[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 134 (Thursday, September 17, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6775-S6793]
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 senior assistant 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 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 11
a.m. will be equally divided between the two leaders or their
designees.
The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, my calculation is there are about 36
minutes remaining before the vote. I ask unanimous consent on the
Democratic side that I be given 3 minutes, Senator Cardin 5 minutes,
Senator Menendez of New Jersey 5 minutes, Senator Carper of Delaware 5
minutes--Senator Carper 3 minutes, and Senator Kaine 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Would the Senator please restate those.
Mr. DURBIN. Yes, 3 minutes for myself, 5 minutes for Senator Cardin
of
[[Page S6776]]
Maryland, 5 minutes for Senator Menendez of New Jersey, 3 minutes for
Senator Carper, 2 minutes for Senator Kaine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we listened to the comments of Senator
McConnell, the Republican leader. He has given us a ``litany of
horribles'' when it comes to the conduct of the nation of Iran. He has
given us fair warning that this is a country that we cannot trust
because of past conduct. I think the point that needs to be made at
this moment is I don't disagree with his premise or his conclusion. But
I ask him and all others in his similar political position: How can
Iran with a nuclear weapon be a better thing for this world, for the
Middle East, or for Israel?
I think the answer is obvious. That is why the President, in league
with our major allies and some not so frequent allies, has brokered an
agreement to send in international inspectors to destroy the
centrifuges which are building these nuclear weapons, to put a concrete
core in the reactor that produces the plutonium, and to continue the
inspection of Iran nonstop so that they do not develop a nuclear
weapon.
That to me is an ultimate positive outcome. Does it cure all of the
horribles that have been listed by the Senator from Kentucky? Of course
not. But how can he imagine that Iran with its record would be in a
better position--or that we would be in a better position--if Iran had
a nuclear weapon? I do not think so. That, I think, is the issue before
us. I have to harken back to the statement made yesterday by my
colleague from Michigan. She is in contact with the family of one of
the prisoners being held there. They are concerned, I am concerned,
that dramatizing these four prisoners as part of our political debate
on the floor, which is what the Republicans have done with their
amendment is a risky process. We want these prisoners to come home
safely. We voted that way overwhelmingly.
Playing them as part of a floor strategy by the Republicans is risky.
I wish we would not take the risk at their possible expense. So I would
urge my colleagues to join me in voting against the cloture motion that
is going to come before us at 11 o'clock to move forward on this
particular amendment.
I will close by saying, the press reports last night explained why we
are here wasting a week in the Senate: Because of the Republican
presidential debate and because of the fact that even some of the
Republican presidential candidates reserved a vial of venom to be used
against the leader here, the majority leader of the Senate and the
Speaker of the House.
It is clear they are under immense pressure to show their Republican
manhood. That is what this exercise is all about.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, the next vote we are going to take on the
Iran agreement will fundamentally change the resolution before us. It
is out of compliance with the review act. The Iran review act gives
Congress three options: approve the agreement, disapprove the agreement
or take no action. This amendment would provide conditional approval of
the Iran agreement.
Let me make clear to our colleagues that the framework of the
agreement is to provide Iran sanctions relief in exchange for stopping
Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state. That is the yardstick. It
provides for inspections and enforcement, preserving our options if
Iran participates in terrorism, human rights, and ballistic missile
violations, and the bottom line is whether Iran is in better or worse
shape to acquire a nuclear weapon under this agreement.
I reached my judgment on it, as did 100 Senators. I opposed the
agreement, but this amendment takes us in a different direction. This
amendment says that if Iran recognizes Israel and releases four
hostages, that sanctions relief will be granted to Iran. I hope Iran
does recognize Israel, but I must tell you I would have no confidence
in their statement or trust in their statement if they issued a
statement recognizing Israel.
Senator Stabenow has already talked about whether this is the most
effective way to bring back our hostages. One can challenge that. So
this conditional approval gives up any of the disapproval resolution on
the nuclear part of the agreement. That makes absolutely no sense
whatsoever.
Let me remind our colleagues that this is September 17. This is the
60th day of the congressional review, the last day of the congressional
review. Quite frankly, this vote is a political exercise, and this
issue is way too important for us to be engaged in a political issue on
the review.
We have worked very hard over 60 days to get information. The
committee has worked very hard. We are very proud of the record of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee in this regard. We shouldn't be
participating in this political battle. It is clear this Iran agreement
will be implemented.
Now it is time for this body to stop taking show votes and instead
pivot to the serious work of addressing the problems with the deal.
This means making sure we are working with the Government of Israel on
a security package that will now enable Israel to defend against
conventional and terrorist threats from Iran; it means making sure we
are working with our partners in the Gulf Cooperation Council to make
sure we are collectively prepared to counter destabilizing any Iranian
activities; it means making sure we are prepared to counter Iranian
terrorism, ballistic missile proliferation, and human rights abuses; it
means making sure we are working effectively with our European allies
to prepare for Iran potentially cheating on the deal.
Let's turn to the serious work we have in front of us and recognize
that we all need to be together to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear
weapons State. We stand for Israel's security, we stand for the return
of our hostages, but let's also make sure we have the strongest
possible decision to make sure we prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear
weapons State. Let's work together.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise as an opponent of the Iran
nuclear agreement, and I have set forth at length--both on the Senate
floor and in a speech at Seton Hall University School of Diplomacy and
International Relations--my reasons why, but I am also an opponent to
the McConnell amendment that would support the deal if Iran recognizes
Israel and releases American hostages.
I have said on this floor--and will say again--that I have a problem
with the underlying nuclear agreement. As much as I wish to see the
hostages released--and have voted in a resolution that the Senate
passed calling for Iran to do so--and have them come home to their
families, and as much as I would like Israel to be recognized by Iran
as a sovereign, independent nation, I am not certain I would want to
give my imprimatur to the agreement even under those conditions, which
this amendment would do. This, in essence, makes--if adopted--a
conditional agreement. We in the Senate would be voting to say the
agreement can move forward if the hostages are released and if Iran
recognizes the State of Israel as a sovereign and independent state.
I must say I want the hostages back, as does everyone in this
Chamber. I want Israel to be recognized as a sovereign and independent
state, although I believe that any such recognition by Iran at this
point in time would be temporal, at best, and can only be meaningful by
actions, not just simply by such a declaration.
So at the end of the day, for all the reasons I have heard my
colleagues on this floor talk about the consequences of the nuclear
deal, surely you cannot be of the thought that as desirous as the
releasing of the hostages is or the desire to have Israel recognized by
Iran as a sovereign state, that that would then give you a clear
sailing for the underlying nuclear agreement. That, in essence, is what
this amendment would provide for.
We have many concerns as we move forward with Iran. We already see
that. Even as this agreement is being moved forward, Iran has given its
OK to Russia to overfly Iran and then Iraq, where we have spent so many
lives and national treasure, to send military hardware into Syria to
prop up the Assad
[[Page S6777]]
regime--which Iran has also been a patron of--and at same time to maybe
very well establish a military base for Russia. So there are going to
be a lot of concerns, notwithstanding this agreement that we have with
Iran, but I, for one, do not want to give any idea that we would
support this agreement--as someone who opposes it--simply because the
hostages would be released and Iran would recognize Israel.
Some might believe that will never happen, so therefore the agreement
wouldn't move forward, but if the agreement is as good as so many of my
colleagues have said it is for Iran, then it might not be a price they
would find too high to pay in order to have the agreement move forward.
In any event, whether Iran thinks it is a good agreement for them and
would do so, I simply do not want to support the underlying agreement
by virtue of a sleight of hand on something that is desirable and,
independently, this body would be united on--getting all of the
hostages back and doing everything necessary to achieve that and at the
same time making sure Israel is truly, truly recognized, not only in
words but in deed. That is why I will be voting against the amendment.
There are far more serious things, such as renewing the Iran
Sanctions Act, in the days ahead that I think are critical. Many of the
things Senator Cardin has been talking about in his proposed
legislation will be critical to having the type of response we want in
Iran against its hegemonic interests in the region as well as its
nuclear ambitions. For that, I will be voting against the amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
The Economy
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, going back to the elections of last
November, there are three takeaways--enduring takeaways--for me from
that election: No. 1, people want us to work together; No. 2, they want
us to get things done; No. 3, they want us to find ways to further
strengthen the economic recovery of our country.
Today the Department of Labor released the most recent weekly
information on filers of unemployment insurance in this country. They
do it every Thursday. They have been doing this for years. Today the
number is 264,000 people. It sounds like a lot--well, compared to what?
The week that Barack Obama and Joe Biden were inaugurated as
President and Vice President, that number was not 264,000, it was
628,000. Anytime that number is over 400,000 we are losing jobs.
Anytime the number is under 400,000 per week, we are adding jobs. That
number has been under 300,000 for the last 28 straight weeks. I don't
know that there has ever been a time when we have seen a number that
low for that long.
We are strengthening the economic recovery. We ought to continue to
do that. There are a number of things we ought to do on this floor to
further strengthen the economic recovery. We need to avoid a budget
shutdown. We need to put in place a responsible spending plan for the
next year. Our country is under cyber attack 24/7--companies,
businesses of all kinds and shapes. We need to have tax certainty. We
need to put in place a tax plan for our country rather than stop and
go. We need to fully fund a 6-year transportation plan. Those are just
some of the things we can do to further strengthen the economic
recovery.
Are we dealing with those? No, we are not. We are coming back again
to vote--really--on the same thing we voted on before.
Let me just say, with all due respect, do I want the hostages
released? You bet. Have I let the Iranian officials, senior officials
whom I know, know that? You bet, every time I talk to them and meet
with them.
The best way to make sure the hostages are released, the best way to
hasten the day that Israel has a kind of relationship with Iran that
they had not all that many years ago is to put in place and to fully
implement the plan that is before us, one that will make it very
difficult for the Iranians to develop a nuclear weapons program and
ensure that if they do, we know about it.
My message to Zarif--the Foreign Minister of Iran who has been the
lead point person on their negotiations for the last 2 years--this is
my message to him and to the Iranian officials: No. 1, you could have a
stronger economy; No. 2, you could have a nuclear weapons program. You
cannot have both. There is a whole new generation of people who have
grown up in that country, 78 million people. The average age is 25.
Does the Revolutionary Guard like the agreement? No, they don't. They
want to kill it.
How about the young people who have grown up in that country who like
Americans, who want to have a better relationship with us, what do they
want?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. CARPER. They want us to take yes for an answer, and I would take
no for an answer with the measure that is before us today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I just wish to say a few words about the
vote we are about to take and about this process.
I do not favor this agreement. I have indicated I would vote against
it. I would like to get to a final vote on the subject and not just
have endless cloture votes. It has been offered on the Democratic side
that we would go to a final vote if the margin was set at 60. We have a
60-vote threshold. I say take it. Let's get to a final vote. We have
seen the end of this movie already. The President has the sufficient
votes to sustain the veto. Therefore, this would simply be an exercise
to send something to the President that he would veto and then have
that veto sustained. I see no value in doing that. There is no value to
our allies to see that there is a split in Congress or between Congress
and the Executive on this issue.
The President is in his last term, he is not hurt politically by
this, and there is no reason to do that. So I don't know why in the
world we want to go through that exercise or insist on going through
that exercise simply to force cloture.
I would like to send the disapproval motion to the President--that
would be fine--but to not get to a final vote because we are insisting
on doing that seems to me misguided. Let's agree and go to a final vote
and set it at a 60-vote threshold. That would be fine. We know the end
of this movie already.
With regard to the amendment itself, the text of it, we are talking
about our desire to have the hostages who are in Iran released.
Everyone would like that. Everyone would like to see Iran recognize
Israel. But should a whole agreement be based on those two items? No.
There are a lot of other things that need to be done as well.
As I said, I don't believe this was negotiated well. I think it could
have been better. That is why I will vote against it if I have a
chance.
But let's give the Members of this body that chance. Let's have a
vote on the final product, the process that we set up with the Corker-
Cardin legislation, and not insist on sending something to the
President that would be sent back and that we know the result.
I want to register my support of having a final vote, regardless of
where that vote threshold is.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. CARPER. Will the Senator from Arizona yield for a moment?
Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the Senator.
Mr. CARPER. First, let me thank Senator Flake for a very thoughtful
statement. It reminds me a little bit of what Senator Reid has been
asking for by unanimous consent for a week or two; that is, to actually
forgo cloture votes and that sort of thing. Let's just go to a final
vote, but we want a 60-vote threshold. I think the expectation has been
for months that there would be a 60-vote threshold.
If the Senator from Arizona is comfortable with forgoing all of this
parliamentary procedure and to going to an up-or-down vote with a 60-
vote threshold, I think that is the way to do it. That is the way we
ought to do this. I applaud the Senator for what he said.
Mr. FLAKE. Thank you. I do think that this is a serious matter. This
is an agreement that is important, that is going to last beyond this
administration and beyond the next one. Congress should be on record on
this issue with more than just a procedural vote. I understand the
desire to have a vote by simple majority--that would be the
preference--but if we cannot get there,
[[Page S6778]]
and this is a body of compromise, then let's have a vote, a final vote
on the subject.
As to the matter of--let me just say, with these amendments, I will
vote with my colleagues on this side of the aisle on a cloture vote to
get to a final vote on these amendments, but if it comes to it, I will
vote against those amendments, not that I don't want the hostages
released or Israel recognized, but the entire agreement should not be
based on those two items. There are other important aspects of the
agreement, and to pick two as a way to go forward doesn't make sense to
me. So I will vote with my party on cloture to move ahead to vote on
the amendment, but if it comes to that, I will vote against those
amendments.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I rise to speak today about President
Obama's nuclear deal with Iran.
