Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, Wednesday night is the deadline. On Wednesday night, the authority of the government of the United States to do business ends. The funding for our government ends. It is a scary time. We don't want that to happen--most of us--because we know it will be catastrophic. There will be people who will suffer if we fail to do our job. Now, this isn't the first time we have been up against a deadline. We have faced them before, and many times we have to buy a little extra time to negotiate the budget. That is understandable. In this circumstance, though, we actually have announced candidates for the Presidency of the United States who are calling for a government shutdown. What happens when our government shuts down? Well, it is pretty obvious. Agencies stop doing business as usual. What we find, though, is that the impact goes far beyond just that simple statement. I went back to Illinois this last weekend, and I went for a visit to Scott Air Force Base. It is the largest single employer in the State of Illinois and downstate. In 2013--the last time we had a government shutdown--the junior Senator from Texas, Senator Ted Cruz, wanted to shut down our government to protest ObamaCare. So he successfully closed down the government and found other Republicans who would join him in that effort, and it went on for a long period of time. In 2013, at Scott Air Force Base, one of the most important defense facilities in our country, in Belleville, IL, we saw two-thirds of the civilian workforce--that is about 3,400 people--sent home immediately without pay. Those who were required to report for duty, including all of the base's 5,000 military personnel, would have been given IOUs rather than paychecks. Scott Air Force Base families were forced to limit their spending and stretch their savings while the Senator from Texas gave speeches on the floor about Dr. Seuss. I am not making this up. This had an impact on the entire region of Southwestern Illinois. Scott Air Force Base has a $1.6 billion economic impact on the local area, including supporting thousands of indirect jobs. Every part of this regional economy felt the impact of this decision to shut down the government 2 years ago--gas stations, restaurants, small businesses, contractors, everybody. Now, this brinksmanship goes far beyond flowery speeches on the floor and press attention. The last shutdown hurt the gross domestic product of the United States of America. Consumer confidence drops when the government shuts down. We saw $2 billion in lost productivity from furloughed employees. Federal Reserve Chairman Janet Yellen said: We have a good recovery in place that's really making progress and to see Congress take actions that would endanger that progress, I think that would be more than unfortunate. So to me that's Congress' job. The CEO of JPMorgan Chase, a man named Jamie Dimon, speaking of the last Republican government shutdown, said, ``Washington has really slowed American down.'' I agree. And if that were the only thing that was happening, it would be bad enough. But there is more. Today I went to a neighborhood in Chicago, the All Saints Episcopal Church in Ravenswood. They are doing a restoration on this beautiful church built back in the 19th century. I met with the pastor there. We were at the food pantry of this church. This Episcopal Church tries to help neighborhood residents who are struggling to find enough to eat. We had a little press conference with the local Congressman, Mike Quigley and Jan Schakowsky, and people who represented the food pantries of Chicago in that area. They are worried about a shutdown and what a shutdown means to them. How would it affect the All Saints Episcopal Church food pantry and the men and women who go in there on a regular basis to pick up some canned goods to get by? Here is what it means. Many of these people are on food stamps. We call it the SNAP program now. The SNAP program, on average, gives a person food worth $7 a day, so the notion that people are going out for steak dinners on food stamps is not quite accurate. Sara--and I won't use her full name--who is 81 years old, came up to talk about what life is like for her. She was a hard-working person, stricken with cancer in 2002, which recurred in 2004, and she had to quit working. She has a walker now and she gets around, but all she has is her Social Security check and food stamps. That is how she survives from week to week and month to month. What happens when there is a government shutdown? They cut off food stamps. Did that happen last time? No. The last time the Senator from Texas shut down the government, it didn't happen because President Obama had a surplus in his recovery fund and he took the surplus and put it in the food stamps so there would be no interruption of service. You see, most of the recipients of food stamps are children. Single moms raising kids and not making enough money supplement their income with food stamps and buy food for their kids. Food stamps are also used by elderly people like Sara who are struggling on a fixed income. This time is different. If these Presidential wannabes who are determined to shut down the government this time are successful, we are going to have problems right away. It turns out the only surplus left in the food stamp or SNAP benefit fund is about $3 billion. That will keep the program going for 2 weeks. After 2 weeks, they cut off the food stamps. What does that mean? Well, for a lot of people it means a lot of suffering--primarily for the poorest people among us. Did anyone notice last week what happened in Washington? The city was transformed by the visit of Pope Francis. Congress was in awe of this man who came and spoke to us in very human terms about what he thinks would be our obligation, not just as elected officials but as human beings. One of his highest priorities is that we have some caring and sensitivity for those who struggle--the poor, the people on food stamps. So for all the applause and all of the posing for pictures that went on last week with the Pope, here we are this week discussing a government shutdown. Here we are this week discussing whether we are going to cut off food stamps for poor people in America. It is a sad reality to think of what a government shutdown would do in human terms to those wonderful folks working at Scott Air Force Base in Belleville, IL, or to Sara who will go into the All Saints Episcopal Church food pantry and try to get by, as food stamps are cut off. Why? Why would we do that? How can we possibly be serving this Nation--this great Nation--by stalling our economy and hurting innocent people and punishing those who are serving our country in uniform and otherwise? Some think it is a grand strategy--a great political strategy. It may move them up from the smaller debate to the big-time debate when it comes to running for President. To me it is an indication we have lost our way. In June, I joined with the other leaders on this side of the aisle in sending a letter to the Republican leader saying: Please, don't wait until the end of September to face this budget reality. Sit down now-- back in June--with the President, with the leaders on the Republican side and the Democratic side. Let us compromise in good faith. Let us meet our responsibilities. Well, that is what we face. As Senator Reid said a few minutes earlier, there is a suggestion that maybe as a parting gift to Speaker Boehner we will extend the budget temporarily until December 11, 2 weeks before Christmas, just days before the Hanukkah season--that we would extend the budget until then and then, once again, be up against the deadline and the prospect of shutting down our government. We can do better. We should do better. We need to make certain we keep faith with the people who send us here. We need to make certain we do our job--not just to send a continuing resolution to the President but to resolve this issue. We should not be threatening a government shutdown now or in December when we know how devastating that can be. I hope Congress gets busy taking care of the work we were sent here to do. I think it is time for those bipartisan budget negotiations. It is beyond time. Now is the time for Congress to act responsibly to develop a budget that allows America to thrive. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I stand with the Senator from Mississippi. We may be from opposite political parties, but I certainly agree with him that the suggestion by the Senator from Ohio does not serve the best interests of this country. Imagine if his proposal went through and we were faced with inadequate funding for medical care for our veterans. I am sorry to say the Senator from Ohio has suggested that we would have last year's level of funding with potentially a 4-percent cut. It would be the same for fighting fires and the National Institutes of Health. There would be a 4-percent cut in medical research. I think what we are doing, if we accept this approach, is giving up our responsibility that the taxpayers sent us to carry out; that is, to make careful choices when it comes to budgets. I just want to be on the record supporting my colleague from Mississippi.

