[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14229-14245]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                HIRE MORE HEROES ACT OF 2015--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                      Ban on Domestic Oil Exports

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, there is a proposal that is going to be 
made before the House of Representatives and before the Senate. That 
proposal will lift the ban on the exportation of American oil--oil that 
is drilled for here in the United States. The oil industry wants to 
have this ban lifted. You have to go back in history 40 years, to 1975, 
in order to find why that ban on exported oil is on the books. In 1975 
we were at the height of the first oil embargo from OPEC. We were 
importing 30 to 35 percent of the oil we consumed in the United States. 
A ban was put in place for us to export our own oil if we were 
importing 30 to 35 percent of the oil that we were consuming in 
America. It put us at a big disadvantage if we took that approach to 
our own oil.
  Today the United States imports 25 to 30 percent of all the oil which 
we consume. Mark Twain used to say that history doesn't repeat itself, 
but it does tend to rhyme. Today is a lot like 1975 in terms of the 
amount of oil that we import into our country. Right now we import 5 
million barrels of oil a day. We import oil from Iraq, we import oil 
from Venezuela, and we import oil from the Persian Gulf in order to 
fuel our economy. Now the oil industry says: Let's start selling the 
oil we have and drill for in the United States out in the open market. 
Why does the oil industry want to do that? Because when oil is drilled 
for in the United States, the price that is set is set in Oklahoma. 
Cushing, OK, is where the price is set. On average that price is $3 to 
$6 less expensive per barrel than the oil that is on the open market. 
That is called the Brent crude price. But it is the world price. That 
is not our price. Our price is $3 to $6 less.
  The oil industry in America wants to get our oil out in the open 
market so they can sell it to other countries. What countries? First in 
line would be China. After that, most likely, are other Asian nations. 
That makes a lot of sense for oil companies. It does not make any sense 
for American consumers. By keeping the ban in place, Barclays Bank 
estimated that all that oil here put pressure on prices and lowered 
prices for consumers by $11 billion last year. You can see it when you 
look at the price at the pump when you go to fill up.
  This year Barclays Bank estimates that there will be a $10 billion 
reduction in cost for consumers. You can see it at the pump. You can 
see the price coming down. The pressure works for consumers. The oil 
industry does not like that. They want to get that oil out of America. 
They want to get a higher price on the global market.
  As to national security, does it really make any sense for the United 
States to be sending young men and women over to the Middle East in 
uniform, into that highly unstable part of our planet in order to 
ensure that this stability leads to huge ships with oil in it coming 
from the Middle East into America, while simultaneously having the oil 
industry saying let's export our own oil that we already have? It makes 
no sense. As long as we are exporting young men and women over to the 
Middle East to fight, to protect ourselves, we should not be exporting 
our own oil domestically. It makes no sense whatsoever.
  Our own Department of Energy says that our production in America is 
going to peak in the year 2020--peak--and then decline for the next 20 
years. We import 5 million barrels a day. Our oil production will peak 
in the year 2020 and then start to decline, and the oil industry wants 
to start exporting our own oil. Many of the advocates of that say: You 
wouldn't have a ban on any other product being exported from the United 
States. That is probably right. We don't have a ban on the export of 
widgets or watches. But on the other hand, we don't fight wars over 
widgets. We don't fight wars over watches.
  Oil is different. Oil has been at the center for 50 years of this 
powerful geopolitical battle that the United States has been drawn into 
in the Middle East. Let's not kid ourselves. We are living it every 
day, looking at the lead stories on every television network in our 
country--every day.
  In terms of what we lose, the domestic refining industry is totally 
opposed to this. The oil refining industry of the United States is 
totally opposed to


[[Page 14230]]

 exportation. Why? Because they are investing in the construction of 
new refineries here to refine American oil here in refineries that are 
constructed and employing hundreds of thousands of people within our 
own country. The refining industry opposes it. It would be a $9 billion 
loss and a reduction by 1.6 million barrels of oil per day that could 
be refined in the United States. The shipbuilding industry is opposed 
to it.
  We are seeing a 40-percent increase in the amount of shipbuilding in 
America. Here is what is happening. The oil is produced in the oil 
patches. It is put on ships, and it is sent to Pennsylvania, sent to 
New Jersey, sent to other parts of America. You need ships to do that. 
Then that oil gets refined in Pennsylvania, and it gets refined in 
other parts of the country. That would end this incredible shipbuilding 
boom that we have seen.
  Where will these exports go? We are not like Russia. We are not like 
Saudi Arabia. We don't have state-run oil companies. We are a 
capitalists. Capitalists go for the highest price no matter where it 
is. You put the oil out on the open seas, and our companies will head 
toward the highest price.
  Who is going to pay the highest price? China is going to pay the 
highest price. Other countries that are wealthy are going to pay the 
highest price. We can't pretend that it is going to go to where the 
geopolitical needs of the Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense 
are going to go. That is not how capitalism works. You go towards the 
highest price. That is the fiduciary responsibility that you have as a 
CEO of a company. That does not get mixed up within our society. The 
hand on the tiller of those ships is heading towards the highest price.
  Who benefits? The oil companies will benefit. There are estimates 
that by 2025, they will be making an extra $30 billion a year in 
profits--per year. It makes sense for the oil companies.
  Who are the losers? Our consumers are going to be big losers. Our 
national security is a big loser. We are exporting our strength, our 
oil, even as we need 5 million extra barrels a day. Our domestic 
refiners are big losers. Our U.S. shipbuilding industry is a big loser, 
and our environment is a big loser.
  Can you imagine it? The Pope is arriving next week, and he is going 
to talk about the role that human beings are playing in the dangerous 
warming of our planet. What the oil industry wants us to do is to 
continue to engage in expanded fracking of oil on our own soil, even 
though we haven't fully figured out how to contain the methane that 
comes out of that fracking, and then put it on ships and send it around 
the world. Where are the benefits for the American people? Our 
environment takes all of the risks, and the oil goes out to the open 
seas with the benefit to the oil companies. It makes no sense at all.
  Within 10 years, they are making an extra $30 billion every single 
year from that additional profit that they get by selling it overseas, 
rather than keeping it here and keeping the pressure on lowering the 
price for consumers here in our country.
  Many times you hear them saying: We really should be able to drill 
off the coastline of the United States, all the way up to Maine, down 
to Florida, from San Diego up to the top of Alaska--right off the 
coastline. What about the fishing industry? It could endanger it. What 
about tourism on those beaches if this is spilled? It could endanger 
it. But they say: We must do it in order to ensure that we have the oil 
that we need here in the United States.
  You can't have it both ways. You can't say that we have enough oil 
that we can export it out of our country, and simultaneously say that 
we must drill off of our coastlines in dangerous conditions because we 
don't need the oil because we can export it. You can't have it both 
ways. No one is allowed to do that.
  There is a pretty high contradiction coefficient in the argument made 
by the oil industry. We need to have this debate. The American people 
must know that they are going to run the risk of being tipped upside 
down at gasoline stations all across the country and having money 
shaken out of their pockets as they fill up their tanks because the oil 
industry just wants more.
  So national security--let us know when we have produced the extra 5 
million barrels a day here. Let us know when they have the evidence 
that proves that the Department of Energy is wrong and our production 
doesn't start to go down after 2020. Let us know when they have 
invested in the safeguards that ensure that methane does not come up 
from the fracking wells. Let us know when we put as a priority those 
American young men and women that we are sending over there into the 
Middle East. It makes no sense. It is a bad policy. They had it right 
in 1975. We are still importing about the same amount of oil as we were 
back then. We don't want to invoke the first law of holes, which is, 
when you end one, stop digging. We want to make sure that we abide by 
that rule, that we guarantee that we start to come out of that hole, 
that we use American oil here first before we sell it overseas and hurt 
consumers, the environment, and our national security.
  This is the beginning of a very important debate in our country. I am 
looking forward to it. I think the American people are going to rise up 
and realize that this is very dangerous for them on so many different 
levels that it will be rejected on the floor of the Senate before this 
entire process has ended.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday evening our Democratic friends 
across the aisle, led by the minority leader, again refused to allow 
the Senate to cast an up-or-down vote on a resolution that would make 
clear that the Senate disapproves of President Obama's nuclear deal 
with Iran. It is clear that there is, in fact, a bipartisan majority of 
both Houses that disapproves, but, using a procedural tool--the 
filibuster--our Democratic friends are trying to deny the American 
people an opportunity to cast a vote on this bad deal through their 
elected representatives and indeed I would suggest to also avoid the 
accountability that goes along with this because this movie will not 
end well.
  They are the No. 1 state sponsor of international terrorism. This 
deal gives them $100 billion to continue to finance terrorist attacks 
and proxy war against the United States and our allies. This has a 
phony inspection regime because it requires the United States to ask 24 
days ahead of time to be able to inspect various sites. Indeed, we 
found out that on some of their military sites, the International 
Atomic Energy Agency--the IAEA--will not even be allowed to access 
those military sites but, rather, the Iranians will do their own 
inspection and then turn over their samples to the IAEA waiting 
dutifully at the gate of these military compounds where we know there 
is nuclear activity taking place.
  So this is really a lousy deal. I mean, assuming that we could 
somehow deny Iran a nuclear weapon, which used to be American policy, I 
think we would find a huge consensus. But, in fact, this also changes 
American policy. Rather than denying them a nuclear weapon, it would 
literally pave the way, essentially giving them a free hand in 10 to 12 
years from now.
  We just observed the 14th anniversary of 9/11, September 11, 2001. It 
was only 14 years ago that we had a terrorist attack on our own soil. 
One of those airplanes was heading toward the U.S. Capitol, one hit the 
Pentagon, and of course two hit the World Trade Center in New York 
City. So the idea of paving the way for Iran to get a nuclear weapon in 
10 or 12 years--when put in that context, that is certainly not very 
long. That means the nations in the Middle East are going to begin to 
arm themselves because they are not stupid. They realize a nuclear Iran 
is a threat to the region. Sunni countries, such as Saudi Arabia and 
others, will begin a nuclear arms race. Instead of suicide vests and 
improvised explosive devices, the prospect of a nuclear confrontation 
in the Middle East ought to send chills up and down anybody's spine. 
Yet that is exactly what our Democratic friends have embraced, along 
with the President.

[[Page 14231]]

