[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 133 (Wednesday, September 16, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6669-S6676]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      HIRE MORE HEROES ACT OF 2015

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.J. Res. 61, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 61) amending the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt employees with health coverage 
     under TRICARE or the Veterans Administration

[[Page S6670]]

     from being taken into account for purposes of determining the 
     employers to which the employer mandate applies under the 
     Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

  Pending:

       McConnell amendment No. 2640, of a perfecting nature.
       McConnell amendment No. 2656 (to amendment No. 2640), to 
     prohibit the President from waiving, suspending, reducing, 
     providing relief from, or otherwise limiting the application 
     of sanctions pursuant to an agreement related to the nuclear 
     program of Iran.
       McConnell amendment No. 2657 (to amendment No. 2656), to 
     change the enactment date.
       McConnell amendment No. 2658 (to the language proposed to 
     be stricken by amendment No. 2640), to change the enactment 
     date.
       McConnell amendment No. 2659 (to amendment No. 2658), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       McConnell motion to commit the joint resolution to the 
     Committee on Foreign Relations, with instructions, McConnell 
     amendment No. 2660, to prohibit the President from waiving, 
     suspending, reducing, providing relief from, or otherwise 
     limiting the application of sanctions pursuant to an 
     agreement related to the nuclear program of Iran.
       McConnell amendment No. 2661 (to (the instructions) 
     amendment No. 2660), of a perfecting nature.
       McConnell amendment No. 2662 (to amendment No. 2661), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 12:30 
p.m. will be equally divided between the two leaders or their 
designees.
  The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the agreement 
before us. I find in this line of work that repetition is sometimes 
useful. I know my friend from Illinois mentioned how we ought to be 
focused on something else, but I think all of us understand that there 
is an assumed deadline on this topic, which is set for tomorrow.
  I say to my friends on both sides of the aisle that the likelihood is 
that after tomorrow we will move on to the other types of business that 
we need to deal with. But this is not, as my friend from Missouri 
mentioned, an issue of political points. The issue with Iran is one of 
the most significant, if not the most significant, foreign policy issue 
that we will likely deal with while we are here in the Senate. I think 
it is important, while this is before us, to spend as much time as 
possible talking about this issue, focusing on this issue, debating 
this issue, and making sure that everyone understands what the contents 
of this Iranian deal are.
  I will walk through it, if I could for a few moments, and lay out why 
we are where we are today.
  I know the Presiding Officer is new here and brings a wealth of 
national security experience from previous posts that he had with the 
State Department prior to serving here. But what brought us here really 
was this body acting almost in a unanimous way to put sanctions in 
place four times since 2010. We worked with the House of 
Representatives to put sanctions in place because we knew that Iran was 
doing things, such as nuclear development, that were going to be 
damaging to the world. So we sanctioned and punished them. We put 
crippling sanctions on their economy, and we did that collectively.
  This is something that very few people on either side of the aisle 
objected to. We acted in unison. It was the crippling sanctions that we 
put together that really brought Iran to the table. Let's face it. 
Their economy and standard of living were causing people in Iran to 
become restless, and so finally Iran said: OK, it is time to talk.
  When these talks began, our President stated that what we would do in 
these talks was to end Iran's nuclear program. And just for what it is 
worth, I think people on both sides of the aisle celebrated that goal--
ending Iran's nuclear program.
  I might remind people who may be just tuning into this that Iran has 
19,000 centrifuges right now, and 10,000 of those are operating. They 
built underground bunkers at a place called Fordow. It is hard to get 
to it. It is hard to take those out with munitions, if you will. They 
built a plutonium facility called Arak.
  By the way, much of this was done in a clandestine way. All of it was 
done violating U.N. Security Council resolutions.
  I will say everyone here understands fully that Iran has zero 
practical need for any of this. Iran has one nuclear facility. Everyone 
knows that it would be so much cheaper for them to just purchase 
enriched uranium to fuel that one facility. But they say: No, we want 
to be leaders in medical isotopes. For what it is worth, if Iran really 
wanted to develop the expertise around medical isotopes, they would 
have 500 centrifuges. So we all know that the purpose of this program 
has not been for civilian purposes. It has been to cause them to be a 
threshold nuclear country. We know that. Everyone knows that. They know 
that, we know that, and every country involved in the discussions with 
Iran knows that.
  First of all, we know what their goals are. So when the President 
says that in these negotiations what we are going to do is end Iran's 
nuclear program, I think most people in this body would celebrate that. 
So he began the discussions, and as he started moving along, it became 
very apparent to those of us paying attention that what he planned to 
do was to enter into what is called an executive agreement.
  Now, for people who don't do what we do on a daily basis, there are 
three ways that the President can enter into an international 
agreement. One way is through a treaty that requires a two-thirds 
approval by this body. A treaty is interesting because it binds future 
Presidents, and it binds future Congresses. But the President decided 
that was not the route he was going to take.
  There is a second route he could have taken, and that is called a 
congressional-executive Agreement. While it is not as strong as a 
treaty, it does create a law that is binding on future Presidents and 
future Congresses. The President decided he was not going to go that 
route.
  The President decided that he was going to do this unilaterally, 
through what is called an Executive agreement. As we know, an Executive 
agreement is something the President can do, if he chooses, on his own. 
The problem with it is that it doesn't survive his Presidency. Another 
President can do something very different.
  In this case, however, as everybody has analyzed this deal, everyone 
understands that we lose all of our leverage over the next 9 months and 
give it away. When people in this body began to realize that we brought 
Iran to the table--or at least played a heavy role in bringing them to 
the table--and that the President was going to use what is called a 
national security waiver to waive away all the congressional sanctions 
so that he could enter into this Executive agreement without ever 
talking to us, we achieved something else that was very important. As a 
matter of fact, this is the first time this has happened since I have 
been in the Senate, and there are a lot of misunderstandings about it. 
For the first time in Congress since I have been in the Senate--on a 
strongly bipartisan basis--we took power back from the President. We 
said: Mr. President, we know that you can enter into Executive 
agreements, but in this particular case, since we put the sanctions in 
place that brought them to the table--by the way, over your 
objections--we want a chance to go through this agreement in detail, 
and we want the right to either approve or disapprove. But you have to 
present us with this, and it has to sit before us for 60 days, which it 
will have done as of tomorrow, and we want the right to weigh in as to 
whether we believe the substance of this deal is good for our Nation.
  We had 98 Senators in this body vote for this. One of the Senators 
who was absent supported it, and that makes it 99. It is pretty 
remarkable that on a bipartisan basis 99 Senators said: No, we want 
this to lie before us because we believe this is one of the biggest 
foreign policy issues we are going to deal with, we believe that this 
is a vote of conscience, and we believe that every Senator and every 
House Member--which is unusual with these kind of agreements--should 
weigh in and be able to voice their opinion.
  So we have gone through the deal, and what is fascinating about it 
is--I hate to be pejorative, but we had almost unanimity on putting 
sanctions in place to bring them to the table. We had almost unanimity 
on the fact that we should be able to weigh in. It is my strong belief 
that in lieu of the President achieving the deal that he did or the 
goals that he stated to end Iran's nuclear program, obviously, we have 
done anything but that.
  So what has happened is we have totally squandered an opportunity to