I have now cast multiple votes to proceed to an up-or-down vote on
this nuclear deal. However, according to President Obama and his
administration, Congress's review period ends today, even though there
is still controversy about that.
I want to applaud the ranking member of the Foreign Relations
Committee and the chairman--the ranking member, Senator Cardin, who is
here today, and Senator Corker--for getting us to this point. In a
unanimous vote in our committee, we got this bill, brought it to the
Senate, and we had a 98-to-1 vote in a bipartisan effort to bring this
before the American people. Today, we are here with a very small
minority of Americans who actually support this deal.
This administration chose not to consider this as a treaty but as a
nonbinding political agreement. That means in a little over a year, our
next President can determine whether he or she will abide by this deal
with Iran.
My question is this: What can we do now--right now--in the Senate,
over the next 14 months, to continue to fight this President's nuclear
deal with Iran? I speak today to confirm that I will continue this
fight, individually, if necessary. In the next 14 months I am committed
to finding ways we can mitigate the effects of this dangerous deal with
Iran.
We need to ratchet up sanctions on Iran for terrorism and human
rights violations and continue to be vigilant in both of those areas.
We need to be prepared with sanctions that can be snapped back swiftly
when, not if, Iran cheats, even if that cheating is only incremental.
We need a strategy to deal with the increase in terrorism and
aggression we will see from Iran after they get over a $60 billion
payday from this deal. We need a plan to reassure our allies in the
region and to counter the nuclear and conventional arms race this deal
is sure to trigger.
I have been saying this for months, which is why I ensured the
passage of an amendment in the State Department authorization bill that
calls on the administration to produce such a strategy. I refuse to
accept the world's deadliest weapons getting into the hands of this
rogue regime.
Hearing this administration sell the Iran deal, I am so often
reminded of President Clinton's deal in 1994. In 1994 President Clinton
promised our country this nonbinding agreement with North Korea would
make America and the world safer. Look at where we are today. Just 12
short years after Clinton's deal, North Korea completed its first
nuclear detonation test. Today North Korea has a nuclear bomb, and it
is cooperating with Iran on Iran's program. Just this week North Korea
announced it is bolstering its nuclear arsenal and is prepared to use
nuclear weapons against the United States of America.
I fear President Obama's deal with Iran will yield similar results.
We cannot allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon--not now, not in 10
years, not ever. For the security of our children and our children's
children, our country, our world, and our future, we absolutely have to
make sure that Iran never becomes a nuclear weapons state.
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. CORKER. 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. CORKER. Mr. President, today we have a series of votes that I
know may be difficult for the American people, who may be looking on,
to understand. In the Senate we have a procedure called cloture, which
signifies whether Members are ready to end debate and move on to the
vote on the substance of the bill we are now discussing.
We have been on this now for 2 weeks. We have had 12 hearings in the
Foreign Relations Committee, with my distinguished friend Senator
Cardin as the ranking member, and we have had all kinds of debate on
the floor. Almost every Senator in the Senate has spoken. Yet we find
ourselves in this place where a bipartisan majority of Senators wish to
send a vote of disapproval to the President and 42 Senators are keeping
us from doing so.
If I could just walk through this, first of all, in a strong
bipartisan, almost overwhelming manner--almost four times since 2010--
this body has put sanctions in place against Iran to bring them to the
negotiating table. I want to commend people on both sides of the aisle
for making that happen. My friend, Bob Menendez, and Mark Kirk on our
side, together with all the rest of us helped to make those things
happen.
When this body saw that the President, after we helped to bring Iran
to the table, was going to negotiate a deal that cut us out--that, in
essence, caused him to be able to go straight to the U.N. Security
Council and cause a deal to be implemented--I worked with my friend
Senator Cardin, and others, and we put in place something called the
Iran review act, which gave us this ability to have 60 days to look at
the proposal, to go through it, and to voice our approval or
disapproval. We have had that debate.
Unfortunately, because the President did not achieve what he said he
was going to achieve--and by the way, if he had, there would be 100
Senators today voicing their approval. The President, when he began the
negotiations, said he was going to end Iran's nuclear program.
Unfortunately, from my perspective, he squandered--squandered--that
opportunity.
We had a boot on the neck of Iran, a rogue nation. We had some of the
greatest countries in the world involved in the negotiations to end
their program. Instead, we capitulated and have agreed to the
industrialization of their nuclear program. We have agreed to let them
continue their research and development so they can do what they are
doing in an even quicker manner. We have allowed them to continue their
ability to deliver intercontinental ballistic missiles.
We all know they have no need for their program other than to develop
a nuclear weapon. We know that. They have no practical need. So a
strong bipartisan majority of this body wants to send to the President
a resolution of disapproval. Yet today what is happening, I fear--for
the third time--is that a minority--a partisan minority, I will say--of
42 Senators are going to block that from occurring.
Now, look, I understand procedures around here. I do. I understand
the cloture vote. I knew that when we agreed to this bill. We agreed to
it being dealt with under what is called ``normal procedures.'' We
agreed to that. I just want to remind people, though, that back in the
gulf war, this body decided it was going to support President Bush--the
first President Bush, Bush 41--when he really didn't need to come to
Congress. But he came to us for the authorization of the use of
military force and that was passed on a 52-48 vote--52-48.
What we have happening today, though, is that we have 58 Senators
here who disapprove of what the President has negotiated. They feel he
squandered the opportunity given to him with our support. Instead of
ending their program, he has allowed it to be industrialized. And so we
have 58 Senators here who want to express themselves and to send to the
President this resolution of disapproval. We have 42 Senators on a
procedural vote who are keeping us from doing so--42 Senators.
In essence, they are saying, I guess, we haven't debated this enough.
Almost every Senator has expressed
[[Page S6779]]
themselves. We have had 12 hearings in the Committee on Foreign
Relations, with all kinds of classified briefings. The Committee on
Armed Services had hearings, and the Select Committee on Intelligence
had hearings.
I just want to say that I know many people spent a lot of time. I
know the ranking member looked at this backwards and forwards before he
came to his own conclusion. This, to me, really is taking on a tone of
Members of this body protecting the President--protecting the
President--from having to veto something this body would send to him,
which is a resolution of disapproval.
So I am disappointed we are where we are. I am disappointed the
Senate functions in the way it does today, where a majority of Senators
who wish for something to happen cannot make it happen. In this
particular case it is happening in a manner, in my belief, to really
keep the President from having to veto this, which is what a majority
of Senators in the Senate would like to see happen.
With that, I hope that at least a couple of Senators here will decide
that we have discussed this long enough and that we will allow this
body to vote on the actual underlying substance. That is, by the way,
what the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act was about. On a 98-to-1
basis Senators in this body said they wanted the ability--98 of us; 1
Senator was missing or we would have had 99--to weigh in on this topic,
and now that is not going to occur.
I believe my time is over. I understand the minority may have about 2
minutes left and then we will proceed to a vote. But I want to thank my
good friend Senator Cardin, who I think serves in a very distinguished
way. I could not have a better partner. So I thank him for his comments
as they are about to come and also for his cooperation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, Senator Corker and I have been in
agreement for 53 days of the 60-day review. And he is absolutely
correct that 58 Senators disapprove of this agreement and don't think
it should go forward. He and I are in agreement on that. We both
believe we could have done better and we should reject the agreement,
but 42 Senators believe we should go forward.
I thought the colloquy that took place just a few moments ago on the
floor between Senator Carper and Senator Flake was the way we should
have completed this issue, then have a final vote with a 60-vote
threshold. That is where I thought we were headed when we went into the
August work period.
We have understood the process, and Americans know where every Member
of the Senate stands on this agreement. Americans also understand the
60-vote threshold in the Senate. And they certainly understand the 67
votes necessary to override a veto. This agreement is moving forward.
We all know that. We should all be talking about how to move forward on
the agreement.
What I don't understand is the next vote. I don't understand why the
majority leader decided to bring forward an amendment to change a
resolution of disapproval into a resolution of conditional approval. To
me, that is totally inconsistent with the review act, and it is
counterproductive for those who either support or disapprove of the
agreement. It is not fitting and not consistent with the work done
during the first 53 days of the review, where we worked very hard in
committee so that every Member of the Senate could get as much
information available to make their individual judgments whether to
vote for or against the agreement. And 58 voted for, 42 against.
This vote I don't understand, and I would urge my colleagues--
befitting the Iran review and the Senate's responsibilities here, we
should be voting no on the amendment that is offered by the majority
leader.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I think I understand the frustration
expressed by the ranking member. The ranking member knows I worked with
him to ensure that when we had this debate, we stayed away from those
issues that divide us. He knows I took multiple tough votes, as did
others, to keep things in balance.
There are Members of this body who feel as if this amendment the
Senator is talking about is one on which they would have liked to have
expressed themselves. Since we are in a place where it appears that 42
Senators are going to keep us from actually being able to go forward
with the vote on whether we agree or disagree--the Senator and I are in
the same place on this. But since that has occurred, I think out of
frustration and knowing there were a number of Members who wanted to
express themselves on the way this next amendment is--I think that is
the reason that has occurred.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
have an additional minute so he can yield to me.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CARDIN. If the Senator will yield, do the people who are
suggesting that this amendment be voted on recognize that they are
making this a conditional approval vote and therefore that if Iran were
to recognize Israel, if this were to become law and if Iran were to
recognize Israel and release the four hostages, that the agreement
would go forward? Do they understand this is not one of the options
provided under the Iran review act and it is inconsistent with the
discussions I think we have always had as to what the votes would be on
the floor of the U.S. Senate?
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, if I could respond through the Chair, I
think what people understand is that 42 Senators are causing a
filibuster to take place and that we are not ever going to be able to
get to that vote of conscience all of us have wanted to make. And since
they know that, they understand this deal is going to go forward, and
therefore, in order--since these people really never had the
opportunity to express themselves in this manner--there never was an
amendment during the debate relative to the amendment we now have
before us. I think since they know it is going to go forward, since in
essence the filibuster is underway that keeps this final vote from
occurring and a motion of disapproval from going to the President,
there is a divergence off of that to express themselves in a different
way.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional
minute for the chairman of the committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CARDIN. If the chairman will yield, I understand the frustration.
There is a lot of frustration on not getting votes when we want to get
votes. But I remind the chairman that every request for a vote on the
Iran review act came from the Republican side of the aisle. There were
none from the Democratic side of the aisle. We had votes on Republican
amendments. If you recall correctly, it was a Republican effort that
ultimately led to no option other than to cut off further amendments by
the majority leader.
Let me also suggest that on two occasions we have attempted to allow
for a final vote with a 60-vote threshold so that we wouldn't have to
use any filibuster. The Democratic leader consented to a motion to
proceed without the necessary cloture vote because we don't want this
to be procedure, and I think everyone wants to vote and has voted their
conscience.
Mr. CORKER. If I could, and I very much appreciate--first of all, I
could not work with a more thoughtful, diligent Member of the U.S.
Senate than the ranking member.
I think what the Senator's side needs to understand--and I have tried
to articulate this--is that during these negotiations, we tried to set
up a privileged motion where it was set up not unlike one, two, three
agreements that we have. We understood that the minority leader--and I
respect this--does not like privileged amendments, that the leaders
like to control the floor, and in this case he wanted to be able to
control his side. So we were not able to set this up as a privileged
vote. As the Senator knows, we then agreed to do it under regular
order--regular order--and the Senator and I agreed to those
negotiations.
What the Senator would be asking our side to do to move to a 60-vote
debate is actually raise the threshold from a simple majority, which is
the
[[Page S6780]]
way regular order works. The Senator would ask us to raise the
threshold to a 60-vote threshold, which is above and beyond regular
order. So the Senator can understand how people don't understand why we
would agree to raising that threshold.
So, look, we understand what is getting ready to happen. The Senator
and I have a lot of business to do relative to Syria, relative to Iraq,
relative to refugees and others.
I am disappointed that the Senate functions in the way it does. As I
mentioned, back under the gulf war, back in 1991, instead of a
filibuster, Members allowed us to vote on a--I wasn't here then, and I
don't think the Senator was here then--on a 52-to-48 basis, people
moved beyond the filibuster and allowed the majority to express
themselves.
I hope at some point in time the Senate will move to a place where we
allow the majority to express themselves. This is not happening on a
significant vote of conscience. I am disappointed in that, but I
understand what the outcome is going to be, and I look forward to
working with the Senator on other issues.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
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 Senate amendment
No. 2656.
Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, Roy Blunt, John Thune, Deb
Fischer, John Barrasso, Roger F. Wicker, Michael B.
Enzi, Shelley Moore Capito, Orrin G. Hatch, Rob
Portman, Mike Crapo, Richard C. Shelby, Pat Roberts,
Thad Cochran, Mike Rounds, David Perdue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on
amendment No. 2656, offered by the Senator from Kentucky, Mr.
McConnell, to H.J. Res. 61, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul) and the Senator from Florida (Mr.
Rubio).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 45, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 266 Leg.]
YEAS--53
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kirk
Lankford
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--45
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Paul
Rubio
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 53, the nays are
45.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The majority leader.
Cloture Motion Withdrawn
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw
the cloture motion on H.J. Res. 61.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Senator Collins' 6,000th Vote
Mr. McCONNELL. Colleagues, before the next vote, Senator Angus King
and I wish to make a couple of observations for a few moments.