Mr. DURBIN. No objection.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to address the issue before the Senate. It relates to the divisive and controversial issue of abortion. It comes at an unusual moment in the history of the Congress. This week, for the first time, the Pope will be addressing a joint session of Congress. It was 50 years ago when the first Pope visited the United States. The arrival of Pope Francis this week is a cause of great celebration to people from my State of Illinois and across this Nation because of their respect for his leadership of the Catholic Church. It calls to question, of course, the relationship between religion and our government. This summer I finished a book called ``Mayflower,'' which told the story of the Pilgrims coming to the United States, settling in in our country, looking for a new opportunity but looking more than anything for freedom of religious belief. They were followed by scores and thousands of others who came for the same reason. My mother was an immigrant to this country, brought here at the age of 2. Her mother brought her and her sister and brother to our shores for a variety of reasons. But there is one thing that sticks out in that journey. Up in my office I have something that my grandmother carried across the ocean from Lithuania to the United States. It was a Roman Catholic prayer book written in Lithuanian. It was contraband in 1911 in Lithuania for her to possess it because the Russians were in control and the Russians were imposing the orthodox religion and making it difficult to practice the Catholic religion. I never knew my grandmother, but she was one brave lady to bring three kids across the ocean and stick in her bag that prayer book which meant so much to her, that prayer book which she could use in the United States of America without the government telling her she could not. We have tried to strike the right balance between religion and our democracy from the beginning. I believe our Founding Fathers got it right. They said three things in the Constitution about religion: first, that each of us would have the freedom to worship as we choose or to choose not to worship; second, that the government would not choose a religion and that we would not have an official government religion; and third, that there would be no religious test for public office in America. I thought those were settled principles, but this Presidential campaign suggests otherwise. We had the outrageous suggestion by a Republican Presidential candidate this last weekend that a Muslim should never serve as President of the United States. I would think that a man of his background and learning would at least take the time to understand our Constitution and the express provision which says that he is wrong, that there will never by a religious litmus test to serve in public office in the United States. And now, this week on the floor of the Senate, we will have two votes on the issue of abortion. There was a time when this issue came before us frequently--not so much lately. It is a divisive and controversial issue; that is for sure. But this week the Republican Senate leadership has allowed two of their Presidential candidates to raise this issue on the floor of the Senate. It is no coincidence this issue comes before us the same week the Pope, the leader of the Catholic Church, will be addressing a joint session of Congress. It is more than a coincidence. This particular bill relates to when a person can terminate a pregnancy. For 47 years, if I am not mistaken--maybe I have that calculation slightly wrong--we have had Supreme Court guidance on when the government can play a role in the decision about the termination of a pregnancy. Now there is an effort on the floor of the Senate to change that basic guidance from the Roe v. Wade decision. Each time we step into this question, into something which seems as clear as ``at 20 weeks we will draw a line and after that there cannot be a legal termination of pregnancy,'' we find we are walking into an area of uncertainty. I remember meeting many years ago, when we were debating this issue, a woman from Illinois. She was from the town of Naperville. In 1996 she told me a harrowing story of how legislation such as the bill before us would have impacted her. She learned late in her pregnancy that the child she was carrying could not survive outside the womb. Her doctors diagnosed her baby with at least nine major anomalies, including a fluid-filled cranium with no brain tissue. Sadly, she also had underlying medical conditions--personal conditions--that complicated her pregnancy even more. Doctors were concerned that if she went through with the pregnancy at that point, she ran the risk of never having another baby. With tears in her eyes, she told me how she and her husband agonized over the news and eventually decided it was best for them and their other children to terminate that pregnancy. If the bill before us today--the 20-week abortion bill--had been the law of the land back then, sadly it would have jeopardized and endangered her health. Well, 18 years later she came back to see me. I learned she was able to do what was best for her family in terminating that pregnancy. That was her decision with her doctor and her husband. But she was given a second chance. Soon after, she became pregnant again. This time she was thankful to give birth to a healthy baby boy. When she came to see me, she told me about her son Nick. She said he had become a star football player and had a bright future ahead of him. If this bill had been the law of the land, this woman in Illinois-- and others like her--would not even have had the choice to terminate a pregnancy for her own health protection and for the opportunity to have another baby. That is the challenge we face when we try to spell out in law all of the medical possibilities, limiting opportunities and decisions to be made by individuals under the most heartbreaking circumstances. This bill has other issues. The fact that the rape and incest exceptions, which have largely been built into the law to this point, would be changed dramatically by this law raises questions as well. There is a requirement, as I understand it, in this law that victims of incest would have had to report to a law enforcement agency that crime of incest before they would even be able to terminate a pregnancy under these circumstances. That is not even realistic--to think some young child in a household, who has been exploited by another member of the family, would think to go to a law enforcement agency and report that other member of her family before they could qualify to terminate a pregnancy in this circumstance. That shows the extremes this bill goes to. I hope we will defeat this measure. I sincerely hope the other Republican Presidential candidate, who is going to try to shut down the government over the funding of Planned Parenthood later in the week, does not prevail either. We need to move on to find other issues--not divisive issues but issues we can build a bipartisan consensus on to make this a stronger country. We need to address the issue of funding our government and to accept the responsibilities to move forward in a bipartisan fashion. This bill does not do that. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I respect my colleague from Texas, the majority whip. I disagree with his conclusion. I am vice chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. The chairman is Senator Cochran of Mississippi. The two of us and our staffs worked night and day to put together a good Defense appropriations bill. I think we did a good job. The problem is, there is a difference between the Democrats and the Republicans about the total amount to be spent on the defense budget. The Republicans suggest that we should take $38 billion and put it into the defense budget but not to add a similar amount to the nondefense budget. I could go onto the arcane language of OCO and all of the sequestration. I am going to try to avoid that and keep this at a level where most people understand what we are talking about. Our concern is not about funding the military on the Democratic side. We wholeheartedly support that, all of us. Not a single Democrat dissents from what I have just said, but the question is whether or not the money that is going to be invested in nondefense agencies is also going to be protected in this appropriations process. That is all we have asked for. We are willing to put $38 billion more into defense, let's put the same amount in nondefense. What is nondefense? Nondefense, frankly, includes a lot of appropriations programs that are critically important to middle-income families across America. Are we going to continue to fund educational programs so that the kids of working families have a shot at college? That is nondefense spending. Are we going to make sure that we make the basic processes of government be protected when it comes to investing in nondefense? May