[[Page S6671]]

unite this Nation, and others, around ending their program. Instead, 
our Nation, with other ``great nations'' have agreed to allow Iran not 
only to not end their program but to industrialize it. We have agreed 
to let them develop intercontinental ballistic missiles so they can 
deliver a nuclear weapon. We agreed to let them do research and 
development.
  Right now they are using the old IR-1 centrifuges, which are like 
antiques, but we are going to allow them to do research and development 
on the IR-2s, IR-4s, IR-6s, and IR-8s, which we know are multiple times 
faster. We have lifted the conventional weapons embargo and the 
ballistic weapons embargo, for some reason, just throwing it in for 
good measure. We are allowing them, for the first time, to begin 
testing.

  So what has happened is now in this body, there is some tepid 
support--I see my friend from Michigan, I have other friends, and I 
haven't heard anybody come out and say this is a great agreement. What 
they are saying--not necessarily the Senator from Michigan but others--
is, well, we are where we are. We are where we are.
  This is not a very good agreement. It is flawed. Even though 
Congress, 200 times, has sent international agreements back to the 
executive branch--200 times--in this case: We are where we are. And our 
friends in Russia--by the way, has anybody seen what our friends in 
Russia are doing in Syria right now? Yes, they are really good friends. 
Has anybody seen what China is doing right now in the South China Sea? 
They are building their third airstrip, claiming territory that for 
thousands of years has belonged to other countries from the standpoint 
of territorial waters. People are saying--our friends and allies--what 
will we do about our friends and allies?
  So here is where we are. I could go on and on. I just cannot believe 
that our great Nation, with ``our friends'' from Great Britain, 
Germany, and France and ``our friends'' from China and Russia, 
squandered--squandered--an opportunity, had a rogue nation with a boot 
on its neck--a boot on its neck--we squandered the opportunity. Now, 
with our approval, they can industrialize their program. As a matter of 
fact, they don't have to violate the terms of this deal. They can just 
honor the terms of this deal. Their economy will flourish. By the way, 
it is hard for me to believe this, but I think most people understand 
that we are giving them back $100 billion. We are going to do that over 
the next 9 months. We are lifting the major sanctions that have 
crippled them. We are doing that without us even asking them to do 
much. From that point on, by the way, the leverage shifts from us to 
them.
  We are very concerned about what they are doing in Syria. By the way, 
they have doubled down on that since the agreement was reached with the 
nuclear file. We are very concerned about what they are doing with 
Hezbollah in Lebanon. We are very concerned about what they are doing 
with Hamas, allowing rockets to be fired into Israel. We are very 
concerned about what they are doing in Lebanon with the Houthis. We are 
very concerned about what they are doing in Bahrain with thousands of 
men and women in uniform trying to keep the strait open. We are very 
concerned about that, but in 9 months, if we express our concerns, what 
are they going to do? They are going to say: We have all of our money, 
you have lifted all the sanctions, and if you press back against us for 
terrorism or human rights or violations in this agreement that are 
minor, we are just going to start a nuclear program again. So it is 
kind of unbelievable that we have ended up in this place.
  What is happening on the floor now, just to explain to the American 
people, we have a process in the Senate which says that at the end of 
debate--by the way, we have had a lot of debate on this. We have had 12 
hearings in the Foreign Relations Committee alone. The Presiding 
Officer serves on the Committee on Armed Services and they have had 
hearings. The Intelligence Committee has had hearings. We have had 
hearings as a body. We have had personal meetings. As a matter of fact, 
I would say this body knows more about this international agreement 
than any international agreement in modern times. As a matter of fact, 
thanks to us pushing back against this administration, the American 
people know more about this agreement than any agreement in modern 
times. It is amazing. Thank goodness we passed the Iran Nuclear 
Agreement Review Act; otherwise, none of this would be known--none of 
this.
  So where we are today is we all said this was one of the biggest 
foreign policy issues to come before us; we want the American people to 
know where we stand on the substance of the deal. So for people tuning 
in, here is the way the Senate works.
  When a vote comes before us--and right now, since there is a strong 
bipartisan majority of people who oppose this deal--as a matter of 
fact, the two most knowledgeable Democrats on foreign policy issues, 
the ranking member and the former chairman and ranking member, who know 
more about foreign policy than any Democrat in this body--both oppose 
this deal. So on a strong bipartisan majority, we have a group of 
people who think we can do better. Just like the 200-plus times we have 
sent agreements back to say do better, we are saying we think we can do 
better.
  So here is what is happening. When a bill comes or a vote comes 
before the Senate, we have these rules, and there is a rule that says 
there is a cloture vote. What cloture means is that people say: OK. We 
have heard enough about this. We believe it is time to take a vote.
  I just heard the Senator from Illinois say we have been talking about 
this way too long. It is time to move beyond it. He left out a minor 
detail; that is, it takes 60 Members of the Senate to say we have heard 
enough about it. It is time to vote. But what is happening is that we 
have 42 Members of one party who are in the minority--42 Senators who 
are saying: No, we are not going to allow this to move to a final vote. 
We are not going to do it.
  We know it is not about debate. We know--as a matter of fact, the 
second highest officer on the Democratic side says we need to move on 
to other business. It is time to move on to other business, and what we 
need to do is invoke cloture and let's vote. But let me tell my 
colleagues what is really happening here. It has sort of taken on--I 
have said this several times--it has taken on kind of a Tammy Wynette 
kind of flavor: Let's stand by our man. Let's stand by our man. We 
don't want the President to have to deal with a resolution of 
disapproval; we want to protect him from that. We don't want to 
embarrass him, that there is a bipartisan--by the way, the smartest, 
most well-versed, deeply informed on policy Member on his side of the 
aisle is agreeing with the vast majority of the Senate--58 Senators--
saying this is not good for our Nation because this does not end the 
program. By the way, if this ended the program, do we know what would 
be happening? We would have 100 Senators saying: Let's vote to approve 
this. This is outstanding. The President achieved his stated goal. But 
since that isn't the case, what we want to do is send a resolution of 
disapproval to the President. But we have 42 Senators on the one hand 
saying let's move on and let's deal with funding government but on the 
other hand are not agreeing to a final vote.
  So we have one more chance. I just want to say this. We have a lot of 
partisanship that happens here. Let's face it, we do. I get it. It 
happens. I am going to have to say in this case, the majority leader 
has allowed me to work with my friends on the other side of the aisle. 
He has allowed me to move this through in an appropriate way. At every 
juncture--when my friends on the other side of the aisle felt as though 
something was occurring that was adding unnecessary temper or maybe 
something was getting out of line and we needed to alter our course of 
action--at every juncture, the majority leader said: Senator Corker, if 
you think this is the best way of moving ahead to keep the 
bipartisanship that I have had with Senator Cardin and Senator Menendez 
and so many others, have at it.
  I just want to remind people that as we entered this debate--as we 
know, there are all kinds of inflammatory amendments that could be 
added to this debate--the leader filled the tree. Now, for people out 
in the listening audience, fill the tree, what does that mean. What he 
did was he kept any inflammatory amendments from being offered. The 
only thing that is before

