[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 64 (Thursday, April 30, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2545-S2549]
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 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.
Vitter modified amendment No. 1186 (to amendment No. 1179),
to require an assessment of inadequacies in the international
monitoring and verification system as they relate to a
nuclear agreement with Iran.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment and call up my amendment No. 1149 to declare that any
agreement reached by the President relating to the nuclear program of
Iran is a congressional-executive agreement to be considered under the
expedited procedure in both Houses of Congress.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. CARDIN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, we have
been proceeding now for about a week. We have had a good debate on
issues. Many Members are working with Senator Corker and me to clear
their amendments so they are consistent with the overall objective that
was supported by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by a 19-to-0
vote, and we are going to continue to work on that process in the
orderly consideration of amendments.
For that reason, I must object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. JOHNSON. Perhaps if the Senator from Maryland will listen to my
explanation of what this amendment does, he will withdraw his
objection.
During our debate on Tuesday, when I offered an amendment to deem the
agreement between Iran and America--well, actually and the world--a
treaty subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, the Senator
from Maryland spoke about one of the objections to the treaty. He said:
Secondly, I don't know how we are going to explain it to
our colleagues in the House of Representatives. The Presiding
Officer served in the House. I served in the House. Senator
Menendez served in the House. The last time I checked, we
imposed these sanctions because the bill passed both the
Senate and the House, and now we are saying that the approval
process is going to ignore the House of Representatives,
solely going to be a matter for the U.S. Senate on a
ratification of a treaty? That does not seem like a workable
solution.
Now, Mr. President, I appreciate the fact that the Senator from
Tennessee and the Senator from Maryland did not object to my raising my
first amendment to deem it a treaty. And of course this body then voted
on that, and I appreciate that fact. And I accept the verdict of this
Chamber that they did not want to deem this agreement a treaty--fair
enough.
But I would like to quote, in addition to the Senator from Maryland,
the Senator from Tennessee in arguing against deeming this a treaty.
The Senator from Tennessee said: ``We think the President has the
ability to negotiate things.''
Well, first off all, I agree with that. Article II, section 2 states:
``He [The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and
Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the
Senators present concur. . . . ''
So that actually is the constitutional method for making agreements
between nations--having the President negotiate that. I completely
agree. We can't have 535 negotiators. But we certainly should have this
body involved in those agreements. We should have a role. We should
have a robust role. And, of course, I believe it is so important, that
this has such an effect and that it risks so much for this Nation, that
I believe it should be a treaty. But again, fair enough--this body
deemed it would not be a treaty. The Senator from Tennessee went on to
say:
We had no idea this President would consider suspending
these sanctions ad infinitum, forever--no idea. I think even
people on the other side of the aisle were shocked.
[[Page S2546]]
We were shocked. Yes, we granted those waivers for national security.
We did not believe those waivers would be abused the way they are being
abused right now.
The Senator from Tennessee also went on to say: ``This is one of the
biggest geopolitical issues that will potentially happen if an
agreement is reached in our lifetime here in the Senate.''
Once again, I agree with the Senator from Tennessee. This is a huge
geopolitical issue. And right now this administration deems that
agreement on its own authority, an executive agreement, and really, at
this point in time, we have no role. There is no involvement. The
Senator from Tennessee went on to say: ``Look, I have strong agreement
with the sentiment of our Senator from Wisconsin.'' Again, he is
agreeing with the fact that this really should rise to the level of a
treaty.
He also went on to say: ``Without the bill that is on the floor, the
American people will never see it.''
Think of that. Think of an agreement between Iran, as it is being
described--and, as I say, nobody really knows yet, but what I believe
is being described to us--puts Iran on a path for a nuclear weapon. How
many years has it been that Presidents from both parties and Members of
Congress from both parties have stood and said very forcefully that we
simply cannot allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon? Now we may be facing
an agreement between this country, other nations of the world, and Iran
that actually puts Iran on a path for a nuclear agreement.
