[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 69 (Thursday, May 7, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2699-S2702]
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 H.R. 1314.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the motion.
The 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.
Cloture Motion
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The cloture motion having been
presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the
motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to H.R. 1314, an act to amend the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 to provide for the right to an administrative
appeal relating to adverse determinations of tax-exempt
status of certain organizations.
Mitch McConnell, Bob Corker, Joni Ernst, Bill Cassidy,
John Cornyn, Thad Cochran, Shelley Moore Capito, Deb
Fischer, John McCain, James Lankford, Patrick J.
Toomey, Roy Blunt, Ron Johnson, Pat Roberts, David
Perdue, David Vitter, Ben Sasse.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Welcoming the Guest Chaplain
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am honored to be here today to welcome His
[[Page S2700]]
Holiness Aram I, Catholicos of the Great House of Cilicia.
Since 1995, His Holiness has served as the leader of Armenian
communities across the globe, including many members of the Armenian
diaspora in my State of Rhode Island.
His Holiness will be visiting Sts. Vartanantz Armenian Apostolic
Church in Providence on May 30, and members of the Armenian community
in Rhode Island look forward to welcoming him.
He is an accomplished scholar, a devoted humanitarian, and a strong
spiritual shepherd.
Recently, we marked the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide,
which claimed the lives of nearly one and a half million Armenians,
exiled over a half a million survivors, and deeply impacted all
Armenians throughout the world.
On this centennial, we reflect on this exceptionally grave tragedy,
and looking to the future, continue to work to promote both peace and
human rights worldwide.
And there is no one better to help us do so.
It is indeed an honor to welcome His Holiness, to hear his words of
prayer and reflection, and to go forward knowing that he is a powerful
force for tolerance and decency. I thank him for being here today and
for sharing his words of wisdom with the Senate and the Nation.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it is good to see the Senate----
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could ask the distinguished majority
leader if he would be willing to go into a quorum call for a brief
conversation.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act and Bipartisan Congressional Trade
Priorities and Accountability Act
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it is good to see that the Senate will
soon be passing another important piece of bipartisan legislation.
The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act offers the best chance for our
constituents, through the Congress they elect, to weigh in on the White
House's negotiations with Iran. And make no mistake--they need to have
that opportunity.
The American people were led to believe these negotiations would be
about ending Iran's nuclear program and--and--its enrichment
capabilities. But the current interim agreement makes one thing very
clear: These talks have devolved into something else altogether.
Instead of ending Iran's nuclear program, the interim agreement would
actually bestow international blessing for Iran to continue it. Rather
than meaningfully roll back Tehran's enrichment capability and
dismantle its nuclear infrastructure, the interim agreement would
actually permit Iran to become a nuclear threshold state poised right
at the edge of obtaining a nuclear weapon.
Iran would love nothing more than for the international community to
recognize its threshold program. The Iranian regime would also love to
be rid of the crippling sanctions that forced it to the table in the
first place. Iran would, of course, divert those new funds to support
the Assad regime, finance terrorist proxies such as Hezbollah,
modernize its conventional capabilities, and further support the
Houthis in Yemen. This would only reaffirm the fears of moderate Sunni
allies that America is withdrawing--withdrawing--in the face of Iran's
determined effort to expand its sphere of influence.
For all this, what would the United States gain from such an
agreement from Iran? We would have given up our best leverage over the
regime. And for what? That is a very good question--a very good
question.
If a final agreement is reached that looks much like the interim
agreement we have seen, it is not hard to perceive the possibilities of
negative consequences. But let me be clear. A bad agreement seems far
more likely to eventually lead to the kind of military conflict
everyone wants to avoid than no agreement at all. President Obama would
also be leaving the task of dealing with violations of an agreement to
his successor.
I say all this to underline the need for the bipartisan Iran Nuclear
Agreement Review Act which is before us today.
