[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 5944-5953]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE 
                  NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD--VETO

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, under the previous order, I ask that the 
Chair lay before the Senate the veto message to accompany S.J. Res. 8.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the veto message.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Veto message to accompany S.J. Res. 8, a joint resolution 
     providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 
     title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the 
     National Labor Relations Board relating to representation 
     case procedures.

  (The text of the President's veto message is printed on page 4750 of 
the Congressional Record of April 13, 2015.)
  The Senate proceeded to reconsider the joint resolution.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act

  Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the 
amendment that I plan to submit. It is amendment No. 1173. It is my 
intention to work with the managers of the Iran bill to get this 
amendment filed and voted on soon. What I wanted to do is to talk about 
this amendment for a little bit.
  I want to begin by complimenting Senator Corker, Senator Cardin, and 
others who have worked hard on the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 
2015. It is a good start to a critically important issue for all of us 
and for the American people. The amendment that I am proposing and that 
I am offering today will make that bill stronger, will give leverage to 
our negotiators, and will make our country more secure. That is our No. 
1 priority. That is what this amendment will help us do.
  The simple question this amendment proposes is this. Should the 
United States--our government, we, this body--allow sanctions to be 
lifted on a country that our own State Department has designated a 
state sponsor of terrorism? It is a simple, straightforward question.
  In my view, the answer is also simple. The answer is no. Sanctions 
should not be lifted on a state sponsor of terrorism, especially one 
with a track record like Iran.
  My amendment requires the President of the United States to declare 
that Iran is no longer a sponsor of state terrorism before lifting 
sanctions and allowing billions of dollars to flood into that country's 
economy. It is that simple. We should not allow, facilitate or 
encourage billions of dollars to go to a country that sponsors 
terrorism, because I fear that we have been inured to the issue of 
state sponsor of terrorism. I would like to focus on what that means a 
little bit.
  Let's first start with the states that are on the list: Yemen, Syria, 
Sudan, Iran. These countries are all on the list because governments in 
each state facilitate international terrorism. We are not talking about 
rogue elements within a country that are killing people within their 
own borders. We are talking about governments themselves, the bodies in 
charge of a country, the bodies making and enforcing a country's laws, 
supporting acts of international terrorism, including against our own 
citizens.
  Why is Iran on the list? Since its founding in 1979, the leaders of 
the Islamic Republic of Iran and the government have been sponsoring 
terrorism. In fact, our State Department has called Iran the world's 
most active sponsor of terrorism. Since 1979, Iran has been responsible 
for taking American hostages, for bombing our and our allies' 
embassies, and for horrible acts of murder across the globe.
  Here is the key point. It has not stopped. According to the State 
Department, Iran continues to support terrorism--Palestinian terrorist 
groups--and is actively fostering instability throughout the Middle 
East right now, today. Last month, March 2015, a U.S. Federal judge 
found Iran complicit in the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, the deadliest 
attack on a U.S. Navy vessel since 1987.
  Let's talk about Iran's involvement in Iraq. I am a Marine Corps 
Reserve officer. In 2005, I was recalled to Active Duty for a year and 
a half, serving as a staff officer to the commanding general of the 
U.S. Central Command, John Abizaid. During that time, I deployed to 
many parts of the CENTCOM area of responsibility. One of the biggest 
concerns--perhaps the biggest concern--that we saw in Iraq during that 
time was the increasing threat to our troops of improvised explosive 
devices, especially what was referred to as explosively formed 
projectiles, EFPs, the most deadly and sophisticated IEDs on the 
battlefield.
  Almost every time I was in Iraq with General Abizaid, he and his 
staff were briefed on the details of this threat, showing captured 
weapons systems, the twisted, charred remains of military vehicles that 
had been hit by EFPs. Those EFPs killed more American troops per attack 
than any other roadside bombs. They blasted through tanks, humvees or 
anything they hit. They were deadly. They killed and maimed thousands 
of our troops.
  I still remember the courage and trepidation I saw in the eyes of our 
brave military members who had to face this threat on a daily basis, 
even some members of this body. To this day, I deeply distrust the 
leadership of the regime that was responsible for these EFPs.
  Make no mistake, that country was Iran. That much was confirmed by 
our intelligence agencies and the State Department. But Iran has never 
taken responsibility for these deaths, and it has not said that it will 
stop this kind of terrorism.
  Let me provide an example. In 2007, CENTCOM and intelligence 
officials provided very detailed briefings on the fact that these EFPs 
were coming from Iran. At the same time, Iran's U.N. Ambassador wrote 
an op-ed in the New York Times and said that such charges and evidence 
were being fabricated by the United States. That was the U.N. 
Ambassador from Iran, Ambassador Zarif. In that op-ed he was telling a 
lie to the American people.
  Why is that important? He is now the Foreign Minister of Iran. He is 
now in charge of negotiating this nuclear deal. He is certainly not a 
trustworthy man.
  If sanctions are lifted, billions of dollars are going to flow from 
companies and banks from around the world to the economy and government 
of Iran. They are going to invest in businesses. They are going to 
invest in the oil and gas sector. They are going to invest in banks.
  What will the Iranian leadership likely do with that money? Do we 
trust them to invest in schools and infrastructure and health clinics 
so they can provide their citizens better lives?
  Let's use history as our guide. Everything about that country's 
leadership and everything about that country's history tells us that 
that money--billions--is likely to be used to pump up their terror 
machine around the world and target American citizens.
  I know what we have heard from the administration: Do not worry. If 
there is a violation of this agreement, these sanctions will snap back 
into place. They will snap back--no problem, piece of cake.
  After serving on Active Duty for that time I mentioned, I served as a 
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State. I helped lead the effort in the Bush 
Administration to isolate economically Iran, to go

[[Page 5945]]

to our allies and say you have to divest out of the Iranian oil and gas 
sector, the Iranian financial sector.
  There was no snap here. This was a slog. It took years to get 
companies to divest. Yet now this administration is talking that we 
will snap back. No problem, we will divest in a couple of days. It is a 
fantasy. The Administration knows it. They should stop using the term 
``snapback'' because it is not accurate. It is not accurate.
  What is the alternative? The alternative is simple. Before lifting 
sanctions on Iran, Iran needs to take the steps to get off the list of 
countries that sponsor terrorism around the world. These are not 
insurmountable steps. These would include having a clear record for 6 
months. That is it, 6 months--not decades, not years--6 months of not 
sponsoring state terrorism.
  It would also require Iran to renounce terrorism. Simple, don't 
engage in terrorism. Do not try to kill our citizens or the citizens of 
our allies. Do not send your forces around the world to blow things up 
or take hostages. Then we will consider lifting the sanctions. You do 
not have to be our ally. You do not have to like us. We do not have to 
like you. You do not have to change even the structure of your 
government. You just should not target our citizens for murder the way 
you are doing now as one of the biggest--the biggest--state sponsors of 
terrorism in the world.
  It has been said that such a requirement and an amendment such as 
this would be a poison pill, meaning that if this amendment is added to 
the Corker-Menendez bill, it will somehow signify the death of the 
bill. I have thought long and hard about that. Do I want to be a Member 
of this body who introduces a poison pill? Am I being unreasonable with 
this amendment?
  What I came to is this. It is our job--the most important job we have 
in this body--to do everything we can to keep our citizens safe and to 
enact good policy. Sometimes that means taking difficult positions, and 
sometimes it means taking very reasonable positions, even though the 
political process might make it seem as if this were a complicated and 
difficult issue. This is not complicated. This is not difficult. This 
amendment is a simple amendment. It is not difficult.
  I wish to conclude with the question I began with. Is it good policy 
for the United States of America to allow or even encourage countries 
and corporations to do business with a state sponsor of terrorism, 
particularly one that has a history of targeting and killing our 
citizens? Is that good policy?
  I believe the vast majority of the American people--Democrat, 
Republican, any State in the Union--would say no, that is not good 
policy. I believe that if the question were posed directly to the 
American people, they would not consider this some kind of poison pill. 
They might even consider this some kind of vitamin pill, one that will 
make us stronger. It is a supplement to strengthen our negotiators' 
position.
  Right now there is confusion. It is in the press. The Iranians are 
saying we have a deal that lifts sanctions immediately. The President 
has said no, that is not necessarily clear. We have to be creative on 
how this is going to happen.
  This amendment will give the President and Secretary Kerry the 
leverage to solve this critical issue, one that the President and the 
Secretary of State should use and welcome to strengthen our position in 
the negotiations and not view it as some kind of poison pill.
  Again, it is a simple amendment. Before sanctions are lifted, the 
President and the State Department need to make sure Iran is off the 
list of states that sponsor terrorism. Iran could take the simple steps 
to make that possible and the world would be a much safer place.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. 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. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as 
in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    FDA Tobacco Deeming Regulations

