John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, tomorrow this Chamber will vote on something called the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, legislation I have cosponsored, that would recognize that a women has a legal right to have an abortion up to the point of 5 months' gestation; that is, after 5 months' gestation, an unborn child is beginning to grow hair on their head, their fingernails are growing. By this time in development, mothers are beginning to feel the baby kicking and moving for the very first time. In other words, this is the point at which the child literally becomes viable, becomes a human being, capable of life outside of the mother. Obviously, a typical period of pregnancy is 40 weeks. So obviously we hope that in most cases a child will remain in the womb until it is fully developed. But the fact is, talk to any neonatologist, talk to any physician, they will tell you that at a point around 20 weeks, certainly 5 months of gestation, you have no longer a child dependent upon their mother for life but somebody who can actually live independently. Indeed, as many of us have done, go into some of these nurseries, where they have literally babies who weigh 1 pound or less, and see what medical science is able to do to actually save the lives of these premature babies--in a way that will allow them to grow up and be healthy and productive. It is nothing less than a medical miracle. But at 20 weeks of gestation, which is 5 months, an unborn child is without a doubt a life--a life worth defending and worth protecting. This is something that is commonly accepted around the world. I don't know how many people realize that actually this legislation would bring the United States in line with the developed countries around the world. As a matter of fact, the United States is just one of seven countries worldwide that permit access to an elective abortion after 5 months of gestation, and we are in some pretty tough company. Right now we are in company with China, Vietnam, and North Korea. The United States, China, Vietnam, and North Korea basically permit an abortion up until the time a child is born naturally. This bill is also important because it would significantly curtail the horrifying practices depicted in the videos we have seen of Planned Parenthood's operations over the summer. I am surprised to see in the press that only about 49 percent of the American people have actually seen these videos because they are so horrific, but I think they are also shocking. And perhaps it is that people would just rather turn their gaze and look away rather than see the barbaric practices depicted in these videos. But indeed these videos show Planned Parenthood executives callously discussing the value of an unborn child's organs, and it is truly morally reprehensible. I think, unfortunately, it reveals a dark side of humanity--one that prizes the organs of an unborn child over the potential life that child could have. And I have asked myself: How did we get here? How did we become so desensitized to this practice? And if there is anything these videos have done, hopefully it is to awaken the conscience of the American people as well as the Members of Congress to realize exactly what is going on and to conduct the investigations that are now underway by four committees of this Congress and to do what we can, such as passing this Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. It would make out of bounds the sort of late-term abortions that apparently this sort of enterprise depicted in the video depends upon. This legislation is a unique and powerful opportunity for us to act and defend the lives of unborn children across this country. It is the best chance we have to advance a culture of life in this country. I am not suggesting that it is going to be easy or that we will have this vote and we will be finished. We will not be. I remember the long road to passage of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act over a decade ago, and I think the distinguished majority leader, who has set this matter for a vote, recognizes that this is the beginning of raising the visibility of this horrific practice and asking the American people whether they are comfortable with the sort of conduct they see depicted on these videos or whether we ought to think again about whether we want to be part of a coalition of China, Vietnam, and North Korea when it comes to sanctioning these late-term abortions after a baby has literally become viable in the womb. If this bill becomes the law of the land, it will be the first time Congress has significantly and meaningfully advanced the pro-life agenda in over a decade. It took a long time for us to get the passage of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act over a decade ago. And I don't think we should underestimate the difficulty of passing this legislation and other pro-life legislation, but we need to start. These videos have given us the opportunity because they have awakened America's conscience. This legislation, if passed, would save the lives of thousands of unborn children and make impossible the sort of organ-harvesting practice that we have seen on fully developed, unborn babies that we have seen depicted in these videos. Tomorrow the Senate will have a unique opportunity to stand up for the most vulnerable, and if we are not here to stand for those who cannot speak for themselves, the most vulnerable in our society, not the least of whom are the unborn, what are we here for? I hope my Senate colleagues will vote to advance this legislation and in doing so vote to invoke a life of culture in this country. Moving this bill forward should be seen as a moral imperative by every Member of the Chamber. We can unite behind an understanding of obvious right and wrong and save thousands of lives by making the Pain- Capable Unborn Child Protection Act a reality. Madam President, I yield the floor. Recognition of the Majority Leader