  The irony is that in trying to shield President Obama from having to 
veto the resolution of disapproval, our Democratic friends have also 
thrown away a chance to improve the legitimacy of this deal by allowing 
an up-or-down vote. Why in the world would they feel the pressure to 
protect the President from something he is proud of, which is this 
Iranian nuclear deal? It doesn't make much sense. This deal on its own 
merits is indefensible.
  Thankfully, there is a small silver lining because this is not 
legally binding beyond the Presidency of Barack Obama. This is not a 
legal document or a treaty; it is a political agreement. I hope the 
next President understands that he or she will have complete freedom to 
tear this deal up and negotiate a better deal and keep the pressure on 
Iran and deny them a nuclear weapon.
  We have seen this happen before with issues such as ObamaCare and 
Dodd-Frank. If the shoe were on the other foot, were Republicans to try 
to jam through legislation such as this on a controversial topic on a 
purely partisan basis, it wouldn't have much staying power because you 
would not have built the sort of political consensus that would give it 
staying power. So the controversy continues.
  We have already spent a lot of time on this debate discussing and 
highlighting the weaknesses of this deal and the danger it poses for 
U.S. and world security. Those weaknesses, as I pointed out yesterday, 
have been highlighted by the deal's supporters. I mean, the statements 
that were made by some of the Senators who voted for this deal seemed 
to be completely at odds with their vote to filibuster the resolution 
of disapproval. So they are clearly nervous about this deal, as they 
should be.
  The fact is that, rather than making this a bipartisan consensus and 
making it purely a partisan matter--they will own the negative 
consequences of this deal because Iran's leaders, at the same time they 
have been negotiating this deal, have been shouting ``Death to 
America'' and saying that Israel will not even be on the map in 25 
years. So the chances, I would think, of this deal turning out very 
badly--all of that responsibility will be in the laps of those who 
filibustered this deal.
  I pointed out that Iran is not giving up or disavowing its role as a 
foremost state sponsor of terrorism. In fact, all one has to do is go 
to the State Department's Web site, which is John Kerry's department. 
Secretary Kerry negotiated this deal. Right there on their Web site is 
pointed out Iran's role as a major sponsor of international terrorism, 
its ties to and funding of Hezbollah and Hezbollah's efforts to attack 
American interests in the Middle East, as well as Syria, Lebanon, 
Libya, and Iraq. All of this is very well documented. Almost all of the 
mischief, violence, killing, and threats to the security of that entire 
Middle East region have Iran's fingerprints all over it.
  As a result of some of the documents that were uncovered when Osama 
bin Laden was killed, we found out even more information. There was a 
story--I believe it was in the Wall Street Journal yesterday--about 
records of open cooperation between Al Qaeda and the Iranian regime and 
their attacks and pursuit on American interests. These are more facts 
about Iran's nefarious activities recorded in the administration's own 
public records.
  Of course, the regime continues to not deny or suppress but, rather, 
proudly announce its support of violence in the region and propping up 
proxy groups, as I said, that are fighting from Syria, to Iraq, to 
Yemen, and further destabilizing an already volatile region. To add to 
that mix, this deal dumps nuclear weapons. That is like pouring 
gasoline on a fire, except it is much more dangerous.
  Of course, this deal won't change any of those facts. In fact, 
President Obama and his national security advisers admitted that 
terrorist groups supported by the Iranian Government will likely be the 
real benefactors of sanctions relief under this deal. How will the 
Obama administration work to keep the billions of dollars that will 
pour into Iran as a result of this deal from being used to arm and 
otherwise finance the work of terrorists who seek to kill us and our 
friends and allies in the region? Well, they simply don't have an 
answer for that because they know that is a byproduct or I should say a 
direct result of this bad deal.
  As I pointed out a moment ago, even after the deal was announced, the 
Supreme Leader in Iran and others continued their attacks on our 
closest ally in the Middle East, Israel. The so-called Supreme Leader 
of Iran went so are far as to say that Israel won't exist in 25 years. 
If they had their way, they would wipe Israel off the map.
  How does the administration plan to counter this theocratic regime 
that continues to call for the complete destruction of our Nation's 
closest ally in the Middle East, Israel? As far as I can tell, they 
don't have a plan, but that describes so much of their foreign policy.
  We have witnessed the refugee crisis in Europe and the heartrending 
pictures on the news of a young boy's body being washed up on shore 
because he was trying to get away from a war-torn region of the Middle 
East--Syria--to somewhere where it is safe so he could grow up and have 
a productive and normal life. I mean, they are heartrending pictures, 
but they are a result of this administration having no policy and no 
real strategy in Syria.
  So, really, this is more of the same--no strategy and no clue about 
how to deal with the dangers that confront the region and the people in 
the Middle East and its ripple effect on the rest of the world, 
including the United States.
  Tomorrow we will vote on a piece of legislation that addresses some 
major omissions from the President's executive agreement with Iran. Our 
friends across the aisle have made their bed and decided to lie down in 
it, and they have blocked now two times an up-or-down vote on this 
resolution of disapproval. They made that decision, so now it is time 
to have another vote and to fill in some of the gaps left by this bad 
deal.
  The bill we will vote on tomorrow is pretty straightforward. It will 
bar President Obama from lifting sanctions on Iran until two specific 
benchmarks are met. This doesn't solve all of the problems I mentioned 
a moment ago, but it will fill in a couple of important gaps. First, we 
will vote on whether Iran must formally recognize Israel's right to 
exist as a state, and if they don't, then the President will not be 
authorized to lift sanctions on Iran. Second, Iran must release 
American citizens whom it continues to hold hostage. This is the part I 
just really can't believe. We had this negotiated deal for months and 
months at the very highest level of the U.S. Government. Yet, under 
this deal, the leadership of the U.S. Government decides to leave 
American citizens in prison in Iran and doesn't use this as an 
opportunity to negotiate their release.
  This Chamber should wholeheartedly approve of these commonsense 
measures--one that calls for the safe return of our own citizens and 
one that affirms the right of our ally to exist. This is not a big ask. 
This does not fix all of the problems with this bad deal, but it does 
address two glaring deficiencies, and so I think that vote is entirely 
appropriate.
  In conclusion, I will just say that this deal is dangerous, 
misguided, and, you know what, it is pretty darn unpopular. As I said 
earlier, bipartisan majorities in both Houses of Congress oppose it, 
and for good reason. When we look at the public opinion polls, only 21 
percent of the public supports this executive agreement.
  Tomorrow we will have an opportunity to let the voices of our 
constituents be heard loud and clear, and I hope our Democratic 
colleagues will come to their senses, quit playing defense for the 
White House, and join us in seeking the release of our U.S. citizens 
held captive abroad and the future security of our unwavering ally, the 
State of Israel.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.


                            The Middle East

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the Iranian deal--this executive 
agreement dealing with nuclear weapons and their policy in Iran that 
has been executed

[[Page 14232]]

between the President of the United States and Iran's leaders--not the 
Congress, not in a formal treaty that is binding over time but a 
personal executive agreement--I don't believe is a good one, and I 
think it is the predictable end, frankly, of a poorly initiated 
negotiation. I will vote against it based on many of the arguments our 
colleagues have heard over the last several days and will continue to 
hear. I do believe it is not the right policy for the United States. I 
am not going to attempt to restate all of the reasons.
  I remember distinctly being in the Middle East, meeting with a top 
official in one of the countries whose name is well known. President 
Obama decided to intensify these negotiations toward this kind of end. 
This Middle Eastern official warned that talking could be a trap. He 
warned that the Iranians are sophisticated negotiators. They have been 
recognized as such throughout the world and the Middle East for 
decades. He warned that one could be trapped into these negotiations, 
and once you get into them, you have to be able to extract yourself as 
soon as you realize a good result isn't in the offing. I think that 
warning was not heeded. We have gone on for 6 years now, and we have 
reached a point where the President had to either agree to what they 
wanted or walk away and admit defeat, and he decided to reach an 
agreement. I think that put us in this bad position. He wanted to 
achieve this before he left office, apparently, and we can only hope 
that somehow, some way, this turns out to be better than it appears at 
this time.
  The Iranian acquisition of and their drive to achieve nuclear weapons 
is just one aspect of the complex situation that results from the 
extremism that is arising in the Middle East. It is a part of the 
extremism that has been arising in the Middle East. I wish to take this 
opportunity to go further than just discuss Iran today. I think we need 
to discuss the need for a long-term strategy, bipartisan--Republicans 
and Democrats--and our Western World allies, the free world allies, for 
how we are going to deal with the problems of extremism in the Middle 
East over a long period of time.
  It is clear that we are seeing a resurgence of militant Islam. This 
strain of Islam seeks to advance a theological and political approach 
to the world. It seeks to unify faith and politics, and believers, as 
such, seek to advance policies they think will honor Allah's religious 
command. So this strain that has been in Islam for years that advocates 
conversion by the sword in fact finds much support in the Koran. I wish 
it wasn't so, but it does. Many--even most--Muslims are certainly truly 
people of peace, faithful in their daily activities, but there is a 
sizable minority that oftentimes seeks dominance and achieves dominance 
that finds a basis in the Koran for their violent jihad against those 
they describe as infidels. They see the hedonism of the West and other 
actions that occur in the Western World, for example, as totally 
destructive and contrary to what they believe is right, and they don't 
accommodate to it.
  So we are seeing a spasm and an eruption of aggression that has 
occurred before over the centuries, but it is certainly reaching a high 
pitch today, exacerbated by the technology of weapons of mass 
destruction, nuclear weapons, and other dangerous weapons. The nature 
of this eruption is complex. It is different in every region, in every 
country, and area, and is different among sects, tribes, and 
traditions, and is shaped by economic conditions, security conditions, 
and tribal and human conditions in the various regions of the Middle 
East, spanning from Afghanistan, Pakistan, to Syria, to Yemen, to 
Egypt, to Morocco, and into Africa today.
  This crisis, occasioned by Iran's religious determination to obtain a 
nuclear weapon, is just one aspect, though a huge one, that has arisen 
as a result of this extremism. The world is surely presented with a 
deep and complex problem that requires the most wise and consistent 
response over years. The surge of terrorism will not end quickly. We 
are most likely talking about decades. Our response to such violent 
actions cannot be based on short-term, political, partisan factors.
  President Bush had in his mind a vision for a good future for the 
Middle East. I supported him. He believed all people wanted peace, 
freedom, education, and prosperity. He reached too far, perhaps, and 
made some tactical errors as he sought to advance his vision, but, by 
2011, after much bloodshed and cost, Iraq had achieved stability of a 
kind and some real political progress. A democratically elected 
government had been formed and stability and even prosperity seemed 
possible. Our new President, however, was not impressed. He did not 
share the depth of this vision. President Obama did not consider the 
Bush vision as part of an established, bipartisan, long-term strategy 
of the United States. He thus felt little loyalty to that vision, and 
he started to execute his different vision in the Middle East.
  I was with some British parliamentarians recently and noted that 
someone had said that President Obama's complete withdrawal from Iraq 
in 2011 was the greatest error of the 21st century to date. One of the 
experienced Brits responded: Well, some say it was the disbanding of 
the Iraqi Army after the victory in Iraq. So even when great nations 
act, things don't usually go smoothly, and failure of great nations to 
act often has its own consequences. Enemies do not desire to be 
defeated. They do not desire to be killed. Enemies adjust to whatever 
tactics are used against them.
  So the point, colleagues and friends, is that military actions are 
fraught with danger. Inaction is fraught with danger. The world is very 
complex. The very best minds who know very well the specific countries 
that are at risk and in turmoil must be involved when plans are made 
and evaluated. Long-term--even very long-term consequences of action 
and inaction must be considered at the beginning. The world is a dicey 
place indeed.
  On my heart and mind is the concern that this spasm of Islamic 
extremism and terrorism will be with us for at least 40 years, perhaps 
more. Experts have told us this. Dr. Kenneth Pollack, at the Brookings 
Institute, testified before our Armed Services Committee recently. It 
came my time to ask a question, and I said: Dr. Pollack, you said that 
problems that are long in the making will be long in solving. Just 
briefly, would you say with the spasm of extremism, violence, and 
sectarianism in the Middle East that we have to have a long-term 
policy--I mean 30, 50, 60 years--to try to be a positive force in 
bringing some stability to that region? History tells us those states 
of violence tend to cool off but often take decades to cool off. And I 
remember it very distinctly. I got an answer that we do not often get. 
He looked up at me, and he said: Yes, that is what I am saying.
  This terrorism, unfortunately, is often focused on the United States 
that the extremists see as the Great Satan. This represents a direct 
threat to the security and prosperity of our people. Thus, we should 
seek to act in a statesmanlike manner, considering the threats and 
interests of the people we serve in the near and the long term. That 
means making wise decisions that may not be popular in the 60-second 
sound bite world.
  In the late 1940s, the famous George Kennan, a State Department 
official, penned the ``long telegram'' they called it. It formed the 
basis for a long-term Cold War policy that became known as the 
containment doctrine. It was the basis for resisting the expansionism 
of communism, totalitarianism, and atheism, and it was part of that 
movement that was clearly contrary to Western values. So his paper 
became a bipartisan policy of the United States as we confronted the 
enormous threat of totalitarian communism, that had a goal, as does 
radical Islam, of world domination.
  While there were vigorous and usually healthy debates over the years 
over tactics and techniques and procedures, there was consistent and 
bipartisan support for the overarching strategy that communism could 
not be allowed to dominate ever-growing portions of the world, that it 
must be contained. Our Nation--indeed the entire

[[Page 14233]]

free world--became united in that goal. This strategy held until the 
blessed collapse of the Soviet Union.
  So, once again, we face a totalitarian threat to the free world. This 
time it is from ideological and apocalyptic Islam. Like communism, its 
goals are incompatible with the laws, institutions, and freedoms that 
we see as central to our liberty and prosperity. There can be no 
compromise with this form of radical Islam. It just will not merge with 
or accommodate the freedom that we believe is essential in the Western 
World.
  Theologically based sharia law fundamentally conflicts with our 
constitutional order, which separates church and State and considers 
free debate and dissent in the Senate as a way to a better world. We 
believe in debate and dissent and disagreement and the right of freedom 
of religion. Thus, this threat has to be resisted. It just has to be. 
To do so obviously means that we and our allies have to agree on an 
effective strategy--not just the tactics for Iran today, ISIS tomorrow, 
Egypt the next day, Yemen the next day.
  Seven years into his Presidency, President Obama has failed in this 
regard. We must accept that fact. The result of that failure is 
instability, violence, and displaced persons. Would we have had none 
with a good effective strategy? No, I can't say that, but I believe 
with confidence that we would have had much less difficulty. Indeed, 
one wise, very sophisticated, European leader told me recently that the 
immigration crisis, as a result of refugees from the Middle East, is 
the greatest challenge to the European Union since World War II. What a 
dramatic statement.
  I know many of my Democratic friends are concerned about where we are 
and are willing to discuss the kind of strategy we need.
  The question of Iran and its sponsorship of terrorism and its 
acquisition of nuclear weapons is a dramatic and extremely important 
development. That is why it has engaged all of our attention lately.
  I chair an Armed Services subcommittee--and I have been on it for 18 
years--that deals with strategic forces--nuclear forces. It has been 
the unified position of the entire world that there not be a 
proliferation of nuclear weapons, and particularly not in the Middle 
East. So the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran is a dangerous 
event because they have ideological, apocalyptic, theological views 
that are scary. In addition, we have been told by the best experts 
accepted worldwide that if Iran has nuclear weapons, Egypt, Saudi 
Arabia, Turkey--who knows what others--maybe Jordan in the future would 
want those too--and the idea that we will have multiple nations in that 
volatile region of the world with nuclear weapons has been a fear that 
has unified the U.N. and unified the nuclear anti-proliferation groups 
worldwide for decades.
  But the Middle East presents even broader and more complex issues, in 
addition to that. Were the people of Syria and the world better off 
with Assad in power? Was Libya doing better under Qadhafi than it is 
now? One European official said a million people, mostly Libyans, are 
on the North African shore seeking to enter Europe or the United 
States. Is Egypt, under their new military regime, a more secure and 
positive force for good for the Egyptian people and the whole world and 
the Middle East than it was under the ousted Muslim Brotherhood and 
other extreme parties that were a part of that coalition? How would our 
discussions and actions have been different if our Nation had 
established a sound, long-term policy to guide our overall approach to 
this entire region?
  Our involvement in each of those situations and others was, it seems 
to me, far too ad hoc, far too reactive to certain events. Our actions 
have not been consistent; they have not been predictable; they have not 
advanced a unified strategy; they have not been a part of a coherent 
strategy designed to reduce tensions and strife, to reduce our direct 
involvement in the region. Our policies have not resulted in a 
containment or a reduction of terrorism and extremism.
  I asked a historian a few weeks ago before the Armed Services 
Committee about this and how we should be approaching the Middle East--
Professor Walter Russell Mead. I mentioned George Kennan and the 
containment strategy and asked: Do you think what we need as a nation 
is people like some of the experts on the last two panels that we have 
had, seriously analyzing the future of the Middle East, the nature of 
the extremist ideology that is there, and developing a long-term, 
sophisticated policy to rebut it and try to diminish it over time?
  He replied and said a number of things. He said:

