[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 134 (Thursday, September 17, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6775-S6793]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      HIRE MORE HEROES ACT OF 2015

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.J. Res. 61, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 61) amending the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt employees with health coverage 
     under TRICARE or the Veterans Administration from being taken 
     into account for purposes of determining the employers to 
     which the employer mandate applies under the Patient 
     Protection and Affordable Care Act.

  Pending:

       McConnell amendment No. 2640, of a perfecting nature.
       McConnell amendment No. 2656 (to amendment No. 2640), to 
     prohibit the President from waiving, suspending, reducing, 
     providing relief from, or otherwise limiting the application 
     of sanctions pursuant to an agreement related to the nuclear 
     program of Iran.
       McConnell amendment No. 2657 (to amendment No. 2656), to 
     change the enactment date.
       McConnell amendment No. 2658 (to the language proposed to 
     be stricken by amendment No. 2640), to change the enactment 
     date.
       McConnell amendment No. 2659 (to amendment No. 2658), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       McConnell motion to commit the joint resolution to the 
     Committee on Foreign Relations, with instructions, McConnell 
     amendment No. 2660, to prohibit the President from waiving, 
     suspending, reducing, providing relief from, or otherwise 
     limiting the application of sanctions pursuant to an 
     agreement related to the nuclear program of Iran.
       McConnell amendment No. 2661 (to (the instructions) 
     amendment No. 2660), of a perfecting nature.
       McConnell amendment No. 2662 (to amendment No. 2661), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 11 
a.m. will be equally divided between the two leaders or their 
designees.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, my calculation is there are about 36 
minutes remaining before the vote. I ask unanimous consent on the 
Democratic side that I be given 3 minutes, Senator Cardin 5 minutes, 
Senator Menendez of New Jersey 5 minutes, Senator Carper of Delaware 5 
minutes--Senator Carper 3 minutes, and Senator Kaine 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Would the Senator please restate those.
  Mr. DURBIN. Yes, 3 minutes for myself, 5 minutes for Senator Cardin 
of

[[Page S6776]]

Maryland, 5 minutes for Senator Menendez of New Jersey, 3 minutes for 
Senator Carper, 2 minutes for Senator Kaine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  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, for the 
Middle East, or for Israel?
  I think the answer is obvious. That is why the President, in league 
with our major allies and some not so frequent allies, has brokered an 
agreement to send in international inspectors to destroy the 
centrifuges which are building these nuclear weapons, to put a concrete 
core in the reactor that produces the plutonium, and to continue the 
inspection of Iran nonstop so that they do not develop a nuclear 
weapon.
  That to me is an ultimate positive outcome. Does it cure all of the 
horribles that have been listed by the Senator from Kentucky? Of course 
not. But how can he imagine that Iran with its record would be in a 
better position--or that we would be in a better position--if Iran had 
a nuclear weapon? I do not think so. That, I think, is the issue before 
us. I have to harken back to the statement made yesterday by my 
colleague from Michigan. She is in contact with the family of one of 
the prisoners being held there. They are concerned, I am concerned, 
that dramatizing these four prisoners as part of our political debate 
on the floor, which is what the Republicans have done with their 
amendment is a risky process. We want these prisoners to come home 
safely. We voted that way overwhelmingly.
  Playing them as part of a floor strategy by the Republicans is risky. 
I wish we would not take the risk at their possible expense. So I would 
urge my colleagues to join me in voting against the cloture motion that 
is going to come before us at 11 o'clock to move forward on this 
particular amendment.
  I will close by saying, the press reports last night explained why we 
are here wasting a week in the Senate: Because of the Republican 
presidential debate and because of the fact that even some of the 
Republican presidential candidates reserved a vial of venom to be used 
against the leader here, the majority leader of the Senate and the 
Speaker of the House.
  It is clear they are under immense pressure to show their Republican 
manhood. That is what this exercise is all about.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, the next vote we are going to take on the 
Iran agreement will fundamentally change the resolution before us. It 
is out of compliance with the review act. The Iran review act gives 
Congress three options: approve the agreement, disapprove the agreement 
or take no action. This amendment would provide conditional approval of 
the Iran agreement.
  Let me make clear to our colleagues that the framework of the 
agreement is to provide Iran sanctions relief in exchange for stopping 
Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state. That is the yardstick. It 
provides for inspections and enforcement, preserving our options if 
Iran participates in terrorism, human rights, and ballistic missile 
violations, and the bottom line is whether Iran is in better or worse 
shape to acquire a nuclear weapon under this agreement.
  I reached my judgment on it, as did 100 Senators. I opposed the 
agreement, but this amendment takes us in a different direction. This 
amendment says that if Iran recognizes Israel and releases four 
hostages, that sanctions relief will be granted to Iran. I hope Iran 
does recognize Israel, but I must tell you I would have no confidence 
in their statement or trust in their statement if they issued a 
statement recognizing Israel.
  Senator Stabenow has already talked about whether this is the most 
effective way to bring back our hostages. One can challenge that. So 
this conditional approval gives up any of the disapproval resolution on 
the nuclear part of the agreement. That makes absolutely no sense 
whatsoever.
  Let me remind our colleagues that this is September 17. This is the 
60th day of the congressional review, the last day of the congressional 
review. Quite frankly, this vote is a political exercise, and this 
issue is way too important for us to be engaged in a political issue on 
the review.
  We have worked very hard over 60 days to get information. The 
committee has worked very hard. We are very proud of the record of the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee in this regard. We shouldn't be 
participating in this political battle. It is clear this Iran agreement 
will be implemented.
  Now it is time for this body to stop taking show votes and instead 
pivot to the serious work of addressing the problems with the deal. 
This means making sure we are working with the Government of Israel on 
a security package that will now enable Israel to defend against 
conventional and terrorist threats from Iran; it means making sure we 
are working with our partners in the Gulf Cooperation Council to make 
sure we are collectively prepared to counter destabilizing any Iranian 
activities; it means making sure we are prepared to counter Iranian 
terrorism, ballistic missile proliferation, and human rights abuses; it 
means making sure we are working effectively with our European allies 
to prepare for Iran potentially cheating on the deal.
  Let's turn to the serious work we have in front of us and recognize 
that we all need to be together to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear 
weapons State. We stand for Israel's security, we stand for the return 
of our hostages, but let's also make sure we have the strongest 
possible decision to make sure we prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear 
weapons State. Let's work together.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise as an opponent of the Iran 
nuclear agreement, and I have set forth at length--both on the Senate 
floor and in a speech at Seton Hall University School of Diplomacy and 
International Relations--my reasons why, but I am also an opponent to 
the McConnell amendment that would support the deal if Iran recognizes 
Israel and releases American hostages.
  I have said on this floor--and will say again--that I have a problem 
with the underlying nuclear agreement. As much as I wish to see the 
hostages released--and have voted in a resolution that the Senate 
passed calling for Iran to do so--and have them come home to their 
families, and as much as I would like Israel to be recognized by Iran 
as a sovereign, independent nation, I am not certain I would want to 
give my imprimatur to the agreement even under those conditions, which 
this amendment would do. This, in essence, makes--if adopted--a 
conditional agreement. We in the Senate would be voting to say the 
agreement can move forward if the hostages are released and if Iran 
recognizes the State of Israel as a sovereign and independent state.
  I must say I want the hostages back, as does everyone in this 
Chamber. I want Israel to be recognized as a sovereign and independent 
state, although I believe that any such recognition by Iran at this 
point in time would be temporal, at best, and can only be meaningful by 
actions, not just simply by such a declaration.
  So at the end of the day, for all the reasons I have heard my 
colleagues on this floor talk about the consequences of the nuclear 
deal, surely you cannot be of the thought that as desirous as the 
releasing of the hostages is or the desire to have Israel recognized by 
Iran as a sovereign state, that that would then give you a clear 
sailing for the underlying nuclear agreement. That, in essence, is what 
this amendment would provide for.
  We have many concerns as we move forward with Iran. We already see 
that. Even as this agreement is being moved forward, Iran has given its 
OK to Russia to overfly Iran and then Iraq, where we have spent so many 
lives and national treasure, to send military hardware into Syria to 
prop up the Assad

[[Page S6777]]

regime--which Iran has also been a patron of--and at same time to maybe 
very well establish a military base for Russia. So there are going to 
be a lot of concerns, notwithstanding this agreement that we have with 
Iran, but I, for one, do not want to give any idea that we would 
support this agreement--as someone who opposes it--simply because the 
hostages would be released and Iran would recognize Israel.
  Some might believe that will never happen, so therefore the agreement 
wouldn't move forward, but if the agreement is as good as so many of my 
colleagues have said it is for Iran, then it might not be a price they 
would find too high to pay in order to have the agreement move forward.
  In any event, whether Iran thinks it is a good agreement for them and 
would do so, I simply do not want to support the underlying agreement 
by virtue of a sleight of hand on something that is desirable and, 
independently, this body would be united on--getting all of the 
hostages back and doing everything necessary to achieve that and at the 
same time making sure Israel is truly, truly recognized, not only in 
words but in deed. That is why I will be voting against the amendment.
  There are far more serious things, such as renewing the Iran 
Sanctions Act, in the days ahead that I think are critical. Many of the 
things Senator Cardin has been talking about in his proposed 
legislation will be critical to having the type of response we want in 
Iran against its hegemonic interests in the region as well as its 
nuclear ambitions. For that, I will be voting against the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.


                              The Economy

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, going back to the elections of last 
November, there are three takeaways--enduring takeaways--for me from 
that election: No. 1, people want us to work together; No. 2, they want 
us to get things done; No. 3, they want us to find ways to further 
strengthen the economic recovery of our country.
  Today the Department of Labor released the most recent weekly 
information on filers of unemployment insurance in this country. They 
do it every Thursday. They have been doing this for years. Today the 
number is 264,000 people. It sounds like a lot--well, compared to what?
  The week that Barack Obama and Joe Biden were inaugurated as 
President and Vice President, that number was not 264,000, it was 
628,000. Anytime that number is over 400,000 we are losing jobs. 
Anytime the number is under 400,000 per week, we are adding jobs. That 
number has been under 300,000 for the last 28 straight weeks. I don't 
know that there has ever been a time when we have seen a number that 
low for that long.
  We are strengthening the economic recovery. We ought to continue to 
do that. There are a number of things we ought to do on this floor to 
further strengthen the economic recovery. We need to avoid a budget 
shutdown. We need to put in place a responsible spending plan for the 
next year. Our country is under cyber attack 24/7--companies, 
businesses of all kinds and shapes. We need to have tax certainty. We 
need to put in place a tax plan for our country rather than stop and 
go. We need to fully fund a 6-year transportation plan. Those are just 
some of the things we can do to further strengthen the economic 
recovery.
  Are we dealing with those? No, we are not. We are coming back again 
to vote--really--on the same thing we voted on before.
  Let me just say, with all due respect, do I want the hostages 
released? You bet. Have I let the Iranian officials, senior officials 
whom I know, know that? You bet, every time I talk to them and meet 
with them.
  The best way to make sure the hostages are released, the best way to 
hasten the day that Israel has a kind of relationship with Iran that 
they had not all that many years ago is to put in place and to fully 
implement the plan that is before us, one that will make it very 
difficult for the Iranians to develop a nuclear weapons program and 
ensure that if they do, we know about it.
  My message to Zarif--the Foreign Minister of Iran who has been the 
lead point person on their negotiations for the last 2 years--this is 
my message to him and to the Iranian officials: No. 1, you could have a 
stronger economy; No. 2, you could have a nuclear weapons program. You 
cannot have both. There is a whole new generation of people who have 
grown up in that country, 78 million people. The average age is 25. 
Does the Revolutionary Guard like the agreement? No, they don't. They 
want to kill it.
  How about the young people who have grown up in that country who like 
Americans, who want to have a better relationship with us, what do they 
want?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. CARPER. They want us to take yes for an answer, and I would take 
no for an answer with the measure that is before us today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I just wish to say a few words about the 
vote we are about to take and about this process.
  I do not favor this agreement. I have indicated I would vote against 
it. I would like to get to a final vote on the subject and not just 
have endless cloture votes. It has been offered on the Democratic side 
that we would go to a final vote if the margin was set at 60. We have a 
60-vote threshold. I say take it. Let's get to a final vote. We have 
seen the end of this movie already. The President has the sufficient 
votes to sustain the veto. Therefore, this would simply be an exercise 
to send something to the President that he would veto and then have 
that veto sustained. I see no value in doing that. There is no value to 
our allies to see that there is a split in Congress or between Congress 
and the Executive on this issue.
  The President is in his last term, he is not hurt politically by 
this, and there is no reason to do that. So I don't know why in the 
world we want to go through that exercise or insist on going through 
that exercise simply to force cloture.
  I would like to send the disapproval motion to the President--that 
would be fine--but to not get to a final vote because we are insisting 
on doing that seems to me misguided. Let's agree and go to a final vote 
and set it at a 60-vote threshold. That would be fine. We know the end 
of this movie already.
  With regard to the amendment itself, the text of it, we are talking 
about our desire to have the hostages who are in Iran released. 
Everyone would like that. Everyone would like to see Iran recognize 
Israel. But should a whole agreement be based on those two items? No. 
There are a lot of other things that need to be done as well.
  As I said, I don't believe this was negotiated well. I think it could 
have been better. That is why I will vote against it if I have a 
chance.
  But let's give the Members of this body that chance. Let's have a 
vote on the final product, the process that we set up with the Corker-
Cardin legislation, and not insist on sending something to the 
President that would be sent back and that we know the result.
  I want to register my support of having a final vote, regardless of 
where that vote threshold is.
  With that, I yield back.
  Mr. CARPER. Will the Senator from Arizona yield for a moment?
  Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the Senator.
  Mr. CARPER. First, let me thank Senator Flake for a very thoughtful 
statement. It reminds me a little bit of what Senator Reid has been 
asking for by unanimous consent for a week or two; that is, to actually 
forgo cloture votes and that sort of thing. Let's just go to a final 
vote, but we want a 60-vote threshold. I think the expectation has been 
for months that there would be a 60-vote threshold.
  If the Senator from Arizona is comfortable with forgoing all of this 
parliamentary procedure and to going to an up-or-down vote with a 60-
vote threshold, I think that is the way to do it. That is the way we 
ought to do this. I applaud the Senator for what he said.
  Mr. FLAKE. Thank you. I do think that this is a serious matter. This 
is an agreement that is important, that is going to last beyond this 
administration and beyond the next one. Congress should be on record on 
this issue with more than just a procedural vote. I understand the 
desire to have a vote by simple majority--that would be the 
preference--but if we cannot get there,