I give you an example? Medical research. Is that worth putting money into? From the Republican side, that is nondefense, that is not really that important. I think it is critically important. Once every 67 seconds in America, one of our citizens is diagnosed with Alzheimer's-- once every 67 seconds. It is a tragedy. It is an expensive tragedy. It cost us over $200 billion last year just to care for Alzheimer's patients in America under Medicare and Medicaid. That does not even come close to calculating the sacrifices made by family members on behalf of those who are suffering from Alzheimer's. So should we invest more money in Alzheimer's research? Should we put more money into an effort to delay the onset of Alzheimer's or, God willing, find a cure? Of course we should. That is nondefense spending. That is not a priority of the other side of the aisle. What we have said to them is: We need to sit down and work this out. Be fair to defense to keep us strong and safe as a nation, but make those critical investments in programs that make a difference to middle-income families across America. What we are asking for today is nothing new. As the Senator from Texas reminded us, we took a vote on this issue. It was over 3 months ago--the same vote. We took the same vote we are about to take at noon today as to whether or not we should have this lopsided appropriation, money to the defense budget but not to the nondefense budget. We said no. Balance it. Be fair. Be as concerned about middle-income families in America as you are about the defense of our Nation. Let the budget reflect that. But they said no. So we are back again. It was on June 18 when the leadership on the Democratic side of the aisle, aided by others who felt the same way, sent a letter to the Republicans and said: Let's not waste any time shouting at one another and giving speeches on the floor. Let's sit down in closed, bipartisan negotiations and work out the budget, bring the President in. He is critical. We need his participation. But let's work it out. We wrote that letter on June 18. Here we are more than 3 months later in the same predicament. We should have taken the time before now--days before the end of the fiscal year, at the end of September--to sit down and work this out by budget negotiation. But they refused. They don't want to sit down. Instead, they want us to go through these show votes. Last week--last week we had five unnecessary separate votes on the Iran agreement. We had already established, by public announcement of every Senator and by an open public vote, where we stood. Senator McConnell insisted on spending another week and five more votes on exactly the same thing with exactly the same outcome. What a waste of Senate time. Look at this week. This week is a challenge because of the visit of the Pope and the Jewish holy day, but instead of dealing with substantive issues, this week we have allowed two Republican Presidential candidates who are Senators to have their day on the floor. I think we should be rolling up our sleeves and tackling this issue. I don't want to see a government shutdown. We allowed the Senator from Texas to do that a few years ago, and we paid a heavy price for it. He has now threatened to do it again. He likes shutting down our government, thinks that is a great expression of his effectiveness as a leader. So be it. Maybe it is to some, but not to most. Instead we should be involved in real budget negotiations. I want to tell you, this idea of a continuing resolution--what is a continuing resolution? It says: Spend the money this year the same way you spent it last year. What if your family had that charge? What if we said: Spend the same amount for groceries and utilities that you did last year, spend it this year. You would say: Wait a minute, that does not reflect the things that have changed in my family. My son is off to college. We are changing the place where we live and such. That is not the kind of thing that you would respect. That is what a continuing resolution does. It continues to spend money the same way. It wastes taxpayers' money. Senator Cochran and I, on a bipartisan basis, came up with a better approach. It is an appropriations bill which we think keeps us safe and spends our defense dollars wisely. So let's not get comfortable with a continuing resolution. It is not good for the Department of Defense, not good for the men and women in uniform who risk their lives for us every single day. It is important for us to do the responsible thing and move forward. Let's not waste any more time with repeat votes and show-boat votes; let's instead focus our time on negotiating a sound budget. On June 18, we sent an invitation to the Republicans to sit down and negotiate a budget. The invitation is still open, but we are running out of time. It is important that the President be in that negotiation. It has been 96 days since the last vote we had on this issue. We are going to face it again in just a few moments. There has not been any progress made on budget negotiations. I ask the Republican leadership of the House and Senate: What are you waiting for? When are you going to sit down and govern? When are you going to sit down and work out problems instead of dreaming up new ways to shut down the Government of the United States of America? There are signs we are headed back to the same old process that was used before. By the end of the week, they are talking about filibusters on the Republican side, and staying in all night, and maybe we will hear another Dr. Seuss book read to us in the middle of the night by the Texas Senator. I am not sure what lies ahead, but what the American people are sick and tired of is what they see on the Senate floor today. They want us to do our work. They want us to compromise, to agree, to do what is best for this Nation. Having one show vote after another does not accomplish that. I ask my colleagues: Work together. I ask the leaders on the Republican side: Instead of one more monotonous, predicable vote after another, should we not sit down and work out a budget negotiation that serves our Nation, not only the defense budget, but all of America, including middle-income families. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to share a story with Members of the Senate and those following us this evening. It is an amazing story of the selfless courage of a young Illinois mother who many are calling--with good reason--a guardian angel. Ashley Aldridge of Auburn, IL, was home making lunch for two little babies last Tuesday. She heard someone outside crying for help. She looked out her kitchen window and saw an elderly man in a wheelchair on the railroad tracks near her mobile home. He was calling for help. Without a moment's hesitation Ashley asked a neighbor to stay with her kids and she ran toward the man in distress. She saw the railroad guard arms coming down and heard the oncoming train. When she reached the man in the wheelchair, Earl Moorman, Ashley discovered that the wheel of his chair was lodged in the tracks. There was no moving it. So Ashley tried to pick up Mr. Moorman. Now, Mr. Moorman is 75 years old and he weighs about 200 pounds. Ashley could not move him. She tried again. With an Amtrak train barreling down the tracks at 81 miles an hour, Ashley Aldridge somehow, some way found the strength to lift Earl Moorman up and out of his trapped wheelchair. Not 5 seconds after she dragged him off the railroad track, the train hit the wheelchair and smashed it into bits. When the last car on the Amtrak train passed, Ashley looked up and saw a police car on the other side of the tracks. Someone had heard Mr. Moorman and called 911. The police were there quickly, but they could not get there fast enough to save Mr. Moorman. Ashley Aldridge, a 19- year-old wife and stay-at-home mom with two little kids got there in time. No wonder Earl Moorman is calling Ashley his guardian angel. Ashley Aldridge and Earl Moorman live in Auburn, IL. It is a little town about 20 miles south of my hometown of Springfield. Auburn's mayor and town council and all the folks around town are hailing Ashley Aldridge as a hero. She is that and more. In a world in which we often hear the message that we should only be concerned about ourselves and our own families, Ashley is an inspiration. Without a moment's hesitation this brave, young mom risked her own life to save the life of a man she had never met. It is an amazing story of selfless courage. In this world filled with so many innocent people in danger, I hope we will all remember and be inspired by the courage of this remarkable young woman. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, my calculation is there are about 36 minutes remaining before the vote. I ask unanimous consent on the Democratic side that I be given 3 minutes, Senator Cardin 5 minutes, Senator Menendez of New Jersey 5 minutes, Senator Carper of Delaware 5 minutes--Senator Carper 3 minutes, and Senator Kaine 2 minutes.

