[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 68 (Wednesday, May 6, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2663-S2670]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 ENSURING TAX EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL ACT--MOTION TO 
                                PROCEED

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 58, 
H.R. 1314, the bill we will use for trade promotion authority.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 58, H.R. 1314, a bill to 
     amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for a 
     right to an administrative appeal relating to adverse 
     determinations of tax-exempt status of certain organizations.

  Mr. REID. 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. SULLIVAN assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                        Criminal Justice Reform

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, as were most Americans, I was very 
disturbed by the scenes from Baltimore that unfolded on our TV sets 
across America--a place not too far away from here--during the last 
couple of weeks. The whole idea of a young man dying in police custody, 
followed by the confrontations with police and the looting and burning 
of innocent minority-owned businesses in their own neighborhoods--these 
are all scenes we would expect perhaps in other countries, somewhere 
else around the world, but certainly not here at home. But that is what 
we saw and not just last week but also last summer in Ferguson, MO.
  So the question arises: What can we do? What can we do about it? What 
can we do as individual citizens? What can we do as parents? What can 
we do as neighbors? And then: What can we do as Members of the U.S. 
Congress? Perhaps more fundamentally, how can we as a nation unite to 
address injustice when it occurs? What steps can we take today to help 
the diverse fabric of this great Nation mend for future generations?
  As I indicated, I am somewhat skeptical that Washington, DC, and 
particularly the U.S. Congress, can wave a magic wand and solve these 
problems. A lot of this is going to have to be worked out at the local 
level by communities, by families, by houses of faith, and by civic 
organizations as well. Obviously, they are closest to the situation. 
But the Federal Government does, I believe, have a role to play that I 
will speak about in just a moment. I will just conclude in speaking 
about Baltimore by saying that our prayers, I know, are with those 
involved, and I know they are carefully considering how best to move 
forward and heal as well. But we are doing a great disservice to 
ourselves and to everyone else so clearly frustrated by the status quo 
if we isolate Baltimore or Ferguson as just individual instances of 
civil unrest and if we don't step back and see how they fit into the 
broader issue of our entire criminal justice system.
  I sometimes call myself a recovering judge. I was a district judge 
for 6 years, which is our main trial court in Texas, and I was on the 
Texas Supreme Court for 7 years after that. I also served as attorney 
general. I mention all of that just to say that I have had some 
exposure in my professional life and in my adult life with our criminal 
justice system. I have seen how it should work, and I have seen areas 
where we need to get to work to reform what is broken.
  I believe Congress can and must play a role--even a small role; I say 
small but in a significant way--by correcting injustice where we can 
and making it less likely that situations such as those we have seen in 
Ferguson or Baltimore are repeated. While we cannot singlehandedly fix 
broken families or broken communities or deal with situations at the 
local level around the country, we can contribute to efforts to remedy 
the basic instability of those communities and particularly we can 
start to make real progress in our criminal justice system to lessen 
the burden on those communities that are struggling with these issues.
  I know the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, Senator 
Grassley, is committed to doing what he can, through the Committee on 
the Judiciary, to pursue criminal justice reform. I am happy to say 
that under the leadership of Senator Grassley, many efforts are already 
underway to consider how we can do a better job of rehabilitating 
offenders, increase public safety, save taxpayers some money, and help 
rebuild that all-important relationship between law enforcement and 
local communities.
  One example of how we are doing that is a piece of legislation I 
introduced in February with the junior Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. 
Whitehouse, called the CORRECTIONS Act, which stands for the 
Corrections Oversight, Recidivism Reduction, and Eliminating Costs for 
Taxpayers In Our National System Act. That is why we call it 
CORRECTIONS, because that is such a long title, but I think it says a 
lot about what we are trying to achieve.
  With about 30 percent of the Department of Justice budget spent on 
detaining Federal inmates and the costs of Federal prisons 
skyrocketing, this bill would actually take a number of constructive 
steps to reform our Federal prison system and would also make better 
use of taxpayers' money.
  For example, the CORRECTIONS Act would allow eligible offenders--
mainly low-risk or medium-risk offenders; certainly not high-risk 
offenders--to earn additional days of good time credit by participating 
in programs that will help equip them for life outside of prison. Texas 
is sometimes considered a tough-on-crime State, and that is true. After 
awhile, though, we realized we

[[Page S2664]]

also need to be smart on crime because virtually all of the people 
incarcerated in our prisons will eventually someday be released. We 
need to begin to focus on what we can do to help them--those who want 
help and who will accept that help--and how we can do a better job of 
equipping them so they don't end up recommitting, reoffending, and 
ending up back in prison again. That is what this piece of legislation 
tries to do.
  So the CORRECTIONS Act allows offenders to earn additional days of 
earned time credit by participating in programs that will prepare them 
for life outside of prison. Low-risk offenders, for example, could earn 
up to 10 days of earned time credit for every month in which they are 
successfully completing programs such as drug rehab, education, work 
programs, faith-based training, and life skills courses. It is 
astonishing. I was in East Texas at one part of the Texas prison system 
where I got to observe some of the prisoners, some of the inmates there 
attending some of these types of courses. It is shocking how poorly 
equipped so many of these inmates are for life outside of prison and 
why it is so important that we try to help those who will accept the 
help and who want the help to prepare for life outside so they don't 
end up back inside.
  This legislation would allow these eligible prisoners to use this 
good time credit to spend the final portion of their sentences in home 
confinement or a halfway house. Half-way houses have worked over time 
as a transition from prison to life in communities, and they work very 
well. Also, technology can even allow home confinement for nonviolent, 
low-risk prisoners who have earned the right to a less confining 
circumstance on the backhand of their sentence. This may sound like a 
little thing, but it is important for several reasons.