[[Page S6778]]

and this is a body of compromise, then let's have a vote, a final vote 
on the subject.
  As to the matter of--let me just say, with these amendments, I will 
vote with my colleagues on this side of the aisle on a cloture vote to 
get to a final vote on these amendments, but if it comes to it, I will 
vote against those amendments, not that I don't want the hostages 
released or Israel recognized, but the entire agreement should not be 
based on those two items. There are other important aspects of the 
agreement, and to pick two as a way to go forward doesn't make sense to 
me. So I will vote with my party on cloture to move ahead to vote on 
the amendment, but if it comes to that, I will vote against those 
amendments.

  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I rise to speak today about President 
Obama's nuclear deal with Iran.
  I have now cast multiple votes to proceed to an up-or-down vote on 
this nuclear deal. However, according to President Obama and his 
administration, Congress's review period ends today, even though there 
is still controversy about that.
  I want to applaud the ranking member of the Foreign Relations 
Committee and the chairman--the ranking member, Senator Cardin, who is 
here today, and Senator Corker--for getting us to this point. In a 
unanimous vote in our committee, we got this bill, brought it to the 
Senate, and we had a 98-to-1 vote in a bipartisan effort to bring this 
before the American people. Today, we are here with a very small 
minority of Americans who actually support this deal.
  This administration chose not to consider this as a treaty but as a 
nonbinding political agreement. That means in a little over a year, our 
next President can determine whether he or she will abide by this deal 
with Iran.
  My question is this: What can we do now--right now--in the Senate, 
over the next 14 months, to continue to fight this President's nuclear 
deal with Iran? I speak today to confirm that I will continue this 
fight, individually, if necessary. In the next 14 months I am committed 
to finding ways we can mitigate the effects of this dangerous deal with 
Iran.
  We need to ratchet up sanctions on Iran for terrorism and human 
rights violations and continue to be vigilant in both of those areas. 
We need to be prepared with sanctions that can be snapped back swiftly 
when, not if, Iran cheats, even if that cheating is only incremental. 
We need a strategy to deal with the increase in terrorism and 
aggression we will see from Iran after they get over a $60 billion 
payday from this deal. We need a plan to reassure our allies in the 
region and to counter the nuclear and conventional arms race this deal 
is sure to trigger.
  I have been saying this for months, which is why I ensured the 
passage of an amendment in the State Department authorization bill that 
calls on the administration to produce such a strategy. I refuse to 
accept the world's deadliest weapons getting into the hands of this 
rogue regime.
  Hearing this administration sell the Iran deal, I am so often 
reminded of President Clinton's deal in 1994. In 1994 President Clinton 
promised our country this nonbinding agreement with North Korea would 
make America and the world safer. Look at where we are today. Just 12 
short years after Clinton's deal, North Korea completed its first 
nuclear detonation test. Today North Korea has a nuclear bomb, and it 
is cooperating with Iran on Iran's program. Just this week North Korea 
announced it is bolstering its nuclear arsenal and is prepared to use 
nuclear weapons against the United States of America.
  I fear President Obama's deal with Iran will yield similar results. 
We cannot allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon--not now, not in 10 
years, not ever. For the security of our children and our children's 
children, our country, our world, and our future, we absolutely have to 
make sure that Iran never becomes a nuclear weapons state.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, today we have a series of votes that I 
know may be difficult for the American people, who may be looking on, 
to understand. In the Senate we have a procedure called cloture, which 
signifies whether Members are ready to end debate and move on to the 
vote on the substance of the bill we are now discussing.
  We have been on this now for 2 weeks. We have had 12 hearings in the 
Foreign Relations Committee, with my distinguished friend Senator 
Cardin as the ranking member, and we have had all kinds of debate on 
the floor. Almost every Senator in the Senate has spoken. Yet we find 
ourselves in this place where a bipartisan majority of Senators wish to 
send a vote of disapproval to the President and 42 Senators are keeping 
us from doing so.
  If I could just walk through this, first of all, in a strong 
bipartisan, almost overwhelming manner--almost four times since 2010--
this body has put sanctions in place against Iran to bring them to the 
negotiating table. I want to commend people on both sides of the aisle 
for making that happen. My friend, Bob Menendez, and Mark Kirk on our 
side, together with all the rest of us helped to make those things 
happen.
  When this body saw that the President, after we helped to bring Iran 
to the table, was going to negotiate a deal that cut us out--that, in 
essence, caused him to be able to go straight to the U.N. Security 
Council and cause a deal to be implemented--I worked with my friend 
Senator Cardin, and others, and we put in place something called the 
Iran review act, which gave us this ability to have 60 days to look at 
the proposal, to go through it, and to voice our approval or 
disapproval. We have had that debate.
  Unfortunately, because the President did not achieve what he said he 
was going to achieve--and by the way, if he had, there would be 100 
Senators today voicing their approval. The President, when he began the 
negotiations, said he was going to end Iran's nuclear program. 
Unfortunately, from my perspective, he squandered--squandered--that 
opportunity.
  We had a boot on the neck of Iran, a rogue nation. We had some of the 
greatest countries in the world involved in the negotiations to end 
their program. Instead, we capitulated and have agreed to the 
industrialization of their nuclear program. We have agreed to let them 
continue their research and development so they can do what they are 
doing in an even quicker manner. We have allowed them to continue their 
ability to deliver intercontinental ballistic missiles.
  We all know they have no need for their program other than to develop 
a nuclear weapon. We know that. They have no practical need. So a 
strong bipartisan majority of this body wants to send to the President 
a resolution of disapproval. Yet today what is happening, I fear--for 
the third time--is that a minority--a partisan minority, I will say--of 
42 Senators are going to block that from occurring.
  Now, look, I understand procedures around here. I do. I understand 
the cloture vote. I knew that when we agreed to this bill. We agreed to 
it being dealt with under what is called ``normal procedures.'' We 
agreed to that. I just want to remind people, though, that back in the 
gulf war, this body decided it was going to support President Bush--the 
first President Bush, Bush 41--when he really didn't need to come to 
Congress. But he came to us for the authorization of the use of 
military force and that was passed on a 52-48 vote--52-48.
  What we have happening today, though, is that we have 58 Senators 
here who disapprove of what the President has negotiated. They feel he 
squandered the opportunity given to him with our support. Instead of 
ending their program, he has allowed it to be industrialized. And so we 
have 58 Senators here who want to express themselves and to send to the 
President this resolution of disapproval. We have 42 Senators on a 
procedural vote who are keeping us from doing so--42 Senators.
  In essence, they are saying, I guess, we haven't debated this enough. 
Almost every Senator has expressed

[[Page S6779]]

themselves. We have had 12 hearings in the Committee on Foreign 
Relations, with all kinds of classified briefings. The Committee on 
Armed Services had hearings, and the Select Committee on Intelligence 
had hearings.
  I just want to say that I know many people spent a lot of time. I 
know the ranking member looked at this backwards and forwards before he 
came to his own conclusion. This, to me, really is taking on a tone of 
Members of this body protecting the President--protecting the 
President--from having to veto something this body would send to him, 
which is a resolution of disapproval.
  So I am disappointed we are where we are. I am disappointed the 
Senate functions in the way it does today, where a majority of Senators 
who wish for something to happen cannot make it happen. In this 
particular case it is happening in a manner, in my belief, to really 
keep the President from having to veto this, which is what a majority 
of Senators in the Senate would like to see happen.
  With that, I hope that at least a couple of Senators here will decide 
that we have discussed this long enough and that we will allow this 
body to vote on the actual underlying substance. That is, by the way, 
what the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act was about. On a 98-to-1 
basis Senators in this body said they wanted the ability--98 of us; 1 
Senator was missing or we would have had 99--to weigh in on this topic, 
and now that is not going to occur.
  I believe my time is over. I understand the minority may have about 2 
minutes left and then we will proceed to a vote. But I want to thank my 
good friend Senator Cardin, who I think serves in a very distinguished 
way. I could not have a better partner. So I thank him for his comments 
as they are about to come and also for his cooperation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, Senator Corker and I have been in 
agreement for 53 days of the 60-day review. And he is absolutely 
correct that 58 Senators disapprove of this agreement and don't think 
it should go forward. He and I are in agreement on that. We both 
believe we could have done better and we should reject the agreement, 
but 42 Senators believe we should go forward.
  I thought the colloquy that took place just a few moments ago on the 
floor between Senator Carper and Senator Flake was the way we should 
have completed this issue, then have a final vote with a 60-vote 
threshold. That is where I thought we were headed when we went into the 
August work period.
  We have understood the process, and Americans know where every Member 
of the Senate stands on this agreement. Americans also understand the 
60-vote threshold in the Senate. And they certainly understand the 67 
votes necessary to override a veto. This agreement is moving forward. 
We all know that. We should all be talking about how to move forward on 
the agreement.
  What I don't understand is the next vote. I don't understand why the 
majority leader decided to bring forward an amendment to change a 
resolution of disapproval into a resolution of conditional approval. To 
me, that is totally inconsistent with the review act, and it is 
counterproductive for those who either support or disapprove of the 
agreement. It is not fitting and not consistent with the work done 
during the first 53 days of the review, where we worked very hard in 
committee so that every Member of the Senate could get as much 
information available to make their individual judgments whether to 
vote for or against the agreement. And 58 voted for, 42 against.
  This vote I don't understand, and I would urge my colleagues--
befitting the Iran review and the Senate's responsibilities here, we 
should be voting no on the amendment that is offered by the majority 
leader.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I think I understand the frustration 
expressed by the ranking member. The ranking member knows I worked with 
him to ensure that when we had this debate, we stayed away from those 
issues that divide us. He knows I took multiple tough votes, as did 
others, to keep things in balance.
  There are Members of this body who feel as if this amendment the 
Senator is talking about is one on which they would have liked to have 
expressed themselves. Since we are in a place where it appears that 42 
Senators are going to keep us from actually being able to go forward 
with the vote on whether we agree or disagree--the Senator and I are in 
the same place on this. But since that has occurred, I think out of 
frustration and knowing there were a number of Members who wanted to 
express themselves on the way this next amendment is--I think that is 
the reason that has occurred.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
have an additional minute so he can yield to me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARDIN. If the Senator will yield, do the people who are 
suggesting that this amendment be voted on recognize that they are 
making this a conditional approval vote and therefore that if Iran were 
to recognize Israel, if this were to become law and if Iran were to 
recognize Israel and release the four hostages, that the agreement 
would go forward? Do they understand this is not one of the options 
provided under the Iran review act and it is inconsistent with the 
discussions I think we have always had as to what the votes would be on 
the floor of the U.S. Senate?
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, if I could respond through the Chair, I 
think what people understand is that 42 Senators are causing a 
filibuster to take place and that we are not ever going to be able to 
get to that vote of conscience all of us have wanted to make. And since 
they know that, they understand this deal is going to go forward, and 
therefore, in order--since these people really never had the 
opportunity to express themselves in this manner--there never was an 
amendment during the debate relative to the amendment we now have 
before us. I think since they know it is going to go forward, since in 
essence the filibuster is underway that keeps this final vote from 
occurring and a motion of disapproval from going to the President, 
there is a divergence off of that to express themselves in a different 
way.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional 
minute for the chairman of the committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARDIN. If the chairman will yield, I understand the frustration. 
There is a lot of frustration on not getting votes when we want to get 
votes. But I remind the chairman that every request for a vote on the 
Iran review act came from the Republican side of the aisle. There were 
none from the Democratic side of the aisle. We had votes on Republican 
amendments. If you recall correctly, it was a Republican effort that 
ultimately led to no option other than to cut off further amendments by 
the majority leader.
  Let me also suggest that on two occasions we have attempted to allow 
for a final vote with a 60-vote threshold so that we wouldn't have to 
use any filibuster. The Democratic leader consented to a motion to 
proceed without the necessary cloture vote because we don't want this 
to be procedure, and I think everyone wants to vote and has voted their 
conscience.
  Mr. CORKER. If I could, and I very much appreciate--first of all, I 
could not work with a more thoughtful, diligent Member of the U.S. 
Senate than the ranking member.
  I think what the Senator's side needs to understand--and I have tried 
to articulate this--is that during these negotiations, we tried to set 
up a privileged motion where it was set up not unlike one, two, three 
agreements that we have. We understood that the minority leader--and I 
respect this--does not like privileged amendments, that the leaders 
like to control the floor, and in this case he wanted to be able to 
control his side. So we were not able to set this up as a privileged 
vote. As the Senator knows, we then agreed to do it under regular 
order--regular order--and the Senator and I agreed to those 
negotiations.
  What the Senator would be asking our side to do to move to a 60-vote 
debate is actually raise the threshold from a simple majority, which is 
the

