[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 63 (Wednesday, April 29, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2494-S2513]
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.
       Corker/Cardin amendment No. 1179 (to amendment No. 1140), 
     to require submission of all Persian text included in the 
     agreement.
       Blunt amendment No. 1155 (to amendment No. 1140), to extend 
     the requirement for annual Department of Defense reports on 
     the military power of Iran.

  Mr. COATS. 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. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               ObamaCare

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today because I 
noticed that the minority leader, the Senator from Nevada, had some 
nice things to say about me on Monday in his remarks. He said that I 
was ``relentless'' in my ``condemnation of ObamaCare.'' Those are his 
words. I appreciate the minority leader's kind remarks, because he is 
right. As a doctor, I am relentless in my condemnation of the 
President's health care law, a law that has done incredible harm to so 
many people all across this country.
  Minority Leader Reid also said that he had the facts about the law. 
Most of those facts seemed to come from a New York Times opinion column 
by the renowned liberal icon Paul Krugman.
  So let me share some real facts with the minority leader. The 
insurance plans offered in the health care exchanges are so expensive 
that they are a horrible deal for most Americans. That is why the 
President had to give out subsidies--to help hide the costs. The 
Congressional Budget Office said that Washington will spend $850 
billion on those subsidies over the next decade. That is a fact.
  According to a new study by the health research company Avalere, 
ObamaCare plans are extremely unpopular among people who don't get the 
huge subsidies to buy the plan. Only 2 percent of the people who don't 
qualify for subsidies have actually bought insurance through the 
exchanges. That is a fact. It is an alarming sign of how high the cost 
of ObamaCare really is.
  It is not just the premiums that are sky high. This year, the average 
deductible for ObamaCare's silver plan is almost $3,000 for a single 
person and more than $6,000 for a family. Now, that is according to 
something called HealthPocket, which is a Web site that helps people 
actually compare insurance plans. That is a fact, and $6,000 is a lot 
of money for a hard-working family to pay for their deductible.
  Now, the minority leader said that Paul Krugman's opinions should be 
treated like facts--not as facts but like facts--because as Senator 
Reid said, ``this isn't some high school teacher talking about the 
merits of ObamaCare.'' Well, I agree on that point. High school 
teachers are far more likely to have had actual experience with the 
damage that is done by the ObamaCare health care law than has this New 
York Times columnist.
  That is what we learned from a report at KMOX TV in St. Louis on 
April 23. Their report talked about the Parkway School District in 
Missouri. It was Senator Reid who said this isn't some high school 
teacher. Well, this report from St. Louis said ObamaCare is forcing the 
school district to outsource the employment of substitute teachers. Why 
would they want to do that? It is in the face of a $4 million penalty 
for not offering health insurance to the part-time teachers. That is a 
fact. And those substitute teachers are real people who are being hurt 
by President Obama's health care law.
  Here is another fact reported by Politico on Monday afternoon. This 
was their headline on April 27: ``Study: ACA exchange enrollees take 
tax hit.''

  According to a new study by the tax preparers at H&R Block, almost 
two-thirds of people enrolled in ObamaCare exchanges had to pay back 
some of their subsidy with their taxes this month. The average amount 
people owed the IRS was $729. That is a fact. It is a big hit to a lot 
of families who thought they were going to get help to pay for their 
ObamaCare premiums. It does not even count the people who decided that 
the insurance was just too expensive and decided not to buy it. 
According to H&R Block, those people paid the IRS an average tax 
penalty of $178. That is a fact. It is only going to be higher next 
year when people sit down and fill out their taxes.
  I remember another speech Senator Reid gave on the floor on 
ObamaCare. On February 26, 2014, he said: ``Despite all that good news, 
there's plenty of horror stories being told.'' ``All of them are 
untrue.''
  That was Senator Reid a year ago.
  Republicans had been citing--this is Senator Reid--examples of people 
being harmed by ObamaCare, and Senator Reid said that all of them were 
``stories made up from whole cloth.''
  Well, here is a horror story from the minority leader's home State 
newspaper--Nevada--very recently. This was an article from earlier this 
month, the Las Vegas Review-Journal, April 7. The headline was ``Past 
state ObamaCare sign-up glitches now haunt Nevadans at tax time.''
  Here is what the article says:

       How did a Reno collections agent end up in collections 
     himself?

  The answer:

       He bought coverage in 2014 through the state's health 
     insurance exchange.

  According to the article:

       Rick Furst is still ironing out wrinkles in a plan 
     purchased in May through the Nevada Health Link and its 
     contractor, Xerox. His cascade of issues has included bad 
     coverage dates, unpaid medical bills and an incorrect tax-
     credit form.

  This man told the Las Vegas newspaper, ``My credit was excellent, and 
now my credit is shot.'' His credit was excellent, and now his credit 
is shot. Does Senator Reid think this man from his home State of Nevada 
made up his story out of whole cloth?
  People are having their lives turned upside down by the disgraceful 
failure of these ObamaCare exchanges. That is a fact. It is a cruel and 
costly side effect of this terrible health care law. Paul Krugman of 
the New York Times did not talk about that fact in his opinion column 
in the New York Times the other day.
  Another thing he and the minority leader are not talking about is the 
fact that many Americans now have less access to actual care because of 
the health care law. Well, they should have known about that fact; it 
was reported right there in the New York Times itself on Sunday, 
February 8, 2015, with the headline ``Insured, but not covered.'' ``New 
policies have . . . many

[[Page S2495]]

Americans scrambling.'' The article talks about the narrow networks 
many insurance plans had to create. This was to try to meet the 
requirements of ObamaCare without the premiums going even higher.
  The story starts off by talking about one woman in New York City. Her 
name is Karen Pineman. First, she lost her existing health insurance 
policy because it did not meet all of the mandates President Obama said 
a health insurance policy had to include.
  The President calls those benefits ``essential benefits.'' I call 
them excessive benefits. It is much more insurance than many people 
need, want, or can afford.
  The article in the New York Times says that she accepted that she 
would have to pay a higher premium for a plan with a narrower network 
of providers and no out-of-network coverage. According to the article, 
she also accepted the fact that she would have to pay out of her own 
pocket to see her primary care physician because her doctor was not 
part of the narrow network that was now covered under her insurance. 
Well, she even accepted having copays of nearly $1,800 to put a cast on 
her ankle after she broke it playing tennis. Finally, the article says, 
her frustration bubbled over when she tried to arrange a followup visit 
with her orthopedic surgeon. The nearest doctor available in her 
network who treated ankle problems was in Stamford, CT. Remember, she 
lives in New York City.
  This woman finally had enough. She told the newspaper: It is 
ridiculous. Didn't they notice that I was in another State?
  Well, that woman, as reported in the New York Times, did not make up 
her story out of whole cloth. Those kinds of narrow networks are a fact 
under President Obama's law.
  It is a fact that there are people who now have coverage and can't 
have access to care. There is a difference between coverage and care. 
You do not have to take my world for it; it is right there in the New 
York Times.
  So the minority leader is correct. Republicans have been relentless 
in condemning the horrifying costs of the President's health care law. 
Republicans have been relentless in condemning the intolerable damage 
the health care law has done to people's access to health care.
  Republicans will continue to be relentless because this health care 
law has been bad for patients, it has been bad for providers, and it 
has been terrible for American taxpayers. Republicans will continue to 
come to the floor to offer the facts about how the health care law has 
harmed American families. We will continue to offer solutions that 
deliver the real reform people have been asking for all along--the care 
they need from a doctor they choose at lower cost.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON. 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. NELSON. Mr. President, if the Senator from Iowa is intending to 
speak, this Senator will only use about 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I wish to embrace this package that the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee has brought forth to the floor.
  First, it is much needed bipartisanship which has been shown on the 
committee. That is a very good thing, given the fact that we have had 
so many contentious and divisive issues.
  But, secondly, what it does is set up a process by which the Congress 
would express its approval or disapproval with regard to a future 
agreement that may be made between Iran and the United States to 
prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon.
  First is the process by which we would express that vote, and then if 
the agreement is concluded by the end of June, the actual vote on 
whether sanctions under the agreement should be lifted. So it is a two-
step process, and it is often confused. That is why it is important to 
keep this committee bill clean.
  As I have already expressed to the chairman of the Foreign Relations 
Committee on the floor of the Senate 2 or 3 days ago, it is this 
Senator's intention that all of the amendments, which generally have a 
deleterious effect and that are generally considered poison pill 
amendments--this Senator will oppose them. It is my understanding that 
leadership of the Foreign Relations Committee will likewise oppose 
those amendments.
  Then, I might say, assuming this legislation is passed and we have 
this process in place and the President has said he will sign it into 
law--if the framework, as announced a few weeks ago by the President, 
is fleshed out in the final details of the agreement, and those 
details, by the end of June, reflect the framework of the agreement 
that has been announced, it is this Senator's intention to support the 
agreement.
  I do that, very simply, on what is in the best interests of the 
United States. If, in fact, this agreement, once completed--if the 
framework is fleshed out--prevents Iran from developing a nuclear 
weapon for at least a 10-year period--and there are other 15-, 20-, and 
25-year period benchmarks in the framework--but if they are prevented 
from developing a nuclear weapon within 10 years, and we know there is 
a regime in place in order to detect that so we have the verification, 
and that because of the verification we have at least a year's advance 
notice so that appropriate action could be taken--if all of that is 
included within the agreement, it is this Senator's intention that I 
will support the agreement.
  Why? Because if we keep Iran from having a nuclear weapon for 10 
years at least, the world is going to be a very different place in 10 
years. And what we will have done as a country is prevented Iran from 
going ahead and developing a nuclear weapon now, of which we would have 
to face those consequences with possible military action.
  I do not shy away from supporting military action if that is 
necessary to prevent a nuclear weapon from being developed. But if we 
have a path to achieving the same thing, doing it diplomatically and 
having the guarantee of at least 10 years--if not 15 and 20--then, to 
this Senator, that seems to be in the interests of the United States.
  I want to clearly state where this Senator is coming from. I happen 
to think that is in Israel's interests as well. The interests of the 
United States and Israel are inextricably entwined when it comes to the 
defense of that little democracy that is a beacon of democracy in that 
part of the world. I have some familiarity with the integration and the 
sharing of our military forces, as well as our intelligence apparatus.
  It is clearly in the interests of the United States that we see that 
Israel's security is protected. From what I see of the framework of 
this agreement, if fleshed out, then I think that is in the interests 
of our country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 
10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, I rise to stress the importance of 
ensuring nuclear negotiations with Iran to preserve our national 
interests and our security, one that protects the security of our 
allies and partners in the region and maintains peace and stability in 
the world.
  As a member of the Iowa Army National Guard and serving on the Armed 
Services Committee in the Senate, I am focused on strengthening our 
national security, developing strategies to confront terrorism, and 
discussing ways to support our exceptional military.
  While I believe Iran's long-term goal is developing nuclear weapons, 
its most effective line of effort against us and our allies has been 
through its unwavering support of terrorism. The Obama administration 
should only accept a final deal which prohibits sanctions relief until 
Iran abandons its support of terrorism.
  Providing Iran with sanctions relief would only enhance their 
opportunity to fund proxy groups which threaten our Israeli allies and 
whose activities have led to horrible consequences for

[[Page S2496]]

millions of people in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen.
  While the Obama administration has been seemingly eager to relieve 
sanctions in an effort to convince Iran to sign a nuclear deal, 
Congress cannot stand by and watch as a deal is negotiated that paves 
the way for Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. We must take a step back 
and examine their actions, and it is absolutely crucial we understand 
who is on the other side of the negotiating table.
  Iran continues to be the world's lead sponsor of terrorism and a 
supporter of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who is responsible for 
killing hundreds and thousands of his own people, creating the gravest 
humanitarian crisis in modern history, and who facilitates the 
continued rise of extremism and sectarianism across the region.
  Iran has shown unwavering support of terrorism and has aligned itself 
with groups that are hostile to the United States, our allies, and 
partners in the region. In fact, Iran continues to fund groups that 
threaten our Israeli allies, who are very concerned about Iran amassing 
nuclear capabilities and the direct threat they pose to the region. 
After this longstanding pattern of behavior, I do not believe we can 
trust that Iran will curb its ambitions or support for terrorist 
activity on their own.
  Despite any agreement Iranian President Hassan Rouhani may agree to, 
I believe Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will ultimately 
maintain his policy of attempting to obtain a nuclear weapon and may 
use any funds obtained through prematurely providing sanctions relief 
towards that end, as well as to support terrorists.
  Iran's more than a quarter century long effort to obtain a nuclear 
weapon will not subside overnight. It is a faulty assumption to trust 
that Tehran is on the side of the rule of law. Iran has a very 
troublesome track record of deception when it comes to compliance and 
trustworthiness, which is why we need a deal that ensures America's and 
the world's ability to verify and enforce any agreement with Iran. This 
includes complete and open access at any time to all of Iran's 
facilities, to hold them true to their word and to verify their 
actions. We must also have the proper enforcement mechanism in place so 
that any broken promise garners an appropriate and immediate response.
  This accountability can be enforced through renewed and strengthened 
congressional sanctions. Sanctions have been effective in the past, and 
we must keep this option on the table. In fact, these sanctions are 
what brought Iran to the negotiating table in the first place. So we 
must not be too quick to suspend them.
  The ever-increasing and complex threats we face in the Middle East 
underscore how crucial it is that any longstanding agreement with Iran 
must go through Congress. This enables the American people to have a 
voice. Congressional review is supported by a bipartisan majority of my 
colleagues and a majority of Americans. It is common sense. We must 
have more oversight of this process and the opportunity for thoughtful 
consideration to ensure we have been very clear about our demands and 
the framework of any final agreement.
  There is no doubt the administration shares my concern and the 
concern of many of my colleagues regarding the hundreds of thousands of 
Syrians who have been murdered with barrel bombs, sarin gas, the 
indiscriminate shelling of cities, been in prisons or the millions more 
who have been forced to flee their homes.
  We must stop Iran from supporting this criminal regime which has 
helped engulf the region. Sanctions relief without ensuring funds would 
not go to Assad or to terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, which are key 
to the survival of the regime, would do nothing to help achieve a 
favorable political or military solution in Syria.
  With that in mind, I cosponsored the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review 
Act, which has bipartisan support and is before the Senate today. This 
legislation embraces fundamental and core principles that lay the 
foundation for a good deal with Iran. This deal ensures congressional 
review of a final agreement. It demands that no congressional sanctions 
be lifted during the review period, and it safeguards congressional 
oversight of Iranian compliance.
  This bill is a good starting point, and I want to praise the good 
work by the chairman of the committee for continuing to push for 
congressional review. Our ultimate goal must be to curb all Iranian 
terror, and this will never happen if we do not confront and contain 
Iran's nuclear ambitions.
  I believe a final deal which does not address Iran's support of 
terrorism and other groups which subvert recognized governments is not 
in the best interests of our Nation, and an agreement without these 
assurances will miss an opportunity to provide stability in the region.
  In closing, the bottom line is that Iran must never be allowed to 
develop a single nuclear weapon--not now or at any point in the future. 
A nuclear Iran presents one of the greatest threats to peace and 
stability in our time.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  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. 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 thought I would take this time--I know 
Senator Corker is at a lunch with some of our colleagues and is going 
over some of the issues concerning how we are going to move forward, 
but I thought I would take this time to at least tell our Members that 
we are working very hard to try to resolve some of the amendments 
Members want to offer.
  I must point out that there have been no requests for amendments on 
the Democratic side. I know Senator Corker is a little bit more busy 
than I am. He is trying to work with the number of amendments that have 
been filed by Republican colleagues. But we are trying to go through 
those amendments and see if there is a way consistent with the purpose 
of the bill that we can work out language that would accomplish what 
the author of the amendment is attempting to accomplish but consistent 
with the purpose of the bill--to make sure that we have an orderly way 
to review any agreement reached between the United States and our 
negotiating partners and Iran on its nuclear weapon program and that we 
get timely notice from the administration in regard to material 
breaches so that we can take action to prevent Iran from becoming a 
nuclear weapon state. There are also provisions in the bill that 
provide notification by the administration and important information so 
that we can do our work.
  We are taking a look at these amendments and trying to see whether we 
can work our way forward in order to move this bill in the same method 
that it moved through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. As the 
Presiding Officer knows, we worked together to try to get that 
accomplished.
  We started the debate yesterday, and we are going to continue it 
today. Senator Barrasso brought an amendment forward, which he wants to 
have pending, that would change the certification requirements. We are 
trying to work out a way in which we will be able to take that issue up 
before the full Senate. Senator Corker and I are trying to resolve that 
issue as to how we can bring that forward.
  I talked about this issue yesterday and explained the certification 
requirement to all the Members of the Senate. The President has to 
certify on a regular basis that Iran is basically in compliance with 
the agreement. If they can't do that, then we get into an expedited 
process for imposing sanctions or to take action against Iran.
  There are a lot of amendments that have been filed--they are not 
pending--that would require additional certifications by the 
administration, and if the administration cannot make those 
certifications, there is an expedited process. The problem with going 
beyond the terms of the nuclear agreement on any of those 
certifications is that it affects the bill itself, and that is why we 
call them poison pills. I will try to explain that.
  Senator Barrasso's amendment dealt with a certification that Iran 
will

