tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN September 16, 2015 12:00am-2:01am EDT
devices that coming -- that comes from mining activities and how we do that in a thoughtful way is the way real look at a. safe and responsible development, said the economy of the various states all those factors together and one more thing of the blm that has a. >> that may read that this plan is more with a the mood to he is in love to love it -- development. >> so to keep a very close
eye but over the last two months that shell has been drilling? >> is the agency's church and it has been a lot -- of science here and holding until the nearest. it is to make sure that if this river is an incident that we can address that during the timeframe necessary before the i.c.e. moves in and. that is all going as planned precocial -- shell had a problem and the vessel ran into the ground it had to be in the theater before they
could go in to the hydrocarbon sown. so that worked as planned. they had a storm that occurred three note -- a few weeks pretty epic to shut operations down i think they lost five days because of that but they are taking the things are done save the there and if they're there to validate and if need be. but things are going well in terms of the relationships with a shawl and hold the to the highest possible standard. baggage is what we expect them to do. >> thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] whip.
mr. cornyn: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, last week we experienced what i would think is a dark day in t would think is a dark day in t >> mr. president last week we experienced a dark day in the history of the united states senate where one of the most an important national security issues that have confronted the country, our friends across the dial with the resolution and of disapproval with the nuclear deal for rand.
to cast a vote in favor or against disapproval to be banded together and decided not to have a vote. presumably for two reasons they didn't want accountability associated with having to cast a vote for or against disapproval because they know what some point iran will continue the pattern of misbehavior to say why did you vote for this deal with all the evidence pointed to how bad a deal it was? >> second a word democratic friends decided to filibuster because they wanted to protect the president with the resolution of disapproval to veto the legislation. having done so.
it is a sad day when they put partisan concerns ahead of the united states security interest. this says levees decided day for a - - a short time earlier for the up or down vote following a debate. and during that time frame this legislation negotiated by the chairman of foreign relations committee and this is not a partisan problem and it didn't sneak through the chamber in the dark of night it was not a product
of closed-door negotiations and to with the relevant documents with the present and iranian regime to reinsure a process by which the american people can be informed in the senate candidate through their representatives of this was a good deal or a bad deal the legislation that sets up the process past overwhelmingly. in fact, almost unanimously now one democrat in the chamber voted against the legislation so poaching for it to create a process of
resolution of disapproval. as our democratic friends begin to realize it is an unpopular agreement retrieve the president and a ayatollah. over a 21% of the american people said they want to save this deal be turned into reality. many are concerned that rather than a traditional treaty process requiring a two-thirds vote, how this is a political document with the remaining 16 months of his presidency. but 80 percent say they're not sold on the deal.
and to say there are record if they're listening to the american people or the song of the white house. to the detriment of the national security of the united states. but these of the same people who voted to have a filibuster vote but many made the case with that regime that continues to pretend the existence there should be real reason for pause and certainly debate with the upper origin of the
vote. >> said junior senator from new choosy. >> parish's says a prayer rared to in its solution to say we are illegitimizing a fast and extended program we are giving years of defeats and disregard for international law. that is the junior senator from new jersey 2015 does that sound like somebody who is for or against the deal? >>. >> so with the upper down
vote i could agree more. to clearly understand the nature of the regime characterized by deception. last week and those reservations are entirely justified. here is say, and from the senior senator from oregon who said this agreement was the is duplicitous and iranian regime and it falls short of what i had envisioned. that was made in 2015. this was made by somebody
who said they would vote against the resolution of disapproval but it would filibuster the of opportunity to have a statement this is not exactly a resounding endorsement. but then september 8 with the nuclear deal he says this is not the agreement there would have accepted so to say that that means you would have rejected that? so deferring to the president and of leadership
but the senator that made that statement to indicate his approval of the deal the senator voted to block the upper down deal to purchase of pay in the filibuster. this is what they deserve to hear. i know the press to keep score to move onto other things but this is on the american people deserve to hear and what they have demanded. and to do talk to them they don't like this deal. 41 percent said they approved rand rather than listen to their constituents friends across the dial to block a vote for the
and 24 days' notice along with the various appeals process that only rube goldberg could devise. then there is the self monitoring process that the iranian regime will carry around to conduct their own test to turn that over judah iaea at the front gate because this so-called independent monitoring agency won't have access to the military sites hard they want it gives you confidence with any sort of integrity.
