Congressional Record, Volume 161 Issue 60 (Thursday, April 23, 2015)

[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 60 (Thursday, April 23, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2381-S2389]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROTECTING VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS AND EMERGENCY RESPONDERS ACT

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). Under the previous order, the
motion to proceed to H.R. 1191 is agreed to.
The clerk will report the bill by title.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 1191) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to ensure that emergency services volunteers are not
taken into account as employees under the shared
responsibility requirements contained in the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Amendment No. 1140

(Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1140, which is the
text of the substitute amendment to S. 615, which was reported out of
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Corker], for himself and
Mr. Cardin, proposes an amendment numbered 1140.

(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I am thrilled to be here on the floor with
my partner, Senator Ben Cardin, who is the ranking member of the
Foreign Relations Committee. We had an outstanding week last week in
our Foreign Relations Committee in passing out this bill that is now
before us on a 19-to-0 vote. I thank all of the members of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, which obviously includes Senator Cardin,
Senator Risch, Senator Menendez, Senator Rubio, Senator Kaine, Senator
Johnson, Senator Coons, Senator Flake, Senator Udall, Senator Gardner,
Senator Boxer, Senator Perdue, Senator Shaheen, Senator Isakson,
Senator Murphy, Senator Paul, Senator Barrasso, and Senator Markey.
Also, before we get into discussing the text, I wish to thank Senator
Bob Menendez and Senator Mark Kirk, who have been all things Iran. From
the very beginning, these two Senators have led this body to put in
place sanctions--crushing sanctions--that have led us to this place. I
cannot thank them enough for their leadership in dealing with the issue
of Iran.
Last year, we did a significant amount of work on creating some kind
of review process relative to a final agreement that might be worked
out with Iran. I thank Senator Lindsey, Graham who has been a stalwart
in ensuring that Congress play a role in the ultimate final deal that
may or may not occur. Senator Graham has been steadfast in wanting
congressional review. Senator John McCain has joined in that effort and
has been outstanding to work with, as well as Senator Jim Risch and
Senator Marco Rubio, who have also pushed for this type of legislation.
When we began this process, there were some original--or when we
moved to the process we are now in, there were some original supporters
of this current bipartisan bill who really caused us to have the
leverage, if you will, to move to the place where we are today. Again,
Senator Menendez certainly was one of those who led us in that effort;
Senator Graham; Senator Tim Kaine, who came here as a former Governor
of Virginia and who has been so focused on Congress playing its
appropriate role. Obviously, Senator McCain, as he has been a leader
from the beginning, Senator Joe Donnelly, Senator Marco Rubio, Senator
Heidi Heitkamp, Senator Kelly Ayotte, Senator Bill Nelson, Senator Jim
Risch, and Senator Angus King have played a role in creating the
leverage, if you will, to get us where we are today.
As Senator Cardin knows, we now have 62 cosponsors of this
legislation that is now before us, obviously from both parties. So I
think this is quite an accomplishment.
Obviously, we have a tremendous amount of work in front of us with
this bill now on the floor. I know Senator Cardin and I hope that
people will come to the floor and begin offering their amendments,
begin debating, begin discussing. Obviously, we won't be taking up any
amendments, per the order that is before us, until Tuesday, but we hope
people will begin bringing their ideas and amendments to the floor and
certainly begin discussing the important issue of Iran.
Let me speak a little bit about what this bill does. First of all, I
think everyone knows the administration is part of the P5+1. It is
today negotiating an agreement to try to keep Iran from obtaining a
nuclear weapon. I think all of us know there was a political agreement
that was achieved the first part of April that was more of a verbal
agreement about how the P5+1 and Iran might interact in a manner that
hopefully would keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
One of the things that I think everyone in this body knows and many
people on the outside may not is that Congress has played a substantial
and

[[Page S2382]]

maybe the biggest role in getting Iran to the table in the first place.
There were three sets of sanctions, three types of sanctions that have
been instrumental in making this happen. They include the U.N. Security
Council sanctions that have been put in place. The executive branch has
put some sanctions in place as well. But Congress especially has four
tranches of sanctions which have been put in place since 2010 which
really have had a crushing effect on Iran's economy. They haves created
all kinds of inflation, and they have caused them not to be able to
export the amount of oil--the 40 percent of the oil that they produce.
That has hurt them in manufacturing.
I see Senator Menendez has just come to the floor. He may not have
heard me, but I cannot thank him and Senator Kirk enough for their
leadership on each set of those tranches--putting them in place, taking
the leadership, and bringing Iran to the table.
I think the second thing people may understand is that on the U.N.
Security Council sanctions, the White House has the ability, with the
other members of the permanent Security Council, to lift those at any
time they wish. They can obviously lift the executive sanctions. One of
the things that all of us have been concerned about, though, is that
Congress put in place the sanctions that really brought them to the
table. We want to ensure that Congress has the ability, before
those sanctions are lifted, to be able to voice an opinion through a
vote.