The Senator from Tennessee is correct. I hope he is not correct, but
I think he may be correct that right now this President has no duty to
bring that agreement to the American people. I do happen to believe
that public pressure would be so great that the American people would
not tolerate that level of brazenness, that level of arrogance on the
part of any administration or any President to do a deal, to make an
agreement of such import that before implementing that agreement the
President of the United States would not bring that agreement to the
American people and subject it to, in some shape or form, the advice
and consent of either this Chamber or Congress as a whole.
The final quote from the Senator from Tennessee is this. He said:
Now, look, if I could wave a magic wand or all of a sudden
donkeys flew around the Capitol, I would love for us to have
the ability to deem this a treaty. I really would.
Well, if the agreement that President Obama is talking about in its
current framework is agreed to between this administration and the
other negotiating partners and Iran, we better all hope that donkeys
start flying around the Capitol, because that agreement, as it is being
described to us, would put Iran on the path to be a nuclear power. That
would destabilize not only the region, but it would destabilize the
world. It would lead to an enormous amount of nuclear proliferation
within the region. It is a very bad deal. It is very risky for this
Nation. It affects this Nation.
Let me just go through the three forms of international agreements.
There are no set criteria in terms of what is a treaty, what is a
congressional-executive agreement or what is simply an executive
agreement. There are considerations. There is precedent.
I go to the Foreign Affairs Manual at the State Department, and they
lay out the considerations; what should be considered in determining
what an agreement is--a treaty, a congressional-executive agreement or
just an executive agreement. The first consideration is the extent to
which the agreement involves commitments or risks affecting the Nation
as a whole.
The third consideration is whether the agreement can be given effect
without the enactment of subsequent legislation by Congress.
Well, the fact that we have this bill proves the fact that it needs
subsequent legislation by Congress.
The fifth consideration is the preference of the Congress as to a
particular type of agreement. Well, that is what we are talking about
here--the Congress weighing in, in the form of my amendment, to say we
want a role, we want a more robust role than is currently offered in
this bill.
The seventh is the proposed duration of the agreement. We are going
to be living with the impact, the effect, the results, the collateral
damage of this agreement between Iran and the other negotiating parties
for a very, very, very long time. So based on those considerations,
based on the fact that in the State Department's own Foreign Affairs
Manual in determining whether something is a treaty or an executive
agreement or a congressional executive agreement, there should be
consultation with Congress. I consider this amendment consultation with
Congress.
Again, all I am asking in this amendment is to provide a minimal--a
minimal constitutional threshold, a minimum constitutional role for
Congress in affirmatively approving a deal between Iran and the rest of
the world and America.
So all this amendment really does, in effect, is just asks the
President to bring the agreement before the American people, before
this Congress, allow us to have input, to affirmatively approve this in
both Chambers, both the House and the Senate, with a mere majority vote
of both Chambers. Because what is currently on the floor in this bill--
and, again, I have a great deal of respect for the Senator from
Tennessee. I know in his heart he believes this Senate, this Congress,
should have a far more robust role and involvement in such a
consequential agreement, but I also realize the challenge he has had
dealing with our friends on the other side of the aisle and how very
little involvement they are willing to agree to for this Senate and for
this Congress.
If the bill is passed, we need to clarify what that means in terms of
approval. Probably the best way for me to point that out is I had a
third amendment I tried to offer. It was an amendment that was going to
specifically describe what this bill does with a vote of disapproval,
what that threshold really means in terms of approval of this very
consequential deal. So I offered an amendment: I called it a very low
threshold for approval of a congressional-executive agreement. It would
have allowed the agreement between Iran and the rest of the world to be
approved by this body, by this Congress, with a majority vote in the
House and a vote of only 34 Senators in this body.
Now, very appropriately, that amendment was ruled out of order. It
was ruled unconstitutional by the Parliamentarian, as it should have
been, because that is not approval of a process. That is not the way
Congress should weigh in, have input, be involved in such a
consequential agreement. But that is exactly--in a very convoluted
process of votes of disapproval, that would have to be, first of all,
voted on by 60 Senators. Then, of course, if that is vetoed, we would
have to override that veto with 67 Senators and two-thirds majority in
the House.
Again, what this bill does, it will allow a very bad deal--
potentially very bad deal--between Iran and the rest of the world and
America to be approved with a majority vote in the House and a vote of
only 34 Senators in this Chamber.