Former Maine Senator Margaret Chase Smith was once known for a nearly
unbeatable attendance record. She hadn't missed a single rollcall vote
in more than 13 years of service, but that came to an end one day in
1968 when Senator Smith narrowly missed casting her 2,942d consecutive
vote. She had been recovering from surgery hundreds of miles away from
here. So it was understandable. Yet I am not sure if surgery, a Tsunami
or the most wicked Maine nor'easter could stop a woman who occupies
Margaret Chase Smith's seat today because not only is the senior
Senator from Maine a fierce admirer of her pioneering predecessor, she
is also nearly unstoppable once she puts her mind to something, and we
have all experienced that.
Since assuming her seat in 1997, one of those somethings that she is
so fixated on has been to never miss a single vote. She blew past her
idol's record nearly a decade ago. The senior Senator then marched on
to 3,000 consecutive votes, 4,000, 5,000, and the next vote will be her
6,000th vote in a row. Only two other Senators have ever achieved a
longer unbroken streak. Former Senator Proxmire took 10,252 consecutive
votes, and our colleague, the senior Senator from Iowa, has voted more
than 7,440 times in a row. This means our colleague from Maine hasn't
missed a single vote during her entire Senate tenure. She has not had
one sick day in more than 18 years. It is really remarkable, and so are
the tales of what it took to get here. One time she twisted her ankle
as she tore down a corridor, sprinting back to the Capitol from a
ready-to-depart plane. Just ask her about the logistics of planning a
wedding and honeymoon around the recess calendar.
Our colleague is willing to do just about anything to ensure that she
is here in this Chamber representing the people of Maine.
I ask the entire Senate to join me in congratulating her as she
celebrates this notable milestone.
(Applause, Senators rising.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. REID. Madam President, it is no surprise to me that Susan Collins
is such a hard worker. She started as a young woman, digging potatoes
for 30 cents a barrel at a neighbor's farm in Caribou, ME.
I have learned a lot about her over these years. I have served with
her now for almost two full decades. Hard work and diligence is her
byword. We have worked on some things together that have been extremely
important for the country. Some of the things I won't bring up because
they might not sit well with some of my Republican friends, but she is
a person who is truly an independent Senator. I admire the work she has
done. She, of course, has a good education.
I started out really thinking the world of her when she was first
elected because I learned where she was trained. One of my favorite
Senators whom I have served with here in the Senate has been Bill Cohen
from Maine. He was a terrific Senator and a fine man. I am convinced
that one of the reasons she is as good as she is is because of what she
learned in Senator Cohen's office.
I served under him. He was chairman of the Aging Committee. I served
with him on other matters. He and I were both in the House of
Representatives. We shared lockers, in that little room that they give
us back there, for many years. I so admired him. I knew when she came
here, her having worked there, that she would be good, and she has been
really good.
I am also impressed with her ability to work with our Independent
Senator, Angus King. They have worked so well together. They don't
always agree on issues, but they are always agreeable on every issue. I
admire both of them, and I am so proud to join in lending my voice to
congratulate this good woman, the senior Senator from the State of
Maine.
(Applause, Senators rising.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I know it is not the usual protocol to
follow the two leaders who have spoken,
[[Page S6781]]
but I wish to exercise a personal privilege of being the senior woman
in the Senate and say that on behalf of all the women in the Senate, we
congratulate Senator Collins on this enormous and significant
milestone. She is certainly in the tradition of a very esteemed
predecessor from the State of Maine, Margaret Chase Smith, who was,
herself, a historic figure.
Senator Smith was known for her devotion to Maine, her advocacy for
her constituents, her fierce independence, and for always being at the
forefront of being an advocate for what is right. Senator Collins
continues to do that.
We want to congratulate her because she is a fierce fighter for
Maine. She is absolutely independent. For her, it is not about the
other side of the aisle; for her, it is not about aisles, it is about
building bridges.
I believe that if Margaret Chase Smith were alive today, she would
walk over and give Senator Collins a great big hug and say: Keep at it.
Keep at it. We say to Senator Collins: Keep at it for many more votes
and for many more good years to come.
I yield the floor.
(Applause, Senators rising.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Mr. KING. Madam President, I rise to congratulate my colleague, my
esteemed colleague, my esteemed senior colleague for this
accomplishment. I think it is important to realize--we all know the
logistical challenges of making every single vote. What she has done is
symbolic of her service to this country and to the State of Maine. It
is not just making every vote. It is symbolic of an intense, fierce
commitment to this body and to this institution and to the country. I
am delighted that the majority leader and the minority leader have
recognized her today.
I had the occasion to sit next to her at a function in Maine when the
vote record came out. It comes out about quarterly or every 6 months. I
looked at mine. I had it in my hand. I leaned over to her and I said:
Look, I have a 98.6-percent attendance record of voting in the Senate.
She leaned back and said: You will never catch me. It is true.
Of course, as has been mentioned, she sits in the seat of Margaret
Chase Smith, one of Maine's important leaders of the mid-20th century,
one of the most important Members of this body. Every day that Margaret
Chase Smith appeared on the Senate floor, she had in her lapel a red
rose. So in order to recognize Senator Collins today, I wish to present
her with a rose symbolic of her kinship to Senator Margaret Chase
Smith.
Senator Collins, what an accomplishment. Thank you on behalf of the
people of Maine and the people of this country.
(Applause, Senators rising.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, quickly, before the next vote, there
will be no more votes this week.
The next vote will be on cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 36,
the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, on Tuesday morning. The
Senate will be in session on Monday to debate the pain-capable bill,
and I hope all Members will be here to join in that discussion.
I yield the floor.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The bill 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 Senate amendment
No. 2640.
Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, Roy Blunt, John Thune, Deb
Fischer, John Barrasso, Roger F. Wicker, Michael B.
Enzi, Shelley Moore Capito, Orrin G. Hatch, Rob
Portman, Mike Crapo, Richard C. Shelby, Pat Roberts,
Thad Cochran, Mike Rounds, David Perdue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on
amendment No. 2640, offered by the Senator from Kentucky, Mr.
McConnell, to H.J. Res. 61, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul) and the Senator from Florida (Mr.
Rubio).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 56, nays 42, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 267 Leg.]
YEAS--56
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cardin
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kirk
Lankford
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Menendez
Moran
Murkowski
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Sasse
Schumer
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--42
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Carper
Casey
Coons
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Markey
McCaskill
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schatz
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Paul
Rubio
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 56, the nays are
42.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The majority whip.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, by twice denying this Chamber the
opportunity for a simple up-or-down vote on the President's nuclear
deal with Iran, our Democratic colleagues have all but assured that a
bad deal--an executive agreement that many of them have also
criticized--will go into effect without the American people having
their say on this deal.
It is clear from public opinion polls and actually from counting
noses here and in the House that a bipartisan majority of both Houses
opposes this bad deal, but by using procedural blockades, our
Democratic friends have prevented that up-or-down vote and the
accountability that should go along with it. For what? For what? To
protect the President.
As the majority leader has pointed out, the President is proud of
this deal. This is about his legacy. He thinks this deal is perfect. So
why are our friends on the other side of the aisle trying to protect
the President from vetoing a piece of legislation he is proud of?
Well, during the debate, these very same colleagues who have
filibustered this bill have stressed that although they support the
President's deal, they remain deeply devoted supporters of the State of
Israel. They say they remain deeply concerned about the plight of
American citizens held hostage by an Iranian regime. But just a moment
ago, these very same colleagues, when they had an opportunity to prove
it, well, let's just say their actions speak louder than their words.
The vote we just had should have been a straightforward vote. The
legislation the Democrats have filibustered would have prohibited the
President from providing any sanctions relief to the Iranian regime
until two things happen: No. 1, the Iranian regime acknowledges Israel
as a sovereign state, and No. 2, the regime releases U.S. prisoners it
currently holds. But with only one exception, every Senator on the
Democratic side of the aisle voted against both of those provisions.
Well, to be sure, they are consistent about one thing: shielding the
President, who is desperate to protect his legacy, from having to make
tough decisions.
I don't see the President particularly shy about making a decision,
even when it is not authorized by the law, when it exceeds his
authority under the Constitution. This President has been the most
reckless of any President I have read about or seen in my lifetime when
it comes to observing the limitations and constraints based on the law
and the Constitution.
[[Page S6782]]
To say the blockade of these important bills is a disappointment is
an understatement.
I know that many of us will continue to work to promote the bilateral
relationship with Israel--between the United States and Israel--over
any sort of association with the world's foremost state sponsor of
terrorism. Many of us--myself included--will continue to call on the
administration to bring our citizens home safely from Iran. We are not
giving up. We are not going to quit.
Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act
This Chamber does have a lot of important work ahead of us. For the
remainder of my time, I would like to discuss how we can come together
to protect the most vulnerable among us; that is, our unborn.
Earlier this summer, horrific videos were released depicting Planned
Parenthood executives discussing the harvesting of organs from unborn
babies. The most recent video was released just a few days ago. In
these videos, the blatant disregard for human life was underscored by a
cavalier attitude on full display by Planned Parenthood executives.
They flippantly and callously discussed the selling of body parts from
babies who never had a chance for life.
Without a doubt, these videos show a dark, ugly side to our humanity.
How people could become so desensitized that they do not recoil in
shock at these videos and what they depict is beyond me. All I can
conclude is that people somehow have ignored the right to life and the
potential for life these babies represent, under handy catch phrases
like ``choice.'' These videos rightly shock the conscience of many in
our country, stirring even supporters of Planned Parenthood to publicly
denounce them as ``disturbing.'' And yes they are, but they are more
than that.
As our Nation unites behind this very basic understanding of our
moral mandate to defend those who cannot defend themselves, we will
have a unique opportunity to make an important stride to support an
agenda that promotes life over death. Next week the Senate will
consider a piece of legislation called the Pain-Capable Unborn Child
Protection Act--legislation I cosponsored along with I believe 45
cosponsors in the Senate--that would prohibit nationwide nearly all
abortions after a pregnancy has reached 5 months.
Many States, including my State, have a ban on abortions once the
baby becomes viable outside the womb. A friend of mine who is a
neonatologist has told me privately what anybody can find on the
Internet or anywhere else, which is that roughly at about 20 weeks, the
baby becomes viable outside of the womb. So this legislation will
prohibit abortions after that baby becomes viable, which under this
legislation is 5 months. At 5 months, an unborn child's fingerprints
and taste buds are developing. It is at this stage that many doctors
and experts believe an unborn child can experience pain. Banning nearly
all abortions after 5 months--at the point unborn children can feel
pain--should be an obvious moral imperative for all of us.
I understand that the issue of abortion divides our country and that
some believe abortion should be available on demand at all points
during a pregnancy. Well, we took an important step here in the
Congress just a few years ago in banning the barbaric practice of
partial-birth abortion--the actual delivery of a child alive and then
literally killing the child as part of an abortion once they are born
alive. Regardless of whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, hopefully
we can come together and draw a line--a very clear line--at viability
of that baby.
I would like to point out how vital this legislation is for those
who, like me, believe we ought to be advancing a culture of life in
this country. Very simply, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act
would save the lives of thousands of unborn children a year. That is
why this legislation has garnered the support of groups such as
National Right to Life and the Susan B. Anthony List.
This Chamber is long overdue in taking a hard look at the practices
depicted by Planned Parenthood in these videos and examining our own
conscience and our Nation's policies that affect the unborn.
It is important to point out that, contrary to what some in our
country would believe, the United States has been one of the most
liberal and most permissive countries in the world with regard to
abortion. As a matter of fact, the commonsense consensus of most
democracies, most civilized countries around the world, is that
abortion after 5 months is unequivocally wrong. There are actually only
seven countries in the world that allow abortions after 5 months, after
viability of the fetus. Sadly, the United States is one of those seven.
We should not be proud of the fact that we are right there alongside of
China, North Korea, and Vietnam. Virtually almost all other civilized
countries in the world--even if they allow elective access to abortion,
they draw an important line at viability, at 5 months. America can and
must do better than this. Every life is a precious gift of God, and we
must protect those who cannot protect themselves.
At the same time the Senate will be considering this legislation, the
Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act--which, by the way, the House
has already passed--the House will be voting on two additional pieces
of legislation, I believe perhaps as early as tomorrow, one that would
provide that children born alive during the process of abortion be
protected--this is the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act,
and I believe that will pass the House of Representatives and be
available for the Senate to take up later--and also a defund Planned
Parenthood bill introduced by Representative Black, which would put a
1-year moratorium on funding to Planned Parenthood while the
investigation of their practices depicted on those videos is completed.
Right now there are four congressional investigations underway--the
Senate Judiciary Committee, the House Energy and Commerce Committee,
the House Judiciary Committee, and the House Oversight and Government
Affairs Reform Committee. Those investigations are meticulous, they
will be thorough, and we will be able to find out, No. 1, whether
Planned Parenthood and their affiliates are complying with existing
law, which prohibits profiteering from the sale of baby body parts, and
whether the mothers, who presumably grant consent, actually know
exactly what is happening to their unborn babies; that is, being sold
for research and other purposes.
Just this year in the 114th Congress, we have also passed other
important pro-life legislation: the Justice for Victims of Trafficking
Act, where we preserved the Hyde amendment, which prohibits and has
prohibited since 1976 the use of tax dollars to fund abortions, with
some exceptions, and then the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization
Act of 2015, which reiterated the law of the land since 1976, the Hyde
amendment--named for Henry Hyde, former Congressman from Illinois--that
applies these types of protections to funding for community health
centers.