then the lead change of u.s. policy by prime minister netanyahu when he spoke to a jury session of congress said they used to be u.s. policy to deny a iran a nuclear weapon but this agreement paves the way for a nuclear weapon and. it is not a rational actor on the international stage, an extremist regime driven by a desire to wipe israel-plo -- israel off the map as the primary sponsor of international terrorism. but then the final insult to injury coverage just as a democratic colleagues filibuster the opportunity to have any real accountability with the up or down vote to relearn the
supreme leader of a iran has insisted the iranian parliament have the final vote on the deal and iran. fix that picture in your mind the iranian regime the principal state sponsor for international terrorism a theocratic regime determined to wipe israel off the map with the great satan that they called the united states the parliament can have a chance for the up or down vote the we have been blocked in the senate. that ought to be deeply troubling to anyone who cares about the united states senate or any sense of democratic accountability it is beyond irresponsible for the democratic colleagues to deny the senate to do the same thing
the ayatollah has said the iranian parliament will have a chance to do especially when they all supported the process by which the up or down vote would be facilitated. later today we will have another opportunity to move the bill closer to the upper down vote on the merits of the president's agreement with iran. i hope the same senators through clearly supported their review of the deal will support me to move it forward so the american people can get the debate they deserve about the number one national security threat affecting this generation of americans and the american people can get the accountability they deserve from their elected officials casting a vote on their behalf. i yield the floor. >> mr. president i have
watched and wondered actually and it in amazement as the administration attempts to justify that is clearly a misguided gamble and a bad deal with iran resaw the signs almost immediately during the same speech in which announced the deal the president threatened to veto any legislation that opposes it. if you lead with threats your typically covering a really bad deal because of your building support and defend this case is something that you don't do you have confidence in the deal. if you leave with threats
you show your hand mr. president and he is trying to bluff called holding and number two and number five number 10 and number eight. to use the reference because that is exactly what the president of united states is doing here, gambling with our security. gambling with israel security, and frankly gambling with the future of the middle east. he was also gambling that the national security adviser, susan rice would dotted mitt the iranian government word use resources for a lifting sanctions to fund terrorist. but as he saw on cnn, he was gambling if we have to trust
the government but there was too healthy economy and help the everyone people. dell bluetooth isolines previously but an affair horrific record has only worsened in recent years than the president is scaling he kenya's international pressure to convince people he was on the right side of the issue along with russia and china and to bring the deal to the united nations before the u.s. congress somehow until they said was acceptable. but it didn't work. the longer we have to study
the deal the worse it gets. the longer the american people have to learn about the deal, the stronger the opposition becomes. there isn't much good news as three polling information and he refers to the american people the vast majority and so many of us on the republican side even good friends on the left, the president gambles with our security and we have seen how bad his head is his the -- a bad hand as i suggested. they could do real -- double
there will experts therefore doubled oil revenues increasing by more than 1 million barrels per day. in other words, 58 or $20 billion of additional revenue to fund a nefarious behavior in the middle east. that is more terrorism in the middle east. because without question they gained access to more weapons as the embargo lifted. and in year number eight iran can purchase ballistic and to the this but the guarantees a time line but
if congress signs off on this deal we can all take out a big red pen to mark on our calendars almost the exact date that iran will have a nuclear weapon in. this is not a republican or democratic issue. but listen to the petitions from my friends on the other side of the ideal. the joint comprehensive plan of action legitimizes of iran's nuclear program. >> whether or not the supporters of this agreement are needed it is based on hope. hope is a part of human nature but unfortunately it is not a national security strategy.
>> what does administration and call an exchange for this? we have seen economic sanctions to be lifted and arms embargo. >> iran will have more money to groups like hezbollah five per of those responsible. >> but mr president that is the wrong direction and the wrong time and a wrong deal absolutely positively not in the best interest of this country. >>.
>> mr. president? i am glad to be sure to hear the comments from senator scott that made me glad i can sit by him on the senate floor to hear his reasons that your good and have been repeated why this is not a way for word for the united states or for the middle east and in fact, he did a great job talking about what was in the deal or what was sent but nothing that the president said would be there when the negotiations started. the administration said iran would never be allowed to have nuclear weapons, we would find out everything they have ever done to develop nuclear weapons weapons, anywhere anytime inspections and the sanctions were the only be lifted with real progress
made in the first three areas. that is where we were negotiating for and none of those things happen and/or our event disagreement. but the question that we have when we talk to people about disagreements, one question is the congress giving away its power? help -- how was a possible this could happen and that congress could not do anything to do is stop it? or is the president giving away the power of the united states of america to lead? i think it is as clear from this agreement as others that beating from behind it does not work to think it is just like any other country is not the view that these trade peaceful or more stable world.
. .licy, that this is just one symptom of, remember the red line in syria, that if the syrians do this, we're going to do that? well, the syrians did what we said we wouldn't allow them to do and basically we didn't do much of anything. in fact, what happened was that when the united states of america takes that kind of position and doesn't move forward, assad is emboldened. i think the latest number of syrians that have been killed by assad is now around 250,000 people. from chemical weapons to barrel bombs to every way they can think of to massacre their own population, a population that has been displaced in the
millions both inside and now outside the country. so an emboldened assad. russia, putin looks at this and before you know it, putin has taken control of crimea and putin has russian troops in the -- in ukraine. and this week, putin puts russian troops and tanks in syria. every american president since president truman, whose desk i'm standing -- one of the desks president truman used as a senator on the floor is this desk right here with his name carved in it, president truman in 1946 did whatever was necessities -- whatever was necessary to force the soviets out of iran. every other president until right now has done whatever was necessary to keep the russian influence in the middle east at a minimum, and they're building a base right now, they're unloading equipment right now, things are happening because they think, why?
because they think they can get away with it. the chinese, the asian pivot that chinese are build on an atoll in the sea in striking distance of the philippines, why, because they think they can get away with it. and the more we're faced with this agreement, the more we look at the consequences of the agreement, the more we wonder about it, but why aren't we able to stop it? one, mr. president, is no future president is bound by it. for weeks now on this floor and around the country, people have talked about the destabilizing impact this will have on the middle east and the world, and the only administration that's bound by it is this one.
it's not a treaty. if i it was a treaty, as it should be, we would be voting in the senate on a treaty and two-thirds of the senators would have to approve the treaty and the next administration would be bound by it as well. when presidential candidates say i'll reverse this the first day, they absolutely can reverse it the next day. what policy is that to put place that has this kind of destabilizing effect without the sense the united states for the long term iser is committed to . the president believes that by the time he leaves, every president would want to keep this but i don't know how you could listen to this and think that. it does dramatically change the middle east, neighboring countries don't trust iran, they'll want to have whatever weapons iran has and senator scott just made a point and made
it well that you can circle the date on the calendar when iran is likely to have a nuclear weapon if this agreement goes forward, and more importantly, the hope that maybe the government will change, it might, but that won't change the neighbors from deciding they have to defend themselves. you know, if north korea wasn't bad enough, the 1994 agreement with north korea wasn't bad enough, they have a missile announced today, they have a better missile they were never going to have, if that wasn't bad enough, we have let the genie out of the bottle here. because the neighbors will decide they have to have it when iran does, and believe that iran will cheat and even though iran is theoretically on a 12-month clock, it might not be 12 months from now, we'll be
working into full weapons mode and 12 months have a weapon from there. and you'll have three or four countries in a short period of time in my view that will have nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons capability that don't have it rignference in 2014, a conference that had a handful go to and i went to that year and we were meeting with the secretary of state, john kerry, and he said we'll be able to know everything that iranians are doing, we'll be able to monitor this with such detail that there's no way they'll be able to do anything that we don't know about. i said to the secretary, you won't -- even if that was true and i don't believe it is true, but if that was true, you wouldn't be able to contain enrichment. once you let iran to do this, other countries that are perfectly happy where they are right now will feel like they have to do the same thing.
