[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 62 (Tuesday, April 28, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2443-S2452]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     PROTECTING VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS AND EMERGENCY RESPONDERS ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 1191, which the clerk will report.
  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.

  Pending:

       Corker/Cardin amendment No. 1140, in the nature of a 
     substitute.


                Amendment No. 1179 to Amendment No. 1140

  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I call up the Corker-Cardin amendment, 
which is at the desk.

[[Page S2444]]

  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 1179 to amendment 
     No. 1140.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To require submission of all Persian text included in the 
                               agreement)

       On page 2, line 13, insert ``, and specifically including 
     any agreed Persian text of such agreement, related materials, 
     and annexes'' after ``and annexes''.

  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, this amendment simply requires that, 
alongside the English text of any final agreement, the President submit 
to Congress the official Persian text of any final agreement, including 
the related materials and annexes.
  We all have seen the controversy surrounding the discrepancies 
between the American factsheet and the Iranian factsheet. This 
agreement is too important to rely on secondhand interpretations of the 
Senate. In order for Congress to adequately evaluate any agreement, we 
have to see what both sides believe this agreement is, and that 
requires the Persian text of the agreement.

  This is a commonsense amendment. I thank Senator Cardin for joining 
me in this amendment, and not unprecedented in any way. In fact, we 
just recently received a transmission of the China 123 agreement, which 
included the Chinese text.
  I yield to my friend, Senator Cardin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Corker on this first 
amendment being offered. We have used the same process we used in the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee. There are several Members who have 
brought this to our attention; that it is important, in reviewing the 
agreement--assuming agreement is reached by Congress--that we have at 
our disposal the documents being used. We expect we will have certainly 
an English version, but there could be information in other languages, 
including Farsi. So it is important we have the original documents 
being used so we can review and determine ourselves all the details of 
the agreement.
  So that is the purpose of this. This is a bipartisan amendment. We 
believe it strengthens the underlying purpose of this bill, which is to 
set up an orderly way for Congress to review a potential agreement 
reached between the United States and our negotiating partners and 
Iran--have an opportunity to review and have the options of either 
taking no action or dealing with an approval or disapproval or dealing 
with the sanctions, since we imposed the sanctions. So I think it 
strengthens the underlying bill, but more importantly it is a process 
we should use.
  If I might, the bill now is open for amendment, but I would urge my 
colleagues to understand how the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has 
brought forward a bill that got a 19-to-0 vote in the committee--
because we recognize stopping Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons 
state is so important, we cannot be distracted by other issues. So we 
focused on that issue.
  As I said earlier, we have a lot of other problems with Iran. Iran 
sponsors terrorism. Iran has interfered with its neighbors and is 
continuing to do that. Iran has a horrible record on human rights.
  So as I started to look through the amendments that were filed--they 
haven't been made pending but have been filed--I see a whole host of 
amendments that deal with issues that aren't really involved in this 
bill in stopping Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state. They would 
add certification requirements on Iran not participating in terrorism 
or its ballistic missile program or its human rights record or its 
interference with the sovereignty of other countries or the return of 
U.S. citizens who are improperly being held.
  Every Member of this body agrees that Iran needs to respond to those 
issues, and we have tools available to deal with that. We have 
sanctions, regimes that deal with human rights violations, sponsoring 
terrorism, ballistic missile programs. This bill deals with stopping 
Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state.
  Now what would happen if any of those amendments were approved, if we 
had to have a certification. The President could not make that 
certification. So one of two things happens: It is a poison pill that 
kills this bill, so we lose our opportunity to review or it blows up 
negotiations, and then the United States is alone, without any 
international support, because we blew it up in stopping Iran from 
becoming a nuclear weapons state, making it much less likely that we 
will stop Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state. That is why 
Senator Graham said the only people who will celebrate a poison pill 
getting on this bill will be Iran.
  So I urge my colleagues to understand what is at stake. This is a 
very important bill.
  What Senator Corker and I urge Senators to do is, if they have 
amendments to file, talk to us. That is how we did it in the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee. Talk to us. Let's see whether we can work 
out an amendment, in an orderly way, to consider those amendments.
  That is what we want to do, so we can use our time on the floor in 
consideration of amendments in the most constructive way, that will 
lead to a bill being approved by the same large vote we had in the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, so we use the process for 
amendments similar to what this bill, S. 615, does for a congressional 
review of an agreement and the way the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee did its work to get a 19-to-0 vote.
  I thank my chairman for his extraordinary leadership. I thank the 
Presiding Officer who was very helpful in this process. I hope we will 
be able to proceed in that direction.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Maryland.
  I agree. We have reached out to numbers of people who have amendments 
and have asked them to come down to the floor and talk with us. I know 
a number of our folks are traveling around the country focused on other 
things at present. We have reached out to them to get back with us and 
talk about some of the language.
  I say to my friend from Maryland that I appreciate his openness to 
the numbers of amendments we are now looking at. I know at lunch today 
he will talk to his caucus a little bit about them and we will talk to 
ours.
  I look forward to a robust process. But, again, we have to have 
people who, if they want to call up an amendment--they need to come 
down, if they will, and talk with us and let us work through the 
process.
  I thank the Senator for his comments.
  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. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Welcoming Prime Minister Abe

  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I rise to welcome the Prime Minister of 
Japan Shinzo Abe to Congress and to speak to the importance of United 
States-Japan relations and the future of the Asia-Pacific region.
  Tomorrow is a momentous occasion. For the first time ever, our 
country will welcome the leader of Japan to speak before a joint 
meeting of Congress.
  For over 2\1/2\ centuries, our Nations have been intimately linked by 
trade and commerce. In 1853, Commodore Matthew Perry waited with his 
ships on Japanese shores to deliver a letter from President Millard 
Fillmore to Japan's Emperor on November 13, 1852, which said in part:

       I send you this public letter by Commodore Matthew C. 
     Perry, an officer of the highest rank in the navy of the 
     United States, and commander of the squadron now visiting 
     Your imperial majesty's dominions.
       I have directed Commodore Perry to assure your imperial 
     majesty that I entertain the kindest feelings toward your 
     majesty's person and government, and that I have no other 
     object in sending him to Japan but to propose to your 
     imperial majesty that the United States and Japan should live 
     in friendship.