[[Page S2497]]

not be involved in terrorism against the United States or any of our 
citizens. But there are several other amendments that have been filed 
that would change the certification requirements so that the President 
would have to make those certifications or it could trigger expedited 
procedures.
  Why do we call those poison pills? First of all, it changes the 
balance of what we are trying to do, and it is highly unlikely that we 
are going to be able to get that bill to the President for his 
signature. It will compromise what we are trying to do, and we are not 
going to be able to get the bill done. We will end up losing the bill. 
We will lose the opportunity for the committee to get the information 
and consider it. The committee needs to have a period of time in order 
to go through the review process. And the administration will not be 
able to exercise its waiver power for additional sanctions relief. All 
of that hard work will be lost. It is really counterproductive to what 
the authors of these amendments are trying to do.
  The second consequence that could happen, if this is in the bill, is 
that the President would not be able to make the certification and we 
would very likely never get an agreement. Therefore, what will happen 
is that the United States will be accused of walking away from trying 
to negotiate an agreement with Iran. We would be isolated, and our 
chances of preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state 
becomes that much less likely to happen.
  The third reason why these amendments are problematic and are poison 
pills has to do with the fact that it becomes a negotiating objective 
for the United States. These are good objectives. We don't want Iran to 
be able to sponsor terrorism. It is certainly something that is part of 
our policy. But if we make it a negotiating objective, then the 
administration has to achieve that in order to prevent sanctions from 
going into effect in order to achieve our objective. That makes it much 
more difficult to achieve the primary objective, and the primary 
objective is to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state.
  Although these amendments are well intended, they have the 
consequence of just the opposite. These amendments will make it less 
likely that we will prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state.
  The same is true on any certification. One of the amendments that 
have been filed says that we have to certify that Iran recognizes 
Israel's right to its own sovereignty. I want Iran to recognize 
Israel's sovereignty. We put very strong language into this bill and 
made it clear that Israel's security is of prime concern to us. It is 
in the bill. If we make it a certification requirement--think about 
this for a moment--it means our negotiators will have to figure out a 
way to negotiate with Iran something they don't want to do. And what 
will we have to give up in order to get that? What will they put on the 
table in regards to international recognition? It distracts us from 
objective to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state, which 
is critically important to the security of Israel. These amendments do 
just the opposite of what they are intended to do.
  I mentioned that because we are trying to move forward with this 
legislation. I hope that we can do it very quickly and we can find a 
path forward. We are going to try to accommodate the fair 
considerations of these amendments. But I urge my colleagues to take a 
look at their amendments, to work with Senator Corker, to work with me, 
and let's see whether we can accommodate, within the framework of the 
legislation, any concerns that the sponsors of the amendments may have. 
Then we can do what the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was able to 
do on a 19-to-0 vote. It makes the Senate much stronger, and it makes 
the United States much stronger when we can come together on these 
amendments.
  Our objective is to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons 
state, and the best way for us to do that is to speak with a united 
voice and the type of work we did in a bipartisan manner.
  The people of Maryland and the people of this country want us to work 
together. They want us to resolve issues. The Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee was able to do that.
  I urge Members who have filed amendments to work with us so we can 
find a way forward to make sure this bill remains intact and gives 
Congress the best chance for an orderly review of the process and gives 
us the tools we need to make America's position even stronger to 
prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the Iran 
Nuclear Agreement Review Act.
  First, I wish to commend my colleagues, Senator Corker and Senator 
Cardin, for their leadership on this important bipartisan legislation. 
Because of their crucial leadership, the Foreign Relations Committee 
recently passed this bill unanimously in a 19-to-0 vote. One thing that 
is so important to remember, as we debate this bill, is that without 
this legislation, we would not have a say at all on the President's 
nuclear deal with Iran.
  Now, I will be the first to say that an international agreement of 
this magnitude should have been considered the same as a treaty. But, 
unfortunately, the President chose to completely circumvent Congress in 
this process.
  The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, of which I am a member, did 
all we could to ensure that the American people, by way of Congress, 
get a say in this deal. If we let the perfect become the enemy of the 
good, however, and fail to pass this bill, the President will be able 
to go ahead and implement any and all aspects of a nuclear deal with 
Iran. This bill prevents the President from having a total free hand 
with regard to this potential deal with Iran and from prematurely 
lifting sanctions.
  According to CRS, this lifting of sanctions would mean an estimated 
$130 billion in sanctions relief would start flowing to Iran. That is 
more than Iran's entire annual defense budget. Imagine what they could 
do with over $100 billion. They could continue to fund terrorism. They 
could continue to prop up Assad's regime in Syria. They could continue 
to fuel the Houthi rebellion in Yemen. And, yes, they could further 
fund development of their nuclear weapons program.
  Congress passed the very sanctions credited with bringing Iran to the 
table, and I firmly believe that Congress should play a role in any 
decision to lift those sanctions. While the President may be able to 
waive sanctions on Iran later this year, permanent sanctions relief can 
only come from Congress.
  My colleagues and I still have many questions about this deal, and we 
must take this opportunity to get a period of congressional review so 
we can get answers to these questions and prevent the President from 
prematurely lifting sanctions. We are truly facing a global crisis, and 
the world is watching.
  As Prime Minister Netanyahu recently said before Congress, a nuclear 
Iran is not just a threat to Middle East security, and it is not just a 
threat to U.S. security. It is a threat, indeed, to global security. 
There is no scenario in which a nuclear Iran would be anything but 
catastrophic. Indeed, a nuclear Iran would spark a wave of 
proliferation in the Middle East and potentially worldwide. And if we 
don't like Iran's behavior today, imagine what their actions will be 
like if they have a nuclear weapon with the missiles to deliver 
them. Under no circumstances can we allow Iran to become a nuclear 
weapon state--not now, not in 10 years, not ever.

  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I would like to talk about the important 
legislation we have pending right now on

[[Page S2498]]

the Senate floor. I do not see a greater threat to our security 
interests in this country than a nuclear-armed Iran. Our national 
security interests require a permanent and verifiable end to Iran's 
nuclear weapons program.
  Today, I come to the floor to support the legislation that I was 
proud to be an original cosponsor of that will ensure that Congress 
reviews this agreement if there is an agreement reached with the 
Iranians and that we will have a voice on this agreement because 
without Congress's involvement in this--I believe it would be a huge 
disservice to the American people to not have their elected 
representatives weigh in on such an important matter.
  What matters most is, is this agreement one that is transparent, 
verifiable, and will actually end their nuclear program because the 
country of Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. 
We cannot give one of the most dangerous regimes in the world the most 
dangerous weapon.
  Iran described the United States of America as the ``Great Satan.'' 
Iran said it wants to annihilate or wipe out the State of Israel. Iran 
is a country that is supporting terrorist groups around the world. We 
can only imagine the devastation that could be wrought if Iran gets a 
nuclear weapon. So the stakes cannot be any greater with what is 
happening right now with the administration negotiating with this 
regime, which is not a regime we can trust, unfortunately. So the terms 
of this agreement matter.
  The elected representatives of this country need to have a vigorous 
debate about this agreement in the Congress, and we need to make sure 
it is not an agreement that allows them to continue their march toward 
a nuclear weapon.
  Some of the information that has been released so far about the 
framework the administration has put together has raised a number of 
red flags about where this agreement is going. It is my hope that this 
legislation passing will ensure that Congress is able to review the 
agreement to make sure it is one that ends their nuclear program.
  Some of the concerns I already see with this framework agreement 
suggest that the administration is moving in a direction that would not 
fully force Iran to dismantle its nuclear infrastructure or require 
Iran to address its long history of deception regarding its nuclear 
program, including long-term questions about the program's military 
aspects. The framework that has been released would not address Iran's 
support for terrorism, its intercontinental ballistic missile program, 
or its stated desire to knock Israel off the map.
  In order to ensure that we have an agreement that would end Iran's 
nuclear program and hold them accountable, we cannot have a situation 
where Iran keeps so much of its infrastructure and then can run up to a 
nuclear weapon or walk to it instead of running to it.
  Even worse, as we look at the framework of this agreement and the 
inspection framework the agreement would require, we cannot have an 
agreement that does not allow unlimited inspections of Iran's nuclear 
program at any time, unannounced, because this is a regime which is not 
a trustworthy regime. Yet, as I look at the terms of the framework that 
the administration has announced, it seems we have a ``mother, may I'' 
approach to asking Iran whether we should go in and inspect their 
facilities. Well, that is going to be unacceptable. We need to ensure 
that the terms of this agreement, if reached, make sure we can show up 
at any time, anywhere, without notice to Iran, to inspect their 
facilities to make sure they are adhering to the terms of the 
agreement.
  In short, the framework of the agreement that has been released by 
the administration suggests that this potential deal could eliminate 
hard-fought sanctions on which we worked together in this Congress on a 
bipartisan basis--economic sanctions that brought Iran to the table, 
which would take years to restore--in return for concessions that have 
only reversed Iran's program by days or weeks. Iran would retain a 
massive nuclear infrastructure, and they don't seem to be answering the 
tough questions about their support for terrorism or their missile 
program.
  Iran's activities during these negotiations in supporting terrorism 
have continued. As their diplomats sit at the negotiating table and 
smile for the cameras, their government continues to support terrorist 
organizations such as Hezbollah and provide arms and funding to the 
murderous Assad regime in Syria that has murdered hundreds of thousands 
of innocent people. It has continued to destabilize Yemen. It is 
imprisoning innocent Americans and developing an intercontinental 
ballistic missile whose obvious purpose is to potentially deliver a 
nuclear weapon to the United States of America.
  I intend to offer an amendment to the pending legislation that will 
address Iran's ICBM program because one of the concerns I have is that 
there doesn't seem to be any mention in these negotiations of Iran's 
development of ICBM capability that could be the delivery mechanism to 
deliver a nuclear weapon to hit the United States. I will offer that 
amendment to indicate to this administration that this issue needs to 
be on the table. We need to not only stop their nuclear program, we 
need to stop Iran's ICBM program, which some of our intelligence 
estimates have indicated could be successful as soon as the end of this 
year.
  That is the testimony we have heard in the Armed Services Committee. 
So there is real urgency that we stop not only their nuclear program 
but also their support for terrorism and their work on an ICBM that 
could deliver harm--very grave harm--to our country. In fact, in 
February, Iran had actually successfully launched a long-range missile 
system and used a space launch that could be the potential manner in 
which they would deliver a nuclear weapon capability to our country.
  So this is a real concern that we address their missile program in 
the context of this agreement. In fact, on January 29, 2014, the 
Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, testified that ``we 
judge that Iran would choose a ballistic missile as its preferred 
method of delivering nuclear weapons'' capability. One of the real 
important issues that we need to debate and address when it comes to 
their state sponsoring of terrorism is what is happening in Yemen right 
now.
  As we stand here, we have had a situation where Iran has been 
harassing and threatening cargo ships in the region, challenging a core 
American national security and economic interest in the freedom of 
navigation, particularly in key chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz 
and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait.
  If you look at our interest in what has happened in Yemen, Iran has 
supported the Houthis that have undermined the Government in Yemen. Why 
is that important to us? It is important to us because we had to leave 
Yemen, in part, as a result of Iran's support of terrorism in Yemen. 
Who presides in Yemen? Who is one of the great presences in Yemen? Al 
Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, a group that has vowed to attack our 
country, a group that has made attempts to attack us and our country. 
Iran is aiding the way, through their terrorism there, to give Al Qaeda 
in the Arabian Peninsula more space to conduct attacks that can harm 
our interests and the interests of our allies.
  So this legislation that is pending on the floor right now--if we 
were to not pass it, I think people need to understand the implications 
of it. The implications of not passing this legislation that is on the 
floor is that Congress would not have any say on these issues that are 
so important, would not have any say on whether the agreement that the 
administration is negotiating with Iran actually will end their 
program, actually will dismantle their nuclear program, actually will 
have a verifiable inspection regime that allows inspectors to go 
anywhere unannounced at any time to ensure that they are not cheating 
on whatever agreement is reached between us and the Iranians.
  So this bill could not be more important. I thank the sponsors of 
this bill. I certainly thank Senators Corker and Cardin for their 
leadership in the Foreign Relations Committee, to ensure that the 
people of this country, through their elected representatives, on 
something of such importance when it comes to the national security of 
the United States of America--that their elected representatives 
perform their important oversight role here.
  So I am hopeful we will pass this legislation that the U.S. 
Congress--I hope

[[Page S2499]]

the administration, with some of the concerns I have raised about this 
framework, really toughens what they are doing in this framework to end 
their program, to have a transparent, verifiable inspection regime to 
address the ICBM Program, to address Iran's state sponsorship of 
terrorism. I hope they will do that.
  But I know that on behalf of my constituents, it is important, if any 
agreement is reached, that we have that debate here, that we have a 
voice in it on behalf of the American people. In doing so, we will 
protect the national security interests of this country to make sure 
that whatever agreement is entered into is really a good agreement, one 
that protects our country, which protects our allies, and ends Iran's 
nuclear program, as none of us can look in the mirror and think about 
one of the most dangerous regimes in the world having the most 
destructive weapon in the world. That is something that--as I think 
about all of the national security issues, this is on the top. So I 
cannot think of a more important debate we could have now or more 
important legislation that we could work on.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.