These videos have perhaps reawakened the conscience of many of us and
made some of us who were not aware of these barbaric practices depicted
in these videos--made it crystal clear to us that there are things we
need to do in response, particularly for those who believe every human
life ought to be treated with dignity and respect.
There should be no hesitation from either side of the aisle to ensure
we are doing our very best to protect precious human life, so in
addition to the ongoing investigations I mentioned, in addition to the
legislation we have already passed to make sure tax dollars are not
used to fund abortions, we must also respond with legislation like that
which the House will pass either later this week or next week that I
mentioned a moment ago and legislation like the Pain-Capable Unborn
Child Protection Act which would fundamentally protect the rights of
unborn children. Next week this Chamber will have the opportunity to
make this the law of the land.
Mr. REID. Madam President, today marks the last day of the 60-day
Congressional review period that was established in the Iran Nuclear
Agreement Review Act of 2015, which the President signed into law. As
has been noted numerous times, by supporting that legislation the
Senate voted to consider three possible outcomes: no action at all, a
resolution of approval,
[[Page S6783]]
or a resolution of disapproval. Republicans brought a resolution of
disapproval before the Senate and it failed. In fact, it failed on
three separate occasions. Thus, the agreement will go into force. This
issue has been decided.
However, numerous Republicans have claimed on the Senate floor that
because this historic international nuclear agreement with Iran is not
a treaty, and because Congress did not expressly approve the agreement,
the deal will not carry into the next presidential administration. That
could not be further from the truth.
Let's set the record straight: history has proven that international
agreements are an essential element of diplomacy and have longevity far
beyond a single administration.
Examples of recent nonproliferation agreements in place through more
than one administration include: the Helsinki Final Act, the Vienna
Document, the Proliferation Security Initiative, and the Missile
Technology Control Regime.
It is absolutely clear that the Iran agreement can remain in force
beyond the Obama administration, as have many other important executive
agreements. The Senate has spoken on this issue and the Iran agreement
will stand.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I concur with the statement of
Democratic Leader Reid.
The P5+1 agreement is an executive agreement that can remain in
effect beyond this administration. In fact, portions of the agreement
last 20 and 25 years, and others are forever binding on Iran.
The United States has concluded other international agreements, such
as the Helsinki Final Act and the Missile Technology Control Regime,
that have endured. The Comprehensive Joint Plan of Action between the
P5+1 and Iran is no different.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, on July 14, President Obama announced a
landmark agreement between key world powers and Iran, the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action, JCPOA, that removes Iran's path towards a
nuclear weapon. This is a truly historic agreement that rolls back
Iran's nuclear infrastructure, places severe limits and inspection on
any such future work, and commits Iran to never build a nuclear weapon.
And while Iran's behavior in the region remains deeply troubling,
particularly in terms of threats to Israel, this agreement ensures that
such belligerence will not occur with a nuclear threat.
Per the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, the announcement of the
agreement set in motion a congressional review period which ended
today.
In the past week, the majority leader has tried three times to pass a
resolution of disapproval and three times it failed. During these
debates, I have listened to many of my Republican colleagues make some
outlandish claims with regard to the Iran deal. And now, instead of
accepting this fact, some in this body have taken their displeasure a
step further by claiming that because the JCPOA is not a treaty, it
will no longer be in force in a new administration.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Throughout our history, the United States has entered into executive
agreements, like the JCPOA, without congressional approval on a wide
range of subjects, including nonproliferation, international security,
and bilateral cooperation.
When President Nixon negotiated the Shanghai Communique in 1972 with
China, which led to the normalization of relations with a country that
was as mistrusted then as Iran is now, did anyone try and claim that it
would no longer be valid once Nixon left office?
I also do not recall this argument being made just a couple of years
ago when President Obama negotiated the Framework for Elimination of
Syrian Chemical Weapons, another example of an executive agreement. And
of course there are many other examples, including the Algiers Accords,
numerous status of forces agreements, and the establishment of the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
Claiming now that the JCPOA ends when President Obama leaves office
is a terrible break from congressional tradition and threatens to
undermine American international credibility. Who would negotiate with
the United States if they believed such agreements would be abrogated
with a new President?
These statements are truly reckless. Let it be clear once and for all
that this agreement can and will extend beyond the current
administration.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, today is the final day of the 60-day
congressional review period that was established in the Iran Nuclear
Agreement Review Act of 2015. By supporting that legislation the Senate
voted to consider three possible outcomes: no action, a resolution of
approval, or a resolution of disapproval. Republicans brought a
resolution of disapproval before the Senate and it failed not once, not
twice, but three times. The agreement memorializes the commitments of
the countries whose governments signed it. It will now go into force,
and it is the solemn responsibility of each of the signatories to the
agreement to fulfill their commitments.
However, many Republicans, as if singing from the same sheet of
music, have suggested that because this nuclear agreement with Iran is
not a formal treaty, and because Congress did not expressly approve the
agreement as opposed to defeating successive attempts to disapprove it,
the deal will not continue into the next presidential administration.
That is false.
There is a long history of international agreements signed by
Republican and Democratic presidents that have longevity far beyond a
single administration. If that were not the case, if the only way to
negotiate commitments between countries was through the formal treaty
process, our diplomacy would be in dire straits today. In fact, most
international agreements are not treaties, yet they govern
international relations on a wide range of critically important issues,
from trade to public health to taxation to navigation, the list goes on
and on.
If those who are now suggesting otherwise were correct, agreements
signed one year, often after protracted negotiations to resolve matters
of great complexity, would automatically become null and void soon
thereafter. What would be the point? I doubt there is a Republican or
Democratic administration in the history of this country that would
subscribe to such an unworkable and illogical notion.
We asked the Department of State for examples of recent non-
proliferation agreements that have carried on through more than one
administration. It did not take long to get an answer. They include:
the Helsinki Final Act, the Vienna Document, the Proliferation Security
Initiative, and the Missile Technology Control Regime.
There are countless other examples of international agreements
negotiated throughout our history, by Presidents of both parties that
have never received formal congressional approval. They continue in
effect unless explicitly repudiated. To suggest that they automatically
expire, or are no longer in effect, after the end of the administration
that negotiated the agreement, would cause incalculable disruption to
our international relations and global security.
In this case, that would mean that on January 21, 2017, Iran could
immediately restart its nuclear weapons program and refuse
international inspections. It is absolutely clear that the Iran
agreement can and is designed to remain in force beyond the Obama
administration. The Senate has also spoken on this issue. For these
reasons, and historical precedent, it will continue in effect.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, Congress has been reviewing the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action for the last 60 days. This was the process
set up by the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, which the
President signed into law and 98 Senators supported. We have now come
to the end of that process. A resolution of disapproval, to stop the
deal from going forward, failed three times here in the Senate. I know
my colleagues and our constituents have very strong feelings on this
issue. This was a very tough vote for me and one that I took very, very
seriously. But now this issue has been decided.
But that is not enough. Now Republicans are saying that since the
Iran agreement isn't technically a treaty, and because the Senate did
not explicitly approve it, the deal doesn't carry
[[Page S6784]]
forward into the next Administration. If history is any indication, we
know international agreements are a critical part of diplomacy and many
have lived on well after the President who signed them leaves office.
This is how America conducts its foreign policy with its allies--and
its adversaries.
Many other agreements have lived on through more than one
Administration. These includes the Helsinki Final Act, the Vienna
Document, the Proliferation Security Initiative, and the Missile
Technology Control Regime.
It is clear that the Iran agreement can and should remain in force
beyond the Obama administration, just like other important agreements
that have come before it. The Senate has spoken on this issue. The Iran
deal blocks the paths for Iran to get a nuclear bomb and is the best
available option on the table. It can and should remain in force
through the next Administration.
Mr. REED. Madam President, I would like to echo the comments of the
Democratic leader. As of today, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
goes into effect. As the leader said, it is also my assessment that
this agreement is an enduring agreement that will extend beyond the end
of the Obama administration. The leader cites a number of critical
nonproliferation agreements that both Republican and Democratic
administrations have agreed to over the decade and they have endured
the test of time and change of administrations.
Let's also remember that while this agreement's congressional review
period is complete, there is much that needs to be done by Iran before
any sanctions relief is provided to them. Iran must, as verified by the
IAEA, demonstrate that it has implemented the necessary steps with
respect to No. 1, the Arak heavy water research reactor; No. 2, its
overall enrichment capacity; No. 3, its centrifuge research and
development; No. 4, the Fordow fuel enrichment plant; No. 5, its
uranium stocks and fuel; No. 6, its centrifuge manufacturing; No. 7,
completing the modalities and facilities-specific arrangements to allow
the IAEA to implement all transparency measures and the Additional
Protocol and Modified Code 3.1; No. 8, its centrifuge component
manufacturing transparency; and No. 9, addressing the past and present
issues of concern relating to PMD.
I also want to reiterate one point that I have made previously: while
rejecting the resolution of disapproval and other similar efforts was
important for the future of this deal, it is effective, unrelenting
implementation of the JCPOA that will be the real test, and it is where
I hope the critics of this agreement will focus their attention.
Holding Iran's feet to the fire under this agreement is the critical
piece at this point, and it is critical that both the President and the
Congress ensure that efforts to monitor and sustain the provisions of
the agreement are unstinting. This will demand constant attention and
ample funding for an extended period. In this vein, I would note that
the State Department has appointed Ambassador Stephen Mull as Lead
Coordinator for Iran Nuclear Implementation. Ambassador Mull is a
professional with a long resume. I look forward to working with him
moving forward.
I thank the Democratic leader for his comments and I appreciate
working with him and my colleagues as we look toward the implementation
phase of this agreement--both in the near term and beyond January 2017.
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I want to concur with the statement of
the distinguished Democratic Leader on the long-term durability of the
Iran agreement.
Assuming Iran complies with the agreement and takes the key steps
necessary to substantially reduce its stockpiles of enriched uranium,
scale back its centrifuges, make changes to the Arak reactor to render
it inoperable and unable to produce weapons-grade plutonium, and takes
the many other steps necessary to qualify eventually for sanctions
relief next year--and then continues thereafter to comply with their
obligations--this agreement can and should last for many years.
Today is the last day of the 60-day congressional review period
established in the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, which the
President signed into law. As the leader noted, by supporting that
legislation the Senate voted to consider three possible outcomes: no
action at all, a resolution of approval, or a resolution of
disapproval. Republicans brought a resolution of disapproval before the
Senate and it failed. In fact, it has now failed on three separate
occasions.
In recent days, many of my Republican colleagues have claimed on this
floor that because this historic international nuclear agreement with
Iran is not a treaty and because Congress did not expressly approve the
agreement, it will not carry into the next Presidential administration.
That is not true. While it is true that the next President could
decide--even in the face of continued compliance by Iran and strong
objections from our allies in the P5+1--explicitly to withdraw from the
agreement, I don't expect that to happen. And unless and until that
happens, the terms of the agreement and the obligations of the U.S.
Government--and all other governments that are party to the agreement,
including Iran's--to comply do not end when this administration ends in
January 2017. Leader Reid has outlined in his statement numerous
similar agreements that have stood the test of time, from
administration to administration, over the years. I commend Leader Reid
for his statement, and agree wholeheartedly with him.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today to express my dismay
over the votes that took place earlier today on the Senate floor. The
resolution of disapproval of the Iran nuclear agreement has now been
voted on three times in the Senate, and it has failed to advance three
times.
Likewise, the House has failed in its own efforts to move a
resolution of disapproval. The fact of the matter is that the nuclear
agreement with Iran is a done deal, and the President now has every
right to move ahead with its implementation, period.
Yet we were on the Senate floor this morning, voting on a highly
charged Iran amendment that the majority leader introduced.
Unfortunately, the amendment was yet another political attempt to
undermine the agreement. This amendment would prevent the President
from providing sanctions relief to Iran-thereby scuttling the entire
agreement--unless Iran does two things: recognize the State of Israel
and release four Americans wrongfully imprisoned in Iran.
I voted no on cloture on this amendment, and I want to take a moment
to explain why. To be clear, my vote does not mean that I endorse
Iran's position on Israel nor does it mean that I don't care about the
American prisoners in Iran. Just because I support this diplomatic
agreement does not mean I support Iran's reprehensible policies.
In fact, I want nothing more than for Iran to recognize Israel as a
sovereign state. I have always stood by Israel, and its security and
future well-being are foremost in my mind. For those of us who are
personally connected to Israel and care for her deeply, this vote is
nothing more than an attempt to embarrass us and score political
points.
It should be obvious to the American people that, of course, we all
stand with Israel--Democrats and Republicans. Since 2008, we have
provided more than $25 billion to support Israel's defense. At $3.1
billion per year, Israel is the largest annual recipient of U.S.
military assistance, which can be used to purchase U.S. defense
equipment and services. We've also provided $3 billion specifically for
missile defense systems, such as the Iron Dome, David's Sling, and
Arrow. In fiscal year 2015 alone the Congress provided $351 million for
Iron Dome--twice the president's budget request.
We all want Iran to recognize Israel and stop threatening its
existence. We all want Iran's support for terrorist proxies on Israel's
doorstep to cease. We all are disturbed by the Ayatollah's calls for
Israel's destruction. But the way to truly have Israel's back is not
through this amendment.
On the prisoners currently held in Iran, it must be said and
reiterated: No American, let alone any member of Congress, wants any of
our citizens wrongfully imprisoned in Iran. These detainees deserve to
be brought home, safe and sound, to their loved ones. But, again, a
partisan amendment does not make that happen.
The vote today was nothing more than an attempt to extract a
political
[[Page S6785]]
price for our previous vote in support of the nuclear agreement.