  Thus, our Nations embarked on a path and relationship that would 
change the course of world history. On July 29, 1858, the United States 
and

[[Page S2445]]

Japan concluded the Treaty of Amity and Commerce, and in 1860 Japan 
dispatched its first diplomats to Washington, DC. They were the very 
first Japanese diplomats to visit a foreign power in 200 years.
  Historians have often referred to our opening with Japan as an 
extension of our own Nation's Manifest Destiny which spread the 
American people and values across the West, including my home State of 
Colorado.
  In 1911, President William Howard Taft further advanced our ties by 
concluding the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation with Japan. In World 
War I, Japan sided with the allies.
  On March 26, 1912, a gift of 3,020 cherry blossom trees arrived in 
our Nation's Capital--a symbol of United States-Japanese friendship 
that we witness every spring as we walk by or drive by the Tidal Basin 
and other landmarks in Washington. But we must never forget the dark 
pages in our history. We must never forget Pearl Harbor, the day that 
will live in infamy. We must never forget Iwo Jima, Saipan, 
Guadalcanal, and the bloody battles in Okinawa.
  This war changed our Nation forever. Every day we must remember the 
sacrifice of the greatest generation that prevailed in that epic, great 
civilizational conflict. Without them, this Nation would not be what it 
is today. Without them, this Nation may not have endured. We never lost 
sight of perspective of why we fought. As Imperial Japan surrendered 
aboard the USS Missouri, GEN Douglas MacArthur offered the following:

       It is my earnest hope and indeed the hope of all mankind 
     that from this solemn occasion a better world shall emerge 
     out of the blood and carnage of the past--a world founded 
     upon faith and understanding--a world dedicated to the 
     dignity of man and the fulfillment of his most cherished 
     wish--for freedom, tolerance, and justice.

  Japan's destruction following World War II was nearly complete. Out 
of that rubble of tragedy emerged the great partnership between our two 
nations. On April 19, 1951, General MacArthur went before Congress and 
declared in his farewell address:

       The Japanese people, since the war, have undergone the 
     greatest reformation recorded in modern history. With a 
     commendable will, eagerness to learn, and marked capacity to 
     understand, they have, from the ashes left in the war's wake, 
     erected in Japan an edifice dedicated to the supremacy of 
     individual liberty and personal dignity; and in the ensuing 
     process there has been created a truly representative 
     government committed to the advance of political morality, 
     freedom of economic enterprise, and social justice.

  As Japan took on the task of arduously rebuilding its society and 
economy, our friendship and our relationship blossomed. Perhaps helping 
in that relationship, of course, is a shared national pastime, 
baseball. It arrived in Japan in the 19th century and was already a 
thriving sport by the time the postwar recovery had begun.
  Yogi Berra, the New York Yankees' great, visited Japan in 1953 in the 
midst of this rebuilding process. His love of the game won the 
affection of millions, and he traveled the country demonstrating his 
skills behind the plate. Still, many of us may pause to wonder if this 
is the place--a nation haunted by such recent trials of war and a land 
struggling to regain its footing in the world, a once powerful country 
desperate to turn the page in history--where Yogi Berra first uttered 
his memorable phrase: The future ain't what it used to be.
  With the United States firmly at her side, Japan rose again. Japan 
today is the world's third largest economy and the fourth largest 
trading partner for the United States. Millions of Americans for 
generations have bought iconic Japanese products, from Sony televisions 
to Toyota automobiles, to Toshiba laptops.
  In the 1980s, former Senate majority leader and later Ambassador to 
Japan Mike Mansfield would describe the United States-Japan 
relationship as the most important bilateral relationship in the world, 
bar none. The United States-Japan alliance remains the backbone of 
security and stability in Asia. Approximately 53,000 U.S. military 
personnel are now stationed in the Japanese islands, both onshore and 
offshore. Together, with our Japanese partners, we work daily to 
confront the security challenges in the region and to ensure peace and 
stability.
  As the challenges in the region are evolving, so, too, must the 
security relationship between the United States and Japan. The Japanese 
leadership is currently taking necessary steps to change its post-World 
War II defense posture in order to meet the traditional and emerging 
challenges in the region. The revised United States-Japan defense 
cooperation guidelines, announced yesterday, signify a new phase in our 
relationship and Japan's emergence as security leader in the region.
  I want the American people to understand the importance of these 
developments. It is due to U.S. military presence and the steadfast 
commitment to our allies that we have avoided a land war in East Asia 
for generations.
  Distinguished political scientist Joseph Nye may have put it best 
when he said: Security is like oxygen--you tend not to notice it until 
you begin to lose it, but once that occurs there is nothing else that 
you will think about.
  Our presence in the region has given our allies the breathing space 
to rebuild and stave off aggression, and now they are stepping up to 
the plate by increasingly sharing that responsibility with the United 
States.
  This is also a historic economic moment for the Asia-Pacific region. 
The United States and Japan are leading the way on concluding one of 
the most ambitious trade deals ever undertaken, the Trans-Pacific 
Partnership. Eleven Pacific nations from Malaysia to New Zealand and 
Brunei to Vietnam are actively working to tear down barriers to trade 
that have stifled access to markets far too long. TPP's reach 
encompasses nearly 40 percent--nearly 40--percent of all global trade 
and trillions of dollars in economic activity.
  TPP will set the standard for a new era of economic relationships 
with Asia, and the United States and Japan are leading the way. We must 
conclude this landmark agreement as soon as possible, and I am 
encouraged by the progress we have made in Congress to advance this 
historic pact, but we must look at the TPP as just one step forward in 
our commitment to the region, not the final solution.
  Despite the crises of the day in the Middle East or Europe, where the 
United States does and should play an important role, our Nation's 
strategic future lies in Asia.
  Consider the following estimates from the Asian Development Bank:
  By 2050, Asia will account for over half of the population and over 
half of the world's gross domestic product.
  Asia's middle class will rise and increase to a staggering 3 billion 
people.
  Per capita GDP income in the region will rise to around $40,000, 
making it similar to the Europe of today.
  We cannot miss the opportunity to be a part of this important 
opportunity and transformation. Working with Japan and other regional 
partners, we must ensure that our policies strengthen existing 
friendships and build new partnerships that will be critical to U.S. 
national security and economic well-being for generations to come.
  This administration's pivot to Asia or rebalance policy, which builds 
on the work that began under previous administrations, is a sensible 
approach to realizing these goals. But I am concerned, however, with 
the pace and focus and the consistency of the implementation of the 
rebalance. The administration, this administration and the next one, 
must ensure that this important policy of engagement is pursued 
vigorously at all levels--whether that is the military, diplomacy or 
civilian fronts--in order for the rebalance to actually achieve its 
stated and strategic objectives. Moving in fits and starts is not good 
policy, whether that is for the economy or foreign relations. Every 
moment of hesitation and idleness invites evermore challenges and 
missed opportunities. Doubt is never the basis of a long-term, strong 
relationship.
  Our partners in the region must know each and every day that the 
United States is here to stay. We still face grave threats in the Asia-
Pacific region as North Korea marches on with their nuclear program and 
belligerence toward the free world. The growing challenges of nuclear 
proliferation, cyber security threats, and the destabilizing 
territorial disputes in the South and East Asian seas requires that now 
more than ever the United States and Japan are vigilant and united with 
our allies in our efforts to maintain regional prosperity and security.