there are well over a dozen countries that have the nuclear power that don't have what we're about to allow iran to get in place to do. we have been able to control this because the world has understood this needed to be controlled but we're now in the beginnings of letting it out of control. so what is it all about? it's not a treaty. why are we voting at all if it doesn't bind the next administration, why are we having this debate? the congress would like to be involved or the administration would like to have us involved in about 2023. that was another comment made before the law was passed. that congress will eventually have to be involved because eventually we'll have to decide whether to extend the sanctions
regime which was approved in 2013 is on the books until 2023, so the ideal day for this administration for the congress to be involved was about -- about seven years after they leave office. that would have been the involved we would have had if congress had not stepped up and said we want to insist, we'll get involved, the congress said in 2006 took back some of the authority -- this is not the first congress to lose authority to the president. took back some of the authority that the president had and put into place the sanctions that had been imposed by the president at that time and we made them not just president bush's idea but a law, and i was there when that was negotiated and one of the things we did when we negotiated that was to insist that that be codified, become the pattern and that did for all the
sanctions to follow. but the pattern that congress followed was also a pattern that had almost every case since world war ii followed, here's what we're going to do, do what the president and we should do and we're going to give the president national security waiver authority. and that's the authority the president has decided to use. without congressional approval, without changing law but following the law, he's decided he's going to waive these sanctions and the congress could weigh in about 2023 if the president would have had his way totally. and so what are we doing here? the president of the united states is about to prop up the number-one story of state terrorism in the world. this is an inarguable point. nobody argues that iran is not the number-one sponsor of
terrorism in the world. number two, they look at stronger at the end of this deal than at the beginning because they are stronger. the president is about to release billions of dollars about the number-one sponsor of terrorism in the world can use for terrorist causes. with the support of a minority in congress -- and, by the way, the minority in congress all happens to be one side. in nothing like this, mr. president, in the postwar history in the world, where the country steps forward in this way in this big of a thing and not only is a majority against it but the partisan majority is against it and the minority is blocking the president from even having a vote while the partisan -- bipartisan majority wants to vote and they want to vote to disapprove this deal. even the president then could
still veto the disapproval but the president doesn't want to do that. the president doesn't want this on his desk. i think i read the story the other day, it's the first time the congress couldn't get the 60 senators necessary to have the vote, the white house said something like the vote today ensured that the president's iranian deal would go forward. my concern about this process the whole time is it will look like that by not stopping it the congress was for it. we may not be able to stop it, mr. president, but i can guarantee the american people is not for it. so the question we can ask ourselves would the congress be better without this poor substitute for overseeing an meaningful foreign policy? this is clearly not producing the kind of result we should
result in a democracy. and i think you could argue that it is a weak response, but why did it have to happen? i cosponsored the initial bill that required the congress to approve the deal. but, of course, the piece of legislation has to be signed by the president and senator corker and senator cardin finally came up with a piece of legislation that the president would sign but it's almost always guaranteed to ensure that the debate would go forward. so would we have been better off without it? people have asked me, what are you guys doing, why can't you get the foreign policy of the country under some control, i wondered several times if we would have been better off without it. but as i've thought about that, mr. president, it seems to me that corker-cardin bill has produced a number of things,
one 60 days of debate that we wouldn't have had otherwise. the congress would have had to weigh in when? eight years from now, had a debate eight years from now. but have 60 days of debate, well over 50% of the people in the country are proposed to going forward with this, only about 21% are for going forward. this has produced bipartisan opposition to this bad agreement and senator cardin, the top democrat on the foreign relations committee, senator corker -- menendez, and senator manchin voting with the 54 republicans, 58 senators don't want this to happen, 60% of the house of representatives are opposing this agreement. the white house would have liked to have congress to have its say almost a decade from now.
mr. president, we have had our say. we should have our vote. we have had our say, we should have our vote. we should be allowed to put this bill on the president's desk and if he wants to veto it and defend that veto, that is how this process should work. i hope there is still a chance that two more of our colleagues will step forward and say while i'm going to be on the other side at the final vote, i think the congress should vote. 98 members voted for this bill that said the congress should vote to either approve or disapprove this agreement. let's have that vote, mr. president, and let's have that vote today. i yield. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: mr. president, i agree with the distinguished senator from missouri, and hope
we get our wish to have that meaningful vote later on today. i thought i would take a few moments to explore a history lesson. you know, edmund burke said famously those who don't know history are destined to repeat it. i think most people would agree with that statement. which is why i found so many variations of this quote. one of my favorite variations is by mark twain, history doesn't always repeat itself, but it does rhyme. i think the history of events leading up to the world war ii is an appropriate period for examination during today's iran debate. and i believe it's important to explore the question of whether the disastrous history lesson of the munich agreement can be instructive to americans and even to our allies during the current debate.