       But what we're also hearing in the background is a kind of 
     a universal confession of failure of strategy.
       What is our strategy for ISIS? Are we fighting Assad first, 
     then ISIS? ISIS first, then Assad? Neither? Both? Something 
     entirely different?
       I think--I've rarely in my lifetime--although I certainly 
     have heard moments of strategic incoherence--I've rarely seen 
     American policy on such a wide scale on so many issues in 
     such a vital region seem to be so incoherent. I'm still 
     waiting to see what our strategy is in Libya or why we 
     intervened. . . .

  He goes on to say:

       So we--we do, I think, need, as a country, to have the kind 
     of discussion about the Middle East that we had about Soviet 
     expansionism in the 1940s, and to try to work our way toward 
     some kind of general bipartisan agreement or confidence in an 
     analytical approach to really a very vital part of the world.

  We are not close to that. We have a Presidential election going on, 
and people are making policies and statements based on the latest 
developments. It makes me uneasy.
  Our policies have not resulted in containment and a reduction of 
extremism. Our policies have not resulted in improvement of conditions 
for the people in those countries or the security of the American 
people.
  Statesmanship, as Henry Kissinger says, requires wisdom, insight, and 
a willingness of officials to understand the complexity and history and 
choices the nation faces, and then to provide leadership to the 
American people first that produces support for policies that may not 
seem clear or understandable or even positive at the time they are 
announced because the world is a complex place.
  So, in conclusion, I am certain that the foreign policy of our Nation 
is too reactive. I am certain we have not adopted on a bipartisan basis 
a policy to confront Islamic extremism that provides direction for 
actions and can build confidence in our people and in our allies. I am 
certain this is a failure that must be remedied.
  So let's get together, colleagues, and commit to developing a wise 
and sound strategy outside of the rush of daily politics, using the 
great insights and talents of people that are available to us. This 
Nation is fortunate to have persons of loyalty, experience in the 
Middle East, judgment, knowledge, and history, who can help us.
  In its basic form, a good strategy must be simple and understandable 
to high officials and everyday Americans. This is not an impossible 
task. A good strategy will provide guidance and produce consistency in 
our policies over the long run. Importantly it will reduce the adverse 
impact of politics on our foreign powers. The American people will 
respond positively. I pledge to do my part in this effort. We have 
developed such strategies before. Most dramatic was the Kennan 
containment strategy, but there have been others--the Monroe Doctrine, 
other policies--and we can do it again.
  I just think it is important to raise some additional concerns about 
where we are today. I think the President took unacceptable risks in 
going deeply into these negotiations. He went beyond the framework that 
President Bush was using to talk with Iranians. The Iranians were in 
clear violation of a number of U.N. resolutions that restricted what we 
would do in our negotiations with them. We refused to participate with 
them. Both Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter and Secretary of State 
John Kerry have recently testified before Congress that Iran remains 
the No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism in the world, and they do not 
contend that releasing this money to them, hundreds of billions of 
dollars,

[[Page 14234]]

which is being released on some sort of promise that they will cease to 
do that--they basically have said they are going to continue the same 
policies they have been advocating.
  This is a terror-sponsoring State. Our own experts tell us that. Our 
own officials tell us that. It is very difficult to enter into any kind 
of negotiation with a person who sees you as a Great Satan, who says 
that Israel will not exist 25 years from now and must be eradicated 
from the Earth.
  So these P5+1 negotiations did reverse cautious activities before, 
based on the fact that Iran was an outlaw State.
  I will not continue to discuss this, other than to say that we 
entered into this, we have gotten down here to the end, and I think it 
is a mistake. I am going to vote no.
  It looks as though it may somehow be processed anyway. If that 
occurs, it will create instability, even more so in the Middle East, 
and alarmingly will lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons in 
multiple countries in the Middle East, each one of which, if their 
unstable governments fall, could allow nuclear weapons to fall into the 
hands of terrorists who can use them at any time or place around the 
world, creating all kinds of ramifications that are too grim to think 
about.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. KING. Mr. President, what is the status of the session at this 
point? Are we in a quorum call?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are not in a quorum call.
  Mr. KING. I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning 
business for approximately 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Governing in the Senate

  Mr. KING. Mr. President, one of the peculiar aspects of my service in 
this body is that I was sworn in as a U.S. Senator 40 years to the day 
from the day I entered Senate service as a staff member in January of 
1973. Consequently, it has given me an interesting perspective about 
the operation of the Senate compared then and now.
  I am sure that some part of my memory of working here in the early 
1970s and mid-1970s is colored by the rosy view of nostalgia, looking 
back at one's youth and one's past; but, even correcting for that bit 
of nostalgia, it is my observation that in those days we spent about 80 
percent of our time governing and about 20 percent of our time on 
politics.
  And there were plenty of politics. This was during the Watergate 
period. There was a Democratic Senate and Republican President. 
President Nixon resigned during the period I was here. It wasn't as if 
politics were not a part of our life, but the work of the government 
continued, and the governing, which was done by this body and the House 
of Representatives, continued even in an era of very intense politics 
in our Nation's history.
  A friend asked me the other day: What is the difference between then 
and now?
  I said: Well, in those days my recollection is that it was about 80 
percent governing and 20 percent politics. Today it is reversed. It is 
80 percent politics and 20 percent governing.
  I want to talk a bit about governing. Probably our most fundamental 
responsibility after national security is a little matter of the 
Federal budget. It is something that we have to do every year. It is 
something that is in the Constitution. It is one of our most basic 
responsibilities. Yet here we are, 10 legislative days away from the 
end of the fiscal year with no budget, no appropriations bills that 
have been passed in both Houses, no conference committees, and as far 
as I can tell, no negotiations at the highest level in order to resolve 
what could be an impending shutdown of the U.S. Government.
  In addition, we have the sequester facing us, which was designed to 
be stupid. It was designed to be so unacceptable to both sides of the 
political aisle that a solution would surely be found.
  I remember being asked about it when I was running for this office in 
2012. People said: Well, what do you think of this sequester that might 
happen next year? I said it will never happen because it is so 
unacceptable, both on the defense side and on the domestic side. 
Surely, Members of Congress will come together and find a compromise 
solution. That happened with the Murray-Ryan arrangement 2 years ago.
  But here we are again, facing a potential shutdown. I don't have to 
enumerate the problems that creates: problems of national security, 
problems of the effect on the overall economy, problems of confidence 
and trust in the government itself. So here we are, and we are not 
governing when it comes to a budget.
  The highway fund is an even worse embarrassment. We have patched the 
highway fund temporarily 34 times, most recently this summer. That 
expires in October. I have not heard a great deal of discussion about 
what the resolution of the highway fund is going to be, and I will make 
a bold prediction. Come October, there is going to be somebody who 
comes to this floor and says: We are close to a solution. All we need 
is 2 more months. So let's extend it to January, and then we will solve 
the highway problem once and for all.
  That doesn't pass the straight-face test. Here we are. We have the 
budget in 10 days, the highway fund in October, and we have the tax 
extenders, which last year we passed and they only affected 2 weeks of 
the year. Yet we expect American businesses to make plans, investments, 
and look ahead. They don't know what the Tax Code situation is going to 
be until the last 2 weeks of the year, and they have gotten to the 
point where they expect this: Well, OK, it looks like they are going to 
take care of it.
  But that is not governing, and there is a cost to that and a cost to 
our economy. I have been in business, and I know that one of the most 
important things to a business is certainty, knowing what the rules 
are, knowing what the Tax Code is, knowing what the regulations are 
going to be. Business people can deal with regulations or tax policy.
  The very difficult thing, however, is uncertainty. When you have 
uncertainty, you have a lack of confidence; and when you have a lack of 
confidence, you have a lack of investment; and when you have a lack of 
investment, you have a lack of jobs. I don't have the econometric 
analysis, but in my view the uncertainty, the instability, and the 
unpredictability of this body and of this institution has significantly 
put a damper on economic growth in this country.
  I don't know whether it is half a point of GDP, a full point or a 
quarter point, but it is a lot because people don't feel they can have 
confidence in what the rules of the game are going to be.
  To pass tax extenders for 2015 in the last 2 weeks of 2015 is just 
embarrassing. Oh, I think I said the highway fund was embarrassing. 
They are both embarrassing.
  Then we have the Export-Import Bank, whose charter expired at the end 
of June. This is one I really don't understand. This is a government 
agency that is 70 years old or 80 years old, provides support to 
businesses across the country, including in my State of Maine with some 
very small businesses, and it fills a market niche that the private 
sector is not filling. It returns money to the Treasury, and it helps 
to create jobs in the United States. What is there not to like? For 
reasons that I can't discern, it tends to be something about ideology, 
because you don't want to have--heaven forbid there should be a 
government agency that works. So we better put it out of business. It 
is not making any more loans.
  Yesterday General Electric, one of our most important national 
companies, announced the elimination of 500 jobs, including 84 jobs in 
Bangor, ME, because of the lack of the support provided by the Export-
Import Bank. By the way, every other industrialized nation in the world 
provides some level of support and encouragement for exports--except us 
as of June 30.

[[Page 14235]]