[[Page S2446]]

  As the Prime Minister delivers his historic address tomorrow, it is 
my hope that he delivers the message that the promise of the future in 
the region, bolstered by an alliance with the United States, is a more 
powerful force than the painful history of the past.
  We must never forget that colonialism and militarism caused untold 
anguish and destruction in the region in the 20th century. But as 
demonstrated by the strength of the United States-Japan relations 
following those dark pages of history, it is my sincerest wish that our 
friends in the region can establish a viable path forward and overcome 
this difficult past to focus on building a better future.
  America's new century in the Asia-Pacific region has arrived. But as 
we welcome Prime Minister Abe and celebrate our friendship, we must 
remember this is only the first inning of this ball game. We must 
continue to work toward the goal that General MacArthur had stated 
aboard the USS Missouri on September 2, 1945:

     . . . a better world shall emerge out of the blood and 
     carnage of the past--a world founded upon faith and 
     understanding--a world dedicated to the dignity of man and 
     the fulfillment of his most cherished wish--for freedom, 
     tolerance and justice.

  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, 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. CARDIN. 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. CARDIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Gardner for his leadership 
as chair of the East Asia and Pacific subcommittee. I am still 
technically the ranking member of that subcommittee, but under my new 
responsibilities I have not had the same amount of time. I want to 
thank the Senator for the work he is doing, for doing the rebalanced 
Asia. We know how important Asia is to the United States. With the 
Prime Minister of Japan, Mr. Abe, being here this week, it is an 
opportunity to underscore the important relationship between Japan and 
the United States. I really wish to thank the Senator for the way he 
has led the subcommittee and how he has worked to point out the 
important issues we have on maritime security and how we have to work 
together to make sure responsible action takes place and that we don't 
have a circumstance that could get out of control and could affect not 
only the security of some of our allies but also the maritime shipping 
areas.

  There are so many issues we are working on with our ally Japan, and 
this week we have a chance really to strengthen those relationships. We 
will have an opportunity to talk to the Prime Minister, and I look 
forward to continuing to work with the Senator from Colorado in this 
very important part of the world, Japan.
  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. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Corinthian Colleges

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, it has been nearly 1 year since 
Corinthian Colleges, Inc., began its death spiral--falling under the 
weight of its own wrongdoing. Corinthian Colleges defrauded students, 
defrauded taxpayers, lied to accreditors, lied to the Federal 
Government, and on Sunday, this for-profit college, Corinthian 
Colleges, announced it would close its remaining 28 campuses--campuses 
in California, Oregon, Hawaii, Arizona, and New York. So, finally, 
Corinthian has collapsed.
  We reflect on this disaster and ask a basic critical question: Why 
did it take this long given the long litany of violations to finally 
stop the flow of hundreds of millions of dollars--Federal tax dollars--
to Corinthian Colleges, and equally important, how many Corinthian 
disasters lie ahead in the for-profit college and university industry?
  There are certainly more questions we need to ask of the Department 
of Education about how it handled this case and how it must be more 
aggressive in the future to stop violations earlier, especially to 
prevent the students at these for-profit education companies from 
suffering an experience similar to Corinthian.
  There will be more to come on that in the weeks and months ahead, but 
today I wish to focus on what is next for the students who attended 
these Corinthian campuses. We know this for-profit college and 
university industry pretty well. Ask any high school student in America 
to go online and to search a word, such as college or university, and 
watch what happens. As soon as they get to any kind of directory of Web 
sites, they will start seeing the ads for the for-profit colleges and 
universities. Some of the names are pretty obvious and well known. The 
largest of all is University of Phoenix. The next largest is DeVry 
University, out of the city of Chicago, and the next largest is Kaplan, 
an entity that was once owned by the Washington Post and now is on its 
own.
  These for-profit colleges and universities descend on students, as 
well as on those who graduated from high school, imploring them to sign 
up for an education online--to sign up for a for-profit college. It 
will be so easy. They can do this online and get their degree. It will 
be a snap. That is what Corinthian did for years.
  I know that with the news of the closure, students who signed up for 
Corinthian and went to school there woke up wondering what is next. 
Their college just disappeared, but their student debt didn't 
disappear. They signed up for these loans to go to this worthless 
school, and now the school has disappeared and the debt is still there.
  There is a Federal law that can help these students. The Higher 
Education Act gives students who attended a school such as Corinthian--
within 120 days of its closure--the ability to discharge their Federal 
student loans. I am renewing my call to the Department of Education to 
reach out directly to the thousands of students who have been exploited 
by Corinthian Colleges and to provide discharge applications to these 
students and give them clear, upfront information about how 
transferring their credits to another school may impact their ability 
to discharge their loans.
  If a student transfers these Corinthian credits, which have limited 
value, to another school, they likely cannot discharge the loan they 
took out at Corinthian. So a student has to make a choice. The notice 
that the Department of Education sent to students yesterday is 
unacceptable. It leaves students to navigate through a series of links 
to get more information and it glosses over the most basic right of a 
student to discharge the student loans from bankrupt Corinthian 
Colleges.
  Federal regulations clearly state the Secretary of Education's 
responsibility when a school such as Corinthian closes. According to 
the law, it says: ``After confirming the date of a school's closure, 
the Secretary identifies any Direct Loan borrower (or student on whose 
behalf a parent borrowed) who appears to have enrolled at the school on 
the school closure date or to have withdrawn not more than 120 days 
prior to the closure date.''
  It goes on to say: ``If the borrower's current address is known, the 
Secretary mails the borrower a discharge application and an explanation 
of the qualifications and procedures for obtaining a discharge.''
  The law is pretty clear. It is up to the Secretary of Education--the 
same agency that published an accreditation for this failed school, the 
same agency which sent the loan forms for students to sign up for 
loans. That same agency now has an obligation under the law to tell 
these students there is a way out.
  Do you know what the average tuition is for a 2-year degree at the 
failed Corinthian Colleges? About $40,000. Imagine if this were your 
son or daughter. They just went through 2 years of school and have 
$40,000 in debt, and the college they are attending, Corinthian 
Colleges, just essentially went bankrupt, and now they find out people 
are laughing at them when they show their diploma from Corinthian 
Colleges.

[[Page S2447]]

