Chance, a chance for the American People to have this on their behalf review this agreement and then vote. Time as has the Ranking Member, as has all the members, people here going through this agreement and i oppose the implementation of this bill. I oppose the presentation. The president first stated his goal, his goal of ending Irans Nuclear program,this that was something that i think achieved tremendous bipartisan support in this body. As a matter of fact, onward there were discussions about dismantling the program and as we all know today and im going to speak more on this tomorrow rather than ending it, this agreement, allows the industrialization of a program, the worlds leading state sponsor of terror and does so with our approval. Now that is a large step from where we began these negotiations and had the president achieved the goal, i think what you would have this 1 body 100 senators standing uprss and supporting what he said he wished to do with these negotiations. Ended up with something certainly is a far cry from that. Instead of having anytime,re anywhere inspections i think everyone understands there is a managed inspection process. Cess certainly there are some issuese relative to the iaea that has concern and i think the thing that is one of the most troubling aspects of this is only after nine months, the m leverage right now, where has had its boot on a rogue happened through the course of these negotiations is that in nine month the leverage shifts from these nations, our nation being one of those, having them in a position where we might mig negotiate something that endseir their program. Gram instead what happens is, the leverage shifts to iran. N. The leverage shifts to iran. They will receive as we knowee, billions of dollars. Most people think the number is around 100 billion. By the way they have a 406 billiondollar gross domestic product. Is the size of their economy. Size of their were going to release to them over the next nine months about 100 billion, 25 of their economy in nine months, the president said surely others,ote some of this is going to be used to sponsor terrorism. We know that. W t think about, if we had 25 of our gdp given to us over the next nine months. We have an 18 trillion gdp. 4 or 5 trillion given to uss over the next nine months. To certainly this will have impactw on what they are able to do. And what will say in nine months when we push back on violations in the agreement. We push back on terrorism. We push back on human rightse g violations. Theyre going to be able to say because most of the sanctions be will be lifted at that moment, they will have their money. Their economy will be growing. What are they going to say . Well, look, if you push back we think this is unfair. Theyre already making these statements in iran. Well just resume our Nuclear Program. So, instead of us having going to have leverage over us. Theyre going to have leverage over us. This is, in the vacuum of having no made eastern policy, i dont say this to be pejorative, we know we have no policy in the middle east to push back againsg iran. We know that. S a so this agreement is going to end up being our defacto policy and everything will be measured by what will iran do if we push back . What if we push back against the fact theyre giving hamasro rockets to fire into israel . What if we push back againstst what hezbollah is doing in lebanon and what theyre doing in syria . Wi what if we push back against what the irgc, the arm of the Supreme Leader, what if we pusht back against what he is doing right now to protect assad . Those are the shock force to keep assad in power right now. We know right now, in prisons, in syria, we know people are we saw it firsthand. The Ranking Member and i went over to see what was happening e at the Holocaust Museum presentation where caesar,tion someone working for the assad regime, took photographs. Taki we know that as we stand here in these comfortable settings in the chamber of the United States senate, people. Genitals are being removed and tortured iran is supporting that. We knotw that. Resources to do more of that, to do the same thing with theuthi houthis and in yemen. To support terrorists and people who are trying to disrupt the government of bahrain. So look, the leverage shifts to them. All they can say if we push bacg against those activities what al theyre going to be able to say is, look, we think youre being unfair. Were just going to resume our program. I dont understand. This is beyond me. I have had no one explain it to me. I know the senator from illinois had diplomats from other countries come in. I have no idea why in this last meeting in geneva we agreed to lift the conventional weaponsngo ban after five years. Tha what did that have to do with the nuclear file . An we lifted the Ballistic Missile technology embargo in eight years. What was that about . And then as you know, with somee really weird language, within the agreement we immediatelyt w missile testing and i think everyone here, the people sitting in the audience, people watching, everyone knows that iran has no practical needeed whatsoever for this program,ne. None. Let me say that one more time. Here is a country with 19,000 centrifuges. 