  For a staff member for the financial services committee in the other 
body, which handles this, their comment about the 500 layoffs was this: 
Well, 500 jobs is a drop in the bucket for GE.
  Eighty-four jobs is not a drop in the bucket for Bangor, ME. Those 
are families; those are real people. It makes a difference in our 
community, and it is ridiculous. If there were some policy reason for 
it, if there were some controversy, I could understand it. But to do it 
just because we don't like the idea of this agency, even though it is 
effective in its mission and returns money to the Treasury, just 
doesn't make any sense.
  So the budget we are not doing; the highway fund we are not doing; 
the tax extenders we are not doing; the Export-Import Bank we are not 
doing.
  What are we doing? We are spending another week on the issue of Iran, 
which we thoroughly debated and voted on last week. And I understand we 
may spend another 2 or 3 days on it next week for a series of 
amendments that can appear, to me, to be strictly designed to embarrass 
some Members of this body and to create fodder for 30-second ads a year 
from now. That is not governing. That is pure, unadulterated politics, 
and it is not dealing with the problems of this Nation.
  We debated the Iran issue thoroughly. I have never worked so hard on 
a single issue in my life. We all had the entire recess to work on it, 
to think about it, to talk to people, and to read the agreement. Before 
the recess, there were innumerable hearings, briefings, and classified 
briefings. We have now had two identical votes.
  Yesterday, one of my colleagues said: I feel like I am in ``Groundhog 
Day.'' We are voting again on exactly the same issue. Now I understand 
we are going to have more votes.
  I have never known an issue where every single Member of this body 
has expressed themselves on one side or the other. There is no question 
where anybody stands. Everybody has expressed themselves. Everybody has 
announced their position. One hundred Senators have announced their 
position.
  I have to say a bit about 60 votes. To argue that this issue of such 
momentous import should not require 60 votes, when virtually everything 
else we have done around here since I have been in the Senate for the 
past 2\1/2\ years has required 60 votes, is just preposterous.
  I remember standing on the floor a year ago hearing one of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle talking about some obscure 
amendment to some bill and saying: This amendment should be subjected 
to the normal 60-vote requirement.
  And I said: Normal? When is it normal? Well, it has become normal. It 
was the rule for the last 2 years. Now, suddenly, it was a bulwark of 
democracy. I remember talking about how should we modify the filibuster 
rule? No, we can't do that. The 60 votes is a bulwark of democracy. 
That protects the minority. That is built into the essence. That is 
what it is all about. Now, all of a sudden, it is not so important. 
People say: Well, this was a procedural vote, and you had a filibuster. 
How dare you filibuster?
  Let me say, unequivocally, that the proponents of the Iran agreement 
are prepared to have an up-or-down vote on that agreement this 
afternoon as long as a 60-vote majority is part of the agreement about 
the vote. The only reason there was a 60-vote threshold on a filibuster 
motion, on a cloture motion, was so that the majority would not put 
that issue on the table--an up-or-down vote with a 60-vote margin. Yet 
everybody knew when this bill passed--when the Corker bill passed--that 
it was going to require 60 votes. Senator Corker is on the record on 
the floor talking about this: Of course, it is going to require 60 
votes. And even the famous letter to the Ayatollah in the second 
paragraph said: Of course, agreements like this are going to be subject 
to a three-fifths majority.
  Everybody knew this was going to be 60 votes, and to express shock 
now reminds me of the end of ``Casablanca,'' where the inspector says: 
I am shocked, shocked to see gambling here. I am shocked that there 
should be a 60-vote requirement.
  But, of course, there is going to be a 60-vote requirement as there 
has been for every other substantive issue--and a lot of not so 
substantive issues--for the last 2\1/2\ years. Now we are going to 
start to vote, apparently, on other issues not in the Iran agreement: 
Bring home the hostages; recognize Israel. Those are desirable ends. I 
support them entirely, but that was not what this negotiation was all 
about.
  This negotiation was to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon now. 
It was to roll back their nuclear program. That is what the negotiation 
was. It wasn't about the hostages. It wasn't about Israel. It wasn't 
about Iran's malign activities in the region.
  One of my colleagues on the floor a few minutes ago said: Iran is a 
malign state, a rogue state. They are going to get money from the 
sanctions relief.
  Yes, they are. But the only thing worse than a rogue State with money 
from the sanctions relief is a rogue State with money--as the sanctions 
erode--with nuclear weapons, and that is what this is all about.
  When President Kennedy was negotiating with the Soviet Union to get 
the missiles out of Cuba, at the end of the negotiation he didn't say: 
By the way, Castro has to go--or you, Soviet Union, have to foreswear 
your enmity to the West.
  And, by the way, we have heard Iran say ``Death to America,'' and the 
Soviet leadership said: ``We will bury you.'' It is the same deal, the 
same level of threat. But President Kennedy was focused on getting 
those missiles out. That was the threat, just as today the threat is to 
keep nuclear arms out of the hands of Iran, which we all agree is what 
we need to do.
  We have debated Iran. We have taken two identical votes. The outcomes 
are the same. I predict the outcome will continue to be the same, and 
yet every minute we now spend on an issue that has been resolved is a 
minute that we don't spend on issues that need resolution: the budget, 
the highway fund, the debt limit, the Export-Import Bank, the tax 
extenders. That is governing, and that is what this body should be 
doing.
  I hope my colleagues at some point in the very near future will 
decide that it is time to attend to those issues. And if we disagree 
with a policy decision that has been made, so be it. But we need to 
move forward and not continue to politicize an issue that, in my view, 
should not have been politicized in the first place. These are weighty 
and important issues. The Iran decision was the hardest that I have 
ever had to make, but I have made it. We voted. It is done. We need to 
move forward, and we need to move forward to meet the urgent needs of 
the people of this country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I rise to express my deep disappointment 
that what has transpired at the end of everything we debated with 
regard to the Iran deal is that we have chosen, as a body--a minority 
of this body--to filibuster the Iran agreement.
  For weeks--weeks--we have been talking about how important this 
agreement is and how we have been debating it. As to my colleague from 
Maine, I agree with him. All of us put so much time and effort into 
studying it and how it is one of the most important foreign policy and 
national security issues that many of us--even Senators who have been 
here for 10, 20, 30 years--will ever debate, study, and vote on. That 
is all agreed to.
  And what happened? Now we are filibustering that.
  American foreign policy and our national security are strongest when 
the executive branch and the congressional-legislative branch work 
together. That is when America is its strongest. That is why our 
Constitution gives powers to both branches of government in terms of 
foreign policy and national security. Yet every step of the way on this 
Iran deal of the President, the President and his team have been 
dismissive of the role of the American people through their 
representatives in Congress.

[[Page 14236]]

  You have to remember where we began, because the only reason the 
Iranians actually came to the table was because of the sanctions that 
this body--Democrats and Republicans--put on the Iranian regime--
American-led sanctions throughout the world. Two different 
administrations did this. Senator Corker talked a lot about the role of 
the Congress today and how important that was. So we start these 
negotiations with Congress playing the critical role--drove Iran to the 
negotiating table--and then when we start negotiating, the President 
says: Nope, we are going to do this alone. We are going to go it alone. 
We do not need the Congress of the United States. We are going to do an 
executive agreement.
  There was no involvement of the American people through their 
representatives in Congress to weigh in on one of the most important 
foreign policy issues in a generation. So this body acted. This body 
acted. Through the leadership of many Members on both sides of the 
aisle--Senator Corker, Senator Cardin--we passed legislation--98 
Senators--that said: No, the Congress has a role. Congress should have 
a role.
  Initially, the President said: I am going to veto that. We don't want 
you involved. I am going to veto that.
  But this body came together and said: We want to be able to vote on 
this agreement. Our constituents want to be heard.
  There were more affronts. The U.N. Security Council voted on this 
deal before Congress even started the debate on this deal. Again, 
Members of both parties, Democrats and Republicans, went to the 
administration--wrote the President, wrote Secretary Kerry--and said: 
Please do not do this. This would be an affront to the American people.
  They did it anyway.
  So now we have come to this moment. The U.N. Security Council and its 
member states have voted on the deal. The Iranian Parliament will need 
a majority vote to pass the deal, but the world's greatest deliberative 
body won't. On one of the biggest foreign policy and national security 
issues facing the United States, a partisan minority of the Senate has 
decided to take a pass on even voting up or down on the substance of 
this agreement.
  Many of my colleagues have come to the floor over the last several 
weeks--both sides of the aisle--to explain why they are for or against 
the agreement. It has been a very good debate. People focused on this 
issue very intently. People of good will have a serious difference of 
opinion. I disagree profoundly with my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle, but I respect them for explaining to the public why they are 
supporting a deal that so many Americans oppose and oppose intensely.
  That has been one debate, but I am not sure I have seen any of my 
colleagues come to the floor to explain why they voted to filibuster a 
vote on the President's agreement with Iran; why they voted to deprive 
the American people of a right to be heard through their 
representatives in the Senate on the substance of the deal--not a 
procedural move but the substance of the deal; why they are letting the 
White House continually press to usurp their constitutional authority 
to weigh in and make foreign policy for our country; why they have done 
a 180-degree turn after voting for Corker-Cardin, saying that we need 
to vote on this, that the American people and their voices need to be 
heard on the substance of this deal, and then voting to stifle these 
same voices by supporting a filibuster.
  I have been trying to see what the rationale of this is. Certainly 
there seems to be one where the White House says they should be doing 
this in order to spare the President the embarrassment of having to 
veto a bipartisan majority resolution of disapproval of the Iran deal. 
There are other press reports saying the filibuster happened to protect 
President Obama's legacy.
  With due respect to the President, he will be gone--he will be moving 
on in a little over a year and a half--but the security implications of 
this dangerous deal will be something the American people--our kids and 
maybe even our grandkids--will be living with for years. This issue is 
much bigger than any so-called Obama legacy.
  Today I have heard many of my colleagues come to the floor and say 
the agreement has already been voted on. I am a new Member of this 
body, but I am not sure that is exactly the case. The agreement has not 
been voted on. My colleagues have not held an up-or-down vote on this 
agreement. They are actually avoiding voting up or down on this 
agreement with their filibuster. They know it, and they should be clear 
on this point with the American people.
  I think this body is making history during this debate. It appears 
that for the first time in U.S. history, an immensely important U.S. 
foreign policy agreement will move forward with a partisan minority of 
support in both Houses of Congress. For the first time in U.S. history 
on an agreement that is critical to our national security, the 
agreement will advance not on the basis of a vote on substance--a 
majority vote on substance--but on the basis of a filibuster, a 
procedural vote. And for the first time in U.S. history, the President 
of the United States sought the vote of foreign nations, including the 
world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, in approving and 
implementing a major foreign policy agreement and then fought the vote 
of the American people to weigh in on that same agreement.
  Yes, the Senate is making history on the President's Iran deal, but 
it is not a history we should be proud of. It is history, I fear, that 
will be remembered for undermining our national security and the U.S. 
Constitution.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I want to supplement my remarks from last 
week with some insights from Alan Dershowitz's book ``The Case Against 
the Iran Deal.'' All of us received a copy of this last week. I read it 
last week.
  Incidentally, Mr. Dershowitz has been a consultant to several 
Presidential commissions and has advised Presidents, U.N. officials, 
Prime Ministers, Governors, Senators, and Members of Congress. He has 
sold more than 1 million copies of his books worldwide in a dozen 
different languages, and he is a law professor emeritus at Harvard. He 
is an accomplished attorney and has been active in politics. I make 
that point because Mr. Dershowitz endorsed President Obama in 2008. So 
I think his comments might be particularly telling.
  I want to start by discussing the point Mr. Dershowitz makes that I 
find the most intriguing. ``The President is not the Commander in Chief 
of Foreign Policy.'' Mr. Dershowitz notes that the Constitution does 
not make the President Commander in Chief, period; rather, article II, 
section 2, clause 1 of the Constitution makes the President ``Commander 
in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia 
of the several States, when called into actual Service of the United 
States.''
  Mr. Dershowitz points out that this language does not make the 
President Commander in Chief for purposes of diplomatic negotiations, 
and his involvement in international diplomacy is as chief negotiator 
whose deliberations are subject to the checks and balances of the 
legislative and judicial branches. Specifically, Mr. Dershowitz writes 
that the President ``cannot make a treaty without the approval of two-
thirds of the Senate. He cannot appoint ambassadors without the consent 
of the Senate.'' And this is probably the most important one: ``And he 
cannot terminate sanctions that were imposed by Congress without 
Congress changing the law. . . . Our Constitution separates the powers 
of government--the power to command--into three coequal branches.'' Mr. 
Dershowitz goes on to describe the President's actual constitutional 
role as the ``head of the executive branch of our tripod government 
that stands on three equal legs.''
  I would remind my colleagues that this argument is being made by a 
prominent scholar on U.S. constitutional law.
  This point reminds me of what a former colleague who carried a copy 
of

[[Page 14237]]

the Constitution in his pocket said in June of 2004. When debating the 
2004 Omnibus appropriations conference report, Senator Byrd said:

       Why so deferential to presidents? Under the Constitution, 
     we have three separate but equal branches of government. . . 
     . How many of us know that the executive branch is but the 
     equal of the legislative branch--not above it, not below it, 
     but equal.

  I wonder what the former Senator from West Virginia would think of 
the ways the President has sought to diminish the role of Congress with 
regard to the Iran deal.
  According to Mr. Dershowitz, those actions include declaring the Iran 
agreement to be an ``executive agreement'' instead of a treaty or joint 
agreement, promising to veto any congressional rejection of the deal, 
agreeing to submit the deal to the U.N. Security Council before 
Congress considered it, trying to marginalize opponents of the deal as 
politically motivated, and describing the only alternatives to the deal 
as Iran quickly developing nuclear weapons or war with Iran.
  Another discussion I found interesting in ``The Case Against the Iran 
Deal'' relates to the President's assertion that if we don't accept 
this deal with Iran, the only other option is war. Mr. Dershowitz 
argues that this ``sort of thinking out loud empowers the Iranian 
negotiators to demand more and compromise less, because they believe--
and have been told by American supporters of the deal--that the United 
States has no alternative but to agree to a deal that is acceptable to 
the Iranians.''
  He also writes that while numerous administration officials have said 
``no deal is better than a bad deal'' with Iran, he views the United 
States as negotiating on the belief that the worst possible outcome 
would be no deal.
  In addition, Mr. Dershowitz notes that ``diplomacy is better than 
war, but bad diplomacy can cause bad wars'' and points out that 
Israeli, French, Saudi, and other leaders have expressed concern ``that 
the Iranian leadership is playing for time--that they want to make 
insignificant concessions in exchange for significant reductions in the 
sanctions that are crippling their economy.''
  That leads me to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's 2013 
United Nations speech, which Mr. Dershowitz argues was distorted by the 
New York Times.
  The Prime Minister said:

       Last Friday, [Iranian President Hassan] Rohani assured us 
     that in pursuit of its nuclear program, Iran--this is a 
     quote--Iran has never chosen deceit and secrecy, never chosen 
     deceit and secrecy. Well, in 2002 Iran was caught red-handed 
     secretly building an underground centrifuge facility in 
     Natanz. And then in 2009 Iran was again caught red-handed 
     secretly building a huge underground nuclear facility for 
     uranium enrichment in a mountain near Qom.