Mr. DURBIN. Yes, 3 minutes for myself, 5 minutes for Senator Cardin of Maryland, 5 minutes for Senator Menendez of New Jersey, 3 minutes for Senator Carper, 2 minutes for Senator Kaine.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we listened to the comments of Senator McConnell, the Republican leader. He has given us a ``litany of horribles'' when it comes to the conduct of the nation of Iran. He has given us fair warning that this is a country that we cannot trust because of past conduct. I think the point that needs to be made at this moment is I don't disagree with his premise or his conclusion. But I ask him and all others in his similar political position: How can Iran with a nuclear weapon be a better thing for this world, for the Middle East, or for Israel? I think the answer is obvious. That is why the President, in league with our major allies and some not so frequent allies, has brokered an agreement to send in international inspectors to destroy the centrifuges which are building these nuclear weapons, to put a concrete core in the reactor that produces the plutonium, and to continue the inspection of Iran nonstop so that they do not develop a nuclear weapon. That to me is an ultimate positive outcome. Does it cure all of the horribles that have been listed by the Senator from Kentucky? Of course not. But how can he imagine that Iran with its record would be in a better position--or that we would be in a better position--if Iran had a nuclear weapon? I do not think so. That, I think, is the issue before us. I have to harken back to the statement made yesterday by my colleague from Michigan. She is in contact with the family of one of the prisoners being held there. They are concerned, I am concerned, that dramatizing these four prisoners as part of our political debate on the floor, which is what the Republicans have done with their amendment is a risky process. We want these prisoners to come home safely. We voted that way overwhelmingly. Playing them as part of a floor strategy by the Republicans is risky. I wish we would not take the risk at their possible expense. So I would urge my colleagues to join me in voting against the cloture motion that is going to come before us at 11 o'clock to move forward on this particular amendment. I will close by saying, the press reports last night explained why we are here wasting a week in the Senate: Because of the Republican presidential debate and because of the fact that even some of the Republican presidential candidates reserved a vial of venom to be used against the leader here, the majority leader of the Senate and the Speaker of the House. It is clear they are under immense pressure to show their Republican manhood. That is what this exercise is all about. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, on July 14, President Obama announced a landmark agreement between key world powers and Iran, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, JCPOA, that removes Iran's path towards a nuclear weapon. This is a truly historic agreement that rolls back Iran's nuclear infrastructure, places severe limits and inspection on any such future work, and commits Iran to never build a nuclear weapon. And while Iran's behavior in the region remains deeply troubling, particularly in terms of threats to Israel, this agreement ensures that such belligerence will not occur with a nuclear threat. Per the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, the announcement of the agreement set in motion a congressional review period which ended today. In the past week, the majority leader has tried three times to pass a resolution of disapproval and three times it failed. During these debates, I have listened to many of my Republican colleagues make some outlandish claims with regard to the Iran deal. And now, instead of accepting this fact, some in this body have taken their displeasure a step further by claiming that because the JCPOA is not a treaty, it will no longer be in force in a new administration. Nothing could be further from the truth. Throughout our history, the United States has entered into executive agreements, like the JCPOA, without congressional approval on a wide range of subjects, including nonproliferation, international security, and bilateral cooperation. When President Nixon negotiated the Shanghai Communique in 1972 with China, which led to the normalization of relations with a country that was as mistrusted then as Iran is now, did anyone try and claim that it would no longer be valid once Nixon left office? I also do not recall this argument being made just a couple of years ago when President Obama negotiated the Framework for Elimination of Syrian Chemical Weapons, another example of an executive agreement. And of course there are many other examples, including the Algiers Accords, numerous status of forces agreements, and the establishment of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Claiming now that the JCPOA ends when President Obama leaves office is a terrible break from congressional tradition and threatens to undermine American international credibility. Who would negotiate with the United States if they believed such agreements would be abrogated with a new President? These statements are truly reckless. Let it be clear once and for all that this agreement can and will extend beyond the current administration.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining in morning business?