[[Page S6672]]

us--I know he has filed an amendment now. After two times, the minority 
will not let us move to a final vote. I know there is going to be one 
that is tough--I don't know if it is that tough or not--to vote on this 
Thursday, but the fact is that the purpose has been for us to move to a 
final vote. Forty-two Senators will not allow us to have that vote of 
conscience. I want to say again to those listening in, the process vote 
of any debate is not a vote of conscience. That is not a vote of 
conscience. The vote of conscience is, when we take the final vote, do 
we believe that this Iran deal--the President's Iran deal--is something 
that is good for our country, will create stability in the region, and 
certainly will keep them from getting a nuclear weapon. Fifty-eight of 
us don't think so. Actually, I have to believe, from listening to the 
comments of many of my friends when they talk about how flawed it is, I 
think there is actually a whole lot of concern, even though sometimes--
and I understand when you have a President of your own party, sometimes 
it is hard to go against the President. I get that. I understand the 
pressures that come to play when that happens.

  But where we are, I say to the American people and to my fellow 
Senators, is we want to move to a final vote, an up-or-down vote, 
which, by the way, by the rules of the Senate, is a majority vote. We 
want to move to that. We have 42 Senators who are keeping us from that. 
What I hope is going to happen over the course of the next 24 hours is 
that a couple Senators, a few, will say: Look, we did vote 98 to 1 to 
register our feelings about the substance of this most important 
agreement. We did. We really did do that. Maybe it is appropriate that 
we, on behalf of the American people, not get stuck on this procedural 
issue, this cloture vote. We have debated this plenty, so let's go 
ahead and move to a final vote. That is what I hope is going to happen.
  I am thankful, though--I do want to say one more time--I thank people 
on both sides of the aisle for having the gumption to buck the 
administration and to put in place four tranches of sanctions to get 
them to the table. I thank both sides of the aisle--by the way, led by 
Senators Menendez and Kirk, led by the two of them, one Democrat and 
one Republican--we did that together. I thank people on both sides of 
the aisle for putting us in the position to actually have the 
documents, to know what this deal is about, to have this debate, to be 
able to weigh in.
  I want to say one more time that had the President done what he said 
he would do--and that is negotiate to end the program--we would have 
100 people supporting it, but he didn't. We all know that. Everyone 
knows that is not what has happened. We have agreed to industrialize 
their program, let them do research and development, let them create 
delivery mechanisms to make sure they can send these nuclear warheads 
they are going to be on the verge of developing a long way across the 
oceans to places such as America and other places. I don't know why we 
did that, but we did.
  So now we just want a chance to vote yes or no. Do we believe this is 
an agreement that will stand the test of time? Is it something that is 
good for our country? Do we believe this is something that if Iran 
wishes to, will keep them from developing a nuclear weapon?
  I look forward to the comments of my friend from Michigan, and I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first of all, let me agree with the 
distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee that, in 
fact, we did come together on strong sanctions against Iran that has 
brought us to this situation on a bipartisan basis. We did come 
together on the process that would create legislatively a way for us to 
make a decision. That was done on a bipartisan basis. What I regret is, 
at this point, even though we are following through on the legislative 
process we adopted, it now has become so partisan. That is not good for 
America, it is not good for Israel, and it is not good for, frankly, 
the world to see this happen.
  So while agreeing on part of what the distinguished chairman said, I 
have to disagree on many things, although I am not going to take my 
time to go into them now. But certainly the process we are using is no 
different than any other major bill--health care reform, financial 
services reform--and it was set up in what we passed. So we can try to 
make it into some partisan issue now. The reality is we have all 
thoughtfully taken a position. We have voted. Everyone knows everyone's 
position. So now we are just in the process right now, unfortunately, I 
believe, of politics, which does not help us move forward for our 
country or for our allies.