What is wrong with this picture? A young person, 2 or 3 years out of 
high school, now has $40,000 worth of debt or more and nothing to show 
for it.
  Now is not the time for the Department to be concerned with the cost 
to taxpayers of discharging this debt. That is an important issue, and 
we will take it on later. The time for that was really over the last 12 
months when the Department of Education kept Corinthian alive by 
pumping in hundreds of millions of dollars to keep their doors open 
when they were headed for bankruptcy. Now is the time to focus on the 
students, particularly the students in the States I mentioned earlier. 
They need the relief from this student debt.
  The Department has also been doing something which I really want to 
call them out on. You know what they are suggesting to the students who 
have just gone through this miserable experience at the for-profit, 
failed, bankrupt Corinthian Colleges? They are suggesting that they can 
transfer to another for-profit college. What are they thinking?
  Students should be warned if they use their Corinthian credits to 
transfer to another institution, they will likely not be eligible for 
discharge.
  I have a few examples of the schools the U.S. Department of Education 
suggested that the Corinthian Colleges students transfer their credits 
to and still keep their debt from Corinthian. ITT Tech is one example. 
We see their ads everywhere, don't we? What we don't see in their ads 
is the fact that they are being sued by the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau. Sixteen different State attorneys general are 
investigating ITT Tech, and they are on the Department of Education's 
heightened cash monitoring list. Our Department is recommending that 
these students transfer to this school? What are they thinking?
  Here is another example: Le Cordon Bleu and International Academy of 
Design and Technology--powerful names. What we don't see in all of 
their ads is that their parent company, Career Education Corporation, 
is under investigation by 17 different State attorneys general and on 
the Department of Education's heightened cash monitoring list. And our 
Department of Education is suggesting that the students at the failed 
Corinthian Colleges--why don't you pick up a culinary degree from Le 
Cordon Bleu. Maybe it will stay in business.
  Here is another example: the Art Institutes and Argosy University. 
Argosy University--I ran into their signs in Chicago last week, and I 
could not help but think how many students are lured into believing 
Argosy University is something more than it really is. It is a for-
profit college and university.
  Incidentally, for the record, the parent company, Education 
Management Corporation is being sued by the U.S. Department of Justice 
and investigated by 17 State attorneys general. They are also on the 
Department of Education's heightened cash monitoring list. This is 
another school that the Department of Education suggested that 
Corinthian Colleges students transfer to.
  Westwood College, one of the most infamous in the Chicagoland area, 
is being sued by the Illinois attorney general for deceptive recruiting 
practices. They were suggested to Corinthian Colleges students to 
transfer to by the Department of Education.
  DeVry is under investigation by the Federal Trade Commission and by 
two State attorneys general. The University of Phoenix's parent company 
is being investigated by two State attorneys general. Kaplan is under 
investigation by three State attorneys general.
  Has the Department of Education learned nothing? How in good faith 
can they tell these Corinthian students--who just had their college 
disappear and are sitting on a pile of debt--that these are viable 
transfer options for their students?
  Last summer the Department assured me they would not sell Corinthian 
campuses to companies being investigated. They didn't want the students 
to be placed in double jeopardy. Why now will the Department accept 
that outcome for these students?
  A move such as this leads me to the sad conclusion that the 
Department of Education is out of touch with the reality of the danger 
of students signing up at for-profit colleges and universities.
  I want to say a word about the students who don't qualify for the 
clear relief I mentioned under the Federal law--the closed-school 
discharge. I joined with Senator Elizabeth Warren and others to call on 
the Department of Education to provide meaningful debt relief for all 
students wronged by Corinthian. We believe the fraud perpetrated by 
Corinthian should constitute a defense for repayment to students. The 
Department should provide clear guidelines on how students can assert 
their claims. These students need it and deserve it.
  Senator Warren and I will meet with Secretary Duncan and 
Undersecretary Mitchell later this week.
  While Corinthian's fraudulent behavior has left tens of thousands of 
students in financial desperate straits, the company's leaders have 
been cashing in for years.
  The CEO of the failed Corinthian corporation, which received 80 to 90 
percent of its revenue directly from the Federal Treasury through 
student loans, made over $3 million in 2013. The vice presidents didn't 
do quite as well. They were only paid $1 million. The list goes on.
  In September of last year, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 
sued Corinthian. This goes back a few months. They sued them for 
illegal predatory lending schemes by luring students with false job 
promises, saddling them with high-cost debt, and harassing them when 
they were unable to repay their loans. It turned out that only 25 
percent of the students coming out of Corinthian Colleges were able to 
repay their loans--25 percent. Why? Because the tuition is so high, the 
diploma is so worthless.

  Why are we complicit? Why is the U.S. Department of Education not 
blowing the whistle on this school and every other school that is 
exploiting students all across America?
  At the end of the day, the losers are not only the students who have 
wasted their time and ended up with debt, the losers are the taxpayers 
of America--the taxpayers of America, who provide funds for the student 
loans and unfortunately do not have the protection they deserve in this 
situation.
  I call on the Department of Education to make their highest priority 
the casualties and victims of this Corinthian College.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Madam President, the Senator from Indiana now has the 
floor. I thank the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Indiana 
for working with each other to go about this in a timely way.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Madam President, I rise to express my support for the Iran 
Nuclear Agreement Review Act--the only measure now before us that will 
prevent President Obama from having a free and independent hand to 
conclude a flawed agreement with the Government of Iran.
  The White House and the Ayatollahs in Iran must know that the 
Congress will not tolerate a bad deal secretly struck behind our backs 
and without our approval. The Corker-Menendez bill now before us and 
being managed by Senator Corker and Senator Cardin on the floor needs 
our engagement and is the only vehicle we have to send that message. 
Thus, the passage of this review act is absolutely essential. Its 
passage will send a message more important than any amendments, no 
matter how correct or well-conceived, if those amendments would doom 
the bill, mute the message, and deprive us of this vital role.
  We have come to a moment of decision in this Chamber. It is clear at 
last that we are finally close to imposing a vital congressional role 
in evaluating any deal--something President Obama previously had been 
determined to avoid.
  I have long been concerned that the President is determined to 
implement his version of a deal with Iran on his own, circumventing 
Congress. This is not acceptable. Resolving this issue with Iran is the 
most significant foreign policy and security challenge of our age. It 
cannot be pursued simply by the President potentially overreaching his 
constitutional authority, longing for a legacy and desperate for a 
deal. If

[[Page S2448]]