Playing politics with one of the most important national security votes
of our time does nothing to actually support Israel, nor does it do
anything to free the prisoners. If my counterparts truly wanted to
enhance Israel's security and free the Americans, they would stop
trying to undermine the nuclear agreement with Iran-which I believe is
our best opportunity to begin to turn a new page with Iran.
I stand ready and eager to work with my Republican counterparts to
achieve our shared goals of supporting Israel and getting our prisoners
out of Iran. But we have a far better chance of achieving that through
bipartisan cooperation and working together to make sure the nuclear
agreement is fully implemented.
It is time to move past the repeated attempts to overturn the nuclear
agreement. It is extremely unfortunate we had to take the vote today,
especially given all the other pressing matters before the Senate.
I yield the floor.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Gold King Mine Spill
Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I want to speak today about a tragedy
that hit the American people, the American West last month, and it is
something that didn't get nearly as much attention as it should have. I
am talking about what has been called the Gold King Mine spill. It
happened on August 5. That was when the Environmental Protection Agency
spilled 3 million gallons of toxic wastewater into a tributary of the
Animas River in Colorado--3 million gallons.
This is water that contained toxic substances, such as arsenic and
lead. The agency was doing some work on an old mine when water under
high pressure started rushing out. This disturbing incident raises
serious questions about how the EPA, the so-called Environmental
Protection Agency, does business.
First of all, it raises significant questions about this agency's
responsiveness. After the EPA had this accident, apparently it never
occurred to them to immediately call the towns downstream and to let
anyone know this toxic plume was headed their way. The Animas River
connects to the San Juan River, which connects to the Colorado River
and to Lake Powell. These are some of the most beautiful natural
resources in all of America. It is the source of water for communities
all along the way. They provide recreation, water for irrigation for
crops and for homes.
This water that was polluted by the Environmental Protection Agency
flows from Colorado to New Mexico and into Utah. It flows through the
land of the Navajo Nation and the Southern Ute Indian Tribe. These
waterways are a sacred part of the culture for Native Americans who
live near them. So why didn't the EPA get on the phone? The Navajo
Nation was not informed until a full day after the spill. It got the
news from the State of New Mexico, not from the agency that caused the
disaster--the EPA.
At first, EPA didn't even want to admit how bad the spill was. They
said: Oh, it was a million gallons of wastewater. Days later they
admitted they had actually spilled three times the amount they said at
first. Four days after the spill, the EPA still hadn't reported to
Navajo leaders the presence of arsenic in the water--arsenic. It still
hasn't reported it. It took 5 days for the agency to set up a unified
command center in Durango, CO.
Yesterday, I chaired a hearing of the Indian Affairs Committee that
looked at how this disaster affected tribes along the route. The
agency's explanation was disappointing--very disappointing. The
disaster happened over 6 weeks ago. The EPA is still not giving out
detailed answers about what went wrong.
This tragedy also raises questions about the EPA's basic competence.
According to a preliminary review by the agency, the EPA failed to take
basic precautions--failed to take basic precautions. The agency never
even checked how high the water pressure was in the mine, but the
report did say the EPA knew about this risk--the risk of a blowout--14
months earlier, before it actually happened. They knew about it. They
knew the risk and never bothered to figure out what the worst-case
scenario would be and what they would do if water actually started
rushing out. But that is what happened, and they knew it could.
The people who live along these rivers are frustrated by this
agency's incompetence, but they are also frightened. People are afraid
of what the long-term health effects might be for them and for their
children. Farmers and ranchers are being devastated by the disaster.
They are uncertain about whether the agency will be compensating them
for their losses--losses that are the result of the EPA's own
incompetence.
At our hearing yesterday we heard from Gilbert Harrison. He is a
Marine Corps veteran, and he has a 20-acre farm on the Navajo
reservation. He grows corn, alfalfa, watermelons, and other crops. He
estimates he is going to lose 40 to 50 percent of some of his crops
because he couldn't use the water to irrigate. The farmer told our
committee yesterday:
This spill caused by the U.S. EPA created a lot of chaos,
confrontation, confusion, and losses among the farming
community.
This was a man-made disaster, and the Obama administration's EPA
inflicted it upon Americans in these communities. I have spoken with
tribal leaders who say the EPA has mishandled the spill, and the EPA's
mishandling of the spill has seriously damaged their trust--the tribe's
trust--of this agency. And I don't blame them.
Finally, the EPA's failure in this incident raises lots of questions
about the agency's priorities. After all, the Obama Environmental
Protection Agency has expanded its authority--expanded and seized
control over one area after another. Look at its destructive new rules
on waters of the United States. This agency has declared that only
Washington can be trusted to protect America's rivers and streams.
That is what the Environmental Protection Agency says: Only they can
be trusted to protect America's rivers and streams. How then do they
justify grabbing all of this new power when they can't even protect
rivers from themselves? They caused this problem. Look at this photo I
have in the Chamber. Does this look like the work of a bureaucracy that
should be in charge of protecting America's precious waterways? Look at
that before-and-after: beautiful blue water running through, then
this--sludge, dirty, polluted, and toxic. The EPA caused this. Does
this look like the work of a bureaucracy that should be in charge of
protecting our national precious water?
The Obama administration has focused on its radical climate change
agenda and has neglected its most basic responsibilities. This photo
should not give anyone confidence that the Obama administration is up
to the job. They are not.
Do we really think that Washington should have more control over
rivers like this when they caused something like this? Does anybody in
America believe that? Washington did this. The EPA did this. Washington
poisoned this river this way. The Environmental Protection Agency--the
so-called Environmental Protection Agency--must be held accountable.
When any private company is accused of violating the Clean Water Act,
the EPA aggressively pursues civil fines against that company and any
of the individuals involved as well. Even criminal prosecution occurs.
If this were a 3-million-gallon toxic spill caused by private citizens,
the EPA would act aggressively against those people. The EPA would
never accept the kind of feeble, half apologies and explanations we
have heard so far from this administration and from the Director of the
EPA who testified yesterday. There is clearly a double standard between
the way the EPA treats itself and the way it treats everyone else.
The EPA failed--it failed--to do the proper planning before it caused
this disaster. I believe it has also failed to do the proper work
before writing regulations, such as its waters of the United States
rule and its so-called Clean Power Plan.
With this spill, the agency's careless approach has done terrible
damage to
[[Page S6786]]
Americans living along the Animas River and other waterways. Its
reckless and irresponsible regulations will have a devastating effect
on the jobs and the lives of millions of Americans all across the
country.
At our hearing yesterday the EPA administrator continued to try to
downplay the impact of its actions--downplay the impact of its actions.
The agency needs to step back and rethink its priorities. This disaster
happened because the EPA is inept at its job. There should be no more
trying to deflect attention from the failure of the EPA--no more trying
to grab additional power that it can use to do more damage.
The Environmental Protection Agency has been out of control for far
too long. It is time for Congress and President Obama to hold the EPA
accountable for its failures, and it is time to rein in this runaway
bureaucracy before it does more damage to our communities, to our
economy, and to our country.
Madam President, 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.
Mrs. FISCHER. 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.
Strategy Against ISIL
Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I rise today to discuss our strategy
against ISIL.
Yesterday at our Armed Services Committee, we held a hearing on this
topic. Instead of reassuring me that our mission was on the right path,
the testimony provided further evidence that the administration must
change their approach. I agree with the President's stated goal of
degrading and destroying ISIL, but the steps we have taken thus far
will not achieve ISIL's defeat. Indeed, the root of the problem seems
to be that our strategy does not connect with events on the ground.
There is no better example of this than our plan to train and equip the
so-called moderate Syrian troops.
At the end of last year, Congress approved the President's request of
$500 million for the purpose of building a force of moderate Syrian
fighters. Testifying in September of last year, then-Secretary of
Defense Hagel laid out the administration's plan to build a force of
about 5,000 fighters in 1 year. General Dempsey, the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, added his assessment that about 12,000 fighters
would need to be trained for the force to have an effect on the
battlefield.
Initial results were expected within 8 to 12 months. At that time,
many Members, including myself, questioned whether those goals were
attainable and whether this assumption--that we could fight a war
without taking on significant risk because local partners would provide
ground forces--was even realistic.
Let's consider where we are today, about 10 months later. According
to public reports, the program produced about 60 fighters, and, upon
their return to Syria, they were attacked by Al Qaeda-affiliated
forces.
General Austin testified yesterday before our committee. In response
to my questioning, he said that only four or five of those fighters
remain. Again, we expected 5,000, and 4 or 5 remain. I wish I could say
the complete failure of this strategy comes as a surprise.
Unfortunately, I cannot. While ISIL has lost some territory in
northeastern Syria, it has expanded its control in the western half of
that country.
Iraq is a similar story. Recruits for U.S. training programs remain
below expectations, with U.S. forces training just over half the number
of Iraqis expected, and progress on the battlefield is uneven. It is
plain to see why General Dempsey, our most senior uniformed military
officer, has recently characterized the fight as ``tactically
stalemated.''
The question is, What are we going to do? How will our approach
change? What can we do to break that stalemate? What can we do to begin
rolling back this tremendous threat?
I attended yesterday's hearing with those questions in mind, and I
was extremely disappointed to hear that no real change was in order. To
be fair, press reports indicate that changes are being considered, such
as deploying graduates of our training program in groups larger than 50
or in safer areas of the country.
But even if such minor adjustments are made, they will not alter the
basic fact that the idea of a new Syrian force is a complete fantasy
under our current approach.
Perhaps in recognition of this, another report has surfaced that
suggests the administration is no longer attempting to build a moderate
ground force in Syria. Instead, they will simply train Syrians to
direct U.S. air strikes and then embed them within existing rebel
brigades.
If our experience thus far indicates that very few moderate groups
remain on the battlefield, we will either be providing air support to a
contingent too small to make a difference or we will be providing it to
groups that are too extreme to currently warrant any support from us.
Again, I support the President's goal to destroy ISIL, but I don't
see how anyone can believe this program is going to accomplish it.
Instead of providing a new direction, the message this administration
is sending is that they will stay the course. I admit I share the
complete confusion expressed by some of my colleagues yesterday when we
learned of this situation.
This White House acknowledges that the training programs in Syria and
Iraq--the linchpins of our strategy--have vastly underperformed. They
express moral outrage at ISIL's barbarity, as well as grave concern for
the plight of the 4 million refugees that have fled the country and
sorrow for the 250,000 that have lost their lives. Our military
characterizes the conflict as a stalemate. But, apparently, the
administration feels no change is necessary. We are told the long-term
trajectory is favorable, and ISIL's future, as General Dempsey put it,
is ``increasingly dim.'' I appreciate the fact that patience is
required when it comes to military operations, but at the same time,
patience doesn't fill the fundamental gaps in this administration's
strategy. And the idea that we can wait ISIL out seems to overlook the
death, destruction, and collateral damage its continued presence
inflicts on the neighboring countries or to at least suggest that it is
tolerable.
I have visited the region several times. Our allies there cannot
sustain the strain of this conflict for years on end. I have visited a
Syrian refugee camp in Turkey. Those people cannot wait there forever.
Lest we forget, colleagues, this conflict has been raging for 4 years.
Sadly, the flood of refugees reaching Europe was entirely predictable.
And how long before a divided Iraq becomes irreparable? As long as
ISIL exists and continues to exercise initiative on the battlefield, it
will draw recruits, expand its global network, and inspire those ``lone
wolf'' attacks. Its ability to execute attacks against Europe and the
United States will improve as more foreign fighters pass through its
ranks and then return to their home countries. These are the very
reasons Congress supported taking military action against ISIL in the
first place, but I certainly did not support the deployment of forces
to establish a stalemate.
When our soldiers are put in harm's way, we shouldn't be content to
just ``patiently'' leave them there, with no strategy to achieve our
goals. As my colleague Senator McCain--who has been a tireless advocate
on this issue--has pointed out, there are a variety of options
available to the President between the current approach and deploying
large amounts of troops on the ground. With only a stalemate to show
for the thousands of soldiers we have deployed, the 5,000 air strikes
that we have conducted, and the past year we have spent training
Syrians and Iraqis, I think these options deserve reconsideration.
The President has stated that ``all wars must end'' and that our
country ``must move off a permanent war footing.'' I believe the best
way to do so is by crafting a strategy that plans for victory.
Before I yield the floor, I want to note my appreciation of Secretary
Carter and General Austin for their frank testimony before the Senate
Armed Services Committee. Both men have come before our panel and they
have
[[Page S6787]]
provided honest assessments and also specific figures about the results
of the Syria training program, for which they have received significant
media scrutiny.
The point of a public hearing is to provide the American people and
their representatives in Congress with the information they need to
know so we can make informed policy decisions. I sincerely hope more
witnesses follow their example and justly uphold the valuable tradition
of congressional oversight by not shying away from discussing these
very difficult topics.
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. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up
to 20 minutes as in morning business and to share the time with the
Senator from Ohio, Mr. Portman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Remembering Congressman Louis Stokes
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I am joined by my colleague on the floor
today, both of us longtime friends of the now late Congressman Louis
Stokes. Senator Portman and I sat together at Congressman Stokes'
funeral at Olivette Church in Cleveland just a couple of weeks ago. We
both called Lou a friend. I wish to speak about him, and then I know
Senator Portman would like to speak about his friendship and his
alliances and allegiances and work with Congressman Stokes.
He grew up in a Federal housing project in Cleveland. His father
worked in a laundromat. His father passed away when Lou was 3, leaving
his mother with two young sons to raise. A former sharecropper and
descendant of slaves, she cleaned houses to support her sons and
encouraged them to get an education.