What this legislation does--and we will be talking about it a great
deal over the next week--is four things:
First of all, it forces the administration, in the event a final deal
is agreed to, to bring all of those details to Congress, including the
classified annexes we would likely not see until 6 months or so after
an agreement is reached, without this legislation, if we can pass it.
Secondly, it keeps the executive branch from being able to lift the
congressionally mandated sanctions that we put in place, while we have
a reasonable period of time to go through the documents that have been
provided to us.
Thirdly, it allows Congress to take a vote. The vote can take all
kinds of forms. It can be a vote of approval. It also allows the leader
to decide not to take a vote at all or we could take a vote of
disapproval. If we decided that this was not something that was good
for our country, not good for the Middle East, then we could cause this
vote of disapproval to take place, and if it passed, it would keep the
executive branch from being able to lift the congressionally mandated
sanctions we have put in place.
The fourth and very important component is that it causes us to know
whether Iran is in compliance. This bill stipulates, if passed, that
the President would have to certify to us every 90 days as to whether
Iran is in compliance. If there are significant violations, on a 10-day
basis, let us know that is taking place so we can respond accordingly.
Let me close by saying this: I believe everybody in this body hopes
we are able to achieve a negotiated agreement that will keep Iran from
getting a nuclear weapon. I think everyone understands that is the best
thing for our country. I think everybody also understands that Iran is
a country in which we have little trust. Iran is a country that is the
major exporter of terrorism in the region. Iran is a country that has a
terrible human rights record. Iran is a country that is really moving
ahead relative to its ballistic missile design. And, obviously, Iran is
a country that has been doing some things in its nuclear program that
give us reason to believe they are moving toward a nuclear weapon.
One of the worst things we could possibly do is enter into an
agreement with Iran that doesn't keep them from getting a nuclear
weapon--in other words, one that is faulty, that has flaws, and that
allows them to get a nuclear weapon. What that would mean is we would
have a situation where the No. 1 exporter of terrorism in the region
had access to not just a nuclear weapon but very quickly had access to
the $130 billion-plus that they have trapped overseas to conduct even
more terrorism in the region, which could allow their economy to all of
a sudden be growing at more rapid rates and, again, to have resources
available to conduct even more terrorism in the region. As we can
imagine, having an actor such as Iran has acted--and we hope at some
point that behavior will change--having access to a nuclear weapon
certainly would create the possibility of nuclear proliferation in the
region.
So I think this is a very important piece of legislation. I thank
Senator Cardin for the way he has come into this and worked with us in
a manner to reach an accommodation so that we have sufficient, ample,
actually extraordinary support on both sides of the aisle to ensure
that Congress has its rightful role in this agreement. It is one of the
biggest geopolitical agreements we will deal with probably during the
time we are here in the Senate.
With that, I yield the floor to my good friend Senator Cardin. Again,
he has done exemplary work in bringing us to this point. I thank him
for all of his efforts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I wish to thank and congratulate Senator
Corker for his extraordinary work in reaching this moment where we have
brought to the floor of the Senate a bill that deals with congressional
oversight of the nuclear discussions and agreements taking place
between the P5+1, our negotiating partners in Iran.
It was just 3 weeks ago that the framework was announced by the White
House and that Senator Corker and I started our discussions to see
whether we could find a common path forward on a bill which, to say the
least, was very controversial; a bill which the President of the United
States had threatened to veto; a bill in which there were Democrats and
Republicans lined up on different sides of this issue, and it appeared
just about impossible that we would be able to reach a bipartisan
agreement on a path forward for the legislation.
Senator Corker exercised the greatest leadership and diplomacy. He
mentioned all the members of our committee. Each of those members has
pretty strong views on this issue. This was not a simple matter of
people saying: Gee, I will just yield to the thoughts of others. The
only way we could reach this moment was to ask and solicit and listen
to each member of the committee, and that is what Senator Corker did.
He encouraged me to do the same in regard to not just the Democratic
members, because Senator Corker talked to some of the Democratic
members and I talked to some of the Republican members. We had to have
that type of confidence.
I again congratulate Senator Corker on his leadership. It has been a
real pleasure to work with him. I am proud that we bring this bill
forward with a 19-to-0 vote from the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee.
We have a long history in this country of putting aside partisan
differences on foreign policy issues. I know we often quote from one of
our former colleagues, but I think it is worth putting into the Record
the comments of Senator Arthur Vandenberg, Jr.
He was a Republican Member of this body who said 63 years ago:

To me ``bipartisan foreign policy'' means a mutual effort
under our indispensable two-Party system, to unite our
official voice at the water's edge so that America speaks
with maximum authority against those who would divide and
conquer us and the free world. It does not involve the
remotest surrender of free debate in determining our
position. On the contrary, frank cooperation and free debate
are indispensable to ultimate unity. In a word, it simply
seeks national security ahead of partisan advantage.

Mr. President, that is exactly what the Foreign Relations Committee
did. We had a very robust debate, there were many different views, but
at the end of the day we spoke with unity. In speaking with unity, our
country today is stronger, and that is exactly where we needed to be.
What we are trying to do, and I think as a result of the actions of
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee--and I hope it will be approved
by this body and by the House and sent to the President for signature--
we are in a stronger position to accomplish our goal. Our goal is
pretty simple, to prevent Iran from ever acquiring a nuclear weapon
because we know that is a game changer in the region--a game changer in
regard to not just one country in that region but to just about every
country in

[[Page S2383]]