                           Amendment No. 2656

  Mr. President, I wish to speak to an issue I am deeply concerned 
about, which is the next vote we are going to have on Thursday, and 
speak to a very important young man who is an American hero and who is 
caught in the politics of what is happening right now.
  Amir Hekmati from Flint, MI, is an American hero. He served his 
country as a marine between 2001 and 2005 in Iraq and Afghanistan. He 
served with valor. He served with honor. He was awarded the Combat 
Action Ribbon and the Good Conduct Medal. But this morning, Amir woke 
up in an Iranian prison. He has been in that prison for 4 years and 19 
days. During that time, Amir has been tortured. The prison is notorious 
for its deplorable conditions. While he has been there, his father, in 
Flint, MI, has been battling terminal brain cancer.

  The Iranian Government is playing politics with Amir Hekmati's life. 
Unfortunately, though, now, today, the Senate Republican leader is also 
playing politics with Amir's life. The imprisonment of this veteran, 
this American hero, is being used by the Senate majority leader in a 
transparent effort to score some cheap political points, in my 
judgment, and it is appalling. No American should ever be used in this 
way--none of us. This is a young man whose parents are desperately 
worried about his safety, who have been waking up every day for the 
last 1,479 days hoping this would be the day they would learn their son 
Amir would be freed. How does it show respect to Amir's mom and dad to 
use their son's plight and possibly even threaten the negotiations that 
are going on now in order to make a partisan political point and 
jeopardize his release?
  We have had a rigorous debate on the international Iran agreement, 
and I know from talking to colleagues and being in many meetings that 
those on our side have been very thoughtful and thorough--and certainly 
the chairman has as well--in coming to our positions in a highly 
charged, difficult, and very complicated situation. I spent many weeks 
in classified briefings, meetings with nuclear experts, meetings with 
the Ambassadors, and personally calling each of those involved in the 
negotiations in the P5+1 countries, meeting with constituents in 
Michigan who feel very passionately about this issue on both sides, and 
I have made my decision--the decision I believe is best for America, 
for Israel, and for our allies. I did not make my decision on the day 
the agreement was announced, before I had ever read it, or even before 
it was announced--regrettably, as many Republican colleagues in the 
House and Senate did.
  We have had a vote in the Senate. We have now had two votes on this 
issue. Today or tomorrow we will have a third vote, not because the 
majority leader is expecting a different result--we have all taken our 
positions--but because he wants to score political points and bring in 
as part of that vote four American hostages and what is happening to 
them. Those political points will be scored at the expense of Amir 
Hekmati from Flint, MI, who has served his country honorably.
  Mr. President, I have gotten to know the Hekmati family, and I know 
how much their son's freedom means to them. Any of us who have children 
can understand what they are going through. I have personally talked 
with the President and other officials at the highest levels of our 
government who are working tirelessly to secure Amir Hekmati's release 
and return him to his loving family, along with the other Americans 
held hostage.
  This is a diplomatic mission. It is a humanitarian mission. Yet the 
majority leader is on a political mission that is not going to help. He 
wants to interfere with and disrupt the international

[[Page S6673]]