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and on behalf of Senator Grassley, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I would just briefly point out that during President Obama's term of office, the Senate has confirmed more judicial nominees than it had at this point in 2007. Our pace simply follows the standard set by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle established that year. In the Judiciary Committee, we have had more hearings and moved more nominees than we did last year. In terms of the Executive Calendar, everyone knows that at the end of last year, during the lameduck session, our Democratic friends rammed through 11 Federal judges. Under regular order, these judges should have been considered at the beginning of this Congress. That is what happened in 2006 when 13 nominations were returned to the President. Had we not confirmed in the lameduck 11 judicial nominees during last year, we would roughly be on pace for judicial nominations this year compared to 2007. So we are working at the usual pace, and on behalf of Chairman Grassley, I object.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, by twice denying this Chamber the opportunity for a simple up-or-down vote on the President's nuclear deal with Iran, our Democratic colleagues have all but assured that a bad deal--an executive agreement that many of them have also criticized--will go into effect without the American people having their say on this deal. It is clear from public opinion polls and actually from counting noses here and in the House that a bipartisan majority of both Houses opposes this bad deal, but by using procedural blockades, our Democratic friends have prevented that up-or-down vote and the accountability that should go along with it. For what? For what? To protect the President. As the majority leader has pointed out, the President is proud of this deal. This is about his legacy. He thinks this deal is perfect. So why are our friends on the other side of the aisle trying to protect the President from vetoing a piece of legislation he is proud of? Well, during the debate, these very same colleagues who have filibustered this bill have stressed that although they support the President's deal, they remain deeply devoted supporters of the State of Israel. They say they remain deeply concerned about the plight of American citizens held hostage by an Iranian regime. But just a moment ago, these very same colleagues, when they had an opportunity to prove it, well, let's just say their actions speak louder than their words. The vote we just had should have been a straightforward vote. The legislation the Democrats have filibustered would have prohibited the President from providing any sanctions relief to the Iranian regime until two things happen: No. 1, the Iranian regime acknowledges Israel as a sovereign state, and No. 2, the regime releases U.S. prisoners it currently holds. But with only one exception, every Senator on the Democratic side of the aisle voted against both of those provisions. Well, to be sure, they are consistent about one thing: shielding the President, who is desperate to protect his legacy, from having to make tough decisions. I don't see the President particularly shy about making a decision, even when it is not authorized by the law, when it exceeds his authority under the Constitution. This President has been the most reckless of any President I have read about or seen in my lifetime when it comes to observing the limitations and constraints based on the law and the Constitution. To say the blockade of these important bills is a disappointment is an understatement. I know that many of us will continue to work to promote the bilateral relationship with Israel--between the United States and Israel--over any sort of association with the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism. Many of us--myself included--will continue to call on the administration to bring our citizens home safely from Iran. We are not giving up. We are not going to quit. Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act This Chamber does have a lot of important work ahead of us. For the remainder of my time, I would like to discuss how we can come together to protect the most vulnerable among us; that is, our unborn. Earlier this summer, horrific videos were released depicting Planned Parenthood executives discussing the harvesting of organs from unborn babies. The most recent video was released just a few days ago. In these videos, the blatant disregard for human life was underscored by a cavalier attitude on full display by Planned Parenthood executives. They flippantly and callously discussed the selling of body parts from babies who never had a chance for life. Without a doubt, these videos show a dark, ugly side to our humanity. How people could become so desensitized that they do not recoil in shock at these videos and what they depict is beyond me. All I can conclude is that people somehow have ignored the right to life and the potential for life these babies represent, under handy catch phrases like ``choice.'' These videos rightly shock the conscience of many in our country, stirring even supporters of Planned Parenthood to publicly denounce them as ``disturbing.'' And yes they are, but they are more than that. As our Nation unites behind this very basic understanding of our moral mandate to defend those who cannot defend themselves, we will have a unique opportunity to make an important stride to support an agenda that promotes life over death. Next week the Senate will consider a piece of legislation called the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act--legislation I cosponsored along with I believe 45 cosponsors in the Senate--that would prohibit nationwide nearly all abortions after a pregnancy has reached 5 months. Many States, including my State, have a ban on abortions once the baby becomes viable outside the womb. A friend of mine who is a neonatologist has told me privately what anybody can find on the Internet or anywhere else, which is that roughly at about 20 weeks, the baby becomes viable outside of the womb. So this legislation will prohibit abortions after that baby becomes viable, which under this legislation is 5 months. At 5 months, an unborn child's fingerprints and taste buds are developing. It is at this stage that many doctors and experts believe an unborn child can experience pain. Banning nearly all abortions after 