If we didn't face the threats of filibusters or the blocking of
amendments or the specter of Presidential vetoes, this bill would be a
heck of a lot stronger, I assure you. But the truth is, we face all
those things. We do. That is the frustrating reality. The response to
this should not be to give the American people no say at all on a deal
with Iran; the response should be to overcome these challenges in a way
that will give Congress and the American people the best possible
chance to review any possible deal and affect its outcome.
So I would urge Members of both of our parties here in the Senate to
join me in supporting this bill. And make no mistake--that will not be
the end of the story, either. This Congress is determined to pursue
other avenues to address Iran's aggressive campaign of expansion and
intimidation in the months to come.
On the topic of aggressive campaigns in pursuit of expansion and
intimidation, there are several other countries around the world that
come to mind--China, for one. China is determined to dominate its
neighbors. China wants to diminish American influence in the Pacific.
And China wants to substitute American-style rules of global economic
fair play for Chinese-style rules of monopolistic cartels and
mercantilism. That is not an outcome any American should be willing to
accept.
We are a Pacific nation. We have important allies in the region--
nations such as Japan, Australia, South Korea, and New Zealand--that
are today just as much of a modern, democratic, and market-oriented
West as we are.
The 21st century also promises to be an Asia-Pacific century. If we
care about preserving and extending American leadership globally, then
we cannot cede the most dynamic region in the world to China. One way
to preserve our leadership would be to invest in the weapons systems
and platforms that would fulfill the Obama administration's would-be
pivot to Asia. Another important way would be to demonstrate our
economic leadership. That is just one more reason why passing the
Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act is so
important.
The United States is currently negotiating an agreement with a whole
host of Pacific nations--not just Japan and Australia but also
countries such as Canada and Chile--that would cement and enhance our
role in the world's fastest growing region. The so-called Trans-Pacific
Partnership would lower unfair trade barriers to American-made goods
and American produce sold in the Pacific. That would represent a huge
win for American workers and American farmers, to say nothing of the
far-reaching geopolitical implications for our country. But our trade
negotiators cannot bring this Pacific agreement back to Congress for
careful review and deliberation unless Congress assures our trading
partners that the agreement is going to get a fair up-or-down vote.
That is just what the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and
Accountability Act would do.
This bipartisan bill would also force America's trade negotiators to
meet congressional objectives and consult with Congress regularly
throughout the process. It would ensure that an agreement such as the
Trans-Pacific Partnership could not be enacted without explicit
congressional approval.
It is a commonsense bill that was supported by a large number of
Republicans and Democrats in committee, passing by a vote of 20 to 6.
So there is no reason we shouldn't turn to this bill and then pass it.
The other countries in the region have made clear that they will have
regional trade agreements with or without us, whether we participate or
not. And if we walk away, China will step right in, no question about
that.
So we will soon turn to the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities
and Accountability Act, and when we do, we will have a choice to make:
[[Page S2701]]
Would we rather seen Chinese workers and Chinese farmers or American
workers and American farmers reap the economic benefits of selling more
to this dynamic region?
Tribute to Don Ritchie
Mr. President, on one final matter, I would like to bid a fond
farewell to one of the smartest guys around here, Don Ritchie, who will
be leaving us later this month. He has been the Senate's Historian
since 2009. Don is only the second one we have ever had. His immediate
and only predecessor, Richard Baker, hired him when the Senate
Historical Office came into being in the mid-1970s. There were a lot of
applicants to be Baker's No. 2 back then, but Don quickly rose to the
top of the heap. Baker said he received ``several extremely heartfelt
letters'' of recommendation for Don that were just literally ``over the
top.'' One, he said, was from ``a leading diplomatic historian . . .
who said that in his whole 30-odd years of teaching he had never
encountered a more perceptive or diligent . . . [or] brighter student
than Don.''
``No more superlatives,'' he said, ``could have been used.''
Apparently, no more superlatives were needed because Don Ritchie got
the job, and, so it is clear, he hasn't disappointed, even though he
did have to wait three decades for the big promotion.