Lou shined shoes to earn money for the family. He served in the Army
during World War II--probably a pretty segregated Army. He served and
went to college at Case Western at night on the GI bill.
From public housing, to public education, to public investment in our
servicemembers, Congressman Stokes' life accomplishments show how
government makes a difference in people's lives--something he
passionately believed in--the partnership between government and
communities, between the Federal Government and what we can do together
as a country. In the 20th century, our country made great strides in
that public investment and in expanding opportunity, paving the way for
people like Congressman Stokes to become national and community
leaders. What this country gave to Lou Stokes he gave back many times
over.
The seeds for his career of service were sowed in many places, in
many fields, but particularly, he used to say, in the Army when he was
stationed in the Deep South during the days of segregation. He was
appalled by the inequalities he witnessed, even for those wearing the
uniform and serving our country. He said once:
I remember being moved from Jefferson Barracks in St. Louis
to Camp Stewart, Georgia, through Memphis. They stopped the
train there to eat lunch. The first dining room was all white
soldiers; the next dining room was German POWs. A black
curtain separated the black soldiers from the German POWs. It
was one of the first times it really hit me.
He would go on to dedicate his life to fighting those inequalities.
He and his brother Carl opened a law firm in Cleveland. The first
cases were civil rights cases. Congressman Stokes took on cases both
big and small, including the landmark stop-and-frisk Supreme Court case
Terry v. Ohio. Again and again throughout his legal career, he fought
for the interests of the powerless against the powerful--the same as he
did in Congress.
In 1965 Louis and Carl Stokes represented the local NAACP in
challenging Ohio's congressional map.
Around that time, Congressman Stokes' brother Carl was elected mayor
of the city of Cleveland in a second attempt, and Cleveland then became
the largest city in America which had elected a Black mayor.
The new district map created from the lawsuit I mentioned brought
Ohio's first African-American majority district in 1968. Lou Stokes won
that seat and became the first African American to represent Ohio in
Congress. In only his second term in the House, he became the first
African American in the Nation's history to serve on the House
Appropriations Committee. He didn't use his success to seek glory for
himself; he used his commanding position to expand opportunities not
just in his own district in Cleveland--so important to those of us who
live in Cleveland and those of us who represent Ohio--but he used his
position to help African-American communities all over the country. He
was immediately--and he earned it--more and more beloved in the Black
communities in every city in Ohio, including from Mansfield, where I
grew up, to Akron, to Columbus and Cincinnati, to Dayton and Toledo and
the smaller cities.
He gave those who were too often ignored a voice in Washington, where
it could make the most difference. He secured money for housing, urban
development, health care, jobs programs, education, and for colleges
primarily serving people of color.
He was a strong advocate for unions. He cared greatly about the trade
union movement. He knew the trade union movement gave great opportunity
to African Americans, especially in cities like Cleveland. He stood up
for collective bargaining. He stood up for the rights of workers
everywhere. And to give a permanent and powerful voice to people of
color, he helped to form the Congressional Black Caucus.
Congressman Stokes' accomplishments are many. We honor him today with
our words and with this resolution Senator Portman and I are
introducing. We should strive to honor and continue to honor him each
day.
Here is how we do it, and I will close with this. On a Sunday night,
2 days before the 2008 elections, Senator Obama--a colleague of mine at
the time in the Senate--was campaigning in Cleveland for President. It
was two nights before the election.
As Senator Portman and I remind our colleagues, Ohio is perhaps the
Nation's No. 1 swing State. I know the Presiding Officer thinks they
elect Presidents in her State, but we really do elect Presidents in the
State of Ohio.
So then-Senator Obama came to Ohio the Sunday night before the
election to a rally estimated at between 70,000 and 80,000 people. As
Presidential candidates almost inevitably and invariably are at the end
of campaigns, he was about an hour late. Bruce Springsteen took the
stage. A number of us spoke at the rally.
Before Senator Obama arrived, I had the honor--and it became one of
my greatest memories ever of public service--I stood beside and behind
the grandstand and had a conversation of about 45 minutes to an hour
with Congressman Stokes, who was retired at that point; Rev. Otis Moss,
who delivered his eulogy a couple of weeks ago; and Mrs. Edwina Moss. I
just listened to them for 45 minutes talk about what it meant to them
that we were this close to electing an African-American President.
They, frankly, didn't think it would happen in their lifetimes. They
weren't even sure, the polls notwithstanding, that it was going to
happen in 2008. The excitement and the sense of history and the awe and
the depth of feeling Congressman Stokes and Edwina Moss and Reverend
Moss exhibited during that 45 minutes--talking, reminiscing about
memories, thinking of the future--to my wife Connie and me was
something I will never forget.
Since then, Citizen Stokes--former Congressman--who cared so deeply
about this, was so happy we passed the Affordable Care Act. He was so
happy we did things such as the auto rescue to get our State's economy
back and going again. He cared so much about voting rights. He was so
troubled by the Supreme Court decisions. He was so hopeful that our
country could get back on track in a bipartisan way to build this
economy, to pass voting rights, to do all of the things he devoted his
life to first as a young lawyer, then as a Congressman, and then as one
of Ohio's most prominent citizens, to continue to speak out on these
issues that matter to all of us.
[[Page S6788]]
We should honor his life and legacy by continuing Congressman Stokes'
work for equality and justice in the lives of others. We honor him. We
considered him a friend, and I know Senator Portman did too.
I am thrilled to be able to stand on the floor and speak for a few
moments about my friend, the late Congressman Stokes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Ohio for his
remarks and for joining me here on the floor to talk about our former
colleague and friend, Congressman Louis Stokes. He was an amazing guy.
He was a true American success story and a true son of Ohio who
dedicated his entire life to public service, whether he was in elected
office or not.
I think my colleague Senator Brown has done a really nice job
speaking about his humble beginnings.
Lou Stokes grew up without the benefit of having a dad around. He
grew up in a poor household but with a lot of pride. His mom pushed him
to get an education and to be the best he could, as clearly she did
with her other son, Louis's brother Carl.
After growing up in Cleveland, he spent a few years in the Army,
which had a big impression on him. He then went to Cleveland-Marshall
College of Law. He was a successful attorney and actually argued three
cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. So he had a career in law that was
distinguished even before getting into politics.
Senator Brown talked about his brother Carl and the fact that when he
was elected the mayor of Cleveland, it then became the largest city in
America which had elected a Black mayor. Louis Stokes told me he saw
that and that is what inspired him to think maybe he should get
involved in public service in that way as well. So he ran for office.
He got elected to the House of Representatives. He was the first
African-American Congressperson from Ohio; that was in 1968. He would
later become the first African American to sit on the Appropriations
Committee. So a lot of firsts.
As Congressman, he served for 30 years. He became a very influential
Member. Senator Brown and I had a chance to serve with him there. He
represented his district faithfully, but he also played a pivotal role
in broader issues well beyond his district. His involvement in civil
rights was mentioned, as well as certainly education and justice
issues.
I was a proud cosponsor of a number of bills with him. We
collaborated on one project in particular called the National
Underground Railroad Freedom Center in Cincinnati, where he helped me
tremendously. This was in my hometown, not in his town. As a member of
the Appropriations Committee, he was critical to getting that freedom
center up and going, which is a national center that resides today on
the banks of the Ohio River.
We also wrote legislation to connect all the Underground Railroad
sites around the country, many of which were in disrepair and in danger
of being lost, and that is the Network to Freedom Act that continues
today to get the Park Service involved in protecting these sites.
It was always a pleasure to work with him, and he was a loyal and
trusted legislative partner.
He then went to the Squire Sanders law firm, and I was honored again
to call him a colleague when I worked there after leaving government
and before running for the Senate. So we had a chance to get to know
each other better outside of the legislative branch. He had a great
career, as Senator Brown just said.
What I admired about him most was his interest and ability in getting
to a result. He was not about giving fancy speeches or rhetoric. He was
about coming up with solutions to help the people he represented in
Cleveland, and I think in his heart well beyond Cleveland, and that is
why he was so effective.
He didn't get sidetracked by the partisanship and political attacks.
He kept focused, and he made a big difference. He had a meaningful
impact on lives in his district and well beyond.
All you have to do is go through Cleveland to see his impact. It is
hard not to see a landmark named after him or his brother Carl. Among
those is the Louis Stokes Public Annex to the Cleveland Public Library,
as well as the Louis Stokes Health Sciences Center at Case Western
Reserve University.
I remember going to his retirement party from the Squires Sanders law
firm. I had rushed there from another meeting and had gone through
town, and as I arrived I said: Let's just name the town after Lou
Stokes, because I was on Stokes Street and went by the Stokes library
and the Stokes Health Center. So those were all assessments of the
impact he had on his community.
He was a very strong family man, a loving husband to his beautiful
wife Jay of more than 50 years, and he was very proud of his kids. Each
of them in their own right has gone on to distinguished careers. His
grandchildren spoke at the funeral where Senator Brown and I were, and,
boy, were they articulate. They were just really impressive. He had so
much to be proud of.
I had the opportunity to visit him just before he passed, and the
last thing he said to me is: I am so lucky, Rob. I am so lucky to have
had a great family. That is what he talked about to me in our final
moments together.
He was determined and he was successful, no question about it, but he
did it in a gentlemanly way. He had a great smile, a good sense of
humor. His laughter could light up a room, and it did. I was just very
grateful to call him a friend and to have him as a respected colleague,
to watch him as an effective leader. He has made an impression on me,
and he has made an indelible impact on the State of Ohio. He will be
missed as an effective leader, a great leader for Ohio, and a loyal
friend.
I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). The Senator from Washington.
Budget Deadline
Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, right now we are on a course for yet another
Republican government shutdown in just 13 days. We know what this looks
like and how damaging it is because we saw it 2 years ago when tea
party Republicans dug in their heels and tried to use shutdown threats
to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
We know that during the 16-day shutdown that followed the tea party
tantrum, workers across our country didn't know when they would get
their next paycheck, businesses felt the sting of fewer customers, and
families across our country lost even more trust that elected officials
in our country could even get anything done. After all that--after all
the damage families and communities felt--we also know that the 2013
government shutdown actually did nothing to stop the Affordable Care
Act.
Once that shutdown ended, I was proud to work with the Republican
Budget chairman, Paul Ryan, to do what we shouldn't have needed a
shutdown to get done, and that was negotiate a 2-year bipartisan budget
deal that prevented another government shutdown. It restored critical
investments in priorities like education, research, and defense jobs,
and it showed families their government can get something done when
both sides are willing to come to the table and compromise.
I was hopeful that after the economy-rattling exercise in futility
and the bipartisan deal that came out of it, Republican leaders would
have learned a few lessons. Well, 2 years later, as our bipartisan deal
is set to expire, here we are with another Republican government
shutdown around the corner.
What are the leaders doing about this? What is their plan to avoid a
repeat of 2013? Are they working with Democrats to keep government open
and negotiate a budget deal as we have been pushing them to do for
months? Unfortunately, the answer is no. Instead, just days away from a
looming fiscal deadline, Republicans are back as far into their
partisan corner as they can get and are focused on their political
pastime--attacking women's health.
Instead of spending the coming weeks working to avoid a budget
crisis, which is what we should be doing, Republicans are unbelievably
planning to vote on yet another restriction on women's health and
rights. This is transparent pandering that is bad for
[[Page S6789]]
women, bad for our economy, and bad for our country.
People across the country are watching this, and they are appalled.
This particular bill that is coming to the floor next week is an
extreme, unconstitutional abortion ban, which would restrict a woman's
constitutionally protected right to make her own choices about her own
health and her own body. That bill would mean that if a young woman
endures rape or incest, she would have to go to the police before
getting the care she needs, and it would take away the right to choose
from adult victims of incest entirely. Finally, that bill would allow
politicians in Washington, DC, to get between a woman and her doctor by
making it a crime for doctors to provide health care their patients
need.
This kind of dangerous, extreme legislation might appeal to the tea
party, but it is going nowhere. Voting on it certainly will not keep
the government open and, just like the Republican attacks on the
Affordable Care Act 2 years ago, this latest GOP effort to turn back
the clock on women's health is a dead end.
A new report from the CBO shows that if Republicans get their way and
Planned Parenthood loses funding, as many as 630,000 women will not be
able to get birth control. Hundreds of thousands of women, many of whom
do not have convenient access to health care clinics or providers
besides Planned Parenthood, would experience reduced access to their
health care.
It is appalling that in the 21st century, my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle are pushing to take health care away from women who
need it.
Let me be very clear. Democrats are not going to allow Republican
political pandering come before women's health and rights--not on our
watch.
I want to be sure that families and communities across the country
heard something that the majority leader did say yesterday. He said
that ``inevitably'' Democrats and Republicans will have to work
together to reach a bipartisan budget agreement.
Well, I think the workers and businesses who struggled through the
last government shutdown are wondering what the holdup is. Why do we
need another round of drama and brinksmanship before we can work
together? Why do we need to see countdown clocks--once again--counting
down the days until another shutdown? And why, once again, do women and
their health care have to come under attack before Republicans can do
the right thing?
I am certainly wondering, and I know my Democratic colleagues are
too. I think it is clear that Republican leaders have a choice. As
their leader said, they inevitably will have to work with Democrats,
now or later. The only question is how much pain they are willing to
put workers and businesses through before they drop the politics, stop
pandering, and come to the table.
Democrats are ready to get to work, and I hope that, finally,
Republican leaders are as well.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I would like to discuss my bill, S. 2035,
the Federal Employee Fair Treatment Act.