  First of all, inmates need to learn valuable skills that can transfer 
to a lifetime of community engagement, instead of returning to a 
lifetime of crime. Second, it allows them to reconnect sooner with 
their families and the communities that need them most. Finally, this 
makes financial sense. It costs about $5,000 a year to keep a low-risk 
prisoner in home confinement, and it cost $30,000 a year to keep them 
in prison.
  I am not one of those who say, well, we just need to save money, so 
let's throw public safety to the wind. That is not what this does. We 
focus first on public safety as we must, but we also try to be smart 
about it--not just tough on crime. We try to be smart on crime. The 
great thing is that we actually have States such as my State that have 
experimented with this sort of approach with great success. Texas has 
actually, over recent years, closed three prison systems. Crime has not 
spiked, and, in fact, many inmates who have taken advantage of this 
program have become resocialized and integrated back into society. So 
we actually know. Rather than the Federal Government trying to mandate 
for the entire Nation and adhering to some new experiment, we actually 
have the laboratories of democracy--otherwise known as the States--
under our Federal system, trying things out to see if they will work, 
and we learn from that if we can. This is an area where we can learn, 
and we should.
  So I look forward to working with Chairman Grassley and our members 
of the Judiciary Committee to get the CORRECTIONS Act passed. The last 
time it was considered, last year, it passed overwhelmingly on a 
bipartisan basis through the Judiciary Committee.
  As I said, fortunately, Chairman Grassley has made this a priority, 
and he has put together a bipartisan effort to look at some other 
consensus ideas that we might add to this prison reform bill, such as 
sentencing reform. Honestly, that is a little bit more controversial, 
because I am not one for just cutting sentences on the front-end 
indiscriminately or arbitrarily. We need to make sure we are smart 
about sentencing reform. I think this consensus-building effort that 
Chairman Grassley has undertaken will help us get in the right place. 
There are a number of targeted sentencing reforms I think we could all 
support to help address failures in our criminal justice system.
  So we should not let the divisive, controversial proposals stand in 
the way of making real bipartisan progress on the issue of criminal 
justice reform. But this is sort of a chronic problem we have had 
around here when we try to do comprehensive everything. When we try to 
do comprehensive everything, we make mistakes. We also make it almost 
impossible to do, because there are so many different moving parts. It 
is complicated, and many people remain skeptical about its chances of 
succeeding. But when you have something such as the CORRECTIONS Act, 
which brings to the Federal level the successful pilot programs that 
have been undertaken in the States, it just makes sense that this 
should be the place we should start. Indeed, that is why it has such 
broad bipartisan support.
  In order to make sure that the conversation about criminal justice 
reform extends to issues beyond prison reform and sentencing, there is 
another step the junior Senator from Michigan, the senior Senator from 
South Carolina, and I introduced just last week. This is another idea, 
because we realize the time that Congress has in our capacity, both on 
the floor and in committee, to deal with this complex topic in a 
thoughtful and deliberate way. So we need some help, and what we have 
introduced is something we call the National Criminal Justice 
Commission Act, which would create a commission to provide a top-down 
review of our entire criminal justice system.
  After completing a review of the system, this bipartisan commission 
would work for a unanimous recommendation on how to strengthen it. 
Congress could--much as it did with the 9/11 Commission--take bits and 
pieces of it. We wouldn't need to embrace all of it--or any of it, for 
that matter. But at least we would have the good and thoughtful work 
product of some experts who would be able to make recommendations to us 
in a number of areas.
  I was just at a meeting where somebody asked about the 
overcriminalization of a regulatory state, and that is a real problem. 
The fact that you can commit a crime without even intending to commit a 
crime if you happen to violate some regulation is a real problem. There 
are a number of areas I think we need to look at. As our attention was 
riveted by what happened in Baltimore and Ferguson, I think those 
incidents are symptoms of a much bigger challenge, and I think this 
commission would help us focus on building consensus and producing 
actionable results.
  Importantly, the continuing dialogue and commission process will help 
us strengthen the relationship between law enforcement and communities 
and help us to build on consensus items such as the CORRECTIONS Act. I 
think the CORRECTIONS Act is a good place to start, and the National 
Criminal Justice Act, the consensus-based sentencing reform--all of 
these measures will help us improve our criminal justice system. It 
will help bring down some of the tension we witnessed across the 
Nation, and help us, again, be smart when it comes to dealing with our 
criminal justice system.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in this important effort. I think 
this is the kind of big idea of a big challenge which will resonate 
with the people we represent in our States and across the country. When 
they see us coming together on a bipartisan basis and actually trying 
to solve problems, I think they feel that we are finally listening to 
them and doing what we should be doing here in the Senate.
  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.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, for the past couple of weeks, we have 
been talking about very important things on the floor of the Senate. 
One of the most

[[Page S2665]]