Again, with that reality, with that clarity of what this bill does,
the minimum role, the minimum role that this bill allows, I would urge
all of my colleagues to support my amendment that provides for what
should be the minimum involvement of Congress: a majority vote, an
affirmative vote of approval in both the House and the Senate to any
deal this administration concludes with Iran.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rounds). The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wisconsin for his
great service on the Foreign Relations Committee.
I think he knows there is another amendment offered by another
Senator, the Senator from Texas, that I think is very similar to this,
and we are working right now with the other side to try to bring that
up.
Mr. JOHNSON. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. CORKER. Sure.
Mr. JOHNSON. The difference between the two, as I understand them, is
the amendment of the Senator from Texas would actually have a higher
threshold. I think it would rise to a 60-vote threshold. I am not
asking that. I am actually asking something less than that, to again
clarify what this
[[Page S2547]]
bill allows in terms of approval by this Chamber.
So even though we discussed this earlier, I don't believe I can
combine the two because I think it is important to clarify the issue
with an amendment that requires what I really do believe--truly
believe--should be the minimum, the minimum role, the minimum
affirmative approval of disagreement: a mere majority vote in both
Chambers. That is so reasonable. That is the minimum role the American
people ought to have in terms of having a say in this.
I have never insisted on an amendment in 4 years in the Senate. I
feel so deeply about this that I really ask both the Senator from
Maryland and the Senator from Tennessee, please, just allow a vote on
this one amendment.
Mr. CORKER. If I could, Mr. President, the Senator is right; he
doesn't offer many amendments, nor do I. But the very first amendment
we voted on was the amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin.
We had a conversation yesterday which I thought led to us considering
combining this request with the request from Senator Cruz, and I know
we are working on that particular issue. But I understand, and we are
trying to process these. I think he knows we are trying to process
votes, and the very first one we processed was the one from the Senator
from Wisconsin.
I do appreciate his concerns. I think he knows I share his concerns
about this agreement. I am trying to get done what is possible. Again,
if I could wave a wand and cause the national security waivers that
Senator Johnson, myself, Senator Cardin, and others voted for years ago
when we put the sanctions in place--if I could wave a wand and those
would go away, then we would be in a position where we would actually
need to have an affirmative vote.
But I do appreciate his concerns. I think he knows we are trying to
work through amendments down here, and I appreciate his patience as we
do so.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I join Senator Corker. Senator Johnson is
a very valued member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I enjoy
working with him on U.N. issues. The two of us are the Senate
representatives to the United Nations this year and I know his passion
on these issues, but I just want to underscore a couple points.
Right now, as of last night, there were 66 amendments that had been
filed to this bill that came out of the committee 19 to 0. The number
of Republican amendments were 66; the number of Democratic amendments
were zero.
I point that out because we are trying to maintain the bipartisan
cooperation we have had through this process so the Senate can speak
with a united voice, because that gives us the strongest possible
message as to the congressional role.
I must state, this is a delicate balance how we brought this bill
forward. I don't think I am underestimating the surprise we received
from our colleagues when they heard there was a 19-to-0 vote in our
committee.
There are so many Members who are working with us who have filed
amendments--and I thank each one of them--trying to find areas where
we, as we worked in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, can find a
common spot to be able to advance those amendments. I am optimistic and
Senator Corker is optimistic that we are going to be able to deal with
many of the issues the Republican Members have brought up and the
amendments they have filed.
But in direct response to Senator Johnson, let me point out, the
sanctions were imposed by the U.S. Congress, by votes of the House and
the Senate, and the signature of the President. What is being
negotiated between our negotiating partners, the United States, and
Iran, is an agreement--if they are successful, if the deal is struck--
that will prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state and will
provide, over time, relief from Iran from the international and U.S.
sanctions that have been imposed. That is the framework.
We know the sanctions brought them to the table. We all understand
that, and we are very proud of the role we played, but it is Congress,
and only Congress, that can permanently change or modify that sanctions
regime.
We are going to have to act. So I just take exception with Senator
Johnson's view that we are not going to act. We are going to act
because only we can permanently change the regime. But what this bill
gives us is an orderly way to consider the congressional review of this
agreement or deal when it is finally reached.