10,000 of them operating. They have an underground facility at fordow. They have a facility at arak. That produces plutonium. They have research andhi development this agreement approves further research and development of their centrifuges. As a matter of fact it paves way perfectly for them to be at at position at zero breakout time which is exactly what the president said they would be att in 13 years. They can just agree to this agreement. They can continue to implement this agreement and be in that position. But they have no practical need. None. Some people have said, well, if they really want to pursue the, technology of medical isotopes, maybe, maybe, they could use 500 centrifuges. Think about this we have a country with one nuclear reactor. A country that could buy the, enricheduranium to buy the energy for that, they could buy it cheaply on the market but b instead they put their entire society through grinding sanctions that have harmed families. They have been doing that for years. Or for something that they have not practical need for. There is only one need. That. And that is because they want ta be in the position to be a nucleararmed country. So let me say one more time. Every senator here supported this process. Except for one. The American People deserve to know where our elected officials and where we stand onntia consequential agreement. I hope people on both sides wilh cause this to be a sober debate. I know it will be impassioned. I know people will certainly be and cons of this agreement. But i do hope at end of the day, while i was gone, i digress, there were discussions about filibustering. Ring filibustering the right to vote on this iran agreement. Apparently, i read about it in some magazines here that instead of this being about, instead of this being about people expressing themselves relative to a policy that they felt wasy important to the country, all of sudden it became about something else. I would just say to my colleagues. I dont know how we can, i dont know how we can be in a place a where we said to our review and vote on this agreement. And then over some revisionistsn statement, or thought, come up with a process that says, no, we really dont want people tor vote. It is my hope over the course of the next several days that of cooler heads will prevail. Pre that we of course will have, i believe, a very sober debate. Sb i think that my friends on the other side of the aisle have seen what the leader just did, to try to insure we keep the debate about approval or disapproval and in this case d disapproval of this particular deal and i hope that very soon, well all be able to express ourselves with a vote on the deal itself. Whether we believe it is in our nations interests. I do not. Some do. Lets have debate in sober way, i want to turn to my friend. The senator yield for asena question . Yes. Senator from texas. Mr. President , i want to save to the chairman of the Foreign Relations committee how much i appreciate his good Work Together with the Ranking Member, senator cardin who he alluded to earlier but you justt said something which i think every american should find troubling and that is, perhaps the singlemost National Security issue facing the country since the authorization for use of force in iraq in 2002, that there might be a partisan filibuster of our ability, even to have that upordown vote on thetion resolution of disapproval. I would just ask the senator from tennessee, is he aware of reports that the Supreme Leader, ayatollah ali khamenei, has said that the Iranian Parliament will have the final word on this deal in iran . And i just wonder how the senator would characterize a partisan filibuster in the United StatesSenate Preventing such an upordown vote in the United States senate while thety Iranian Parliament would have the ability for that upordown vote in that institution . So i did read those reports and as i said to my friend from illinois earlier, look, theres been so much that has occurred a from the very beginning that hao caused people on each side to, in some cases, raise a partisan flag or think that this is a deb debate that could devolve into something that was of thator and what weve done, as yountio mentioned, weve risen abovethat that and weve passed something that allows us to debate and to vote. I read, with interest, what the Supreme Leader has said. I think he is hedging his bets and no doubt he will take it tot their parliament and allow theme to vote and debate. And i hope that here, the of citizens of our country will be shown that same respect and expect that their senators and their house members will have the opportunity to vote on the actuals policy that has beennego negotiated and agreed to by these various countries. I hope that will be the case. Yes, i was very aware of that. Ih and with that, without objection, i would, i would like to turn the floor over, yield the floor, to my great friend, Ranking Member on the Foreign Relations committee, who together, or together, we have marched through some incredible hearings. I think allin of us have studied this dutifully. That could not have occurred staff. I thank him for his leadership. I thank him for his willingness to seek a place where the senate can deal with in in the appropriate way and with that i yield the floor. Fi mr. President. From the senator from maryland. Mr. President , let me first thank my f friend, senator cork, for his leadership and more importantly thank him on behalff of the senate for standing upfo, for, i think the appropriate role of the United States senate in reviewing a major Foreign Policy issue. Mr. President , i have had theere opportunity to serve with four different chairman of the senate Foreign Relations committeeign since ive been in the unitedcok States Senate. Senator corker, senator men men dead, secretary kerry, and Vice President biden and all four fought for the United States senate having its rol appropriate role in establishing Foreign Policy. We are a country that believes serves our country the best. That is what separations of branches of government. Se we dont have a parliamentarywe system here. Provide independence in its reviews of the laws of our the country and policies of our chief executive. And that is exactly what we are doing in this debate and i thank senator corker for his extraordinary leadership of our