important has been the possible deal with Iran over the country's 
nuclear program. I believe an agreement that could stop Iran's efforts 
to get nuclear weapons would be enormously significant. Making sure the 
American people are involved in this process is also extremely 
important. There is bipartisan agreement on both of those things. We 
are still debating the Iran sanctions review act simply because it is 
so important. The debate has been going on.
  This bill goes a long way toward protecting the right of the American 
people to have a say on any deal and the right of Congress to review 
the specifics of that deal. I know there are Senators who have ideas 
for how to make this bill even better. I had an amendment last week, 
and I appreciated the chance to debate the amendment and to have a vote 
on it. That is the important part of this process. It is a big reason 
why the Senate has been so much more productive, I believe, this year 
than it was under the previous majority leader.
  Under Republican leadership, Senators of both parties have gotten 
back the right to really represent our constituents--something we were 
elected to do. We have gotten back the right to work through 
committees, the right to offer amendments and to make our case on the 
floor.
  Republicans and Democrats agree that the bill before us right now is 
important. Congressional review of any Iranian deal is absolutely 
essential. We also agree that a nuclear-armed Iran would be a global 
threat to everyone everywhere. Republicans and Democrats in the Senate 
know it would be better to have no deal at all than to have a bad deal. 
Even President Obama has said that.
  The concern many Americans have right now is that the deal the 
President seems prepared to sign is nowhere near strong enough. When I 
go home to Wyoming every weekend, as I did this past weekend, the 
people I talk with don't believe Iran has earned the right to be 
trusted. They are very concerned that the President is ready to sign a 
very bad deal. I think those concerns are absolutely justified. Iran 
has avoided scrutiny of its nuclear program for years. What has 
happened to make the President think all of a sudden that Iran will 
come clean? I have not seen anything happen out there.
  President Obama and his team have been too willing to negotiate 
without conditions and too hesitant to take the strong stand that I 
believe must be taken. The President never wanted these economic 
sanctions in the first place. He said the sanctions would ruin his 
chances of negotiating a deal at all. Remember that? Well, Congress 
insisted anyway. Those sanctions did not drive Iran away; it is the 
sanctions themselves that brought Iran to the negotiating table. Now 
the President admits that the sanctions, which he opposed, were a good 
idea. He still wanted to get rid of them as quickly as possible.
  The President wanted members of his administration to do all of the 
negotiating in private, and he wanted to decide by himself what is 
best. Republicans and Democrats both said that Congress needs to review 
any deal before getting rid of the sanctions--the sanctions imposed by 
Congress. We said that he does not have the right to make such 
important decisions about sanctions imposed by Congress. He does not 
have the right to eliminate them by himself.
  It is very important that we keep asking questions about any 
potential deal, questions such as, what exactly is the Obama 
administration agreeing to on sanctions relief? I mean, it is 
interesting. Iran has said that the final deal must remove all of the 
economic sanctions on day No. 1. The administration has said that the 
sanctions will be lifted in phases and only if Iran complies with 
different steps along the way. Well, which is it? There is a big 
difference between what the President is saying and what Iran is 
saying.
  The administration already gave Iran sanction relief from sanctions 
under the interim agreement in 2013. We saw how that turned out. It has 
given Iran access to $12 billion in much needed hard currency since 
then. The Obama administration has been unclear on exactly how much 
actual additional currency it plans to release under the final 
agreement. Tens of billions? I heard a number as high as over $100 
billion with sanctions relief. Well, once the rest of the sanctions are 
lifted, how can we make sure Iran does not use the money to support 
terrorists who want to attack us, who want to attack America? Iran has 
a long history of supporting terrorists such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Is 
that where the money is going to go? I do not believe Iran is going to 
use the money to build roads or hospitals or schools.
  What about Iran's plans for their nuclear program? Now Iran says they 
want to do nuclear research for peaceful purposes. Have our negotiators 
made any progress on holding Iran to its word on that specific point?
  Back in November of 2013, Iran signed a framework agreement with the 
International Atomic Energy Agency that was supposed to address the 
possible military aspects of Iran's nuclear program. It named 12 
specific areas where Iran was going to address those concerns. The 
Director General of that organization, the International Atomic Energy 
Agency, now says that Iran has addressed only 1 of the 12 it promised 
to address--only 1 of 12 things it was supposed to do under the last 
deal from 2013. What has changed since then to make President Obama and 
the Obama administration think Iran is going to comply with this deal? 
Why should we suddenly trust Iran now? What is there in the agreement 
that will force Iran to do what it says it will do?
  Congress needs to keep a very close eye on any final agreement. 
Whatever happens, a deal with Iran must be enforceable, it must be 
verifiable, and it must be accountable.
  We know President Obama is looking to finish out his time by 
polishing his legacy. Congress needs to make sure this deal is about 
protecting America and protecting Americans, not protecting the 
President's diplomatic legacy. The stakes are too high. So far, there 
are too many unanswered questions.
  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. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise to speak on my amendment to the 
Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, to bolster Congress's role in 
monitoring Iran's ballistic missile and defensive weapons activity. I 
hope this amendment is agreed to. It has been written, rewritten, and 
rewritten again to try to fit the concerns of the majority, the 
minority, everybody concerned.
  My amendment simply requires the President to make an addition in his 
semiannual report to Congress, including to the Finance Committee, of 
which I am a senior member, on any weapons sold, leased or lent by any 
country to Iran, which are currently prohibited under the United 
Nations Security Council Resolution 1929--and sophisticated air defense 
systems.
  In 2010, the United Nations Security Council, including Russia, a 
permanent member of the security council, passed a new round of 
sanctions on Iran's nuclear program. Resolution 1929 prohibits Iran 
from investing abroad in uranium mining, related nuclear technologies 
or nuclear-capable ballistic missile technology, and prohibits Iran 
from launching ballistic missiles, including on its own territory.
  That same year, Russia finalized a weapons sale with Iran on the S-
300, much publicized today--the S-300 air defense system, which is not 
currently sanctioned by the United Nations. However, to provide a 
working partnership and cooperation, then-Russian President Dmitry 
Medvedev placed a halt on the sale. Unfortunately, the situation and 
agreement has now changed dramatically. Today, we are contending with 
President Vladimir Putin.
  Sophisticated air defense systems, such as the Russian-produced S-
300, have the capability of shielding Iranian missile facilities from 
oversight and airstrikes. This poses a real threat to global security, 
not to mention peace in the Middle East and, as a consequence, all 
throughout the world.
  To prevent this threat, we must ensure our intelligence community is 
doing everything in its power and capability to ensure the greatest 
threat in

[[Page S2666]]

an unstable region, Iran, is not getting help from nations looking to 
boost their economy through weapons sales, regardless of the impact.
  News reports now confirm Russia is preparing to sell Iran billions in 
sophisticated weaponry. News reports are one thing. However, it is 
imperative our intelligence community keeps the administration and the 
Congress briefed fully and on a timely basis on this national security 
threat.
  One month ago, reports revealed Russia's intention to sell the S-300 
to Iran. I was alarmed when I asked my colleagues what they knew about 
the immediacy of this sale before it was made public in news reports--
more specifically, members of the Select Committee on Intelligence--and 
it was apparent no one in the Senate had been fully briefed.