munich has been cited numerous times in opinion pieces about the iran agreement and been mentioned on both sides of the debate in this chamber. furthermore, we've been scolded by opinionmakers around the country that we dare not make comparisons between munich and the current situations. in this view even uttering the words neville chamber lynn or newtownic bring such painful pictures from the west that we should not speak. but i disagree. we should look for parallels today. for those who may not have recently studied the years ladingen to world war ii, let's review the munich agreement. in september of 1938, hitler's aggression was already under way. in his sights at the moment was
czechoslovakia. four european leaders met in germany at ostensibly to avoid war. those were adolf hitler himself, frame minister delallitie and prim minister neville chamber lynn. , the agreement was that nazi germany would be given control of the german-speaking portion of czechoslovakia known by some as the sudatan land. in return, hitler agreed to stop his advance and not to make war. against the backdrop of all of germany's aggression to date of its violations of the versailles treaty, he gave his solemn assurance in writing that there would be no more expansionist activity. we all know that upon his return to london, chamberlain announced
triumphantly that there would be peace for our time. the bold headline across the top of the daily express displayed the word "peace" with an exclamation mark. of course, a number of wise people immediately saw the false dream for what it was. soon after winston churchill rose in passionate opposition on the floor of commons. he first made it clear that he held the opponents of the agreement in high personal regard, as many of my colleagues have also done already during this debate. then he launched into a scathing denunciation of the bad deal, characterizing it as a total and unmitigated defeat for britain and france, not to mention a betrayal of defenseless czechoslovakia. he went on to predict correctly that rather than preventing war, the munich accord would assure
war. sadly, for millions and millions around the globe, winston churchill was correct and neville chime lan chamberlain wy mistaken -- tragically mistaken. within months, hitler was at it again, annexing the rest of czechoslovakia and setting his sights on poland and beyond. i think it is appropriate to ask ourselves, what would churchill have said about today's debate? and what would chamberlain be saying if he could speak to us today? let's look at the parallels. at munich, britain and france abandoned a steadfast ally. similarly, today's agreement has been reached over the strenuous objections of israel, our most reliable partner in the middle east. and i must emphasize that this opposition comes not only from the current prime minister and his likud-governing majority but
also from his opponents in previous elections, from virtually every point on israel's political spectrum, from labour and from center-left voices. here is the near-unanimous outcry from our israeli friends: iran poses an existential threat to israel, and this bad deal makes matters worse. it makes us less safe. it makes our friends, our neighbors less safe. as the whole world watched the munich agreement sent a chilling message to the rest of europe and to the rest of the world about what could now be expected from france and england. today our sunni-arab friends in the middle east are mystified and dismayed by this iran deal. understandably, their public reaction has been guarded and
even muted. most are hedging their bets. but make no mistake, this is not the strong anti-proliferation nuclear agreement they had hoped for. this current deal and the munich deal are also similarly when we consider the history and behavior of the parties to the agreements. like hitler, the current iranian regime has repeatedly demonstrated that they have evil motivations and that they cannot be trusted. consider the most recent activities and pronouncements of the iranian supreme leader and his team. this deal has been made with a regime that still leads cheers saying "death to america." and they believe in the destruction of the jewish state. the mul moolahs and the ayatolls and the people in charge of iran have shown that they cannot be
trusted. a new book was published making it explicit that it is iran's foreign policy to obliterate the state of israel. just last week, he called america the great satan and said israel would not exist in 25 years. israel would not exist in 25 years. according to the other party to this agreement. under this agreement, embargoes will be lifted in five and eight years respectively allowing the biggest importer -- the biggest exporter of terrorism to build up conventional weapons. and have we forgotten the fact that iran has been cooperating with north korea on glisms for years? of course, the scene in 1938 is not entirely similarly with that of today, as has been pointed
out. 77 years ago nazi germany at least gave lip service to leaving the rest of the world alone. wise people knew this to be a lie, but at least the nazi dictator signed such a promise. today the iranian leadership makes no pretense of abandoning its goal: the complete elimination of israel from the map. and this bad deal gives them the wherewithal to do just that. $100 billion stimulus. the lifts of sanctions, which the united states and our eager european allies have agreed to, will expand iran's gross domestic product by roughly one-fifth, not to mention relief from sanctions on deadly conventional weapons and ballistic missiles. in 1938, chamberlain said,
"peace for our time." we may wish he had been correct, but such an outcome was so unlikely, the deal so risky and ill-advised that it was merely a wish, albeit a dangerous and deadly wish. in 2015, secretary john kerry has called the current deal "a plan to ensure that iran does not ever possess or acquire a nuclear weapon." did you hear that, mr. president? not just for our time or for a decade but never, according to the distinguished secretary of state. president obama says this agreement marks one more chapter in this pursuit of a safer and more hopeful world. such statements have a familiar and troubling ring. such words could have been uttered in 19348.