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Washington for taking the floor and supporting the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. She has been diligent in coming to Congress and explaining that this agency not only facilitates exports from the United States, which creates jobs and helps businesses here, but it also generates a surplus for the Treasury. What is wrong with that picture? Why would the Republicans be so opposed to an agency that helps American businesses, large and small, export more goods and doesn't cost the Federal Government any money? Why do they want to kill this agency? Why do they want to kill these jobs? I don't understand it. We had a vote on the floor of the Senate a few weeks ago on the Transportation bill to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank and it passed. We sent it over to the House of Representatives which, sadly, has become the graveyard for big issues, important issues when it comes to the future of America. I hope it changes. I hope they will listen to business leaders--that Republicans in the House will listen to business leaders and not just Boeing aircraft. Of course I am interested in that. It is headquartered in Chicago and is a major employer in the United States, but large and small companies alike feel the same. Export-Import Bank gives our companies in America the ability to finance export deals so they can compete with other countries. When we decide--or at least some in the Senate decide--to take the United States out of the export business, who is going to step in? Who will take over and create the jobs? Sadly, our competitors, China. They are not waiting around for their legislature, whatever it may be, to give permission for them to dramatically increase exports. They are on the road to do that. I support what the Senator from Washington said.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on the floor we are going to return in a few minutes to the debate on the Iran agreement. This agreement, of course, has been in the works for a long time. President Obama set out to create a set of sanctions, punishment against Iran to force them to come to the table and to negotiate with us and other nations so they would not develop a nuclear weapon. The President invested a lot of capital in it, and it worked. Congress imposed sanctions. The President imposed sanctions. The day came when the negotiations started, and we weren't sitting alone at the table. It is an amazing alliance of nations trying to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. It included China, Russia, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and the European Union. They all joined us in the sanctions, and many others too. But they joined us at the negotiating table, and they worked with us until we reached an agreement. That agreement didn't rely on trusting the Iranians. No. It relied on inspectors, real inspectors from the United Nations who have a sterling reputation. It was those inspectors who warned us before we invaded Iraq that there were no weapons of mass destruction. The Bush- Cheney administration paid no attention. We paid a heavy price for that dereliction of duty. Now these inspectors are in place--will be when this agreement moves forward. We can not only find out what is going on in Iran when it comes to nuclear weapons, we can make sure we discourage them from ever violating this treaty or agreement. Should they violate it, automatically the sanctions will snap back. In fact, it takes only the vote of the United States in the Security Council of the United Nations for all of the sanctions to come back on Iran if they break the treaty. Inspectors, snapback on sanctions, and I hope it results in what we want to see: No. 1, stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, and No. 2, avoid the United States from going to war again in the Middle East. Those are our two goals. Those who oppose this agreement come to the floor and say: Stop it. Don't do it. Walk away from it. It is nothing but bad. Every single Republican in the House and Senate--every single one of them--has come out against this agreement. Not one is supporting it. It shouldn't surprise us. On March 9, 2015, 47 Republican Senators sent a letter to the Ayatollah Khamenei. Do you know what they said? Don't negotiate with the United States of America. Don't negotiate with this President or other nations. Whatever you do is going to be subject to congressional review. There is no guarantee we will support it. Even if it is supported by Congress, there is no guarantee that any future President would enforce this agreement. You may even hear it tonight in the Republican Presidential candidate debate. Isn't it interesting that this was the first time in the history of the United States, the very first time that a group of Senators intervened in a Presidential negotiation in national security--the first time that has ever happened. And 47 Republican Senators, including every Member of the leadership, signed that letter. What would happen if 47 Democrats had sent a letter to Saddam Hussein prior to the invasion of Iraq saying: Don't pay any attention to President Bush. What do you think the reaction of Vice President Cheney would have been? He would have had us all up on charges--treason. That is exactly what happened here. There was a letter from 47 Republican Senators saying: Don't negotiate with the United States. The President ignored it. The negotiations continued. The agreement is before us. There was a key vote last week, a critical vote. Every single Member of the Senate has publicly declared where they stand on this agreement. After some 8 weeks of deliberation and debate, the vote took place last week, but it wasn't enough for Senator McConnell. He demanded that we replay the vote last night. We did, with the same result. I don't know how many times he is going to bring this before us, but may I suggest to the Republican leader there are some items that he might consider moving to. We are 8 legislative days away from shutting down the Government of the United States. Should we be discussing that? Most Americans would say so. Most Americans think it is embarrassing that the U.S. Government would shut down because a willful group--a small minority--is determined to get that done. Too many people suffer when that happens. We have to do everything we can to keep this government open. Let's get beyond this debate. We have already established what the vote is, and the Republicans didn't come up with the 60 votes necessary to move forward. That is the story. They don't like the ending, but that is the ending. Let's move forward in a responsible way to do two things--first, to make sure that Iran lives up to this agreement and do everything in our power to enforce it, and second, get on with the business of government. Let's fund this government. Let's not become a nation that people look at and say: Who is in charge here if a Republican Congress would shut down a government for a second time, as they did a couple of years ago? Who is in charge? Let's get into that issue and let's do it in a responsible and a bipartisan way. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to thank an important member of our staff. Her name is Dena Morris, and she is with me on the floor today. Dena has worked for me for 12 years. The last 8 years she served as my legislative director, and she is going to be leaving soon for a new professional opportunity. When she first told me the news, my first reaction was: ``Say it ain't so,'' but Dena had an offer she could not refuse. Next week, Dena Morris will join the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as the Agency's Washington Director. Her new position, I have to admit, is a perfect fit. It will allow her to combine her exceptional management skills, her deep understanding of public policy, and her strong commitment to public service in ways that will benefit America's families and businesses. I already know Dena is going to do well because she has done so much for me, for the people of Illinois, and for our Nation. There is one thing that really tells you a lot about Dena's commitment to public service and the public good. Dena Morris came to me 12 years ago. She left a K Street law firm and came to the Senate to work as a staffer. She took a substantial pay cut to do it. She started in my office as a legislative assistant handling education issues. Her portfolio quickly expanded to include public health and then all of the health care issues. By 2007, it was clear to me she was the right person to direct all the legislative activity in my office. Even with all the promotions and the new titles, Dena still earns less today than what she earned at that law firm she left 12 years ago. So when I hear my fellow Senators come to the floor and talk down our staffs and talk about denying them basic things such as health care coverage, I think about Dena and the hundreds just like her who make the Senate work. They do it not for the money, not for the benefits but because they want to leave a mark. Dena has done that. You see, instead of making mountains of money, Dena chose to help and to help the Senate make history. For that I am ever grateful. It will take too long to recite all the things she has worked on, but I can list a few: the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act--it was the economic stimulus that was initiated by the Obama administration to bring America out of the great recession after the 2008 economic crisis--her work on the Affordable Care Act, which has brought affordable, reliable health care to 16 million Americans, including 800,000 people in my State of Illinois, and reduces the national deficit. Dena was my legislative director when Congress passed the first Wall Street reform act in 7 years. She helped steer legislation to cut the cost of student loans, to help save the American automobile industry, and to give the FDA, at long last, the authority to regulate tobacco. Her contributions extend beyond the historic laws that she has helped to pass. Probably her