he fears that a supermajority in Congress would reject this deal if it 
is presented to us, then he has struck the wrong deal.
  Fortunately, the right, statesmanlike Presidential support was 
finally provided after the Foreign Relations Committee voted on an 
entirely bipartisan basis to give Congress a role in this matter. The 
question is whether the President will accept the decision made by the 
Congress as to whether the agreement with Iran achieves the goal of 
denying Iran nuclear weapons capability.
  The successful congressional strategy that brought us to that result 
in committee required the sponsors of this bill--the Iran Nuclear 
Agreement Review Act--to keep the focus on its core purpose. While 
there were many amendments considered or offered in the committee that 
could have improved the bill, the Corker-Menendez bill passed by the 
Foreign Relations Committee is a necessary first step in achieving the 
goal of congressional engagement in one of the issues, if not the most 
important issue of our time.
  It is now clear that the most important goal at this stage of the 
misguided and badly managed negotiations with the Iranian regime is 
that Congress must have a determining voice in accepting or rejecting 
any deal that is presented to us. With passage of the Corker-Menendez 
legislation, we will be able to spell out with precision what sort of 
an Iran deal might be acceptable, what concessions may be going too 
far, and what the consequences would be if Iran backs away from 
acceptable conditions.
  I wish to emphasize and define the worst possible outcome that could 
happen. If our effort to impose a congressional role fails--if this 
bill is defeated or the promised veto is upheld--Congress will have 
become a spent force. Iran will see that Congress is no longer a matter 
of concern for them. The Iranians will have a green light to continue 
negotiations with a weak administration desperate for a deal--any deal. 
The Iranians can play their hand to maximum advantage without concern 
for the views of Congress or even the views of the American people we 
represent. At the same time, the Administration would be free to give 
as much ground as necessary to secure a deal that apparently they so 
desperately desire. They will be constrained by nothing coming from 
this Chamber or an impotent Congress.
  To avoid that outcome, we must focus on keeping the bipartisan 
majority on this bill solid and robust. So I am cosponsoring, 
supporting, and will be voting for the Corker-Menendez bill. This is a 
necessary intermediate step, as I have said, toward a much more crucial 
vote on the Iran deal itself, where our focus needs to be.
  Once we have secured a congressional role by passing this bill, we 
then must use the next 2 months to analyze the outlined agreement that 
came out of the negotiations in Switzerland a couple of weeks ago, 
identify its weaknesses, and determine how we should best proceed.
  As it now stands, as outlined by the so-called political framework, I 
am profoundly unhappy with what has been agreed to by the Obama 
Administration. If this is what we see when the result of the final 
negotiations is presented to us, I will vote against it and do my best 
to make sure others do as well. We in Congress must make sure the White 
House knows what we require if a deal is to be accepted.
  This is not a recent or uninformed position on my part. I have been 
deeply involved in this issue for the past several years, and I have 
been concerned about the growing threat of Iran since at least 2001. 
Back then, when I was our Ambassador in Berlin, the Embassy's biggest 
challenge was to persuade Germany to support the invasion of Iraq. But 
the Israeli Ambassador to Germany at the time, Shimon Stein, kept 
talking to me about what they conceived to be the real, ultimate 
threat. He convinced me that an even greater threat would be coming 
from Iran and that this threat would continue to grow until we took it 
seriously and dealt with it effectively.
  After returning to the United States, I cochaired with Senator Chuck 
Robb the original Iran project at the Bipartisan Policy Center. We 
focused deeply on the Iran nuclear issue and offered detailed analysis 
and recommendations on how we believed it should be dealt with. Our 
task force members included such experts as Ash Carter, now Secretary 
of Defense; Ambassador Dennis Ross, one of the key and most experienced 
ambassadors and foreign policy analysts--particularly in the Middle 
East; a number of key generals who had served in the military on Middle 
Eastern affairs; and a number of other names, including Jack Keane and 
others.
  Our reports covered all of the elements of a deal that is acceptable 
and could best meet, we thought, our national security needs. These 
included all aspects of fissile material production and how that 
activity must be limited and controlled; activities at the various 
nuclear facilities and the type of research and development that must 
be curtailed; the issue of Iranian stockpiles and their disposition; 
nuclear weapons design activities in the past that need to be revealed 
and stopped; missile development work; the critical need of adequate 
inspection regimes and compliance verification measures; and, 
importantly, the duration of any future deal.
  We also examined the requirements of a necessary and credible 
military option that must back up any diplomatic efforts and sanctions 
pressure to achieve the right result. It was a last resort, and it was 
there to apply the pressure needed, along with ever-ratcheting 
sanctions, if Iran continued to defy the wishes of the United Nations, 
the wishes of the United States, and the wishes of the free world and 
all of those who had spoken up about the deadly consequences of the 
Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons.
  Since that early involvement and throughout that period, I supported 
negotiations as one of the essential tools to solve this problem. I 
want to state that again. This is not a rush to war. This is doing 
everything we can to prevent a war, to prevent conflict. I have 
ardently supported negotiations to try to achieve the necessary result 
combined with sanctions, putting ever-increasing pressure on the 
Iranian regime to achieve the desired result, with a backup--not taking 
off the table the use of force if necessary but only if necessary, only 
if everything else failed, because four Presidents, including our 
current President, have stated that Iranian possession of nuclear 
weapons is simply unacceptable. The United Nations has passed numerous 
resolutions to that effect. Other nations have said the same. Yet, now, 
we are looking at a framework that might allow Iran to break all of the 
commitments it made and all of the assertions we made.
  We need a solution that guarantees our security and assures that Iran 
will never have nuclear weapons. If the White House cannot be persuaded 
to bring us a deal that does that, they should not bring us a deal at 
all.
  Unfortunately, it is clear to me from the framework agreement and 
subsequent developments that these negotiations are off track and have 
been for some time. They do not begin to meet the minimum criteria 
outlined in our several Bipartisan Policy Center reports. Let me name 
five major problems that I see currently with the framework proposal 
that has been agreed to.
  First, the Obama Administration's negotiating tactics have been 
seriously flawed from the beginning, abandoning central principles at 
the very outset of the negotiations. An agreement that builds on the 
outline emerging from the negotiations and trumpeted by the 
Administration as a breakthrough will allow Iran to retain a robust, 
industrial-capacity ability to enrich uranium--the core of nuclear 
weapons. This was never the intention of the international community 
until the Obama Administration negotiators took the helm and changed 
direction. The original intent--to deprive Iran of this nuclear weapons 
infrastructure--was deemed to be ``just too hard to achieve.''
  The result is that Iran can now assume a guarantee that it will have 
the right to enrich uranium--the regime's fundamental demand from the 
beginning and one which the United Nations Security Council firmly and 
consistently refused until the Obama Administration began these 
negotiations. In the wake of that fundamental concession, we will have 
to rely on elaborate monitoring and compliance verification mechanisms 
to keep the uranium

[[Page S2449]]