5 months--at the point unborn children can feel pain--should be an obvious moral imperative for all of us. I understand that the issue of abortion divides our country and that some believe abortion should be available on demand at all points during a pregnancy. Well, we took an important step here in the Congress just a few years ago in banning the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion--the actual delivery of a child alive and then literally killing the child as part of an abortion once they are born alive. Regardless of whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, hopefully we can come together and draw a line--a very clear line--at viability of that baby. I would like to point out how vital this legislation is for those who, like me, believe we ought to be advancing a culture of life in this country. Very simply, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act would save the lives of thousands of unborn children a year. That is why this legislation has garnered the support of groups such as National Right to Life and the Susan B. Anthony List. This Chamber is long overdue in taking a hard look at the practices depicted by Planned Parenthood in these videos and examining our own conscience and our Nation's policies that affect the unborn. It is important to point out that, contrary to what some in our country would believe, the United States has been one of the most liberal and most permissive countries in the world with regard to abortion. As a matter of fact, the commonsense consensus of most democracies, most civilized countries around the world, is that abortion after 5 months is unequivocally wrong. There are actually only seven countries in the world that allow abortions after 5 months, after viability of the fetus. Sadly, the United States is one of those seven. We should not be proud of the fact that we are right there alongside of China, North Korea, and Vietnam. Virtually almost all other civilized countries in the world--even if they allow elective access to abortion, they draw an important line at viability, at 5 months. America can and must do better than this. Every life is a precious gift of God, and we must protect those who cannot protect themselves. At the same time the Senate will be considering this legislation, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act--which, by the way, the House has already passed--the House will be voting on two additional pieces of legislation, I believe perhaps as early as tomorrow, one that would provide that children born alive during the process of abortion be protected--this is the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, and I believe that will pass the House of Representatives and be available for the Senate to take up later--and also a defund Planned Parenthood bill introduced by Representative Black, which would put a 1-year moratorium on funding to Planned Parenthood while the investigation of their practices depicted on those videos is completed. Right now there are four congressional investigations underway--the Senate Judiciary Committee, the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the House Judiciary Committee, and the House Oversight and Government Affairs Reform Committee. Those investigations are meticulous, they will be thorough, and we will be able to find out, No. 1, whether Planned Parenthood and their affiliates are complying with existing law, which prohibits profiteering from the sale of baby body parts, and whether the mothers, who presumably grant consent, actually know exactly what is happening to their unborn babies; that is, being sold for research and other purposes. Just this year in the 114th Congress, we have also passed other important pro-life legislation: the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, where we preserved the Hyde amendment, which prohibits and has prohibited since 1976 the use of tax dollars to fund abortions, with some exceptions, and then the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015, which reiterated the law of the land since 1976, the Hyde amendment--named for Henry Hyde, former Congressman from Illinois--that applies these types of protections to funding for community health centers. These videos have perhaps reawakened the conscience of many of us and made some of us who were not aware of these barbaric practices depicted in these videos--made it crystal clear to us that there are things we need to do in response, particularly for those who believe every human life ought to be treated with dignity and respect. There should be no hesitation from either side of the aisle to ensure we are doing our very best to protect precious human life, so in addition to the ongoing investigations I mentioned, in addition to the legislation we have already passed to make sure tax dollars are not used to fund abortions, we must also respond with legislation like that which the House will pass either later this week or next week that I mentioned a moment ago and legislation like the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act which would fundamentally protect the rights of unborn children. Next week this Chamber will have the opportunity to make this the law of the land.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 17, 2015, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 17, 2015, at 10:15 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 17, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Biosimilar Implementation: A Progress Report from FDA.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 17, 2015, at 11:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``State Department Processes in Establishing Tier Rankings for the 2015 Trafficking in Persons Report.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 17, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 17, 2015, at 9:45 a.m., in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 17, 2015, at 10 a.m.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 17, 2015, at 10 a.m.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 17, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SR-328A of the Russell Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Business Meeting.''