  What strikes me about the Prime Minister's words is that they give us 
a clear picture of whom we are dealing with in Iran. And if we need 
more evidence, just last week Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah 
Khamenei, predicted that Israel will not exist in 25 years and referred 
to the United States as the Great Satan. What level of trust can we 
have for this regime? Even if this agreement were a good deal for the 
United States, what makes us think Iran will abide by the terms of the 
deal? In other words, do you trust Iran? And to be clear, this is not a 
good deal.
  As Mr. Dershowitz writes, ``All reasonable, thinking people should 
understand that weakening the sanctions against Iran without demanding 
that they dismantle their nuclear weapons program is a prescription for 
disaster.''
  Mr. Dershowitz goes on to ask if we have learned nothing from North 
Korea and from Neville Chamberlain. For those in the Chamber who are 
not history buffs, let me explain how I interpret Mr. Dershowitz's 
question.
  In 1994, the United States and North Korea agreed to a roadmap for 
the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Several rounds of six-
party talks were held between 2003 and 2009, but North Korea continues 
nuclear tests and ballistic missile launches. The President seems to be 
heading down a similar path with Iran.
  As for Neville Chamberlain, he was the British Prime Minister when 
England entered World War II. He is best known for his policy of 
appeasing Germany in advance of World War II, signing the Munich Pact 
that gave part of then-Czechoslovakia to Germany. Hitler violated that 
pact and invaded Czechoslovakia, then Poland. Should we expect a 
stronger commitment to this deal from a country whose Supreme Leader 
refers to the United States as Satan?
  How can Mr. Dershowitz label this deal as a prescription for 
disaster? He does so by pointing out the ``enormous difference between 
a deal that merely delays Iran's development of a nuclear arsenal for a 
period of years and a deal that prevents Iran from ever developing a 
nuclear arsenal.'' Mr. Dershowitz says that if this deal is meant to 
prevent Iran from ever developing nuclear weapons, the President must 
clearly say so and the Iranians must agree with that interpretation. 
That has not happened.
  How did we get to such a bad deal? Mr. Dershowitz says the first 
mistake was taking the military option off the table when the 
administration declared that they weren't militarily capable of ending 
Iran's nuclear weapons program. He says the second mistake was taking 
the current sanction regimen off the table by acknowledging that many 
of our partners would reduce or eliminate sanctions. Lastly, he says we 
took rejection of the deal off the table by indicating that rejecting a 
deal would be worse than accepting a questionable deal. Mr. Dershowitz 
writes that ``these three concessions left our negotiators with little 
leverage and provided their Iranian counterparts with every incentive 
to demand more compromise from us.'' He adds that our negotiators 
``caved early and often because the Iranians knew we desperately need a 
deal to implement President Obama's world vision and enhance his 
legacy.''
  While this deal might implement the President's world vision in the 
near term, I question whether it will enhance his legacy because I do 
not think it makes the United States or the world more safe.
  I am disappointed that the President didn't submit this deal to us as 
a treaty for our approval. I am disappointed that the minority has 
filibustered even allowing us to vote on disapproving the deal. I wish 
we had paid more attention to the fact that sanctions put in place by 
Congress have to be terminated by Congress, not by the President.
  I urge all of my colleagues to read Mr. Dershowitz's book because I 
think it provides some invaluable insights and might change their 
thinking. I think we need a different outcome.
  I thank the leader for the amendments he has put up that will make a 
difference. I think one of those should have been done before any 
negotiations, and that is that the American hostages be released. That 
would have been a good starting point. They should have walked away 
several times to show that the deal was in favor of Iran rather than 
the United States. It has to be some of the world's worst negotiating.
  I hope everyone will read Mr. Dershowitz's book, ``The Case Against 
the Iran Deal.'' We all got a copy.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I come before the Senate to discuss the 
agreement that is being proposed between the United States, the other 
members of the P5+1 nations, and Iran with regard to Iran's capacity to 
build a nuclear weapon.
  I strongly oppose this agreement for a number of different reasons. 
Before I get into the specifics of those reasons, I need to back up a 
little bit. About 2 years ago, I served on the banking committee. I 
don't think most people in America realize that the banking committee 
has jurisdiction over the

[[Page 14238]]

sanctions legislation which deals with Iran and other sanctions 
legislation throughout the world.
  Over the years, we have developed a very powerful and effective 
sanctions regime with regard to Iran. This regime involved not only the 
United States but the participation and agreement of nations around the 
globe, including sanctions that were followed by us through the United 
Nations.
  Those sanctions--after having had four or five different versions of 
them, increasingly tightening them down--had worked very effectively to 
cause Iran to need to come to the negotiating table. I think most 
Americans realize that the reason Iran came to the negotiating table 
was the fact that our sanctions were working.
  In fact, a couple of years ago, we had another version of new 
sanctions legislation to tighten down our sanctions even further and 
increase the leverage that the United States had on Iran in order to 
try to cause Iran to not only come to the negotiating table but also to 
agree to stop development of a nuclear weapon.
  At that time, the President asked the banking committee--I was the 
ranking member at the time--to pull back our proposed new sanctions 
legislation. He gave us his explanation, which is the fact that he 
wanted to open up new negotiations with Iran and did not want to cause 
an offense that would cause Iran to back away from the negotiating 
table. I disagreed at the time. In fact, my position was that if the 
United States wanted to go into negotiations, we should have Congress 
pushing for a new round of sanctions legislation so the President could 
say honestly and effectively to Iran that we needed to get a workable 
deal put together or we had a Congress that was ready to move forward 
with ever-increasing and more effective sanctions. Instead, the 
President said no. I understand that his party controlled the Senate at 
that point in time and we could not get the chairman at that point to 
agree to move the legislation forward, even though the chairman and I 
had worked together with the other sponsors of the legislation to 
develop it. At that time, it was my position that if the United States 
was going to withdraw its leverage through increasing sanctions 
legislation, that we should at least ask for some kind of a good-faith 
effort on the part of the Iranians as we were exercising the right to 
withdraw our sanctions legislation.
  So it was my position that we at least should have asked for the 
release of our prisoners. Most Americans are aware that we have four 
political prisoners--at least four--in Iran today who are being 
wrongfully held. One of them, Pastor Saeed Abedini, is from Idaho. He 
has been held illegally in Iran now since 2012. In addition, we have 
Robert Levinson, who is a retired FBI agent, missing since 2007; Jason 
Rezaian from the Washington Post, a reporter, held since 2014; and Amir 
Hekmati, a former marine, who has been held since 2011. Yet the 
administration would not ask for the release of these prisoners as a 
token of good faith in return for starting the negotiations, even 
though we were willing to withdraw our efforts to impose new sanctions 
in an effort to start these negotiations. I felt that was a mistake 
from the outset. The United States gave up its leverage and refused to 
ask for a concession as we moved forward in these negotiations. Yet it 
has set a pattern for what has happened since.
  Well, I think everyone knows the history from that time forward. We 
did engage in negotiations. It is important to note that at that time, 
the President assured--he assured us--that he would not enter into an 
agreement that would allow Iran to ever have a nuclear weapon and that 
we would have ironclad inspection and verification regimes in place to 
assure that.
  So where are we today? We are now faced with an agreement that 
cements in place Iran's nuclear stockpiles, that effectively allows 
Iran to develop a nuclear weapon over time, even if it complies with 
the agreement, and does not have any kind of an effective sanctions 
regime. I strongly oppose this agreement.
  During the remainder of my remarks, I wish to go through four or five 
critical reasons Congress should reject this agreement. First, it does 
not prohibit Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb. Second, it does not 
provide ironclad inspections and verification procedures. Third, it 
provides sanctions relief that is almost certain to result in increased 
terrorism around the globe. Fourth, it dangerously and needlessly lifts 
unrelated, nonnuclear embargoes. Fifth, it contains inexcusable and 
dangerous omissions. Finally, it will create instability in the Middle 
East and effectively a new regional arms race, dangerous to the entire 
world.
  Let me go back through these. First, it does not prohibit Iran from 
obtaining a nuclear bomb. Even if Iran complies with the agreement, 
which it does not have a very good record of doing with regard to its 
agreements, it will still be able to develop a nuclear weapon. The 
agreement fails to roll back Iran's nuclear development program beyond 
a 1-year breakout period.
  For 10 years, the agreement will only include IR-4, IR-5, IR-6, and 
IR-8 centrifuges. Now, this is getting into the weeds, but this is a 
level of centrifuge development that Iran has already been working on 
and engaging in. And the agreement says--and this is exactly from the 
agreement--``For 10 years will only include the IR-4, IR-5, IR-6, and 
IR-8 centrifuges as laid out in Annex 1.'' In other words, the only 
application of the agreement is to these centrifuges during a 10-year 
period.
  During the 10 years, ``Iran will continue testing IR-6 and IR-8 
centrifuges, and will commence testing of up to 30 IR-6 and IR-8 
centrifuges, as detailed in Annex I.''
  It does not dismantle any of its nuclear sites of concern, which are 
the sites at Arak, Natanz, and Fordow. None of them is dismantled. It 
recognizes Iran as a de facto nuclear state. And with all of the 
centrifuges that Iran now has, is it required to destroy them? No. It 
simply has to disconnect them and store them in another room. Iran is 
allowed to keep 6,000 centrifuges and 300 kilograms of uranium. Iran is 
allowed to conduct nuclear research and development during the terms of 
the agreement, and, in fact, amazingly the United States commits to 
assist Iran with its nuclear research and development in developing its 
own nuclear technology and infrastructure.
  That is not even the end. One of the provisions of the agreement 
which I find most outrageous is that it requires the United States 
Government to oppose State and local sanctions against Iran and 
amazingly to help ``strengthen Iran's ability to protect against, and 
respond to nuclear security threats, including sabotage, as well as to 
enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical 
protection systems.'' In other words, if Iran develops nuclear weapons 
capacity, this seems to imply that the United States will need to help 
Iran protect its capacity.
  I am sure the argument will be made that this is only to help Iran 
develop its peaceful nuclear weapons capacity, but the agreement isn't 
clear. At a minimum, these kinds of things should have been made clear 
in the agreement.
  So let's look at the inspections. Assuming that Iran will comply with 
its one-sentence agreement that it will not build a nuclear bomb for 10 
years, does the verification system that we have adopted prohibit that? 
Well, the agreement does not provide ironclad inspections and 
verification. I think Americans are increasingly becoming aware that 
not only do we not know what the inspection regime is, the United 
States does not participate in the inspection regime. The inspection is 
turned over to the United Nations. The IAEA, the committee under the 
United Nations that does these kinds of inspections, is in charge, and 
the IAEA has entered into side agreements with Iran that it will not 
disclose to the United States or any other country. Some of the 
information we are starting to see about it, if it is accurate--and we 
don't know if it is accurate--but it seems to imply that Iran will not 
even allow the IAEA inspectors onsite. It is going to provide its own 
samples. These are concerns that are serious. Yet we cannot even 
confirm them, and

[[Page 14239]]