  I cannot imagine any of my colleagues not wanting to know who is and 
who may be planning to arm Iran or why the administration would not be 
willing to share this information with the Congress--and know it 
themselves. Our intelligence community can and surely must do better.
  By requiring President Obama, and future Presidents as well, to 
provide Congress with timely, actionable intelligence on Iran's weapons 
systems, my amendment ensures that Congress can make informed decisions 
with regard to our national security.
  For Congress to support an agreement, Congress must be kept informed. 
If a nuclear agreement with Iran has even the slightest chance of 
preventing a nuclear Iran, then we must be vigilant, at least to ensure 
that other nations are not arming Iran and putting our allies in the 
region--Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and, more 
especially, Israel--at increased risk.
  My amendment strengthens this bill by ensuring Congress obtains 
oversight and intelligence on every country, especially Russia, 
regarding weapons sales to Iran.
  So I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to consider this 
amendment and to join me in supporting increased oversight on all of 
Iran's weapons activities.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. 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. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to speak for up to 20 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am here for the 98th time to urge 
this body to stop sleepwalking through history. Climate change is real, 
it is already harming the United States, and it is time for the Senate 
to wake up and address this threat.
  The science that links carbon pollution to global warming is nothing 
new. It dates back to President Lincoln. In the century and a half 
since, we have measured changes in the climate that scientists 
virtually unanimously say are caused by our burning of fossil fuels. 
Atmospheric carbon is now measured at 400 parts per million--higher 
than ever in our species' history. Our oceans are warming and 
acidifying. Those are measurements again. We are experiencing the 
warmest years ever recorded. More measurements. And rising seas are 
lapping at our shores. In Rhode Island, we measure nearly 10 inches of 
sea level rise since the 1930s. These are all measurements, not 
projections. These are facts, not theories.
  If we do not act soon to cut carbon pollution, we can reasonably 
expect the consequences to be dire. Yet, the fossil fuel industry 
continues its crafty, cynical campaign of denial and delay. Big Coal, 
Oil and Natural Gas, and related industries, such as the Koch brothers' 
companies, profit by offloading the costs of their carbon pollution 
onto the rest of us. They traffic in products that put health and 
safety at risk, and they don't tell the truth about their products. 
Sound familiar? Well, it should because the fossil fuel industry is 
using a familiar playbook, one perfected by the tobacco industry. 
Following this same playbook, Big Tobacco fought for more than four 
decades to bury the truth about the health effects of its product.
  Well, the government has a playbook, too. It is called RICO, the 
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The elements of a 
civil racketeering case are simple. The government must allege four 
things: The defendants No. 1 conducted No. 2 an enterprise No. 3 
through a pattern No. 4 of racketeering activity. Conducting means 
everything from directing to aiding and abetting the activity. An 
enterprise can be any form of association or a common scheme. Pattern 
means continuity of the scheme and--for civil RICO particularly--the 
prospect of ongoing conduct. Racketeering activity simply means a 
violation of designated Federal laws, including the Federal mail fraud 
and wire fraud statutes.
  In 1999, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a civil RICO lawsuit 
against the major tobacco companies and their associated industry 
groups. The government's complaint was clear: The tobacco companies 
``have engaged in and executed--and continue to engage in and execute--
a massive 50-year scheme to defraud the public, including consumers of 
cigarettes, in violation of RICO.''
  Big Tobacco spent millions of dollars and years of litigation 
fighting the government, but finally, through discovery, government 
lawyers were able to peel back the layers of deceit and see what the 
big tobacco companies really knew all along about cigarettes.
  In 2006, Judge Gladys Kessler of the U.S. District Court for the 
District of Columbia decided the case. In a nearly 1,700-page opinion, 
she found the tobacco companies' fraudulent campaign amounted to a 
racketeering enterprise. According to the court:

       Defendants coordinated significant aspects of their public 
     relations, scientific, legal, and marketing activity in 
     furtherance of the shared objective--to . . . maximize 
     industry profits by preserving and expanding the market for 
     cigarettes through a scheme to deceive the public.

  The parallels between what the tobacco industry did and what the 
fossil fuel industry is doing now are striking. In fact, we can go back 
and reread those judicial findings about tobacco, substitute the words 
``fossil fuel,'' and exactly describe what the fossil fuel industry is 
up to. That is without the benefit of discovery, where litigants get to 
demand the production of documents and take the depositions of 
potential witnesses and require answers under oath. What a treasure 
trove that would produce.
  We know that the prospect of action on climate change is a business 
risk for fossil fuel companies. Serious action on climate--a transition 
to clean, low-carbon energy--threatens to cut into polluters' market 
and profits. The match between the fossil fuel industry and Big Tobacco 
is pretty good in terms of the business risk presented if the public 
were to be really aware of the harm. They have a motive to deceive.
  We know that in the case of both tobacco and fossil fuels, the 
industry joined together in a common enterprise and coordinated 
strategy. Remember the finding in the tobacco case that defendants 
coordinated significant aspects of their public relations, scientific, 
legal and marketing activity in furtherance of the shared objective. 
How about the fossil fuel industry?
  In 1998, as the Clinton administration was building support for 
international climate action under the Kyoto Protocol, another group 
was up to something else. That group was the fossil fuel industry, its 
trade associations, and the conservative policy institutes that often 
do the industry's dirty work with clean faces. They met at the 
Washington office of the American Petroleum Institute. Their plan? To 
organize a scheme to create doubt about climate change and to undermine 
public support for American participation in the Kyoto agreement.
  A memo from that meeting was leaked to the New York Times. The memo 
documented the polluters' plans for a multimillion-dollar public 
relations campaign to undermine climate science. What was the project's 
goal? To ensure that--and I will quote the memo here--``a majority of 
the American Public, including industry leadership, recognizes that 
significant uncertainties exist in climate science, and

[[Page S2667]]