that region. Their security is threatened and the U.S. security is
threatened.
So what we did in the bill that we bring forward to you is a
compromise--a compromise. Each of us gave and listened and we found
common ground. We could use more compromise on the issues that confront
this country in the work we do. I would hope my colleagues would look
at how we worked out these issues and use it as a model for other
opportunities to move forward on issues that are important.
Senator Corker pointed out why we are here--why we had a bill for
congressional review. It started in the 1990s, when Congress passed
sanctions against Iran because we saw, at the time, that Iran was
developing the nuclear capacity to develop a nuclear weapon, and we
said that could not happen. We imposed sanctions against Iran. Congress
did this on several occasions in an effort to prevent Iran from
becoming a nuclear weapons state, telling them there would be an
economic price to pay until they changed course.
Administrations--including President Obama's administration--worked
with the international community and we were able to get U.N.
sanctions. Congress's action was responsible for leading Iran to being
willing to negotiate, and that is where we are today. Only Congress--
only Congress--can permanently remove those sanctions or permanently
change those sanctions.
So Congress must be involved in the sanctions and in the discussions.
That is exactly what this legislation does. It provides an orderly
process for us to review any agreement reached by the President and our
negotiating partners with Iran. No congressional action will take place
until and unless the President submits an agreement that he has made
with our negotiating partners and Iran.
The April 2 framework that was recently announced is not an agreement
and is not subject to review. There would be a 30-day review period,
during which Congress would have the opportunity to review the
agreement. No sanctions or additional sanction relief could be imposed
during that 30-day period. If you read the April 2 framework, the
President has made it clear that Iran will only get sanction relief if
they earn sanction relief, if there is concrete progress made in
dismantling their nuclear program. It is hard to believe that could
take place within 30 days. So this 30-day period is a very reasonable
period for Congress to be able to review any agreement.
As Senator Corker pointed out, all information--all information--
would be presented to us, and we would have an opportunity for full
hearings and debate as to what we should do. It would follow the
regular congressional order as far as committee hearings and potential
action on the floor of the Senate and the House. Senator Corker pointed
out the options we would have. We could approve the agreement, we could
disapprove the agreement, we could pass legislation affecting the
sanctions, we could take whatever action we think is appropriate, but
no action is required.
The agreement can commence without congressional action. If we do
take congressional action, the President has the prerogative of a veto,
and if the President vetoes, we have the prerogative of an override of
the veto. That is how the checks and balances system of our country
should operate.
There is a second major component to this legislation and that is for
the oversight of an agreement after it is reached; that is, there would
be a quarterly certification by the President of the United States to
Congress that Iran is in compliance with the agreement. If there is a
material breach, it would trigger an expedited process so Congress
could act, that we could not only snap back sanctions that may have
been relieved, but if appropriate, we could impose additional sanctions
if Iran had a material breach of the agreement. That is very important
because I think we all agree, if we are going to have an effective
agreement, that agreement must give us time before Iran can become a
nuclear weapons country; that we can, through full inspections,
determine if they have breached the agreement because, quite frankly,
no agreement is going to be based on trust because we don't trust Iran.
It is going to be based upon inspections and being able to confirm
their compliance with the agreement. If they don't comply with the
agreement, we need to make sure we have adequate time and take adequate
steps to prevent them from becoming a nuclear weapons state. This
review process and an expedited process in Congress puts Congress in
the position of working with the administration to make sure we take
those effective steps.
As Senator Corker pointed out, there are other issues with Iran in
addition to the nuclear proliferation issues. We have serious concerns
about Iran. It sponsors terrorism. Its human rights violations against
its own citizens is horrible. Its ballistic missile program is of great
concern. The threats against Israel and other countries in that region
are all of direct interest to the United States. So, in this
legislation, we provide for regular reports twice a year to the
Congress of the United States about the activities that Iran is
participating in, in regard to terrorism and human rights.
I call our colleagues' attention to the detailed requirements, on
pages 37 and 38 of the bill, concerning issues about whether Iran's
financial institutions are engaged in money laundering, whether Iran is
advancing its ballistic missile program, an assessment of whether Iran
has directly supported, financed, planned or carried out any terrorism
against the United States, ``whether, and to the extent to which, Iran
supported acts of terrorism . . . all actions, including international
fora, being taken by the United States to stop, counter, and condemn
acts by Iran'' involving terrorism; ``the impact on the national
security of the United States and the safety of United States citizens
as a result of any Iranian actions reported under this paragraph. . . .
'' It is all required that that information be given to us because we
may want to use that for other strategies against Iran.

An amendment that was added requires ``an assessment of whether
violations of internationally recognized human rights in Iran have
changed, increased, or decreased, as compared to the prior 180-day
[period].''
We are going to monitor their human rights record, and we will have
that information. So, yes, we are concerned about issues beyond nuclear
proliferation, but this agreement that is now being negotiated by the
President deals with preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons
state.
It is clear. I want to underscore this because Senator Corker was
very strong to make sure it got into the bill. It says that ``United
States sanctions on Iran for terrorism, human rights abuses, and
ballistic missiles will remain in place under an agreement. . . .'' We
are not talking about actions we have taken against Iran for terrorism
or human rights violations. That is a separate issue--a major concern
to us. What we are talking about is how do we implement oversight and
review an agreement concerning nuclear weapons programs.
And lastly, we make it very clear in this agreement that ``the
President should determine the agreement in no way compromises the
commitment of the United States to Israel's security, nor its support
for Israel's right to exist.'' Israel is a key ally of the United
States and our friendship is deep. Our commitment is solid. We make
that very clear in the bill that is before you.
Let me conclude with two additional points--one dealing with the
amendment process. As Senator Corker pointed out, we asked Members who
believe they can approve this bill to come forward. Let's see the
amendments and try to work with you on the amendments. Let's maintain
the bipartisan cooperation we have. Let's maintain a strong bill that
accomplishes its purpose. Come down and let us take a look at it.
Remember, we have a lot of strong views in the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee and we came together. Let's keep that same spirit, and I
would just urge those who may have amendments to come on down and let
us see them. We have today and up to before next Tuesday. Share them
with us so we have an opportunity to keep the unity we have.
Then, lastly, I just want to join where Senator Corker began, and
that is to thank the incredible effort that took place on behalf of
this bill. Senator Corker already mentioned all my colleagues who were
involved here.

[[Page S2384]]