Congress is being asked to deal with this issue without even having all 
of the agreement in front of us.
  Moreover, as we move forward in this process, we have identified that 
the sites are identified as two different kinds. There are declared 
sites. Those are the ones that Iran admits exists. As to declared 
sites, Iran must first draw up a list and tell us what they are. We 
don't have onsite inspection to determine that. As to undeclared sites, 
Iran is permitted to negotiate for at least 14 days for the IAEA to say 
we have a site that we think there is, but we are not sure, and Iran is 
allowed to negotiate whether there is such a site. If the IAEA and Iran 
cannot agree to a joint inspection of a suspected new site, then there 
can be further delays, taking up to 54 days before anybody would be 
able to take a look at these sites.
  Again, we don't know whether those persons then required to look at 
these sites will be Iranians showing the United Nations inspectors what 
they want them to see or whether they will be United Nations 
inspectors, but we are pretty sure we know they aren't going to be U.S. 
inspectors.
  The bottom line is that we have a very weak inspection regime that is 
almost certain to result in the same outcomes we have seen for the last 
10 years, as we have tried to inspect and monitor Iran's development 
activities on its nuclear weapons.
  That brings me to the third issue, which is sanctions relief. Iran 
does get major sanctions relief under this agreement. Iran is regarded 
as one of the top, if not the top, sponsors in the world of terrorism--
the top state sponsor of international terrorism. Many have said Iran 
has been connected to hundreds of U.S. service personnel deaths in 
Iraq. Some say more Americans have died in Iraq because of Iranian 
state-sponsored terrorism and other activities than any other source.
  We lift economic sanctions that we have been putting onto Iran. There 
is some debate about what the value of those sanctions are, but the 
estimate that I think is fair is approximately $100 billion will be 
released to Iran very quickly under this agreement. Just by comparison, 
$100 billion to Iran, in terms of the size of its economy, is 
approximately the same as $4.25 trillion to the United States 
respecting our economy. It is about one-quarter of Iran's economy. 
Those who say Iran will simply use these sanctions relief dollars in 
order to strengthen their economy ignore the reality that Iran today 
has a weak economy because of our sanctions and it is plowing money 
into sponsoring terrorism. There is no question that these dollars are 
going to result in an increased support of terrorism across the globe.
  Next, the agreement dangerously and needlessly lifts unrelated, 
nonnuclear embargoes. As we were dealing with all of these issues I 
have just discussed as the negotiations were moving forward, at the 
very end we find out that in order to complete the deal, Iran and 
Russia introduced new unrelated issues that the administration 
willingly conceded to. We lifted the existing conventional weapons 
embargoes on Iran and we lifted the ballistic missile embargoes on 
Iran. Russia is already today going forward with selling advanced
S-300 surface-to-air missiles to Iran, making future military action 
increasingly more difficult.
  The next issue is that the agreement contains inexcusable and 
dangerous omissions. First, as I said at the outset, it does not free 
Pastor Abedini and the other Americans who are detained in Iran. 
Secondly, it does not recognize Israel's right to exist. Third, it 
limits nuclear research for 10 years and frankly does not assure, as I 
have indicated earlier, that we don't have violations of the agreement 
before 10 years.
  It does not require an accounting of past nuclear weapons cheating by 
Iran, meaning it does not require them to disclose where their 
facilities are. It does not require disclosure of the military 
component of Iran's nuclear program. What this means is that Iran has 
given us no information about its military facilities and has said that 
its military sites are off-limits. Now, where would we expect Iran to 
build a nuclear bomb?
  It does not address Iran's existing ballistic missile capacity, and 
it does not ban ballistic missile development. We don't know what its 
capacity is and we no longer ban them from developing their capacity 
further. In fact, we have lifted the ballistic missile embargoes. The 
agreement does not require Iran to stop sponsoring international 
terrorism. The agreement is deficient in so many different ways.
  Finally, the agreement creates instability in the Middle East and a 
new regional arms race. One hundred billion dollars is an immediate 
windfall to Iran, a portion of which the administration acknowledges 
will wind up in the hands of international terrorist groups targeting 
Americans and our allies. That money will be made available to Iran 
shortly.
  Neighboring States have already said they are going to have to 
accelerate their own nuclear enrichment programs to counter Iran. 
Recognizing the new threats to Iran's regional neighbors, the President 
himself wrote to Congress on September 2 to announce stepped-up 
security enhancement for our Middle East allies, further evidence that 
the agreement is destabilizing and requires increased military 
commitments in the region.
  Having abandoned the ``no notice'' inspections requirement, the 
administration has agreed to permit a process for contested sites that 
could stretch for weeks or months before inspectors step a foot into 
the facility, if they are even able to do so at all. Some experts 
acknowledge that window is sufficient to hide or remove any kind of 
incriminating evidence of smaller illicit activities crucial to weapons 
development.
  Other states in the region--Egypt and Saudi Arabia--have already 
signaled that they are going to embark on a nuclear weapons program, 
sparking a new arms race. The possibility of further instability in the 
Middle East does not serve our national security interests or give the 
American people comfort.
  We cannot forget that Iran is a regime with a history of sponsoring 
terrorism against Americans and our allies and which continues to 
threaten the existence of Israel. This agreement changes the U.S. 
policy toward Iran but does very little, if anything, to change Iran's 
aggressive nature.
  The Iranian leaders have already renewed their threats to Israel, and 
continue to call the United States the Great Satan and have publicly 
rejected the administration's hope that the agreement will lead to 
better cooperation with Iran.
  So where are we?
  The United States Senate passed legislation 98 to 1 saying that 
Congress should have a right to vote on this agreement. Twice already 
in these Senate Chambers within the last week we have tried to bring 
that legislation up only to face a filibuster that has stopped us from 
even being able to vote on the agreement. Ninety-eight Senators voted 
to let Congress have a right to vote on this agreement, and 42 of them 
voted twice now in the last week to refuse to let us bring the 
agreement before the Senate to vote on it.
  So today we are facing yet another effort. Today the issue before the 
Senate is a provision that would say the agreement cannot go into 
effect until Iran recognizes Israel's right to exist and until Iran 
frees the four political prisoners whom I identified. Once again we are 
facing a threat of a filibuster.
  As I indicated, this agreement is dangerous. It is dangerous to the 
security interests of the United States. It is dangerous to the 
security interests of the world. It is destabilizing in the Middle 
East, and it contains very, very serious potential consequences for the 
future security of all Americans, and, frankly, of people throughout 
the world.
  This is a critical time. This is a monumentally important decision, 
and I encourage all of my colleagues to let us simply bring the 
agreement forward for a vote. A critical issue such as this should not 
be stopped from even being brought forward for a vote in the Senate.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.

[[Page 14240]]


  Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank my colleague 
for his speech. I will be echoing a lot of the same points that he has 
made.
  I think that it is a critical time. This is important. It is 
important for the young people around this country to know what kind of 
a future they are going to have, and I think he has lined it out very 
well, and this week, I think, will be critically important in terms of 
the decisions that we make as a country.
  In May, the Senate passed the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act by a 
vote of 98 to 1. You don't see too many 98-to-1 votes in this Chamber. 
Sixty-six Senators cosponsored this legislation. The principal reason 
for this overwhelming bipartisan support was the desire to give 
Congress, the voice of the people, the opportunity to weigh in on the 
President's agreement with Iran.
  We have been working together now for 4 months across the aisle to 
ensure that the opportunity for Congress to review this agreement comes 
forward. Yet I am severely disappointed, as my colleague expressed, 
that 42 of our colleagues have now voted twice to deny the Senate the 
ability to take a simple up-or-down vote on this very important 
resolution--a simple vote to say exactly how they feel, to make sure 
everybody in the country and in your State knows your opinion, and yet 
42 of them are blocking that simple vote.
  Iran's supreme leader said earlier this month that he expects Iran's 
parliament to vote on whether their country will approve the nuclear 
agreement. At the very least we should have that up-or-down vote. 
Certainly this agreement is also worthy of this vote. Our constituents 
expect us to vote on this matter. Multiple national surveys have shown 
that the Iran nuclear agreement is opposed by either a plurality or a 
majority of the American people, and any support this agreement had, as 
you look at the national polling, is disintegrating.
  A recent poll in my State shows that opponents of this deal outnumber 
supporters by a margin of 3 to 1. Yet I am not going to have the 
opportunity to vote my vote of disapproval of this agreement because of 
the obstructionism on the other side. In fact, when President Obama 
said that there was strong support for this deal among lawmakers and 
citizens, the Washington Post fact-checker awarded him three 
Pinocchios. We all know what Pinocchio was famous for, and that was the 
growing of his nose when he wasn't telling the truth. Three 
Pinocchios--that's a lot of skepticism about the President's statement.
  There is bipartisan opposition to the Iran nuclear agreement in 
Congress, but only partisan and tepid support. Our colleagues in the 
House of Representatives voted last week on a resolution approving this 
agreement. That resolution received only 162 votes, all from the 
Democratic Party. There was opposition by 260 House Members, including 
25 Democrats. Here in the Senate, more Democrats joined with 
Republicans to support moving forward on an up-or-down vote on this 
resolution of disapproval.
  It is important to recognize the depth of bipartisan opposition to 
the President's agreement with Iran. Many of the Democrats who have 
been opposing this deal have tremendous experience in foreign policy 
matters. In the House of Representatives, the ranking member of the 
Foreign Affairs Committee, the ranking Democratic member of the 
Appropriations Committee and the ranking member on the Subcommittee on 
the Middle East and North Africa all voted against approving this 
agreement.
  In the Senate, the former chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee 
and the committee's current ranking member are among the Democrats who 
oppose this agreement. They have joined Republicans on the floor in 
seeking an up-or-down vote on this agreement. The senior Democratic 
foreign policy leaders and every Republican in both chambers of 
Congress oppose this deal, and they have made their reasons clear.
  The President's agreement fails to make America safer, quite frankly. 
It is not likely to eliminate Iran's path to a nuclear weapon, and the 
agreement will hurt the security situation that is rapidly 
deteriorating in the Middle East, especially in Israel.
  We have not seen the two side agreements between the IAEA and Iran. 
We have not seen those. We don't know what is in them. We are supposed 
to have seen everything, and these side agreements, we think, include 
important provisions about suspected Iranian nuclear sites. We already 
know that Iran will have the ability to delay inspectors' access to 
other sites for more than 3 weeks. We were supposed to get anytime, 
anywhere inspections. This benchmark falls severely short of that.
  The combination of the cash from sanctions relief--anywhere from $50 
billion to $150 billion, so I will go right in the middle and say $100 
billion--the end of the arms embargo in 5 years, the end of the 
international restrictions on Iran's ballistic missile program in 8 
years will strengthen Iran's ability to cause trouble in the Middle 
East and around the world.
  Think about this. I think about this--the country of Iran with 
another $100 billion. Under the sanctions that have been imposed, Iran 
has expressed concern about the health and welfare of their people. Yet 
even under that sanctions domain they are still fomenting terror around 
the Middle East. What will they do with $100 billion? I think it is 
pretty clear what their intentions will be.
  International sanctions that have helped bring Iran to the 
negotiating table will be difficult to snap back into place in the 
event of violation of the agreement. Nothing snaps anywhere here in 
Washington, DC, and sanctions can't snap back, so that defies reason. 
This will lessen our leverage to ensure Iran's compliance.
  Despite these serious flaws, it appears, based on the two failed 
cloture votes the Senate has taken thus far, that a partisan minority 
is prepared to thwart the bipartisan majority and move forward with the 
agreement.
  Leader McConnell has filed an amendment that would block sanctions 
relief until Iran both recognizes Israel's right to exist and releases 
American political prisoners. While that amendment will not cure the 
flaws of Iran's agreement, it does represent commonsense policy that 
should receive overwhelming support.
  Regardless of their views on the substance of a nuclear Iran, I think 
most Americans would agree that before we provide tens of billions of 
dollars in sanctions relief to Iran, the Iranian government should have 
to recognize Israel's right to exist and should release our four 
American political prisoners.
  Just last week, as the Senate was debating the Iranian nuclear 
agreement, the Iranian leader posted on Twitter his view that Israel 
would not exist in 25 years. That underscores, again, what a serious 
problem Iran is to our most important ally, and that is Israel.
  Even proponents of the nuclear agreement have recognized that Iran is 
likely to use at least some of the funds they received from sanctions 
relief to strengthen their military and continue to finance terrorism. 
If this windfall is going to be provided to Iran, then ensuring Iran 
recognizes Israel's right to exist is the least we would ask.
  Equally important is securing the release of our four American 
political prisoners held by Iran. I get this question at home all the 
time. Why was this not part of the bargaining? Why were we not asking 
for the release of our Americans before we moved forward? Frankly, I 
don't think the administration answered that question, and I don't have 
the answer to that question. Tomorrow we will have the opportunity to 
express our wishes. We should not provide sanctions relief to Iran 
without the release of the hostages.
  The Senate will have the opportunity to decide whether to move 
forward with the McConnell amendment tomorrow. Those who have prevented 
a vote on the merits of the nuclear agreement have it in their power to 
block a vote on the McConnell amendment as well, but let's be clear on 
what that would mean. If a minority of the Senate blocks a vote on the 
McConnell amendment, then they will allow the President to provide 
sanctions relief to Iran

[[Page 14241]]

without securing Israel's right to exist and without the release of our 
Americans.
  I believe the President's agreement with Iran should be rejected by 
the Senate, and we are going to have another opportunity to vote on 
cloture to allow the Senate to take a true up-or-down vote on that 
agreement. But even my colleagues who support the nuclear agreement 
should vote to protect Israel and bring our Americans home before 
providing that sanctions relief.
  I hope our colleagues will reexamine their positions on cloture and 
allow the Senate to do what we have come here to do, to take the tough 
votes, to let people know how we feel, to show our commitment and our 
passion, and to have our voices and their voices heard.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.