nuclear agreement with Iran. I understand that. I understand his and 
others' position. But they are willing to use Amir and other American 
hostages in the process, and that is wrong. This political stunt by the 
majority leader does not help bring Amir home. It doesn't help bring 
the other three Americans home. It just adds more politics to the 
situation.
  What is very disturbing to me, after always having bipartisan 
support--one of the things I could always say to my constituents was 
that when it comes to the issues around Israel and the Middle East, we 
have always been together on a bipartisan basis--until now and what has 
happened over the last few months.
  Unfortunately, what is happening on this debate and the vote we will 
have tomorrow--bringing the American hostages into this debate on Iran 
is not the first time we are seeing partisan politics interjected into 
this debate. I still will never forget the 47 Republican Senators who 
wrote a letter to the Supreme Leader in Iran--our enemy, the 
Ayatollah--to tell him not to pay any attention to the President of the 
United States.
  I have to say that if it were reversed and if there were 47 
Democrats, everything would have halted in this Chamber. There would 
have been impeachment hearings. We would have been called traitors. It 
would have gone on and on. It is shocking to me. If this had happened--
when we were debating going into Iraq, if we had written a letter to 
Saddam Hussein saying ``Don't listen to the President of the United 
States'' or anybody else, for that matter, any other President, that 
would have been a national crisis and there would have been outrage. 
Yet, somehow, 47 Republican Senators can write to the Ayatollah in the 
middle of an international negotiation that was difficult at best, when 
we know that Iran is within 3 months of having a nuclear weapon right 
now, by the way, that we should all be concerned about. I know we are, 
except some of us act as if we can go back to renegotiate something, 
which will take years, when they are going to have enough materials 
within 3 months.
  In the middle of all that, almost half of this Chamber writes to the 
people who are funding terrorism and who are our opponents and enemies 
in terms of the Ayatollah, saying: Hey, by the way, the President of 
the United States--don't listen to him. Don't listen to him.
  Interestingly, Senator Cotton said in that letter that of course it 
will take 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate--which, of course, it 
does and which, of course, we are debating now. And folks are acting as 
though it doesn't. But the Ayatollah was sent a letter that said it 
would take 60 votes, so whoever wrote him might want to check in with 
him.
  So here we are now. We have seen the ultimate politics of Members in 
this body writing to our enemies and saying: Don't listen to the 
President of the United States. And now we are in a situation, after 
voting twice on a serious, difficult, emotional, controversial issue 
where there are serious, thoughtful people on both sides--because the 
vote is not going the way the majority wants, now they bring in the 
four hostages and Amir.
  There is a tradition in our country when it comes to issues of 
national security and the lives of men and women who serve in America. 
This quote was coined by a former Michigan Senator, Arthur Vandenberg: 
``Politics stops at the water's edge.''
  This picture we are very proud of. It is right outside here in the 
Reception Room. Very few U.S. Senators have their portraits painted on 
the wall in the Reception Room, and I am very proud one of those is a 
former Republican Senator from west Michigan, Senator Arthur 
Vandenberg. He was a great nemesis of President FDR. He hated the New 
Deal. He went after President Roosevelt at every turn on his domestic 
agenda. But as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, when we 
were being attacked at Pearl Harbor and World War II was happening, he 
stepped up and said, ``Politics stops at the water's edge.''
  For over 70 years, that was the way the United States of America 
acted. That is the way the Senate operated. We have lost that, and I am 
deeply concerned--not as a Democrat but as an American--about where we 
find ourselves today on matters of such seriousness, international 
threats to our country. We can debate them. We can have differences. If 
someone loses the vote, it becomes time to come back together and find 
a way to move forward to keep America strong. There are many 
opportunities for us to do that, many opportunities on this agreement 
to make it stronger, to focus on the nonnuclear sanctions and other 
things that we need to do together against Iran, to focus on bringing 
our heroic Americans home. But this is not the way to do it. This is 
not the way to do it.
  So I stand today to object to what I view as a political stunt, and 
the vote tomorrow is deeply concerning to me and to people in Michigan 
who want to bring Amir Hekmati home. This is not politics; this is 
somebody's life. It is about the future national defense of our country 
and our allies and the world.
  The vote is the vote. We have taken our positions. It is time to come 
back together as Americans.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  I want to thank my colleague from Michigan for pointing something out 
today that I haven't heard before, which is that this vote we are going 
to have tomorrow, which is a revote on the Iran nuclear agreement, 
adding a couple of pieces regarding hostages and sanctions regarding 
Israel, is actually a dangerous vote, and I agree with her completely 
that it is a political vote.
  If you ask the people on the street what they think of Congress, we 
just are not thought of very well because the people see through this. 
They see through the politics of this.
  You know, we have already voted on this agreement. My friend Senator 
Corker, my chairman--I serve on that committee. I am very proud to 
serve with him. He says: Well, all we want is a vote on the agreement. 
We gave them a vote. We wanted an up-or-down vote on the agreement. 
Senator Reid asked for that twice, for a 60-vote threshold. Oh, no. 
Suddenly, even though Senator McConnell has said over the years that 
every single important vote is a 60-vote threshold, suddenly--this is 
an important vote. How well I remember a vote cast here on climate 
change legislation where we got--counting the people who weren't here 
who said they were for it--56 votes. We fell four votes short. Wouldn't 
it have been nice if I had gone to the floor and said: This is 
outrageous. This is outrageous. Let's have a 51-vote threshold.
  Well, we knew we needed 60. We didn't play games. We didn't play 
games with it. That is what we have here. We are playing games with an 
agreement which already has been voted on, and we had enough people 
voting in favor of the agreement, if I can say, to derail the 
Republican plan.
  Now derailing this agreement, in my view, means war. And I see my 
friend on the floor here from Arkansas, and he was the one person who 
said it. Let's just essentially, he said, bomb this thing away. Well, 
he is honest about it. Other people say: Oh, just go back and get 
another agreement. That is code word for ``no agreement.'' That is code 
word for ``war.''
  We have spoken out on this very clearly, and it isn't as if we don't 
have other issues we need to deal with. The fact is, enough Senators 
said they support the agreement to derail the effort to stop it. Grow 
up, accept the fact, and move on. Use it in your campaigns just as we 
will use it in our campaigns.
  I do not think the people in this country want another war in the 
Middle East, and I feel very strongly that this is a conscience vote. 
So bring it up 10 times. I am not going to change my vote, especially 
when I see playing politics has become the way my Republican friends 
are dealing with this most sober issue.
  As you look on the horizon, we know there are a couple of real 
problems facing us. The budget runs out in 14 days. Are we going to 
have a government shutdown because some people don't think women should 
have the right to choose? Are we? I don't know, but we have 14 days to 
deal with it. Why aren't we dealing with it? We voted on the Iran 
agreement. It is not going to change. It is just politics as usual. 
People are sick of it.
  Mr. President, let's take a look at the Republican budget. The 
proposed