Mr. CORNYN

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. 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.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, last week we experienced what I would think was a dark day in the history of the United States Senate where, on one of the most important national security issues that has confronted the country in the last 25 years--and perhaps longer--our friends across the aisle, led by the minority leader, decided to filibuster the resolution of disapproval on the President's nuclear deal with Iran. So everybody understands what that means. Rather than cast a vote either in favor or against the resolution of disapproval, Democrats banded together and decided not to have a vote. Presumably they did that for two reasons: One is they didn't want the personal accountability associated with having to cast a vote for or against disapproval because they know at some point Iran is going to continue its pattern of misbehavior and people might come back and say: Why did you vote for this deal when in fact all the evidence pointed toward how bad a deal it was? The second reason I believe our Democratic friends decided to filibuster the vote on the resolution of disapproval is they simply wanted to protect the President because they knew that had the resolution of disapproval passed, the President had threatened to veto the legislation. Having done so under that circumstance, the President would in fact own this bad deal. As I said, it is a sad day when a political party decides to put partisan concerns ahead of the national security interests of the United States. This is especially true in light of the fact that we voted just a short time earlier to provide a mechanism for there to be that up-or-down vote following debate and review. It also had the effect of freezing the President's ability to lift sanctions on Iran during that timeframe. This legislation, negotiated by the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, was called the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. This was not a partisan product, nor should any of this debate be a partisan activity. It didn't sneak through the Chamber in the dark of night. It wasn't the product of closed-door negotiations by one political party against another. Rather, it was a product of bipartisan concern over the President's deal with Iran and was specifically designed to make sure Congress had possession of all the relevant documents that laid out this agreement between the President and the Iranian regime. It would ensure a process by which the American people could be informed--and the Senate itself debate--through their elected representatives, whether this deal was a good deal or a bad deal in terms of the national security interests of the American people. Most significantly, that legislation which sets up that process passed overwhelmingly--as a matter of fact, I think it was nearly unanimously--with not one Democrat in the Chamber voting against that legislation. So having voted for legislation to create a process by which there would be transparency and accountability, and rather than partisanship the national security interests of the country would be elevated, our Democratic friends, listening to the White House, including the President of the United States, decided to block that very vote they had earlier agreed to have. Ironically, the same day the minority leader and his colleagues blocked the up-or-down vote on the resolution, he lambasted Republicans on this side of the aisle for ``slowing down the legislation,'' and suggested we ought to move on to other matters. We could be well on our way to finishing this resolution and moving on to other pieces of legislation that we need to consider if in fact our Democratic friends would, consistent with their earlier vote, just allow us to have an up- or-down vote on the resolution of disapproval, but I think what our Democratic friends began to realize is this is an enormously unpopular agreement between the President and the Ayatollah in Tehran. As a matter of fact, only 21 percent of the American people have said they want to see this deal be turned into a reality. Many of them are concerned, as am I, that rather than a traditional treaty process that requires two-thirds vote of the United States Senate, this has somehow become more of a political document rather than a legal document, binding only this President and the Iranian regime, under some circumstances, during the remainder of the 16 months or so of President Obama's Presidency. Almost 80 percent of the country has said they are not sold on the deal. Their voices deserve to be heard, and Members of Congress and the Senate should be on record whether they are listening to the American people or whether they are listening to the siren song of the White House and a President who is focused on his legacy, to the detriment of the national security of the United States. Even supporters of this deal were some of its biggest critics. Yet these are some of the same people who voted to filibuster an up-or-down vote on this resolution of disapproval. Many of them made the case as well as or better than I could; that an agreement made with a theocratic regime that continues to call the United States the Great Satan and threatens the very existence of our friend and ally in the region, Israel--there should be real reason for pause and certainly debate and an up-or-down vote. Here is just one example. The junior Senator from New Jersey, as a prelude to his announcement that he would vote against the resolution of disapproval, said: With this deal, we are legitimizing a vast and expanding nuclear program in Iran. We are in effect rewarding years of deception, deceit, and wanton disregard for international law. . . . That is the junior Senator from New Jersey on September 3, 2015. Does that sound like somebody who is for this deal or against this deal? Well, miraculously, this is from a Senator who voted not just for the deal but voted to even prohibit us from having an up-or-down vote in the Senate. I couldn't agree with these comments