                             Refugee Crisis

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am always a little more than awed 
and inspired to be here on the floor of the United States Senate, a 
place that my father never could have predicted that I would be when he 
came here in 1935, an immigrant, fleeing persecution in Germany at 17 
years old with not much more than the shirt on his back, speaking no 
English, and knowing virtually no one. This country gave him a chance 
to succeed. This great country opened its arms to him, much as the 
Statue of Liberty did, when he entered this country through Ellis 
Island.
  We are a nation of immigrants and of refugees. It has given us 
strength. Our diversity is what makes America the greatest, strongest 
country in the history of the world.
  Sadly, the kind of displacement that caused him to come to this 
country is far from unprecedented. This country has opened its arms 
again and again and again, generation after generation, to provide for 
refugees displaced by war and oppression. Inhumane dictators, 
territorial disputes, environmental degradation, all are contributing 
now more than ever to the largest refugee crisis since World War II.
  We are going through a humanitarian crisis in this country. Part of 
it is due to the brutality and inhumanity of the Assad regime in Syria, 
the horrors unleashed by ISIL in Syria and Iraq. Neighboring countries 
have been overwhelmed by fleeing refugees.
  During my Middle East trip in July 2013 with Senator McCain and 
others, I visited a refugee camp in Jordan that houses many of these 
refugees and, since my visit, the situation has only worsened 
significantly.
  Syria alone has produced an estimated 4 million registered refugees--
those are the individual ones counted--in addition to the 7.6 million 
internally displaced people.
  Turkey bears the brunt of this refugee crisis, housing nearly 2 
million of them. Lebanon shelters over 1.1 million refugees, while 
Jordan has taken 600,000 or more, and Egypt recently exceeded the 
130,000 mark.
  These numbers are abstract. For every one of them, there is a human 
voice and a face. Many are children barely able to comprehend the fate 
that has befallen them. This year alone, Germany is expecting 800,000 
asylum seekers, a marked increase from 626,000 in 2014 and 431,000 in 
2013. Again, these numbers have impact on those countries, on their 
populations.
  We met this morning with the Ambassadors of the European countries to 
hear about that impact on them and about their plans to do even more.
  The Atlantic Ocean separates us from this crisis physically, but 
morally we have no separation at all. The destabilizing effect of that 
massive displacement ultimately affects us as well, our national 
security, and the stability of regions where we have a vital economic 
stake and a moral obligation.
  I strongly support a policy of American generosity and humanitarian 
relief toward those refugees seeking to escape the untenable and 
unlivable conditions in Syria and Iraq. Exactly what steps this Nation 
should take will be a matter of contention and continuing debate, but 
clearly, we have obligations--moral obligations, self-interested 
obligations, economic obligations--to the men, women, and children who 
have walked hundreds of miles in search of safety and security and to 
the countries currently searching for ways to accommodate them.
  Our obligation is multifaceted. First, we have provided $4 billion in 
aid--which is real money--to countries where those refugees now live 
temporarily in camps. But humanitarian aid is desperately needed in 
greater amounts and rising magnitude in countries where refugees are 
flowing fast. Regional countries, including Turkey and Jordan, as well 
as the European Union, must be able to provide refugee camps that 
provide basic necessities for people to live, with adequate food, 
water, shelter, clothing, education, and other elements of a safe and 
stable life for adults but also for children who can be seen running, 
laughing, playing in these camps in the most rudimentary of conditions.
  The United States must show international leadership as well in 
ensuring the availability of resources from other nations that, 
frankly, have failed to meet the test of moral and political 
obligation. Saudi Arabia is one. The Gulf States are others. Our allies 
in this region must fulfill their obligation to do more and to do their 
part in assisting those fleeing war and bringing about a diplomatic 
resolution to the crisis. The absence of these nations from this 
challenge is reprehensible and regrettable. Ultimately, Syria must seek 
and achieve a resolution internally but, in the meantime, its neighbors 
have an obligation to do more.
  I applaud the President's announcement that the United States will 
resettle approximately 10,000 Syrian refugees within our borders next 
year. As my colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, has said this step 
is certainly in the right direction. But increasing the number of 
refugees coming here is an insufficient response alone if we fail to 
provide the expanded capacity and services that are necessary to 
effectively resettle and bring to this country refugees fleeing their 
homeland. Our focus should be on devising an effective program so that 
candidates for resettlement can have that hope without waiting years 
for assistance. Now, under the present system, they are waiting here.
  In particular, I wish to cite a group of refugees that merits the 
special conscience and conviction of this Nation. They are the 
refugees--mostly women and young girls--who are victims of what the New 
York Times, in an extraordinary report, has called enshrining the 
theology of rape.
  These girls and women have been enslaved. They are members of the 
Yazidi community. This New York Times report shows the systematic 
enslavement and rape of women and children held in the territory that 
ISIL controls. Approximately 5,000 Yazidis have been abducted by ISIL 
and 2,700 remain in captivity.
  These reports, which are shocking and horrifying, challenge our 
conscience to do more. Nobody reading them can think of our daughters, 
the women in our family, without revulsion and shock. At the end of 
this week, several of my colleagues and I will be sending a letter to 
Secretary of State John Kerry urging him to take further action to help 
the Yazidis, the Christians, and other religious minorities who have 
been systematically kidnapped, enslaved, tortured, raped, and 
brutalized by ISIL simply because of their faith.
  We talk a great deal on the floor in this body, in this building, and 
in this country about faith. The horror of this persecution calls to 
our conscience.
  I am calling on the State Department to declare religious minorities 
as protected, priority groups, able to seek refugee assistance within 
Iraq's borders. As of now, the only Iraqis allowed to leave the country 
with assistance in this way are the people who have been affiliated 
with the U.S. Government during the war. That category should be 
expanded to include these refugees.
  Second, I am calling on Secretary Kerry to improve the in-country 
processing for refugee claims in Iraq, specifically, the time required 
for that processing. The estimated time for Iraqis who served alongside 
U.S. military personnel is at the unacceptably high rate of 5 years to 
8 years. This

[[Page 14242]]

issue has been brought to me by numerous veterans--Iraq and Afghanistan 
veterans--who owe their lives, in some cases, to the service of these 
Iraqi and Afghan colleagues. Yet they wait there 5 to 10 years simply 
to be processed to come here. We must assure timely access to refugee 
assistance for both Iraqis affiliated with the U.S. Government and 
Iraqis within persecuted religious minorities such as the Yazidis and 
Christians. There is mounting, irrefutable evidence of that persecution 
on a scale that sometimes defies imagination and comprehension.
  There are many ways the State Department can accelerate processing 
times: Double the number from 10 to 20 of in-country State Department 
personnel processing Iraqi refugees; consult with the Department of 
Homeland Security on the use of video interviews, consistent with 
security requirements, to be conducted in addition to the in-person 
interviews currently required; identify a nongovernmental organization 
to work with the U.S. Embassy to identify and screen religious 
minorities seeking refugee assistance in Erbil; and establish a 
facility in Erbil where the U.S. Government can conduct refugee 
processing. These steps are not particularly complicated or ingenuous; 
they are common sense.
  The United States has a proud, moral tradition and heritage of aiding 
refugees. That tradition and heritage are epitomized by the Statue of 
Liberty and by Ellis Island. The Nation has not always lived up to the 
high standards that have been set for it by us. We are still very much 
a work in progress, and there are times in our history when we have 
failed the high test of morality.
  But the Statue of Liberty stands tall at our harbor and embodies what 
is best about our Nation. We are a nation of immigrants truly because 
we welcome the tired and hungry, yearning to be free. We need to 
demonstrate the international leadership that has made us proud in the 
past to establish a new, inconclusive vision for Syria; to abate this 
refugee crisis; to provide a path for them to come here; and to provide 
them, consistent with our security, the opportunities that fathers, 
mothers, grandfathers and grandmothers had--going back in history, all 
of us have come here from somewhere else, or almost all of us--and 
humane and effective policies that help us to keep alive that great 
tradition and heritage, serving millions of people who are tired, 
weary, yearning to be free and seek that lamp beside the golden door.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. Grassley pertaining to the introduction of S. 
2043 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Rhode Island.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am here today for the 111th time in 
my ``Time to Wake Up'' series urging this body to wake up to climate 
change. It is happening all around us, and it is happening right now, 
not in some distant future. The warnings of what is to come if we fail 
to act are sobering.
  Congress has the ability and responsibility to change the course we 
are on, but we can't do it until Senate Republicans step up and start 
debating real solutions. Smart climate policy can align with 
conservative values--conservative values, such as prudence in the face 
of risks, protection of property rights and individual liberty, and 
market-based solutions for solving problems.
  Senator Schatz and I have proposed a fee on carbon emissions, 
correcting a market failure that currently allows major emitters to 
pollute for free while forcing regular citizens to bear the physical 
and financial burden. Even if you are a tea-partier, why would you want 
a big special interest to be able to distort the energy market and make 
regular people pay the price for the harm they cause? Other than 
special interest politics, it makes no sense.
  This market incentive would work. It would reduce emissions. A recent 
report on our bill shows it will reduce carbon emissions 45 percent by 
2030, more than the President's Clean Power Plan does. It will also 
generate significant revenue--over $2 trillion over 10 years--to return 
to taxpayers. With $2 trillion, you can lower a lot of tax rates.
  I hope our Republican colleagues will give this bill a serious look. 
Former Congressman Bob Inglis, a dyed-in-the-wool conservative, 
described our bill not as an olive branch, but as an olive limb we have 
offered to Republicans. Yet still in this Chamber, all we hear from 
Republicans is equivocation and denial when it comes to climate change. 
We hear Republican Senators trumpet industry-backed reports that point 
to the costs of action, but ignore the terrible costs of inaction. They 
look at only one side of the ledger. If accountants did business that 
way, they would go to jail, but that is evidently good enough for 
Republicans in the climate debate.
  We hear Senators using cherry-picked data. They will take a graph 
that goes up and down, up and down on an upward trend and pick a high 
spot and a later low spot, and from those two selected points, they 
will say: Aha. See, there is no increase.
  An expert witness would be thrown out of court for that nonsense, but 
it is evidently good enough for Republicans for the climate debate.
  We hear Senators ducking and dodging on this issue, exclaiming they 
are not scientists, but then they will not listen to what they are 
being told by the people who are scientists. We hear deniers denigrate 
scientists, ignore basic established science, and venture into loopy 
conspiracy theories about a great hoax, one that the United States 
military and every American national laboratory and NASA are all 
evidently in on. Seriously? And they say this with no shame for the 
smear it implies of some of our most reputable scientists. Again, that 
is good enough for Republicans in the climate debate, I guess.
  We even had a Senator throw a snowball on the Senate floor because he 
thought the continued existence of snow here somehow disproved climate 
change. Truly. I did not make that up.
  Meanwhile, what we see all around us shows us that this is happening. 
Simple, straightforward measurements show that the climate is changing 
around us.
  One summary is the annual ``State of the Climate'' report by the 
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and the American 
Meteorological Society. The report reviews dozens of climate 
indicators--from ocean and air temperatures to extreme weather events. 
It doesn't get into forecasts or projections. It discusses what we are 
observing and measuring now. The ``State of the Climate'' report shows 
that 2014 was a benchmark year for the climate, and not in a good way. 
The article in Bloomberg News summarizing the report's findings was 
titled ``The Freakish Year in Broken Climate Records.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed 
in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  Its author, Tom Randall, sums up the state of the climate with two 
words: ``it's ugly.'' I have to agree. From record temperatures to 
record sea levels to changing weather to retreating glaciers, climate 
change is evident across an array of measurements and observations. We 
are watching our planet change before our very eyes.
  Let's see what these measurements say.
  Well, 2014 was another record year for global temperatures. NOAA and 
NASA both concluded that 2014 was the hottest year since recordkeeping 
began in 1880.
  This chart shows where temperatures in 2014 were warmer than the 
1981-to-2010 average, which is shown in red, and