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, a number of my colleagues came to 
the floor yesterday to speak about the FDA's failure to release the 
tobacco deeming rule and the delays that have occurred with respect to 
that rule.
  As difficult as the American people may find it to understand why 
there are these delays in issuing a rule that protects our citizens 
against tobacco use--most particularly our children--we should all 
understand that these rules have real-life consequences.
  Tobacco, in fact, is the leading cause of preventable death. In this 
Nation, tobacco use kills more than half a million people every year. 
Most smokers and tobacco users begin as children, many under the age of 
10. Each day, more than 3,200 people younger than 18 years old smoke 
their first cigarette, and the consequences are inevitable. Thousands 
of them will die early in life.
  Cigarettes are the only product in the world that, when used as the 
manufacturer intends it, kills the customer. If smoking continues at 
the current rate among U.S. youth, 5.6 million of them are expected to 
die prematurely from smoking-related illness.
  Tobacco use is a path to addiction and disease, and it is a public 
health epidemic. Yet laws that protect the public, laws that forbid 
marketing to children, laws that are designed to uphold the public 
trust have been unimplemented.
  My fight against Big Tobacco began in the 1990s, when I was attorney 
general of the State of Connecticut. I helped to lead a lawsuit against 
tobacco companies for marketing to children. We succeeded in 
restricting tobacco companies from selling to and targeting children in 
their ads through sporting events, magazines, and point of sale 
methods. We helped reimburse the States for the enormous amount of 
taxpayer dollars spent on tobacco-related diseases, and those payments 
continue today. They are supposed to be used for prevention and 
cessation activities, but unfortunately and tragically, much of that 
money is now used to fill gaps in State budgets.
  I have continued my fight against the tobacco companies in the 
Senate, alongside dedicated colleagues such as Senator Merkley and 
Senator Durbin, who spoke yesterday, in urging the FDA to seek relief, 
to strive to do its job with the tobacco deeming rule in order to 
protect children and families from tobacco.
  The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 gave 
the FDA significant power and responsibility to achieve this goal. Now 
it is the FDA's responsibility to implement that law to prevent young 
people from becoming nicotine addicts, damaging their health, risking 
their lives, and costing the taxpayers hundreds of millions--in fact, 
billions--of dollars.
  Six years have passed since that law was passed. The FDA has yet to 
implement it, and the reason is that it has yet to issue those 
regulations. It wasn't until last year, April 2014--5 years after the 
measure passed--that the FDA took the first step, issuing draft 
regulations known as the deeming rule that would formalize this 
authority. The rule would allow the FDA to control the regulation and 
sale--in particular, the sale to minors--of e-cigarettes, as well as 
dangerous combustible products, such as hookah, pipe tobacco, and 
cigars.
  This past Saturday, April 25, was the 1-year anniversary of the 
release of the proposed rule. Over the past year, youth use of 
unregulated tobacco products, such as e-cigarettes and the hookah, has 
skyrocketed. E-cigarette use has tripled among 11- to 18-year-olds, 
while hookah use has almost doubled.
  There is clear data, absolutely irrefutable evidence that the rate of 
use of these products has increased even as

[[Page 5946]]

some of the use of tobacco products has diminished, and this chart 
illustrates that evidence. It indicates that use of the regulated 
products has diminished, while use of unregulated products has 
increased. So laws work. Rules have an effect. People can be saved from 
addiction and disease. And these products--cigars, pipes, hookahs, e-
cigarettes--lead to tobacco use in cigarettes and addiction to 
nicotine. They create the same kind of public health menace that 
tobacco products do.
  We know that nicotine addiction is surging through e-cigarette use, 
which is a disastrous tribute to the ingenuity of Big Tobacco. In fact, 
many of the big tobacco companies have bought the e-cigarette companies 
because they know they can use the e-cigarettes as a gateway nicotine-
delivery device, addicting children so that they will then shift to 
cigarette tobacco.
  I am joining my colleagues in urging that the FDA act as quickly as 
possible to implement these rules, to finalize the regulations, to get 
them out of the regulatory apparatus, the morass in which they are now 
trapped, and make sure that our children and our citizens are protected 
against the marketing and other abuses that are involved in the current 
sale of these nicotine-delivery devices marketed to children.
  I am also proud to be introducing today a new measure, the Tobacco 
Tax and Enforcement Reform Act, which is supported by Senators Durbin, 
Reed, and Boxer. I am very grateful to them for their leadership not 
only on this measure but over many years in fighting this battle 
against nicotine addiction and tobacco use.
  Congress has a continuing responsibility to combat cigarette smoking 
directly. Right now, there are a number of areas where loopholes and 
gaps exist in the enforcement structure. We need to do more to fight 
illegal tobacco trafficking. We need to eliminate the tax disparities 
between different tobacco products. These gaps in our laws and law 
enforcement failures create opportunities and incentives for violations 
of those laws, at great cost to the State with regard to illegal 
trafficking.
  Similar to the changes outlined in the President's budget proposal, 
this bill would also increase the Federal tax rate on tobacco products. 
In fact, these reforms would help the Federal Government and States 
collect nearly $100 billion at a time when our States are strapped 
fiscally and our Federal Government needs that revenue as well. These 
revenues would not only reduce tobacco consumption, they would also aid 
the fiscal well-being of our State and local governments.
  Most importantly from the standpoint of law enforcement, it would 
force criminals who engage in illegal trafficking to comply with the 
law. It would combat those criminals who profit from the illegal sale 
of these products and trafficking across State lines, who are selling 
illicitly and gaining huge numbers of dollars from that legal 
noncompliance.
  Economic research confirms that raising the price of tobacco reduces 
use among young people, who are particularly sensitive to pricing. They 
are sensitive to price increases because they have less disposable 
income and know they have fewer dollars to spend. They are more price-
sensitive. In fact, every 10 percent increase in the real price of 
cigarettes will reduce the prevalence of adult smoking by 5 percent and 
youth smoking by 7 percent. Adults are price-sensitive, too. Increasing 
the cost of cigarettes makes people more likely to want to quit and to 
pursue tobacco cessation, to break the nicotine habit and seek help 
through quit lines, the nicotine patch, and other pharmaceutical 
measures.
  The current tobacco tax code has many loopholes that enable even the 
least creative manufacturers to exploit them and incentivizes many 
manufacturers to manipulate products so they can be classified in a 
lower tax category. These tax incentives and loopholes not only sharply 
reduce Federal revenues, but they increase the overall use of tobacco 
and tobacco-related harms. Eliminating these tax disparities, along 
with the price, is one of the goals of the measure I am introducing 
today. By taxing all products at the same level as cigarettes, we can 
make progress against nicotine addiction and the illnesses and diseases 
associated with tobacco use.
  The increase in tax rate on cigarettes by 94 percent per pack and 
setting the rates for other tobacco products to an equivalent amount 
would help people who are now addicted and would also help America 
because at the end of the day the real cost of cigarettes is not only 
to people who are addicted and who endure the suffering and the pain of 
cancer, lung disease, and heart problems, it is to their families and 
to all taxpayers. All of us--literally, all of us--pay for the diseases 
that result from tobacco use through our insurance policies and through 
Medicare and Medicaid. We are the ones who bear the financial burden.
  Due to these current tax inequities, the GAO has projected $615 
million to $1.1 billion in losses to Federal tax revenue right now, and 
tobacco-related health problems cost the country almost $170 billion a 
year in direct medical costs. We can save money and save lives through 
this measure. I hope my colleagues will support it.
  Every day that goes by without FDA regulation harms children. It 
hurts people who become addicted. It hurts all of America. Every day 
that tax disparities exist, every day that illegal trafficking 
continues is a day when America pays in the casualties, human 
suffering, loss of productivity, and loss of revenue.
  I hope my colleagues will support these efforts.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mrs. FISCHER. Thank you, Madam President.