Don came into the Senate with all the hype of New Coke, but his
performance and staying power have had more of a Coke Classic feel. Don
likes to say he has ``a front-row seat to the best show in town.''
Don is the only one we turn to when we want to learn more about where
the Senate has been so we can chart a better course for where it is
going. He has been a great resource for my staff and me over the years.
Don's office is there as a resource for the American public, too. He is
the guy you see on TV explaining the historical significance of events
such as swearing-in ceremonies and inaugurations.
I don't think any of us would want to face him on ``Jeopardy.'' His
depth of knowledge really is something to behold. I am sure he has
gained a lot of that knowledge from the part of his job he loves the
most, which is conducting the Senate Historical Office's Oral History
Project. He has interviewed just about everyone you could imagine, from
Senators, to clerks, to police officers. He even got to interview a man
who once worked as a congressional page--listen to this--during the
Presidency of William Howard Taft. That page provided ``some very good
information,'' Don said, even if he kept ``falling asleep several times
during the interview.''
Here is how Roll Call once described Don Ritchie: the Senate's
``memory keeper.''
It is fitting, then, that the Senate voted recently to designate Don
Ritchie as Historian emeritus. It is not as though he plans to slow
down in retirement, anyway. ``Historians never retire,'' Don says,
``they just have more time to research.''
Along with research, Don also plans to spend more time with his three
beloved grandchildren and to do some traveling with his wife Anne. The
Senate wishes him the very best in retirement and sends its heartfelt
congratulations to a man who has been an institution around here for
four decades--four decades.
The Senate would also like to offer its congratulations to Betty
Koed, who has just been announced by the Secretary of the Senate as our
next Senate Historian. We also wish Kate Scott well in her promotion to
Associate Historian.
Recognition of the Minority Leader
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader is
recognized.
Tribute to Don Ritchie
Mr. REID. Mr. President, three decades ago, when Senator Robert Byrd
began drafting a series of lectures on the history of the United States
Senate, to whom did he go for help? Don Ritchie. Ten years ago, when
Dan Brown, the popular author of the best-selling ``DaVinci Code,''
wanted information about the Capitol for his new novel, to whom did he
go? Don Ritchie. Even now, when famed historian and biographer Robert
Caro needs facts for his five-volume work on Lyndon Johnson, he goes to
Don Ritchie. Well, for 39 years, any person needing valuable insight
into the United States Senate and its history has known where to go--
the Senate Historian, Don Ritchie. And Don has obliged, sharing his
wealth of knowledge with anyone who asked--Senators, staff, authors,
historians, and visitors.
But after four decades of service, Don will officially retire from
the Senate Historical Office at the end of this month.
As the senior Senator from Kentucky stated, from his first day here
in the Senate, Don Ritchie made this institution a better place. The
first-ever Senate Historian, Don's predecessor, Richard Baker, once
said, ``March 8, 1976--that's a date, like my wedding anniversary, that
I remember.'' Indeed, that was the day Don Ritchie was hired as an
Associate Historian in the newly formed Senate Historical Office.
Don Ritchie, a former marine, was fresh out of graduate school at the
University of Maryland, having received his Ph.D. in history just a
year earlier. He was getting his start in the profession, driving all
over the DC area, teaching at George Mason, Northern Virginia Community
College, and University College. He was also working part time with the
American Historical Association. When offered a job in the Senate
Historical Office, he jumped at the chance. The rest is, as they say,
history.
Don has served honorably as Senate Historian. Prior to that, he
worked as Associate Senate Historian for 33 years. Over the combined 40
years of service, Don has authored 12 books, 3 textbooks, and a fourth
is now on the way. He has lectured on Senate history at just about
every major historical society in America. He has become a fixture on
C-SPAN. But his crowning achievement would be his development of the
Senate Oral History Project. Don has recorded countless interviews with
people who worked in the Senate, from Parliamentarians, to clerks, to
pages. Future generations of historians will better understand the
Senate of the 20th and 21st centuries because of Don Ritchie's Oral
History Project. That is an accomplishment which will stand forever.