                   The New Congress and Patent Reform

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the 114th Congress is just a little over 
100 days old now, but we have actually seen what used to be called the 
world's greatest deliberative body actually get back to work and be 
producing results for the American people. Just a few months into this 
session, we have passed important legislation, from a budget--we will 
perhaps, as early as Tuesday, pass the first budget since 2009.
  We repaired something called the doc fix, which maybe is inelegantly 
named but basically fixed a problem that had been lurking since 1977, 
when somehow we got the idea that we would be able to save money by 
cutting the reimbursement rates to doctors and hospitals. Then we were 
shocked, absolutely shocked, that some doctors would not see Medicare 
patients and some hospitals could not afford to build or expand in 
rural areas and the like.
  Well, we got that off the table as well. Then, I am glad to say, last 
week we were able to pass some major antitrafficking legislation which, 
of course, dealt with the victims of human trafficking, the profile of 
which is about a 12- to 14-year-old girl who is literally in human 
bondage. So we have done some, I think, good work. There is a lot more 
we need to do.
  Of course, the present legislation that enjoys broad bipartisan 
support is the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015. I, too, 
commend the chairman and the ranking member of the Foreign Relations 
Committee. I know this can be a frustrating process because other 
Members of the Senate now have ideas they want to offer by way of 
amendment. We are working through this. I think this will test their 
patience and ours in the process.
  But this Chamber is poised to continue in the spirit of 
bipartisanship on other important issues as well: trade promotion 
authority, which, to me, is the essential link between us and the 
ability to pass important trade agreements.
  Texas, as the Presiding Officer knows, is the leading export State in 
the Nation. We benefit from that because we understand that when you 
have markets for the things we grow or the livestock we raise or the 
manufactured goods we make, it is good for our economy, it is good for 
job creation. Well, trade promotion authority will be good for hard-
working Texas families and families all across the country.
  But there is another area that may not seem of great significance but 
I think is important, where I think we have another opportunity. That 
has to do with patent reform and particularly lawsuit abuse reform. 
Now, patents do not just affect the technology sector. They just do not 
affect the financial sector and Wall Street. It literally is a Main 
Street problem because you have restaurants now, you have real estate 
agents, you have hotels, motels, you have construction companies that 
have been sued by patent trolls, people who do not make anything, 
merely they hold a license to a patent and use that to file--
frequently--frivolous litigation in order to literally shake down the 
defendant.
  Many times it is people who cannot adequately defend themselves. 
Maybe they are a startup business, an innovator who has come up with a 
new idea or a better idea and they are thinly capitalized. Can you 
imagine what happens when they get sued by the patent trolls? Well, it 
is a sad and short story. Either they have to capitulate and pay the 
ransom or they go out of business entirely.
  But patent reform is an issue whose time has come again. It is one I 
have been involved in for a number of years in the Senate. In 2011, 
after years of negotiations, Congress passed something called the 
America Invents Act. This is the first major patent reform in decades. 
This is something that makes America unique. You know, in Texas we 
believe in property rights. Well, what we are talking about is 
intellectual property rights. But when somebody smart or creative or 
innovative comes up with a better idea, our Constitution and our laws 
provide a means to protect that against people who would take it or 
steal it or infringe upon it. That is why patent law is so important.
  But one of the issues left unaddressed was this rising tide of 
lawsuits and the threat of litigation, of which a wider and wider swath 
of stakeholders are now complaining loudly--again, not just the big 
technology firms but restaurants, hotels, motels, builders, real estate 
agents, and the like. So, in 2013, a number of Members of Congress 
began working on this legislation to address those frivolous claims, 
which really kill jobs because it kills innovation in the process.
  Bills were introduced in the House and the Senate targeting the 
various aspects of this problem but focusing primarily on lawsuit 
abuse, lawsuits brought not to vindicate a legitimate claim by somebody 
who actually has lost something of value but merely somebody who is a 
holder of a license to sue, in essence, and uses it to shake down these 
small startup companies and innovators.
  Well, we were able to see the passage, in December of 2013, of 
something called the Innovation Act in the House of Representatives. 
That legislation passed overwhelmingly, 325 to 91, with almost all 
Republicans and the bulk of Democrats supporting the bill. Here is the 
other thing. This is not just a Democratic or Republican issue. This is 
something the administration wholeheartedly supports.
  In fact, this is one of the stories I told last year as I was 
traveling around Texas and elsewhere as evidence of the dysfunction, 
because, I asked: If Republicans are for something and Democrats are 
for something, if the majority of Congress is for it and the White 
House is for it, why is it we can't get it done? Well, the obstacle to 
getting it done was eliminated with the new majority in the Senate.
  So I think we are poised to take good action here very soon. We are 
in a new Congress with a new leadership and a new majority. That is 
everything when it comes to reforming our broken patent system. Today, 
we had a broad bipartisan group of people, from the ranking member and 
the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the former chairman, Senator 
Hatch, to Senator Schumer, who is in the leadership of the Democrats in 
the Senate, Senator Klobuchar, and Senator Lee.
  All of us announced this broad, bipartisan support for a new piece of 
patent reform legislation designed to attack this problem of lawsuit 
abuse and the shakedown of America's innovators and job creators and 
technology creators. So Republicans and Democrats alike have come to 
realize that under the status quo, too many of our most promising 
innovators, not to mention other businesses, are wasting time and money 
in frivolous, costly litigation. This legislation takes a number of 
commonsense steps that ends the exploitation of these so-called patent 
trolls.
  Many of those are not particularly earth-shaking, but the culmination 
of them, I think, will have a real positive impact on this problem.
  First, it would require plaintiff's in patent cases to simply explain 
the substance of their claim when filing the initial lawsuit. What 
frequently happens is a lawsuit will be filed with no real detail as to 
the nature of the claim

[[Page S2500]]

or the infringement of the patent. Then there would ensue costly and 
time-consuming discovery, until finally the plaintiff would figure out 
some claim they could make to hang their hat on. Well, we eliminate 
that by requiring upfront specific notice of what the infringement is 
in the nature of the claim.
  Second, it would stay cases against the end users, including 
restaurants, motels, hotels, construction companies, and the like, and 
would give the party with the major incentive to defend the case the 
opportunity to do so. So the person who is actually responsible for the 
manufacture of a product--let's say a Wi-Fi device--the manufacturer 
would defend that case and not the hotel or motel that happened to 
deploy that Wi-Fi device in their hotel or their motel.
  Third, the bill would bring greater fairness to the discovery process 
by limiting discovery until the court resolves threshold motions in the 
case. This is important because the court is going to have to make a 
decision whether this is a legitimate case that could go on and thus 
authorize the expensive and time-consuming discovery. If it is not a 
legitimate case, then that is the time for the court to address it by a 
motion to dismiss or some other legal device.
  Fourth, it would curb the practice of sending abusive demand letters. 
What I have learned is that in patent litigation these days, there 
would be demand letters which literally would carpet bomb the people 
who were using some of this innovation, in an effort to shake them 
down. It causes a lot of expense, delay, and other consternation.
  Fifth--and this is perhaps one of the most critical elements--it 
would allow courts to shift responsibility for the cost of patent 
litigation more often to the losing party when the court finds that the 
claim was not a reasonable claim to be brought. In other words, it was 
a privileged claim. So no longer can you file a lawsuit and pursue it, 
even though it is a bogus case, without any fear of actually having to 
pay the costs of the other side that prevails in a case involving an 
unreasonable use of the legal process.
  So I believe, as many of my colleagues do, that these are sensible 
reforms, and it is one way we can take a step to protect better the 
access to justice for plaintiffs with legitimate claims of infringement 
and to deter those who simply abuse the system.
  This is another promising area where I think the 114th Congress can 
distinguish itself from the 113th and previous Congresses by showing we 
can actually work together to try to solve real problems in a 
bipartisan way that hopefully will improve life just a little bit for 
the people we represent.
  Entrepreneurs in Texas and throughout the country need this 
legislation to protect them from abuse of patent litigation practices 
that have burdened America's private sector for far too long.
  The last point I would make is that I saw this morning the news that, 
basically, America's economy did not grow in the last quarter. 
Basically, the gross domestic product was, I think, a 0.2 percent 
increase. That is simply too slow of an economic growth to create the 
jobs we need for the population increases we are seeing.
  So if we are going to get our economy growing again, which is the 
best way to raise the wages of hard-working American families, we are 
going to need to do a number of things, such as reform our tax system. 
We are going to need to rein in overreaching regulation, which is a wet 
blanket on the private sector and on job creation, and we are going to 
need to do efforts such as patent reform, as in this litigation reform 
legislation I have just been talking about. That will unleash this 
sleeping giant of the great American economy for the benefit of all 
Americans once again.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish to speak about the pending business 
before the Senate. Of all the things we will do, probably in our 
political lifetime, I can't think of anything more important than 
getting the Iran nuclear ambitions right.
  I stand in two camps. I would love a good deal, and a bad deal would 
be a nightmare.
  What is a bad deal? A bad deal would be one that would result in a 
North Korean outcome, where you lock in a capacity in the hands of the 
Iranians to be monitored by the international community. And one day 
they break out, you wake up, and you have a bomb.
  A bad deal would be too much capacity in the hands of the Iranians. 
That would spook the Sunni Arabs who want to go buy a bomb of their 
own.
  I cannot tell you the consequences to the world and to our Nation if 
you have a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. That is what a bad 
deal leads to.
  A good deal allows us to wind down a hotly contested dispute between 
Iran and the world over the last 20 years without firing a shot. A good 
deal would be allowing the Iranians a peaceful nuclear power program, 
what they claim they want, with no real capability in a year--or any 
time--to make a bomb.
  If all they want is a peaceful nuclear power program, I do not 
object.
  I do object to the capability to enrich the uranium in a fashion that 
one day they could break out, as North Korea did--because I don't trust 
the Iranians.
  So to Senator Cardin and to Senator Corker, you have navigated this 
very well. You have a Democratic President, who I think wants the deal 
way too badly, and we have a Congress who I think wants to have a say.
  We created the congressional sanctions, and we should have a say as 
to whether they are waived based on the deal and the quality of the 
deal that they may negotiate with the Iranians and the P5+1. Since we 
created the sanctions, I don't think it is unfair to this President or 
to any other President to say: You need our vote. You need a debate to 
occur before we will agree to do that.
  Now, is it a treaty? I don't think so. I would love it to be a 
treaty, but it is not.
  The one thing I don't want to do, in the process of dealing with a 
very dangerous situation in the Middle East, is to turn the rules 
upside down in the Senate because I like a particular outcome.
  Senator Johnson sincerely believes this is a treaty. I do not doubt 
his motivations at all. But I have come to conclude, right or wrong, 
that it doesn't meet the definition laid out by the Supreme Court and 
the precedents of the past.
  When we did a deal with North Korea, it wasn't a treaty. Maybe it 
should have been, but it wasn't. So I don't think we are going to 
change the rules just because we have a very dangerous moment in 
American history, in world history, and a President some of us don't 
trust or like.
  Condoleezza Rice says it is not a treaty. I don't think she would 
have said that if there had been any doubt in her mind.
  I have had discussions with other Republicans who have served in 
prior administrations, and they have come to the same conclusion.
  So we had a vote, which was a good thing, and the concept of it 
becoming a treaty was voted down. The debate was worthy of the Senate, 
and I applaud all those who were involved.
  There are aspects of amendments that are pending that I would embrace 
in a New York minute, but I believe that some of these amendments--no 
matter how much I support the concept--would break apart a bipartisan 
coalition that has taken a year to form.
  To Senator Cardin and Senator Corker, you have struck a balance that 
I think makes sense to me. A Democratic minority, I don't believe, is 
going to turn all the power regarding this deal surviving or being 
struck down to the Republican majority. If I were in your shoes, I 
would not do that.
  And to my colleagues who ask that the Democratic minority with a 
Democratic President cede the entire process to us, as Republicans, 
that is probably a bridge too far.
  I don't think a Republican President would like that outcome. I don't 
think a Republican minority would turn over to a Democratic majority 
the ability to act unilaterally on something of this consequence.
  So what have Senators Corker and Cardin been able to do? They have 
brought the bill to the floor without a filibuster, allowing the debate 
and, hopefully, more votes.
  To my Democratic colleagues, don't shut my Republican friends out. 
They

[[Page S2501]]

all have a say, and I will vote with you against some of the amendments 
that I like but that I just think would break the deal apart. Let's get 
the Senate back in business in a reasonable fashion.