                      Nuclear Agreement With Iran

  I rise today to discuss the negotiations with Iran over its nuclear 
program. Many of my colleagues have spoken at length about some of 
their concerns, which I share. Today, however, I would like to discuss 
my concern about the administration's increasing reliance on the idea 
that sanctions can be snapped back into place in the event that Iran 
violates an agreement.
  In its press release on the framework agreed upon earlier this month, 
the White House stated:

       If at any time Iran fails to fulfill its commitments, these 
     sanctions will snap back into place.

  On April 11, 2015, President Obama stated:

       We are preserving the capacity to snap back sanctions in 
     the event they are breaking any deal. . . . And if . . . we 
     don't have the capacity to snap back sanctions when we see a 
     potential violation, then we're probably not going to get a 
     deal.

  A week later, at a press conference with the Italian Prime Minister, 
President Obama played down the question of whether Iran would receive 
immediate sanctions relief and insisted snapback provisions were more 
important. He said:

       Our main concern here is making sure that if Iran doesn't 
     abide by its agreement, that we don't have to jump through a 
     whole bunch of hoops in order to reinstate sanctions. That is 
     our main concern.

  I agree with President Obama's goal. Who wouldn't want harsh measures 
reinstated the moment Iran fails to comply with this agreement? The 
problem is that reality is far more complicated than the simple phrase 
``snapback'' suggests.
  In a Washington Post column last week, former CIA Director Michael 
Hayden, former Deputy Director General of the IAEA Olli Heinonen, and 
Middle East expert Dr. Ray Takeyh laid out the long and circuitous path 
that any action to reinstate sanctions on Iran would have to take. 
Their conclusion? That it could take an entire year or even longer to 
simply confirm that Iran has actually violated its obligations and 
navigate the bureaucratic process necessary to restore the sanctions on 
Iran.
  A recent article in the Wall Street Journal by Henry Kissinger and 
George Shultz made a similar point. In it, they write:

       Restoring the most effective sanctions would require 
     coordinated international action. In countries that had 
     reluctantly joined in previous rounds, the demands of public 
     and commercial opinion will militate

[[Page 5947]]

     against automatic or even prompt ``snap-back.''

  Some may argue that past history is irrelevant and that the 
negotiations will produce a new process, allowing for a quick 
restoration of the sanctions regime. Such a process would still be far 
from automatic since significant time would be required to confirm 
Iran's violation, but recent comments by Russian Deputy Foreign 
Minister Sergey Ryabkov made clear that this idea is not in the cards. 
Speaking last week on the idea of snapping back sanctions, he stated: 
``This process should not in any way be automatic.'' He went on to say 
that decisions on this matter should be taken in accordance with the 
procedures of the U.N. Security Council through voting in the Council 
and through the adoption of the appropriate resolutions. We must also 
bear in mind that sanctions take time to have effect.
  The United States has had sanctions on Iran since 1979. One could 
argue that the heavy sanctions that brought Iran to the negotiating 
table--they began back in 2010. But even in that case it took years to 
create enough economic pressure for Iran to even sit down with 
negotiators. The idea that we will be able to swiftly reimpose 
sanctions and that those sanctions are going to swiftly cripple the 
Iranian economy and that they are going to force Iran to change its 
behavior--I believe that is simply implausible.
  The point is the practical reality of this issue is much more 
complicated than the talking points suggest. To me, this underscores 
the importance of getting a good deal with Iran. It demonstrates why a 
bad deal is so much worse than no deal at all. It took many years to 
build the global sanctions regime that brought Iran to the negotiating 
table. The fact is that it can be dismantled much faster than it can be 
rebuilt.
  We cannot afford to overlook key provisions or pretend that the 
precise terms of this agreement are of lesser importance. Of all the 
tools we can use to influence Iran, sanctions relief is the most 
important. It should only be provided as part of a deal that is clearly 
in American interests. The security of our country, our families, and 
the possibility of a nuclear Middle East hangs in the balance.
  There will be no simple snapback if this agreement does not hold. We 
need to be honest with the American people and not rely on unrealistic 
notions to justify any deal with them.
  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. MURPHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act

  Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, I come to the floor to speak for a few 
minutes on the bill we are debating to provide some congressional 
oversight over a potential--though not yet signed--deal with Iran.
  I wish to start simply with what we all agree on. We all agree we 
need to do whatever we can to ensure that Iran never obtains a nuclear 
weapon. I have no doubt that 100 Members of the Senate would agree with 
that proposition. That is our guiding principle, and it should be our 
North Star. We may disagree on the best way to achieve a nuclear 
weapons-free Iran, but we can all agree on our goal.
  So how do we get there is the question we are debating. I happen to 
be a member of the camp who believes our best hope of achieving this 
goal is through diplomacy, through a negotiated settlement that 
dramatically rolls back Iran's nuclear program in a transparent and 
verifiable way. While our negotiations still have a long way to go to 
get to that agreement, we are closer now than we have been in decades.
  I, and many of my colleagues, strongly believe we should give our 
negotiators the space to do their jobs and to see if a deal is 
ultimately possible.
  That is really what this bill does. It postpones a congressional vote 
on these negotiations, appropriately, until the negotiations are 
finished. That makes sense, right? There is no use on voting on a deal 
when we don't have a deal. And then it sets up time constraints for 
Congress's review of that potential deal, basically, about 30 days. 
That is a reasonable period of time for us to debate the agreement, 
and, if there is one, there is some certainty over our process to those 
who are at the negotiating table.
  The President's critics seem to fall into two often overlapping 
camps. One strain of argument holds that this framework agreement we 
have right now is just too weak and that our side should walk away from 
the table, reimpose sanctions, and hold out for a better deal.
  The second strain of argument--evidenced, frankly, by many of the 
amendments that have been filed to the underlying bill--holds that our 
negotiations shouldn't be just about Iran's nuclear program, that we 
should also be negotiating over all of the other bad things Iran does 
and supports.
  Now, I don't think it is worth getting into a defense of a framework 
today since we are months away from a final deal. But to my mind, if 
the final deal does look demonstrably like the framework, we would be 
fools to reject it. Does it allow Iran to do nuclear research? Yes, it 
does. Does it allow them to keep some centrifuges? Yes. But anybody who 
thought we were going to sign a deal that would effectively be an 
unconditional surrender was living in a fantasyland. The framework 
accomplishes our goal of protecting Israel, the region, and the United 
States from a quick nuclear breakout. The plutonium pathway at Arak is 
ended. Their enriched stores basically go down to zero. Fordow and 
Natanz stay open, but they can no longer do substantial enrichment, and 
they are going to have international scientists and inspectors crawling 
all over their capacity. Inspections, on the entire nuclear supply 
chain, will be at a scale that is totally, completely unprecedented in 
the history of the nuclear age.
  It is a good framework. But even if you don't believe this, I just 
think it belies common sense to think that walking away from the table 
now would get you a better deal. Yes, we could reinstitute sanctions, 
the United States could. Perhaps some of our partners would go along, 
but they would be weaker than before because lots of countries that 
think this is a good framework wouldn't go along with this. Just look 
at what Russia and China have announced in the past few weeks. They 
basically have telegraphed that they are looking to do business with 
the Iranians, notwithstanding what happens at the negotiating table. We 
know what happens when we apply weak sanctions against Iran, alongside 
a policy of isolating. They get stronger.
  How do we know this? Because in 2002 we had a chance to cap Iran's 
centrifuges at a few hundred. Instead, after years of relatively weak 
sanctions and international isolation, Iran built 20,000 centrifuges 
and put in place a secret nuclear facility.
  Now, our most recent round of tough international sanctions--in part 
because of the policies of this Congress--worked to get to the table, 
to the negotiating table, but only because there was a credible offer 
of a negotiated solution. We know exactly what happens, what sanctions 
and isolation get us, because we tried it for years. It gets us 20,000 
centrifuges, no international inspections, and an increasingly hard-
line and inward-looking regime.
  This last point and result is important because the people of Iran 
actually don't think like their Supreme Leader. His grasp on power 
isn't absolute, in large part because Iranians are much more moderate, 
much more internationalist, and much more pro-American than their 
leader, generally.
  Khamenei knows this, and that is why, when Iranian voters elected a 
moderate, Western-oriented President, the Supreme Leader allowed his 
team the space to negotiate this framework.
  Now, no one can be certain, but it is certainly plausible to believe 
that moderate forces inside Iran are winning and that our policy toward 
Iran

[[Page 5948]]

should consider whether our actions help the moderates or help the 
hard-liners. We don't want another hard-line administration, but we are 
going to get one if we walk away from these negotiations now, when 
thousands of Iranians are cheering the opening of relations with the 
West. If we walk away, moderate voters are going to feel abandoned. 
Hard-liners will be proven right. The two groups will be merged. 
Politics inside Iran will shift inward and extreme again. For all of my 
Republican colleagues who were so forceful in their criticism of the 
administration, saying President Obama didn't do enough to support the 
Green Revolution, you would do far more damage to this cause by ending 
reformers' hopes of rapprochement with the West right now.
  Now, for the second argument--that we should settle all of our 
grievances with Iran in one fell swoop right now, that this agreement 
is somehow illegitimate unless Iran renounces Hamas and Hezbollah, 
unless they get right with Israel, unless they end their other 
nonnuclear weapons programs, unless they release political prisoners, 
and so on and so on.
  First, there is not a single person here who agrees with Iran's 
support for terrorism or its inflammatory rhetoric toward Israel. No 
one is pleased with the Iranian regime's record on human rights or its 
funding of Hezbollah.
  But let's agree that an Iran that pursues these policies and has a 
nuclear weapon is a far worse outcome, one that should be avoided at 
all costs. The truth is that adding these issues into the nuclear 
agreement would mean no deal is possible.
  In America, we are strong enough to be able to walk and chew gum at 
the same time. We can negotiate with an enemy or adversary on one issue 
and reserve the right to fight another day or simultaneously on other 
issues. For evidence of this, I would ask my Republican friends to 
simply look to their great, romanticized hero, President Ronald Reagan. 
When he was negotiating a nuclear weapons deal with the Soviet Union, 
he did not simultaneously try to address the USSR's support for proxies 
in Central America or the Middle East or their provocative naval 
activities in the Pacific Ocean, he knew that by taking one issue off 
the table it would make America and the world safer, even if it didn't 
address all of our grievances at once. He knew if he did put everything 
on the table all at once, then there would be no progress.
  Just as a little kid can't eat a hot dog all in one bite no matter 
how hard he tries, we all have to make progress one bite at a time. 
That is often how life and, in fact, negotiations tend to work.
  So I hope my colleagues will oppose these well-meaning amendments 
that are being offered. They have laudable goals, but in the real world 
they are simply unrealistic within the confines of these negotiations, 
and they will have the effect of killing the deal entirely.
  On a broader scale, I hope when this debate is done, we can also ask 
ourselves some bigger questions. Diplomacy is power. It is not 
weakness. Talking to your enemies has been part of our national 
security toolbox for as long as we have existed as a nation.
  This country is tired. It is weary of war for good reason. Ten years 
of conflict in Iraq didn't make us any safer, and a lot of people--
heroes--died in the process.
  But when we spend all of this time--the majority of this Congress--
engaged in detailed oversight over the President's diplomatic endeavors 
and absolutely no time engaged in detailed oversight over a war in Iraq 
and Syria that is still, months and months later, unauthorized and 
extraconstitutional, then we send a bad message to America and to the 
rest of the world. We seem to have a developing double standard when it 
comes to oversight. We are all over the President when he talks to our 
adversaries, but we stand down when he fights them--lots of oversight 
over peace, very little over war.
  That is not where the American people are. They want their President 
to take extraordinary steps to avoid war. They don't want us to get 
dragged back into a ground war in the Middle East.
  I am supporting this bill today because I will be first in line to 
reassert Congress's power to set foreign policy right alongside the 
President, but I don't support Congress sending a message that 
diplomacy is somehow more worthy of rigorous oversight than military 
action.
  I don't think this is where the chairman of the Foreign Relations 
Committee is coming from, but there are certainly some Members of his 
caucus who view power solely through a military lens. That is dangerous 
because, as we saw in Iraq, large-scale military operations kill a lot 
of terrorists, they kill a lot of bad guys, but they often create two 
for every one they kill.
  In the end, it is nonkinetic intervention that solves extremism, 
building inclusive governments, lifting people out of destitution and 
poverty, countering radical propaganda, and showing an America that 
backs up all of its talk about American civil liberties with action.
  I am so thankful to Chairman Corker for taking the time to work on 
this bill with Senator Cardin, Senator Menendez, and others to make it 
something we can truly rally around today. That takes guts to show 
patience, to give ground, and to talk to people whom you don't agree 
with.
  It is actually diplomacy that wins the day here more often than not. 
It is our guiding value as a body, as an institution. It is what makes 
this place work when it works, and we are best when we recognize that 
the value of diplomacy and the results we get from it do not expire at 
the edges of this Chamber.
  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. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                               The Budget

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we are finally seeing the Senate do what 
we were elected to do, and that is the people's work. I am glad to see 
there have been some reports in the press saying the 114th Congress and 
the new majority are actually following through and keeping our 
promises by passing important legislation that helps make the American 
people's lives just a little bit better.
  One of the actions we have taken is the House and the Senate have now 
met in a conference committee to agree on a budget. This is, 
unfortunately, an unusual event in recent history. It was 2009 when the 
last budget was passed by the U.S. Congress. That is a little 
embarrassing. It is actually very embarrassing. It is a scandal, 
really. But now we are finally getting back on track. I am glad to 
report, as the Presiding Officer knows, that this is a budget that 
balances in roughly 9 years. I wish it were sooner, but that is what it 
is. There are no tax increases. It also meets our obligation to keep 
the country safe and the American people secure by plussing up some of 
the defense accounts, which I believe is important. All of our 
colleagues on our side of the aisle believe this should be our No. 1 
priority. There are some things that only the Federal Government can 
do, and national security is at the very top of that list.
  So we will have a vote--perhaps as early as next Tuesday--on the 
budget conference report.