therefore raises questions among those (e.g. Congress) who chart the 
future U.S. course on global climate change.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the memo printed in 
the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  If anything, the fossil fuel industry's climate denial scheme has 
grown even bigger and more complex than Big Tobacco's. The shape of the 
fossil fuel industry's denial operation has been documented by, among 
others, Drexel University Professor Robert Brulle. Brulle's follow-the-
money analysis shows how the fossil fuel industry perpetuates climate 
denial through a complex network of organizations and funding that is 
designed to obscure the fossil fuel industry's fingerprints. It is 
quite a beast.
  This is the climate denial beast. Polluter money and dark money are 
its lifeblood. PR front groups are its organs, and lies and obfuscation 
are its work. Look at the complex interconnection of the beast's major 
players. The green diamonds are the big funders--the Koch-affiliated 
foundations, the Scaife-affiliated Foundations, the American Petroleum 
Institute. The blue circles are the who's who of tea party, 
libertarian, and front groups who have wittingly or not become the 
flacks for the fossil fuel industry--the Heartland Institute, the 
Hoover Institution, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, and 
the Mercatus Center, to name just a few. Think how much trouble someone 
must have gone to to set all this in play. Think how important the 
purpose would have to be to them to take all that trouble.
  What was the purpose of this network? To quote directly from Dr. 
Brulle's report, it was ``a deliberate and organized effort to 
misdirect the public discussion and distort the public's understanding 
of climate.'' That sounds a lot like the judge's findings in the 
tobacco racketeering case: ``Defendants have intentionally maintained 
and coordinated their fraudulent position on addiction and nicotine as 
an important part of their overall efforts to influence public opinion 
and persuade people that smoking is not dangerous.''
  The coordinated tactics of this network, Dr. Brulle's report states, 
``span a wide range of activities, including political lobbying, 
contributions to political candidates, and a large number of 
communication and media efforts that aim at undermining climate 
science.'' Compare that to the findings in the tobacco case: 
``Defendants coordinated significant aspects of their public relations, 
scientific, legal, and marketing activity in furtherance of the shared 
objective.''
  So that is the beast, and big money flows through it.
  Brulle's report chronicles that from 2003 to 2010, 140 foundations 
made 5,299 grants totaling $558 million to 91 organizations that 
actively oppose climate action. For decades, the tobacco industry did 
the same thing. In the tobacco case, Judge Kessler found that the 
``defendants took steps to fund research designed and controlled to 
generate industry favorable results, and to suppress adverse research 
results.''
  Look at the recent affair with Dr. Willie Soon, a scientist who 
consistently publishes papers downplaying the role of carbon dioxide 
emissions in causing climate change. Through the Freedom of Information 
Act, we know that Dr. Soon has received more than half of his funding 
from oil and electric utility coal interests. His fossil fuel backers 
include the American Petroleum Institute, ExxonMobil, the Charles G. 
Koch Foundation, and the Southern Company. Most recently, he has been 
getting his funding through Donors Trust, the dark money identity-
laundering operation that anonymizes corporate and polluter money. By 
the way, the biggest mark in the whole beast is right there, and that 
is Donors Trust.
  The manipulation of science is pretty egregious. Some of Dr. Soon's 
research contracts gave his industry backers a chance to see what he 
was doing before he published it. Some of these contracts even had 
clauses that promised Dr. Soon's fossil fuel backers would receive ``an 
advance written copy of proposed publications...for comment and 
input.'' The New York Times reported that in correspondence with his 
fossil fuel funders, Dr. Soon referred to the scientific papers he 
produced as ``deliverables.'' Deliverable, indeed.
  The fossil fuel industry has had to work against mounting evidence to 
cover up the risks for as long as possible; The same with Big Tobacco. 
Again, to quote Judge Kessler's decision in the tobacco case, ``Despite 
overwhelming evidence from a wide range of disciplines including 
statistics and epidemiology, pathology and chemistry, clinical 
observation and animal experimentation, as well as their own internal 
research, Defendants continued to claim `no proof' and continued to 
attempt to create doubt about the scientific findings.''
  The Federal racketeering complaint opened up discovery into the files 
of the tobacco companies and showed finally and unequivocally that for 
decades the tobacco industry knew about smoking's harm while it 
continued public relations campaigns to deny that smoking was harmful. 
Discovery is a powerful tool. Sanctions for hiding evidence from a 
court are steep. So time and again, it is discovery that finds the real 
smoking guns in corporate records. Remember when New York's attorney 
general discovered internal emails from analysts at Merrill Lynch that 
showed the company promoting stocks to its customers that they 
internally described as ``junk''?
  The fossil fuel industry is engaged in a massive effort to deny 
climate science and deceive the American public. They have been at it 
for years, and the clearer the science becomes, the harder the 
polluters fight. Gary Wills used to work for William F. Buckley at the 
National Review and recently described this effort as ``their kept 
scientists, their rigged conferences, their sycophantic beneficiaries 
[and] and their bought publicists.'' Imagine what a little discovery 
into the beast would reveal about the schemes and mischief of the 
climate denial apparatus, about what they are telling each other in 
private while they scheme to deceive the public.
  The truth will eventually come to light. It always does. But here in 
the Senate, we should not wait for a court case before taking action. 
The evidence is clear. We have a legislative responsibility to address 
climate change and to do that now. The facts are clear as day right 
before our eyes, despite the fossil fuel industry's efforts to deceive 
and deny, despite their persistent big political spending and bullying. 
We just have to wake up to the facts and to our duty.
  I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       The material below contains a memo by the API from April 
     1998.

                                  Memo

     From: Joe Walker
     To: Global Climate Science Team
     Cc: Michelle Ross; Susan Moya
     Subject: Draft Global Climate Science Communications plan
       As promised, attached is the draft Global Climate Science 
     Communications Plan that we developed during our workshop 
     Last Friday. Thanks especially to those of you who 
     participated in the workshop, and In particular to John Adams 
     for his very helpful thoughts following up our meeting, and 
     Alan Caudill for turning around the notes from our workshop 
     so quickly.
       Please review the pan and get back to me with your comments 
     as soon as possible.
       As those of you who were at the workshop know, we have 
     scheduled a follow-up team meeting to review the plan in 
     person on Friday, April 17, form 1 to 3 p.m. at the API 
     headquarters. After that, we hope to have a ``Plan champion'' 
     help us move it forward to potential funding sources, perhaps 
     starting with the global climate ``Coordinating Council.'' 
     That will be an item for discussion on April 17.
       Again, thanks for your hard work on this project. Please e-
     mail me, call or fax me with your comments. Thanks.
           Regards,
                                                       Joe Walker.

                 GLOBAL CLIMATE SCIENCE COMMUNICATIONS

                              Action Plan


                           Situation Analysis

       In December 1997, the Clinton Administration agreed in 
     Kyoto, Japan, to a treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 
     to prevent what it purports to be changes in the global 
     climate caused by the continuing release of such emissions. 
     The so-called green house gases have many sources. For 
     example, water vapor is a greenhouse gas. But the Clinton 
     Administration's action, if eventually approved by the U.S. 
     Senate, will mainly affect emissions from fossil fuel 
     (gasoline, coal, natural gas, etc.) combustion.
       As the climate change debate has evolved, those who oppose 
     action have argued mainly

[[Page S2668]]