  What I would say is that the construct of this bill makes perfect 
sense to me. You need 60 votes to disapprove the deal. Sixty votes are 
required for any major action in the Senate. That has been the 
historical precedent of the Senate. So the Democrats are not asking us 
to do something that hasn't been around as a concept for a long time.
  What does it require? It requires the 54 Republicans, if we are 
together, to convince 6 Democrats that this is a bad deal.
  I think, if it truly is a bad deal, our Democratic colleagues--for 
the good of the Nation--and the consequences of a bad deal are 
understood by them--would join with us and say: This is not what we 
want, Mr. President; try harder. Rejecting a bad deal does not mean 
that we want to end diplomatic efforts. It means that we believe the 
deal in question falls short.
  To Senator Corker, you did a good job, because I don't think anybody 
in your shoes could have convinced the Democratic Party basically to 
deal themselves out.
  To Senator Cardin, you made it possible, along with Senator Menendez, 
for us to have this debate and create, I think, a standard of 
disapproval consistent with the traditions of the Senate.
  There may never be a deal, but if there is one, it has to come back 
here, and every American will get to hear the contents of the deal--
while some think it is good, and while others think it is bad--and you 
will not have to wonder what we are doing with regard to the Iranians.
  If the Republican Party cannot convince enough Members of the 
Democratic Party that it is a bad deal, then we will be disappointed, 
but that is democracy.
  Israel is very worried about the framework. The Sunni Arab States are 
very worried about the framework. It is not a final deal yet.
  Three things, I think, have to be there for me to be on board: 
anytime, anywhere inspections in Iran by international organizations of 
our choosing, including military facilities; no upfront signing bonus 
in terms of money until the Iranians comply with the initial phases of 
the deal, because they will take the cash and put it in their war 
machine; and whenever the inspection regime is supposed to terminate--
10 years, 15 years or whatever date you pick--at that moment, the then-
existing President, whoever he or she may be, has to certify that Iran 
is no longer a state sponsor of terrorism, because you would not want 
to end an inspection regime if they were still involved in state 
terrorist activity.
  So the two leaders on this bill, from my view, have crafted a very 
good piece of legislation. People dislike it for different reasons, 
which means it is probably the balance we need--and I can't think of a 
better way to do this.
  To those who think they have a better way, the only thing I can tell 
you is you better get some Democrats to agree with you. Because if you 
cannot, it is just all talk.
  What Bob Corker and Ben Cardin have been able to do is they have 
given the Senate a voice that we wouldn't have otherwise. They have 
given the American people a chance to understand the deal better than 
any opportunity I know of, and they have given us the power that every 
Member of the House and Senate should want in this regard, a chance to 
have a say and to be recorded in history.
  The outcome may not please you, but this is the best process I could 
think of, given the way the Senate works and the way democracy works, 
which means both parties are going to require a say in something this 
important.
  So, well done. I look forward to voting for this deal. Any amendment 
you want to bring to the floor, I will vote for it if I think it is a 
good amendment that will not deconstruct the deal or unravel the deal. 
I will vote against the amendment if I think it will break the deal 
apart, even though I am sympathetic to it, because my goal is to get 
this right, to make sure that any final deal with the Iranians is 
explained to the American people through the House and the Senate 
debate, and that can only happen if this bill becomes law.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I wish to say, while the Senator from 
South Carolina is on the floor, that at the end of the day, this bill 
is the Graham vision. I mean, the fact is that this is Graham-Corker, 
Corker-Graham. It has evolved so that we could have the kind of support 
that we need to pass this into law.
  But I thank Senator Graham for his pushing to make sure we got to 
this point. There is no question. Look, you have been on this issue for 
months. You have pursued this. You have sold this publicly. You have 
worked with us as we have caused this to evolve to get the number of 
votes that we may get actually to cause this to become law. I don't 
know of anybody in our caucus or anybody in the Senate that has more of 
a foreign policy national security background--no one.
  I thank you for your efforts to ensure that we do everything we can 
to make sure we have a voice in this agreement that may happen on June 
30 or a few days thereafter. We wouldn't be here without your continual 
pushing.
  I yield the floor for Senator Cardin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, before Senator Graham leaves the floor, I 
wish to concur with Senator Corker's observations.
  It was several months ago that Senator Graham grabbed me on the floor 
of the Senate to talk about this being the most important 
responsibility we have--to have an orderly way to oversight any 
potential agreement.
  So I really thank Senator Graham for his attention to this issue. We 
wouldn't be here today if it weren't for his leadership on this issue, 
and I thank him for the manner in which he brought this issue forward 
so that we could find a way to get this done in a constructive manner.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I, too, want to begin today by thanking the 
Senators from Maryland and Tennessee for the work they have put into 
this process. It is important. It is important that Congress have a 
role in reviewing any deal the President concludes with Iran.
  This is an extraordinary threat to the world. This is a nation which 
is run not by the individual with whom they are negotiating; Iran is a 
country governed and run by a radical Shia cleric who has ideas about 
the future of the world that are frightening.
  What is more frightening is the information we have received from 
this administration about the framework they agreed to on April 2. It 
is a framework, for example, that would allow Iran to retain thousands 
of centrifuges and grant them the right to enrich uranium. It is an 
arrangement that would allow Iran to avoid dismantling its key 
facilities. It is an arrangement that allows Iran to continue to deny 
its past work on nuclear weapons. It is an arrangement that would allow 
Iran to retain a significant ballistic missile program, including 
efforts to develop a missile capable of hitting the very spot on which 
we stand right now. It is an arrangement that does nothing whatsoever 
on the cases of those Americans who are currently unjustly detained in 
Iran. It is an arrangement that does nothing to impact Iran's state 
sponsorship of terrorism or its brutal treatment of its own people. In 
fact, it is an arrangement that, if it goes through, will turn over 
billions of dollars into the hands of the chief state sponsor of 
terrorism on the planet. And it is an arrangement that will do nothing 
to bring an end to Iran's self-proclaimed support at the highest levels 
of its government for the destruction of the State of Israel.
  Since April 2 of this year, by the way, the Iranians have made clear 
that they are not willing to do many of the things the White House 
itself has claimed are part of this deal. We are going to get to that 
in a moment, but understand that when the White House announced this 
deal, they put out a fact sheet. They said: This is what the deal is 
about. Iran is disputing it. They do not have the same fact sheet. In 
essence, what Iran is saying was agreed to and what the United States 
is saying was agreed to are, apparently at this

[[Page S2502]]

moment, two very different things. That alone should be concerning.
  In addition to that, this deal is going to be a dangerous deal, a bad 
deal not just for the United States and our allies in the region but 
especially for our allies in Israel.
  That is why it is important that Congress take a stand and ensure 
that this deal is not implemented unless its fundamental flaws are 
addressed.
  That is why I supported this legislation in the committee. I voted 
for it so we could be here on the floor to strengthen it--not in a 
committee of just 20 members but here with all of our colleagues--over 
a number of days, potentially weeks, so the country could see what is 
at stake.
  The first amendment I will offer today and hope we can overcome 
objections to is pretty straightforward. Here is what the amendment 
says: It says to the President that no deal can go forward unless the 
President certifies that the Iranian leadership has accepted Israel's 
right to exist as a Jewish state.
  Why is that important? Because we will hear the argument that this 
has nothing to do with nuclear weapons, that this has nothing to do 
with the nuclear capacity of Iran. I am going to make the argument that 
that is not true.
  The first reason is--we have to understand why it is important for 
Israel to exist as a Jewish state. Israel is not just a country; it is 
a homeland for the Jewish people, created in the aftermath of the 
Holocaust with the belief that never again would there not be a place 
for the Jewish people to go and seek refuge and be able to live if they 
faced persecution--as they have for thousands of years and as they do 
even now but especially in the aftermath of the Holocaust. So Israel is 
not just a country. It has a special and unique purpose that sets it 
apart from any other nation on Earth. It was created as a homeland for 
a persecuted people who survived despite the deaths of 6 million human 
beings in the Holocaust, maybe more. It is now a homeland where they 
will be safe.
  It is also important to remember that beyond that, it is in the 
national security interests of the United States. What is Israel? 
Israel is a pro-American, free enterprise democracy. I promise that if 
there were more pro-American, free enterprise democracies in the Middle 
East, our lives would be a lot simpler and the world would be a lot 
safer and a lot better. But there is one, and this country must always 
be firmly on the side of that one country, this free enterprise, pro-
American democracy in the midst of a region full of chaos and 
uncertainty.
  Why is that relevant to this deal? Here is why it is relevant. This 
is not just a deal about what Iran is allowed to do in its nuclear 
program; this is a deal that would lift billions of dollars' worth of 
sanctions off of the Iranian Government. And what is the Iranian 
Government going to do when they get access to those billions of 
dollars? Are they going to donate it to charity around the world to 
feed the hungry and house the homeless? No. Are they going to use it to 
substantially improve the rights of their people in their own country? 
No. They are going to use those billions of dollars to do what they are 
doing now with less money: export terrorism to every corner of the 
globe.
  Today, Iran is an active sponsor of terrorism in Lebanon, Syria, 
Iraq, Yemen, Bahrain, Latin America, and Europe. This is the same 
government that tried to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador here in 
Washington, DC. This is the same Iranian Government that blew up a 
Jewish center in Buenos Aires. This is the same Iranian Government that 
tried to detonate a bomb in Uruguay. They use terrorism the way normal 
countries use diplomacy. Yet, now we are going to turn over billions of 
dollars to them.

  The reason why this has something to do with Israel is, what are they 
going to do when they have even more money to carry out these sorts of 
acts? They are going to invest it not just in their nuclear program, 
but they will invest it in their sponsorship of terrorism and they will 
invest it in their long-range rockets.
  What have they told us they want to do with this increased capacity? 
What have they told us is the chief goal of this Government in Iran? 
Why do they need this terrorism? Why do they need those weapons? Why do 
they need those long-range rockets? Well, let's take them at their 
word. Here is why they need it. They need it because, according to a 
tweet put out by the Ayatollah in July of 2014, ``This barbaric, 
wolflike and infanticidal regime of Israel which spares no crime has no 
cure but to be annihilated.''
  In November of 2014, the Supreme Leader posted a chart on his Twitter 
account. It had ``9 key questions about the elimination of Israel.'' I 
am holding it here, but it can be found online. Here are some of those 
questions:
  ``Why should the Zionist regime be eliminated?''
  ``What does elimination of Israel mean in the viewpoint of the Imam 
Khomeini?'' Meaning him.
  ``What is the proper way of eliminating Israel?''
  ``How will the proposed referendum succeed?'' Well, here he is 
talking about actually calling for a referendum in Israel, but the Jews 
can't participate in the referendum, according to him.
  ``Why do we oppose compromise proposals?''
  The point is that this is a country led by a leader who has made it 
very clear repeatedly, time and again, that one of their main 
objectives is the destruction of Israel and ending Israel's existence 
as a Jewish state. When someone says that over and over again, we 
should believe them. This is not for domestic consumption to make him 
look good in Iran, the way some in the administration would argue. I 
believe they mean it. Do you know why I believe they mean it? Because 
they sponsor terrorism in an effort to kill Jews and Israelis.
  In January of 2015, a suitcase full of explosives was found near the 
Israeli Embassy in Uruguay. The day after an individual left a suitcase 
bomb near the Embassy, a senior Iranian diplomat by the name of Ahmed 
Sabatgold left the country. Uruguayan authorities clarified a report 
claiming that he had been expelled from the country. They said no. They 
suggested that, in fact, he was a person of high interest with whom 
they would like to speak but that he left the country on his own.
  So the reason why the existence of Israel as a Jewish state is 
directly tied to this deal is simple. We are about to turn over 
billions of dollars into their hands, and we have every reason to 
believe they will spend a significant portion of that money to destroy 
our strongest and most important ally in the region and one of the most 
important allies in the world.
  The first amendment I have offered is pretty straightforward. It 
calls for any deal to require that Iran recognize Israel's right to 
exist as a Jewish state.
  The second amendment I will propose is even more straightforward, 
even more on point. Here is what it requires. It requires that this 
final deal be the deal the President says it is. Here is what I mean by 
that. I filed an amendment that basically took the White House's own 
fact sheet--by the way, I have problems with that fact sheet. The deal 
as the President describes it is not a deal I believe will work. It is 
not a deal I believe will prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. 
But just to take them at their word, just to prove this point and to 
ensure we are building safeguards into what we are doing here, I took 
the White House's own fact sheet, what they said the deal was about, 
and I say in this amendment that the final deal must be about those 
points that the White House already says it is. For the life of me, I 
don't understand why that would be controversial. My amendment is 
basically this. It says the deal has to be what you say it is. That is 
all my amendment says. Yet, somehow I have been told this is going to 
box in the White House. If it does, it boxes them in with their own 
words.
  But here is the reason I am doing it. Iran apparently negotiated a 
very different deal than the one the White House thinks we have. For 
example, the White House says this deal will impose permanent 
inspections on Iran. The State Department fact sheet says: ``Iran's 
adherence to the Additional Protocol of the IAEA is permanent, 
including its significant access and transparency obligations.'' The 
Iranian fact sheet says: ``Iran will implement the Additional Protocol 
on a voluntary and temporary basis for the sake of transparency and 
confidence building.''

[[Page S2503]]

That doesn't sound like the same deal to me.
  How about the inspection of military sites? In an interview on CNN, 
Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said: ``If we see a site 
that we need to inspect on a military facility, we can get access to 
that site and inspect it.'' But on April 9, Iranian Brigadier General 
Hossein Dehghan said: ``Visiting military centers are among the red 
lines and no visits to these centers will be allowed.''
  How about the scope of the sanctions relief? The State Department 
fact sheet says: ``United States and European Union nuclear-related 
sanctions will be suspended . . . All past U.N. Security Council 
resolutions on the Iran nuclear issue will be lifted simultaneous with 
the completion, by Iran, of nuclear-related actions addressing all key 
concerns.'' But Iran says: ``According to the reached solutions, after 
the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan of Joint Action, all of 
the U.N. resolutions will be revoked and all of the multilateral 
economic and financial sanctions by the EU and the unilateral ones by 
the U.S. will be annulled.'' So are the sanctions limited or total? We 
say they are limited; Iran says they are total.
  There are three more differences. On the timing of the release, at a 
news conference on April 2, the President said:

       In return for Iran's actions, the international community 
     has agreed to provide Iran with relief from certain 
     sanctions--our own sanctions and international sanctions 
     imposed by the United Nations Security Council. This relief 
     will be phased as Iran takes steps to adhere to the deal.

  So the President is basically saying that every time Iran complies 
with a portion of the deal, an additional sanction will be phased out; 
it will be in steps. If they do something, sanctions come off slowly. 
Trust but verify. That is what the American Government says. That is 
what the President said in his own words. But Iran says: ``We will not 
sign any deal unless on the very first day of its implementation all 
economic sanctions against Iran are lifted all at once.''
  How about restrictions on enrichment? Are there restrictions for 10 
years or for 15 years? The United States and the State Department Fact 
Sheet says:

       Iran has agreed to not enrich uranium over 3.67 percent for 
     at least 15 years . . . Iran has agreed to not build any new 
     facilities for the purpose of enriching uranium for 15 years 
     . . . Iran has agreed to not enrich uranium at its Fordow 
     facility for at least 15 years . . . Iran has agreed to not 
     conduct research and development associated with uranium 
     enrichment at Fordow for 15 years.

  That is a lot of 15 years.
  What does Iran say? On April 4, on an Iranian state TV channel, its 
Foreign Minister said:

       The limitations are for 10 years and then enrichment will 
     continue its own scientific progress. We have accepted 10 
     years of limitations.

  Last but not least, research and development--is it limited or not 
limited? The United States, in our fact sheet, says it is limited.

       Iran will not use its IR-2, IR-4, IR-5, IR-6, or IR-8 
     models to produce enriched uranium for at least 10 years. 
     Iran will engage in limited research and development with its 
     advanced centrifuges, according to a schedule and parameters 
     which have been agreed to by the P5+1.

  The group that negotiated all this.
  That is what the U.S. fact sheet says. But what does Iran say? Iran 
says no.

       Iran will continue its research and development on advanced 
     machines and will continue the initiation and completion 
     phases of the research and development process of IR-4, IR-5, 
     IR-6, and IR-8 centrifuges during the 10 year period of the 
     Comprehensive Plan for Joint Action.