                 United States-Japan Alliance and Trade

  Mr. President, yesterday, we had a joint meeting of Congress, and we 
heard from the leader of one of America's greatest allies, Prime 
Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan. I had a chance to meet the Prime Minister 
briefly before his comments, and I told him: Mr. Prime Minister, I 
actually graduated from high school in Japan. My dad was in the U.S. 
Air Force and was stationed at Tachikawa Air Force Base, and that is 
where I attended my senior year in high school.
  It was an honor for all of us to listen to the Prime Minister. As 
were many of my colleagues, I was very encouraged to hear about his 
unwavering support for the U.S.-Japan alliance. This

[[Page 5949]]

is one of the most important alliances the United States has in the 
world.
  The Prime Minister spent a good amount of time talking about our 
shared values. He noted our mutual and unflinching commitment to 
democracy and freedom and our common goal of peace and prosperity.
  One of the issues I was particularly glad to hear the Prime Minister 
speak about was the shared values of freedom and democracy and why the 
Trans-Pacific Partnership is so important not just to the United 
States, not just to Japan, but to all, I believe, 12 different 
countries that are negotiating this important trade agreement.
  I couldn't agree more about the importance of trade. Texas is the No. 
1 exporting State in the Nation, and that is one of the reasons we are 
doing relatively well compared to the rest of the country economically. 
I know the Presiding Officer comes from an oil-producing and gas-
producing State that is booming as well. But one of the reasons my 
State is doing so well is because we figured out that the more people 
we can sell goods and services to that we grow or we raise or we make, 
the more jobs we have at home, the better our economy is, and the 
better our people are.
  The Trans-Pacific Partnership fits right into that formulation 
because the United States occupies roughly 5 percent of the planet and 
we represent about 20 percent of the purchasing power of the planet. So 
that should tell us that 80 percent of the purchasing power lies 
outside and beyond our shores, and why in the world wouldn't we want to 
trade with those other countries and sell goods and services to 
consumers in Japan and all around the world, including the region of 
Asia on which the Pacific partnership is particularly focused?
  The Prime Minister eloquently articulated that the Trans-Pacific 
Partnership promotes the spread of our values by reducing economic 
barriers. It has been observed by smarter people than I that countries 
that actually trade together are much less likely to go to war against 
each other. That just seems to be the way it works. And the more people 
we can improve our economic ties to around the world--it improves not 
only prosperity, it also improves the peace.
  Prime Minister Abe understands how important this agreement is not 
only for the 12 nations that make up the TPP but for the entire global 
economy. This is at least in part because the 12 Asia-Pacific countries 
involved in the partnership make up 40 percent of the world economy. 
Thankfully, the Prime Minister assured us that he will continue to work 
with the United States to ensure the success of these negotiations.
  In a short time--perhaps maybe next week or the week after--we will 
have an opportunity to take up trade promotion authority. This is 
congressionally conferred authority to the executive branch to engage 
in negotiations and sets the parameters for those negotiations--very 
clear congressional direction for the President's negotiators, 
including Ambassador Froman, in negotiating this Trans-Pacific 
Partnership. Once the negotiations are concluded, then it will have to 
lie in public for up to 60 days, I believe the timeframe is, so the 
American people can read it, to be completely transparent, and I think 
that is a very important part of the process.
  I would be remiss, as I suggested earlier, if I did not point out the 
important role of trade not only to the United States but also to my 
State of Texas. About $1.5 trillion of GDP is attributable to the State 
of Texas. If we were an independent nation--which we once were for 9 
years; from independence to the time we were annexed to the United 
States in 1845--if we were still an independent nation, we would 
represent the 12th largest economy in the world. It would put us ahead 
of even robust economies such as those in Mexico and South Korea. It is 
primarily because of the role of exports.
  Energy is an incredibly important part of our economy, but it is not 
all of our economy. If we could do what the Presiding Officer and 
others have advocated, which is to accelerate the export of liquefied 
natural gas and perhaps reconsider the ban on exporting crude under 
some appropriate circumstances, I think we could do even better.
  According to a report released earlier this month by the Department 
of Commerce and the U.S. Trade Representative, Texas was far and away 
the leader of goods exported in 2014, with $289 billion of goods 
exported--$289 billion. So, not to brag--well, Texans have been known 
to brag a little bit--but just to state the facts--let me put it that 
way. The State of California--the State with the second most goods 
exported by value--exported a sizable $174 billion worth. Now, that is 
a lot, $174 billion for California, but it is still $115 billion less 
than the No. 1 State of Texas. The same report revealed that Texas also 
boasts some 41,000 companies--many small- and medium-sized businesses--
that export goods globally.
  For years, this impressive amount of trade has helped our economy 
continue to grow, while providing jobs for Texans across the State. In 
fact, more than 1 million jobs in Texas are supported by global 
exports. So why wouldn't we want to do more and create more jobs and 
more prosperity and more opportunity?
  I agree with Prime Minister Abe that the Trans-Pacific Partnership 
deal is vitally important to the United States, particularly at a time, 
as we learned--I guess it was yesterday, maybe the day before--that the 
gross domestic product of the United States had grown by an anemic .2 
percent in the last quarter, essentially saying our economy has 
flatlined. That is dangerous, and it is also painful for the families 
of people who are out of work or who are looking for work or those who 
have simply dropped out of the workforce. We need to do better by 
growing our economy and creating those jobs so people can find work and 
provide for their families.
  The Trans-Pacific Partnership would help Texas businesses. It would 
also help our farmers and ranchers, both big and small. Obviously, the 
agricultural exports and particularly the beef and poultry and pork 
exports to a country such as Japan would be very important.
  As the President said the other day, if we don't enter into this 
Trans-Pacific Partnership deal where we will be setting the rules, 
along with these 12 countries--if we don't do this, what will happen is 
that China will, in essence, be setting the rules for Asia. That is a 
circumstance we should not sit by and let happen.
  Increasing trade in the region will also provide a way forward for 
21st-century industries that have made a home in Texas, including 
electronics and machinery. We are not as well known for electronics 
manufacturing and machinery as we are for the energy business or 
farming and ranching and agriculture. But, importantly, as Prime 
Minister Abe mentioned yesterday, the TPP goes far beyond just economic 
benefits; it also provides the United States an opportunity for greater 
influence in the region and in the process promotes not only 
prosperity, as I said earlier, but also stability and security.
  Just last week, the Dallas Morning News made this point well by 
saying that TPP is ``not just about exports and imports; it's also 
about enhancing America's role among Pacific nations and standing 
strong against an assertive China.'' President Obama made that point as 
well, and I happen to think in this case he is absolutely right.
  Texas and our entire country stands to gain a lot from this pending 
trade deal. I am happy to see the President is promoting this among 
some members of his own party, who are a little bit divided on this 
issue. I think it is fair to say that on this side of the aisle we are 
a little more unified on this issue. This is not, though, an objective 
we are going to be able to get done unless the President steps up and 
delivers votes from that side of the aisle from members of his own 
political party, and I hope he will roll up his sleeves and he will 
dive right in and engage and produce those votes. We can't produce 
those votes on that side of the aisle; only the President, the leader 
of his party, can do that.
  So I am happy to see that this Chamber, this U.S. Senate, has 
continued in