19-- in 1938. and i wonder if mr. chamberlai mr. chamberlain's followers ever said in defense of o the action, this isn't such a good deal but what other choice do we have? i'm willing to bet some people actually said that. the other choice might have been to stand up against a murderous bully, to stand by a friend. mr. president, this resolution of disapproval is not just an opportunity to sound off. it has not been about sending a message. this procedure was designed, as the distinguished senator from missouri said before me, as the only way to prevent a bad iran deal from actually going into effect. we always realized it would take a bipartisan majority to succeed. there are currently 58 democrats
and republicans who are willing to say officially to the president, start over and get our nation a better deal. we, frankly, need nine more courageous senators to step forward and say "no" to this deal. we're told the dye is now cast, that the votes simile are not there. but i will say to my colleagues today, there's still time to do better for the american people. the doubts have been repeatedly been expressed by senators who have said they will, nevertheless, vote with the president. senator booker, in announcing that he will support the president, said "we are legitimatizing iran's nuclear program and rewarding years of bad behavior." yet he will vote to support the president. senator coons, "i'm troubled and deeply concerned." senator bennet, "none of us
knows" -- and "i have deep concerns," according to senator bennet. senator wyden, "it's a big problem having to deal with iranian leadership that wants a nuclear enrichment program." senator peters, "enrichment of uranium is a stark departure from america's nonproliferation policies. qulings close quote. he goes on to say, "the agreement could set a dangerous precedent." we need these senators to change their vote and to vote for the resolution of disapproval. senator blumenthal said, "not the agreement i've sought." senator merkley said, "significant shortcomings." according to senator gillibrand, "legitimate and serious concerns are there." and senator franken acknowledges, "it isn't a perfect agreement." mr. president, alan deas dersho"
hardly a neo-con, summed up the president of the united states' deal with iran in this book -- in his book, "the case against the iran deal." he said this: "hope is different from faith, though neither is an appropriate basis on which to roll the dice on a nuclear deal that may well threaten the security of the world." "that may well threaten the security of the world," according to prefer dershowitz. "the deal as currently written about not prevent iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. in all probability, it would merely postpone the catastrophe." "postpone the catastrophe. the" for about a decade while
legitimatizing its occurrence." he concludes, "this is not an outcome we can live with." i appreciate people like alan deash owe witdershowitz having o write a book saying why america should not be willing to live with this deal. i say we should heed the warnings of people like alan dershowitz. we should heed the warnings of history. there is still time to reject this ill-advised agreement. there's still time to get a better result for our people, to get a better result for our future. thank you, mr. president. much.
i appreciate that. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: i'm going to be very brief, and i've made these points earlier today, but i just would like to remind people as to why we are having this vote this evening. almost unanimously on four different occasions, since 2010, congress passed sanctions both sides of the aisle supported strongly, sanctions being imposed upon iran to bring them to the negotiating table. that was something that was very, very strongly bipartisan. when it came time to bring them to the table and grin -- and ben negotiations, the president declared -- and begin negotiations, the president declared that the goal was to end their nuclear program, and they began negotiations. and, by the way, we celebrated that goal. i think there'd be unanimous support for the agreement had that goal been achieved. but the president then declared that he was -- instead of
bringing this as a treaty, which typically would be the case for an international agreement, or bringing it as a congressional executive agreement, he declared that he was going to call this to be an executive agreement; that only he would be involved in it. that being known to this body -- again, in a very strong bipartisan way --98-1 we voted for the first time, since i've been here, to take power away from the president to keep him from invoking the national security waivers that he had with the sanctions and to say, no, we want 60 days to go through this deal, and we want the right to approve or disaprove and to vote our conscience. let me say one more time, had the president achieved his goal, you'd have unanimous srt >>
>> is administration and squander that opportunity and has agreed to the industrialization of the program the icbm the development of the centrifuge to assure that they are a nuclear threshold state but what is taking place now is we had 12 hearings in the foreign relations committee with the senators debating in fact, it has been studied and debated 42 senators or a partisan because they're all democrats, 58 senators, led to a that know more about foreign policy issues
thought they had any other of the democratic side oppose the deal and now in keeping a with the iran review act is machine to have the opportunity to vote on the substance of the deal. my friend began to say he rented to filibuster this and minder standing is the is mr. scheck has supported that we have a partisan minority of people better keep paying the spirit of the review act from coming into play from voting up and down. i know members of the body understand at and on every
occasion when there has been an opportunity to recall the do something that is partisan and concern on the other side of the aisle with things that were occurring at every point ishihara the majority leader has acquiesced for things to progress and away day feel the was not a partisan never. >> three that cloture motion to the floor. my friends did not want a bunch of amendments. over the to vote on the motion never prove fault nor disapproval that is what we're hoping to vote on but
unfortunately but is happening is a hoax of the changes the last week 42 senators blocked the senate to end debate hoping that two senators can give us the ability to express ourselves on the substance not block a bipartisan majority. i yield the floor. thank you. >> mr. president i respect the senator for the record of what to make it clear that senator reid said there is no cloture necessary on the motion to proceed and we had an opportunity if we did
not do it we heard repeated the it is the 16th of final passage either there is nothing that brings us to this measure to it anyway eliminate that 60 vote requirement. it is not there. when your side discover they did not have 60 votes they changed the standards. so they see the issues differently and we have had eight we said we should not. i think the issue say where it day stand on the issue. this has not been glossed over we have not made light of it people try to find is the key rate to avoid
responsibility. nitery stand for all of our colleagues. wire recording through of a replay? now with the threat said the amendments not on the iran agreement with the adoption but it could be and something else. but to say we have not taken the time and cooperated to do it if you don't like the results i believe there reflects where we should be as a nation. i support the president we ought to have two goals rate here stop america from going to the malaise.
in earlier bet -- back for restarted from. to face the conscious votes on the floor. i conclude first tried diplomacy. so 40 to read of 46 senators we support diplomacy to argue that this is partisan that not a single member of the house or senate supports the president's position? not one? forty-seven republican senators in march sent a letter to the ayatollah to basically said stop negotiating with the united states of america.
that has never ever ever happened in bin in diplomatic history. they would prejudge a matter under negotiation of the president of the united states but they did. no surprise. and to have nine legislative days left until this fiscal year ends of the close down the government. it is time to respond to important issues that should command the attention of the senate. >>. >> with the chairman of the foreign relations committee and incredible job chair and give us a net opportunity to
express themselves what they describe as an executive agreement. but the chairman skillfully negotiated with the other side to give an opportunity to express our views to express action with the iranian government. as they pointed out in a manner to give them the opportunity to vote even though technically was open
for amendment. to get the upper downfall on the amendment. to express themselves. from someone that admirers and respects willing to talk to the there cited frequently good things come about as a result. and they will have the opportunity to do the right thing. >> with the strong bipartisan majority of the senate to vote to reject.