  So these are at least six major points of difference where Iran is 
saying the deal says one thing and the United States is saying the deal 
says another. What my amendment does is it takes what we say the deal 
is and puts it in the bill and says: Any final deal must be what you 
told us it is, not what Iran says it is. Yet, somehow, apparently, that 
is controversial.
  This is not a game. This is a very serious matter because this is a 
country--and I don't mean its people but its leaders--that has shown 
the willingness to sponsor terrorism and do atrocious things all over 
the world.
  When you read in the newspaper about civilians being barrel-bombed 
and gassed and killed in Syria, do you know why Assad is able to do 
that? Because of the help he gets from Iran.
  When you read about the rockets that flood into Tel-Aviv and 
Jerusalem and Haifa and cities all across Israel every couple years as 
Hezbollah launches attacks, hiding behind human shields while they are 
trying to kill Israelis, do you know how they are able to get them? 
Because of help from Iran.
  When you read in the newspaper that yesterday the Iranian military 
hijacked a vessel in international waters, when you read that they 
tried to kill the Saudi Ambassador in Washington, DC, when you read 
that they tried to set off a bomb in Uruguay, when you read how in 1994 
they did set off a bomb at a Jewish center in Buenos Aires, Argentina--
this is who we are dealing with. Now they are on the verge of being 
able to enrich weapons-grade uranium and reprocess weapons-grade 
plutonium. Now they are headed quickly toward building a long-range 
rocket capable of reaching not just Israel but Europe and the United 
States.
  This is a very significant moment because this President is about to 
sign a deal that will place in their hands billions of additional 
dollars. If this is the terrorism and the nuclear activity they are 
pursuing now with sanctions on them, imagine how much more they will be 
able to afford to do once the sanctions are lifted. That is why it is 
so relevant on this point of Israel but also on the details of this 
deal.
  By the way, as I said, and I will repeat it, the State Department 
fact sheet, what the President says the deal is--I am not comfortable 
with that either. I don't think that will work. It is not as if I am 
celebrating what they say the deal is.
  All I am asking is this: At a minimum, before you bring and sign a 
deal, at least let it be what you say it is. Don't come back here in 6 
months and surprise us with ``By the way, it was the Iranian's fact 
sheet that had it right and not ours.''
  So I hope we will be able to move on these amendments. I don't think 
they undermine this one bit. I think they are relevant to the debates 
we are having. I think they are relevant to the decision we are being 
asked to make. And it is about time this body takes this up. Congress 
has an important role to play. The people of Florida whom I represent 
speak on these issues on this floor through me and the senior Senator 
from Florida. We have a right to have these issues debated. This is not 
some minor issue we are talking about; this is the security not just of 
our strongest ally in the region but of our very own country.
  So I hope we will have an opportunity to have debates on these 
amendments. When we hear people say: If these amendments pass, we are 
going to lose the support of the bill; the President might veto it--
well, if you want to make that argument, make that argument, but let's 
have a vote on it. What is wrong with having a vote on an amendment? If 
you don't want to vote on the amendment because you disagree with me, 
stand up and say you disagree with the amendment and you vote no. If 
you agree with the amendment but you are going to vote against it 
because you think it unravels this process that is being put in place, 
then say that. But let's have a vote on it.
  If you don't want to vote on things, don't run for the Senate. If you 
don't want to vote on things, don't run for office. Be a columnist. Get 
a talk show. Everyone who runs for office knows that what we are called 
to do here is vote on issues on which sometimes we are uncomfortable.
  There is a microphone at your desk. Come to the floor and give a 
speech and explain to the world why you are voting against a deal that 
requires Israel to have a right to exist. And if you say you believe 
Israel has a right to exist but you are voting against it because you 
don't want to unravel the deal, people will respect it. You can make 
your argument, but vote. Don't tell me we can't have votes on these 
things. You can argue that we shouldn't pass it, and I will argue 
against you, but don't tell me we can't even vote on it because then 
what you are saying is you want to be protected from taking a position 
on it, you don't want to take a position that you think is tough, and 
that I find to be unacceptable.
  So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending 
amendment in order to call up the two

[[Page S2504]]

amendments I just described, amendment No. 1141 and amendment No. 1148, 
en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me 
explain to my friend from Florida--a very valued member of the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee--that we have two pending amendments. We 
have also been working to get a vote on Senator Barrasso's amendment 
dealing with terrorism. Senator Corker and I are trying to work through 
many amendments that we can clear that Members have brought forward. 
They are working with us to get those amendments where we can consider 
them.
  For an orderly process, since so many amendments have been filed--
and, I might say, they have all been filed by Republican Members of the 
Senate--we need to make sure we have an orderly way to consider these 
amendments and vote on these amendments. For those reasons, I do 
object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, just as a point of clarification, I am a 
member of the committee that heard these amendments, particularly the 
one on Israel's right to exist. They were available to me at the time. 
I chose not to offer them in consultation with the Senators who worked 
so hard to put them together. I could have offered my amendment in the 
committee. I did not in order to work in a cooperative way to move it 
from the committee onto the floor.
  I will admit that I did not speak to Senator Cardin about this in 
particular, but I was told by multiple Members that the right place and 
the right time for me to offer this amendment would be on the floor, 
not in the committee, because the hope was to get it to the floor as 
quickly as possible. So in an effort to move this issue to the floor, I 
held back on filing this particular amendment with regard to Israel's 
right to exist on the assurances and on the conversations that we had 
that, in fact, when we got to the floor, these amendments would be 
heard.
  Now, if, in fact, it turns out that today is not going to be the day 
we vote on the amendment, I understand that. I know there are a lot of 
other people with ideas they want voted on.
  My understanding is and I have been told that there is potentially 
the effort here to say we shouldn't have any amendment or just have 
three or four amendments, and I think that is an unfair position to 
take. I am not saying that is what the Senator from Maryland is 
arguing. But I hope that at some point, as the order is established--I 
will continue to make this motion in the hope that this amendment can 
not just be pending but can be part of this debate.
  I respect the views of my colleagues, some who I think will come to 
the floor and say they agree with me on the substance of it but don't 
want to vote on the amendment because they think it endangers the 
agreement we have in place or the bill that is in place. But I do think 
it deserves a vote, and I do think it deserves that debate.
  So I hope in this orderly process that is established, these two 
amendments--I have filed seven, but I prioritized these two--these two 
will get the consideration I believe they deserve.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, as Senator Rubio pointed out, we had no 
discussions about this. I don't know what Senators he is referring to, 
but let me just talk briefly about some of the points Senator Rubio 
mentioned because I think it is important that we respond to them.
  First, the bill we are considering, S. 615, is a bill that doesn't 
deal with the merits of a potential deal. It deals with the right way 
for Congress to review a potential deal that is reached between the 
United States and our trading partners and Iran concerning its nuclear 
weapon program. That is what this bill does. It doesn't say whether the 
President's agreement is a good one, a bad one, et cetera. It is a 
process for us to review it and take appropriate action because we are 
the ones who impose the sanctions. Only the Congress can permanently 
change or eliminate the sanctions. Therefore, it is important that we 
have an orderly way to review the potential deal. That is what it 
does--nothing more, nothing less.
  It also, by the way, gives us the opportunity to get notice of 
material breaches and be able to take action to prevent Iran from 
becoming a nuclear weapons state if they, in fact, breach the 
agreement.
  So the two points Senator Rubio mentioned--the first is that there 
are different interpretations being given, one by the United States and 
one by the Iranians. Well, we think the first amendment we filed is 
going to help deal with that. It is pending right now. It requires us 
to get every official document of a potential deal in the language in 
which it is agreed to. So that amendment is pending--it is followed by 
Senator Corker and me--for the reasons Senator Rubio mentioned, and 
that is, we want to see the original text. We don't want to have the 
interpretation by the Iranians; we want to know what the language says. 
That is our responsibility. We are going to get that once we take up 
this first amendment--I hope it is approved--that will give us the 
original language text of every agreement and exhibit that is agreed to 
between the parties.
  The second issue Senator Rubio mentioned is Israel's right to exist 
and Iran acknowledging Israel's right to exist. I fully agree with 
Senator Rubio. I don't think there is a Member of this body who doesn't 
want Israel legitimated by every country in the world. It is our key 
ally in the Middle East. It is a country that shares our values, that 
has a strategic relationship with the United States, and I could go on 
and on.
  Since 1948, the United States and Israel have enjoyed a very close 
and important relationship, and we have taken so many actions in this 
body in order to protect Israel's right to exist. That is why we 
included your language and Senator Boxer's language in this bill where 
we say, ``The President should determine that the agreement in no way 
compromises the commitment of the United States to Israel's security or 
its support for Israel's right to exist.'' We have that in the bill.
  What Senator Rubio's amendment would have us do--and let me explain 
this. What his amendment would have us do is require that the President 
certify to us before he could submit any agreement--enter into any 
agreement--that Iran has recognized Israel's right to exist.
  This agreement we are negotiating with our negotiating partners and 
Iran is to deal with Iran's nuclear weapon program. I know from my 
conversations with the Israeli Government that they think that is the 
most important thing for their existence--the most important thing--
that Iran not become a nuclear weapons state. That is what Israel 
needs, and that is what we are trying to get.
  The Rubio amendment, although it is not intended to do that, would 
say: No, that is not the most important thing. The most important thing 
is to negotiate the language, what Iran says about Israel, not their 
nuclear weapons program, and that the President must achieve that.
  When you are negotiating, the more things you put on the table, the 
weaker position you are in in achieving the most important point, and 
that is making sure we have a strong agreement that Iran can never 
become a nuclear weapons state.
  That is why this amendment will accomplish just the opposite as far 
as Israel's security is concerned. Yes, it is a poison pill. Yes, it 
will defeat this bill. That also happens to be true. And, yes, it will 
mean it will be almost impossible for the President to negotiate a 
nuclear agreement with Iran.
  I think most people in this body and most people in America believe 
that the best course is a negotiated agreement with Iran. The 
unintended consequences of this amendment would make it virtually 
impossible to have that agreement completed.
  So, yes, we could get into debate on the specifics of your amendment. 
I am more than happy to do that. But we have an orderly process here, 
and there are a lot of amendments that have been filed, and we are 
trying to work out a way to do this. Senator Corker and I have been on 
the floor now for 4 or 5 days debating this issue, and we will debate 
any Member who wants to come by because we want do make sure we do have 
an open debate. But we are

[[Page S2505]]

going to follow an orderly process. And this amendment, as well-
intended as it is, is an amendment that would very much compromise what 
we have tried to do in a bipartisan way, and that is to make sure that 
this Senate and the House have an orderly way to consider any deal 
struck between our negotiating partners and the United States and Iran. 
That is our responsibility, and we are going to stay focused on that, 
and we are going to end with a bipartisan product that is in I think 
the best traditions of the United States Senate.
  So I respect very deeply my colleague's commitment to Israel. I do.
  All of us are committed to Israel, but let's think about what is the 
most important thing for Israel, and that is having a strong agreement 
that prevents Iran from becoming a nuclear weapon state. Let's focus on 
that because that, I think, this bill helps us achieve.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I appreciate the passion of the Senator 
from Maryland. He makes points that I think are very relevant to debate 
once we are on the amendment. That is all I am asking for, a vote on 
the amendment. He is making an argument right now why he thinks we 
should not pass this amendment.
  I respect the orderly process. I did not necessarily recognize that 
coming to the floor and trying to get my amendment pending would 
somehow unravel this orderly process, but I am more than happy to work 
within the orderly process, whatever that process entails. I would be 
more than happy to have it explained to me, where I fit in, in this 
orderly process, and at the appropriate moment we will file the 
amendment. But I wanted a vote on the amendment, and then the argument 
you made here today can be made.
  The only other point I would make is it is true, tragically, that 
there are a number of countries in the Middle East that do not 
recognize Israel's right to exist. The difference is those countries 
are not trying to build a nuclear weapon, nor are they building long-
range rockets, nor do they use terrorism as an instrument of 
statecraft, nor do they every Friday hold ceremonies in which their top 
leader chants ``Death to Israel'' and ``Death to America,'' nor do they 
actively support terrorist groups around the world that exist for the 
sole purpose of destroying Israel itself, nor do they have billions of 
dollars in sanctions that are about to be released.
  At the end of the day, there is a big difference between what is 
happening in Iran and the billions of dollars we are about to turn over 
to them and these other countries that, unfortunately, do not recognize 
Israel's right to exist but are not going around actually actively 
trying to destroy the State of Israel.
  The last point is on the differences in the details. Listen, I do not 
think the fact sheet the State Department put out is sufficient. I 
think the deal, as described by the President, is not good enough and 
will not lead to the prevention of a nuclear weapon. But all I am 
asking for in my amendment is for the deal he submits to be the one 
that he says he negotiated.
  He has told us already we have reached a preliminary agreement. He 
has announced it to the world what that preliminary agreement is. All I 
am saying is what you submit to us must be what you told us it is. Here 
is why I say this: Because this negotiation has been going on for a 
while. Every month that goes by, Iran gains more concessions, and our 
position slips further and further.
  If you look where we were at the beginning of this process to where 
we are today, it is a very different place from where we were not that 
long ago. We are in a very different place than we were in terms of 
what we had originally said. When this whole thing started 10 years 
ago, 12 years ago, the U.N. Security Council put sanctions on Iran and 
said you are not even able to enrich or reprocess. Now they are allowed 
to enrich and reprocess. They are even allowed to enrich and reprocess 
at an even higher rate for research purposes.
  If these negotiations keep going on, we are going to end up building 
the bomb for them at the rate it is going, because every year and every 
month that goes by, they gain more and more concessions. All I am 
trying do is, at a minimum, freeze this in place and say, Mr. 
President, you have told us that you have negotiated a deal. Mr. 
President, you put out a fact sheet that told us what the deal is. You 
have represented it to the American people as the deal, and now all 
this will say is what you submit to us must be what you told us you 
agreed to on April 2. Do not come back here in 6 months and submit to 
us a deal, and as it turns out the Iranian fact sheet is the one we 
should have been relying on.
  All I am asking, even though I do not think that what he has agreed 
to is sufficient--all I am asking in my second amendment is that the 
deal he submits be the deal he says it is, nothing more and nothing 
less.
  I hope that through this orderly process the moment will arrive, 
before we vote on passage of this, that my amendments can be heard and 
voted on. I respect the arguments that others make about why they 
cannot support them and what they think they will ultimately do to the 
process. All I am asking for are votes on these amendments, and then 
everybody is free to vote the way they want and for the reasons they 
want.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I can, quite frankly, share the Senator 
from Florida's frustration, and I urge us to fully debate and begin 
voting on important amendments to this bill. I am all for any 
productive, orderly process, but I want it to be productive, to be 
inclusive, and to get going. I share the frustration that has been 
expressed on the floor that that is not quite happening right now.
  In light of that, I want to be assured of moving forward and getting 
a vote on a very important amendment for me. I send a second-degree 
amendment to the desk, Vitter amendment No. 1186, as modified. I ask 
that it be a second-degree amendment to Corker amendment No. 1179 and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Corker amendment is not pending.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry: What is 
the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is amendment No. 1155.


                           Amendment No. 1179

  Mr. VITTER. In that case, I call for regular order with respect to 
the Corker amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment No. 1179 is pending.


         Amendment No. 1186, as Modified, to Amendment No. 1179

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I send this second-degree amendment to the 
desk, Vitter amendment No. 1186, as modified, to be a second-degree 
amendment to Corker amendment No. 1179, and I ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter], for himself and 
     Mr. Cardin, proposes an amendment numbered 1186, as modified, 
     to amendment No. 1179.

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

(Purpose: To require an assessment of inadequacies in the international 
    monitoring and verification system as they relate to a nuclear 
                          agreement with Iran)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       ``(C) Assessment of inadequacies in international 
     monitoring and verification system.--
       ``(i) In general.--A report under subparagraph (A) shall 
     include an assessment by the Secretary of State, in 
     conjunction with the heads and other relevant officials of 
     agencies with responsibilities under this section, detailing 
     existing inadequacies in the international monitoring and 
     verification system to the extent such inadequacies relate to 
     the agreement transmitted pursuant to paragraph (1), as 
     outlined and in accordance with findings and recommendations 
     pertaining to verification shortcomings contained within--

       ``(I) the September 26, 2006, Government Accountability 
     Office report, ``Nuclear Nonproliferation: IAEA Has 
     Strengthened Its

[[Page S2506]]

     Safeguards and Nuclear Security Programs, but Weaknesses Need 
     to Be Addressed'';
       ``(II) the May 16, 2013, Government Accountability Office 
     Report, ``IAEA Has Made Progress in Implementing Critical 
     Programs but Continues to Face Challenges'';
       ``(III) the Defense Science Board Study, ``Task Force on 
     the Assessment of Nuclear Treaty Monitoring and Verification 
     Technologies'';
       ``(IV) the IAEA Report, The Safeguards System of the 
     International Atomic Energy Agency; and the IAEA Safeguards 
     Statement for 2010;
       ``(V) the IAEA Safeguards Overview: Comprehensive 
     Safeguards Agreements and Additional Protocols;
       ``(VI) the IAEA Model Additional Protocol; and
       ``(VII) the IAEA February 2015 Director General Report to 
     the Board of Governors.

