't question their resolve.ran against iran becoming a nuclear weapons state or their support o for our regional allies. i think each has demonstratedouh that throughout their career. some of us have come to different conclusions. i strongly believe that we mustn prevent iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state. it is a game-changer in the region. you already heard from my colleagues that iran is one of the principle purveyors of in terrorism in that region. it would accelerate an arms race that already has too many arms r in its region. it would make so much moreso difficult to confront iranian policy if they possess a nucleaa weapon. that we will not let that happe

mr. durbin: mr. president, we listened to the comments of senator mcconnell, the republican leader. he has given us a litany of horribles when it comes to the conduct of the nation of iran. he has given us fair warning that this is a country that we cannot trust because of past conduct. i think the point that needs to be made at this moment is i don't disagree with his premise or his conclusion, but i ask him and all others in his similar political position, how can iran with a nuclear weapon be a better thing for this world from the middle east or from israel? i think the answer is obvious. that's why the president in league with our major allies and some of our not so frequent allies has broke end an agreement to send inspectors, to destroy the centrifuges, to core -- concrete core in the plutonium and in iran, to stop so that they do not develop a nuclear weapon. that to me is an ultimate positive outcome. does it cure all the horribles listed by the senator from kentucky? of course not. but how does he imagine that iran with its record would be in a better position or we would b