[[Page 14243]]

blue shows where the temperatures were cooler than average.
  The eastern part of the United States and Canada was one of only a 
handful of places around the world that saw cooler-than-average 
temperatures. But while it was cool here in 2014, almost everywhere 
else in the world was feeling the heat. All you have to do is look at 
the data to see it. It is a massive sea of red.
  And 2014 does not stand alone; 17 of the 18 hottest years in the 
historical record have occurred in the last 18 years. The past decade 
was warmer than the one before that, which was warmer than the one 
before that, and so far 2015 is on track to be even hotter than 2014. 
All of this is measurement and straightforward fact.
  Of course, as humans, we don't experience annual average changes in 
temperature, we experience the weather, and we are beginning to see 
climate change affect weather patterns all over the world.
  This chart shows the number of extreme warm days and the number of 
extreme cold nights since 1960. The number of hot days, as we can see, 
is climbing, and the number of cold nights is decreasing. Both are 
symptoms of a warming planet. This matters because those very warm days 
pose human health risks and can be downright dangerous for people who 
don't have air conditioning, especially for the young, old, and infirm. 
Extreme heat can stunt crops and drive down yields, and it can stress 
livestock and other animals.
  Cool nights are important too. It is the cold nights of winter that 
help control the mountain pine beetle, ticks, and other pests. With 
fewer cold nights, the mountain pine beetle has wreaked havoc over the 
west in the past few years.
  Last week, my colleagues on the Senate Climate Action Task Force and 
I heard from Dave Chadwick of the Montana Wildlife Federation about 
climate change effects on the Montana's hunting industry, with hunters 
going to their favorite spots and no longer seeing the game they used 
to see.
  Jill Ryan, the commissioner in Eagle County, CO, told us they are 
already seeing fewer ski days in her Rocky Mountain community--not good 
for Colorado's iconic ski industry.
  In Maine and New Hampshire, out-of-control tick populations are 
attacking the region's iconic moose. A single moose might now carry 
tens of thousands of ticks. It is sickening to see, and it is no good 
for the New Hampshire moose-watching industry. Yes, people actually do 
that. Between mud and snowmobile trails and fewer, sicker, tick-
encrusted moose, it ain't looking good.
  This chart shows how much water various glaciers around the world 
have lost each year since 1980. Last year the melting was equivalent to 
each glacier losing 33 inches right off the top. Look at these losses--
31 consecutive years in a row of loss.
  Last year's melt continues a sobering trend of heavier and heavier 
losses. The red line here shows the total amount of ice loss since 
1980. It shows that glacial ice loss has been accelerated. Average 
losses were about 9 inches in the 1980s, 15 inches in the 1990s, and 29 
inches in the 2000s. Again, this is measurement, folks, not conjecture.
  The oceans are warming. Why? Well, it is simple. As greenhouse gases 
trap heat in the atmosphere, the heat is absorbed by the oceans. Over 
90 percent of the excess heat from greenhouse gases that has been 
trapped has actually gone into the oceans, and 4 out of 5 analyses say 
that the heat in the upper ocean set a record high in 2014.
  These data show the decades-long warming of the surface oceans. 
Colleagues who still insist that the climate has not warmed in the past 
couple of decades--look at the oceans, that's where the heat went. This 
warming is changing the oceans and changing our fisheries and, because 
of the law of thermal expansion, contributing to sea-level rise.
  In 2014, global sea level was at its highest point since we began 
measuring it with satellites in 1993, which is shown on the chart.
  In 2014, we saw the sea level continuing to rise at a rate of about 
\1/8\ of an inch per year. We measure this in Rhode Island. Sea level 
at the Newport Naval Station has increased almost 10 inches since the 
1930s. This matters when you have storms riding in on higher seas and 
tearing away our Rhode Island coastline. Sea level rise matters a lot 
to my constituents.
  Measurements are confirming what the scientists have predicted: The 
seas are rising because the oceans are warming and ice on land is 
melting. The climate is warming because greenhouse gases are trapping 
heat from the Sun in the atmosphere.
  Again, these are irrefutable facts, confirmed by experts and 
scientific organizations and big corporations such as Walmart. Here is 
the reason. The main culprit behind the changes we are observing is 
carbon dioxide building up in the atmosphere, which in 2014 reached 
record levels. The global average exceeded 400 parts per million in 
2014. In context, for as long as human beings have been on the planet, 
it has been between about 170 and 300. For our whole duration as a 
species, that has been the range. Now we are out of it by over 400 and 
climbing. The global carbon dioxide levels haven't been this high in 
human experience.
  Where are we headed in 2015? Well, these trends are likely 
continuing. Scientists are already predicting that 2015 will eclipse 
2014 in the record books for global temperature change. In 2015 we can 
expect that the temperatures will continue to go up, the seas will 
continue to rise, and glaciers will continue to melt. It won't stop 
unless we choose to stop what is causing it.
  We know our binge of carbon pollution is driving these changes. May I 
say that today a news report has come out that shows one of the biggest 
carbon polluters of all, ExxonMobil, knows that our binge of carbon 
pollution is driving these changes and spent decades covering up what 
they knew with a fusillade of lies that they launched to try to 
continue to sell their product. This is what folks who are engaged in 
climate denial are buying into--a campaign of lies from a fossil fuel 
company, ExxonMobil, that itself knows better. I will have more on that 
story later.
  We can't just keep our heads buried in the sand. We have to wake up. 
We have to wake up to the facts, and we have to wake up to our duty.
  I appreciate the patience of my friend the Senator from Utah.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              The Freakish Year in Broken Climate Records

                    (By Tom Randall, July 17, 2015)


                      State of the climate: Broken

       The annual State of the Climate report is out, and it's 
     ugly. Record heat, record sea levels, more hot days and fewer 
     cool nights, surging cyclones, unprecedented pollution, and 
     rapidly diminishing glaciers.
       The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
     (NOAA) issues a report each year compiling the latest data 
     gathered by 413 scientists from around the world. It's 288 
     pages, but we'll save you some time. Here's a review, in six 
     charts, of some of the climate highlights from 2014.


                     Temperatures set a new record

       It's getting hot out there. Four independent data sets show 
     that last year was the hottest in 135 years of modern record 
     keeping. The map above shows temperature departure from the 
     norm. The eastern half of North America was one of the few 
     cool spots on the planet.


                   Sea levels also surge to a record

       The global mean sea level continued to rise, keeping pace 
     with a trend of 3.2 millimeters per year over the last two 
     decades. The global satellite record goes back only to 1993, 
     but the trend is clear and consistent. Rising tides are one 
     of the most physically destructive aspects of climate change. 
     Eight of the world's 10 largest cities are near a coast, and 
     40 percent of the U.S. population lives in coastal areas, 
     where the risk of flooding and erosion continues to rise.


             Glaciers retreat for the 31st consecutive year

       Data from more than three dozen mountain glaciers show that 
     2014 was the 31st straight year of glacier ice loss 
     worldwide. The consistent retreat of glaciers is considered 
     one of the clearest signals of global warming. Most alarming: 
     The rate of loss is accelerating over time.


             There are more hot days and fewer cool nights

       Climate change doesn't just increase the average 
     temperature--it also increases the

[[Page 14244]]

     extremes. The chart above shows when daily high temperatures 
     max out above the 90th percentile and nightly lows fall below 
     the lowest 10th percentile. The measures were near their 
     global records last year, and the trend is consistently 
     miserable.


              Record greenhouse gases fill the atmosphere

       By burning fossil fuels, humans have cranked up 
     concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by more 
     than 40 percent since the Industrial Revolution. Carbon 
     dioxide, the most important greenhouse gas, reached a 
     concentration of 400 parts per million for the first time in 
     May 2013. Soon we'll stop seeing concentrations that low ever 
     again.
       The data shown are from the Mauna Loa Observatory in 
     Hawaii. Data collection was started there by C. David Keeling 
     of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in March 1958. 
     This chart is commonly referred to as the Keeling curve.


                The oceans absorb crazy amounts of heat

       The oceans store and release heat on a massive scale. Over 
     shorter spans of years to decades, ocean temperatures 
     naturally fluctuate from climate patterns like El Nino and 
     what's known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Longer term, 
     oceans are absorbing even more global warming than the 
     surface of the planet, contributing to rising seas, melting 
     glaciers, and dying coral reefs and fish populations.
       In 2015 the world has moved into an El Nino warming pattern 
     in the Pacific Ocean. El Nino phases release some of the 
     ocean's stored heat into the atmosphere, causing weather 
     shifts around the world. This El Nino hasn't peaked yet, but 
     by some measures it's already the most extreme ever recorded 
     for this time of year and could lead 2015 to break even more 
     records than last year.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                           Planned Parenthood

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, last week I began a thorough examination of 
the facts in the case of Planned Parenthood and the scandal that is now 
engulfing our Nation's largest provider of abortions. Today I wish to 
review briefly the evidence against Planned Parenthood--evidence 
brought to light thanks to whistleblowers and the conscientious 
journalists working with an organization called the Center for Medical 
Progress.
  After hearing that Planned Parenthood, in addition to performing 
almost 1,000 abortions every single day, was also selling the organs 
and body parts of its victims, CMP began investigating. CMP's 
investigation, which it calls the Human Capital Project, lasted for 
more than 2 years. Its findings have finally been published over the 
last few months in the form of a series of video documentaries posted 
on the Internet consisting mostly of interviews and undercover 
reporting of Planned Parenthood officials and facilities.
  The videos have sparked debate and controversy and have thrown the 
abortion industry and its political clients back on their heels. But 
thanks to an indefensible coverage blackout in the pro-abortion 
mainstream media, most Americans have never even heard of, much less 
seen, these videos. Based on the vote the Senate took last month, and 
in particular based on the lack of substance coming from the other side 
of the aisle during that debate, it is a good bet that most of our 
colleagues defending Planned Parenthood haven't seen those videos, 
either. So I thought it might do some good to at least get the facts 
into the Congressional Record before we move forward.
  To date, 10 of the expected 12 videos have been posted on the home 
page for the Center for Medical Progress. The first video was posted on 
July 14 and showed a luncheon meeting between CMP investigators posing 
as corporate buyers of fetal organs and Planned Parenthood's senior 
director of medical services. In the course of this business lunch, we 
learn from the senior Planned Parenthood official's own words that 
Planned Parenthood clinics traffic in the body parts of aborted 
children as a matter of routine; that Planned Parenthood keeps these 
transactions at the local franchise level for legal reasons that appear 
to be designed to sidestep corporate liability; that Planned 
Parenthood's abortionists may alter their surgical procedures--
allegedly after consent forms have been signed--so as to maximize the 
organ harvest from unborn children. This was the infamous moment when 
we learned that Planned Parenthood doctors can ``crush below'' and 
``crush above'' a baby's most lucrative parts. Finally, we learned that 
such alterations may involve performing dangerous and illegal partial-
birth abortions.
  These revelations by themselves--in and of themselves, all by 
themselves--shock the conscience, but they were only the beginning. In 
the Center for Medical Progress's second video released on July 21, we 
witness another undercover business lunch with investigators again 
posing as corporate organ buyers, this time with the president of 
Planned Parenthood's Medical Director's Council. What we see in this 
video, contrary to Planned Parenthood's protestations, is without 
question a financial negotiation about the price of baby organs. They 
are not talking about compensating Planned Parenthood for procurement 
and delivery costs; no, they are haggling. As the official herself, a 
medical doctor, jokes at one point, ``I want a Lamborghini.''
  In another video released August 4, the vice president and medical 
director of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains is seen not only 
discussing exactly this kind of market pricing but the need to conceal 
such transactions through message discipline. Here we learn that 
Planned Parenthood physicians do indeed alter their surgical procedures 
``in a way that they get the best specimens''--that is, not to serve 
their patients but to maximize their sales numbers--because, as this 
vice president boasts, ``My department contributes so much to the 
bottom line of our organization.''
  Subsequent videos have only corroborated these allegations. From the 
CEO of StemExpress, a major corporate buyer of fetal body parts, we 
learned that, yes, the price of fetal tissue is driven by supply and 
demand, not just cost reimbursements. And sometimes this market goes 
beyond organs and tissue and actually traffics in whole unborn 
children.
  From a fetal tissue producer, we learned that sometimes babies are 
born alive and are killed outside the womb because, she says, it just 
fell out. Just this week, a new video showed a Planned Parenthood 
official admitting that some abortion clinics ``generate a fair amount 
of income selling baby organs.'' And these are just the undercover 
videos.
  Other videos feature the heart-wrenching testimony of a former 
StemExpress employee who tells the harrowing stories of her work inside 
Planned Parenthood clinics. She tells not only of the screaming and 
crying of the patients but also witnessing unethical behavior by the 
medical staff. And, yes, the videos also contain horrifying, behind-
the-scenes images at Planned Parenthood centers where the exploitation, 
butchering, and violence are worse than anything one can imagine. The 
images and stories will pierce the heart of anyone who has a child or 
has ever been one. But that is exactly why we must watch these videos. 
For those who don't already know what abortion clinics are like and 
what they do, these videos must be seen to be believed.
  For anyone who has ever wondered why so many Members of Congress, so 
many citizens want to transfer taxpayer funding of abortion clinics to 
safe community health centers that actually practice life-preserving 
medicine as proposed in the bill recently introduced by Senator Ernst, 
watch these videos and you will know. Watch these videos and you will 
understand.
  Every new video brings further corroboration not simply of particular 
instances of blood-chilling behavior but of what appears to be a 
pattern and practice of endangering vulnerable women by manipulating 
surgical procedures after consent forms have already been signed to 
perform abortions in a ``less crunchy'' way, for purposes not of 
women's health but greed; to harvest organs from aborted children and 
sell them to corporate purchasers; and to conduct this grisly business 
in secret to avoid public detection and outrage and, quite possibly, 
criminal indictment--yes, indictment.
  That--the potential crimes of the abortion industry evidenced in 
these videos--will be the topic of my next speech on this scandal, for 
the behavior documented by the Center for Medical

[[Page 14245]]

Progress is not just stomach-turning--it is that, to be sure, but it 
may well also be illegal, violating not only the moral laws of nature 
and of nature's God, which we already knew, but also the criminal laws 
of the United States of America.
  I would encourage my colleagues and all Americans to view these 
videos for themselves so that they, too, can judge for themselves. We 
should all be warned: The videos are as difficult to watch as they are 
easy to find, but the price of self-government is self-awareness.
  The American people need to know the truth about what actually goes 
on in America's abortion clinics, what lies are being told, and what 
crimes are being committed in their name and with their own money. The 
truth about human life and dignity has the power to set us all free, 
but first, we have to tell it.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________