       ``(ii) Recommendations.--The assessment required under 
     clause (i) shall include recommendations based upon the 
     reports referenced in such clause, including recommendations 
     to overcome inadequacies or develop an improved monitoring 
     framework and recommendations related to the following 
     matters:

       ``(I) The nuclear security program's long-term resource 
     needs.
       ``(II) A plan for the long-term operation and funding of 
     the IAEA and relevant agencies increased activities in order 
     to maintain the necessary level of oversight.
       ``(III) A potential national strategy and implementation 
     plan supported by a planning and assessment team aimed at 
     cutting across agency boundaries or limitations that impact 
     its ability to draw conclusions--with absolute assurance--
     about whether Iran is developing a clandestine nuclear 
     weapons program.
       ``(IV) The limitations of IAEA actors.
       ``(V) Challenges within the geographic scope which may be 
     too large to anticipate within the sanctioned treaty or 
     agreement or the national technical means (NTM) monitoring 
     regimes alone.

       ``(iii) Presidential certification.--Not later than 30 days 
     after the Secretary of State submits a report under 
     subparagraph (A), the President shall certify to the 
     appropriate congressional committees and leadership that the 
     President has reviewed the Secretary's shortfall assessment 
     required under this subparagraph, including the 
     recommendations contained therein, and has taken necessary 
     actions to address existing gaps within the monitoring and 
     verification framework.
       ``(D) Classified annex.--A report under

  Mr. VITTER. I would be happy to explain the substance of the 
amendment.
  This is about verification, obviously a really crucial part of this 
debate. Many of us who have concerns about the President's proposed 
agreement do not think we have adequate means to verify any agreement 
in the context and the structure he has proposed. So, clearly, those 
verification issues are very, very important.
  This amendment tries to address those in a substantive and 
significant and meaningful way. What the amendment does is actually 
specifically lists documented reports from groups such as the IAEA, the 
U.S. Defense Science Board Task Force, and others, which have 
highlighted specific verification problems. The amendment would require 
the President to report in a very detailed, specific way on those 
documented verification problems and make certifications regarding 
making progress on and solving those verification problems.
  Again, I think this is absolutely necessary because I believe the 
present deal, as it is being put together, does not have adequate 
verification capability. This would help fill that hole. I am not sure 
it would completely fill that gap, quite frankly, but this is a good-
faith attempt to address those very real issues by, again, delineating 
specific documented verification problems and requiring the President 
and his administration to address them, to report on that, and to make 
certifications regarding how they are addressing those specific 
documented verification problems.
  I urge strong support of this good-faith amendment. This would 
dramatically, in my opinion, improve this agreement by helping address 
those verification concerns. I believe they are very legitimate 
concerns shared by many people on both sides of the aisle. I urge 
strong consideration and, ultimately, approval of this verification 
enhancement.
  I yield the floor.
  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. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and call up my amendment No. 1180.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I know the good Senator from South Dakota 
knows that we are working with the other side to get a number of 
amendments ready to vote on today, and we certainly appreciate his 
constructive effort in letting us know what he is doing.
  I object to making it pending because the other side--I am doing this 
on their behalf--wants to work through the tranche that we have right 
now.
  I hope he discusses his amendment and maybe we can make it pending 
later today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee, who is 
managing this bill. I know they are trying to find a way forward, and I 
hope that will include getting some votes on amendments, including this 
one. I think this is a very reasonable amendment and one that certainly 
fits within what we are trying to accomplish here.
  The Senate is in the midst of an important debate. This week we began 
a discussion on the role of Congress in approving or disapproving a 
nuclear agreement with Iran. Any agreement we reach with Iran must 
ensure one thing, and that is that Iran will never be able to acquire a 
nuclear weapon. That should be everything that this discussion is 
about.
  A nuclear-armed Iran would threaten the safety, stability, and 
security of the entire world. It would also pose a direct threat to the 
United States and to our allies in the region. Given the stakes of this 
debate, it is critical that Congress have a role in reviewing any 
agreement so that the American people's voices can be heard. That is 
really what this is all about--giving the American people a voice on 
something that is of critical importance to America's national 
security.
  I thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee for forging together a bipartisan path forward to 
allow for such a congressional review.
  While I support the underlying bill and appreciate the work of our 
bill managers, I do believe the bill could be significantly 
strengthened, and the amendment I am introducing today will help to do 
that.
  My amendment, No. 1180, is one way that the Senate can strengthen the 
underlying bill. This amendment will require the Secretary of State to 
verify whether the International Atomic Energy Agency, or the IAEA, 
which would be in charge of inspections in Iran under any agreement, 
would have access to Iranian military bases. There have been recent 
reports that have indicated that the Iranian military is hostile to any 
inspection of military facilities.
  General Hossein Salami, the deputy head of Iran's Revolutionary 
Guard, recently told Iranian media: ``They [the inspectors] will not be 
permitted to inspect the most normal military site in their dreams.'' 
Again, that statement was made by General Hossein Salami, who is the 
deputy head of Iran's Revolutionary Guard.
  If the administration enters into an agreement that doesn't guarantee 
the inspection of Iranian military sites, the American people and our 
allies in the region will have very little reason to believe that Iran 
will comply with any agreement. Without such an agreement, Iran can 
conduct research on nuclear weapons systems on military bases outside 
the reach of international inspectors. That is not an acceptable 
scenario.
  We must ensure that any deal with Iran is verifiable, enforceable, 
accountable, and promotes security and stability in the region and 
around the world. That goal is hard to achieve without a robust 
inspections regime that allows for international inspections of Iran's 
military sites.
  Accordingly, I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment, which 
will help ensure that Iran cannot circumvent an agreement conducting

[[Page S2507]]

research on nuclear weapons systems at military facilities. A nuclear-
armed Iran is a threat to the safety, security, and stability of the 
entire planet.
  I hope that when an agreement about how to proceed with regard to 
amendments is reached, this amendment will be included among those 
amendments that will be debated and voted upon, because I do think it 
will strengthen the underlying agreement. I certainly look forward to 
working with my colleagues on both sides, not only to get this 
amendment adopted but also to ensure that Iran never acquires a nuclear 
weapon. That is first, foremost, and what this always needs to be 
about.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  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.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am here on the floor this afternoon 
with my good friend from North Dakota, and I want to speak to an issue 
as it relates to the Iranian sanctions bill that we have on the floor 
in front of us.
  This is about an issue that so many of us care deeply about--about 
our own domestic production here, about the strength of our economy, 
about the strength of our national security and how the United States 
in a global environment really stands toe-to-toe in good strong 
competition around the world. I want to speak today about U.S. oil--the 
ban on U.S. oil--and how this all intersects with Iran, Iranian 
sanctions, and specifically, the sanctions on Iranian oil.
  I am submitting a bipartisan amendment to allow U.S. oil to compete 
with Iranian oil on the global market. I am pleased to be joined in 
this effort by Senator Heitkamp, Senator Hoeven, Senator Lankford, and, 
hopefully, others, as this discussion progresses.
  Iran's Government is largely dependent on its exports of oil for its 
revenue source. It sends oil to countries such as China, Japan, India, 
and South Korea. The sanctions that have been imposed have really hurt 
Iran's economy. They have brought Iran to the table. The sanctions that 
have been in place have cost the government in Tehran some $40 billion 
in lost export revenues in 2014 alone, according to the Treasury 
Department.
  Under the sanctions regime and the Joint Plan of Action, countries 
are still able to purchase Iranian oil, and I don't think a lot of 
folks understand that. They think the sanctions are in place and Iran 
can't derive a benefit from the oil exports. But in fact, companies are 
still able to purchase Iranian oil, up to 1 to 1.1 million barrels per 
day and--no surprise--countries have purchased up to that limit nearly 
every month since the JPA was implemented in November of 2013. So 
sanctions are in place, but Iran is still deriving the benefit of being 
able to sell Iranian oil to other nations.
  It is worth pointing out that this is only possible because the State 
Department does not include condensate in its definition of crude oil. 
If you include the condensate volumes, then the limit of 1.1 million 
barrels per day was breached back in January of 2014, in February, 
March, April, and May--not June--in July, September, October, and 
December, and also in February of 2015, according to reports that came 
out of the International Energy Agency.
  It simply does not make sense for us to lift sanctions on Iranian oil 
while we keep them on American oil. It just doesn't make sense that we 
would tell Iran that we are going to allow these sanctions to be lifted 
over there, but by keeping our oil export ban in place, we are 
effectively imposing sanctions on U.S. oil producers. This is a de 
facto sanctions regime against ourselves.
  Now, one can understand why we have imposed sanctions on certain 
places--on Tehran, Moscow, and Damascus. However, we are effectively 
talking about sanctions on the Permian, on the Utica, on the Niobrara, 
and on regions where we have the ability to produce a resource that 
helps this country, helps to create jobs, and helps with all aspects of 
our economy. We are going to say: Iran, OK, we are going to relieve 
sanctions on you, but we are going to keep in place sanctions on U.S. 
oil producers.

  So what this amendment does is to add a third section to the Corker-
Cardin Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015. It would require a 
DOE report on Iranian crude oil and condensate exports. It would then 
lift the de facto ban on U.S. crude oil and condensate exports. It 
still preserves the emergency authorities of the President to prohibit 
exports if it is warranted. So there is that safety valve there.
  The deadline for submission of this report to Congress would be 60 
days following the enactment of the act. It would still be required 
even if an agreement with Iran were not reached. It would effectively 
address two issues--the relative ability of U.S. and Iranian oil 
producers to compete in the global market, which is pretty important 
out there, and the extent to which any agreement with Iran would 
increase Iranian oil exports through the lifting of sanctions.
  As we know, American oil producers are generally prohibited from 
exporting overseas. Alaska is the one exception to the oil export ban. 
A very limited amount is exported over the years. Iran, on the other 
hand, currently exports over 1 million barrels per day of oil onto the 
global markets.
  Now, we had a hearing in the energy committee a week or so ago. The 
Presiding Officer was there. We heard from the U.S. Energy Information 
Administration, the EIA. They estimated that lifting the sanctions on 
Iran would increase Iranian volume by some 700,000 to 1 million barrels 
per day. So if we lifted that, EIA estimates that Iran would then be in 
a situation where they would be able to put out onto the market, 
basically to new purchasers, 1 million barrels per day.
  Think about what that does--giving them new markets for their oil. As 
they have new markets for their oil, they get paid for it. EIA 
estimates that given the price of Brent being where it is in this range 
right now, it would be $25 billion per year to Iran from the ability to 
put that out onto the market and gain new customers--an extra $25 
billion.
  How comfortable are we with that? How much of that $25 billion is 
going to fund terrorist organizations, terrorists, in areas that we are 
fighting directly and immediately today? What kind of sense does it 
make that we would say that we will remove sanctions on Iran, allowing 
them to move their product to new customers, gain potentially $25 
billion additionally into their treasury to do who knows what with it.
  At the same time, what this does is it harms American producers who 
are unable to compete with Iranian oil due to this outdated ban on U.S. 
exports that was imposed 40 years ago. So we are going to let a 40-
year-old policy sanction us, sanction our economy and benefit Iran's. 
Lifting the ban on U.S. oil exports would let American oil compete with 
Iranian oil. It would reduce Iranian revenue from oil exports. It would 
send a strong signal to U.S. allies that still depend on Iranian oil 
that alternative supplies are available and lower global oil prices 
which would decrease the price of gasoline and other consumer fuels.
  A few hours ago, on the other side of the hallway here, over in the 
House of Representatives, we heard from the Prime Minister of Japan. 
Japan is currently purchasing and is able to purchase oil from Iran. 
Don't you think that our friend Japan would much rather have security 
and diversity of supply if it were to come from their friend the United 
States? I sure think so.
  The amendment that we have introduced lifts the ban by requiring, 
after 30 days have elapsed from the enactment of S. 615, that crude oil 
exports may be authorized on the same basis that they are currently 
authorized for petroleum products, whether it is gasoline, diesel, jet 
fuel or whatever it is. Currently, these petroleum products can be 
exported without a license. In fact, we are, here in this country, the 
largest exporter of petroleum products in the world. So think about 
this as you kind of shake your head and say: What is going on here? We 
are the largest exporter of refined products, but yet we impose a flat 
ban--an outright ban--on the crude itself.
  So, again, we have a safety valve in the amendment that preserves the

[[Page S2508]]