     that signing such a treaty will place the U.S. at a 
     competitive disadvantage with most other nations, and will be 
     extremely expensive to implement. Much of the cost will be 
     borne by American consumers who will pay higher prices for 
     most energy and transportation.
       The climate change theory being advanced by the treaty 
     supporters is based primarily on forecasting models with a 
     very high degree of uncertainty. In fact, its not known for 
     sure whether (a) climate change actually is occurring, or (b) 
     if it is, whether humans really have any influence on it.
       Despite these weaknesses in scientific understanding, those 
     who oppose the treaty have done little to build a case 
     against precipitous action on climate change based on the 
     scientific uncertainty. As a result, The Clinton 
     Administration and environmental groups essentially have had 
     the field to themselves. They have conducted an effective 
     public relations program to convince the American public that 
     the climate is changing, we humans are at fault, and we must 
     do something about it before calamity strikes.
       The environmental groups know they have been successful. 
     Commenting after the Kyoto negotiations about recent media 
     coverage of climate change, Tom Wathen, executive vice 
     president of the National Environmental Trust, wrote:
       ``. . . As important as the extent of the coverage was the 
     tone and tenor of it. In a change from just six months ago, 
     most media stories no longer presented global warming as just 
     a theory over which reasonable scientists could differ. Most 
     stories described predictions of global warming as the 
     position of the overwhelming number of mainstream scientists. 
     That the environmental community had, to a great extent, 
     settled the scientific issue with the U.S. media is the other 
     great success that began perhaps several months earlier but 
     became apparent during Kyoto.''
       Because the science underpinning the global climate change 
     theory has not been challenged effectively in the media or 
     through other vehicles reaching the American public, there is 
     widespread ignorance, which works in favor of the Kyoto 
     treaty and against the best interests of the United States. 
     Indeed, the public has been highly receptive to the Clinton 
     Administrations plans. There has been little, if any, public 
     resistance or pressure applied to Congress to reject the 
     treaty, except by those ``inside the Beltway'' with vested 
     interests.
       Moreover, from the political viewpoint, it is difficult for 
     the United States to oppose the treaty solely on economic 
     grounds, valid as the economic issues are. It makes it too 
     easy for others to portray the United States as putting 
     preservation of its own lifestyle above the greater concerns 
     of mankind. This argument, in turn, forces our negotiators to 
     make concessions that have not been well thought through, and 
     in the end may do far more harm than good. This is the 
     process that unfolded at Kyoto, and is very likely to be 
     repeated in Buenos Aires in November 1998.
       The advocates of global warming have been successful on the 
     basis of skillfully misrepresenting the science and the 
     extent of agreement on the science, while industry and its 
     partners ceded the science and fought on the economic issues. 
     Yet if we can show that science does not support the Kyoto 
     treaty--which most true climate scientists believe to be the 
     case--this puts the United States in a stronger moral 
     position and frees its negotiators from the need to make 
     concessions as a defense against perceived selfish economic 
     concerns.
       Upon this tableau, the Global Climate Science 
     Communications Team (GCSCT) developed an action plan to 
     inform the American public that science does not support the 
     precipitous actions Kyoto would dictate, thereby providing a 
     climate for the right policy decisions to be made. The team 
     considered results from a new public opinion survey in 
     developing the plan.
       Charlton Research's survey of 1,100 ``informed Americans'' 
     suggests that while Americans currently perceive climate 
     change to be a great threat, public opinion is open enough to 
     change on climate science. When informed that ``some 
     scientists believe there is not enough evidence to suggest 
     that [what is called global climate change] is a long-term 
     change due to human behavior and activities,'' 58 percent of 
     those surveyed said they were more likely to oppose the Kyoto 
     treaty. Moreover, half the respondents harbored doubts about 
     climate science.
       GCSCT members who contributed to the development of the 
     plan are A. John Adams, John Adams Associates; Candace 
     Crandall, Science and Environmental Policy Project; David 
     Rothbard, Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow; Jeffrey 
     Salmon, The Marshall Institute; Lee Garrigan, environmental 
     issues Council; Lynn Bouchey and Myron Ebell, Frontiers of 
     Freedom; Peter Cleary, Americans for Tax Reform; Randy 
     Randol, Exxon Corp.; Robert Gehri, The Southern Company; 
     Sharon Kneiss, Chevron Corp; Steve Milloy, The Advancement of 
     Sound Science Coalition; and Joseph Walker, American 
     Petroleum Institute.
       The action plan is detailed on the following pages.


                              Project Goal

       A majority of the American public, including industry 
     leadership, recognizes that significant uncertainties exist 
     in climate science, and therefore raises questions among 
     those (e.g. Congress) who chart the future U.S. course on 
     global climate change.
       Progress will be measured toward the goal. A measurement of 
     the public's perspective on climate science will be taken 
     before the plan is launched, and the same measurement will be 
     taken at one or more as-yet-to-be-determined intervals as the 
     plan is implemented.


                     Victory Will Be Achieved When

       Average citizens ``understand'' (recognize) uncertainties 
     in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part 
     of the ``conventional wisdom''
       Media ``understands'' (recognizes) uncertainties in climate 
     science
       Media coverage reflects balance on climate science and 
     recognition of the validity of viewpoints that challenge the 
     current ``conventional wisdom''
       Industry senior leadership understands uncertainties in 
     climate science, making them stronger ambassadors to those 
     who shape climate policy
       Those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of extent 
     science appears to be out of touch with reality.


                            Current Reality

       Unless ``climate change'' becomes a non-issue, meaning that 
     the Kyoto proposal is defeated and there are no further 
     initiatives to thwart the threat of climate change, there may 
     be no moment when we can declare victory for our efforts. It 
     will be necessary to establish measurements for the science 
     effort to track progress toward achieving the goal and 
     strategic success.


                         Strategies and Tactics

       I. National Media Relations Program: Develop and implement 
     a national media relations program to inform the media about 
     uncertainties in climate science; to generate national, 
     regional and local media coverage on the scientific 
     uncertainties, and thereby educate and inform the public, 
     stimulating them to raise questions with policy makers.
       Tactics: These tactics will be undertaken between now and 
     the next climate meeting in Buenos Aires/Argentina, in 
     November 1998, and will be continued thereafter, as 
     appropriate. Activities will be launched as soon as the plan 
     is approved, funding obtained, and the necessary resources 
     (e.g., public relations counsel) arranged and deployed. In 
     all cases, tactical implementation will be fully integrated 
     with other elements of this action plan, most especially 
     Strategy II (National Climate Science Data Center).
       Identify, recruit and train a team of five independent 
     scientists to participate in media outreach. These will be 
     individuals who do not have a long history of visibility and/
     or participation in the climate change debate. Rather, this 
     team will consist of new faces who will add their voices to 
     those recognized scientists who already are vocal.
       Develop a global climate science information kit for media 
     including peer-reviewed papers that undercut the 
     ``conventional wisdom'' on climate science. This kit also 
     will include understandable communications, including simple 
     fact sheets that present scientific uncertainties in language 
     that the media and public can understand.
       Conduct briefings by media-trained scientists for science 
     writers in the top 20 media markets, using the information 
     kits. Distribute the information kits to daily newspapers 
     nationwide with offer of scientists to brief reporters at 
     each paper. Develop, disseminate radio news releases 
     featuring scientists nationwide, and offer scientists to 
     appear on radio talk shows across the country.
       Produce, distribute a steady stream of climate science 
     information via facsimile and e-mail to science writers 
     around the country.
       Produce, distribute via syndicate and directly to 
     newspapers nationwide a steady stream of op-ed columns and 
     letters to the editor authored by scientists.
       Convince one of the major news national TV journalists 
     (e.g., John Stossel) to produce a report examining the 
     scientific underpinnings of the Kyoto treaty.
       Organize, promote and conduct through grassroots 
     organizations a series of campus/community workshops/debates 
     on climate science in 10 most important states during the 
     period mid-August through October, 1998.
       Consider advertising the scientific uncertainties in select 
     markets to support national, regional and local (e.g., 
     workshops/debates), as appropriate.