enrichment enterprise within agreed bounds.
  That directly leads to my second major problem with the outlined 
agreement. On the surface, there is a lot of reassurance that we would 
be able to detect cheating, and the President has emphasized this point 
repeatedly. Well, I have seen all of this before. I served here in this 
Senate when we were told our agreements with North Korea could be 
verified and would lead to a safer world. We were misled by that 
illusion. Today, 20 years after the nuclear agreement with North Korea, 
negotiated by the Clinton Administration, that country now has an 
estimated 20 nuclear warheads and the Chinese experts tell us the North 
Koreans will have more than 40 by the end of next year and an effective 
ICBM--intercontinental ballistic missile--to put those weapons on.
  All that work developing such a huge, dangerous nuclear arsenal was 
done after we concluded a negotiated agreement to end North Korea's 
nuclear program, confident that we would be able to detect cheating. 
Let me repeat that. All that North Korea has achieved in violation of 
the agreement we made with them has occurred after that agreement, not 
before. And today they sit as a dangerous nuclear-armed nation, with 
over 20 nuclear warheads that can be easily--and have been--attached to 
ICBMs.
  Now I fear we are making the same mistake in negotiating with another 
rogue regime. In recent days, it has become difficult for anyone to 
maintain that the agreement under consideration by this Administration 
with Iran will provide the transparency we need. Senior Iranian 
officials and authorities, including the Ayatollah himself and the 
chief of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, have said repeatedly that 
there will be no international inspections of Iranian military 
facilities.
  We know that much of the nefarious nuclear weapons development work 
has gone on in such facilities. Barring access to them must simply be 
the end of any deal if that holds. The White House has indicated that 
such hard-line statements by the regime are part of their negotiating 
tactics. I do not take comfort from that. If that is so, then it must 
be proven at the negotiating table, not simply by declaration from our 
White House.
  If the Administration brings us a deal that does not include complete 
transparency and the total ability to monitor Iranian compliance 
anywhere in that country, then all Members of Congress must stand and 
reject it. Third, I find there are many other nearly sinister details 
buried within this outline that are hidden from those not steeped in 
the technical details of this entire matter.
  Many show that our negotiators caved on key issues, some at the last 
minute, to prevent Iran from walking out. In fact, the entire 
negotiations process since it began 6 years ago has been a steady 
uninterrupted litany of concessions as we give ground on one issue 
after another. The outline agreement confirms that pattern and hints at 
more to come.
  One of the many examples of this is the agreement to allow continuing 
research and development of the most advanced centrifuges within the 
Fordow site that is safely buried deep beneath a mountain. Because 
there will not be uranium enriched there for the first 10 years of the 
agreement, we are told to take comfort. In fact, the developments that 
will occur in that sheltered bunker will make a nuclear ``break out'' 
capability certain and rapid once the agreement expires in a decade.
  Even President Obama recently admitted that in the final years of the 
period covered by the outline, ``the breakout time would have shrunk 
almost to zero.'' That startling admission is a mortal blow to this 
agreement, in my view, and it comes from the chief advocate of the 
deal.
  A fourth problem with the outline is the essential issue of sanctions 
relief. Initially, after the outline was released, the White House fact 
sheet emphasized that sanctions would be lifted gradually in stages as 
the Iranians showed a pattern of compliance with the terms of an 
agreement. The Iranian negotiators and the Supreme Leader immediately 
refuted that claim. They continue to say there is no such agreement and 
that all sanctions must be lifted immediately upon signing. It remains 
for them a nonnegotiable demand.
  President Obama responded in a press conference last week that all of 
a sudden he was not very concerned about the phasing or timing issue or 
the way sanctions would be lifted. Instead, he said, and again I quote, 
the so-called ``snap-back'' provisions that would reimpose sanctions in 
the event of noncompliance were more important.
  These Presidential comments signaled publicly that once again the 
Ayatollah could have his way. Sadly, no one seriously gives any 
credibility to these alleged ``snap-back'' provisions and their 
efficacy once the sanctions dam has burst.
  Fifth, another mortal flaw in the outline is the issue of expiration 
date--the ``sunset clauses''. The outline and the White House talking 
points are designed to sell or confuse this issue. Various timeframes 
have been mentioned--10 years, 15 years, 25 years, permanent. The fact 
is the core limitations on Iran's nuclear infrastructure, if they are 
actually implemented over time, expire in 10 years, others in 15. The 
sanctions against Iran will have long since disappeared and Iran will 
then have the technical ability, the will, and the wealth to sprint 
toward a nuclear arsenal, as the President has acknowledged.
  Ten years or even fifteen years is tomorrow afternoon in this 
dangerous game for the world's future. Again, the President's own words 
tell us everything we need to know about the effectiveness of the deal 
he is pressing on us. I quote again. ``What is a more relevant fear 
would be that in year 13, 14, 15, they have advanced centrifuges that 
enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point the breakout times 
would have shrunk almost down to zero.''
  This is, indeed, the most relevant fear presented by the negotiations 
with the Iranian regime; namely, the fear that Iran will be given the 
path to nuclear weapons possession, resulting in consequences that are 
not acceptable. We should all agree with President Obama that that is, 
indeed, the most relevant fear presented by his negotiations with the 
Iranian regime.
  But at this moment, it seems most probable that we will be called 
upon to consider a deeply flawed agreement, one that is worse than no 
agreement at all, but this is not entirely unavoidable. We still have 
time to press the negotiators on both sides to change the outcome of 
their talks. The Iranians must know that with passage of the Iran 
Nuclear Review Agreement Act, Congress has become an important player 
at the table. There will be no new constraints on their maximalist 
positions.
  If they want a deal now, they must give ground; if not, they will 
face new, more painful, and more relentless sanctions pressure. This is 
a profound moment in our history. A nuclear-armed Iran would present a 
danger to the Middle East, to the United States, and to the world that 
is impossible to overstate. Preventing the proliferation of nuclear 
weapons always has been at the heart of our nuclear strategy. More than 
that, it is at the heart of the future of the world.
  Allowing Iran to develop the capacity to develop those weapons, 
igniting thereby a nuclear arms race among its neighbors and beyond 
must be prevented at any cost. There is nothing whatsoever partisan 
about this request. Neither I nor most of my Republican colleagues are 
attacking the President or trying to deny him a foreign policy triumph 
or wishing him ill in this important task.
  Similarly, I trust our Democratic colleagues will not be blindly 
supporting the President on this issue no matter what agreement might 
emerge from the Iran negotiations. In many ways, the future of these 
negotiations is now in our hands. We must pass the Iran Nuclear 
Agreement Review Act with as much bipartisan support as we can achieve 
in order to play a significant or any role in this process.
  We must not provoke a veto that can be sustained, thereby depriving 
Congress of our role and voice. We must all use the next 2 months to 
press the White House to demand an agreement that permanently halts 
Iran's nuclear ambitions. We must then evaluate objectively and 
honestly the agreement that emerges; accept it if we can, reject it if 
we must. This is a solemn duty that the Constitution requires of the

[[Page S2450]]

Senate. I trust that each of us will be up to the task and the 
challenge we are facing.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I first want to thank Senator Coats for 
the manner in which he has presented his views. We may not agree on 
every issue he raised in his remarks, but I fully agree that we have a 
responsibility to continue to work in a bipartisan manner in order to 
achieve this review statute so Congress can have an orderly way to 
express its review. I thank him for the thoughtful presentation he has 
made in regard to the legislation that is before us.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning 
business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Events in Baltimore