President's emergency authority, which is derived from the 
International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the National Emergencies 
Act, and the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. They prohibit exports, 
under these various proposals, if needed for the safety and security of 
the Nation. We do not touch those. We do not impact them in that 
amendment at all.
  So it is important to recognize that what we are doing here is we are 
looking at an outdated policy that is 40-years old. We are moving into 
present time and space, where we have a situation with a country that 
we have tried desperately to bring to the table to be a nation that 
will work with us rather than against us. Yet part of what we are 
considering is an action that would remove sanctions on them and 
continue to keep in place sanctions on this country.
  It makes no sense to me. I would hope that my colleagues would 
consider it. I know that my colleague from North Dakota has given great 
thought to this, has great understanding about the issue, and also has 
great passion about how we ensure that from a national security 
perspective we are covered in all corners.
  So I would ask my colleague from North Dakota, as she has reviewed an 
antiquated and an outdated policy, and being from a producing State 
such as North Dakota, where she is working to advance the opportunities 
not only for North Dakotans but for people all over this country, how 
people in North Dakota feel when it is suggested that we are imposing, 
effectively, domestic sanctions on them, while at the same time we 
would relieve sanctions on Iran.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I want to thank my good friend from 
Alaska for giving me an opportunity to talk about this policy of 
sanctions that is wrong, wrong, wrong on so many levels. When we first 
looked at it, we need to understand that the embargo, or the limitation 
on the exportation of crude oil in this country, is a policy decision 
made by the President--initially, President Nixon--in response to a 
number of producers going around oil price support controls.
  So this is a 1970's policy. Unfortunately, when we transitioned away 
from price supports for crude oil, we never removed this embargo, we 
never removed this restriction. That was a mistake at that time. It 
continues to be a colossal mistake for our growth towards energy 
independence in this country and our ability to use our energy and our 
oil for soft power and to actually provide a consistent and ready 
supply of crude oil to our allies so they are not beholden, not only to 
Iran, but to countries such as Russia.
  So it is critically important that we examine some of the concerns 
that people have about lifting the embargo. Obviously, in North Dakota, 
we do not see any logic, because we are kind of a commonsense State. We 
do not see any logic behind not allowing crude oil to be exported but 
allowing every refined product that we could produce in this country 
access to a foreign market.
  That makes absolutely no sense. If the logic behind this is to try 
and maintain stability and a lower gasoline price, then we should lock 
down gasoline and we should not export gasoline. The antiquated policy 
that we are talking about today did not have a lot of logic after we 
deregulated oil. It has even less logic in the dangerous world we live 
in. We know that so many of our foreign enemies rely on oil revenue 
basically to fund their terrorism activities, to fund their government, 
to supply the necessary government services that keep them in power.
  We have an opportunity to say to our allies, whether it is Japan or 
in Europe, don't worry about whether someone is going to hold you 
hostage because you will not be able to heat your homes in the winter 
or provide gasoline to your communities and your consumers. Do not 
worry about that because we have your back.
  But we cannot have their back if we don't have the ability to export 
our crude oil. The bottom line is that on every level, in terms of 
foreign policy, in terms of what we should be in this country--on every 
level--a policy of maintaining an embargo, a restriction against 
exports of crude oil makes no common sense--absolutely none.
  But let's talk about domestic policy because I think some of the 
concerns that have been expressed to me by my colleagues, and I am sure 
Senator Murkowski's colleagues, have been this: Well, won't this 
increase gasoline prices? I have to applaud Senator Murkowski because 
very early on she heard that, and she said: Let's have some real 
intellectual work done. Don't rely on my economics 101. How about we 
actually get economists from Brookings, economists from the Aspen 
Institute, economists from all over the country, who have come to one 
single conclusion, which is, that it will not raise gasoline prices.
  In fact, the conclusion is quite the opposite--that allowing us 
access to an international market could, in fact, reduce gasoline 
prices. Why would that be, you wonder? Because of the fluke of how we 
refine crude oil in this country, most of our refineries are based on 
heavy sour crude. The crude we produce in North Dakota is light sweet 
crude. We don't have a big refining capacity for light sweet crude, so 
we have a price reduction in our country.
  So how are gasoline prices established? They are based on that higher 
crude oil price, because they are refining crude oil that comes in from 
other places such as Saudi Arabia. They are refining crude oils that 
come in from Venezuela, and they are charging an appropriate price. 
Some people would say there is a little bit of price creep here as we 
are looking at gasoline prices.
  The ability to get our crude to market is absolutely critical. Now, 
there are a lot of people who also think that we should keep a captive 
market on a lot of our resources. We have heard this argument in 
natural gas, and we heard this argument in crude oil. They said: We 
should have a captive market. I have a constant reply. I say: I have a 
lot of hog farmers who like low corn prices. The solution for low corn 
prices has never been not to export corn.
  This is the only commodity that is traded on a global price that does 
not have the ability to find its market. Now, what is the consequence 
of that? I would tell you, to my friend from Alaska, and I think she 
sees this, one of the things I sincerely believe is that the ability to 
produce oil--our domestic production of oil--had a lot to do with 
driving Iran to the negotiating table.
  They saw that we could, in fact, infiltrate the market and take 
market share. That is threatening to a lot of the former OPEC countries 
that are wanting that captive market. If we had access to that market, 
we would be sending a message. So why don't we do the right thing here? 
Why don't we understand how this export ban on American crude oil is 
restricting our ability to use crude oil as an appropriate soft power 
opportunity? Why don't we talk about how actually allowing for the 
export of crude oil could drive down gasoline prices in the United 
States of America and continue the energy renaissance?
  If we cannot find our market, if we cannot find our market in North 
Dakota for this production, guess what happens? It either goes into 
storage or it gets shut in where it is, which is in the field. Hundreds 
of thousands of jobs will be lost. But more importantly, our energy 
security in this country will be jeopardized and harmed.
  This policy of opening up this restriction is so right on so many 
levels. I applaud the Senator from Alaska for bringing it forth in this 
context. I think it is critical to talk about it in this context. But I 
also applaud her for all of the work she has done and we have 
supported, as she has built out the case--the economic case--for why 
this policy makes no sense at any level.
  It is wrongheaded. It is time to change it. This is an opportunity. 
We will not end because it is only fair to every oilfield worker out 
there, it is only fair to every owner of a royalty or minerals in 
place, it is fair to every operator, and it is fair to the people of 
this country to engage in trade, level the playing field, and make sure 
we are telling our friends and allies that they don't have to buy their 
oil from countries that threaten their security every day. We have a 
supply of oil that can readily be exported and provided to them.
  I thank my good friend from Alaska for her continued advocacy on 
behalf of

[[Page S2509]]

consumers of this country and her continued advocacy on behalf of an 
energy-appropriate policy in the United States of America.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota. 
She has articulated the case so well not only from a domestic 
perspective but from the international perspective as well. We need to 
appreciate that as we are recognized as a nation, as that superpower 
when it comes to our military strength and all those who serve us have 
to offer, that we are also an energy superpower. We have not yet 
embraced that as a responsibility, as an obligation to use that not 
only to our advantage but to the advantage of our friends and allies 
around the globe. That is an important transition, transformation we 
need to make.
  We are mired down in policies that are decades old, based on history 
that is no longer relevant given the geopolitics of today. We have an 
opportunity to wake up to where we can be, how we can lead from an 
international perspective. It can begin with the strength of our energy 
and our energy resources, but we have to believe in our own 
possibilities. Right now, I think we are lagging in that.
  I appreciate all that my colleague is doing in this effort to help 
educate people. I recognize that it takes a little bit of time to 
recalibrate the thinking, but we are doing that, and we are doing it 
for the right reason, based on common sense, based on strength of the 
economy, and based on national security, which should be our primary 
consideration right now. We will never have sufficient boots on the 
ground or budget for defense to be everywhere many would like to be 
around the globe. What other assets do we have? What else can we 
contribute? It can begin with our energy resources.
  So we have great opportunities, and I forward to further discussions 
about not only what we are proposing in this amendment but how we can 
lead as a nation in the energy sector.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). The Senator from Oregon.


                    FDA Tobacco Deeming Regulations

  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise to draw attention to the dangers 
of new and insidious tobacco products that are ensnaring our youth and 
to urge the FDA to take long overdue action to protect our children 
from these products.
  First, I thank the Senators for coming to the floor today to join in 
making this critically important point. Senator Boxer is present, and 
she will be speaking next. Other Senators are planning to join us. So I 
appreciate their lifting their voices on this important issue.
  Dr. Richard Wender, the chief cancer control officer for the American 
Cancer Society, said last year, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary 
of the landmark Surgeon General report on smoking and health, that 
``the single greatest threat to the future control of tobacco is 
complacency.''
  We are here today to call attention to a dangerous complacency that 
threatens the lives of our children, a complacency in completing rules 
that are essential to protecting our children from a lifetime of 
nicotine addiction. We are on the floor of the Senate today because 
this week marks the 1-year anniversary of the Food and Drug 
Administration's proposed ``deeming regulations'' on tobacco. Deeming 
regulations essentially say the FDA has the power to do what the law 
gave them to do in 2009 when we passed the act. These critical 
regulations have yet to be finalized, and it appears that there are not 
going to be finalized regulations this month or next or the month after 
despite the fact that we are now 6 years into this rulemaking 
regulation process.
  Six years is a very long time. In 6 years, a lot of young Americans 
have become addicted to nicotine products. In 6 years, the industry has 
made huge strides in inventing new products designed to attract our 
children. In 6 years, a lot could have been done, and nothing has been 
done.
  These critical regulations have not been completed, and it is time 
for the FDA and the administration to make getting this done a 
priority. This is one of the things that can truly impact the health of 
the next generation.
  The tobacco industry is, as Judge Kessler said in United States v. 
Philip Morris, ``an industry . . . that survives, and profits, from 
selling a highly addictive product which causes diseases that lead to a 
staggering number of deaths per year, an immeasurable amount of human 
suffering and economic loss, and a profound burden on our national 
health care system.''
  That is why, when it comes to tobacco and public health, the best way 
to save lives 20 or 30 or 40 years down the line is to prevent young 
Americans from becoming addicted to tobacco products today. But Big 
Tobacco knows this as well. They know that the best way to create a 
lifelong, reliable customer for their deadly product is to get our 
children hooked as young as possible. Now the industry refers to our 
children as ``replacement smokers'' to replace those who are dying. 
That is why they are working day and night to come up with new 
strategies and new products to keep kids in the pipeline, to keep new 
replacement smokers coming forward. They use cigars, cigarillos, 
tobacco candy, and snus.
  Now they have the real winner--e-cigarettes. These products, such as 
flavored cigars, cost as little as 99 cents and are sold in colorful or 
cool packaging and come in flavors such as bubble gum, cotton candy, 
wild cherry, grape, candy apple, blueberry, chocolate, peach, and gummy 
bear e-cigarettes. Many of these products are cheaper and more 
accessible than cigarettes, and the candy-flavored versions are 
preferred overwhelmingly by young people.
  This is a chart which shows the bottles of liquid nicotine that fuel 
these e-cigarettes. We have everything here from cotton candy to 
coffee. You name it, it is there. These are not flavors designed to 
appeal to adults; this is all about forming addiction in our children.
  A new study released by the CDC this month found, alarmingly, that e-
cigarette use had tripled among middle and high school students in just 
1 year. In 2011, 1.5 percent; it doubled in the course of a year to 2.8 
percent. It increased substantially in the year 2012 and 2013, and then 
we see it soared. E-cigarettes and vape shops have exploded across the 
county, and that has profound consequences for our children. Nearly one 
in seven high school students has used an e-cigarette in the last 30 
years. That is 2 million teenagers nationwide, 2 million of our 
children responding to this very deliberate targeting by this demonic 
industry.
  We have the power to do something about this. The FDA has power to do 
something about this because we, the legislature, gave it to them in 
2009.
  It is true that the long-term health effects of smoking e-cigarettes 
are yet to be fully calculated because it is a newer product, but there 
are some troubling studies we should pay attention to. What we know 
today is that nicotine is highly poisonous and that this vast, 
unregulated market of nicotine liquids threatens public health 
immediately.
  Since 2011, poison calls related to e-cigarettes have skyrocketed--
271 in 2011 to 3,808 poison calls in 2014, again showing the exploding 
use of this product. This industry doesn't even put this liquid 
nicotine into childproof containers. One brand called JJuice looks like 
little bottles of juice. It says ``juice'' on it. Yet, it is deadly if 
a child takes off that cap and drinks it. There were 14 times more 
poisonings in 2014 than in 2011, and yes, people die. A toddler died of 
nicotine poisoning just last December, and there were lots of close 
calls.
  But tobacco companies see opportunities in these unregulated markets. 
They see opportunities to appeal to kids directly, market to kids more 
easily, and to sell to kids with fewer barriers.
  There is no Federal law in place about the age at which children can 
buy e-cigarettes or the liquids that go into them. So it has been up to 
local communities to try to fill in those gaps, and they have been 
trying to do so, trying to catch up with the problem. The industry of 
e-cigarettes has exploited these opportunities.
  This is where we are. Time is ticking. E-cigarette use is rising. And 
the rising numbers on this chart aren't just numbers, they represent 
our children, kids who every day, when we don't act, are

[[Page S2510]]

more at risk for a lifetime of dangerous addiction. This is 100 percent 
unequivocally unacceptable.
  So to the FDA, to Health and Human Services, and to the Obama 
administration, it is time to quit stalling. Children are getting 
addicted, children are dying, and children will die more from nicotine 
diseases in the decades ahead. It is unacceptable.
  No more complacency. Let's get it done, have it be the top item you 
wake up to fix every day. We expect more. I urge the administration to 
act quickly. Let's get these rules done.
  It is a pleasure to yield the floor to my colleague from California, 
who has been a tremendous champion on this topic and will provide her 
insights. I am so delighted that she is on the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Merkley for his 
leadership.
  This is an issue which is not getting the attention it should be 
getting, and we hope today, with the series of speeches we will start 
to make now, to wake up America to this threat.
  I have a bill that would ban the advertising of these cigarettes to 
children. Senator Merkley showed you and told you the names. Let's take 
a look at that again. Can anyone really tell you with a straight face 
that these marketers are not going after children? Cotton candy, gummy 
bear, and popsicle--those are the flavors. I mean, we really were not 
born yesterday. This is what they are doing.
  This is a moment for us--parents, grandparents, loving aunts and 
uncles--to stand up and say no to this. There are ways to do it.
  Before I get into those ways, I thank Senators Corker and Cardin for 
their extraordinary leadership on the underlying bill in Iran that is 
on the floor. I express my thanks to the entire committee, both sides 
of the aisle of the Foreign Relations Committee. I have been on that 
committee the longest of anyone else, and this was a tough time. 
Everyone had a different position, and everyone was in a corner. We all 
came together, and we crafted a delicate compromise that essentially 
allows the Senate and the House to vote on whatever agreement may 
emerge. I say ``may.'' We don't know if there will be one from the 
administration on Iran's nuclear weapons. We know that if we go down 
the path of poison pill amendments, this whole thing could be lost.
  I will close this little part and get right to the e-cigarettes with 
this.
  I was listening to Senator Rubio, whom I work with on the committee, 
and I love to work with him on issues where we find agreement, but he 
got up here and he said: All I want is a vote on my amendment, and we 
all know his amendment will derail this very delicately balanced 
agreement. He said: All I am asking for is a vote. And he said very 
eloquently: If you don't want to vote, don't be a Senator. And I 
thought: You are right about that. Then I checked his voting record and 
he stopped us voting on nominees 18 times in December alone.
  So I say to my friends: Don't come down here and preach to us about 
the fact that we are trying to keep poison pills off this for the good 
of the world, to stop a war; OK? And don't tell us we are stopping you, 
when you stopped a lot of us 18 times in December alone and once on 
Loretta Lynch--once on the new Attorney General. I had to say that.
  Mr. President, when I turn on the television, I don't know if it is 
2015 or 1950. Tobacco companies are preying again on our youth. Just as 
we should be celebrating the decline of youth cigarette smoking rates, 
a new product is taking our high schools and middle schools by storm 
and they are called e-cigarettes.
  As Senator Merkley so well explained, we are seeing a startling 
increase in the use of these cigarettes by our teens, with 2.5 million 
teens using them--2.5 million teens. If we do nothing, the CDC says 
that every year another 1\1/2\ million kids are going to be using e-
cigarettes.
  Now, what are they exposed to? Let us be clear, nicotine. We know 
nicotine is very dangerous to adolescent brain development. Let me say 
that again. Nicotine is very dangerous to adolescent brain development. 
In addition to nicotine, e-cigarettes have--and I hope young people are 
listening, including the ones right here--potentially dangerous 
chemicals, and chemicals we already know are dangerous, such as 
benzene, cadmium, formaldehyde, propylene glycol, and they also have 
nanoparticles that are present in traditional cigarettes--this all 
according to my health department in California.
  Now, we already saw how these children are lured. They are lured by 
the cigarette companies. And by the way, the big cigarette companies--
and I will finish in 1 minute and this is critical--have bought up the 
e-cigarette companies. I wrote to the executives and I said: Please, 
for the good of your children and my children and my grandchildren, 
don't advertise on television.
  If you ever saw these ads on TV, Senator Merkley, and Mr. President, 
you would just think that e-cigarettes were curing all the illnesses of 
the world. Well, they are not. They are not, and the studies that are 
already coming out are quite alarming. Sales to minors should be 
banned, and 42 of our States have done so, but it is not nationwide. 
Online sales should be banned. Companies should not be advertising.
  We have a potential crisis on our hands, and I will be working with 
Senator Merkley, Senator Blumenthal, and all of my colleagues because 
we were not born yesterday. We have seen this movie before and we want 
our kids to be healthy. The FDA can take a stand by finalizing the 
proposed regulation today. Too many lives have been endangered while we 
stand here waiting.
  Last month, more than 5,000 of my constituents signed a petition 
urging FDA to regulate e-cigarettes. Some of them told me why they were 
concerned, and I would like to share the words of Californian parents 
and teachers.
  Susan from Long Beach wrote:

       I am a 7th grade health teacher and it is clear that 
     students think ``vaping'' is okay and a healthy alternative 
     to smoking. Shops selling e-cigarettes have popped up in all 
     the stores around their neighborhoods advertising their 
     products. A clear message needs to be sent that e-cigarettes 
     are not for children under the age of 18.