[[Page S6674]]

Senate Republican budget would cut over one-half billion dollars from 
the Environmental Protection Agency's budget. I just came from a 
hearing--a very important and good hearing--where we looked at a 
horrible tragedy that happened in Colorado. EPA went in there, at the 
request of the State, to check whether this old mine that hadn't been 
cleaned up in generations caused a risk of a blowout. And when they 
started to do their testing, there was a blowout. EPA was devastated 
with that.
  What our committee looked at is how are we going to move forward. 
Well, we are not going to move forward, I say to my friends, when we 
cut one-half billion dollars out of the EPA budget that could be used 
to clean up these mines. When there is a devastating blowout, horrible 
chemicals, such as cyanide and lead, get into drinking water supplies 
and it destroys communities. Why would we want to have a budget that 
cuts so much from the Environmental Protection Agency that 80 percent 
of the people support? It is so popular. Congress is so unpopular; the 
EPA is popular. People want a clean environment.
  In all my years in office, no one has come up to me and said: The air 
is too clean. The water is too clean. They say the opposite. They say: 
You know what. My kid has asthma, clean up the air or they say: I am 
worried that I can't drink the water. I have to purify it.
  So instead of revoting on something we already voted on--and every 
Member, it is not like anyone was hiding. We all came out. We were 
either for the agreement or against it. I have to say my colleagues 
were wonderful in explaining their positions, and I was proud, but I am 
not proud to see us now go right back to the same thing.
  When we have all of these problems facing us, the Republican budget 
cuts $400 million from community health centers, preventing 620 new 
clinics from opening and keeping 2.6 million Americans from getting 
preventive and lifesaving care--that is right, 400 million from 
community health centers.
  How about the HOME Program, the Nation's primary affordable housing 
program? It would be practically eliminated with a 93-percent cut. This 
means a loss in production of about 40,000 affordable housing units 
across the country.
  The Centers for Disease Control, we know how important they are when 
we have an epidemic looming. It would be slashed by the Republican 
budget by $245 million, hurting our efforts to protect communities from 
diseases such as Ebola and the measles. We all thought the measles were 
gone. It came back in California and thank God for the CDC for helping 
us when we needed them.
  Then there is the Export-Import Bank. We extended its life and 
attached it to the Transportation bill, which is great, but the Export-
Import Bank expired 78 days ago. And the Transportation bill that I 
worked so closely on with Leader McConnell, Senator Inhofe, Senator 
Durbin, and others--it is stuck in the House of Representatives. I 
don't know what to think about what they are doing over there, but they 
need to get going and get that Transportation bill into conference so 
we can do this. This is a bipartisan bill. But instead of pushing and 
working on that, we are revoting on an issue we already voted on.

  The Ex-Im Bank has real consequences. GE, General Electric, announced 
it will shift 500 jobs overseas because of the Bank's closure. So 
anyone who tells you it doesn't have an impact, they are wrong; it does 
have an impact. Five-hundred families are suffering because the Ex-Im 
Bank--which we did the right thing in the Senate--is stuck in the 
Transportation bill in the House. They have yet to mark their bill, and 
I hope they will.
  Then we have the debt ceiling, something Ronald Reagan warned us 
about over and over again: Don't play politics with the debt ceiling. I 
remind everybody, when Bill Clinton was President, we balanced the 
budget. I was here. That shows you how long I have been around. I 
didn't have these gray hairs then.
  So in those years we balanced the budget, created a surplus. And then 
what happened after Bill Clinton? Immediately, we had this humongous 
tax cut for the rich, and we had huge deficits under Republican 
President George W. Bush. Thank God, President Obama has cut that 
deficit in half, but we still have a debt. That is because two wars 
were put on the credit card and there were these tax cuts to the rich, 
which caused huge deficits, so the debt kept climbing up. Now we have 
to raise the debt ceiling to accommodate the past spending of this 
Congress.
  President Reagan was right: Don't play politics with the debt--even 
thinking you will hurts our economy. The last time we played these 
games it cost us a fortune, and it caused huge uncertainty in the 
markets.
  So we have the budget crisis, we have a Republican budget with huge 
cuts to programs we need, such as the Centers for Disease Control; we 
have a transportation bill, the authority for which runs out in 
October. We have all of these things. Yet what are we doing today? We 
are voting again on Iran. No one, in my view, is going to change their 
mind.
  I was thinking maybe some of my Republican friends might come over to 
our side in favor of the agreement since Colin Powell is for the 
agreement, Richard Lugar is for the agreement, John Warner is for the 
agreement, and Brent Scowcroft is for the agreement--these are all 
leading Republican voices--and others, many others. I don't see that 
happening.
  For those people who say it has been partisan, it has been partisan. 
Several Democrats joined Republicans against the agreement. Not one 
Republican--not one--despite all the leadership on their side outside 
the Senate--joined us, so the partisanship has been coming from the 
other side of the aisle. We are voting again on Iran, so maybe I 
thought next week we could take up some of these serious issues that I 
just outlined, these pressing, pressing issues: the budget, the debt 
ceiling, the Ex-Im Bank, all these incredibly important issues that we 
are facing. But, no, next week the majority leader has decided to take 
up abortion--abortion.
  What we are going to be faced with is a bill that says to a woman: 
You cannot have an abortion after a certain period of time. It is a 
ban--no exception for the health of the women. I wish to talk a little 
bit about that today.
  The bill, as it is coming forward, is extreme. It is a direct attack 
on women, on doctors, and on the law of the land called Roe v. Wade. It 
is unconstitutional because it offers no health exception. It bans 
abortion at a certain point in pregnancy, with no exception, no health 
exception: no help for a woman facing cancer, no help for a woman 
facing kidney failure, no help for a woman facing blood clots or other 
tragic complications during their pregnancy. This is a war on women, 
and that is what they are going to do. They are not going to the debt 
ceiling, they are not going to the budget, which must be fixed, and 
they are not going to Ex-Im, even though jobs are leaving the country.
  This bill they are taking up next week will revictimize survivors of 
rape and incest by assuming they are lying, forcing women to go through 
multiple medical visits to prove they have been victimized. It would 
throw doctors in jail for up to 5 years for helping a woman after a 
certain point in her pregnancy, when that doctor knows she risks 
paralysis, infertility, a woman who has cancer whose life would 
actually be in danger if that pregnancy is continued.
  But don't take it from me, take it from the women who have had to 
have these abortions, women who desperately wanted a child, such as 
Thais from California, who learned at the 20-week ultrasound there were 
multiple tragedies facing her baby's heart and lungs. The baby had no 
diaphragm, which means her baby would have suffocated to death once 
outside the womb. You would force that woman to go through a pregnancy, 
not to mention the impact on the baby.
  Then there is Emily from South Carolina, a 26-year-old mother of two 
girls. During her third pregnancy, she suddenly had extreme health 
symptoms, including blurred vision and intense abdominal pain. After 
testing, she was diagnosed with preeclampsia, which posed a serious 
threat to her health. Under this bill, she could not have been spared 
the risks to her health.
  So when we say there is a war on women, we mean it. We are not just 
saying words. Frankly, I am confused