greatest contribution, from a very selfish point of view, is that Dena Morris assembled my team. She took the time to bring together an extraordinary group of bright, committed public servants, just like herself, who reflected my values, her values, and her work ethic. Lots of people think about Sunday morning as a time to kick back and relax. My staff, and Dena knows this personally, lives in fear of Sunday morning because that is when I have the time to leisurely go through the newspapers, to watch television, and to get on my cell phone and e-mail my staff about all the new ideas I have for the coming week. It is a drill Dena knows well and which she handles with skill and does so effectively. I think it is her daily yoga practice that helps her maintain her even keel. I want to thank her husband Peter Rogoff, who has joined us. He is a former longtime Hill staffer, and I want to give special thanks to their kids, Niles, now in high school, and Lulu. It was about a year after Dena joined my staff that she brought Niles and Lulu to the office for a take-your-children-to-work day. They were about 6 and 4 years old at the time. So I met with all these kids from my staff members, and I said: Do you have any questions? Niles raised his hand, and he looked at me and he said: How come my mom has to work so late? It was a funny moment, an embarrassing moment in a way, but I think Niles and Lulu know now what the answer is. It is because their mom cares so much about what she does and cares so much about the people she can help. That is a bit of a story of Dena Morris' career. When she worked for that K Street law firm, she specialized in advancing legal and civil rights for people with disabilities and their families. She started that work just 3 years after the Americans with Disabilities Act became law. She was on the leading edge of one of America's great civil rights struggles. Two other things worth mentioning: Dena's first job in Washington, before the law firm, was working as an intern for her home State Senator, Dick Lugar of Indiana. It was an unpaid internship, as most of them are. So to pay the rent Dena had to work five nights a week on Capitol Hill at another unique Washington institution--the Hawk and Dove--which happens to be a local popular Capitol Hill watering hole. Finally, Dena is one of six children. Her dad is a Baptist minister. In her whole family of origin--parents and siblings--Dena Morris is the only Democrat. She is a brave woman, and she tells me they do not really talk a lot about politics at family gatherings. Her parents may not share her politics, but I know they share our pride in the work she has done for America. I have no doubt she will continue to use her talent and her energies to move our Nation forward. Dena, thank you for your service. Syrian Humanitarian Crisis Mr. President, I listened to my friend, the Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain, and this is the second time I have heard him on the floor talking about the tragedy, the humanitarian crisis associated with Syria. I couldn't agree more. I also take note of that heartbreaking photograph of that 3-year-old boy who drowned as his family tried to escape Syria, ultimately bound for Canada. In the crossing of a body of water, their boat capsized, and the mother and two children were lost, and the lifeless body of that infant washed up on the shore. When I think back, and people ask, what do you remember about the Vietnam War, I remember a lot of things, but the image I remember is a photograph of a little girl stripped naked, burned with napalm, running down the road screaming. I can't get that out of my mind. Vietnam--I think of that photo. When I think of Syria, and what is going on with this humanitarian crisis, I think of the photo of that little boy. It is heartbreaking. I get emotional thinking about little kids who I love in my family facing that kind of tragedy. There are two things I would like to say. I think it is fundamentally unfair to blame the Syrian crisis on this President. This is a crisis which reflects the Arab Spring, it reflects changes in the Middle East that have been going on for 30 years plus, and no country has really come up with a good solution to stop the bloodshed and killing in Syria. I am sorry my colleague from Arizona is not here, but I would acknowledge and remind him there was a time when the President came to us and said: I want to do something. President Obama said: I want to do something about chemical weapons in Syria. The Senator from Arizona-- and I might add the Senator from South Carolina--joined us in the Foreign Relations Committee in moving this issue forward to give the President the authority to do something to stop the use of chemical weapons in Syria, and it died before it came to the floor because there was no support--no support on the floor from the Republican majority in the House or the Senate. So to say this President has not taken action, he has. And you cannot overlook the fact the United States of America, through the generosity of its taxpayers and the leadership of this President, leads the world in humanitarian relief in Syria. We believe we have invested almost $4 billion--more than any other nation on Earth--for these poor people who are suffering there. Can we do more? Should we have done more? Of course, in hindsight, things look so much clearer. I pushed for--and this administration is working on something the Senator from Arizona has also endorsed--a humanitarian safe zone. There ought to be a piece of Syria where people can go for medical care and know they are not going to be killed by these barrel bombs and attacks. I know the administration is working on that with Turkey. It has gone very slowly. I wish the pace would pick up. A friend of mine, Dr. Sahloul in Chicago, a Syrian American, has made a dozen trips to Syria, to Lebanon, to Jordan giving free medical treatment to the Syrian refugees, and he tells the story in graphic terms--and many times brings back heartbreaking photographs--of what these barrel bombs are doing. I hope we can find some diplomatic or military solution in Syria. In the meantime, here is the question we must ask ourselves: What will we do about these millions of refugees? We will give money, of course, to our allies that are creating camps for them. I visited one of those camps in Turkey, and I have to say I was really a great admirer of the leadership of that country in accepting at this one camp 10,000 people--one camp. And there are many more, hundreds of thousands all over the Middle East, fleeing out of that region. So now what will we do about the refugees? The Senator from Arizona reminded us last week these are refugees, not migrants. They are the people who are victims of war who are fleeing with their families. On Friday I was in Chicago and met with four of these Syrian families who are now refugees in the United States. They told heartbreaking stories of losing members of their families and fleeing from one city to another in Syria without any success, then finally leaving, going to refugee camps and trying to come to the United States. Even after they applied for refugee status, it took this one family over 14 months to make it here to this country. We have a rich history in the United States of being there for refugees. We can point with some pride to the fact that when Cuba was going through its upheaval back in the 1950s and 1960s we accepted Cuban refugees who have become a major part of America today. In fact, the three Hispanic Members of the United States Senate are all Cuban Americans. At least two of them were the product of that exodus--the product of a refugee status that brought their families to the United States. They are making great contributions for the States they represent. We did the same thing in the Soviet Union. When the Jewish population there was facing persecution, we stood up and said: We will accept them as refugees. Thousands and thousands of Soviet Jews came to the United States and have become an important part of America today. The list goes on: Somalians, Bosnians, the Hmong population out of Vietnam. So we have a rich history of responding to these humanitarian crises. We need to do it again. What the administration has proposed is modest--10,000--too modest, as far as I am concerned. I believe we should be prepared to accept 100,000--100,000 Syrian refugees. Yes, each and every one of them needs to be carefully checked and vetted so we know we are not inviting someone in who is a danger to the United States. The people I have met in Chicago--the refugees there-- are just desperate people trying to find a roof over their head, trying to find some little work to do to keep what remains of their family together. Each and every one of them said something interesting. All four of them said they couldn't believe how welcoming America was, how friendly people in America were to the refugees and their families. Mr. President, that is who we are. That is what America is about. We shouldn't be afraid when people who are desperate for some refuge find our shores and ask: May we come and join you? I have already had friends in Illinois calling my wife and asking: What can we do? Can we adopt a Syrian family of refugees to help them get started in the United States? I think that story can be replicated over and over again, thousands and thousands of times. So I would say to my friend from Arizona, yes, it is outrageous, the death, the violence, the circumstances in Syria which has forced so many millions of people to move and many of them to lose their lives in the process. And it is heartbreaking to read the stories as they desperately try to find some safe place to live with their families and are rejected by countries, some in Europe, that want no part of them. I want America to do its part so that when the future generations look back and ask our generation: What did you do when you faced the greatest humanitarian crisis of your time at this moment in history, I want them to be able to point with pride to the fact that we carried on the great American tradition of