I just wish my colleagues would not prejudge this. I have heard so
many people say something is going to happen. We don't know what the
agreement is going to be. We don't even know if they are going to be
able to come in with an agreement, but I will say this about the Obama
administration. When they came out with the framework agreement, there
were many Members of this Chamber who said Iran will never live up to
the commitments in the framework agreement; that they would break out,
they would not pull back, as they are committed to doing, and the
sanctions regime would not be able to stay in effect. And guess what. A
year later they have complied with the framework agreement, and they
have in fact--the sanction regime has held tight during this period of
time with our negotiating partners.
Do I share many of the concerns of my friend from Wisconsin? I do. I
do share those concerns. I am concerned as to whether the agreement
will, in fact, be strong enough to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear
weapons state. That is what we are going to look at in our committee,
if we can pass this bill in the same bipartisan manner in which we did
in committee--if we can do that, the Senator from Wisconsin, the
chairman, the ranking member, all of us in the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee are going to get all the documents, we are going to have time
to review it and be able to answer those questions. The vote we are
having on the floor this week is whether we are going to have that
opportunity.
I know these amendments are well intended. I understand that. I
understand the deep feelings each Member has. But the bottom line, if
the amendment my friend is talking about got on the bill, we are not
going to get that review, we are not going to have that orderly
process. That is the fact.
So I think the debate on the floor is critically important. We have
been debating this bill for a week. We started last Thursday, 19-to-0
vote in committee, not a single Democratic amendment. We think it is
time to move this bill forward to the United States House of
Representatives.
And, yes, Senator Corker and I are going to accommodate the
suggestions that have been made by Members. We are finding a way to do
that, and we are going to continue to work that path. But at the end of
the day, this is a very serious issue, and I agree completely with
Senator Graham and the comments he has made. This is an extremely
important issue. It has to rise above our individual desires so,
collectively, we can achieve something for the American people. That is
what they want us to do. We have it in our grasps.
I applaud the leadership of Senator Corker. He has to work with all
the Republican amendments that have been filed. Believe me, there is a
lot of frustration on the Democratic caucus, also as to why this bill
is still on the floor and hasn't passed by now. But if we get
everybody's patience, I am confident Senator Corker and I will be able
to work together so we can accommodate the reasonable requests of our
Members and get this bill moving to the United States House of
Representatives.
But let us maintain the balance that the Senator Foreign Relations
Committee did, and let us do what the American people want us to do and
that is to listen to each other. We have different views. I understand
that. But the way we can reach common ground is to listen to each other
and reach a reasonable compromise that doesn't compromise the
principles of what we are trying to achieve. That is exactly what the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee bill does. I urge my colleagues to
exercise some restraint. Let's get this bill to the House of
Representatives.
I yield the floor.
[[Page S2548]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I wish to respond to the point frequently
made by the supporters of this bill that this is the only way--the only
way--that this body, the Congress, the Senate and the House, will
receive the details of the deal. What the Senator from Maryland is
saying is that this President, our Commander in Chief, will be so
brazen, so arrogant as to negotiate and conclude an agreement of such
import, of such consequence, and he would then keep it secret from the
American people in this Congress. I hope that is not so. But if that is
truly the belief, I would be happy to modify my amendment to require
that same disclosure of the information of the details of the
agreement. I would be happy to do that. I would be happy to work with
the other side to do so. But barring that agreement, I am still urging
my colleagues and I am urging this body to allow a vote on my
amendment, to clarify what this bill is and what it is not. It is not
advice and consent. It is the minimum--the minimum--threshold, the
minimum involvement, the minimum input on the part of the American
people through their elected representatives to pass judgment to
approve affirmatively such a consequential agreement with a mere
majority of votes of both Chambers of Congress. Is that asking so much?
It is true that we passed this bill out of the Foreign Relations
Committee with a unanimous vote, because we were granted assurances. I
realize this is a delicate negotiation. I realize our friends on the
other side of the aisle simply refuse to have what I consider a minimum
involvement.
Again, I appreciate and applaud Senator Corker for doing a bipartisan
agreement, for reaching that agreement. But our understanding was that
this would be a completely open amendment process.