  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I know everyone in this body, this 
country, has been focused on the events in Baltimore. I live in 
Baltimore. It has affected all of us in our city. We love Baltimore. It 
is heartbreaking to see the violence that has taken place over the last 
several days, particularly yesterday. Baltimore is known for its 
neighborhoods. Neighborhoods are our strength. People take great pride 
in their neighborhood. There is a lot of ethnic pride in Baltimore. We 
have a proud tradition. We have a proud tradition of blue-collar 
workers who helped build this great country in steelmaking and 
shipbuilding and automaking.
  We have government workers who have helped provide the services to 
the people of this country. We have a high-tech workforce that is the 
future of Baltimore. Baltimore is a great destination for tourists--our 
Inner Harbor. I could go on and on. But Baltimore is known for its 
people, its friendliness, and its real pride in strong neighborhoods.
  That was shaken very badly during the events of yesterday as we saw 
violence. What happened to Freddie Gray is something that needs to be 
fully investigated. We want justice. All of us want justice. I was 
pleased we will have that independent investigation done by the 
Department of Justice.
  Thousands of protesters were out in the streets in Baltimore 
exercising their First Amendment rights, expressing their frustration. 
They did it in an orderly way, in the way I would think we would want 
to see people express their views about matters of importance, 
including justice for Freddie Gray. There were a small number who 
decided to take to the streets in violence. It was counterproductive to 
the message. The family of Freddie Gray urged yesterday, particularly 
the day of his funeral, to be a day without protests.
  But these individuals decided they would take matters into their own 
hands. What they did was hurt their community, hurt the neighborhoods, 
and hurt the city I love. Senator Mikulski and Congressman Cummings, 
Congressman Sarbanes, and others have been in touch with the mayor of 
Baltimore, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, with Governor Hogan, with the 
White House. We are taking all steps in order to preserve public safety 
in Baltimore and to make sure justice is provided in regard to the 
tragic death of Freddie Gray.
  I would just urge all people to exercise restraint so we can provide 
safe communities for the people of Baltimore, that we will rebuild from 
this episode, and we will move forward. I thank many of my colleagues 
who have contacted Senator Mikulski and myself to express their 
concerns. We know these are very challenging times.
  We urge all citizens of Baltimore to exercise restraint but to 
continue their passion for justice, as certainly Senator Mikulski and I 
and our congressional delegation will insist upon.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I see Senator Coons on the floor, and he 
is prepared to speak with regard to S. 615.
  First, I thank Senator Coons for his extraordinary leadership with 
regard to S. 615. He is one of those individuals who worked very 
closely with Senator Corker and me to find a common way to resolve some 
extremely challenging issues we had. Let me take you back just a few 
weeks, where most people thought it was totally impossible for the 
Senate to get together on a bill that would provide an orderly way for 
us to review a potential agreement with Iran on nuclear weapons.
  The Senate Foreign Relations Committee had scheduled a vote, there 
was a recess, and I think most of us felt that the bill would come out 
of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee but that it would be a bill 
on which the President would continue his veto threat, and its future 
was anything but certain. Then the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 
went to work under Senator Corker's leadership, and we were able to 
resolve these issues.
  But one of the key players was Senator Coons. Senator Coons was 
traveling during the recess. He was in Africa doing important work on 
behalf of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I doubt that he got 
any sleep because I was getting calls from him at times when it was the 
middle of the night in Africa giving us very constructive ways to deal 
with some of the very difficult issues of congressional review, the 
length of time necessary for congressional review, how we can make sure 
that we had the information we needed, and that it gave the President 
the strongest possible hand. I thank Senator Coons for his 
extraordinary leadership and work on behalf of the legislation we have 
before us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Madam President, first, I thank Senator Cardin for his 
gracious remarks and for his strong and capable leadership.
  I come to the floor today to speak about the Iranian nuclear 
negotiations and the need for Congress to play a constructive, 
meaningful role in reviewing any potential deal.
  This week, the full Senate will consider the Iran Nuclear Agreement 
Review Act of 2015 which would ensure that Congress has the ability to 
consider any nuclear deal with Iran before any congressionally enacted 
sanctions on Iran's nuclear program are rolled back. This bill will 
also ensure that Congress exercises its oversight over the 
implementation of any agreement through imposing rigorous reporting 
requirements and certifications on the administration.
  This bill passed the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate 
unanimously after Senators Corker and Cardin--the chair and ranking 
member--worked tirelessly together to ensure that it would receive 
bipartisan support. They carefully negotiated a deal that defeated 
amendments that would have prevented the Obama administration from 
continuing to negotiate in good faith. In my view, it is a great 
testament to their leadership that we were able to come together on a 
bipartisan bill that passed the committee unanimously and that the 
President has now said he would sign.
  For the last 4 years, I have been hugely frustrated by the failure of 
Republicans and Democrats to come together in this Senate to pass 
legislation for the American people. The Republicans are now in the 
majority and have a chance to move past obstructionism and into 
leadership and to show that in this Senate, we have an opportunity to 
pass a bill, that this Senate plays a constructive role in protecting 
the national interests of the United States.
  Leader McConnell said that he wants a functioning Senate, that he 
wants regular order, that he wants the Senate to play its rightful role 
in foreign affairs. Well, here is the chance.
  Let's review what has happened with this piece of legislation. The 
Republican chair of the Foreign Relations Committee--working well with 
his Democratic counterpart--crafted this bipartisan bill. Today, it has 
44 Republican cosponsors. It passed the committee, which fully and 
thoroughly debated the bill and many potential amendments. A committee 
with views as broad as Republican Senators Johnson and Rubio and Paul 
to Democratic Senators Boxer and Murphy--a very broad range of views on 
our foreign policy--came together to pass this bill

[[Page S2451]]

unanimously. If that is not regular order, I don't know what is.
  If Senator McConnell wants a functioning Senate, I believe we should 
respect the committee process that Chairman Corker and Ranking Member 
Cardin led to achieve this compromise. This bill gives Leader McConnell 
exactly the opportunity he wants to ensure that this Senate exercises 
its role in protecting America's national interest.
  I particularly like what my Republican colleague from South Carolina, 
Senator Lindsey Graham, said recently:

       Anybody who monkeys with this bill is going to run into a 
     buzz saw. Anybody who offers an amendment that will break 
     this agreement apart . . . the beneficiary will be the 
     Iranians.