[[Page 5950]]

a spirit of bipartisanship by passing trade promotion authority out of 
the Senate Finance Committee, and I hope we will take it up here as a 
body very soon.
  In conclusion, this legislation will open up American goods and 
services to American markets, which is good for our economy, good for 
jobs, and good for better wages for hard-working Americans, including 
Texas families.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 
Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act that is before the Senate today. I 
thank Senator Corker and Senator Cardin for their incredible work 
bringing people together on the Foreign Relations Committee.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill as written. We 
must move forward to pass this legislation as quickly as possible to 
ensure that Congress has a role in reviewing any proposed nuclear 
agreement with Iran.
  This is a critically important bill at a critically important time. 
Preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is one of the most 
important objectives of our national security policy, and I strongly 
supported the sanctions every step of the way that brought Iran to the 
negotiating table.
  I have also supported the diplomatic efforts to address the threat 
posed by Iran's nuclear program. The framework that was reached in 
Switzerland earlier this month is a positive step forward, but I think 
we all know that this process is far from complete.
  There are so many unanswered questions on the military dimensions of 
Iran's nuclear program, on how its uranium stockpile would be handled, 
under what circumstances any sanctions relief would be provided, and 
the timing of that relief.
  It is clear that there are still differences between Iran and the 
rest of the international community on these issues. I believe it is 
important that negotiations continue to pursue a final agreement by 
June 30 that comprehensively addresses the threat posed by Iran's 
nuclear program. Again, one of the most important objectives of the 
U.S. national security policy is to prevent Iran from obtaining a 
nuclear weapon.
  The bipartisan legislation before us today will set up a process for 
Congress to review any final nuclear agreement with Iran. It ensures 
that Congress, which through its actions brought Iran to the table, 
will have access to all the final details of the agreement. It 
preserves our right to have a final say in the potential lifting of the 
sanctions that we led on. That is how we were involved in compelling 
Iran to negotiate in terms of these sanctions.
  Senators Corker and Cardin worked so hard to strike a careful balance 
between the Executive's prerogative to pursue the negotiations and 
Congress's role in reviewing any nuclear agreement. Their negotiations 
were a success, as I said. The bill passed the Foreign Relations 
Committee unanimously, 19 to 0, 2 weeks ago. That is a committee with a 
number of Senators with a broad range of views on every issue, 
including foreign relations and including these negotiations.
  The President, who had long threatened to veto any such bill, has 
agreed to sign it. This is a significant victory for the Senate and 
also for congressional oversight of foreign policy, something many of 
us have been pushing for.
  Any nuclear agreement with Iran will have significant long-term 
implications for the United States, for Israel, and for our allies in 
the region. So it is critical that Congress have the opportunity to 
review it.
  This bill ensures that we have that opportunity. That is why it is so 
important that we act now to pass this legislation without delay and 
without amendments that undercut the bipartisan agreement on this bill.
  Right now, I understand there are negotiations over a number of 
amendments that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to 
offer. I think we know that a number of these amendments appear to be 
written in a way that would undermine the bipartisan support for the 
bill or would somehow make this bill much more difficult in terms of 
having a process.
  All this bill is, from my mind, is a process to review. Instead of 
having a haphazard process, this actually gives Congress something for 
which we have been asking for a long time. It has given us that ability 
to review this agreement and have a vote on it. I don't know how many 
times I have heard my colleagues from the other side of the aisle talk 
about it--and my colleagues on this side of the aisle. We finally have 
a bipartisan way to do it. So I think we need to be very careful when 
moving forward and look at some of these amendments.
  I certainly share my colleagues' deep mistrust and skepticism of the 
Iranian regime. I am appalled by the continuing human rights abuses, 
the unjustified detention of American citizens--everyone, from the 
Washington Post reporter to a former marine to a Christian pastor. I 
abhor the vicious threats we are hearing against Israel and against 
Israeli leaders, the track record supporting anti-Semitism and the 
Holocaust denial. I am deeply concerned about the destabilizing actions 
in the region, including Iran's efforts to obtain more advanced 
missiles, and the support for militant forces and terrorists.
  I think we all know the issues that are going on here. It is 
incredibly important that we work to address these issues, but there 
must be a recognition of the fact that what we are talking about here 
is a nuclear agreement. I think every Senator is going to want to look 
at that agreement and say: Does this make things safer or not? What 
effect does this have on Israel? Is it safer to have Iran have nuclear 
capabilities when they have shown the propensity to do all of these 
other things that I have just mentioned? I think many of us come down 
on the side that we want to see this agreement but we are pleased these 
negotiations are going on. We are particularly thankful that Senator 
Corker and Senator Cardin were able to come to an agreement on a 
process and to get that agreement through a highly diverse committee in 
terms of their political views and to get that agreement through on a 
19-to-0 vote.
  Also, I might add that we don't want to revive the threat of a 
Presidential veto here. I know many of these amendments sound appealing 
to many of us but not if they are going to be used as a way to bring 
down this process, the review agreement, and that is essentially what 
would happen.
  We do not want to be damaging our own ability to ensure that 
sanctions relief will only come from a strong agreement that prevents 
Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. I would think that outcome would 
certainly be fine with the Iranians, if that is what happens. As our 
Republican colleague from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, pointed out 
recently, ``Anybody who offers an amendment that will break this 
agreement apart . . . the beneficiary will be the Iranians.''
  So let's not give the Iranians a victory. Let's pass this bill on a 
strong bipartisan vote, and let's do it now so it is clear that 
Congress stands united and we want the ability to review this 
agreement. Our foreign policy is more effective when we speak with one 
voice. It may be simplistic to say that politics should stop at the 
water's edge, but when it comes to Iran, the fact is, we have been 
unified. The past three votes in favor of major sanctions legislation 
in 2010, 2011, and 2012 have been unanimous--99 to 0, 100 to 0, and 94 
to 0 respectively. And now the Iranians are at the table negotiating a 
nuclear agreement. That is because we stood together across party 
lines.
  We have stood together and been strong and unified as a country. The 
time has come to show we are serious again--serious about ensuring that 
a