Senator Menendez and Senator Kaine are both on the floor. On the
Democratic side, they are the authors of this bill. They are the ones
who drafted it. They are the ones who are responsible for why we are
here today--from the Democrats. I thank both of them. From the
beginning they said: We want a process to review. We are not talking
about the merits. The merits are something we will pick up later. We
want to preserve the normal prerogatives of the Senate, and we want to
keep politics out of it. That was their intent from day one. Quite
frankly, working with Senator Corker, that is what I carried out in my
negotiations with Senator Corker; to maintain that balance that was the
intent of the legislation. So I thank both of them and the other
members of our committee who were involved.
Lastly, on a point of personal privilege right now, because I might
forget to do this later, I want to thank Jodi Herman of our staff and
Margaret Taylor, Algene Sajery, and Chris Lynch for the extraordinary
amount of time they put in.
I want to thank President Obama. I want to thank President Obama for
giving me his time so I understood what he was trying to achieve and
how we could work together in order to achieve the objectives of the
United States, and I thank Katie Fallon and Denis McDonough of his
staff for the work they put in so we could reach this moment.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I want to rise in support of this
bipartisan legislation, with a sincere hope that we can pass the Iran
Nuclear Agreement Review Act as it was unanimously voted out of the
committee.
I have worked tirelessly with the chairman and with the ranking
member and with members of the committee--Senator Kaine, who had so
much input in the conceptualization of what we wanted to do to bring
this bill to the floor with the strongest bipartisan support.
In my view, the best way to send a clear message to Tehran about our
expectations is for Congress to pass the Corker-Menendez Iran Nuclear
Agreement Review Act as it was voted out of committee. The spirit of
bipartisanship that underscores Congress's critical role in the highest
priority, national security, the nuclear nonproliferation challenge of
our time, was unanimously passed out of the Foreign Relations
Committee. I hope we can send this same message from the Senate floor.
Countering Iran's nuclear ambitions has been something I have worked
on passionately for a long time. Senator Corker and I fashioned
language that became the framework of this final bill to ensure that
Congress remains engaged in reviewing and, if there is an agreement,
overseeing its implementation.
So I want to thank Chairman Corker. He has just done an exceptional
job. He had this concept before any of us were agreed to it, and he was
willing to work with us--and was dogged, I must say--until we got to
the point that we would come together and offer the legislation in a
bipartisan way. That has been the hallmark of his chairmanship and it
was the hallmark of his time as ranking member when I was chairman. I
appreciate the fashion in which he has worked to continue to move the
committee, as I started it, in a bipartisan way, because as the ranking
member Senator Cardin says, that is when we are most powerful in terms
of foreign policy.
I thank Senator Cardin for his work in helping to forge a deal that
both sides of the aisle can come to this floor and support with a clear
conscience, knowing that we have sent a clear message to Tehran and
that we are united, as we have always been, on Iran policy, and on this
issue we speak with one voice.
The simple fact is, if the P5+1 and Iran ultimately achieve a
comprehensive agreement by the June deadline, at the end of the day,
Congress must make a judgment on it and have oversight responsibility.
This legislation provides it. It establishes a managed process for
congressional review and a framework for congressional oversight.
Now, I differentiate between this agreement and others the
administration has cited for exclusive Executive action because the
sanctions relief that is at the heart of this deal was crafted by
Congress and enacted by Congress into law. It is primarily statutory.
As the author of those sanctions, working with others, I can tell you
we never envisioned a wholesale waiver of sanctions without
congressional input and without congressional action.
The limited sanctions relief provided in the law was intended to
provide the President with discretion to waive specific sanctions in
specific circumstances, such as if a country was making real progress
in reducing their oil purchases from Iran. So my goal has always been
one goal; that is, to make certain Iran does not have the
infrastructure to develop a nuclear weapon.
I have worked on that goal since my earliest days in Congress. Now,
as we approach the witching hour for an agreement, the best way to
achieve our goal is with bipartisan support on this legislation that
strengthens the U.S. hand in moving from a political framework to a
comprehensive agreement and sets out clear and decisive expectations
for Iranian compliance.
The message we send to Tehran is that sanctions relief is not a
given, and sanctions relief certainly is not a prize for signing on the
dotted line. This bill ensures that Iran must fully comply with all
provisions of an agreement that effectively dismantle its nuclear
weapons program and provide robust inspection and verification
mechanisms to ensure its compliance with every word of that deal.
If Iran breaches an agreement, Congress will have the ability to
restore sanctions on an expedited basis. Now, as I have said, I have
been outspoken on this issue from the beginning, for years, for as long
as I have been here. Frankly, I have many questions about the framework
agreement. I have questions about the divergent understandings of the
agreement.
I have questions about the pace of sanctions relief. I do not believe
Iran should get a signing bonus. I am concerned by the President's most
recent statement that greater sanctions relief could come upfront for
Iran. I have questions about Iran's retention of research and
development authorities and to what extent they can advance their
research and development, because greater research and development
means more sophisticated centrifuges that can spin faster and,
therefore, dramatically reduce breakout time toward a nuclear bomb.
I am concerned about the ability to snap back sanctions if there are
violations of the agreement. From what I can see, we have a committee
process that will not guarantee that the snapback will take place or
that it will take place expeditiously. I am concerned about the
International Atomic Energy Administration's ability to obtain
``anytime-anywhere'' snap inspections. What happened to Iran having to
come clean about the possible military and weapons dimensions of their
program?
More than anything else, I am concerned about what will happen when
the critical elements of the proposed agreement expire after 10 years.
Are we relegated to accepting Iran as a nuclear weapons state? The
presumption that Iran will become a compliant Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty state in that time for me is not borne out when you see their
insistence and our acquiescence to keeping key nuclear infrastructure
and key nuclear facilities under the agreement.
It is not borne out by history. Iran has been on a single path toward
nuclear weapons for more than 20 years. By deceit and deception--
sometimes without detection until there were well-established covert
facilities--they have advanced their drive for nuclear power to the
precipice of achieving a nuclear bomb. For me, these are all issues
that speak more forcefully to the reasons for having congressional
review and oversight of any potential agreement.
Now, I did not fashion, along with colleagues, a sanctions regime for
the sake of sanctions. It was for the sake of getting Iran to deter its
course. There is no one who would want to see the successful result of
that design more than I. But by the same token, I do embrace what the
administration has said time and time again that no deal is

[[Page S2385]]