     National Media Program Budget--$600,000 plus paid advertising

       II. Global Climate Science Information Source: Develop and 
     implement a program to inject credible science and scientific 
     accountability into the global climate debate, thereby 
     raising questions about and undercutting the ``prevailing 
     scientific wisdom.'' The strategy will have the added benefit 
     of providing a platform for credible, constructive criticism 
     of the opposition's position on the science.
       Tactics: As with the National Media Relations Program, 
     these activities will be undertaken between now and the next 
     climate meeting in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in November 1998, 
     and will continue thereafter. Initiatives will be launched as 
     soon as the plan is approved, funding obtained, and the 
     necessary resources arranged and deployed.
       Establish a Global Climate Science Data Center. The GCSDC 
     will be established in Washington as a non-profit educational 
     foundation with an advisory board of respected climate 
     scientists. It will be staffed initially with professionals 
     on loan from various companies and associations with a major 
     interest in the climate issue. These executives

[[Page S2669]]

     will bring with them knowledge and experience in the 
     following areas.
       Overall history of climate research and the IPCC process;
       Congressional relations and knowledge of where individual 
     Senators stand on the climate issue;
       Knowledge of key climate scientists and where they stand;
       Ability to identify and recruit as many as 20 respected 
     climate scientists to serve on the science advisory board;
       Knowledge and expertise in media relations and with 
     established relationships with science and energy writers, 
     columnists and editorial writers;
       Expertise in grassroots organization; and
       Campaign organization and administration.
       The GCSDC will be led by dynamic senior executive with a 
     major personal commitment to the goals of the campaign and 
     easy access to business leaders at the CEO level. The Center 
     will be run on a day-to-day basis by an executive director 
     with responsibility for ensuring targets are met. The Center 
     will be funded at a level that will permit it to succeed, 
     including funding for research contracts that may be 
     deemed appropriate to fill gaps in climate science (e.g., 
     a complete scientific critique of the IPCC research and 
     its conclusions).
       The GCSDC will become a one-stop resource on climate 
     science for members of Congress, the media, industry and all 
     others concerned. It will be in constant contact with the 
     best climate scientists and ensure that their findings and 
     views receive appropriate attention. It will provide them 
     with the logistical and moral support they have been lacking. 
     In short, it will be a sound scientific alternative to the 
     IPCC. Its functions will include:
       Providing as an easily accessible database (including a 
     website) of all mainstream climate science information.
       Identifying and establishing cooperative relationships with 
     all major scientists whose research in this field supports 
     our position.
       Establishing cooperative relationships with other 
     mainstream scientific organizations (e.g., meteorologists, 
     geophysicists) to bring their perspectives to bear on the 
     debate, as appropriate.
       Developing opportunities to maximize the impact of 
     scientific views consistent with ours with Congress, the 
     media and other key audiences.
       Monitoring and serving as and early warning system for 
     scientific developments with the potential to impact on the 
     climate science debate, pro and con.
       Responding to claims from the scientific alarmists and 
     media.
       Providing grants for advocacy on climate science, as deemed 
     appropriate.


Global Climate Science Data Center Budget--$5,000,000 (Spread over two 
                             years minimum)

       III. National Direct Outreach and Education: Develop and 
     implement a direct outreach program to inform and educate 
     members of Congress, state officials, industry leadership, 
     and school teachers/students about uncertainties in climate 
     science. This strategy will enable Congress, state officials 
     and industry leaders will be able to raise such serious 
     questions about the Kyoto treaty's scientific underpinnings 
     that American policy-makers not only will refuse to endorse 
     it, they will seek to prevent progress toward implementation 
     at the Buenos Aires meeting in November or through other 
     ways. Informing teachers/students about uncertainties in 
     climate science will begin to erect a barrier against further 
     efforts to impose Kyoto-like measures in the future.
       Tactics: Informing and educating members of Congress, state 
     officials and industry leaders will be undertaken as soon as 
     the plan is approved, funding is obtained, and the necessary 
     resources are arrayed and will continue through Buenos Aires 
     and for the foreseeable future. The teachers/students 
     outreach program will be developed and launched in early 
     1999. In all cases, tactical implementation will be fully 
     integrated with other elements of this action plan.
       Develop and conduct through the Global Climate Science Data 
     Center science briefings for Congress, governors, state 
     legislators, and industry leaders by August 1998.
       Develop information kits on climate science targeted 
     specifically at the needs of government officials and 
     industry leaders, to be used in conjunction with and 
     separately from the in-person briefings to further 
     disseminate information on climate science uncertainties and 
     thereby arm these influentials to raise serious questions on 
     the science issue.
       Organize under the GCSDC a ``Science Education Task Group'' 
     that will serve as the point of outreach to the National 
     Science Teachers Association (NSTA) and other influential 
     science education organizations. Work with NSTA to develop 
     school materials that present a credible, balanced picture of 
     climate science for use in classrooms nationwide.
       Distribute educational materials directly to schools and 
     through grassroots organizations of climate science partners 
     (companies, organizations that participate in this effort).


           National Direct Outreach Program Budget--$300,000

       IV. Funding/Fund Allocation: Develop and implement program 
     to obtain funding, and to allocate funds to ensure that the 
     program is carried out effectively.
       Tactics: This strategy will be implemented as soon as we 
     have the go-ahead to proceed.
       Potential funding sources were identified as American 
     Petroleum Institute (API) and its members; Business Round 
     Table (BRT) and its members, Edison Electric Institute (EEI) 
     and its members; Independent Petroleum Association of America 
     (IPAA) and its members; and the National Mining Association 
     (NMA) and its members.
       Potential fund allocators were identified as the American 
     Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Committee For A 
     Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), Competitive Enterprise 
     Institute, Frontiers of Freedom and The Marshall Institute.

   Total Funds Required to Implement Program Through November 1998--
  $2,000,000 (A significant portion of funding for the GCSDC will be 
                    deferred until 1999 and beyond)


                              Measurements

       Various metrics will be used to track progress. These 
     measurements will have to be determined in fleshing out the 
     action plan and may include:
       Baseline public/government official opinion surveys and 
     periodic follow-up surveys on the percentage of Americans and 
     government officials who recognize significant uncertainties 
     in climate science.
       Tracking the percent of media articles that raise questions 
     about climate science.
       Number of Members of Congress exposed to our materials on 
     climate science.
       Number of communications on climate science received by 
     Members of Congress from their constituents.
       Number of radio talk show appearances by scientists 
     questioning the ``prevailing wisdom'' on climate science.
       Number of school teachers/students reached with our 
     information on climate science.
       Number of science writers briefed and who report upon 
     climate science uncertainties.
       Total audience exposed to newspaper, radio, television 
     coverage of science uncertainties.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). The Senator from Louisiana.