[[Page 5951]]

final agreement is strong and enforceable and, most importantly, blocks 
Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. We may not agree on everything, 
but we must certainly agree on something that so many of us have been 
talking about--a role for the Congress, a role for the Senate in having 
a say over this agreement. That is all this bill is about. Passing this 
bill will show our commitment to our country's security and the 
security of our allies and our partners. It transcends partisan 
politics, and that is something that, when it comes to foreign 
relations and when it comes to dealing with a country such as Iran, 
must stop at the water's edge.
  I thank our colleagues, Senator Corker and Senator Cardin, for 
working so hard to negotiate this agreement--simply a process of 
review--so that we can finally have a say, and I ask my colleagues to 
support this.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARPER. 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. CARPER. Mr. President, sometimes when I travel, people ask me 
what I do, and I tell them I am a retired Navy captain. And then they 
say: Well, what do you do now? And I tell them I am a recovering 
Governor. Then they say: Well, now that you are recovering, what do you 
do? I tell them I am a servant.
  Once, one guy said to me on an airplane: What do you mean you are a 
servant?
  I said: I serve the people of Delaware.
  He said: Are you like a butler?
  And I said: No, not really, but I do serve.
  But I still think like a retired recovering Governor. I am proud to 
be able to serve here. I loved being in the Navy. But at heart, I still 
think and act a good deal like a retired Governor. Those others who 
serve here in this body who have served as the chief executive of their 
State sometimes feel the same way about how they approach their job. I 
love doing that. I feel really lucky to have that choice. I feel very 
lucky to be here to serve Delaware, the First State, in this capacity.
  One of the key takeaways from my time as the chief executive of my 
State was that when we had to negotiate deals, whether with our 
neighboring States or with the Federal Government or actually with 
folks who were thinking of starting a business in Delaware or growing a 
business in Delaware, we had to do so with one unified voice in order 
to be effective.
  Now, we were trying to bring AstraZeneca, one of the largest 
pharmaceutical companies in the world, and convince them to put their 
North American headquarters in Delaware. We didn't have the whole 
legislature to negotiate that deal. My cabinet and I were involved in 
that negotiation, and we got a signoff from the legislature, at least 
indirectly. We just couldn't have competing messages coming from all 
the various elected officials, State senators, State representatives, 
and so forth. The reason is that this would have undermined in some 
cases very sensitive negotiations and hindered our ability to work 
through some already tough issues. While I would consult with 
Delaware's other State and local officials, as appropriate--and I 
valued their insight and their opinions, even when I didn't necessarily 
agree with all of them any more than they agreed with me--at the end of 
the day, as chief executive of our State, I had to be the final 
decisionmaker in a lot of cases in negotiating or advocating on behalf 
of Delaware.
  Now, as a U.S. Senator, I take really a very similar approach to 
negotiating on many issues, including matters of foreign policy. I 
support the idea that when the United States conducts diplomacy with 
foreign governments, the United States should speak to that government 
with a unified voice.
  Our system is set up so that we do not have 535 Members of Congress 
serving as negotiators and diplomats--and for good reason. That is the 
case with trade deals--the kind of deal we are trying to negotiate 
today with 11 other countries that come from this hemisphere all the 
way over to Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Japan, and Vietnam. But 
if we fail to speak with a unified voice in most of those negotiations, 
including the one I just mentioned, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, then 
forging international agreements with other countries is going to be 
really tough and in some cases just about impossible.
  When it comes to the negotiations with Iran over its nuclear 
program--the negotiations that involve not just Iran, not just us, but 
the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and 
Germany as well--I have been a strong proponent of giving the President 
and his negotiating team the flexibility they need to achieve the best 
deal for our Nation.
  I know many of our colleagues have strong views on the need for 
Congress to play a direct role in the negotiations and to make sure 
their voices are heard in this process. I understand that position, and 
I respect that position as well.
  There are also some in the Senate who believe that the best deal with 
Iran is, frankly, no deal at all, and they are trying to maximize their 
ability to kill the nuclear deal with Iran before it is ever finalized.
  Another key lesson I learned as Governor--and I am constantly 
reminded of it in the Senate--is that forging compromise is no easy 
task. Bridging the divide of competing interests is never easy, 
especially on issues as important as negotiations over nuclear weapons 
and Iran. But that is what my colleagues--our colleagues--in the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee recently did.
  Specifically, Senators Corker of Tennessee and Cardin of Maryland, 
one a Republican and one a Democrat, worked to forge a compromise that 
identifies an appropriate role for Congress in these nuclear talks. 
This compromise will enable the President to maintain his prerogative 
as our Nation's Chief Executive and Commander in Chief to negotiate on 
behalf of the United States, while also ensuring that Congress is able 
to weigh in on the final product of those negotiations should they come 
to fruition. In my mind, that is a reasonable compromise that we should 
all support regardless of our opinion on the prospect of the President 
reaching an acceptable deal with Iran.
  Let me explain why. First of all, Senator Corker and Senator Cardin's 
compromise satisfies one of my key goals of not undermining our 
negotiating team before any final deal can be reached with the 
Iranians.
  Second, for those who insist that Congress be given a chance to weigh 
in on a final nuclear deal with Iran, this bill that we are debating 
today and will probably debate a little more next week will empower 
Members of Congress to cast a vote for or against any final deal before 
it is implemented.
  Finally, for those Members who think that no deal is the best deal, 
this bill gives those Members the opportunity to make their case to our 
respective colleagues at an appropriate time.
  Now, Senators Corker and Cardin should be commended for their 
tireless work to strike a compromise that should satisfy many of our 
colleagues--not all, but many. I know they worked with the White House 
to craft a bill that does not cut the legs out from underneath our 
negotiators as they work to finalize a deal with Iran, and I want to 
thank them for preserving the administration's ability to negotiate and 
the Congress's ability to weigh in on the final deal.
  As we cast our votes on amendments and final passage of this bill, I 
would encourage us to consider the delicate nature of the compromise 
that Senators Corker and Cardin have struck.
  Too often in Washington we focus on what divides us rather than what 
unites us. That is unfortunate and sometimes counterproductive for our 
country--not just on this issue but on a host of important policy 
matters. Compromise should not be a rare occurrence in our Nation's 
Capital. Rather, it should be one of our guiding principles.

[[Page 5952]]

  We should seize this opportunity, colleagues, to advance a compromise 
that meets the needs of many of our colleagues, the President, and our 
Nation. I urge our colleagues to join me in supporting Senator Corker 
and Senator Cardin's legislation.
  Some of my colleagues have heard me say before, whenever I meet 
people who have been married for a long time, I love to ask those who 
have been married 50, 60, 70 years: What is the secret for being 
married 50, 60 or 70 years? I get a lot of different answers, as you 
might imagine. Some of them are very funny, and some are quite 
poignant.
  Some of my favorites include a couple married over 50 years. I asked 
them not long ago: What is the secret to being married 50 years?
  The wife said of her husband: He could be right or he could be happy, 
but he cannot be both.
  More recently, with a couple who has been married over 60 years, I 
asked the husband and wife: What is the secret to being married over 60 
years? And each of them gave a different answer. The wife said 
patience, and her husband of 60 years said a good sense of humor. That 
is pretty good advice as well.
  I have asked this question hundreds of times over the years, but the 
best advice I have ever heard in asking that question is years ago from 
the answers of a couple who had been married 65 years or so.
  I said: What is the secret of being married 65 years?
  They both said almost at the same time: The two C's.
  The two C's. I had never heard that one before.
  I said: What are the two C's?
  One of them said: Communicate.
  That is good.
  The other one said: Compromise.
  Those are two pretty good C's.
  Since then, I have invoked their words any number of times, including 
on this floor and here in Washington, DC, and in my own State of 
Delaware.
  Over the years, I have added a third C to it. The third C is 
collaborate--collaborate. If you think about it, those two C's or those 
three C's--communicate, compromise, and collaborate--are not just the 
secret for a vibrant and long marriage between two people; they are 
also the secret to a vibrant democracy.
  As one of the Members of this body, I wish to again express my thanks 
to Senators Corker and Cardin for communicating, for compromising, and 
for collaborating in a way that could bring about a better future for 
my kids, your kids, our grandchildren, and hopefully for the people of 
Iran and hopefully for the people of Israel and a lot of other nations 
that have a real interest in this issue--as we say in Delaware, a dog 
in this fight.
  As I close, I thank you for this opportunity to speak today. I hope 
when we vote next week we will reward the efforts of those Senators 
with the two C's--Cardin and Corker--and further embrace the three 
C's--communicating, compromising, and collaborating--embrace their 
efforts with an ``aye'' vote.
  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. MARKEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    FDA Tobacco Deeming Regulations