it is indefensible on the merits. to retain thousands to enrich uranium. with the financed passenger fears with a cash windfall here is what the iranian defense minister said just last week. i officially declare under no circumstances will we refrain from providing material and moral support to hezbollah or any of their group overt in either group resistance to the u.s. israel. loud and clear.
will file an amendment to prevent the president to lift sanctions until iran meets to simple benchmarks. to formally recognize israel's right to exist to release american citizens being held och and irradiate custody. the president fails but yet left as a nuclear threshold states. but it would have said applies. but this senate voted unanimously a few months ago
because here is what one american said prisoner wrote. this is an american prisoner wrote earlier this year. >> as a combat veteran and fellow american i am writing to bring to my attention -- your attention for nearly three and a half years i have been falsely imprisoned and treated inhumanely. while i am thankful the state department and the obama administration has called for my release there has been no serious response to the blatant and ongoing mystery man. the preference is for a democratic friends to allow the up or down vote on the deal.
i don't know what they're protecting him from. he is proud of the deal. as i suggested last week he could have a ceremony down there to veto the of resolution of disapproval. he has convinced them but if they're determined to make that impossible with the long overdue relief to america. so this will continue. with the shelf life. but with their determination who will lead the country as president in the next
this is a dead duck now what would be what took place over a long period time to debate all last week on the floor they did not get enough votes. there agreed and the rules are tempted to be changed is a situation where if at the republican leaders looked at the calendar and 80 with 32 republicans who said unless you get rid of planned parenthood.
to say there is nothing done unless we do something about planned parenthood. it would be different you did get wise to close the government and was actually shut down for three weeks. staring us in the face to be upon us quickly with that we will do something that everyone knows has no chance of passing dealing with abortion but they want to do that before the pope gets here. it is it going to change
with what we know with climate change so they can have of state afloat on abortion and it is all directed to the republicans. everybody knows the problems the republican leader has threatened us we will make you suffer just like we lost obamacare we had over 60 votes to get rid of that agreement. to magnify the agreement. but the purpose is to stop iran from having a nuclear weapon and that is what it does.
it is so important we have russia and china to think after all the years of negotiating to say suddenly it is back the way it was? they say if you don't move for a real trouper of the sanctions are gone. because they're trying to chase the rules that they developed we try to change that hundreds of times.
to let them go to the bill there was no bush shouldn't to proceed. but the republicans did time and time again. this there would make us file a motion and to proceed with cloture and wait weeks at a time. that stopped obama from moving the program ahead to stall for trident as 60 vote threshold was greeted with the republicans we are sticking by those rules. had everyone is to do if he wants to err tear down the tree remember she was the
>> that it wasn't legally recognized and in the presence of federal troops and marshall's and the courage of children. >> we wanted to pay case is that change society and also changed society. reese said in florida to read what it was. and there after the police officer handcuffed her. >> i cannot imagine a better way to bring the constitution to live there and tell the human stories behind a great supreme court
cases. >> the forced in german of japanese-americans during world war ii after being convicted for failing to report for relocation, and he took his case all the way to the supreme court. what was the most essential to the functioning of democracy was freedom of speech. but what it means to live day a society that help stick together because they believe in the rule of law.
to stimulate the economy and create more jobs for crude buyer but was somehow are concerned will only benefit the oil and gas industry or raise prices. others say it could harm national security so we will have a life the debate and we will hear from members of the u.s. senate but a whole different positions on exports. they will each deliver remarks and participate in a discussion. i've been led to invite the president and ceo of the american petroleum institute to the podium for remarks. >> thanks to "the national journal".
looks like we have over capacity crowd today. with the ban on crude oil is of a topic near and dear to think of three simple topics and the potential impact with there is a variety of studies out there that lifting the ban on crude oil exports and one was is in job creation that we have 300,000 new jobs and to let
the of overwhelming evidence shows prepared by in steadied from different philosophies to resulted downward pressure to benefit consumers. there are some of the estimates that show crude oil comes down another dollar to results in 5. $8 billion. and as a national security implications many friends and allies around the world will testify on capitol hill how they've would like to increase or enhance the relationship with the united states in the area of energy trade. it is very clear that the
proposal will prevail. and to allow them to export curve. it is hard to imagine they would not do the same for the american producers to rollout was the same access so we look forward to real-life a debate the deal opinion surrounding this date you for being here today thank you very much. >> tavis 92 introduce
senator high camp the ranking member of the subcommittee on banking and urban affairs. the first female senator from north dakota and a former director ladies and gentleman please welcome the senator. [applause] >> good morning. thank-you sell much for taking an interest in this issue that this is an issue that is not new to me in my opinion i started to talk
about this even before there was a price decline because fundamentally commodities have to find their market. if we're going to be successful in america where 95 percent of all consumers live outside of the diastase of the american league cannot restrict them anything and certainly we are becoming a dominant energy power. most of you know, north dakota is heavily dependent on commodity markets. we produce the highest quality a a agricultural products rolled it is a pretty amazing news stories so we're dependent on the dollar values that we don't talking enough about the
also heavily dependent on exports. this day and watches -- this was an anomaly of the '70s when they were scrambling to respond to the energy shortage that threatens the economic livelihood draconian measures were taken including a ban on crude oil is made of silly nonsense so alaska the lifted a ban so now makes absolutely no sense if we are to do a couple things so i want to say i built a reputation in the town to be open-minded and listen to arguments on all sides but i don't think there is a an issue in the united states
congress were i cannot see the other side of this issue. think about that there is absolutely no logic there is no good policy in recent. so every legitimate report those done by special interest by profit margins still issues something about consumer prices that they will stay says blood dash stable or declined. it is good for energy security. wiedmaier say that? if you are officially controlled of market what will happen? the investment goes someplace else unless day fishtail revolution is not restricted you know, it is
everywhere in rainouts we have access to the technology one so to continue the revolution in our country, recently tony blair talked to talk about stabilizing the world said the one thing we need to do is have energy security. think about what we can do for national security. we have national security and global security and consumers who are benefited and american jobs and
workers so explain to be the downside. why we have the policy continuing and i will tell you right now fear of the unknown i will be blamed if prices are increased even though that is irrational ideology anything that will upset the bonus that the consumer is received as the energy renaissance trivet and by our industry so we need to continue to have that conversation from the very beginning for what that means for consumers and the second reason is they don't want lower cost they think if you produce more than more is consumed i dunno what economic reports they have been watching the is
certainly as we see a global slowdown we have seen supply and demand economics 101. the midi's concerned about losing market share among will happen with iranian oil , the russians on $100 a barrel oil and the united states to say we want to participate scilicet bring energy security to the world so it is a policy whose purpose has long expired and in today's conditions it is up policy that there is no good reason to maintain. so we will have a lively discussion but thank you for inviting me. going back again to the of
fundamental principle, think if you are a manufacturer of the good, or if you were acorn producer producer, fundamentally the economics at the base level it is up policy and dramatically flawed. [applause] >> before we get started and would like to remind the audience briefly they can ask questions so thanks for your remarks. what is the origin?