I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Federal Employee Fair Treatment Act
Mr. CARDIN. The legislation I have filed, S. 2035, the Federal
Employee Fair Treatment Act, will help alleviate some of the fears of
Federal workers when the Federal Government shuts down. I am pleased to
have Senators Reid, Baldwin, Carper, Gillibrand, Hirono, Kaine, Leahy,
Mikulski, Shaheen, and Warner as original cosponsors.
The bill is simple and straightforward. It requires that all Federal
workers furloughed as a result of any lapse in appropriations that may
begin as soon as October 1 will receive their pay retroactively as soon
as it is practicable. It is the right thing to do. It is the fair thing
to do. Federal workers don't want government shutdowns. They don't
cause government shutdowns. They are dedicated public servants who
simply want to do their jobs on behalf of the American people. They
shouldn't suffer because some Republicans want to shut down the Federal
Government in the misguided notion that it will somehow prevent Planned
Parenthood from providing health care services to low-income women and
their families. Two years ago, these same individuals thought that
shutting down the government would prevent the Affordable Care Act from
being implemented. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now.
As the Congressional Research Service has reported, in ``historical
practice,'' Federal workers who have been furloughed as a result of a
shutdown have received their pay retroactively ``as a result of
legislation to that effect.''
The language in the Federal Employee Fair Treatment Act is similar to
the language used to provide pay retroactively to workers furloughed in
previous shutdowns.
I am pleased that it is supported by the American Federation of
Government Employees, the National Treasury Employees Union, and the
National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association.
The Federal Employee Fair Treatment Act includes a new provision that
allows exempted employees, those who are required to work during a
shutdown, to take authorized leave. They, too, would be paid
retroactively as soon as possible after the lapse in appropriations
ends. During previous shutdowns, exempted employees have been
prohibited from taking leave for any reason, including planned surgery
or major family events, such as a wedding, that may have been scheduled
weeks or even months in advance, causing many of them to lose money on
nonrefundable plane tickets, hotel deposits, et cetera.
I am using the process permissible under rule XIV of the Standing
Rules of the Senate to place S. 2035 directly on the legislative
calendar. I am doing that to expedite consideration of the bill so that
the hardworking middle-class Federal employees know they will be
treated fairly if there is another shutdown. They shouldn't have to
worry about whether they will be paid when a partisan gridlock prevents
them from doing their jobs.
Since 2011, Federal workers have contributed $159 billion to deficit
reduction. They have endured a 3-year pay freeze and two substandard
pay increases since then, for a total of $137 billion. They lost
another billion dollars in pay because of sequestration-related
furloughs. Federal employees hired in 2013 and since 2014 are paying an
extra $21 billion for their pensions. And each and every Federal worker
is being asked to do more with less as agency budgets are frozen or
cut. This is happening to hardworking, patriotic public servants,
mostly middle class and struggling to get by like so many other
Americans. Enough is enough.
Since the 1950s and 1960s, the U.S. population has increased by 76
percent and the private sector workforce has surged to 133 percent, but
the size of the Federal workforce has risen just 11 percent. Relative
to the private sector, the Federal workforce is less than one-half the
size that it was in the 1950s and 1960s. The picture that emerges is
one of a Federal civilian workforce, the size of which has
significantly shrunk compared to the size of the U.S. population it
serves, the private sector workforce, and the magnitude of Federal
spending.
I would make the additional point that shutting down the government
hurts veterans. Over 30 percent of the civilian Federal employees are
veterans, as opposed to just 7.8 percent of the non-Federal workforce.
In Texas, veterans comprise, for example, 37.5 percent of the civilian
Federal workforce. In Kentucky it is 33.9 percent; in Florida it is
38.9 percent; in South Carolina it is 41.7 percent. Is this how we are
going to honor the men and women who have stood in harm's way to defend
our Nation, by telling them to stay home involuntarily and having them
worry about whether they will be paid?
Preventing Federal workers from doing their jobs doesn't just harm
them; it harms all Americans because Federal workers patrol our borders
and make sure our air and water are clean and our food and drugs are
safe. They support our men and women in uniform and care for our
wounded warriors, they help our manufacturers compete abroad, they
discover cures for life-
[[Page S6790]]
threatening diseases, they prosecute criminals and terrorists, they
maintain and protect critical infrastructure, they explore the
universe, they process passport applications, they make sure Social
Security, Medicare, and other social safety net programs are
functioning properly.
When Federal workers do their job, they are helping each and every
American live a safer and more prosperous life. Our tasks here in
Congress are simple: We need to keep the government open for business
and keep Federal workers on the job. Later this year, we will need to
raise the debt ceiling so we can continue to pay our bills and maintain
the full faith and credit of the United States Government.
We need to return to regular order around here and negotiate a
comprehensive budget deal to replace the sequestration, a budget that
maintains critical Federal investments while spreading the burden of
deficit reduction in a fair way and holding Federal workers and their
families harmless after subjecting them to so much hardship over the
past several months and years.
One of the great attributes of the American character is pragmatism.
Unlike what some other Federal workers actually do, here in Congress
balancing the budget is not rocket science. We know the various
options. Former President Lyndon Johnson was fond of quoting the
Prophet Isaiah: ``Come let us reason together.'' That is what we need
to do. We can acknowledge and respect our differences, but at the end
of the day the American people have entrusted us with governing, with
being pragmatic. Let's do our job so Federal workers can continue to do
their job on behalf of all Americans.
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. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
228th Anniversary of the Signing of the Constitution
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today marks the 228th anniversary of the
signing of the Constitution. Two hundred twenty-eight years ago, 39
brave and wise men set their names to the document that has guided our
government and our politics ever since. With each passing year, I am
increasingly astounded by the genius of those who framed our
Constitution.
The world was a very different place back in 1787. There was no
electricity, no railroads, no air conditioning. Crossing the Atlantic
Ocean took months, and news traveled slowly on horseback. Our Nation,
which today covers the continent, comprised only 13 States with a
combined population of 4 million people. That is roughly the current
population of Oklahoma today.
Despite these vastly different circumstances, the Framers created a
system that has endured for over 200 years and has become an example to
the world of stability and strength. They did so by enshrining in the
Constitution certain fundamental principles about government and the
source of rights, coupled with an objective, honest view of the
failings of human nature.
The Framers recognized that our rights come from God, not government,
and that it is the role of government to secure, not create, rights.
They recognized that government unrestrained is a threat to liberty and
that in order to protect citizens from government's constant tendency
to expand its sphere, ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Parchment barriers, as Madison famously intoned, will never suffice.
Thus, the Framers created the separation of powers: federalism,
checks and balances; an independent judiciary; a bicameral legislature;
and an executive that, while unified, lacked the power of the purse.
Each branch of government would have to share power with the others,
just as States and the Federal Government would have to share power as
well. By preventing any one branch or any one level of government from
being able to act unilaterally in its affairs, the Constitution ensured
that no one individual or group would be able to run roughshod over any
other. And just as important, the Constitution ensured that no major
policy change could occur without substantial support from large
numbers of Americans at all levels of government and society.
The genius of the Constitution lies in its insight that prosperity
requires stability. Temporary majorities come and go. Their favored
policies may or may not be wise. Some years ago there was a great
concern that the Earth was cooling. Now there is worry in the same
quarters that it is warming. Policies that may have seemed wise at one
point in time later reveal themselves to be foolish, even dangerous. By
dividing power among branches, States, and Washington, our Constitution
helps avert sudden, large mistakes even as it enables more modest
improvements supported by broad coalitions.
The Constitution's division of powers also protects against the
natural inclination toward self-aggrandizement. This inclination occurs
both at the governmentwide level and at the individual level. An
unchecked Federal Government bent upon remedying all of society's ills
will tend naturally to swallow the States, each of which has far fewer
resources than the Federal leviathan. At the individual level,
officeholders competing for power and prestige battle against each
other as they try to enact their visions into law. Our constitutional
system ensures that the Federal Government does not altogether consume
the States by limiting and enumerating the Federal Government's powers
and by promising that all powers not delegated to the Federal
Government are reserved to the States. The Constitution also forces
rival officeholders to work together in its design to prevent any one
person from unilaterally making, changing or eliminating laws.
Madison famously said that ``if men were angels, no further
government would be necessary.'' He further posited that ``if angels
were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on
government would be necessary.''
Well, as everybody knows, we are not angels, and we need controls on
government to keep it in its proper sphere. The Constitution provides
these controls by dividing and diffusing power and by forcing those who
seek change to work with others who may not share their views.
Unfortunately, there are some who view the Constitution as an
obstacle to overcome, a barrier to supposed progress. These individuals
find fault with the fact that the Constitution makes change difficult
and requires broad, long-lasting consensus in order to enact major
reform. Surely the exigencies of the day, they argue, weren't by
passing or even ignoring the separation of powers, federalism, and
other elements of our constitutional structure. Although some of these
individuals may be well-intentioned, they are fundamentally disguised.
The fact is that the Constitution is not an obstacle. It is a guide--
a guide for how we should approach our contemporary problems, for how
we should think about our roles as citizens and legislators, for how we
should conduct ourselves as we debate the problems of the day.
The Constitution limits government in order to preserve freedom. It
makes each branch the equal of the others and the States the equal of
Washington, DC. It provides a check on all government action. It
divides power among multiple sources because no one individual or
office can be trusted with all authority, and it requires cooperation
at all levels and all stages to ensure that changes in law are
thoroughly vetted rather than rammed through by temporary majorities.
These are the principles that should guide us as we seek solutions to
our Nation's challenges.
These principles apply in any number of situations. A law that
coerces States into coordinating or expanding programs against their
will by threatening to cut off all funding for noncompliance makes
States the subordinates, not equals, of the Federal Government.
Executive action that purports to suspend vast swathes of our Nation's
immigration laws does not honor Congress as a coequal branch, nor do
statements threatening that if Congress does not act, the President
will. The Constitution does not give the President a blank check. It
requires him to work with Congress--a coequal
[[Page S6791]]
branch--to move the ball forward. Executive hubris is the antithesis of
fidelity to the Constitution. More in line with what the Constitution
teaches is a willingness to reach out to include fellow officeholders.
A President who works all levers of government to find broad agreement
understands the lessons of the Constitution. President Reagan did this
with tax reform and entitlement reform. President Bush did it with
education reform and financial sector reform.
Legislation that preserves the separation of powers, rather than
delegating vast lawmaking authority to an unelected bureaucracy, also
honors the Constitution's teachings, and so do regulations that stay
within the bounds of agency authority. When agencies exceed their
statutory mandate, they actually do violence to the Constitution's
careful system of checks and balances. They assume power that is not
theirs to take and remove decisions from the give-and-take of the
democratic process. This is particularly problematic when the obvious
purpose of the agency action is to bypass Congress.
EPA's recent carbon rules are but one example. When the
administration found itself unable to pass cap and trade, even through
a Democratic Congress, it turned to administrative fiat. It mattered
not that the Clean Air Act provides no authority for the
administration's exceptional harsh rules--rules that will depress
economic growth and cause energy costs to soar, I might add. What
mattered was the goal of reducing carbon emissions.
But the Constitution does not give the President power to right all
wrongs, it requires him to work with Congress so the two bodies
together can address our Nation's problems. Cooperation, the
Constitution teaches, yields better results than imprudent unilateral
action.
More generally, all laws that expand the government risk ignore the
lesson of the Constitution. When we vote to expand government, we set
ourselves against the very purpose of the Constitution to restrain the
powers of the Federal Government. True, the Constitution created a more
robust government to remedy the defects in the Articles of
Confederation, but in creating a more robust government it placed check
upon check upon check on that government. A government that can compel
citizens to purchase products they do not want or to provide products
repugnant to their most deeply held religious beliefs is a danger to
liberty. Whenever we carve out new space for the Federal Government, we
must be exceedingly careful not to upset the careful balance of the
Constitution.
The Constitution also provides more subtle lessons on how we should
conduct ourselves as Senators and elected officials. The overarching
genius of the Constitution, as I have said, is its recognition that
flourishing requires stability. Unchecked majorities are dangerous, not
only because they tend to invade minority rights but also because in
their enthusiasm for change, they may enact policies that cooler
reflection would reveal to be unwise.
The ongoing debacle of ObamaCare is an example of this inaction.
Flush with the Presidency, a majority in the House and their first
filibuster-proof majority in the Senate in over 30 years, Democrats
enacted fundamental changes to American health care that have forced
millions of Americans off their own plans, caused premiums to
skyrocket, and further insinuated government into decisions that should
be made between doctors and patients.
Had my colleagues on the other side of the aisle paid greater heed to
what the Constitution has to teach, they might not have rushed so
headlong into these problems. The Constitution teaches the virtue of
prudence and incremental reform. Rather than seeking fundamental
changes, as President Obama promised during the 2008 campaign,
Democrats should have focused on retaining those aspects of American
health care that work well, including doctor choice, innovation, and
quicker access for treatment, even while attempting to correct
deficiencies.
A more modest package that sought to preserve what worked, rather
than an anonymous bill so large no one had any time to actually read
it, could have avoided many of the problems ObamaCare is now causing.
It might even have retracted some Republican votes. Instead, my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle chose a party-line vote using
an obscure legislative procedure that became necessary only after the
people of Massachusetts--Massachusetts--elected Scott Brown, to block
the bill. They did so in such a rush, as Speaker Pelosi so memorably
revealed, that they didn't know what was in their bill. My colleagues
across the aisle, along with the rest of America, are now paying the
price for their improvements.