[[Page S6780]]

way regular order works. The Senator would ask us to raise the 
threshold to a 60-vote threshold, which is above and beyond regular 
order. So the Senator can understand how people don't understand why we 
would agree to raising that threshold.
  So, look, we understand what is getting ready to happen. The Senator 
and I have a lot of business to do relative to Syria, relative to Iraq, 
relative to refugees and others.
  I am disappointed that the Senate functions in the way it does. As I 
mentioned, back under the gulf war, back in 1991, instead of a 
filibuster, Members allowed us to vote on a--I wasn't here then, and I 
don't think the Senator was here then--on a 52-to-48 basis, people 
moved beyond the filibuster and allowed the majority to express 
themselves.
  I hope at some point in time the Senate will move to a place where we 
allow the majority to express themselves. This is not happening on a 
significant vote of conscience. I am disappointed in that, but I 
understand what the outcome is going to be, and I look forward to 
working with the Senator on other issues.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Senate amendment 
     No. 2656.
         Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, Roy Blunt, John Thune, Deb 
           Fischer, John Barrasso, Roger F. Wicker, Michael B. 
           Enzi, Shelley Moore Capito, Orrin G. Hatch, Rob 
           Portman, Mike Crapo, Richard C. Shelby, Pat Roberts, 
           Thad Cochran, Mike Rounds, David Perdue.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 
amendment No. 2656, offered by the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. 
McConnell, to H.J. Res. 61, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. 
Rubio).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 266 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kirk
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--45

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Paul
     Rubio
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 53, the nays are 
45.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The majority leader.


                        Cloture Motion Withdrawn

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
the cloture motion on H.J. Res. 61.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Senator Collins' 6,000th Vote

  Mr. McCONNELL. Colleagues, before the next vote, Senator Angus King 
and I wish to make a couple of observations for a few moments.
  Former Maine Senator Margaret Chase Smith was once known for a nearly 
unbeatable attendance record. She hadn't missed a single rollcall vote 
in more than 13 years of service, but that came to an end one day in 
1968 when Senator Smith narrowly missed casting her 2,942d consecutive 
vote. She had been recovering from surgery hundreds of miles away from 
here. So it was understandable. Yet I am not sure if surgery, a Tsunami 
or the most wicked Maine nor'easter could stop a woman who occupies 
Margaret Chase Smith's seat today because not only is the senior 
Senator from Maine a fierce admirer of her pioneering predecessor, she 
is also nearly unstoppable once she puts her mind to something, and we 
have all experienced that.
  Since assuming her seat in 1997, one of those somethings that she is 
so fixated on has been to never miss a single vote. She blew past her 
idol's record nearly a decade ago. The senior Senator then marched on 
to 3,000 consecutive votes, 4,000, 5,000, and the next vote will be her 
6,000th vote in a row. Only two other Senators have ever achieved a 
longer unbroken streak. Former Senator Proxmire took 10,252 consecutive 
votes, and our colleague, the senior Senator from Iowa, has voted more 
than 7,440 times in a row. This means our colleague from Maine hasn't 
missed a single vote during her entire Senate tenure. She has not had 
one sick day in more than 18 years. It is really remarkable, and so are 
the tales of what it took to get here. One time she twisted her ankle 
as she tore down a corridor, sprinting back to the Capitol from a 
ready-to-depart plane. Just ask her about the logistics of planning a 
wedding and honeymoon around the recess calendar.
  Our colleague is willing to do just about anything to ensure that she 
is here in this Chamber representing the people of Maine.
  I ask the entire Senate to join me in congratulating her as she 
celebrates this notable milestone.
  (Applause, Senators rising.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, it is no surprise to me that Susan Collins 
is such a hard worker. She started as a young woman, digging potatoes 
for 30 cents a barrel at a neighbor's farm in Caribou, ME.
  I have learned a lot about her over these years. I have served with 
her now for almost two full decades. Hard work and diligence is her 
byword. We have worked on some things together that have been extremely 
important for the country. Some of the things I won't bring up because 
they might not sit well with some of my Republican friends, but she is 
a person who is truly an independent Senator. I admire the work she has 
done. She, of course, has a good education.
  I started out really thinking the world of her when she was first 
elected because I learned where she was trained. One of my favorite 
Senators whom I have served with here in the Senate has been Bill Cohen 
from Maine. He was a terrific Senator and a fine man. I am convinced 
that one of the reasons she is as good as she is is because of what she 
learned in Senator Cohen's office.
  I served under him. He was chairman of the Aging Committee. I served 
with him on other matters. He and I were both in the House of 
Representatives. We shared lockers, in that little room that they give 
us back there, for many years. I so admired him. I knew when she came 
here, her having worked there, that she would be good, and she has been 
really good.
  I am also impressed with her ability to work with our Independent 
Senator, Angus King. They have worked so well together. They don't 
always agree on issues, but they are always agreeable on every issue. I 
admire both of them, and I am so proud to join in lending my voice to 
congratulate this good woman, the senior Senator from the State of 
Maine.
  (Applause, Senators rising.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I know it is not the usual protocol to 
follow the two leaders who have spoken,

[[Page S6781]]

but I wish to exercise a personal privilege of being the senior woman 
in the Senate and say that on behalf of all the women in the Senate, we 
congratulate Senator Collins on this enormous and significant 
milestone. She is certainly in the tradition of a very esteemed 
predecessor from the State of Maine, Margaret Chase Smith, who was, 
herself, a historic figure.
  Senator Smith was known for her devotion to Maine, her advocacy for 
her constituents, her fierce independence, and for always being at the 
forefront of being an advocate for what is right. Senator Collins 
continues to do that.
  We want to congratulate her because she is a fierce fighter for 
Maine. She is absolutely independent. For her, it is not about the 
other side of the aisle; for her, it is not about aisles, it is about 
building bridges.
  I believe that if Margaret Chase Smith were alive today, she would 
walk over and give Senator Collins a great big hug and say: Keep at it. 
Keep at it. We say to Senator Collins: Keep at it for many more votes 
and for many more good years to come.
  I yield the floor.
  (Applause, Senators rising.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. KING. Madam President, I rise to congratulate my colleague, my 
esteemed colleague, my esteemed senior colleague for this 
accomplishment. I think it is important to realize--we all know the 
logistical challenges of making every single vote. What she has done is 
symbolic of her service to this country and to the State of Maine. It 
is not just making every vote. It is symbolic of an intense, fierce 
commitment to this body and to this institution and to the country. I 
am delighted that the majority leader and the minority leader have 
recognized her today.
  I had the occasion to sit next to her at a function in Maine when the 
vote record came out. It comes out about quarterly or every 6 months. I 
looked at mine. I had it in my hand. I leaned over to her and I said: 
Look, I have a 98.6-percent attendance record of voting in the Senate. 
She leaned back and said: You will never catch me. It is true.
  Of course, as has been mentioned, she sits in the seat of Margaret 
Chase Smith, one of Maine's important leaders of the mid-20th century, 
one of the most important Members of this body. Every day that Margaret 
Chase Smith appeared on the Senate floor, she had in her lapel a red 
rose. So in order to recognize Senator Collins today, I wish to present 
her with a rose symbolic of her kinship to Senator Margaret Chase 
Smith.
  Senator Collins, what an accomplishment. Thank you on behalf of the 
people of Maine and the people of this country.
  (Applause, Senators rising.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, quickly, before the next vote, there 
will be no more votes this week.
  The next vote will be on cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 36, 
the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, on Tuesday morning. The 
Senate will be in session on Monday to debate the pain-capable bill, 
and I hope all Members will be here to join in that discussion.
  I yield the floor.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Senate amendment 
     No. 2640.
         Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, Roy Blunt, John Thune, Deb 
           Fischer, John Barrasso, Roger F. Wicker, Michael B. 
           Enzi, Shelley Moore Capito, Orrin G. Hatch, Rob 
           Portman, Mike Crapo, Richard C. Shelby, Pat Roberts, 
           Thad Cochran, Mike Rounds, David Perdue.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 
amendment No. 2640, offered by the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. 
McConnell, to H.J. Res. 61, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. 
Rubio).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 56, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 267 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cardin
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kirk
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--42

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Paul
     Rubio
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 56, the nays are 
42.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, by twice denying this Chamber the 
opportunity for a simple up-or-down vote on the President's nuclear 
deal with Iran, our Democratic colleagues have all but assured that a 
bad deal--an executive agreement that many of them have also 
criticized--will go into effect without the American people having 
their say on this deal.
  It is clear from public opinion polls and actually from counting 
noses here and in the House that a bipartisan majority of both Houses 
opposes this bad deal, but by using procedural blockades, our 
Democratic friends have prevented that up-or-down vote and the 
accountability that should go along with it. For what? For what? To 
protect the President.
  As the majority leader has pointed out, the President is proud of 
this deal. This is about his legacy. He thinks this deal is perfect. So 
why are our friends on the other side of the aisle trying to protect 
the President from vetoing a piece of legislation he is proud of?
  Well, during the debate, these very same colleagues who have 
filibustered this bill have stressed that although they support the 
President's deal, they remain deeply devoted supporters of the State of 
Israel. They say they remain deeply concerned about the plight of 
American citizens held hostage by an Iranian regime. But just a moment 
ago, these very same colleagues, when they had an opportunity to prove 
it, well, let's just say their actions speak louder than their words.
  The vote we just had should have been a straightforward vote. The 
legislation the Democrats have filibustered would have prohibited the 
President from providing any sanctions relief to the Iranian regime 
until two things happen: No. 1, the Iranian regime acknowledges Israel 
as a sovereign state, and No. 2, the regime releases U.S. prisoners it 
currently holds. But with only one exception, every Senator on the 
Democratic side of the aisle voted against both of those provisions. 
Well, to be sure, they are consistent about one thing: shielding the 
President, who is desperate to protect his legacy, from having to make 
tough decisions.
  I don't see the President particularly shy about making a decision, 
even when it is not authorized by the law, when it exceeds his 
authority under the Constitution. This President has been the most 
reckless of any President I have read about or seen in my lifetime when 
it comes to observing the limitations and constraints based on the law 
and the Constitution.