opening up this country to refugees who are looking for a safe place to live with their families. Mr. President, we are in the midst of debating again--again--the Iran agreement, an agreement that was brokered by the President with five other nations--an agreement to accomplish two things: The agreement was to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and, secondly, it was to create a safe enough environment that the United States does not have to commit military forces or go to war again in the Middle East. I voted for it, and 41 other Democrats joined me. We had this vote last week. It was historic and widely reported. At the end of the vote, Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, stood up and said: We are going to do it again. We are going to do it again next week--today-- Tuesday night. I don't know why we are going through a replay of this. There is a suggestion he may do another vote in another few days. Members of the Senate have stood up to a person and announced where they stand on this issue. Nobody is trying to run away from this issue. It is a challenging issue and a historic vote, and we are all on the record. We are there. I don't know why we have these repeat roll calls. I don't know why we are going through this again, but that is Senator McConnell's choice. One would think he might want to spend some time on the floor of the Senate dealing with some other issues, but he sticks with this one. What happened over in the House of Representatives is hard to describe. We came together because of a statute passed by the House and the Senate calling for a vote of disapproval of the Iran treaty. Now, it has been rejected--that vote of disapproval--here in the Senate. The House never took it up. The House, instead, had three separate votes, never going to the issue of disapproval. They had three separate votes on separate issues. The one they passed that might be sent our way is hard to believe. You see, what the House of Representatives said is that we will not lift any sanctions on Iran until we have a new President in January 2017. Think about that for a second. Here is what we know. We know that Iran has fissile material capable of building ten nuclear weapons. We know that. We also know that Iran has the capacity within 2 or 3 months--2 or 3 months--to create this nuclear weapon. We know that from our intelligence, and we know it from the pronouncements of Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel. With the knowledge of that capability in Iran--to build a nuclear weapon, which would be a disaster in the Middle East--the House Republicans have said they want to put off any effort to stop the Iranians until we have a new President 17 months from now, which is more than enough time, I might add, for the Iranians, should they choose, to build a nuclear weapon. How does that make Israel any safer? How does that make the world any safer? Here is what we know. With this Iran agreement, within weeks the Iranians will start dismantling their centrifuges. They will start the process guaranteed by this treaty that will result in closing down a nuclear reactor that produces plutonium which can be used for weapons. They will start inviting inspectors into their country. There has been a lot said by the Senator from Arizona and others about the track record of Iran. I agree with many things he said. They are not to be trusted. That is why verification is part of this agreement. If there were no inspectors, it would be a foolish venture, but with these inspectors, we are on the ground inspecting Iran on a daily basis, through the IAEA, international inspectors sponsored by the United Nations. Are these inspectors good? I can say that many years ago when we voted on the invasion of Iraq, when the Bush-Cheney administration told us there were weapons of mass destruction, these inspectors told us there were none--after we had invaded, after the war had started. It turns out the inspectors were right and the Bush-Cheney administration was wrong. They have a good track record, and I am glad they are going to be on the scene to verify this agreement. But the question now is, How many more times will Senator McConnell want us to vote on this same issue? As leader, he can decide to do it over and over. Is this part of a debate prep for some of the Republican Senators running for President? They come to the floor and make their speeches or hear speeches and get to cast a vote before the CNN debate this week? I hope that is not it. We have made ourselves clear where we stand on this issue, each and every one of us. We cast our votes. We will do it again today. Now it is time for the Senate to move on. Looming just ahead of us in a matter of days is the potential of another government shutdown. The same tea party Republicans who shut down this government 2 years ago have vowed to do it again over a different issue. Somehow they believe that come October 1, if we start shutting down the agencies of our Federal Government, they will have made a political point. They are right. They will make a point that the majority in the House and the Senate--the Republican majority--cannot govern, cannot manage the budget of the United States to keep our government agencies open. I think they make that point 2 years ago; I don't know why they want to remind the American people of it again. So instead of voting repeatedly on the same measure, on the Iran agreement--where we already have a record vote--I would commend to the Republican leader: Take up the issues of the day. Some are compelling. There is cyber security for the safety of the United States. There is a transportation bill in the House of Representatives. We passed it, and it is time for the House to do the same. Let's fund our government. Let's not face a government shutdown. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Tennessee is my friend. I respect him. I have said so on the floor and have said so privately among my colleagues. For the record, I want to make it clear, though, that Senator Reid and the Democrats said there will be no cloture necessary on the motion to proceed, no motion to proceed vote necessary last week on the floor to go to this measure. We had an opportunity to obstruct, to block, whatever you want to say, and we did not do it because we believed that what we had heard repeatedly--that this would be a 60-vote final passage--would ultimately be the standard. There is nothing in the statute that brings us to this measure that in any way eliminates the 60-vote requirement. It is just not there. There is nothing that does that. When my colleague's side discovered they did not have 60 votes, which was the beginning of last week, they changed the standard and said: We want a majority vote, and anything less than that is a filibuster. So that was a Republican decision based on the fact that now 42 Democratic Senators see this issue differently. I would just say this: We have had 8 weeks on this issue, and we should have taken 8 weeks on this issue. It is that important. And every Senator should stand up and say where they stand on this issue, and every Senator has stood up and announced where they stand on this issue. This has not been glossed over. We have not made light of it. People aren't trying to find some sneaky way to avoid responsibility. Each person is on the record. You know where I stand, I know where you stand, and that goes for every one of our colleagues. So what are we doing tonight? Why are we going through a replay of what we did last week, and now with the threat of amendments? Now we are going to have a run of amendments. They won't be on the Iran agreement per se, on the adoption of the agreement, which was the underlying statute. They could be on something else. We are just discovering what they could be. To say we haven't taken the time and dealt with this in a bipartisan way, dealt with it in a serious way, allowed open debate--we have done it, and we have cooperated in doing it. My colleague doesn't like the result. I happen to believe it is a result that really reflects where we should be as a nation. I support the President. I believe we ought to have two goals here: Stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and stop America from going to another war in the Middle East. That is what I want achieved, and I think we can achieve it through this agreement. But it is subject to inspection, it is subject to reports, and if the Iranians decide they want to breach this agreement, then we start back on the sanctions. We are back where we started from. I would say to the Senator from Tennessee, having, as he has, faced these conscience votes on the floor about war and about the deaths associated with them, I conclude: First try diplomacy. If diplomacy does not work, then you have to pursue whatever is necessary for national security. But I believe we have said--42 out of 46 Democratic Senators--we support diplomacy first. To argue that this is somehow partisan because four Senators see it differently--I think there may be some partisanship in the fact that not a single Republican Member of the House or Senate supports the President's position--not one. I think there may be some partisanship in the fact that 47 Republican Senators, on March 9, 2015, sent a letter to the Ayatollah in Iran and said, basically, stop negotiating with the United States of America. There is no point in it. That has never ever, ever happened in diplomatic history--that 47 Republican Senators would prejudge a matter under negotiation with the President of the United States. But they did. So the fact that all 47 voted against this agreement is no surprise. They announced in March they were against the agreement no matter what it said. I think that is the reality of what we face today. I don't know why we are going to keep repeating these votes over and over. There are a lot of things we should take up. We have nine legislative days left until this fiscal year ends and we end up closing down the government. I think it is time for us to move on to important issues that should command the attention of the Senate.

Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask the Senator from Connecticut a question through the Chair. First, let me thank the Senator for raising this issue. I have said-- and I think my colleague may share the feeling--that this may be the greatest humanitarian crisis of our time, and other generations will ask us: What did you do in the midst of the Syrian humanitarian crisis? I met with four Syrian families in Chicago who are now refugees. They made it, and they have these horrible stories of what they went through. But when we look back at the past and what we have done in America for Cuban refugees, and I believe at least one of our colleagues here was a Cuban refugee--his family was when they came to this country; refugees from the Soviet Union, Jewish people suffering from persecution and wanting to escape; refugees from Somalia; the Hmong people from Vietnam; and Bosnians who made it to the United States, it seems to me that in the sweep of modern history--since World War II, I would add quickly--that we have really established ourselves as caring for refugees, not only feeding them but accepting them, after careful vetting, in the United States. So I ask the Senator from Connecticut, when we hear what is happening in Europe, is he struck by the fact there are some countries opening their arms in extraordinary ways and others, sadly, going in the opposite direction with these refugees? I am sure the Senator has been struck by that as well.

Mr. DURBIN. I would advise the Senator from Tennessee that all time remaining is on our side of the aisle, but I would yield half of it--5 of the next 10 minutes--to him.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, so that those who are following this debate understand where we are, this morning the Democratic leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, for the second time offered to the Republican side the following: that we will bring this critically important, historic measure before the U.S. Senate for an up-or-down vote--a clean up-or-down vote--at a margin of 60 votes. Sixty votes is the margin that is used for every major and, I might add, controversial measure before the Senate. So what we are asking is not out of line. In fact, the Republican side had supported the notion of a 60-vote margin until they didn't have 60 votes. Now they are calling for some other approach. So here is what we face. This afternoon at about 3:45 p.m., we will have a rollcall vote. It will be on the procedural question of whether we end debate on one aspect of this issue. It is known as a cloture vote. We will see how it turns out. But we have made a good-faith offer twice to the Republicans to finish this important debate and to bring this to a 60-vote close. Every single Member of the Senate on both sides of the aisle has announced publicly in advance where they stand on the issue. No one is trying to avoid this tough vote, and it is a challenging vote. Everyone has faced it squarely and honestly, and that is where we should go. Senator McConnell, on the Republican side, objected to this. We will face a procedural vote at 3:45 p.m. What is troubling is that we are in disarray now in the Congress. This statute that brings us to the floor of the U.S. Senate, the resolution of disapproval on the Iran agreement, passed the Senate with a vote of 98 to 1--a strong bipartisan agreement that this is how we would approach it. This is what Senator McConnell is working off of, the basic statute that brings us together. But look what is happening across the Rotunda. Yesterday the House of Representatives disassembled. When they were supposed to move forward procedurally to the same vote we are facing, they fell apart. There was a Republican caucus, and it was in disarray. Now they are proposing not the underlying statute which we are considering but three brandnew, different approaches to this. This is no way to run a Congress. It is no way to address a serious foreign policy issue, one of the more serious issues of our time. My colleagues are here to speak. I am going to yield the floor to them. I have spoken from time to time, but I will say this: Understand what we are trying to achieve here. We are not putting a seal of approval on Iran and their conduct and their activity. That will never happen. Instead, what we are saying is we have one goal in mind, shared by many nations around the world: to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. That is the goal. I believe this agreement comes as close to achieving that as we can hope for at this moment. I wish it were stronger and better, but in the course of negotiation, we don't always get everything we want. But think of what happened here. We met in Switzerland at the table with five other nations-- China, Russia, the United Kingdom, Germany, and France. The European Union, I might add, joined the United States in this effort to negotiate this agreement and walked away. All nations involved in the negotiations said this is a good agreement and should move forward. In addition to that, we have had support from the Security Council of the United Nations. Over 100 countries have endorsed this. Yet it has been categorically rejected by the Republicans in both the House and the Senate. The first evidence of their rejection was March 9 of this year while the negotiations were underway. Forty-seven Republican Senators sent a letter to the Supreme Leader in Iran, the Ayatollah, saying to him basically: Don't waste your time negotiating with the United States of America. That has never happened in the history of the United States--never. I asked the historians to check it. Never have we had Members of Congress sending a letter in the midst of negotiations telling the other side: Don't pay attention to our President; don't pay any attention to our Nation. It never happened before. So 47 of them made it clear even before the agreement was reached that they were rejecting it. That doesn't show good faith. That doesn't show an effort to try to be objective and honest about this. Here we stand today with the first procedural vote this afternoon. There are two things we want to achieve with this vote and with this agreement: No. 1, stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. We do that by shutting down their production facilities, by closing down their centrifuges, and by sending in scores of international inspectors, who will be roaming through Iran during the entire pendency of this agreement, looking for violations that could trigger the sanctions being returned. No. 2, our goal is to bring peace and stability as best we can when it comes to the nuclear issue in the Middle East, particularly in support of our friend and ally, the nation of Israel. I think the President's good-faith effort here reaches that goal. I support this, and I will be voting on the procedural side this afternoon to support the President's Iran agreement. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I yield 20 minutes to the Senator from Delaware.