committee and i know i speak for both democrats and republicans in saying that we support the independence of the senate and w reviewing our work. I, senator durbin, i listened to his comments and senator durbin is a dear friend of mine. The two of us have foughthts together on human rights around we have fought for Civil Liberties here in the United States. Many important issues including mr. President , there are memberh on both sides that have reachedn different conclusions. But we are all committed to making sure iran does not become a Nuclear Weapons state and we honestly believe that our view is the best way for that to be accomplished. Acco i dont challenge any other members decision. And i certainly dont question their resolve. Ran against iran becoming a Nuclear Weapons state or their support o for our regional allies. I think each has demonstratedouh that throughout their career. Some of us have come to different conclusions. I strongly believe that we mustn prevent iran from becoming a Nuclear Weapons state. It is a gamechanger in the region. You already heard from my colleagues that iran is one of the principle purveyors of in terrorism in that region. It would accelerate an arms race that already has too many arms r in its region. It would make so much moreso difficult to confront iranian policy if they possess a nucleaa weapon. That we will not let that happet and that all options are on the table to make sure that doesnt happen. Anod congress is right to say that we support all options being on the table to make sure iran does not become a Nuclear Weapons state. Thats a goal that we all have. In this independent review, some of us believe that the best wayc to accomplish that is to move a forward with the agreementtiat negotiated by the obama administration. Ra others believe that it is not the case. I want to just second what senator corker said about theler Iran Nuclear Review act. I was proud to be part of putting that bill together. And getting broad support in thn congress and the support of the administration. I think it put us in a much stronger position in negotiating in vienna. I think the fact that we had, set up the right way for assio congressional review, that it would be transparent review, a critical review, put our negotiators in the strongest possible positions in vienna. It provided right type of review after the agreement was reachedt information would be made available to us. We would have an open process,ld American People would learn more about it. A and that we would be in a better position to make our own judgment. It was clear in the review act that no action is required. N i we can pass resolutions ofant approval or disapproval. I want to mention one thing though that i want to disagreeth with senator corker but maybe not at the in the end well come together on this issue. I wasnt part of the original negotiations on the review act. I i came into it. Was able to resolve the differences between the white house and the congress and many members of congress but it was clear in talking to the architects of this legislation t that they always anticipatedld b there would be a 60 vote threshold for the passage of this resolution in the United States senate. S i agree with senator corker and thats why that we shouldnt have to use filibusters and we shouldnt have to have; t procedural votes. We should have a vote on the merits. Senator reids suggestion was the right way to go. I hopeti we can find a way to cn avoid the procedural battles ane be able to take this issue up and let every member vote theirr conscience whether to support or disapprove of the resolution. I total the people of maryland after the review, let me tell you how this review went. We had 2 1 2 weeks of review wee before the recess. Senator corker worked ourked committee unmercifully as far as what we did. We had hearings. We had briefings. We had classified briefings. We had member meetings. A and, to the credit of the of members of the committee, all 19 showed up. On these meetings went on for about four hours each. Ours so we were backtobacktoback in our b briefings and trying to understand what was in the agreement during the 2 1 2 weeks we were here. Ihe then went back to maryland, im sure my colleagues went back to their states. Had a chance for the first time to meet with marylanders and talk with marylanders and get their views and fet theire evaluate whether i it was best it was a close call but i decided that i could not supporu the agreement. And i just like to share with you why i can not support theor agreement. This. It puts iran after the time period in a position of enrichment of uranium that is dangerously close to being able to break out to a Nuclear Weapon in compliance with the agreement, being legal, they can get to that point. And at that point, they have already gotten sanction relief. So theyre in a much better muc financial position to be able te could be put on iran. They then, we know that theythey want to become a Nuclear Weapont state. We know that. Documented. We haveso no reason to believe theyre going to change their intentions. So if they want to become ation Nuclear Weapons state, and they make the calculation that welati really dont have a sanction way to stop them, because at that point, their economic strengthc is Strong Enough and sanctionsct take too long to really bite and take effect, it would not be an effective deterrent to a race to breakout. And, heres the key point ofer concern to me. And i acknowledged to all my colleagues that dont know whato will happen in the future. This is a close call. But but i think there is a higher risk of potential military if operation if we go forward withc this agreement because we dont have effective sanctions once. They have been removed. That concerns me. Because,