[[Page S6782]]

  To say the blockade of these important bills is a disappointment is 
an understatement.
  I know that many of us will continue to work to promote the bilateral 
relationship with Israel--between the United States and Israel--over 
any sort of association with the world's foremost state sponsor of 
terrorism. Many of us--myself included--will continue to call on the 
administration to bring our citizens home safely from Iran. We are not 
giving up. We are not going to quit.


                Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act

  This Chamber does have a lot of important work ahead of us. For the 
remainder of my time, I would like to discuss how we can come together 
to protect the most vulnerable among us; that is, our unborn.
  Earlier this summer, horrific videos were released depicting Planned 
Parenthood executives discussing the harvesting of organs from unborn 
babies. The most recent video was released just a few days ago. In 
these videos, the blatant disregard for human life was underscored by a 
cavalier attitude on full display by Planned Parenthood executives. 
They flippantly and callously discussed the selling of body parts from 
babies who never had a chance for life.
  Without a doubt, these videos show a dark, ugly side to our humanity. 
How people could become so desensitized that they do not recoil in 
shock at these videos and what they depict is beyond me. All I can 
conclude is that people somehow have ignored the right to life and the 
potential for life these babies represent, under handy catch phrases 
like ``choice.'' These videos rightly shock the conscience of many in 
our country, stirring even supporters of Planned Parenthood to publicly 
denounce them as ``disturbing.'' And yes they are, but they are more 
than that.
  As our Nation unites behind this very basic understanding of our 
moral mandate to defend those who cannot defend themselves, we will 
have a unique opportunity to make an important stride to support an 
agenda that promotes life over death. Next week the Senate will 
consider a piece of legislation called the Pain-Capable Unborn Child 
Protection Act--legislation I cosponsored along with I believe 45 
cosponsors in the Senate--that would prohibit nationwide nearly all 
abortions after a pregnancy has reached 5 months.
  Many States, including my State, have a ban on abortions once the 
baby becomes viable outside the womb. A friend of mine who is a 
neonatologist has told me privately what anybody can find on the 
Internet or anywhere else, which is that roughly at about 20 weeks, the 
baby becomes viable outside of the womb. So this legislation will 
prohibit abortions after that baby becomes viable, which under this 
legislation is 5 months. At 5 months, an unborn child's fingerprints 
and taste buds are developing. It is at this stage that many doctors 
and experts believe an unborn child can experience pain. Banning nearly 
all abortions after 5 months--at the point unborn children can feel 
pain--should be an obvious moral imperative for all of us.
  I understand that the issue of abortion divides our country and that 
some believe abortion should be available on demand at all points 
during a pregnancy. Well, we took an important step here in the 
Congress just a few years ago in banning the barbaric practice of 
partial-birth abortion--the actual delivery of a child alive and then 
literally killing the child as part of an abortion once they are born 
alive. Regardless of whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, hopefully 
we can come together and draw a line--a very clear line--at viability 
of that baby.
  I would like to point out how vital this legislation is for those 
who, like me, believe we ought to be advancing a culture of life in 
this country. Very simply, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act 
would save the lives of thousands of unborn children a year. That is 
why this legislation has garnered the support of groups such as 
National Right to Life and the Susan B. Anthony List.
  This Chamber is long overdue in taking a hard look at the practices 
depicted by Planned Parenthood in these videos and examining our own 
conscience and our Nation's policies that affect the unborn.
  It is important to point out that, contrary to what some in our 
country would believe, the United States has been one of the most 
liberal and most permissive countries in the world with regard to 
abortion. As a matter of fact, the commonsense consensus of most 
democracies, most civilized countries around the world, is that 
abortion after 5 months is unequivocally wrong. There are actually only 
seven countries in the world that allow abortions after 5 months, after 
viability of the fetus. Sadly, the United States is one of those seven. 
We should not be proud of the fact that we are right there alongside of 
China, North Korea, and Vietnam. Virtually almost all other civilized 
countries in the world--even if they allow elective access to abortion, 
they draw an important line at viability, at 5 months. America can and 
must do better than this. Every life is a precious gift of God, and we 
must protect those who cannot protect themselves.
  At the same time the Senate will be considering this legislation, the 
Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act--which, by the way, the House 
has already passed--the House will be voting on two additional pieces 
of legislation, I believe perhaps as early as tomorrow, one that would 
provide that children born alive during the process of abortion be 
protected--this is the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, 
and I believe that will pass the House of Representatives and be 
available for the Senate to take up later--and also a defund Planned 
Parenthood bill introduced by Representative Black, which would put a 
1-year moratorium on funding to Planned Parenthood while the 
investigation of their practices depicted on those videos is completed.
  Right now there are four congressional investigations underway--the 
Senate Judiciary Committee, the House Energy and Commerce Committee, 
the House Judiciary Committee, and the House Oversight and Government 
Affairs Reform Committee. Those investigations are meticulous, they 
will be thorough, and we will be able to find out, No. 1, whether 
Planned Parenthood and their affiliates are complying with existing 
law, which prohibits profiteering from the sale of baby body parts, and 
whether the mothers, who presumably grant consent, actually know 
exactly what is happening to their unborn babies; that is, being sold 
for research and other purposes.
  Just this year in the 114th Congress, we have also passed other 
important pro-life legislation: the Justice for Victims of Trafficking 
Act, where we preserved the Hyde amendment, which prohibits and has 
prohibited since 1976 the use of tax dollars to fund abortions, with 
some exceptions, and then the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization 
Act of 2015, which reiterated the law of the land since 1976, the Hyde 
amendment--named for Henry Hyde, former Congressman from Illinois--that 
applies these types of protections to funding for community health 
centers.
  These videos have perhaps reawakened the conscience of many of us and 
made some of us who were not aware of these barbaric practices depicted 
in these videos--made it crystal clear to us that there are things we 
need to do in response, particularly for those who believe every human 
life ought to be treated with dignity and respect.
  There should be no hesitation from either side of the aisle to ensure 
we are doing our very best to protect precious human life, so in 
addition to the ongoing investigations I mentioned, in addition to the 
legislation we have already passed to make sure tax dollars are not 
used to fund abortions, we must also respond with legislation like that 
which the House will pass either later this week or next week that I 
mentioned a moment ago and legislation like the Pain-Capable Unborn 
Child Protection Act which would fundamentally protect the rights of 
unborn children. Next week this Chamber will have the opportunity to 
make this the law of the land.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, today marks the last day of the 60-day 
Congressional review period that was established in the Iran Nuclear 
Agreement Review Act of 2015, which the President signed into law. As 
has been noted numerous times, by supporting that legislation the 
Senate voted to consider three possible outcomes: no action at all, a 
resolution of approval,

[[Page S6783]]

or a resolution of disapproval. Republicans brought a resolution of 
disapproval before the Senate and it failed. In fact, it failed on 
three separate occasions. Thus, the agreement will go into force. This 
issue has been decided.
  However, numerous Republicans have claimed on the Senate floor that 
because this historic international nuclear agreement with Iran is not 
a treaty, and because Congress did not expressly approve the agreement, 
the deal will not carry into the next presidential administration. That 
could not be further from the truth.
  Let's set the record straight: history has proven that international 
agreements are an essential element of diplomacy and have longevity far 
beyond a single administration.
  Examples of recent nonproliferation agreements in place through more 
than one administration include: the Helsinki Final Act, the Vienna 
Document, the Proliferation Security Initiative, and the Missile 
Technology Control Regime.
  It is absolutely clear that the Iran agreement can remain in force 
beyond the Obama administration, as have many other important executive 
agreements. The Senate has spoken on this issue and the Iran agreement 
will stand.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I concur with the statement of 
Democratic Leader Reid.
  The P5+1 agreement is an executive agreement that can remain in 
effect beyond this administration. In fact, portions of the agreement 
last 20 and 25 years, and others are forever binding on Iran.
  The United States has concluded other international agreements, such 
as the Helsinki Final Act and the Missile Technology Control Regime, 
that have endured. The Comprehensive Joint Plan of Action between the 
P5+1 and Iran is no different.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, on July 14, President Obama announced a 
landmark agreement between key world powers and Iran, the Joint 
Comprehensive Plan of Action, JCPOA, that removes Iran's path towards a 
nuclear weapon. This is a truly historic agreement that rolls back 
Iran's nuclear infrastructure, places severe limits and inspection on 
any such future work, and commits Iran to never build a nuclear weapon.
  And while Iran's behavior in the region remains deeply troubling, 
particularly in terms of threats to Israel, this agreement ensures that 
such belligerence will not occur with a nuclear threat.
  Per the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, the announcement of the 
agreement set in motion a congressional review period which ended 
today.
  In the past week, the majority leader has tried three times to pass a 
resolution of disapproval and three times it failed. During these 
debates, I have listened to many of my Republican colleagues make some 
outlandish claims with regard to the Iran deal. And now, instead of 
accepting this fact, some in this body have taken their displeasure a 
step further by claiming that because the JCPOA is not a treaty, it 
will no longer be in force in a new administration.
  Nothing could be further from the truth.
  Throughout our history, the United States has entered into executive 
agreements, like the JCPOA, without congressional approval on a wide 
range of subjects, including nonproliferation, international security, 
and bilateral cooperation.
  When President Nixon negotiated the Shanghai Communique in 1972 with 
China, which led to the normalization of relations with a country that 
was as mistrusted then as Iran is now, did anyone try and claim that it 
would no longer be valid once Nixon left office?
  I also do not recall this argument being made just a couple of years 
ago when President Obama negotiated the Framework for Elimination of 
Syrian Chemical Weapons, another example of an executive agreement. And 
of course there are many other examples, including the Algiers Accords, 
numerous status of forces agreements, and the establishment of the 
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
  Claiming now that the JCPOA ends when President Obama leaves office 
is a terrible break from congressional tradition and threatens to 
undermine American international credibility. Who would negotiate with 
the United States if they believed such agreements would be abrogated 
with a new President?
  These statements are truly reckless. Let it be clear once and for all 
that this agreement can and will extend beyond the current 
administration.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, today is the final day of the 60-day 
congressional review period that was established in the Iran Nuclear 
Agreement Review Act of 2015. By supporting that legislation the Senate 
voted to consider three possible outcomes: no action, a resolution of 
approval, or a resolution of disapproval. Republicans brought a 
resolution of disapproval before the Senate and it failed not once, not 
twice, but three times. The agreement memorializes the commitments of 
the countries whose governments signed it. It will now go into force, 
and it is the solemn responsibility of each of the signatories to the 
agreement to fulfill their commitments.
  However, many Republicans, as if singing from the same sheet of 
music, have suggested that because this nuclear agreement with Iran is 
not a formal treaty, and because Congress did not expressly approve the 
agreement as opposed to defeating successive attempts to disapprove it, 
the deal will not continue into the next presidential administration. 
That is false.
  There is a long history of international agreements signed by 
Republican and Democratic presidents that have longevity far beyond a 
single administration. If that were not the case, if the only way to 
negotiate commitments between countries was through the formal treaty 
process, our diplomacy would be in dire straits today. In fact, most 
international agreements are not treaties, yet they govern 
international relations on a wide range of critically important issues, 
from trade to public health to taxation to navigation, the list goes on 
and on.
  If those who are now suggesting otherwise were correct, agreements 
signed one year, often after protracted negotiations to resolve matters 
of great complexity, would automatically become null and void soon 
thereafter. What would be the point? I doubt there is a Republican or 
Democratic administration in the history of this country that would 
subscribe to such an unworkable and illogical notion.
  We asked the Department of State for examples of recent non-
proliferation agreements that have carried on through more than one 
administration. It did not take long to get an answer. They include: 
the Helsinki Final Act, the Vienna Document, the Proliferation Security 
Initiative, and the Missile Technology Control Regime.
  There are countless other examples of international agreements 
negotiated throughout our history, by Presidents of both parties that 
have never received formal congressional approval. They continue in 
effect unless explicitly repudiated. To suggest that they automatically 
expire, or are no longer in effect, after the end of the administration 
that negotiated the agreement, would cause incalculable disruption to 
our international relations and global security.
  In this case, that would mean that on January 21, 2017, Iran could 
immediately restart its nuclear weapons program and refuse 
international inspections. It is absolutely clear that the Iran 
agreement can and is designed to remain in force beyond the Obama 
administration. The Senate has also spoken on this issue. For these 
reasons, and historical precedent, it will continue in effect.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, Congress has been reviewing the Joint 
Comprehensive Plan of Action for the last 60 days. This was the process 
set up by the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, which the 
President signed into law and 98 Senators supported. We have now come 
to the end of that process. A resolution of disapproval, to stop the 
deal from going forward, failed three times here in the Senate. I know 
my colleagues and our constituents have very strong feelings on this 
issue. This was a very tough vote for me and one that I took very, very 
seriously. But now this issue has been decided.
  But that is not enough. Now Republicans are saying that since the 
Iran agreement isn't technically a treaty, and because the Senate did 
not explicitly approve it, the deal doesn't carry