[[Page S6675]]

with everything else facing us. We had such a bipartisan breakthrough 
on the Transportation bill. I was so proud to work with the majority 
leader, so proud of the product that came out of that. I was proud to 
work with the Democrats and Republicans on the Environment and Public 
Works Committee--every one of whom was involved and supported the deal 
that went through. As a matter of fact, we had a majority of both 
caucuses. Why can't we build on that bipartisanship? Why do we have to 
go back to the usual corners? It is sad and unnecessary.
  But, you know what, we are going to be voting on Iran, so I am going 
to tell you why I am backing the deal. If you have to go through it 
again, I am going to go through it again.
  The key points of this agreement: No. 1, it cuts off the uranium 
pathway to a bomb; No. 2, it cuts off the plutonium pathway to a bomb; 
and, No. 3, it uses the most intrusive inspections regime ever 
negotiated. When people say: Oh, but they have 24 days to stall if 
somebody wants to look at their program, let's be clear, not one party 
in the world who is a party to a nuclear agreement has any deadline, 
even the United States. If there is a suspicion of a program being 
hidden, you can stall it off--but not this one. You have to let them 
in, in 24 days, or they are in breach. There is a mechanism to require 
Iran to provide the IAEA with access to those suspicious sites--that 24 
day-limit that is not present in any other agreement. It requires the 
Iranians to disclose their past nuclear activities before they receive 
a penny of sanctions relief, and the United States and our allies have 
the ability to snap back multilateral sanctions.

  The bill that is going to come before us for another vote talks about 
how we cannot lift sanctions in this deal until certain conditions are 
met. But it ignores the fact that there is a whole other set of 
sanctions that are in place for Iran's terrorist activities, and those 
sanctions are not touched. Don't conflate the two and confuse people. 
There are sanctions for their nonnuclear activities, which include 
their horrific support of terrorism; and then there are sanctions for 
their nuclear activities, which we will be lifting if they agree and 
carry out the terms of this agreement, particularly since they will not 
have one penny lifted until they disclose every bit of their past 
activities.
  So let us see what else I can share with my colleagues as to why I 
support this deal. I have to say, at a time when Congress is not 
trusted and has the worst approval rating--I am so embarrassed by 
that--I have come to the point where I look at third parties to make my 
case. So, 29 of our Nation's top nuclear scientists, including 6 Nobel 
laureates, say this is a good deal; 60 bipartisan national security 
leaders say this is a good deal; over 100 former U.S. ambassadors say 
this is a good deal; three dozen retired U.S. generals and admirals say 
this is a good deal; 340 U.S. rabbis say this is a good deal; and 53 
Christian leaders and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops--and we 
are going to be seeing the Pope here next week--say this is a good 
deal.
  So the religious leadership on the side of this deal, for the most 
part, is overwhelming because our religious people who lead us here 
want peace in the world. They do not want to see an escalation of war. 
We see what war brings. We lost, in the Iraq war, more than 4,000 of 
our people.
  I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this is what our allies are saying:

       If the U.S. were to walk away from this deal, international 
     unity would disintegrate, the hardliners in Iran would be 
     strengthened, and we would lose the most effective path to 
     stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

  That is a direct quote from Philip Hammond, the UK's foreign 
secretary. He speaks for all of our partners in this--100 nations who 
support this deal--100 nations who support this deal.
  Why would we want to stand with the hardliners in Iran? I know my 
colleagues wrote to them. And they are partners with them, make no 
mistake--the hardliners here and the hardliners in Iran.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. But I believe if you are a moderate person, support this 
deal.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I feel at times as if I have exhausted my 
words against the nuclear deal with Iran. I have inveighed against the 
wickedness of the Ayatollahs, their responsibility for the deaths of 
hundreds of American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, their support for 
terror, and their attacks on Israel and other American allies. It is 
the height of folly, weakness, and credulity to give Iran tens of 
billions of dollars in sanctions relief and put them on the path to 
nuclear weapons.
  Indeed, I feel as if I can say nothing more than I have already said. 
But, fortunately, the Democrats who support the Iran nuclear deal have 
supplied cogent arguments against the deal. Thus, rather than speak 
myself, I will simply let the Democrats speak in their own astonishing 
words.
  Here are the Democrats on the expiration of the deal.