better than a bad deal. I will independently judge what that deal is
when and if there is a final deal.
At a minimum, this legislation gives us the oversight role to monitor
and address our concerns. So I urge my colleagues, when the bill comes
for a vote, to vote for it as it was voted out of committee, because it
does what all of us want to do: provides a clear opportunity for a
review of any agreement, so we can express, if desired, our support or
opposition to any agreement and have a clear oversight role with
established parameters for compliance.
Let's vote on what the agreement does, not what it might have done or
could have done if we had different amendments to it. I respect
everybody's views and everybody's rights to have amendments. I hope
those who have ideas will work with the chairman and the ranking
member. But I will oppose amendments, at least with my own vote, that I
consider to be poisonous and that undermine the very essence of what we
have accomplished in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Sometimes you have to know when you hit a home run and be able to
cross the plate and say, We hit a home run--and not think that you are
still stuck in the dugout. What we did in the committee is pretty close
to a home run as far as I can see it. So let's vote on the merits of
the bill that give us the oversight and the ability to pass the
judgment that we need to send a clear message that we are united in our
determination to prevent Iran from ever becoming a nuclear weapons
state, potentially igniting a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous
tinderbox of the world.
So I urge my colleagues to suppress any intentions that will drive us
to a point that we can't have that strong vote, that we can't send that
strong message to Iran. There is no stronger message to Iran,
particularly in this critical time, in which I think we strengthen the
administration and the P5+1's hand by saying there is a congressional
review and potential judgment.
So that final agreement we get, hopefully, can be one we can all
embrace. We can do that--we can actually have an effect by passing this
legislation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I just want to again thank Senator
Menendez for his tremendous leadership on this issue. He brought up a
point I wish I had made in my opening comments. I have made it every
time I have presented this bill elseways. But a lot of people do not
realize that at present, because of the waivers that are part of the
sanctions that we put in place--some of them through independent pieces
of legislation, some of them through NDAAs--in each case the President
was given a national security waiver.
Again, as the Senator mentioned, it was never thought that waiver
would be utilized to waive things ad infinitum. At present--a lot of
people do not realize this--but the President today has the power,
without this legislation, to go straight to the U.N. Security Council,
without coming to Congress, and implement whatever deal he wants to
implement with Iran. He has that ability.
So when you think about what is happening here, and this is what is
so powerful about this bipartisan effort, is that we together--we
together--have said: Wait a minute. If we pass this legislation, we
want to retake the ability ourselves to lift those sanctions or to have
them lifted; we do not want the President going straight to the U.N.
Security Council.
I know Senator Kaine is on the floor. I cannot thank him enough for
getting involved at the time he did. I remember distinctly in the
committee meeting, where we had testimony from our Secretary of State,
him articulating, better than anyone yet, the fact that at some point
down the road we are going to have to permanently lift the sanctions,
which, by the way, could be 5, 6, 7 years down the road, long after the
sanctions regime has totally imploded. We are going to have to do it
permanently down the road.
Would it not make sense for us to go ahead and review this on the
front end and have the opportunity, if we think it is not something
worthy of this, to disapprove or to approve if we decide to do that.
So I know Senator Kaine wants to speak. I cannot thank him enough for
his knowledge of congressional responsibilities as it relates to these
kinds of issues and his input, which was invaluable at the time it
occurred. He really created the momentum for us to move ahead.
I will yield the floor, thanking him very much for his efforts in
this regard.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the Corker-
Menendez bill. I thank Chairman Corker for his kind words and for the
opportunity to work together on something, in what I believe to be the
best traditions of our committee and the Senate. I thank my ranking
member, Senator Cardin, for being a great facilitator at the end to
help us get over a number of challenging issues, to a point of
unanimity on the committee, and to Senator Menendez, whose long-term
interest on this issue has been so consistent and so helpful and whose
work on this particular piece of legislation was critical.
I believe Senator Corker began, and I want to begin as well, with a
condolence to the family of Dr. Weinstein, a Marylander who--the
announcement today about his death in Afghanistan in a drone strike
sort of reminds us of the stakes that are involved in these kinds of
issues. When we are talking about American military action or about
diplomacy around a nuclear weapons program, it is not a bill we are
talking about, it is not a concept we are talking about, we are talking
about human lives; that even in the best of circumstances there will be
days like today when there will be sad news and Americans who are in
harm's way because of the dangerous nature of the world--and I feel
like the announcement today about Dr. Weinstein--our condolences to his
family should remind us of the seriousness of our obligation.
Senator Cardin started with that great wisdom of Senator Vandenberg
that ``politics stops at the water's edge.'' Now, we probably all know
that was never 100 percent true. I know a little bit about some of the
challenges Jefferson and other Virginians had early. There is always
politics, but there is a core wisdom to that principle, a very
important wisdom.
Of course, we are going to battle because we see things differently,
and people seeing things differently can sometimes get to a greater
understanding. That is what we hope to do. But the reason politics
should stop at the water's edge is because we want to send a unified
message to our allies as they depend on us. We need to send a unified
message to our adversaries about our intentions.
But I would say in a personal way, because of maybe representing the
Commonwealth of Virginia, we have to send a unified message to the men
and women in our armed services who serve, who are serving in
battlefields, who are serving in theaters of military operations around
the world. When we are contemplating decisions about something so big
that could potentially lead to war--we just deployed Virginia-based
ships like the Theodore Roosevelt to Yemen to potentially check Iranian
ambitions vis-a-vis the Houthi rebels in Yemen. Those are Virginians,
many from other States, who are deployed on those ships.
We owe it to those who are serving and risking their lives to try to
be as nonpartisan as we can, so they know they are not serving just
because one party thinks they should or the other party thinks they
should, but the missions they are undertaking are missions of national
consensus. I feel that very strongly. That is why I am so gratified
this bill now reaches the floor on a fundamental matter in a bipartisan
way.
With respect to our negotiations with Iran, there was a view out
there on the table that if Congress wanted to be involved, it must be
because we are against diplomacy. In the committee I said that notion
was offensive to me. There were those even who suggested that those who
wanted a congressional oversight role were prowar, which was highly
offensive and insulting.
I am prodiplomacy. I supported the President's commencement of these
negotiations in November of 2013. I think America has a wonderful
diplomatic

[[Page S2386]]