             Unanimous Consent Request--Amendment No. 1186

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I have an amendment to the Iran sanctions 
bill which is pending. This is amendment No. 1186. I come to the floor 
to attempt to modify my own amendment simply by taking out section 2 of 
the amendment. I have given this proposed modification of my own 
amendment to all of the managers of the bill, majority and minority. 
They have had it for several hours, and I have discussed it with the 
managers. All I am seeking is to be able to modify the language of my 
own amendment, which is already pending. With that in mind, I ask 
unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes consideration of H.R. 
1191, the Iran sanctions bill, that I be allowed to modify my amendment 
No. 1186 with the changes that are at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CARDIN. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, as Senator Vitter has pointed out, right 
now we are on the motion to proceed to the trade bill. We are not on 
the Iran sanctions bill. There are continuing discussions taking place 
on the Iran sanctions bill between Senator Corker and me in an effort 
to try to get as many of the amendments that we have been working on 
cleared as possible. Senator Vitter's request could very well at this 
point interfere with the maximum number of amendments being considered, 
and for that reason I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, my request is not going to interfere with 
anything. That is a bunch of bull. My request is that I be allowed to 
modify the language of my own amendment which is pending, and it is not 
going to interfere with any other amendment.
  Let's be upfront about what is going on here. It is not an open 
amendment process. We have been talking about this bill for 2 weeks. We 
have had two votes on amendments. They are not even talking about 
amendment votes. What Senator Cardin is describing is negotiating the 
language and changing the language of certain amendments so it is 
agreeable to everyone, including him. That is not an open amendment 
process. Those are not votes. That is not voting up or down. That is 
not giving everyone their say and their ability to have votes. That is 
blocking the gate, blocking the door, and returning to the practices of 
the Harry Reid

[[Page S2670]]

Senate and then holding everybody hostage and demanding the language 
you want, Senator Cardin wants, everybody wants, in order for that 
amendment to even possibly be considered. That is as far from an open 
amendment process as you can get.

  If that is what they are discussing, they might as well stop now 
because I will object. I want a vote on my amendment. I want votes on 
other significant amendments. If this is just a game to come to some 
unanimous consent agreement, some managers' package which they bless, 
they can stop those discussions right now because I will object.
  Again, Mr. President, I think it is reasonable that a Senator get to 
modify his own amendment. I think that is a pretty minimal request. I 
will repeat it.
  I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes consideration of 
H.R. 1191, that I be allowed to modify amendment No. 1186 with the 
changes that are at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me 
point out that but for the fact that Senator Cotton filed an 
amendment--he had every right to do so, and I am not saying he did 
not--without Senator Corker or the leadership or my knowing that he was 
going to go through that process, Senator Vitter could have modified 
his amendment. He is being blocked and needs consent because of actions 
taken by a Republican Senator.
  Prior to that action being taken, Senator Corker and I, working 
with--I think there were somewhere around 60 amendments filed by 
Republicans and none by Democrats. This is a bill which passed the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee 19 to 0, one which incorporated many 
amendments of the members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 
including the Presiding Officer, who is working with us on this. We 
worked those out. We are in the process of presenting an additional 
four amendments for floor action.
  When that action was taken by a Senator--who had every right to do it 
because he was trying to get his amendment considered on the floor--in 
effect, it blocked other amendments from being considered on the floor. 
When you have one party filing all of the amendments, it is necessary 
to have an orderly process for these considerations. We were in the 
process of doing that, and that was blocked.
  Senator Corker and I regret that we did not have a chance to bring 
more amendments in an orderly way for consideration on the floor. But 
the request made by Senator Vitter is to try to get his amendment in a 
different position than other amendments, and for that reason, I 
object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, this is not being blocked by Senator 
Cotton. Everybody knows that. Senator Cotton made it clear that he 
would happily agree to get amendments up for a vote. This has been a 
determined, choreographed effort to close the door during an open 
amendment process and to demand leverage so that every amendment has to 
be worked out. Do you know what ``worked out'' means? That means they 
get a veto and we don't get a vote. That is unreasonable, and that is 
the exact opposite of an open amendment process.
  I am not being blocked by Senator Cotton. I know that. Everybody 
knows that. We are being blocked by the managers of this bill. I think 
it is highly regrettable.
  As I said, if the end game here is to work out amendments to Senator 
Cardin's or anyone else's satisfaction, and they get a veto, they can 
stop their work on that right now because I am objecting, and I will 
object. I want a vote.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I will point out in response to Senator 
Vitter that we had two record votes on the floor on this bill, and both 
were amendments that were overwhelmingly rejected. They were not 
amendments I wanted on the bill. I opposed both of those amendments and 
Senator Corker opposed both of those amendments.
  When the amendment was offered by Senator Cotton, we were in the 
process of scheduling another vote on the floor of an amendment that I 
equally opposed. I have indicated that I will oppose several of the 
other amendments Members have tried to make pending, but I did not 
object to votes on those amendments.
  I just want to respond to Senator Vitter. Senator Corker and I did 
not attempt to block votes on amendments that we don't agree with. We 
were seeking an orderly way to proceed because, quite frankly, this 
bill is critically important to our country.
  Let's not lose sight of what we are trying to achieve, and that is to 
block Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. The best way for us to do 
that is for this body and the House and the President to speak with a 
united voice, to give us the strongest possible position in 
negotiations, and for Congress to carry out its responsibility to 
review this agreement because it was Congress that imposed the 
sanctions that brought Iran to the negotiating table. We have a 
responsibility--in an orderly way--to review that agreement.
  The legislation we brought forward--and the Presiding Officer was 
very helpful in bringing it forward--allows us, in an orderly way, to 
consider that agreement, if one is reached, so that we can have open 
hearings in a deliberative way to determine how Congress should act, 
and that is what this bill does.
  I regret that my friend from Louisiana--and he is my friend--feels 
that any amendment he wants to offer--and there are 60-some other 
amendments to be offered--that he should be able to bring them up at 
any time he wants. Quite frankly, this bill is too important for us to 
use anything but an orderly way to consider amendments. That is what 
this bill does for the consideration of a potential agreement.
  I thank Senator Corker for his leadership, and the two of us will 
work together to make sure we complete this bill in an orderly way.
  With that, 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.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________