it is an interesting partnership. >> we share a lot of similar interest and every time i been known the fact she reminds me so we bonded very early on an issue there in tears to our hearts. from that work and from our understanding whether looking at utility work or a long history of oil and gas. so to talk about these issues fajita with the price reduction that the policy is not a good policy she has seen how this works and alaska to develop our industry.
i think that we have something that we like to believe to be partly responsible to open up government in there is a group of us that sit down to talk about issues and how we can achieve common ground in a bipartisan way. that is the work i have done so she has been a great friend. >> bipartisanship is someone elusive with energy with those sweeping bills through 2005 and 2007 and it seems there was a large bipartisan energy measure. to what extent do you think we could see oil exports? so if there is to be
legislation is it a stand-alone bill? >> what i would tell you over a year ago everybody thought we were crazy that it was new to the congress you argue nothing moves in the congress which could be of fair assessment of our job performance but certainly a new issue that is fair the complicated. we saw a study after study that moved the ball forward whether keystone or the approval act we would take to the floor to say this is an issue that is critically important. everybody told me you're crazy to think this would happen in the short term i think we can get it done this year if we respond to
the concerns to come to the table to negotiate. it was some modest bill and somehow did not make its way through. i will tell you the inclination in congress is not what we can do but everything that we want to do that is available. so we will put as much stuff on their before we collapse under the weight of all the issues. we need to not let that happen with energy exports. obviously lisa has a bill that went through her committee i would have a bill that went to banking looking at the possibility of a markup. no commitments but we want to build momentum and build
support. but how do you balance that? there has been a real interest look at what we can do with this concept so there is an openness i have a number of members i have been talking to over a year gore very interested in some kind of compromise on oil. >> remember voting for the minute the -- the measure he said to give his full support he would need to seize a renewable energies of is there the appetite in the senate to tether removal to either as an extension or thex carbon.
>> you lose when you add those things to it and how you build a centrist policy. i think that's going to be the challenge that they have moving forward. and let's remind people we have extended the production tax credits and investment tax credits on a part-time basis. highly disruptive renewable energy industry and how we have managed those credits. we give them at the very end and you probably will groan about this because most of you know senator conrad and senator dorgan was a tax -- i was a tax commissioner before he came to the senate so i have an understanding of how tax planning works and we are very disrupted in how we deal with tax policy. i think this is an opportunity to make an argument i think about production tax credits and
investment tax credits in the context of certainty across-the-board to the energy industry and truly supporting and all of the above policy. so we are excited about the opportunity. i know there are number of people on the other side for which the production tax credits like sour peas but i think there still is an opportunity to build a good coalition in the middle and we will be looking at those issues as time goes on. >> picking on that from him and would there be any specific policy items proposed beyond the investment of additional tax credit? >> i just told you that everything that moves and does everything on the wagon train we are mired in the muck, i am sure there is a possibility that could happen which is very divisive in the senate weather
is looking at a number of other kinds of issues that people talk about. i think at this point when we look at the domestic drilling industry and we look at every report that we have seen and we look at how they have responded. i want to make this point how the domestic oil industry has responded to the challenges. they have become more efficient in their foot prints is less and less. they are meeting those challenges but they have got to find their market. they have got to be able to have access in our markets. so i think that argument is pretty persuasive saying let's not let the purpose be the enemy of good. >> you mentioned iran legislation and we just had a deal voted on the senate that the white house and the other has struck.