[[Page S6784]]

forward into the next Administration. If history is any indication, we 
know international agreements are a critical part of diplomacy and many 
have lived on well after the President who signed them leaves office. 
This is how America conducts its foreign policy with its allies--and 
its adversaries.
  Many other agreements have lived on through more than one 
Administration. These includes the Helsinki Final Act, the Vienna 
Document, the Proliferation Security Initiative, and the Missile 
Technology Control Regime.
  It is clear that the Iran agreement can and should remain in force 
beyond the Obama administration, just like other important agreements 
that have come before it. The Senate has spoken on this issue. The Iran 
deal blocks the paths for Iran to get a nuclear bomb and is the best 
available option on the table. It can and should remain in force 
through the next Administration.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I would like to echo the comments of the 
Democratic leader. As of today, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action 
goes into effect. As the leader said, it is also my assessment that 
this agreement is an enduring agreement that will extend beyond the end 
of the Obama administration. The leader cites a number of critical 
nonproliferation agreements that both Republican and Democratic 
administrations have agreed to over the decade and they have endured 
the test of time and change of administrations.
  Let's also remember that while this agreement's congressional review 
period is complete, there is much that needs to be done by Iran before 
any sanctions relief is provided to them. Iran must, as verified by the 
IAEA, demonstrate that it has implemented the necessary steps with 
respect to No. 1, the Arak heavy water research reactor; No. 2, its 
overall enrichment capacity; No. 3, its centrifuge research and 
development; No. 4, the Fordow fuel enrichment plant; No. 5, its 
uranium stocks and fuel; No. 6, its centrifuge manufacturing; No. 7, 
completing the modalities and facilities-specific arrangements to allow 
the IAEA to implement all transparency measures and the Additional 
Protocol and Modified Code 3.1; No. 8, its centrifuge component 
manufacturing transparency; and No. 9, addressing the past and present 
issues of concern relating to PMD.
  I also want to reiterate one point that I have made previously: while 
rejecting the resolution of disapproval and other similar efforts was 
important for the future of this deal, it is effective, unrelenting 
implementation of the JCPOA that will be the real test, and it is where 
I hope the critics of this agreement will focus their attention. 
Holding Iran's feet to the fire under this agreement is the critical 
piece at this point, and it is critical that both the President and the 
Congress ensure that efforts to monitor and sustain the provisions of 
the agreement are unstinting. This will demand constant attention and 
ample funding for an extended period. In this vein, I would note that 
the State Department has appointed Ambassador Stephen Mull as Lead 
Coordinator for Iran Nuclear Implementation. Ambassador Mull is a 
professional with a long resume. I look forward to working with him 
moving forward.
  I thank the Democratic leader for his comments and I appreciate 
working with him and my colleagues as we look toward the implementation 
phase of this agreement--both in the near term and beyond January 2017.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I want to concur with the statement of 
the distinguished Democratic Leader on the long-term durability of the 
Iran agreement.
  Assuming Iran complies with the agreement and takes the key steps 
necessary to substantially reduce its stockpiles of enriched uranium, 
scale back its centrifuges, make changes to the Arak reactor to render 
it inoperable and unable to produce weapons-grade plutonium, and takes 
the many other steps necessary to qualify eventually for sanctions 
relief next year--and then continues thereafter to comply with their 
obligations--this agreement can and should last for many years.
  Today is the last day of the 60-day congressional review period 
established in the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, which the 
President signed into law. As the leader noted, by supporting that 
legislation the Senate voted to consider three possible outcomes: no 
action at all, a resolution of approval, or a resolution of 
disapproval. Republicans brought a resolution of disapproval before the 
Senate and it failed. In fact, it has now failed on three separate 
occasions.
  In recent days, many of my Republican colleagues have claimed on this 
floor that because this historic international nuclear agreement with 
Iran is not a treaty and because Congress did not expressly approve the 
agreement, it will not carry into the next Presidential administration. 
That is not true. While it is true that the next President could 
decide--even in the face of continued compliance by Iran and strong 
objections from our allies in the P5+1--explicitly to withdraw from the 
agreement, I don't expect that to happen. And unless and until that 
happens, the terms of the agreement and the obligations of the U.S. 
Government--and all other governments that are party to the agreement, 
including Iran's--to comply do not end when this administration ends in 
January 2017. Leader Reid has outlined in his statement numerous 
similar agreements that have stood the test of time, from 
administration to administration, over the years. I commend Leader Reid 
for his statement, and agree wholeheartedly with him.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today to express my dismay 
over the votes that took place earlier today on the Senate floor. The 
resolution of disapproval of the Iran nuclear agreement has now been 
voted on three times in the Senate, and it has failed to advance three 
times.
  Likewise, the House has failed in its own efforts to move a 
resolution of disapproval. The fact of the matter is that the nuclear 
agreement with Iran is a done deal, and the President now has every 
right to move ahead with its implementation, period.
  Yet we were on the Senate floor this morning, voting on a highly 
charged Iran amendment that the majority leader introduced. 
Unfortunately, the amendment was yet another political attempt to 
undermine the agreement. This amendment would prevent the President 
from providing sanctions relief to Iran-thereby scuttling the entire 
agreement--unless Iran does two things: recognize the State of Israel 
and release four Americans wrongfully imprisoned in Iran.
  I voted no on cloture on this amendment, and I want to take a moment 
to explain why. To be clear, my vote does not mean that I endorse 
Iran's position on Israel nor does it mean that I don't care about the 
American prisoners in Iran. Just because I support this diplomatic 
agreement does not mean I support Iran's reprehensible policies.
  In fact, I want nothing more than for Iran to recognize Israel as a 
sovereign state. I have always stood by Israel, and its security and 
future well-being are foremost in my mind. For those of us who are 
personally connected to Israel and care for her deeply, this vote is 
nothing more than an attempt to embarrass us and score political 
points.
  It should be obvious to the American people that, of course, we all 
stand with Israel--Democrats and Republicans. Since 2008, we have 
provided more than $25 billion to support Israel's defense. At $3.1 
billion per year, Israel is the largest annual recipient of U.S. 
military assistance, which can be used to purchase U.S. defense 
equipment and services. We've also provided $3 billion specifically for 
missile defense systems, such as the Iron Dome, David's Sling, and 
Arrow. In fiscal year 2015 alone the Congress provided $351 million for 
Iron Dome--twice the president's budget request.
  We all want Iran to recognize Israel and stop threatening its 
existence. We all want Iran's support for terrorist proxies on Israel's 
doorstep to cease. We all are disturbed by the Ayatollah's calls for 
Israel's destruction. But the way to truly have Israel's back is not 
through this amendment.
  On the prisoners currently held in Iran, it must be said and 
reiterated: No American, let alone any member of Congress, wants any of 
our citizens wrongfully imprisoned in Iran. These detainees deserve to 
be brought home, safe and sound, to their loved ones. But, again, a 
partisan amendment does not make that happen.
  The vote today was nothing more than an attempt to extract a 
political

[[Page S6785]]

price for our previous vote in support of the nuclear agreement. 
Playing politics with one of the most important national security votes 
of our time does nothing to actually support Israel, nor does it do 
anything to free the prisoners. If my counterparts truly wanted to 
enhance Israel's security and free the Americans, they would stop 
trying to undermine the nuclear agreement with Iran-which I believe is 
our best opportunity to begin to turn a new page with Iran.
  I stand ready and eager to work with my Republican counterparts to 
achieve our shared goals of supporting Israel and getting our prisoners 
out of Iran. But we have a far better chance of achieving that through 
bipartisan cooperation and working together to make sure the nuclear 
agreement is fully implemented.
  It is time to move past the repeated attempts to overturn the nuclear 
agreement. It is extremely unfortunate we had to take the vote today, 
especially given all the other pressing matters before the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Gold King Mine Spill

  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I want to speak today about a tragedy 
that hit the American people, the American West last month, and it is 
something that didn't get nearly as much attention as it should have. I 
am talking about what has been called the Gold King Mine spill. It 
happened on August 5. That was when the Environmental Protection Agency 
spilled 3 million gallons of toxic wastewater into a tributary of the 
Animas River in Colorado--3 million gallons.
  This is water that contained toxic substances, such as arsenic and 
lead. The agency was doing some work on an old mine when water under 
high pressure started rushing out. This disturbing incident raises 
serious questions about how the EPA, the so-called Environmental 
Protection Agency, does business.
  First of all, it raises significant questions about this agency's 
responsiveness. After the EPA had this accident, apparently it never 
occurred to them to immediately call the towns downstream and to let 
anyone know this toxic plume was headed their way. The Animas River 
connects to the San Juan River, which connects to the Colorado River 
and to Lake Powell. These are some of the most beautiful natural 
resources in all of America. It is the source of water for communities 
all along the way. They provide recreation, water for irrigation for 
crops and for homes.
  This water that was polluted by the Environmental Protection Agency 
flows from Colorado to New Mexico and into Utah. It flows through the 
land of the Navajo Nation and the Southern Ute Indian Tribe. These 
waterways are a sacred part of the culture for Native Americans who 
live near them. So why didn't the EPA get on the phone? The Navajo 
Nation was not informed until a full day after the spill. It got the 
news from the State of New Mexico, not from the agency that caused the 
disaster--the EPA.
  At first, EPA didn't even want to admit how bad the spill was. They 
said: Oh, it was a million gallons of wastewater. Days later they 
admitted they had actually spilled three times the amount they said at 
first. Four days after the spill, the EPA still hadn't reported to 
Navajo leaders the presence of arsenic in the water--arsenic. It still 
hasn't reported it. It took 5 days for the agency to set up a unified 
command center in Durango, CO.
  Yesterday, I chaired a hearing of the Indian Affairs Committee that 
looked at how this disaster affected tribes along the route. The 
agency's explanation was disappointing--very disappointing. The 
disaster happened over 6 weeks ago. The EPA is still not giving out 
detailed answers about what went wrong.
  This tragedy also raises questions about the EPA's basic competence. 
According to a preliminary review by the agency, the EPA failed to take 
basic precautions--failed to take basic precautions. The agency never 
even checked how high the water pressure was in the mine, but the 
report did say the EPA knew about this risk--the risk of a blowout--14 
months earlier, before it actually happened. They knew about it. They 
knew the risk and never bothered to figure out what the worst-case 
scenario would be and what they would do if water actually started 
rushing out. But that is what happened, and they knew it could.
  The people who live along these rivers are frustrated by this 
agency's incompetence, but they are also frightened. People are afraid 
of what the long-term health effects might be for them and for their 
children. Farmers and ranchers are being devastated by the disaster. 
They are uncertain about whether the agency will be compensating them 
for their losses--losses that are the result of the EPA's own 
incompetence.
  At our hearing yesterday we heard from Gilbert Harrison. He is a 
Marine Corps veteran, and he has a 20-acre farm on the Navajo 
reservation. He grows corn, alfalfa, watermelons, and other crops. He 
estimates he is going to lose 40 to 50 percent of some of his crops 
because he couldn't use the water to irrigate. The farmer told our 
committee yesterday:

       This spill caused by the U.S. EPA created a lot of chaos, 
     confrontation, confusion, and losses among the farming 
     community.