tradition where we have been able to achieve a lot when diplomacy is
done right.
I actually think the negotiation period from November 2013 to today
has produced tangible benefits for the United States, our allies, and
the world because Iran has rolled back its stockpile of 20-percent
enriched uranium. They have allowed inspections they didn't allow
before. And even nations and leaders who were skeptical about whether
the negotiation would work have admitted to me: Maybe I shouldn't have
been skeptical. The negotiation period has produced some benefits.
In the framework announced on April 2, I see some items I like and I
see some other things I have some deep questions about. But a
commitment by Iran, for example, to roll back uranium stockpiles from
10,000 kilograms to 300 kilograms--just a fraction of what would be
necessary to produce even one weapon--would be very positive.
But I say all that just to say that as a prodiplomacy Senator, as
someone who would love to find a negotiation that would work to a
positive end, I believe strongly that a congressional review role of a
matter such as this is necessary, it is helpful, and it is something,
frankly, that the American public deserves. It is necessary for the
reasons that have been described.
Now, a President, under article II powers, has significant ability to
conduct foreign policy and even strike agreements without congressional
approval. There are many things a President can do in the foreign
policy sphere without congressional approval.
But this is fundamentally a negotiation about what Iran must do to
get out from under sanctions that Congress has constructed, that
Congress has imposed, and that Congress has perfected and approved over
the years. If that is the negotiation, there is no way to have an
ultimate deal about the unwinding and eventual repeal of a
congressional sanctions statute without congressional review. So
Congress is necessary to this deal.
Second, congressional review is helpful. It is helpful for the
negotiators, as they are in this final chapter, to know that they must
negotiate to their very best because they will have to sell this deal
to Congress as the elected representatives of the American people. That
is a helpful discipline for our negotiators. It is helpful for the
Iranians who want to get out from under congressional sanctions to have
some sense of how Congress might ultimately look at this deal.
Put yourself in the Iranian shoes. We want them to make huge
concessions, not modest ones. But what is their incentive to make big
concessions to get out from under congressional sanctions if they have
no idea what Congress will likely do? We have put a process in place
that will give them some sense of what Congress would do in an orderly
way, and that will be an incentive, I believe, for larger concessions.
Not only is this review bill necessary, not only is it helpful, but
it is what the American public expects and deserves. I think we have
all been looking at the way the American public has been reacting to
this negotiation.
The American public is like all of us. They are deeply worried about
an Iranian nuclear weapons program. They are like all of us. They would
love it if we could find a diplomatic end to the Iranian nuclear
weapons program. They are like all of us. They are skeptical about
whether Iran will follow an agreement, and they overwhelmingly believe
that if there is an agreement, it should be an agreement that Congress
approves.
Why do they think Congress should approve it? Is it because we have
fantastic approval ratings? Absolutely not. We don't have great
approval ratings. But, the American public says: In our anxiety about
whether we can trust Iran on a deal, we will feel better if both the
executive and the legislative have looked at this deal and concluded--
like you would try to get a second opinion from a doctor on something
that was very important--that it is a good deal for our country and our
national security. They are going to feel more comfortable, given the
natural anxiety they have about Iranian compliance.
That is why this bill is so important.
Finally, I want to talk about how the bill got here because I do
think there is a lesson for the floor activity on the bill but also for
the body, more generally.
This bill was filed in original version in 2014, and I did not sign
onto it.
Our chairman, Senator Corker, and I were in the Middle East in
January with five other Senators, in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Israel.
As we returned after a set of discussions with governmental leaders,
military leaders, civil society, and political leaders about many
topics, including the Iranian negotiation, Senator Corker, a friend,
sort of challenged me a little bit: Hey, you are the guy who likes to
say that Congress needs to play a role. I have been pushing hard for
Congress to play a role in an authorization of military force against
ISIL. If that is what you think, why aren't you on this bill about
congressional approval of a deal with Iran?
I said: You are absolutely right congressional approval, but there
are some aspects of the bill I don't like.
The chairman said to me: Then, fine, you rewrite it or propose
amendments, and let's see if we can work together.
So I did and others did, and we put our best good-faith proposals
down on the table. We found a listening ear, a staff, and a set of
Senators on both sides of the aisle who were willing to try to exercise
that congressional approval role--but do it in the right way, not the
wrong way.
When we filed this bill on September 27, there were two Democratic
original sponsors and two Republican original sponsors. Then there were
five additional Democratic cosponsors and five additional Republican
cosponsors.
So from the very day this bill hit the floor, we were trying to build
it in a bipartisan way to show that the Vandenberg maxim, although it
is not as true even when it was stated and it certainly is not as true
today as we would like it, still had some power. And we wanted to show
the body that we could do it in a bipartisan way so that our allies,
our adversaries, and our troops would see that we could act in a
bipartisan way on something so important.
There were steps between the filing of the bill and the Foreign
Relations Committee action that threatened to push the bill off of the
bipartisan rails into partisanship in ways that might have served the
short-term purpose but that would have probably killed the bill. The
chairman and others made sure that did not happen.
So when we got to the vote in the Foreign Relations Committee--and it
went from 2 plus 2, to 7 plus 7, and eventually, 19 to zero--we
carefully worked at every step along the way to make this bipartisan
and, hopefully, to send an example on the floor that this is what it
should be. Robust debate and amendment, of course, is what this body is
about. But we want to make sure that review of this most important
matter is done in a way that is careful, prompt, and deliberate,
according to rules that all can respect and all can understand.
I conclude with thanks to my colleagues on the committee, to the
leadership of the chair--both as the original drafter of the bill, then
as the drafter willing to entertain other ideas, and then as the chair
of this committee, trying to bring this to a productive place.
I thank Senator Cardin for his great role in helping us bridge
differences and, especially, for his communication with the White
House. The White House threatened to veto this bill, but Senator
Cardin, probably better than most, was able to listen to the concerns
and then try to respond to the concerns in a way that we could make the
bill productive.
This matter is so important that we just cannot tackle it in any way
other than trying to follow--the best we humanly can--that Vandenberg
maxim. I hope, as we get into deliberations on the floor next week,
that this would be the spirit of all the colleagues who tackled this
most important matter.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kaine. I appreciate his
outline of how this legislation went from unlikely to have much impact,
because we didn't have the consensus and the numbers necessary to get
it through the finish line. It would have had a very, very difficult
time getting through the committee--let alone the floor of the Senate,
the House, and

[[Page S2387]]