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, technology can be transformative. The 
black rotary phones have given way to iPhones. Sunlight and wind have 
become electricity. Camera tripods have begotten selfie sticks. There 
are certain things, however, that do not need to be reimagined, 
repurposed or redesigned. There are items that serve no societal 
benefit whatsoever.
  Example No. 1, the cigarette. Yet new cigarettes have exploded into 
the marketplace, known as everything from e-cigs to advanced nicotine 
delivery systems, to vaporizers. Similar to many emerging technologies, 
these products are designed to appeal to young people, are more 
accessible to young people, and are explicitly marketed to young 
people, and because of this, we are being forced to write another dark 
chapter in the history books.
  After more than four decades of research, there are several 
incontrovertible facts. Nicotine is addictive. It affects brain 
development, and in combination with tobacco, it is responsible for 
claiming millions of lives. These facts are true and were true decades 
ago, at the same time that Big Tobacco willfully, consistently, 
publicly, and falsely denied them.
  Today, e-cigarette sales in the United States alone top $1 billion. 
The use of e-cigarettes among middle and high school students tripled 
from 2013 to 2014, accounting for upward of 13 percent of high school 
students. New data reports that nearly 2.5 million American young 
people currently use e-cigarettes.
  This data is not at all surprising when we consider the way these 
nicotine delivery products are targeted at young people and how these 
products are available in a myriad of flavors from cotton candy to 
vanilla cupcakes, to Coca-Cola. Strawberry-flavored vape liquid can 
contain just as much nicotine, and sometimes more, as a traditional 
cigarette.
  We know from years of research that flavors attract young people, and 
the younger a person is when they start tobacco use, the more difficult 
it will be for them to quit. That is why Congress explicitly banned the 
use of cigarettes with flavors like cherry and bubble gum because of 
their appeal to young people.
  Over the past decade, we have made great strides educating children 
and teens about the dangers of smoking. We cannot allow e-cigarettes to 
snuff out the progress we have made preventing nicotine addiction and 
its deadly consequences.
  E-cigarette use is growing as fast as the students who are using 
them, and we need to put in place the rules to ensure that we stop it. 
First, we need to ban the marketing of e-cigarettes to young people in 
the United States. Second, we need to ban the use of flavorings. The 
use of fruit- and candy-based flavors is clearly meant to attract 
children. Cherry Crush e-cigarettes pose the same addiction risk as the 
minty Kools of the 1970s. Third, we should ban online sales of e-
cigarettes. The FDA should prevent online sales of these devices to 
keep the product out of the hands of children. Finally, last week 
marked 1 year since the FDA proposed long-overdue regulations to govern 
e-cigarettes. This is the first step to making sure children and teens 
can be protected from the harms of these devices. But 1 year later, 
these rules still have not been finalized. Until they are, new 
cigarettes will continue to target young people with appealing 
marketing, advertising, and product flavoring. Every day the FDA fails 
to act is another day young Americans can fall prey to harmful products 
pushed by the tobacco industry.
  Last year, at a commerce committee hearing, I asked several e-
cigarette company leaders to commit to ceasing the sale of these types 
of flavored products, and a few of them agreed, but the vast majority 
have not and will not stop this marketing campaign.
  Today's electronic cigarettes are no better than the Joe Camels of 
the past because e-cigarettes, children, and teens do not mix. Young 
people are getting addicted to nicotine and putting their health and 
their futures at grave risk. It is time for the FDA to step in and stop 
the sale of these candy-flavored poisons, especially to the children of 
the United States.
  My father started smoking two packs of Camels when he was 13 years of 
age. It was the cool thing to do. My father died from lung cancer. The 
tobacco industry denied that there was any linkage between tobacco and 
smoking and cancer and death. My father died from it. He started 
smoking at age 13 because it was the cool thing to do. Once you are 
addicted at the age of 13, 14 or 15 and smoking two packs of Joe Camels 
a day, it is hard to stop.
  Here is something else we know: If a young person doesn't start to 
smoke until they are 19, they are highly unlikely to start at all 
because they have reached beyond the point where it is

[[Page 5953]]

attractive to them from a peer pressure perspective. So what do these 
companies have to do? These companies have to find a way to market to 
young people by giving them flavored e-cigarettes and making it 
appealing to them because they have to get them when they are 13, 14, 
15, and 16 years old. That is the marketing plan.
  It has always been the marketing plan since my father started smoking 
when he was 13. He would say to me: Eddie, you have no idea how hard it 
is to stop. You have no idea how much I need to smoke and how much I 
need the nicotine. You could see it. He started when he was a kid, and 
that is the way it begins because people don't start smoking when they 
are 20 years of age. We all know that. Everyone listening to me knows 
that, and that is why this marketing campaign is so invidious. That is 
why what they are doing plays right into what we have known for a 
century is the business plan of the tobacco industry.
  I urge the FDA to act. I urge the Members of this body to rise up to 
ensure that we do not have another generation that suffers the same 
fate as the previous generations have, in fact, had to live with, which 
is this addiction that was given to them at a very young age.
  I thank the Presiding Officer for the opportunity to speak this 
afternoon, and I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I echo the voices of my friends and 
colleagues, the Senators from Oregon, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Rhode 
Island in calling on the FDA to act with all possible speed to issue 
final rules on regulating e-cigarettes. I want to thank especially my 
friend from Oregon, Senator Merkley, and my friend from California, 
Senator Boxer, who have been real leaders on this issue.
  The Federal Government has an imperative to protect the public from 
dangerous products with commonsense restrictions. E-cigarettes are no 
exception. Their use among middle schoolers and high schoolers has 
skyrocketed--tripled among high schoolers according to a recent 
National Youth Tobacco Survey--and their risks are numerous.
  E-cigarettes contain liquid nicotine, an addictive chemical which can 
impede brain development when consumed at a young age.
  And these liquid nicotine containers are often sold without child 
protection caps in many parts of the country--and there have been far 
too many tragedies already of young children accidentally ingesting 
liquid nicotine. In Fort Plain, in upstate New York, a toddler of 18 
months lost his life in such an accident--a terrible tragedy for two 
young parents. It is what propelled my home State to pass a requirement 
that all these liquid nicotine bottles be sold with child protection 
caps.
  But, as my colleagues pointed out, the companies that sell these e-
cigarettes are largely unregulated at the Federal level. In terms of 
Federal policy, e-cigarette companies are not even barred from selling 
to minors under the age of 18. So they market to children--on TV and on 
billboards and with child-friendly labels and flavors. According to a 
2014 study, e-cigarette marketing exposure to children from 12 to 17 
years old increased by 256 percent between 2011 and 2013. The FDA needs 
to be the adult in the room and put an end to these cynical marketing 
ploys. The FDA, including the new commissioner, seem ready and eager to 
use the Tobacco Deeming Rule to regulate e-cigarettes under the Family 
Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. We strongly support their 
posture, but we need them to strengthen and finalize these rules. It is 
time for the FDA to put our children first and promulgate these rules.
  Just yesterday, 31 prominent national organizations including, 
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, Trust for America's Health, the 
American Lung Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, sent 
a letter to the President asking the FDA to finalize these regulations. 
Cigarette use has drastically declined in the last decade and we have 
made great strides in educating children about their harmful effects. 
E-cigarettes, with their misleading and trendy marketing, are 
threatening to set back that progress. Now it is time to snuff out the 
tactics that try to put kids on the path to smoking.
  Mr. MARKEY. 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. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.




                          ____________________