  This was a man-made disaster, and the Obama administration's EPA 
inflicted it upon Americans in these communities. I have spoken with 
tribal leaders who say the EPA has mishandled the spill, and the EPA's 
mishandling of the spill has seriously damaged their trust--the tribe's 
trust--of this agency. And I don't blame them.
  Finally, the EPA's failure in this incident raises lots of questions 
about the agency's priorities. After all, the Obama Environmental 
Protection Agency has expanded its authority--expanded and seized 
control over one area after another. Look at its destructive new rules 
on waters of the United States. This agency has declared that only 
Washington can be trusted to protect America's rivers and streams.
  That is what the Environmental Protection Agency says: Only they can 
be trusted to protect America's rivers and streams. How then do they 
justify grabbing all of this new power when they can't even protect 
rivers from themselves? They caused this problem. Look at this photo I 
have in the Chamber. Does this look like the work of a bureaucracy that 
should be in charge of protecting America's precious waterways? Look at 
that before-and-after: beautiful blue water running through, then 
this--sludge, dirty, polluted, and toxic. The EPA caused this. Does 
this look like the work of a bureaucracy that should be in charge of 
protecting our national precious water?
  The Obama administration has focused on its radical climate change 
agenda and has neglected its most basic responsibilities. This photo 
should not give anyone confidence that the Obama administration is up 
to the job. They are not.
  Do we really think that Washington should have more control over 
rivers like this when they caused something like this? Does anybody in 
America believe that? Washington did this. The EPA did this. Washington 
poisoned this river this way. The Environmental Protection Agency--the 
so-called Environmental Protection Agency--must be held accountable.
  When any private company is accused of violating the Clean Water Act, 
the EPA aggressively pursues civil fines against that company and any 
of the individuals involved as well. Even criminal prosecution occurs. 
If this were a 3-million-gallon toxic spill caused by private citizens, 
the EPA would act aggressively against those people. The EPA would 
never accept the kind of feeble, half apologies and explanations we 
have heard so far from this administration and from the Director of the 
EPA who testified yesterday. There is clearly a double standard between 
the way the EPA treats itself and the way it treats everyone else.
  The EPA failed--it failed--to do the proper planning before it caused 
this disaster. I believe it has also failed to do the proper work 
before writing regulations, such as its waters of the United States 
rule and its so-called Clean Power Plan.
  With this spill, the agency's careless approach has done terrible 
damage to

[[Page S6786]]

Americans living along the Animas River and other waterways. Its 
reckless and irresponsible regulations will have a devastating effect 
on the jobs and the lives of millions of Americans all across the 
country.
  At our hearing yesterday the EPA administrator continued to try to 
downplay the impact of its actions--downplay the impact of its actions. 
The agency needs to step back and rethink its priorities. This disaster 
happened because the EPA is inept at its job. There should be no more 
trying to deflect attention from the failure of the EPA--no more trying 
to grab additional power that it can use to do more damage.
  The Environmental Protection Agency has been out of control for far 
too long. It is time for Congress and President Obama to hold the EPA 
accountable for its failures, and it is time to rein in this runaway 
bureaucracy before it does more damage to our communities, to our 
economy, and to our country.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                         Strategy Against ISIL

  Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I rise today to discuss our strategy 
against ISIL.
  Yesterday at our Armed Services Committee, we held a hearing on this 
topic. Instead of reassuring me that our mission was on the right path, 
the testimony provided further evidence that the administration must 
change their approach. I agree with the President's stated goal of 
degrading and destroying ISIL, but the steps we have taken thus far 
will not achieve ISIL's defeat. Indeed, the root of the problem seems 
to be that our strategy does not connect with events on the ground. 
There is no better example of this than our plan to train and equip the 
so-called moderate Syrian troops.
  At the end of last year, Congress approved the President's request of 
$500 million for the purpose of building a force of moderate Syrian 
fighters. Testifying in September of last year, then-Secretary of 
Defense Hagel laid out the administration's plan to build a force of 
about 5,000 fighters in 1 year. General Dempsey, the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, added his assessment that about 12,000 fighters 
would need to be trained for the force to have an effect on the 
battlefield.
  Initial results were expected within 8 to 12 months. At that time, 
many Members, including myself, questioned whether those goals were 
attainable and whether this assumption--that we could fight a war 
without taking on significant risk because local partners would provide 
ground forces--was even realistic.
  Let's consider where we are today, about 10 months later. According 
to public reports, the program produced about 60 fighters, and, upon 
their return to Syria, they were attacked by Al Qaeda-affiliated 
forces.
  General Austin testified yesterday before our committee. In response 
to my questioning, he said that only four or five of those fighters 
remain. Again, we expected 5,000, and 4 or 5 remain. I wish I could say 
the complete failure of this strategy comes as a surprise. 
Unfortunately, I cannot. While ISIL has lost some territory in 
northeastern Syria, it has expanded its control in the western half of 
that country.
  Iraq is a similar story. Recruits for U.S. training programs remain 
below expectations, with U.S. forces training just over half the number 
of Iraqis expected, and progress on the battlefield is uneven. It is 
plain to see why General Dempsey, our most senior uniformed military 
officer, has recently characterized the fight as ``tactically 
stalemated.''
  The question is, What are we going to do? How will our approach 
change? What can we do to break that stalemate? What can we do to begin 
rolling back this tremendous threat?
  I attended yesterday's hearing with those questions in mind, and I 
was extremely disappointed to hear that no real change was in order. To 
be fair, press reports indicate that changes are being considered, such 
as deploying graduates of our training program in groups larger than 50 
or in safer areas of the country.
  But even if such minor adjustments are made, they will not alter the 
basic fact that the idea of a new Syrian force is a complete fantasy 
under our current approach.
  Perhaps in recognition of this, another report has surfaced that 
suggests the administration is no longer attempting to build a moderate 
ground force in Syria. Instead, they will simply train Syrians to 
direct U.S. air strikes and then embed them within existing rebel 
brigades.
  If our experience thus far indicates that very few moderate groups 
remain on the battlefield, we will either be providing air support to a 
contingent too small to make a difference or we will be providing it to 
groups that are too extreme to currently warrant any support from us.
  Again, I support the President's goal to destroy ISIL, but I don't 
see how anyone can believe this program is going to accomplish it. 
Instead of providing a new direction, the message this administration 
is sending is that they will stay the course. I admit I share the 
complete confusion expressed by some of my colleagues yesterday when we 
learned of this situation.
  This White House acknowledges that the training programs in Syria and 
Iraq--the linchpins of our strategy--have vastly underperformed. They 
express moral outrage at ISIL's barbarity, as well as grave concern for 
the plight of the 4 million refugees that have fled the country and 
sorrow for the 250,000 that have lost their lives. Our military 
characterizes the conflict as a stalemate. But, apparently, the 
administration feels no change is necessary. We are told the long-term 
trajectory is favorable, and ISIL's future, as General Dempsey put it, 
is ``increasingly dim.'' I appreciate the fact that patience is 
required when it comes to military operations, but at the same time, 
patience doesn't fill the fundamental gaps in this administration's 
strategy. And the idea that we can wait ISIL out seems to overlook the 
death, destruction, and collateral damage its continued presence 
inflicts on the neighboring countries or to at least suggest that it is 
tolerable.
  I have visited the region several times. Our allies there cannot 
sustain the strain of this conflict for years on end. I have visited a 
Syrian refugee camp in Turkey. Those people cannot wait there forever. 
Lest we forget, colleagues, this conflict has been raging for 4 years. 
Sadly, the flood of refugees reaching Europe was entirely predictable.
  And how long before a divided Iraq becomes irreparable? As long as 
ISIL exists and continues to exercise initiative on the battlefield, it 
will draw recruits, expand its global network, and inspire those ``lone 
wolf'' attacks. Its ability to execute attacks against Europe and the 
United States will improve as more foreign fighters pass through its 
ranks and then return to their home countries. These are the very 
reasons Congress supported taking military action against ISIL in the 
first place, but I certainly did not support the deployment of forces 
to establish a stalemate.
  When our soldiers are put in harm's way, we shouldn't be content to 
just ``patiently'' leave them there, with no strategy to achieve our 
goals. As my colleague Senator McCain--who has been a tireless advocate 
on this issue--has pointed out, there are a variety of options 
available to the President between the current approach and deploying 
large amounts of troops on the ground. With only a stalemate to show 
for the thousands of soldiers we have deployed, the 5,000 air strikes 
that we have conducted, and the past year we have spent training 
Syrians and Iraqis, I think these options deserve reconsideration.
  The President has stated that ``all wars must end'' and that our 
country ``must move off a permanent war footing.'' I believe the best 
way to do so is by crafting a strategy that plans for victory.
  Before I yield the floor, I want to note my appreciation of Secretary 
Carter and General Austin for their frank testimony before the Senate 
Armed Services Committee. Both men have come before our panel and they 
have

[[Page S6787]]

provided honest assessments and also specific figures about the results 
of the Syria training program, for which they have received significant 
media scrutiny.
  The point of a public hearing is to provide the American people and 
their representatives in Congress with the information they need to 
know so we can make informed policy decisions. I sincerely hope more 
witnesses follow their example and justly uphold the valuable tradition 
of congressional oversight by not shying away from discussing these 
very difficult topics.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up 
to 20 minutes as in morning business and to share the time with the 
Senator from Ohio, Mr. Portman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Remembering Congressman Louis Stokes

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I am joined by my colleague on the floor 
today, both of us longtime friends of the now late Congressman Louis 
Stokes. Senator Portman and I sat together at Congressman Stokes' 
funeral at Olivette Church in Cleveland just a couple of weeks ago. We 
both called Lou a friend. I wish to speak about him, and then I know 
Senator Portman would like to speak about his friendship and his 
alliances and allegiances and work with Congressman Stokes.
  He grew up in a Federal housing project in Cleveland. His father 
worked in a laundromat. His father passed away when Lou was 3, leaving 
his mother with two young sons to raise. A former sharecropper and 
descendant of slaves, she cleaned houses to support her sons and 
encouraged them to get an education.
  Lou shined shoes to earn money for the family. He served in the Army 
during World War II--probably a pretty segregated Army. He served and 
went to college at Case Western at night on the GI bill.
  From public housing, to public education, to public investment in our 
servicemembers, Congressman Stokes' life accomplishments show how 
government makes a difference in people's lives--something he 
passionately believed in--the partnership between government and 
communities, between the Federal Government and what we can do together 
as a country. In the 20th century, our country made great strides in 
that public investment and in expanding opportunity, paving the way for 
people like Congressman Stokes to become national and community 
leaders. What this country gave to Lou Stokes he gave back many times 
over.
  The seeds for his career of service were sowed in many places, in 
many fields, but particularly, he used to say, in the Army when he was 
stationed in the Deep South during the days of segregation. He was 
appalled by the inequalities he witnessed, even for those wearing the 
uniform and serving our country. He said once:

       I remember being moved from Jefferson Barracks in St. Louis 
     to Camp Stewart, Georgia, through Memphis. They stopped the 
     train there to eat lunch. The first dining room was all white 
     soldiers; the next dining room was German POWs. A black 
     curtain separated the black soldiers from the German POWs. It 
     was one of the first times it really hit me.

  He would go on to dedicate his life to fighting those inequalities.
  He and his brother Carl opened a law firm in Cleveland. The first 
cases were civil rights cases. Congressman Stokes took on cases both 
big and small, including the landmark stop-and-frisk Supreme Court case 
Terry v. Ohio. Again and again throughout his legal career, he fought 
for the interests of the powerless against the powerful--the same as he 
did in Congress.
  In 1965 Louis and Carl Stokes represented the local NAACP in 
challenging Ohio's congressional map.
  Around that time, Congressman Stokes' brother Carl was elected mayor 
of the city of Cleveland in a second attempt, and Cleveland then became 
the largest city in America which had elected a Black mayor.
  The new district map created from the lawsuit I mentioned brought 
Ohio's first African-American majority district in 1968. Lou Stokes won 
that seat and became the first African American to represent Ohio in 
Congress. In only his second term in the House, he became the first 
African American in the Nation's history to serve on the House 
Appropriations Committee. He didn't use his success to seek glory for 
himself; he used his commanding position to expand opportunities not 
just in his own district in Cleveland--so important to those of us who 
live in Cleveland and those of us who represent Ohio--but he used his 
position to help African-American communities all over the country. He 
was immediately--and he earned it--more and more beloved in the Black 
communities in every city in Ohio, including from Mansfield, where I 
grew up, to Akron, to Columbus and Cincinnati, to Dayton and Toledo and 
the smaller cities.
  He gave those who were too often ignored a voice in Washington, where 
it could make the most difference. He secured money for housing, urban 
development, health care, jobs programs, education, and for colleges 
primarily serving people of color.
  He was a strong advocate for unions. He cared greatly about the trade 
union movement. He knew the trade union movement gave great opportunity 
to African Americans, especially in cities like Cleveland. He stood up 
for collective bargaining. He stood up for the rights of workers 
everywhere. And to give a permanent and powerful voice to people of 
color, he helped to form the Congressional Black Caucus.
  Congressman Stokes' accomplishments are many. We honor him today with 
our words and with this resolution Senator Portman and I are 
introducing. We should strive to honor and continue to honor him each 
day.
  Here is how we do it, and I will close with this. On a Sunday night, 
2 days before the 2008 elections, Senator Obama--a colleague of mine at 
the time in the Senate--was campaigning in Cleveland for President. It 
was two nights before the election.
  As Senator Portman and I remind our colleagues, Ohio is perhaps the 
Nation's No. 1 swing State. I know the Presiding Officer thinks they 
elect Presidents in her State, but we really do elect Presidents in the 
State of Ohio.
  So then-Senator Obama came to Ohio the Sunday night before the 
election to a rally estimated at between 70,000 and 80,000 people. As 
Presidential candidates almost inevitably and invariably are at the end 
of campaigns, he was about an hour late. Bruce Springsteen took the 
stage. A number of us spoke at the rally.
  Before Senator Obama arrived, I had the honor--and it became one of 
my greatest memories ever of public service--I stood beside and behind 
the grandstand and had a conversation of about 45 minutes to an hour 
with Congressman Stokes, who was retired at that point; Rev. Otis Moss, 
who delivered his eulogy a couple of weeks ago; and Mrs. Edwina Moss. I 
just listened to them for 45 minutes talk about what it meant to them 
that we were this close to electing an African-American President. 
They, frankly, didn't think it would happen in their lifetimes. They 
weren't even sure, the polls notwithstanding, that it was going to 
happen in 2008. The excitement and the sense of history and the awe and 
the depth of feeling Congressman Stokes and Edwina Moss and Reverend 
Moss exhibited during that 45 minutes--talking, reminiscing about 
memories, thinking of the future--to my wife Connie and me was 
something I will never forget.
  Since then, Citizen Stokes--former Congressman--who cared so deeply 
about this, was so happy we passed the Affordable Care Act. He was so 
happy we did things such as the auto rescue to get our State's economy 
back and going again. He cared so much about voting rights. He was so 
troubled by the Supreme Court decisions. He was so hopeful that our 
country could get back on track in a bipartisan way to build this 
economy, to pass voting rights, to do all of the things he devoted his 
life to first as a young lawyer, then as a Congressman, and then as one 
of Ohio's most prominent citizens, to continue to speak out on these 
issues that matter to all of us.