       I remain extremely concerned that after 15 years, the 
     restrictions on how much uranium Iran can enrich and to what 
     level expire and Iran will once again return to its current 
     status as a nuclear threshold state with a breakout time of 
     just a couple of months, if not weeks. It is disconcerting 
     that Iran can achieve this status without breaking the rules 
     or bending the agreement. To be clear, in fifteen years, Iran 
     will be allowed to be a legitimized threshold nuclear state. 
     . . . My fear is that 15 years from now, America and the 
     world will face an Iran that sees its enrichment power as 
     legitimized, that is wealthier and more economically 
     powerful, and an Iran that is fortified with new weapons and 
     air defenses as embargoes on conventional arms and ballistic 
     missiles expire five and eight years from now.

  That was Senator Peters.

       I acknowledge that legitimate concerns have been raised 
     about Iranian activities after the first 10 years of the 
     agreement, sometimes referred to as the ``out years.'' During 
     this time, Iran's breakout time could shrink substantially.

  Senator Reed of Rhode Island.

       When key restraints begin to expire in 10 to 15 years--a 
     blink of an eye to a country that measures its history in 
     millennia--our country will still have to deal with an 
     Iranian leadership that wants to build an industrial-scale 
     nuclear enrichment program. That's a big problem.

  Senator Wyden.

       None of us knows what lies 10 or 15 years on the horizon. I 
     have deep concerns about what the shape of Iran's nuclear 
     program could look like beyond this horizon. . . .

  Senator Bennet.
  And here are the Democrats on Iran's financing of terrorism:

       Iran will be disruptive in the Middle East and fund 
     terrorist activities. This regime will continue to deny 
     Israel's right to exist. The Quds Force will still be listed 
     as a terrorist organization, and Iran will continue to 
     exacerbate tensions with allies in the region.

  Senator Gillibrand.

       Let's be clear, Iran is a sponsor of terrorism and an 
     abuser of human rights. This deal doesn't change that.

  Senator Heitkamp.

       It is certainly possible, perhaps probable, that Iran will 
     use its additional resources and access to conventional arms 
     to increase its support for terrorist groups.

  Senator Merkley.

       I do share concerns about parts of the agreement, including 
     how Iran could use funds from sanctions relief to continue 
     funding Hezbollah and other terrorists around the world. It 
     is clear they have been funding these activities despite 
     crippling sanctions. And we are right to be concerned that 
     additional funds from sanctions relief, or any other sources 
     from other countries if this agreement is not approved, could 
     be used to continue these outrageous activities.

  Senator Stabenow.
  Here are the Democrats on Iran's continued nuclear activities and 
enrichment:

       With this deal, we are legitimizing a vast and expanding 
     nuclear program in Iran. We are in effect rewarding years of 
     their deception, deceit, and wanton disregard for 
     international law by allowing them to potentially have a 
     domestic nuclear enrichment program at levels beyond what is 
     necessary for a peaceful civil nuclear program.

  Senator Booker.

       It is certainly possible that Iran will use its nuclear 
     research or nuclear energy program to provide a foundation 
     for a future nuclear weapon program.

  Senator Merkley.
  Here are the Democrats on Iran's adherence to the deal:

       Iran is a bad and dangerous actor. We all agree on that.

  Senator Boxer.


[[Page S6676]]


  

       Critics insist America cannot trust Iran. I agree . . ., I 
     still have serious doubts about their government.

  Senator Carper.

       We need not, and indeed should not, trust the Iranian 
     regime. Implementation of this agreement may be challenging 
     and we need to be prepared for the possibility that Iran will 
     violate the agreement.

  Senator Casey.

       When Iranian extremist leaders chant ``Death to America'' 
     and ``Death to Israel,'' the first question we have is, ``How 
     in the world can we trust them to live up to an agreement?'' 
     The answer is: We cannot.

  Senator Stabenow.

       Even under the deal, we should expect that Iran will cheat 
     when it can, particularly at the margins; that it will 
     continue or even ramp up its destabilizing activities and 
     sponsorship of terrorism with the additional resources 
     provided by increased sanctions relief; that it will seek to 
     break out if the opportunity presents itself after 15 years 
     when specialized inspections fade and many limits on its 
     nuclear program are lifted.

  Senator Booker.

       Iran has misled us in the past when it comes to their 
     nuclear program.

  Senator Markey.
  What a condemnation of Iran, what an indictment of this nuclear deal 
with Iran. But this indictment comes from the supporters of the deal. 
Despite their own words, these Democrats have chosen to give Iran 
billions of dollars that will be used to fund terror and war and 
ultimately put Iran on the path to nuclear weapons.
  So let there be no mistake for history about the consequences of 
these Democrats' choice: When Iran detonates a nuclear device, these 
Democrats will bear responsibility. When Iran launches a missile 
capable of hitting the United States, these Democrats will bear 
responsibility. When Iran kills more Americans, as it has in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere, these Democrats will 
bear responsibility. When Iran imprisons American hostages, these 
Democrats will bear responsibility. When Iran attacks Israel through 
Hezbollah's missiles or Hamas's tunnels, these Democrats will bear 
responsibility. When Iran kills Jews around the world in places like 
Argentina and Bulgaria, these Democrats will bear responsibility. When 
Iran massacres its own citizens, these Democrats will bear 
responsibility.
  President Obama and these 42 Democrats bear a direct political, 
moral, and personal responsibility for the coming crimes and outrages 
of Iran's ayatollahs. There will be grave consequences for them and for 
all of us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.

                          ____________________