signed by the President--but for how people listen to each other.
So I am pleased the two of you went on the trip together because I
think we need to do more of that in the Senate.
Senator Kaine and Senator Corker are both individuals who have a deep
respect for the proper role of the Senate, the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, and the Senators.
I am proud to serve with both of you. I am pleased to see that we
have found ways that we really can bridge differences in order to
achieve a common purpose. We were not interested in scoring political
points. We are interested in doing what our responsibility is all
about.
So Senator Corker is now probing a way in which we can reauthorize
the State Department, the role that our committee should have, and,
therefore, to directly deal with our responsibilities in the Senate
through the appropriate committee. I think all of these are efforts
with which, working together, we can have the Senate perform the proper
role in this government of ours to make sure that the legislative
branch weighs in where it is appropriate on foreign policy issues.
I thank Senator Kaine and Senator Corker for giving us a good model
as to how legislation should be developed. I was proud to work with
Senator Corker so that we could get the White House and get some of our
Members who didn't quite share the enthusiasm of this legislation to a
place where they are comfortable in supporting the bill--not only
supporting the bill but enthusiastically supporting the bill in order
to get it done.
I also appreciate your mentioning Warren Weinstein. Warren Weinstein
was a resident of Maryland. His wife, Elaine, I talked to on frequent
occasions. She is a very brave woman and did everything she could to
bring her husband home. Warren Weinstein was a USAID worker in
Pakistan. He did that because he wanted to do good for the world.
He was very well respected, carrying out his mission in a most
professional way. He was on his way home, basically, when he was
kidnapped in 2011 by Al Qaeda. As we know, the President announced
today that he was killed in January, along with an Italian national who
was also serving. Our thoughts and prayers first go out to the
families. Our hearts are broken.
Senator Mikulski, Congressman Delaney, and I have frequently met with
the family over the years to try to put a spotlight at the appropriate
time in dealing with the hostage situation. It is very difficult to
deal with a hostage situation when it is not a government that is
holding the person, and it makes it much more complicated.
But I do think that in addition to doing everything we can to keep
our Americans safe who go to these countries on our behalf, using
diplomacy, basically, and developing assistance for a more stable
country, we have to do everything we can to keep them safe. We have to
recognize the risk factors in circumstances such as this. We have to
have strategies to do everything we possibly can to bring these people
back home safely.
I know you all share that. But then we have to make the world a
little bit safer, and that is what this review statute is all about. I
do believe it does give us a better opportunity to get the right
agreement from Iran that would prevent it from becoming a nuclear
weapons power, which is a game changer for the security in that region.
I wish to mention just one other example. There was an enormous human
tragedy when another boat carrying desperate refugees and migrants
capsized in the Mediterranean Sea. In the most recent instance over 850
men, women, and children have died. Now these are very desperate
situations when you take these dangerous voyages.
The number of people who have died in the Mediterranean--in 2014 we
know that well over 218,000 refugees and migrants crossed the
Mediterranean Sea, many fleeing violence, conflicts, and persecution in
Syria, Iraq, and Eritrea. We also know that Yemen is involved here.
Last year's death total surpassed 1,750 victims.
I mention that because what Iran is doing in this region is adding to
the migration and refugee issues. Its support of terrorism, its
involvement in Yemen, its involvement in Syria, and its involvement in
other countries are causing people to take desperate action in order to
stay safe. So we are here today to do something about that.
It is just another motivation for us to do everything we can to
provide the types of policies that are necessary in that region of the
world to make people safer and to have sustainable countries that can
protect all of their citizens.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, today we will begin the most important
debate this Congress will have this year, probably this Congress,
perhaps in the entire tenure any Member of this Senate has. This debate
is not just about this piece of legislation but about a nuclear Iran
and the consequences a nuclear Iran would create for the world.
Iran is today the greatest threat to the world. Iran already is the
world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, according to the Obama
administration's own State Department. We see their regional aggression
on display in Syria, in Lebanon, in Iraq, and now in Yemen. They have a
very bad habit of killing Jews around the world, from Israel, to
Bulgaria, to Argentina. They hold four U.S. citizens hostage today
without just cause or due process. They do all those things without a
nuclear weapon and with tens of billions of dollars frozen overseas.
What could we expect if Iran is able to develop nuclear weapons
capabilities?
First, we will see more regional aggression as they use their nuclear
umbrella to continue their drive for regional dominance throughout the
Middle East. They would use the tens of billions of dollars sanctions
relief would give them not to build hospitals or schools or roads or to
improve the lives of their people but, rather, to prop up their
proxies, such as the Hezbollah or the Houthis or the Shiite militia
currently at risk of tearing Iraq apart.
Second, they are likely to use those nuclear weapons. Ayatollah
Khamenei, the original Supreme Leader, upon taking power said the
Islamic revolution did not care about Iran or the Persian nation or its
history, they cared about spreading worldwide Islamic revolution. This
is not a normal state, and these are not normal leaders.
Third, we will see a nuclear arms race throughout the Middle East. As
many Senators in this institution have heard from senior government
officials of Sunni states throughout the gulf, they cannot tolerate a
Persian Shiite nuclear power. Whether they develop with their
indigenous capabilities, in some instances, or whether they purchase it
from overseas, we will see the world's most dangerous and volatile
region strung with nuclear tripwires.
Fourth, these countries may provide nuclear weapons to terrorists to
be used against American troops in the region, against our allies, such
as Israel, or other countries or in one of the harbors on America's
coasts, if not in America's heartland.
Fifth, terrorists or insurgents could get their hands on nuclear
materials if they were able to destabilize or topple the wrong regime,
as has tended to happen in the Middle East in the last 4 years and in
recent decades.
The President started these negotiations on the grounds that we would
stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Yet he has consistently
backpedaled, conceded, and reversed himself. Rather than now trying to
dismantle and disarm Iran's nuclear arms program, we are content to
trying to manage it, to limit its breakout time to 1 mere year, if
that.
The United Nation's Security Council has passed multiple resolutions
saying that Iran has no right to enrich uranium. Yet now we are going
to concede Iran the right to keep thousands of centrifuges, to continue
advanced research into centrifuges, and to keep its stockpile of
uranium.
The President said barely more than a year ago, after the
negotiations started, that Iran had no reason to

[[Page S2388]]