[[Page S6788]]

  We should honor his life and legacy by continuing Congressman Stokes' 
work for equality and justice in the lives of others. We honor him. We 
considered him a friend, and I know Senator Portman did too.
  I am thrilled to be able to stand on the floor and speak for a few 
moments about my friend, the late Congressman Stokes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Ohio for his 
remarks and for joining me here on the floor to talk about our former 
colleague and friend, Congressman Louis Stokes. He was an amazing guy. 
He was a true American success story and a true son of Ohio who 
dedicated his entire life to public service, whether he was in elected 
office or not.
  I think my colleague Senator Brown has done a really nice job 
speaking about his humble beginnings.
  Lou Stokes grew up without the benefit of having a dad around. He 
grew up in a poor household but with a lot of pride. His mom pushed him 
to get an education and to be the best he could, as clearly she did 
with her other son, Louis's brother Carl.
  After growing up in Cleveland, he spent a few years in the Army, 
which had a big impression on him. He then went to Cleveland-Marshall 
College of Law. He was a successful attorney and actually argued three 
cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. So he had a career in law that was 
distinguished even before getting into politics.
  Senator Brown talked about his brother Carl and the fact that when he 
was elected the mayor of Cleveland, it then became the largest city in 
America which had elected a Black mayor. Louis Stokes told me he saw 
that and that is what inspired him to think maybe he should get 
involved in public service in that way as well. So he ran for office. 
He got elected to the House of Representatives. He was the first 
African-American Congressperson from Ohio; that was in 1968. He would 
later become the first African American to sit on the Appropriations 
Committee. So a lot of firsts.
  As Congressman, he served for 30 years. He became a very influential 
Member. Senator Brown and I had a chance to serve with him there. He 
represented his district faithfully, but he also played a pivotal role 
in broader issues well beyond his district. His involvement in civil 
rights was mentioned, as well as certainly education and justice 
issues.
  I was a proud cosponsor of a number of bills with him. We 
collaborated on one project in particular called the National 
Underground Railroad Freedom Center in Cincinnati, where he helped me 
tremendously. This was in my hometown, not in his town. As a member of 
the Appropriations Committee, he was critical to getting that freedom 
center up and going, which is a national center that resides today on 
the banks of the Ohio River.
  We also wrote legislation to connect all the Underground Railroad 
sites around the country, many of which were in disrepair and in danger 
of being lost, and that is the Network to Freedom Act that continues 
today to get the Park Service involved in protecting these sites.
  It was always a pleasure to work with him, and he was a loyal and 
trusted legislative partner.
  He then went to the Squire Sanders law firm, and I was honored again 
to call him a colleague when I worked there after leaving government 
and before running for the Senate. So we had a chance to get to know 
each other better outside of the legislative branch. He had a great 
career, as Senator Brown just 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 to help the people he represented in 
Cleveland, and I think in his heart well beyond Cleveland, and that is 
why he was so effective.
  He didn't get sidetracked by the partisanship and political attacks. 
He kept focused, and he made a big difference. He 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. It is 
hard not to see a landmark named after him or his brother Carl. Among 
those is the Louis Stokes Public Annex to the Cleveland Public Library, 
as well as the Louis Stokes Health Sciences Center at Case Western 
Reserve University.
  I remember going to his retirement party from the Squires Sanders law 
firm. I had rushed there from another meeting and had gone through 
town, and as I arrived I said: Let's just name the town after Lou 
Stokes, because I was on Stokes Street and went by the Stokes library 
and the Stokes Health Center. So those were all assessments of the 
impact he had on his community.
  He was a very strong family man, a loving husband to his beautiful 
wife Jay of more than 50 years, and he was very proud of his kids. Each 
of them in their own right has gone on to distinguished careers. His 
grandchildren spoke at the funeral where Senator Brown and I were, and, 
boy, were they articulate. They were just really impressive. He had so 
much to be proud of.
  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 is what he talked about to me in our final 
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, a good sense of 
humor. His laughter could light up a room, and it did. I was just very 
grateful to call him a friend and to have him as a respected colleague, 
to watch him as an effective leader. He has made an impression on me, 
and he has made an indelible impact on the 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). The Senator from Washington.


                            Budget Deadline

  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 saw it 2 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 16-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 elected 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.
  Once that shutdown ended, I was proud to work with the Republican 
Budget chairman, Paul Ryan, to do what we shouldn't have needed a 
shutdown to get done, and that was negotiate a 2-year bipartisan budget 
deal that prevented another government shutdown. It restored critical 
investments in priorities like education, research, and defense jobs, 
and it showed families 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 in futility 
and the bipartisan deal that came out of it, Republican leaders would 
have learned a few lessons. Well, 2 years later, as our bipartisan deal 
is set to expire, here we are with another Republican government 
shutdown around the corner.
  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 as 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 as far into their 
partisan corner as they can get and are focused on their political 
pastime--attacking women's health.
  Instead of spending the coming weeks 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

[[Page S6789]]

women, bad for our economy, and 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 
from adult victims of incest entirely. Finally, that bill would allow 
politicians in Washington, DC, to get between a woman and her doctor by 
making it a crime for doctors to provide health care their patients 
need.
  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 Care Act 2 years ago, this latest GOP effort to turn back 
the clock on women's health is a dead end.
  A new report from the CBO 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. Hundreds of thousands of women, many of whom 
do not have convenient access to health care clinics or providers 
besides Planned Parenthood, would experience reduced access to their 
health care.
  It is appalling that in the 21st century, my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle are pushing to take health care away from women who 
need it.
  Let me be very clear. Democrats are not going to allow Republican 
political pandering come before women's health and rights--not on our 
watch.
  I want to be sure that families and communities across the country 
heard something that the majority leader did say yesterday. He said 
that ``inevitably'' Democrats and Republicans will have to work 
together to reach a bipartisan budget agreement.
  Well, 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 brinksmanship 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 am certainly wondering, and I know my Democratic colleagues are 
too. I think it is clear that Republican leaders have a choice. As 
their leader said, they inevitably will have to work with Democrats, 
now or later. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I would like to discuss my bill, S. 2035, 
the Federal Employee Fair Treatment Act.
  I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Federal Employee Fair Treatment Act

  Mr. CARDIN. The legislation I have filed, S. 2035, the Federal 
Employee Fair Treatment Act, will help alleviate some of the fears of 
Federal workers when the Federal Government shuts down. 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 is the right thing to do. It is 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 that 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.
  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 Employee 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, and the 
National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association.
  The Federal Employee 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 the lapse in appropriations 
ends. During previous shutdowns, exempted employees have been 
prohibited from taking leave for any reason, including planned surgery 
or major family events, such as 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.
  I am using the process permissible under rule XIV of the Standing 
Rules of the Senate to place S. 2035 directly on the legislative 
calendar. I am doing that to expedite consideration of the bill so that 
the hardworking middle-class Federal employees know 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 jobs.
  Since 2011, Federal workers have contributed $159 billion to deficit 
reduction. They have endured a 3-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. Federal employees hired in 2013 and since 2014 are paying an 
extra $21 billion for their pensions. And each and every Federal worker 
is being asked to do more with less as agency budgets are frozen or 
cut. This is happening to hardworking, patriotic public servants, 
mostly middle class and struggling to get by like so many other 
Americans. Enough is enough.
  Since the 1950s and 1960s, the U.S. population has increased by 76 
percent and the private sector workforce has surged to 133 percent, but 
the size of the Federal workforce has risen just 11 percent. Relative 
to the private sector, the Federal workforce is less than one-half the 
size that it was in the 1950s and 1960s. The picture that emerges is 
one of a Federal civilian workforce, the size of which has 
significantly shrunk compared to the size of the U.S. population it 
serves, the private sector workforce, and the magnitude of Federal 
spending.
  I would make the additional point that shutting down the government 
hurts veterans. Over 30 percent of the civilian Federal employees are 
veterans, as opposed to just 7.8 percent of the non-Federal workforce. 
In Texas, veterans comprise, for example, 37.5 percent of the civilian 
Federal workforce. In Kentucky it is 33.9 percent; in Florida it is 
38.9 percent; in South Carolina it is 41.7 percent. Is this how we are 
going 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 them 
worry about whether they will be paid?
  Preventing Federal workers from doing their jobs doesn't just harm 
them; it harms all Americans because Federal workers patrol 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-

[[Page S6790]]

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 social safety net programs are 
functioning properly.

  When Federal workers do their job, they are helping each and every 
American live a safer and more prosperous life. Our tasks here in 
Congress are simple: We need to keep the government open for business 
and keep Federal workers on the job. Later this year, we will need to 
raise the debt ceiling so we can continue to pay our bills and maintain 
the full faith and credit of the United States Government.
  We need to return to regular order around here and negotiate a 
comprehensive budget deal to replace the sequestration, a budget that 
maintains critical Federal investments while spreading the burden of 
deficit reduction in a fair way and holding Federal workers and their 
families harmless after subjecting them to so much hardship over the 
past several months and years.
  One of the great attributes of the American character is pragmatism. 
Unlike what some other Federal workers actually do, here in Congress 
balancing the budget is not rocket science. We know the various 
options. Former President Lyndon Johnson was fond of quoting the 
Prophet Isaiah: ``Come let us reason together.'' That is what we need 
to do. We can acknowledge and respect our differences, but at the end 
of the day the American people have entrusted us with governing, with 
being pragmatic. Let's do our job so Federal workers can continue to do 
their job on behalf of all Americans.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


          228th Anniversary of the Signing of the Constitution

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today marks the 228th anniversary of the 
signing of the Constitution. Two hundred twenty-eight years ago, 39 
brave and wise men set their names to the document that has guided our 
government and our politics ever since. With each passing year, I am 
increasingly astounded by the genius of those who framed our 
Constitution.
  The world was a very different place back in 1787. There was no 
electricity, no railroads, no air conditioning. Crossing the Atlantic 
Ocean took months, and news traveled slowly on horseback. Our Nation, 
which today covers the continent, comprised only 13 States with a 
combined population of 4 million people. That is roughly the current 
population of Oklahoma today.
  Despite these vastly different circumstances, the Framers created a 
system that has endured for over 200 years and has become an example to 
the world of stability and strength. They did so by enshrining in the 
Constitution certain fundamental principles about government and the 
source of rights, coupled with an objective, honest view of the 
failings of human nature.