On a more personal note, I have so appreciated Don's insight and
expertise. Every week, I begin my caucus by calling on the Senate
Historian, and he talks to us about so many fascinating things, things
we do not ordinarily know about, but they are all interesting, whether
it is Prohibition, whether it is events that took place in the first or
second Roosevelt administration--it does not matter what it is. These
are times I look forward to, and, quite frankly, it shuts up my caucus.
When he shows up, they are suddenly attentive. I would like to think
they are not more attentive to him than to me, but I would think that
is the case. As I said, our lunches can be fairly boisterous, and they
stop all conversation to listen to Don Ritchie. That is because so
often Senators walk away from his lectures with a better understanding
and appreciation of the Senate.
He has been invaluable to me and every other Senate Democrat. As we
heard from the majority leader, he also has been very good for the
Republicans.
As he prepares for a new chapter in his life, I wish him the very
best. It is good news that he and his wife Anne will be jumping into
retirement together. As we have heard, for historians, retirement only
means more time to pore through books and find out what someone else
missed and try to take another run at writing something that is
interesting.
After a successful career as an archivist and historian, his wife
Anne is retiring from the National Gallery of Art. Together, Anne and
Don will have plenty of time to spend with their two daughters,
Jennifer and Andrea, and their three grandchildren, Cami, Jack, and
Boone.
Even in retirement, Don will continue reading and researching about
this institution he and I love so dearly--the Senate. After all, as Don
himself points out, ``Historians don't retire''--as Senator McConnell
said--``they just get more time to research.''
Thank you, Don Ritchie, for your four decades of service to the
Senate and your country. You really will be missed.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rounds). The clerk will call the roll.
[[Page S2702]]
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. REID. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, may I ask the minority leader if it would
be possible to speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is in a quorum call.
Mr. REID. 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. REID. Through the Chair, I ask my friend from Indiana how long
the Senator wishes to speak as in morning business.
Mr. COATS. No more than 10 minutes.
Mr. REID. I do not care. I would just like to know. That is fine.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Indiana be recognized
for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COATS. I thank the minority leader for this opportunity.
Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act
Mr. President, recently on this floor, I spoke about the need to pass
the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act with robust, veto-proof,
bipartisan majorities. That is asking a lot, but I did so because this
is the only chance we have to prevent President Obama from having a
free and totally independent hand to conclude a flawed agreement with
the Government of Iran. We cannot allow that to happen.
This Congress has pleaded for and worked for and will achieve the
opportunity to play a major role in this decision, which is a decision
of historic consequence.
Let me repeat what I just said. This bill is the only chance we have
now to prevent President Obama from having a completely free hand, with
no opportunity to address it in a bipartisan way, to achieve success in
rejecting a bad agreement.
Passage of the bill before us will result in either forcing critical
and absolutely necessary improvements in the deal now being cooked with
our Secretary of State and the President and his people or defeating a
bad deal if a bad deal is presented to us.
The stakes in this game are beyond calculation. I personally regard
this as the most consequential issue of my entire public career. Our
failure to have an opportunity to have this Congress--the
representatives of the American people--bring before the American
people what is in this deal and the consequences if this deal is not a
good deal that will prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons
capability--this is absolutely essential. The only chance we have to
exercise our constitutional right, which I believe, but our right to
address something of this consequence is to pass the Corker-Cardin
bill.
It is not the perfect bill. It is not the bill that I think perhaps
even Senator Corker would have preferred. But it is where we are. The
only way we could get here and get bipartisan support for this was to
do this.
This gives us the opportunity to do the following: A Congressional
review period will be provided before implementation. An opportunity
for Congress to vote on the agreement will be provided under Corker-
Cardin.