  Judith from Fairfield wrote:

       I teach high school, and too many students are using e-
     cigarettes, thinking they are safer than regular cigarettes. 
     In the meantime, they are getting addicted to nicotine, and 
     putting them at risk for a lifetime of impacts to their 
     health.

  Sondra from Corona wrote:

       I have worked in our local high schools for almost 15 
     years. The e-cigarettes definitely need to be regulated for 
     people under 18. I am consistently told by students that 
     ``these are better'' than traditional cigarettes. They don't 
     realize the harm and the addictive qualities are still 
     present.

  Bob from Cathedral City wrote:

       We need to know what health and/or safety dangers are 
     associated with e-cigarettes.

  And finally Julie from Huntington Beach wrote:

       My 14-year-old son was offered an e-cig. They are too easy 
     for children to get.

  My constituents deserve Federal oversight of e-cigarettes. To protect 
the public health and our children, I join my colleagues and urge the 
Administration to finalize the pending regulation. I also call upon 
Congress to advance legislation that protects consumers from the health 
consequences of e-cigarettes. The data does not lie. We cannot wait 
another day.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California for 
her kindness and my apologies for all the talking in the background.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we should be doing everything we can to 
ensure that our children are safe from products that harm their health. 
Thanks to life-saving public health interventions, and FDA regulation 
under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, we have 
seen reduced smoking rates among young people across the country. But, 
unfortunately, in recent years tobacco companies have found new ways to 
target children, through the promotion of e-cigarettes and other 
unregulated tobacco products.
  Last year, the FDA took an important initial step toward regulating 
these products with its proposed tobacco deeming rule. But, we are here 
today, a full year later, without a finalized rule to help ensure 
tobacco companies aren't profiting off of selling our children an 
addictive, hugely harmful bill of goods.
  Today, tobacco companies are marketing e-cigarettes with celebrity 
endorsements and cartoons that are

[[Page S2511]]

geared toward a younger audience--using tactics that they are banned 
from using to promote traditional cigarettes. They are producing kid-
enticing candy and drink flavored products, which we know children are 
more likely to use. In fact, because they are unregulated, children can 
go online and buy them without their parents knowing.
  Mr. President, it is unacceptable that e-cigarette companies are 
using the same tactics that tobacco companies used for years to promote 
smoking. So we should be doing everything we can to right this wrong, 
and prevent our youngest generation from becoming a new generation of 
smokers.
  We know just how harmful and addictive these products can be and I am 
proud my home State of Washington has begun to regulate these products 
and is taking strong steps towards combatting their use among children.
  But, there is still much more work to do to across the country to 
keep e-cigarettes and other unregulated tobacco products out of the 
hands of our kids, and that work starts with making sure the FDA 
finalizes its deeming rule.
  So I stand with all of my colleagues today to urge the FDA to move 
quickly to finalize and implement last year's proposed rule, and put in 
place restrictions that would:
  Prevent marketing targeted to minors,
  Eliminate the sale of flavored e-cigarettes that appeal to children,
  And end online sales.
  These would be strong steps to further protect our children and I 
look forward to working with my colleagues, and the FDA to ensure they 
are implemented as quickly as possible.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am glad to join with several of my 
colleagues to talk about electronic cigarettes and the Food and Drug 
Administration's, FDA, role in regulating these products.
  Over the last year, e-cigarette use among high school students has 
tripled from 4.5 percent to 13.4 percent, according to recent CDC data. 
In fact, research from the University of Michigan's annual Monitoring 
the Future survey shows that in 2014 more teenagers reported using e-
cigarettes than traditional tobacco products. One year ago, the FDA 
took an important initial step by proposing to regulate e-cigarettes, 
but more must be done to strengthen this rule and ensure that the same 
practices used by Big Tobacco for years to promote smoking are not used 
by e-cigarette companies to create a new generation of smokers.
  I am pleased that the FDA has proposed prohibiting e-cigarette sales 
to minors, as well as prohibiting vending machine sales and free 
samples, to prevent sales and use by minors. Further, the proposed FDA 
rule requires e-cigarette manufacturers to list product ingredients and 
for tobacco products containing nicotine to carry an addiction warning 
label. While I commend FDA on proposing these important steps, the rule 
must be improved to address the marketing of these products to children 
and e-cigarette flavorings and be finalized as soon as possible. 
Indeed, I sent a letter last week with nine of my colleagues--many of 
whom are also speaking about e-cigarettes today--urging the FDA to 
strengthen and finalize this rule.
  E-cigarette companies are taking a page out of the Big Tobacco 
playbook, using celebrity endorsements of their products, cartoons, and 
advertising in magazines with youth readership and at music festivals 
and sports events targeted at children. According to a 2014 study in 
the journal Pediatrics, exposure to e-cigarette marketing by children 
aged 12 to 17 increased by 256 percent between 2011 and 2013, exposing 
24 million children to e-cigarette advertisements. In this context, it 
is unsurprising that youth use of e-cigarettes has skyrocketed during 
the same timeframe. It is well known that tobacco advertising 
influences consumer behavior, especially that of children, so it is my 
hope that the final e-cigarette deeming rule will address this issue.
  As for the use of candy, soft drink, fruit, and other flavors in e-
cigarettes, the FDA itself acknowledged in the proposed rule that 
children are the most likely to be attracted by and use these flavored 
tobacco products. The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act 
prohibits these kinds of flavorings from being used in traditional 
cigarettes and that same scrutiny should be applied to e-cigarettes and 
refill liquids so that children are not attracted to these products.
  We have come a long way since I proposed legislation in the late 
1990s to deny tobacco companies tax deductions for advertising to 
children. I was an original cosponsor of the Family Smoking Prevention 
and Tobacco Control Act, which became law in 2009 and incorporated the 
goals of my bill to keep the tobacco industry from targeting children 
as new customers. This law provides the FDA with the explicit authority 
to protect the public from deceptive cigarette advertisements, prevents 
the targeting of minors, and removes certain harmful ingredients from 
cigarettes.
  This was an important effort. But we must be ever vigilant and 
continue to address new tobacco-related concerns as they arise, such as 
e-cigarettes. Until the deeming rule is finalized, e-cigarettes will 
continue to operate completely unregulated, with an increasing number 
of children taking up this addictive habit every day. I look forward to 
continuing to work with my colleagues on the issue and I join them in 
strongly urging the FDA to strengthen and finalize the e-cigarette 
deeming rule quickly so that the agency can begin regulating these 
tobacco products.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 5:25 p.m. 
today be equally divided in the usual form and that it be in order to 
call up the following amendment: Barrasso No. 1147; further, I ask that 
following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote on the 
amendment; that there be no second-degree amendments in order to the 
amendment and that there be a 60-affirmative-vote threshold for the 
adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 1147 to Amendment No. 1140

  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Barrasso, I call up 
amendment No. 1147.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Corker], for Mr. Barrasso, 
     for himself, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Risch, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Gardner, 
     Mr. Toomey, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Lee, Mr. Cruz, and Mr. Sasse, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1147 to amendment No. 1140.

  Mr. CORKER. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: To require a certification that Iran has not directly 
supported or carried out an act of terrorism against the United States 
            or a United States person anywhere in the world)

       On page 17, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:
       ``(v) Iran has not directly supported or carried out an act 
     of terrorism against the United States or a United States 
     person anywhere in the world; and

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I certainly appreciate the hard work 
done by Senator Corker and Senator Cardin and their efforts on getting 
this bill to the floor in a bipartisan way through the committee and 
bringing it up for a vote.
  The amendment I am bringing today is something that was in the 
bipartisan agreed-upon bill that was introduced in the first place, 
with nine Democratic cosponsors. Then, this specific component, dealing 
with terrorism and the certification of terrorism, was removed in the 
managers' package as it went to committee. So I think it is important 
and there is bipartisan support for what I am doing. This amendment 
basically restores--restores--the terrorism certification that was in 
the original bipartisan Senate bill.
  Every 90 days, the President will be required under this amendment to 
certify to Congress that Iran has not directly supported or carried out 
an act of terrorism against the United States or against an American 
citizen anywhere in the world. If there is evidence of terrorist 
activity by Iran against us, then Congress will have a more streamlined 
process to address it.
  Right now there a number of different reports that have to be made to 
Congress as a result of this bipartisan legislation. This was the only 
one that

[[Page S2512]]

was removed in the managers' package. I think it is very important the 
American people get regular certifications from the President on this 
important point. Congress and the American people need to know if Iran 
is directly supporting acts of terrorism against our country and our 
people. If they are, I believe Congress must have an opportunity to 
respond quickly.
  There actually have been some changes in the legislation to require 
some additional reporting components with relation to terrorism. I 
agree it is an improvement, but reports to Congress with information 
and evidence of Iran's terrorist activities are critically important, 
and I think it is even more critical for the President of the United 
States to acknowledge Iran's actions and for Congress to be able to 
have the opportunity to respond quickly. That is why I believe this 
amendment is so important.
  Congress can always do more to ensure the safety and security of our 
citizens, but we must make it clear to Iran that Congress will be able 
to respond immediately to terrorist actions against us. I am restoring 
this opportunity with my amendment and recommending an ``aye'' vote.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, first, let me thank Senator Barrasso for 
the way he has worked with our committee, the way he has worked with us 
on the floor to get this amendment pending. We had a chance to debate 
this amendment yesterday, and today we have debated it. So I think the 
issue has been well debated.
  I certainly agree with the intent of the sponsor of the amendment. As 
a result of his work in our committee, we have strengthened the 
reporting requirements on Iran's terrorist activities, which I have 
read into the Record before. It is very strong, and it has been 
strengthened as a result of the managers' amendment that Senator Corker 
and I worked on.
  We also have an assessment on Iran's human rights violations. We make 
it clear that nothing in an agreement would affect the sanctions 
imposed against Iran for its terrorist activities, its ballistic 
missiles or its human rights violations. So all those tools are 
available to us.
  I object to this amendment because it affects the underlying bill 
itself. It jeopardizes the bill because it requires the President to 
make a certification that, in fact, he will probably not be able to 
make. Therefore, it not only jeopardizes the bill, it jeopardizes the 
ability to have a negotiated agreement and it weakens our position 
internationally and makes it less likely we can get Iran to give up its 
nuclear weapons program.
  For all those reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the 
amendment. We have already covered this in the notice requirements that 
have been provided in S. 615. It is an issue we all care about. This 
amendment, though well intended, would not advance it, and I urge my 
colleagues to defeat the amendment.
  I yield back all of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. CARDIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 168 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Grassley
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kirk
     Lankford
     Lee
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--54

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coats
     Coons
     Corker
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Perdue
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Enzi
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, as we discuss the Iran nuclear agreement 
and the President's administration is attempting to negotiate the 
agreement, I come to the floor of the Senate to remind Coloradans, and 
indeed Americans, about some of the activities that have taken place in 
our relationship with Iran over the past several decades.
  Following the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the ruling mullahs held 52 
American diplomats hostage for 444 days, releasing them only on January 
20, 1981, the day that President Ronald Reagan was sworn into office. 
Two years later, on April 18, 1983, a truck ladened with explosives 
rammed into the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, killing 17 Americans. 
On October 23, 1983, there was a similar attack on the U.S. Marine 
barracks in Beirut which killed 241 American servicemen. 
Overwhelmingly, the evidence led to Iran and its wholly owned 
subsidiary Hezbollah as the perpetrator of these attacks.
  Several weeks ago, we had the opportunity to visit with Prime 
Minister Netanyahu in Israel to discuss the negotiations that were 
taking place and the details of the negotiations. Those details have 
emerged in a couple of pages of documents which were released by the 
White House. But they are still lacking in great detail and in the 
specifics of the framework.
  Prime Minister Netanyahu described the negotiations to be a dance of 
porcupines in the Middle East. There is concern about the negotiations 
and where they would lead. Indeed, the Prime Minister made the comment 
that Iran is now putting its finger on the jugular of the world. Over 
the past 24 to 48 hours, we have indeed seen that happen in the Strait 
of Hormuz and with the boarding by Iran of a cargo ship that falls 
under the protective umbrella of the United States of America.
  So we continue to see an Iranian regime that has not changed in more 
than 30 years. It has not changed in the last 48 hours. They have 
targeted and killed Americans during the Iraq war, supported Shiite 
militias, and supplied deadly explosives that have been used to kill 
and target our troops. Iran continues to prop up the murderous Assad 
regime in Syria. They regularly threaten to wipe Israel off the map and 
abuse the human rights of their own people. They have imprisoned 
Americans, reporters, and refused to release them.
  There is no doubt that we must avoid a nuclear Iran and do everything 
in our power to make sure that Iran doesn't possess a nuclear 
infrastructure. But the questions that we have today lead more and more 
to a conclusion that they will continue to maintain a nuclear 
infrastructure.
  Secretary Schultz and Secretary Kissinger made it very clear in an 
op-ed they wrote for the Wall Street Journal several weeks ago. We have 
entered this negotiation and somehow siloed off or bifurcated the issue 
of political restraint with nuclear restraint. We have somehow decided 
we will have tunnelvision on one issue without acknowledging, admitting 
or negotiating the other acts of violence, death, and destruction that 
the Iran regime has pursued for not just 30 years ago, not just 15 
years ago, and there is also what is happening around the world and in 
the Middle East today.
  I hope we can emerge from these negotiations with a strong deal, a 
deal that allows us the inspection of military bases without question 
upon demand, and with the fact that we will remove their nuclear 
infrastructure, that we can assure that they are no longer a regime 
that is leading state-

[[Page S2513]]

sponsored efforts to wipe Israel off the map, and that we can indeed 
protect Americans from the reign of terror that has been a state-
sponsored effort.
  There is nothing less that we should ask of this administration or 
any administration. We need to protect the American people. At the 
negotiating table--when we sit 2 or 3 feet across from the people with 
whom we are negotiating--we cannot ignore what is happening through 
state-sponsored terrorism. We cannot ignore the cargo ships in the 
Strait of Hormuz that have been stormed. We cannot ignore what has 
happened in Yemen or Hezbollah. We cannot ignore the reality that we 
face today of an Iran that has not changed in 30 years.
  The fact is our sanctions have worked, and the fact is that increased 
sanctions could work as well. I hope before this negotiation is signed 
off and agreed to, they will realize who is making the negotiations 
happen and possible and that more needs to be done to protect Americans 
and protect the world from an Iran that simply doesn't have a dangerous 
threat posed to us from nuclear weapons but which poses the danger 
through state-sponsored terrorism which they continue to pursue today.
  I thank the Presiding Officer for the time.

                          ____________________