My remarks on this Constitution Day have focused on the lessons the
Constitution has to teach, as well as the dangers we risk when we
ignore its wisdom. I wish to close by calling upon my colleagues to pay
greater heed to the lessons of the Constitution when writing and voting
on legislation. There is an unfortunate tendency, in my view, to think
of the Constitution as the courts' domain, to leave it entirely up to
the courts to decide whether a law is constitutional. We in Congress
just write laws; it is up to the courts to do the constitutional stuff.
This tendency to leave things to the courts diminishes our role in
the constitutional system and misses the many lessons the Constitution
has to teach. The judiciary's role in assessing constitutionality is a
narrow one. Courts have not asked whether any law is consistent with
the Constitution's overall spirit or the principles that animate it.
Rather, they ask whether it satisfies some legal role announced in a
previous case. Is the regulated activity commerce? Is the punishment
for noncompliance a tax or a penalty?
But fidelity to the Constitution is about much more than narrow,
legal reasoning. Honoring the Constitution involves looking to the
principles that undergird it--values such as individual liberty,
separation of powers, federalism, respect for civil society, and
democratic accountability. In determining whether a given course of
action is wise, all of these things are important.
ObamaCare again provides an example. ObamaCare, in my view, is
unconstitutional, not only because it exceeds Congress's power under
the Constitution but also because it violates many of the enduring
principles made manifest in the Constitution. It invades liberty by
compelling individuals to purchase insurance against their will and
undermines federalism by coercing State governments to expand Medicaid.
It dilutes the separation of powers by transferring vast legislative
authority to the Executive--and on and on.
The same is true of the President's order suspending immigration laws
for up to 5 million illegal immigrants. It attempts to transmute
legislative authority to determine who may lawfully enter our country
into an unbounded Executive prerogative not to enforce the law, it end
runs democratic accountability by ignoring the wishes of the people's
duly elected representatives, and it undermines the respect for civil
society by sanctioning conduct contrary to our laws.
Whether a law meets whatever legal test the Supreme Court has set
forth does not end the inquiry for those of us who seek the
Constitution as our guide. We would do well to revive what James Ceaser
and others call political constitutionalism: the notion that it falls
mostly to political actors such as ourselves making political decisions
to protect and promote constitutional goals.
For some programs, such as ObamaCare, it means repealing the program
root and branch and replacing it with one that is both more effective
and more in line with our constitutional values. For other programs
that have become more embedded in the fabric of American society,
advancing the cause of constitutionalism will involve more incremental
reform. All of our entitlement programs need improvement. We must think
hard about how we can reform these programs to better serve those for
whom they were intended.
James Madison called the Constitution a miracle. I think he was right
on point. The Constitution is a miracle because it has endured for over
200 years. It is a miracle because of what it teaches about prudent
government and the need to guard against human failings. It is a
miracle because the lessons it provides are just as relevant today as
they were 228 years ago. I have to say it is a miracle because well
over 160 nations in this world have
[[Page S6792]]
tried to copy it and under none of those nations does it work as well
as this country.
In some ways we are starting to lose the Constitution because of some
of the actions and activities of those who want to win at any cost. May
we ever look to the Constitution for guidance and pay it increased
fidelity as we discharge our duties here in Washington and across this
great land.
I thank the Chair.
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. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, there has been a lot of talk around here
about the Iran deal: It is over. We made our best effort. We have fully
exposed exactly what is in this agreement. We had hours and hours, days
and days, and weeks and weeks of debates over this. It has been on our
plate ever since the beginning of the negotiations.
Some of us started to express alarm and concern about the direction
of those negotiations and what was potentially being given away, but we
weren't sure until, fortunately, thanks to the Corker bill, Congress
had a chance to weigh in and the administration was required to give us
the ability to look at every word of this agreement, the annexes and
everything attached to it.
Sometime later on, we found out there were two secret side agreements
which we weren't able to see, and that alone, in my opinion, should
have been enough to vote against this agreement. How can one enter into
any kind of a contractual relationship with a nation or a car dealer if
the person you are negotiating with says: Well, there are a couple of
secret matters over here that you can't have access to, but don't
worry--it really won't mess things up. No one is going to sign an
agreement like that except the President of the United States and
apparently the Secretary of State.
We made a valiant effort to defeat this. Many of us poured our heart
and soul into this not just for days, not just for weeks, not just for
months, but for years. And, yes, the American people have learned a lot
more about this, a lot more than what has been marketed by the White
House in terms of how good this is for the future of America, our
national security, and the future of the world.
In many ways, I think we have exposed--and I have listed at least
10--major issues that we conceded. There were goals that we wanted to
achieve going into the negotiations, and we conceded on every single
point.
In the interest of time, I will not go back over that. All I am here
to do is to say that I guess I am not ready to give up. Earlier on the
floor, I quoted Yogi Berra: ``It ain't over till it's over.'' Everybody
said it is over, but the consequences of this are not over and the
results of this are not over. We will be living this out for the
duration of this agreement, and at the end of this agreement, Iran will
have completed exactly the goal that it is trying to reach--in fact,
they may complete it much earlier than that--and that is the
legitimatization of their possession of nuclear weapons and nuclear
weapon capability.
This is a country that says: We only need to develop this for medical
isotopes; to fuel a reactor that is going to produce electricity for
our people--despite all the Sun, wind, and the unlimited amount of oil
and gas underneath their soil which could provide that much cheaper
than any other form. So there is no justification for their going
forward except to achieve that one goal which we know they have worked
on for years. We know they have lied in terms of organizations that
have been sanctioning this. And now we have simply given them a pathway
to achieving this and a legitimatization of their achievement of this.
Some say that all the consequences will be good because Iran will abide
by every part of this agreement and throughout this process there is
going to be a major change in Iran--the theocracy will be overthrown,
and they will become a responsible neighbor and nation--and this is the
pathway to achieving that--that is the vision of the President. That is
the dream.
Frankly, I hope my assessment of this is wrong. For the sake of the
future of the United States, for the sake of the future of Israel, and
for the sake of the future of the world, I hope I am wrong. But there
is nothing in this agreement and there is nothing that has been said or
done by the Iranian regime that would give us any indication--any hint
at all--of any kind of change in their behavior. In fact, as they
deride our agreement, our negotiators, and embarrass our President day
after day after day with ``Death to America'' and ``Extinction of
Israel.'' What will be the consequences? As I said, I discussed at
length what I think is wrong with this bill. I won't go over that again
today. It is already in the Record. But there will be consequences that
I don't think we have fully discussed, and I wish to lay out some of
those.
For Iran, they will have liberation from all sanctions and will be
back in business. They will become rich. They will become rich with the
release of hundreds of billions of dollars, and they will be using that
for any number of purposes.
Their oil industry is dominated by the Republican Guards. This is not
Exxon Mobil, not Occidental Petroleum, it is not any of our
international oil companies; this is the Republican Guards. A military
organization that dominates that oil industry. They will be free to
exploit one of the largest oil reserves in the world. Their national
income will spike. State coffers will fill. And Iran's terrorist
adventures and proxy wars will be well funded.
We all know about Iran's ambitions for dominance throughout the
Middle East and to be recognized as a world nuclear power. They will
have all the more money now to be able to feed their proxies fighting
for them in Syria, in Yemen, in Lebanon, in Iraq, in a number of places
throughout the Middle East, and their terrorist threats resonate across
the globe.
After nearly a decade of international efforts to force Iran to give
up on this dangerous and illegal nuclear activity, Iran now has a green
light--a pathway built for them by U.S. concessions in this agreement--
to reach nuclear weapons capability. We have entirely conceded to Iran
the right to create fissile material that can only have one use:
nuclear weapons.
Now let's look at the larger question: the region, and the strategic
impact of this on the region. We haven't really had a great deal of
discussion on the strategic consequences. I discussed it briefly during
some of my time earlier this week and last week, but the Iranian
continuing revolution and regional misbehavior will affect the Middle
East and will affect the world. It is dangerous and it is
irresponsible.
Former Secretaries of State Kissinger and Schultz--well regarded for
their experience and well recognized as global experts, international
experts--discussed this broader strategic point in an important joint
article that was released last April. Former Secretaries Kissinger and
Schultz explained that the then-outlined deal was so weak that Iran
would inevitably expand its power, Sunni States will inevitably
proliferate in their response, and the United States will get dragged
into Middle East wars--except, this time, the wars may be nuclear.
Let me quote from their statement. The Secretaries explained:
Previous thinking on nuclear strategy assumed the existence
of stable state actors. . . .
Iran is anything but stable.
These are wise words from wise people who have had a lifetime of
experience.
Unfortunately, their views seem to have been largely ignored, if not
completely ignored, by this administration, because it didn't fit their
purpose to complete a deal, no matter what. No matter what we had to
give up, they wanted to complete this deal. In fact, the State
Department's spokesman was quoted as disparaging the two Secretaries of
State, Kissinger and Schultz, stating that their words were just ``big
words and big thoughts'' and that the two were ``not living in the real
world.'' Not living in the real world. I think that statement applies
much more to the President and the Secretary of State than it does to
former
[[Page S6793]]
Secretaries of State Kissinger and Schultz.
Let's look at proliferation. Some of us have discussed the obvious
proliferation dangers flowing from an agreement that puts Iran on the
path of nuclear weapons. Despite the reluctant words of acquiescence
that have been wrung out of others in the region, who can possibly
argue that Iran now will never be permitted to develop these nuclear
weapons technologies without a response from others.
If I were the King of Saudi Arabia, if I were the Prime Minister or
the President of any major country in the Middle East, I am not going
to stand by and watch Iran achieve nuclear dominance. They are going to
take their own action.
We have now basically shredded the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.
Let's look at Syria and the impact on Syria. America's appalling lack
of effective response to the open wound that is Syria is one example of
the paralysis born out of the single-minded obsession accommodating the
Iranian regime. Iran is the principal prop for the brutal Syrian
regime. Assad could not have remained in power these past 4 years of
catastrophic disintegration of his country without Iran's support. I
fear our negotiations with Iran have taken on such an overwhelming
priority with an administration obsessed with legacy that it helped
freeze us into inaction on Syria. The administration claims the nuclear
negotiations were about Iran's nuclear misbehavior only and were never
intended to address the rest of its regional brutality. That is true in
some cases, but careful reading of the annexes and careful reading of
the agreement--by doing so, we now know the administration went well
beyond just discussing the nuclear capability issue. It did not address
the hostages that were being held by the Iranian regime--the Americans.
It did not address the ballistic missile development and proliferation.
Those are two issues which had nothing to do with the agreement itself,
according to the administration.
Negotiations between the Ayatollahs and the Great Satan--that is us,
according to the Ayatollah--could not happen in a vacuum. Subjects not
addressed by the negotiations nevertheless are affected by them, and
our stupefying passivity on Syria proves the case.
Let's look at Russia. Our problems with Russia have only grown and
multiplied as we tried to ignore Russian misbehavior during our joint
negotiations with Iran. But worse, our obsession with getting a deal
has unleashed a Russia-Iran axis. Their new cooperation creates yet
another threat to American interests.
Just days after concluding this deal, the commander of Iran's elite
Quds Force, General Suleimani, flew to Moscow--which he was sanctioned
by the U.N. not to do, but he did anyway--reportedly to convince the
Russians to step in to help shore up the crumbling Assad regime in
Syria. It worked. The Russians are now in Syria in force, building
barracks and bringing in trainers, tanks, and other heavy weapons. Iran
and Russia together are Assad's best friends--maybe his savior.
By ignoring Syria, empowering and enriching Iran, and making Putin's
Russia an actual negotiating partner, we have created the perfect
storm. This is the price of dealing with the devil.
Lastly, let me speak about Israel because any discussion of
consequences must return to what should be the core issue: the
consequences for our only and best friend in the Middle East, Israel--
the only democratic ally in the region. We cannot ignore the major
risks that will follow through with the often-repeated threats of
obliterating the State of Israel--a threat repeated by the Supreme
Leader in no uncertain terms just this week. Is this hyperbole or
posturing as the administration claims? The Israelis don't think so,
and I don't think so.
We have to assume that an extremist, violent state such as Iran,
after decades of creating, arming, and guiding terrorist organizations
devoted to Israel's destruction, will continue their assault one day,
now we know, with nuclear weapons. One day, others may look back
through the smoke and ashes created by this Iran deal and wonder how we
could ever have been so blind. How could we ever have conceded to an
agreement that violated every goal that the previous three Presidents
and current President said we must not concede on--that is, it is
totally unacceptable for Iran to have possession of nuclear weapons
capability.
Two Democratic Presidents, two Republican Presidents, over three
decades of time, have made that statement. It was the goal of the
United States to do everything in its capability to prevent Iran from
having a nuclear weapon, and we just signed an agreement that gave them
the pathway to that nuclear weapon. Does it possibly delay their
achievement of that? Yes. But does it reach the goal of preventing them
from having it? No.
So after all the shouting and all the efforts and all the debate and
all the examination of the agreements, we are told to give up. It is a
done deal. The President used his ``Executive authority'' to deem this
an agreement and not a treaty, which is a fallacy in itself. But now we
are told we have to give it up. We have to move on. We have other
things to do. You made your best effort. We won, you lost.
No, America lost. America lost, and we will be paying a price year
after year after year as we watch the flow of money into Iran, the flow
of oil out of Iran and money in return, supporting proxy wars
throughout the Middle East, igniting a nuclear arms race in that tinder
box of the region. We will regret the day--we will regret the day--the
announcement was made that we have signed a deal with Iran.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
____________________