  The Framers recognized that our rights come 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. 
Parchment barriers, as Madison famously intoned, will never suffice.
  Thus, the Framers created the separation 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, 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 is 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, States, and Washington, our Constitution 
helps avert sudden, large mistakes even 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 governmentwide level and at the individual level. An 
unchecked Federal Government bent upon remedying all of society's ills 
will tend naturally to swallow the States, each of which has far fewer 
resources than the Federal leviathan. At the individual level, 
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 delegated to the Federal 
Government are reserved to the States. The Constitution also forces 
rival officeholders to work together in its design to prevent any one 
person from unilaterally making, changing or eliminating laws.
  Madison famously said that ``if men were angels, no further 
government would be necessary.'' He further posited that ``if angels 
were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on 
government would be necessary.''
  Well, as everybody knows, we are 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 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 by 
passing or even ignoring the separation of powers, federalism, and 
other elements of our constitutional structure. Although some of these 
individuals may be well-intentioned, they are fundamentally disguised.
  The fact is that the Constitution is not an obstacle. It is a guide--
a guide for how we should approach our contemporary problems, for how 
we should think about our roles as citizens and legislators, for 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, DC. It provides a check on all government action. It 
divides 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 coordinating 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 swathes 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

[[Page S6791]]

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 lessons of the Constitution. 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 lawmaking authority to an unelected bureaucracy, also 
honors the Constitution's teachings, and so do 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 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.
  EPA's recent carbon rules are but one example. When the 
administration found itself unable to pass cap and trade, 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 exceptional harsh 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 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 the government risk ignore the 
lesson of the Constitution. 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 on that government. A government that can compel 
citizens to purchase products they do not want or to provide products 
repugnant to their most deeply held religious beliefs is a danger to 
liberty. Whenever we carve out new space for the Federal Government, we 
must be exceedingly careful not to upset the careful balance of the 
Constitution.
  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 because 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, a 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 for treatment, even while attempting to correct 
deficiencies.
  A more modest package that sought to preserve what worked, rather 
than an anonymous bill so large no one had any time to actually read 
it, could have avoided many of the problems ObamaCare is now causing. 
It might even have retracted 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. They did so in such a rush, as Speaker Pelosi so memorably 
revealed, that they didn't know what was in their bill. My colleagues 
across the aisle, along with the rest of America, are now paying the 
price for their improvements.
  My remarks on this Constitution Day have focused on the lessons the 
Constitution has to teach, as well as the dangers we risk when we 
ignore its wisdom. I wish to close by calling upon my colleagues to pay 
greater heed to the lessons of the Constitution when writing and voting 
on legislation. There is an unfortunate tendency, in my view, to think 
of the Constitution as the courts' domain, to leave it entirely up to 
the courts to decide whether a law is constitutional. We in Congress 
just write laws; it is up to the courts to do the constitutional stuff.
  This tendency to leave things to the courts diminishes our role in 
the constitutional system and misses the many lessons the Constitution 
has to teach. The judiciary's role in assessing constitutionality is a 
narrow one. Courts have not asked whether any law is consistent with 
the Constitution's overall spirit or the principles that animate it. 
Rather, they ask whether it satisfies some legal role announced in a 
previous case. Is the regulated activity commerce? Is the punishment 
for noncompliance a tax or a penalty?
  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 such as individual liberty, 
separation of powers, federalism, respect for civil society, and 
democratic accountability. In determining whether a given 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's 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 transferring vast legislative 
authority to the Executive--and on and on.
  The same is true of the President's order suspending immigration laws 
for up to 5 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 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 Ceaser 
and others call 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 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.
  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 is a miracle because well 
over 160 nations in this world have

[[Page S6792]]

tried to copy it and under none of those nations does it work as well 
as this country.
  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 it increased 
fidelity as we discharge our duties here in Washington and across this 
great land.
  I thank the Chair.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, there has been a lot of talk around here 
about the Iran deal: It is over. We made our best effort. We have fully 
exposed exactly what is in this agreement. We had hours and hours, days 
and days, and weeks and weeks of debates over this. It has been on our 
plate ever since the beginning of the negotiations.
  Some of us started to express alarm and concern about the direction 
of those negotiations and what was potentially being given away, but we 
weren't sure until, fortunately, thanks to the Corker bill, Congress 
had a chance to weigh in and the administration was required to give us 
the ability to look at every word of this agreement, the annexes and 
everything attached to it.
  Sometime later on, we found out there were two secret side agreements 
which we weren't able to see, and that alone, in my opinion, should 
have been enough to vote against this agreement. How can one enter into 
any kind of a contractual relationship with a nation or a car dealer if 
the person you are negotiating with says: Well, there are a couple of 
secret matters 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 
apparently the Secretary of State.
  We made a valiant effort to defeat this. Many of us poured our heart 
and soul into this not just for days, not just for weeks, 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 marketed by the White 
House in terms of how good this is for the future of America, our 
national security, and the future of the world.
  In many ways, I think we have exposed--and I have listed at least 
10--major issues that we conceded. There were goals that we wanted to 
achieve going into the negotiations, and we conceded on every single 
point.
  In the interest of time, I will not go back over that. All I am here 
to do is to say that I guess I am not ready to give up. Earlier on the 
floor, I quoted Yogi Berra: ``It ain't over till it's over.'' Everybody 
said it is over, but the consequences of this are not over and 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 is 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 is going to produce electricity for 
our people--despite all the Sun, wind, and the unlimited amount of oil 
and gas underneath their soil which could provide that much cheaper 
than any other form. So there is no justification for their going 
forward except to achieve that one goal which we know they have worked 
on for years. We know they have lied in terms of organizations that 
have been sanctioning this. And now we have simply given them a pathway 
to achieving this and a legitimatization of their achievement of this. 
Some say that all the consequences will be good because Iran will abide 
by every part of this agreement and throughout this process there is 
going to be a major change in Iran--the theocracy will be overthrown, 
and they will become a responsible neighbor and nation--and this is the 
pathway to achieving that--that is the vision of the President. That is 
the dream.
  Frankly, I hope my assessment of this is wrong. For the sake of the 
future of the United States, 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 
is nothing in this agreement and there is nothing that has been said or 
done by the Iranian regime that would give us any indication--any hint 
at all--of any kind of change in their behavior. 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.'' What will be the consequences? As I said, I discussed at 
length what I think is wrong with this bill. I won't go over that again 
today. It is already in the Record. But there will be consequences that 
I don't think we have fully discussed, and I wish to lay out some of 
those.
  For Iran, they will have liberation from all sanctions and will be 
back in business. They will become rich. They will become rich with the 
release of hundreds of billions of dollars, and they will be using that 
for any number of purposes.

  Their oil industry is dominated by the Republican Guards. This is not 
Exxon Mobil, not Occidental Petroleum, it is not any of our 
international oil companies; this is the Republican Guards. A military 
organization that dominates that oil industry. They will be free to 
exploit one of the largest oil reserves in the world. Their national 
income will spike. State coffers will fill. And Iran's terrorist 
adventures and proxy wars will be well funded.
  We all know about Iran's ambitions for dominance throughout the 
Middle East and to be recognized as a world nuclear power. They will 
have all the more money now to be able to feed their proxies fighting 
for them in Syria, in Yemen, in Lebanon, in Iraq, in a number of places 
throughout the Middle East, and their terrorist threats resonate across 
the globe.
  After nearly a decade of international efforts to force Iran to give 
up on this dangerous and illegal nuclear 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 
the right to create fissile material that can only have one use: 
nuclear weapons.
  Now let's look at the larger question: the region, and the strategic 
impact of this on the region. We haven't really had a great deal of 
discussion on the strategic consequences. I discussed it briefly during 
some of my time earlier this week and last week, but the Iranian 
continuing revolution and regional misbehavior will affect the Middle 
East and will affect the world. It is dangerous and it is 
irresponsible.
  Former Secretaries of State Kissinger and Schultz--well regarded for 
their experience and well recognized as global experts, international 
experts--discussed this broader strategic point in an important joint 
article that was released last April. Former Secretaries Kissinger and 
Schultz explained that the then-outlined deal was so weak that Iran 
would inevitably expand its power, Sunni States will inevitably 
proliferate in their response, and the United States will get dragged 
into Middle East wars--except, this time, the wars may be nuclear.
  Let me quote from their statement. The Secretaries explained:

       Previous thinking on nuclear strategy assumed the existence 
     of stable state actors. . . .

  Iran is anything but stable.
  These are wise words from wise people who have had a lifetime of 
experience.
  Unfortunately, their views seem to have been largely ignored, if not 
completely ignored, by this administration, because it didn't fit 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 the two Secretaries of 
State, Kissinger and Schultz, stating that their words were 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 statement applies 
much more to the President and the Secretary of State than it does to 
former

[[Page S6793]]

Secretaries of State Kissinger and Schultz.
  Let's look at proliferation. Some of us have discussed the obvious 
proliferation dangers flowing from an agreement that puts Iran on the 
path of nuclear weapons. Despite the reluctant words of acquiescence 
that have been wrung out of others in the region, who can possibly 
argue that Iran now will never be permitted to develop these nuclear 
weapons technologies without a response from others.
  If I were the King of Saudi Arabia, if I were the Prime Minister or 
the President of any major country in the Middle East, I am not going 
to stand by and watch Iran achieve nuclear dominance. They are going to 
take their own action.
  We have now basically shredded the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.
  Let's look at Syria and the impact on Syria. America's appalling lack 
of effective response to the open wound that is Syria is one example of 
the paralysis born out of the single-minded obsession accommodating the 
Iranian regime. Iran is the principal prop for the brutal Syrian 
regime. Assad could not have remained in power these past 4 years of 
catastrophic disintegration of his country without Iran's support. I 
fear our negotiations with Iran have taken on such an overwhelming 
priority with an administration obsessed with legacy that it helped 
freeze us into inaction on Syria. The administration claims the nuclear 
negotiations were about Iran's nuclear misbehavior only and were never 
intended to address the rest of its regional brutality. That is true in 
some cases, but careful reading of the annexes and careful reading of 
the agreement--by doing so, we now know the administration went well 
beyond just discussing the nuclear capability issue. It 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 two issues which had nothing to do with the agreement itself, 
according to the administration.
  Negotiations between the Ayatollahs and the Great Satan--that is us, 
according to the Ayatollah--could not happen in a vacuum. Subjects not 
addressed by the negotiations nevertheless are affected by them, and 
our stupefying passivity on Syria proves the case.
  Let's look at Russia. Our problems with Russia have only grown and 
multiplied as we tried to ignore Russian misbehavior during our joint 
negotiations with Iran. But worse, our obsession with getting a deal 
has unleashed a Russia-Iran axis. Their new cooperation creates yet 
another threat to American interests.
  Just days after concluding this deal, the commander of Iran's elite 
Quds Force, General Suleimani, flew to Moscow--which he was sanctioned 
by the U.N. not to do, but he did anyway--reportedly to convince the 
Russians to step in to help shore up the crumbling Assad regime in 
Syria. It worked. The Russians are now in Syria in force, building 
barracks and bringing in trainers, tanks, and other heavy weapons. Iran 
and Russia together are Assad's best friends--maybe his savior.
  By ignoring Syria, empowering and enriching Iran, and making Putin's 
Russia an actual negotiating partner, we have created the perfect 
storm. This is the price of dealing with the devil.
  Lastly, let me speak about Israel because any discussion of 
consequences must return to what should be 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 
risks that will follow through with the often-repeated threats of 
obliterating the State of Israel--a threat repeated by the Supreme 
Leader in no uncertain terms just this week. Is this hyperbole or 
posturing as the administration claims? The Israelis don't think so, 
and I don't think so.
  We have to assume that an extremist, violent state such as Iran, 
after decades of creating, arming, and guiding terrorist organizations 
devoted to Israel's destruction, will continue their assault one day, 
now we know, with nuclear weapons. One day, others may look back 
through the smoke and ashes created by this Iran deal and wonder how we 
could ever have been so blind. How could we ever have conceded to an 
agreement that violated every goal that the previous three Presidents 
and current President said we must not concede on--that is, it is 
totally unacceptable for Iran to have possession of nuclear weapons 
capability.
  Two Democratic Presidents, two Republican Presidents, over 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 a nuclear weapon, and we just signed an agreement that gave 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 efforts and all the debate and 
all the examination of the agreements, we are told to give up. It is a 
done deal. The President used his ``Executive authority'' to deem this 
an agreement and not a treaty, which is a fallacy in itself. But now we 
are told we have to give it up. We have to move on. We have other 
things to do. You made your best effort. We won, you lost.
  No, America lost. America lost, and we 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 and money in return, supporting proxy wars 
throughout the Middle East, igniting a nuclear arms race in that tinder 
box of the region. We will regret the day--we will regret the day--the 
announcement was made that we have signed a deal with Iran.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.

                          ____________________