The Senator from Maryland points out that there are 66 amendments to
1. Let's start voting on them. We will vote on the one Democratic
amendment. Let's start voting on ours. Eventually, we will tire.
Eventually, we will have made our points. Eventually, we will convey to
the American public what this bill is and what it is not.
Again, let me say, for a final time, what this bill provides. If
passed, sure, we get the information which we should get, regardless,
but it sets up a process--a very convoluted process--of votes of
disapproval which would require 60 votes in this Chamber to pass. We
assume it would be vetoed. Then it would require 67 votes in this
Chamber to override the veto and two-thirds of a vote in the House to
override that veto.
In effect--let me clarify one last time--instead of requiring the
bare minimum of an affirmative vote of a majority of Members of both
Chambers of Congress, this bill would allow approval of this agreement
by a simple majority in the House and only 34 Senators providing that
rubber stamp of approval to a bill that could be incredibly
consequential and of which we will live with the consequences--the
results--for many, many years to come.
I yield the floor.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, again, I thank the Senator from Wisconsin
and appreciate his service and his support of this bill. I agree with
him, and I wish it were different than it is. The fact is that we will
have a right to vote whether to approve or disapprove the lifting in
the normal way, but that will occur 4 or 5 years down the road. I think
most of us want to weigh in now before the sanctions regime totally
dissipates.
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. COLLINS. 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. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
permitted to proceed as in morning business in order to introduce a
bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 1141
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Ms. COLLINS. 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 (Mr. Rubio). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Barrasso pertaining to the introduction of S.
1140 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. BARRASSO. 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. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I send two amendments to the desk, one for
my own and one on behalf of Senator Rubio of Florida.
Mr. President, I have said time and again----
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, has there been a unanimous consent
request?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The quorum call has been vitiated.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I have said time and again that a nuclear-
armed Iran is the greatest threat this country faces. I have said time
and again that the Senate needs to have votes on the merits of this
agreement.
The President has taken us down a very dangerous path. The President
has backtracked on his own words. He said that Iran needed to live up
to all of its obligations under international law. Yet Iran still has
not disclosed the past military dimensions of its nuclear program.
The President said, after this negotiating process began in December
of 2013, that Iran has no need for a fortified underground military
bunker in Fordow. Yet our negotiators have conceded the existence, with
centrifuge cascades, of that underground military bunker.
The President has said we have to have fully verifiable, anywhere,
anytime access to all sites in Iran to ensure they are not cheating on
any agreement--to include their military sites. Yet the leaders of Iran
continue to say that we won't be able to access their military sites.
There will be no intrusive inspections.
I and the Senator from Florida, as well as many other Senators, have
submitted multiple amendments to ask for votes on these points. We have
been consistently blocked from bringing up these amendments for a vote.
It is fine if you want to vote no. If you think Iran should keep an
underground fortified military bunker with centrifuge cascades. It is
fine if you don't think they should have to disclose the past military
dimensions of their nuclear program, but we need to vote. We need to
vote now.
It is even fine if you agree with those points and that you think
this is a delicate agreement that has to be prevented from being
amended in any way. But we need to vote.
If you don't want to vote, you shouldn't have come to the Senate. If
you are in the Senate and you don't want to vote, you should leave. As
the Senator from Florida said yesterday, be a talk show host, be a
columnist. It is time we have a vote at a simple majority threshold on
all of these critical points.
We are talking about a nuclear Iran, the most dangerous threat to our
national security.
So the amendment I am offering first would simply take the language
of the bill that came out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and
add those three points. First, that Iran shouldn't keep its nuclear
facility before it gets sanctions relief; that Iran can't get sanctions
relief until they disclose the past military dimensions of their
nuclear program. They can't get sanctions relief until they accept a
fully verifiable inspections regime.
We deserve a vote on this.
[[Page S2549]]
Amendment No. 1197
(Purpose: Amendment of a perfecting nature)
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1197 at the
desk to the text proposed to be stricken by amendment No. 1140.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Cotton] proposes an
amendment numbered 1197 to the language proposed to be
stricken by amendment No. 1140.