A limitation on the President's use of waivers to suspend sanctions
that have been put in place by this body will be taken away. A
requirement that Congress receive the final deal will be lost. The
requirement that the President certify that Iran is complying will be
taken away. A mechanism for Congress to rapidly reimpose sanctions in
the event of violations will be lost. Reporting on Iran support for
terrorism, ballistic missile development, and human rights violations
will be lost. All of this is lost if we do not stand together and
insist on the right to engage in this. We must pass this or the defeat
will be of historical consequence.
This bill is the only chance, as I said, that Congress has to weigh
in on a potential agreement. The stakes are too high. The consequence
is too great to engage in changes. Many well-intended statements have
been made by my colleagues, and I endorse every word of what has been
said. Amendments have been offered that, had they not been offered by
someone else, in a different fashion, I would have wanted to offer. We
can still offer those going forward.
But in order to achieve the bipartisan support necessary to deny the
President the opportunity to have a free hand in cutting any deal he
wants and the concessions already given--this should raise alarms in
each of us in terms of support for this bill which is before us.
What are the stakes? What are the consequences? Former Secretaries
Kissinger and Shultz and other foreign policy experts did a recent Wall
Street Journal piece and said this:
If the Middle East is ``proliferated'' and becomes host to
a plethora of nuclear-threshold states, several in mortal
rivalry with each other, on what concept of nuclear
deterrence or strategic stability will international security
be based?
They continue:
It is in America's strategic interest to prevent the
outbreak of a nuclear war and its catastrophic consequences.
Nuclear arms must not be permitted to turn into conventional
weapons. The passions of the region allied with weapons of
mass destruction may impel deepening American involvement.
In closing, I want to address statements offered by some who argue
that passing this bill is unnecessary because in 2017 we will have a
new President in the White House and that President will be a
Republican. Well, I hope that is so, but there is obviously no
guarantee of that. But in the meantime--in the meantime--Iran will
achieve a free hand to go forward with newly acquired wealth, the will
to achieve and the technical capability to achieve nuclear weapons
capability.
Let me conclude by supporting a statement that was made by Max Boot,
a respected foreign policy analyst:
Skeptics about the looming nuclear accord with Iran may be
taking comfort from the promises of Republican presidential
candidates to tear up the treaty as soon as they reach the
Oval Office. They shouldn't be. Even assuming a Republican
wins the White House next year--
Which, as we know, is not a certainty. Hopefully, from our
standpoint, we hope that is the case--
pulling out of the agreement won't necessarily fix its
defects. In fact, it could make the situation even worse.
The U.S. would then get the worst of both worlds: Iran
already would have been enriched by hundreds of billions of
dollars of sanctions relief--and it would be well on its way
to fielding nuclear weapons with de facto permission from the
international community. To avoid this nightmare scenario,
the best play from America's standpoint could well be to keep
the accord in place to at least delay Iran's decision to
weaponize.
In short, don't expect salvation in 2017. If the accord is
signed its consequences will be irrevocable. Whatever a
future president does or does not do, Iran's hard-line regime
will be immeasurably strengthened by the agreement. That
makes it all the more imperative to stop a bad agreement
now--not two years from now.
I urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to vote to give
Congress--this Congress--the right and the opportunity to scrutinize
every single word of what is being negotiated with the Iranians, to
inform the American people, and then achieve what I would hope would be
an overwhelming rejection of the agreement if it does not achieve the
goal of denying Iran its nuclear weapons capability. This is a very
important vote before us. I think we need to look at what the end goal
is and how we can best get there under the circumstances which we now
are in. We would all like to be in a different position. But to achieve
and get to this particular point, we are looking at this particular
bill to give us a say--a meaningful say--and an opportunity to reject a
bad agreement which at this particular point in time, in my view, does
not achieve what we need to achieve and should be thoroughly
scrutinized by us and the American people.
I yield the floor.
Reservation Of Leader Time
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the leadership time
is reserved.
____________________