have a hardened underground military bunker in which they kept
centrifuge cascades in Fordow. Yet, according to our own proposed fact
sheet--much of which Iran disputes--we are going to concede the Fordow
issue.
The President said at the very same time after negotiations had begun
that Iran had no reason to keep its uranium stockpiles, and Iran had,
in fact, reportedly agreed to tentatively export those to a third
party. At the last minute, in Switzerland earlier this month, they
reversed themselves, saying they were going to insist on keeping their
stockpile, and we conceded on that front as well.
We have insisted throughout the period of these negotiations that we
would not grant Iran immediate sanctions relief. The President's own
term sheet said we wouldn't grant such relief. Iran's term sheet says
differently. Just Friday, when confronted with this discrepancy, the
President said we may have to find creative ways around this
disagreement--creative ways to give Iran, the world's leading state
sponsor of terrorism, on its way to becoming a nuclear threshold power,
tens of billions of dollars and reportedly even a $50 billion signing
bonus, as if Iran were not a theocratic dictatorial regime but a blue
chip prospect in the NFL draft.
These negotiations have also excluded most of Iran's outlaw
behavior--currently developing intercontinental ballistic missiles for
which there is no reason other than striking the United States; holding
those four hostages without due process or fair trials--and stopping
its regional aggression and stopping its support for terrorism.
This legislation has some good elements in it. It would suspend the
President's ability to waive any sanctions for approximately 7 weeks
while we consider any proposed bill if such a deal is reached at some
point in the future. It would also require the President to certify
every 90 days that Iran is living up to its obligations under any such
deal. But it only goes into effect after such a deal is announced. Any
deal along the lines the President proposed 2 weeks ago is dangerous
for the United States and dangerous for the world, and it is Congress's
job to stop such a deal before it happens.
The sponsors of this bill didn't upend the constitutional baseline.
This bill should be submitted for a treaty. The President should have
to get 67 votes for a major nuclear arms agreement with an outlaw
regime. Instead, Congress has to get 67 votes in the Senate to block
such a bill. That is why I intend to support Senator Johnson's
amendment that would require this to be submitted as a treaty.
This legislation omits most of Iran's outlaw behavior, and it doesn't
lay out the terms on which Congress would insist, before there is
sanctions relief, in addressing this outlaw behavior. And it may allow
the President to argue in the future--if a mere 34 Senators vote
against a resolution of disapproval--and say that Congress has
acquiesced in his agreement and that he now has support from the
Congress and is not just acting on his own whim.
Therefore, I expect to offer and I expect to support amendments that
are offered in three main categories--first, an amendment that would
treat any resolution of disapproval as a privileged amendment subject
not to a 60-vote threshold but to a 51-vote threshold. We should not
let 34 Senators block a resolution of disapproval from going into
effect. We certainly shouldn't allow 41 Senators to impede the will of
59 Senators who disagree with any future deal from forcing the
President to veto it and depriving him of the ability to claim that
Congress has acquiesced to his action.
The second main category would be to limit the administration's
discretion in the future on reporting about breaches of an agreement,
should an agreement be reached and should it not be blocked by the
Congress.
This legislation says the administration should report potentially
significant breaches to the Congress and then determine whether those
potentially significant breaches are a material breach, which is
defined as substantially reducing Iran's breakout time or improving
Iran's nuclear program. We should strike those lawyers' vague terms.
They should submit every breach to us. They should submit every time
the breakout time is decreased or Iran's nuclear program improves its
position. It is our job as the people's representatives to decide
whether it is material, whether it is significant.
The third category of amendments is that Iran should not get
sanctions relief until they live up to their international obligations,
until they meet the very baseline terms the President himself laid out
at the beginning of these negotiations or even after the negotiations
had begun, and until Iran acts like a civilized country.
There should be no sanctions relief until the President can certify
that the hardened underground military facility at Fordow is closed. He
himself said Iran had no need for it.
There should be no sanctions relief until Iran has lived up to its
international obligation to the IAEA--the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog--and
disclosed the past military dimensions of its nuclear program, without
which inspectors have no baseline to know what the status of their
program is today.
There should be no sanctions relief until the President can certify
that Iran is not developing intercontinental ballistic missiles. They
have missiles that can defend their own territory and that can strike
most of their neighbors in the Middle East. They are developing
intercontinental ballistic missiles for one reason: to strike the
United States with a nuclear warhead.
There should be no sanctions relief until the President can certify
that Iran is no longer sponsoring terrorism because it goes to the
heart of the threat Iran poses. Other countries in the world are a
nuclear threshold power--Japan, Germany, and South Korea. We don't have
debates about those countries being a nuclear threshold power because
they are normal countries with normal leaders who do not call us the
Great Satan and Israel the Little Satan and threaten to wipe Israel off
the map. Until the nature of the Iran regime changes, we cannot allow
them to have weapons of this nature. And they will not change until
they have renounced terrorism.
Next, the President should have to certify that Iran is not
cooperating with North Korea--as it has done countless times on
ballistic missile programs and nuclear technology--an outlaw regime
whose current nuclear status foretells the future of this deal. In
1994, the agreed framework was supposed to stop North Korea from
becoming a nuclear power. Yet, just 12 years later, they have developed
nuclear weapons. Now, by most estimates, they have 20--a number that
could double in just a few years--with much of the United States
falling underneath the threat of a North Korean nuclear attack.
Next, there should be no sanctions relief until all four American
hostages are released--Pastor Saeed Abenini; Amir Hekmati, a decorated
marine; Robert Levinson; and Jason Rezaian, a Washington Post reporter.
That should have been a term before we even sat down at the table, that
no American citizen will be held hostage by an outlaw, third-rate
regime like Iran--before we started negotiating with them. They and
their families deserve no less.
There should be no sanctions relief until the President can certify
that Iran has agreed to anytime, anywhere inspections. This is an
ongoing point of major dispute between President Obama and Iran's
leaders, but if we can't go to their military facilities, if we can't
inspect any facility instantly, without notification, we will be
engaged in the same kind of cat-and-mouse regime that has caused
inspection regimes to fail time and time again.
Finally, Iran should recognize Israel's right to exist. It is not too
much to simply say that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish and a
democratic country. This is a country that just a few months ago was
tweeting--tweeting--nine different reasons why Israel should be
annihilated from the world.
These are very simple terms, most of which President Obama himself
outlined before these negotiations began or which are clear and binding
international obligations on Iran. They are good amendments that would
strengthen this bill--a bill that touches on the most important issues
that most of us will address during our time in the Senate.
When we considered the Keystone Pipeline bill--an important bill but
a

[[Page S2389]]

bill that dealt with a single pipeline--we considered almost 250
amendments, and we voted on 40. Surely, we should have the same kind of
robust consideration, debate, and voting on this bill. I strongly
support the majority leader's call earlier this morning for exactly
that kind of robust process. Most of these amendments touch directly on
the heart of this legislation. I look forward to casting up-or-down
votes on a 51-vote threshold on all of these amendments and many more
that my colleagues may offer.
I regret that I may miss some of this debate. I may have to ask some
of my colleagues to submit amendments for me. My first child is due
today. By the time this bill gets to the floor next week for debate and
voting, I expect my first child will have arrived. But I will not allow
my son to live under the threat of a nuclear Iran--the threat of
nuclear attack and ultimate nuclear war--any more than I will allow the
sons and daughters of all Americans to live under that threat.
So I look forward to this debate. I look forward to stopping Iran
from getting a nuclear weapon.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________