Mr. COTTON. 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 printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Amendment No. 1198 to Amendment No. 1197
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I also call up for Senator Rubio a second-
degree amendment, amendment No. 1198 to amendment No. 1197.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Cotton], for Mr. Rubio,
proposes an amendment numbered 1198 to amendment No. 1197.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To require a certification that Iran's leaders have
publically accepted Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state)
On page 3, line 20, of the amendment, strike ``purpose.''
and insert the following: ``purpose; and
``(iii) the President determines Iran's leaders have
publically accepted Israel's right to exist as a Jewish
state.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, again, these amendments would do two very
simple things: First, they would require a vote on whether Iran should
get sanctions relief before it discloses past military dimensions of
its nuclear program, before it closes its underground fortified bunker
at Fordow, and before it submits to a fully verifiable, anytime,
anywhere, no-notice inspections regime. Second, they would require Iran
to acknowledge Israel's right to exist as a Jewish democratic state
before they get nuclear weapons because they continue to say that
Israel would be wiped off the map, and if they get nuclear weapons,
they will have the means to do so.
It is my intent to insist upon a recorded vote on these amendments at
a simple-majority threshold. The Senate needs to vote. If you disagree
with these policies, vote no. If you agree with these policies and you
think this will upset a delicate compromise, then vote no and explain
that. But we need to vote, and we should start voting.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, let me point out a couple things. There
are now 67 amendments, all of which have been filed by Republicans,
none by Democrats.
This bill passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 19 to 0.
Senator Corker and I have been working with Republicans who have filed
amendments to try to accommodate them, and we have been making
progress. We have been trying to schedule additional votes. I thank
Senator Corker and those who are cooperating with us in a way that we
can try to move this bill forward.
We are prepared to have votes, but I think some of the tactics that
are now being deployed are going to make it much more difficult for us
to be able to proceed in an orderly way. It is every Member's right to
take whatever actions they want to take, but I want to tell you that
for those of us who want to get this bill to the finish line, it gets a
little frustrating.
We will continue to focus on a way forward on this legislation. But I
want to make it clear that we have been prepared to find an orderly way
to proceed with votes and to deal with the issues Members have been
concerned about, but at times it becomes difficult with the procedures
that are being used.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member and the ranking
member's staff. I thank the minority leader's office for working with
us on what was going to be a series of votes, tough votes. I have a
sense that the context of this has just changed, and I regret that.
I have been working with numbers of Senators on some really
controversial votes that we were willing to make, as we already have.
As a matter of fact, the only two votes we have had thus far were
considered poison pill votes. My friend from Maryland was willing to
have more poison pill votes--if you want to call them that--tough
votes, but I sense the context of this may have just changed.
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. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, let's talk about poison pill amendments. I
would say these aren't poison pills; these are vitamin pills. They are
designed to strengthen this legislation and to strengthen the U.S.
negotiating position.
Who could object that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state
and that Iran should not be allowed a nuclear weapon if they won't
recognize that right? The President himself said they should close
their underground fortified military bunker before they get sanctions
relief. We are simply asking for a vote on what the President himself
has said.
If the Senator from Maryland wants to talk about procedural tactics,
let's be perfectly clear what has happened here. The very first
amendment brought to the floor on this bill was designed to stop any
other amendments from being offered.
For those of you watching, you should know that the only thing that
amendment says is that any final agreement must be submitted in Farsi
as well as English. That is a noncontroversial proposal which I am sure
we could adopt by voice vote and move on in an orderly fashion to any
other amendments. Yet, they continue to object to unanimous consent to
bring up any other amendments, designed to stop the Senate from having
to cast these votes.
The amendments we have offered are no more of a procedural tactic
than what the Senator from Maryland himself is doing--an amendment that
could have been offered in committee, an amendment that could have been
voted on easily on Tuesday when it was offered but is being used to
block consideration of any other amendment.
These are not tough votes. These should be easy votes. Again, if you
want to vote no, vote no. If you want to vote no and say it is designed
to protect a compromise, do that. But we should be voting.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I know the Senator from Arkansas knows I
have no issue with taking tough votes, and I would take them all day
long.
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. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________