  That is why I stand here today to urge my colleagues to avoid 
attaching poison-pill amendments that are outside the scope of the 
current ongoing negotiations and pass this bill as currently passed out 
of the Foreign Relations Committee and as currently supported by a 
majority of Senate Republicans.
  Over the last few years, Iran has responded to congressionally 
enacted sanctions by finally coming to the negotiating table to discuss 
and deal with its illicit nuclear weapons program. The Obama 
administration and the other P5 + 1 countries have been engaged in 
difficult, demanding negotiations with the Iranian theocratic regime. 
After a few extensions that have effectively frozen and in some ways 
rolled back certain parts of Iran's illicit nuclear program, the 
administration is in the final phases of their negotiations. Earlier 
their month, the President released the parameters of a potential deal, 
with the technical details and a few remaining critical gaps to be 
finalized possibly by the end of June.
  This bill is not a referendum on the President's decision to pursue a 
path of diplomacy with Iran. This bill is not a referendum on the 
parameters announced on April 2. The bill before us this week has a 
simple, clear goal: It is about creating an orderly process that allows 
Congress to review any deal. As negotiations come to an end, it would 
ensure that Congress can play a constructive role after an agreement is 
reached by considering whether the deal is strong enough to warrant 
rolling back congressionally enacted sanctions. Yet, some--a few of my 
colleagues have insisted on making this bill a partisan exercise rather 
than keeping it the responsible, bipartisan measure that is before us 
now.
  This bill is not about debating the merits of an ultimate deal now. 
We will have that chance when or if a deal is reached over the summer. 
It is not about, I hope, killing the negotiations before they have a 
chance to conclude. This bill is not about creating a list of 
complaints about Iran's destructive behavior in areas outside of its 
nuclear program. It could and should pass now, in its current form, 
without amendment.
  I believe I have been as outspoken as anybody about Iran's 
destructive behavior, but I am troubled by some of the amendments being 
offered to make Iran's human rights record, its support for terrorism, 
and its relationship with Israel a part of these negotiations. Yes, 
Iran's human rights record is atrocious. Its support for terrorism 
threatens the stability of its neighbors and has taken countless 
innocent lives. Its continued threatening of Israel and its 
unwillingness to recognize the right of the Jewish State of Israel to 
exist is cowardly, dangerous, and just plain wrong. Iran must release 
the four Americans it currently holds hostage. I think everyone in this 
body would agree these are legitimate concerns for our consideration. 
Yet, the truth remains that they are outside the scope of the current 
negotiations around Iran's nuclear program. Congress must resist the 
temptation to make them a sticking point in those negotiations by 
including them as amendments to this bill.
  Let's be clear. There are already congressionally enacted sanctions 
on Iran for its behavior in these areas. The deal's parameters, as 
published April 2, said that ``U.S. sanctions on Iran for terrorism, 
human rights abuses, and ballistic missiles will remain in place under 
the deal.'' No one is talking about removing those sanctions. The 
negotiations are about Iran's illicit nuclear weapons program and the 
critical importance of preventing Iran from ever building a nuclear 
weapon.
  I have long believed a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a grave threat 
to the region, to Israel, and to the world. The nuclear arms race it 
would set off throughout the Middle East would have horrible 
consequences for global security. That is why throughout the 
negotiating process I have remained adamant that no deal is better than 
a bad deal, and I have closely consulted with the administration on 
that point as well as many others. I have met with senior 
administration officials to discuss these recently announced parameters 
and have been clear that I remain concerned about closing the remaining 
gaps and the need to maintain pressure on the Iranian regime to close 
any pathway to their development of a nuclear weapon capability.
  I support this bill as it is. It is responsible and focused on the 
issue at hand. It ensures that Congress gets to weigh in if a deal is 
reached, and it strengthens this administration's ability to negotiate 
the best deal it possibly can.
  Every Republican in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted for 
this bill, all 10 of them--from Senator Rand Paul and Senator Rubio to 
Senator Johnson and Senator Barrasso. All nine Democrats on the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee supported this bill. All 19 Senators on 
this Foreign Relations Committee represent as wide a range of foreign 
policy views as could exist. So I urge my colleagues on both sides to 
pause and reflect before supporting amendments that would make this a 
partisan exercise rather than a prudent use of congressional authority. 
If we want Congress to play a responsible role overseeing any potential 
deal, this bill gives us that chance. The alternative to this bill is 
not a better bill; it is a deal without any meaningful congressional 
input.
  I have been as critical of Iran and distrusting of its intentions as 
anyone in this body, but if unrelated amendments become attached to 
this bill, I will not support its final passage.
  Because of the great leadership of these two Senators, we have here a 
rare moment for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate 
as a whole to demonstrate our ability to move past what have been 
divisive and partisan fights over the last 4 years and come together 
and enact into law a measure that demonstrates our ability to give 
constructive, timely input on one of the most important national 
security challenges of our day and to restrain our sometimes extreme 
and divisive instincts in this body and instead demonstrate our ability 
to overcome those instincts and show our relevance. Let's not miss this 
opportunity to work together in the best interests of our Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. I thank the Senator for his constructive comments and his 
work on the committee.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss the 
Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act.
  Early this month, Iran and the P5+1 countries agreed to a framework 
deal to restrict Iran's nuclear program and to submit it to 
international inspections. Negotiators now have until June 30 to try to 
reach a final agreement.
  At the same time, the Senate has been advancing legislation requiring 
the President to submit any final agreement to Congress for review. 
That is the legislation on the floor before us today.
  Congress is divided along partisan lines on many issues, but we are 
united in our conviction that Iran must not be allowed to acquire a 
nuclear weapon and that the people's elected representatives should 
have the opportunity to review any final agreement with Iran.
  This bipartisan consensus was reflected in the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee's unanimous vote in favor

[[Page S2452]]

of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. I thank Chairman Corker, who 
is on the floor here with me today, and Ranking Member Cardin, also on 
the floor, for their statesmanship and the spirit of bipartisan 
compromise that they exhibited in negotiating the act. They did a great 
job.
  According to the legislation, the President must submit any final 
agreement to Congress. Congress would then have 30 days to hear from 
negotiators and outside experts and to determine if additional action 
is warranted, including a resolution of approval or disapproval.
  I believe congressional oversight is appropriate because the 
President, in order to implement any agreement with Iran, will need to 
set aside sanctions put in place by Congress. I also voted for this 
bill because it reasserts the proper role of Congress in providing 
oversight of the President's execution of foreign policy.
  As a member of the Senator Foreign Relations Committee, I believe the 
best way to resolve the standoff over Iran's nuclear program is a 
hardnosed agreement that cuts off all paths Iran could take to pursue a 
nuclear weapon.
  It was therefore crucial for me that the legislation considered by 
the committee not hinder our negotiators' efforts to reach a strong 
agreement. I believe that standard should be maintained as the full 
Senate considers this legislation.
  I believe it is also essential that the spirit of cooperation and 
bipartisanship that was demonstrated by Senators Corker and Cardin in 
forging a bipartisan bill continue this week as the full Senate takes 
up the Iran legislation. Amendments that undermine the administration's 
negotiations or structurally alter this careful bipartisan compromise 
should be rejected by the Senate.
  While I supported this bill in the Foreign Relations Committee, if 
the bipartisan nature of the legislation is eroded on the floor, the 
bill will no longer merit my support. This is a serious matter that 
will require the Senate to rise above the desire of some to force votes 
on poison-pill amendments that would destroy the bipartisan balance. We 
have to rise above politics here because we are confronted by a 
dangerous and unacceptable status quo in Iran.
  The benefits of a strong final deal could be significant. Such a deal 
would stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and ensure that it 
could not pursue destabilizing activities in the region with impunity. 
It would prevent a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and advance 
greater long-term security for our regional allies. That is why, even 
as Congress reaffirms its role in reviewing any final agreement, we 
need to give the administration and its international partners every 
opportunity to bring these difficult negotiations to a successful 
conclusion.
  With so much at stake for the United States, for Israel, and for the 
entire world, it is more important than ever that the Senate rise above 
partisan politics and reaffirm bipartisan cooperation.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  I withhold the suggestion of the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I wish to thank Senator Shaheen. She 
talked about the bipartisan way the committee operated. She played a 
large part in bringing us together in the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee and working over the recess. I want to thank the Senator for 
her input and the manner in which we were able to strengthen our 
negotiators and maintain the proper role for the Congress.

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, if I could respond, I think one of the 
reasons for the success of the agreement was because of the efforts of 
Senator Cardin and Chairman Corker to solicit input from members of the 
committee to see what people could agree to and, where we had concerns, 
to respond to those in crafting the legislation. It truly was a 
bipartisan, very statesman-like effort, and I thank the Senators.

                          ____________________