more. Our colleague clearly understands the nature of the regime and the pattern of troubling behavior characterized by outright deception. Last week, although headlines emphasized the support of several of our Democratic colleagues for the President's deal, it was clear that many of them harbored deep reservations--and those reservations are entirely justified. Here is a comment of the senior Senator from Oregon, who said: This agreement with the duplicitous and untrustworthy Iranian regime falls short of what I had envisioned. . . . This statement was made on September 8, 2015, by somebody who said they were going to vote against the resolution of disapproval but in fact filibustered our ability to have an up-or-down vote on the resolution itself, and I couldn't agree with the statement quoted from the senior Senator from Oregon any more. This is not exactly a resounding endorsement. Then there is the senior Senator from Connecticut, who said, on September 8, before he announced his agreement with the President's nuclear deal: This is not the agreement I would have accepted at the negotiating table. . . . I presume by saying that, that means he would have rejected it. But yet, again, deferring to the President and deferring to the leadership of the Democratic leader in the Senate, not only did the Senator who made that statement indicate his approval of the deal, this Senator voted to block an up-or-down vote on the deal in the Senate--in other words, participated in the filibuster of this vote. (Mr. SCOTT assumed the Chair.) This debate is one the American people deserve to hear. I know the press, as they typically do, likes to keep score and move on to other things, but this is one the American people deserve to hear, and it is one they have demanded--and, frankly, from what they know so far, they don't like this deal. Twenty-one percent have said they approve of it. Rather than listen to their constituents, our friends across the aisle have decided to essentially block a vote that prevents the kind of accountability our constituents deserve and move on to other issues. But with the future security of our country hanging in the balance, we can't just move on, and we can't disregard the will of our own constituents or what common sense or our own investigation and inquiry tell us; that this deal is an unenforceable deal. It ignores the fact that Iran remains the primary state sponsor of international terrorism. It releases about $100 billion of money that is going to help finance that proxy war against the United States and our allies that has been going on since 1979, when the Iranian regime came into power. Then there is the bogus verification process. First of all, under the agreement, 24 days' notice along with various--the appeals process, which is a process that only Rube Goldberg would have been able to devise. And then there is the self-monitoring process. It is sort of like a selfie stick that the Iranian regime is going to carry around, where they conduct their own test on their military sites, and then they turn that over to the IAEA--the International Atomic Energy Agency--at the front gate because the so-called independent monitoring agency will not even have access to the military sites where breakouts in violation of this agreement are most likely. It is hardly one that gives you confidence that is going to be conducted with any sort of integrity. Then there is the dramatic change in U.S. policy. When Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke to a joint session of Congress a couple of months ago, he said it used to be U.S. policy to deny Iran a nuclear weapon, but this agreement, as he correctly points out, paves the way to a nuclear weapon. Again, this is not a rational actor on the international stage. This is an extremist regime--a theocratic regime-- driven by a desire to wipe Israel off the map and to conduct this proxy war against the United States and our allies as the primary sponsor of international terrorism. But then there is the final insult to injury. Just as our Democratic colleagues filibustered the opportunity to have any real accountability with an up-or-down vote in the Senate, we learned that the Supreme Leader in Iran has insisted that the Iranian Parliament have the final vote and say-so on the deal in Iran. Try to fix that picture in your mind. The Iranian regime--the main, principal state sponsor of international terrorism, a theocratic regime determined to wipe Israel off the map and conduct war against what they call the Great Satan, the United States--will have a chance for an up- or-down vote, but our Democratic colleagues have blocked an up-or-down vote in the U.S. Senate. That ought to be deeply troubling to anyone who cares about the Senate and any sort of sense of democratic accountability. It is beyond irresponsible for our Democratic colleagues to again deny the Senate the very same thing the Ayatollah has said the Iranian Parliament will have a chance to do--especially when they all supported this process by which an up-or-down vote would be facilitated. Later today my colleagues and I will have another opportunity to move this bill closer to an up-or-down vote on the merits of the President's agreement with Iran. I hope the same senders who clearly supported a thorough review of this deal will join me in moving this bill forward so the American people can get the sort of debate they deserve about the No. 1 national security threat affecting this generation of Americans, and the American people can get the kind of accountability they deserve when it comes from their elected officials casting a vote on their behalf on such an important agreement. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided between both sides of the aisle and that following the recognition of a speaker on our side, an opportunity be given to a speaker on the Democratic side and that we alternate back and forth using the time that is allotted for the debate.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask consent to amend the request. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. CORNYN. I yield the floor.