if we vote not to block the white house deal with iran has that changed the politics of exports in any way? >> it has been my discussion. and i certainly think there are a number of varied opinions about where the market has reacted to the potential of iran entering expanding their market shares. we don't know exactly what the price differential is that it gives us a window of opportunity here for a number of months before we see some sanctions lifted and therefore received the industry began its recovery if in fact they complete their requirements under the joint powers agreement. so i think it creates relief and for a lot of people who believe in changing the policy a sense of urgency. that will get this done sooner rather than later. >> among the democrats that were
supportive and there were many of course at the white house deal with iran do think that dissuade some of the same members of the caucus? if we are going to have the prospect of more iranians to think you are seeing a softening up of some of the deficits of opposition moving to crude oil? >> i would say yes. >> i don't know where chuck schumer stance on this. >> we have had a lot of discussions. when we started pace and the number of people from ati we sat down in our office and said okay and who should we be talking to. i gave them a list and they were like what? i said these are rational people and people to give economics 101. they understand what energy security means for our country and for our allies. and we should give them a talk
talk at i would tell you that chuck was on that list and we spent a lot of time visiting with members that you may be surprised that i put on the list just because number one we are friends but i also know that they understand fundamental economics and for them a good rational logical argument is persuasive. >> schumer of course he and coming to our credit leader do you get the sense that he is open to it? >> i don't know where chuck will be eventually. it depends on what the package looks like that i will tell you i believe senator schumer isn't that well aware of what the challenges are for this industry. and has expressed a willingness to continue to lift it. we have talked to some who have slammed the door shut and they say this will raise gasoline
prices. that's the last thing they want to avoid. it's really about we don't want any development of any fossil deals in any way shape or form and we are not going to adopt any policy that promotes domestic drilling. fundamentally that is the argument and i can appreciate that. it doesn't make a lot of sense in my world but just say it what it is, that this is all about drilling another barrel of oil in this country and in the world actually. >> to clarify the opponents of the ban are using the proponents? >> sure and against all logic is every legitimate report has told you two things will happen either stabilize prices soar while actually lower prices.
and this is a fairly sophisticated audience and you are familiar with international pricing of gasoline. this is a question i allies ask if in fact we really want to control gasoline prices by restricting exports and what a great restrict exports over find products? >> states of america has become the largest exporter of her fine products in the world. so it's really about controlling prices do not down the supply of what we actually use which is gasoline but that's not what we are doing. as we plan those prices and equalize the prices we expect we will see downward pressure on it to busty prices and to their credit a lot of the refiners are doing a lot to upgrade their plants and their facilities. they receive the additional tax as a result of that price differential. there is additional capital to improve their plant and we can
appreciate that but let's be honest about but the economic consequences are as an industry is in fact we let the ban. >> i did have one other name i want to mention which is hillary clinton. certainly we have several republican candidates who have been very much in favor for moving to crude oil export restrictions. clinton and unless i've missed something she has not weighed in on this in the sort of first portion of the energy platform that her campaign has begun rolling out. to support hillary clinton i believe. have you had discussions with her about this and have any hopes despite all of the pressures coming from i guess i'm asking do you think clinton will be on board? >> i'm happy that i -- what she thinks won't matter because we will get this done before the next election. i've been focused on talking to my colleagues in making sure we are building bipartisan support
in the jena band and i've been focused on continuing to educate from the secretary of commerce withisk -- secretary of the department of energy and the white house itself. the rationale and a good reason for lifting the ban. so i have now focused on the secretary of state who is running for president because i think at the end of the day i'm hopeful we will get this done sometime in the next few months. >> there has been some interesting action within the administrative level. do you think, how far are you getting in the sense of i was at a conference in houston and secretary moniz said he flatly said i don't think the advocates for the energy industry and he the pointed out well of course u.s. crude oil exports have fallen sharply in recent years where still importing on the order of almost 7 million barrels per day.
that's a lot of oil. do you think you are making headway with the administration's? >> i absolutely do and in many ways both the secretary of commerce for lifting the ban on condensate by allowing the swap which was a letter with a lease and myself basically saying look mexico is a great market for us. it looked to see mexico achieved the status of canada. when we look at crude oil but that's an incremental step and i think both of those especially the secretary of commerce well-versed in economics 101 and she gets our rational this policy is. i can't speak for her but someone for background completely understands you don't isolate this commodity to just this market. i think probably the area of disagreement that secretary moniz was talking about was whether in fact we have a restriction on refining suite
three. that has been one of the arguments which is the american refiners are basically built to refine heavier crude oil. it usually comes from venezuela. this is crude oil produced in the mideast and its classic kind of oil, traditional oil. shale oil is light sweet crude. we think most of our refineries are east and west that results in interesting transportation challenges but we believe we have a restriction on the availability of introducing our crude into american refiners. that is where disagree with secretary moniz. i think he thinks that part of it is perhaps more saturated but it's always tricky when you are speaking for someone else. >> that's one of the things that's so adjusting about the obama administration's -- the smaller steps they have been
taking could perhaps indicate some willingness to sign broader legislation. >> that's what i think. >> so you do feel -- >> pic above is from the standpoint of balance of trade. why would you restrict the commodity that is this valuable? is up there in my mind with a policy that we have our lack of policy that we have put the ex-im bank. i want to scream this at the top of the hill. do you get that 95% of all consumers live inside this country and if we want to continue to be the preeminent economic power in the world we have to look at exports. i don't care if they are commodity exports are manufactured goods we have to be competitive in that market if we are going to be successful long-term. >> over a quick final question from me before we go to the social media questions i
mentioned tea leaves. have you gotten a sense from a frustration that they would sign your legislation? >> i've had a lot of conversations including conversations with the president himself about this and i think every time we have those conversations we feel like we are building a little bit more understanding. i think at the end of the day the policies, the balance is going to be how we look at renewables. >> to clarify senator you think the white house would sign the legislation? >> you know who knows but i'm telling you that all of my conversations have been i think very directive at why this policy makes no sense and certainly have had a good and lively debate. >> will thank you. i want to get to some of the questions we have coming in on social media.
we have one here that says every lawmaker says they support u.s. energy independence. what exporting crude oil make that take longer? >> no. in fact i think not exporting crude oil will basically kill the goose that laid the golden egg. i love this idea that if we restrict the market somehow investment will stay in this country. i mean think about that. you are a global company and you have x number of dollars and you know that if you drill in the united states of america you will not have access to the market. to emerging markets. where are you going to drill and where are you going to invest? so the notion, it is counterintuitive i get up at the