[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6274-6277]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to H.R. 1314.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

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


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The cloture motion having been 
presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the 
motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to H.R. 1314, an act to amend the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 to provide for a right to an administrative 
     appeal relating to adverse determinations of tax-exempt 
     status of certain organizations.
         Mitch McConnell, Bob Corker, Joni Ernst, Bill Cassidy, 
           John Cornyn, Thad Cochran, Shelley Moore Capito, Deb 
           Fischer, John McCain, James Lankford, Patrick J. 
           Toomey, Roy Blunt, Ron Johnson, Pat Roberts, David 
           Perdue, David Vitter, Ben Sasse.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                      Welcoming the Guest Chaplain

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am honored to be here today to welcome His 
Holiness Aram I, Catholicos of the Great House of Cilicia.
  Since 1995, His Holiness has served as the leader of Armenian 
communities across the globe, including many members of the Armenian 
diaspora in my State of Rhode Island.
  His Holiness will be visiting Sts. Vartanantz Armenian Apostolic 
Church in Providence on May 30, and members of the Armenian community 
in Rhode Island look forward to welcoming him.
  He is an accomplished scholar, a devoted humanitarian, and a strong 
spiritual shepherd.
  Recently, we marked the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, 
which claimed the lives of nearly one and a half million Armenians, 
exiled over a half a million survivors, and deeply impacted all 
Armenians throughout the world.
  On this centennial, we reflect on this exceptionally grave tragedy, 
and looking to the future, continue to work to promote both peace and 
human rights worldwide.
  And there is no one better to help us do so.
  It is indeed an honor to welcome His Holiness, to hear his words of 
prayer and reflection, and to go forward knowing that he is a powerful 
force for tolerance and decency. I thank him for being here today and 
for sharing his words of wisdom with the Senate and the Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it is good to see the Senate----
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could ask the distinguished majority 
leader if he would be willing to go into a quorum call for a brief 
conversation.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


 Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act and Bipartisan Congressional Trade 
                   Priorities and Accountability Act

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it is good to see that the Senate will 
soon be passing another important piece of bipartisan legislation.
  The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act offers the best chance for our 
constituents, through the Congress they elect, to weigh in on the White 
House's negotiations with Iran. And make no mistake--they need to have 
that opportunity.

[[Page 6275]]

  The American people were led to believe these negotiations would be 
about ending Iran's nuclear program and--and--its enrichment 
capabilities. But the current interim agreement makes one thing very 
clear: These talks have devolved into something else altogether. 
Instead of ending Iran's nuclear program, the interim agreement would 
actually bestow international blessing for Iran to continue it. Rather 
than meaningfully roll back Tehran's enrichment capability and 
dismantle its nuclear infrastructure, the interim agreement would 
actually permit Iran to become a nuclear threshold state poised right 
at the edge of obtaining a nuclear weapon.
  Iran would love nothing more than for the international community to 
recognize its threshold program. The Iranian regime would also love to 
be rid of the crippling sanctions that forced it to the table in the 
first place. Iran would, of course, divert those new funds to support 
the Assad regime, finance terrorist proxies such as Hezbollah, 
modernize its conventional capabilities, and further support the 
Houthis in Yemen. This would only reaffirm the fears of moderate Sunni 
allies that America is withdrawing--withdrawing--in the face of Iran's 
determined effort to expand its sphere of influence.
  For all this, what would the United States gain from such an 
agreement from Iran? We would have given up our best leverage over the 
regime. And for what? That is a very good question--a very good 
question.
  If a final agreement is reached that looks much like the interim 
agreement we have seen, it is not hard to perceive the possibilities of 
negative consequences. But let me be clear. A bad agreement seems far 
more likely to eventually lead to the kind of military conflict 
everyone wants to avoid than no agreement at all. President Obama would 
also be leaving the task of dealing with violations of an agreement to 
his successor.
  I say all this to underline the need for the bipartisan Iran Nuclear 
Agreement Review Act which is before us today.
  If we didn't face the threats of filibusters or the blocking of 
amendments or the specter of Presidential vetoes, this bill would be a 
heck of a lot stronger, I assure you. But the truth is, we face all 
those things. We do. That is the frustrating reality. The response to 
this should not be to give the American people no say at all on a deal 
with Iran; the response should be to overcome these challenges in a way 
that will give Congress and the American people the best possible 
chance to review any possible deal and affect its outcome.
  So I would urge Members of both of our parties here in the Senate to 
join me in supporting this bill. And make no mistake--that will not be 
the end of the story, either. This Congress is determined to pursue 
other avenues to address Iran's aggressive campaign of expansion and 
intimidation in the months to come.
  On the topic of aggressive campaigns in pursuit of expansion and 
intimidation, there are several other countries around the world that 
come to mind--China, for one. China is determined to dominate its 
neighbors. China wants to diminish American influence in the Pacific. 
And China wants to substitute American-style rules of global economic 
fair play for Chinese-style rules of monopolistic cartels and 
mercantilism. That is not an outcome any American should be willing to 
accept.
  We are a Pacific nation. We have important allies in the region--
nations such as Japan, Australia, South Korea, and New Zealand--that 
are today just as much of a modern, democratic, and market-oriented 
West as we are.
  The 21st century also promises to be an Asia-Pacific century. If we 
care about preserving and extending American leadership globally, then 
we cannot cede the most dynamic region in the world to China. One way 
to preserve our leadership would be to invest in the weapons systems 
and platforms that would fulfill the Obama administration's would-be 
pivot to Asia. Another important way would be to demonstrate our 
economic leadership. That is just one more reason why passing the 
Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act is so 
important.
  The United States is currently negotiating an agreement with a whole 
host of Pacific nations--not just Japan and Australia but also 
countries such as Canada and Chile--that would cement and enhance our 
role in the world's fastest growing region. The so-called Trans-Pacific 
Partnership would lower unfair trade barriers to American-made goods 
and American produce sold in the Pacific. That would represent a huge 
win for American workers and American farmers, to say nothing of the 
far-reaching geopolitical implications for our country. But our trade 
negotiators cannot bring this Pacific agreement back to Congress for 
careful review and deliberation unless Congress assures our trading 
partners that the agreement is going to get a fair up-or-down vote. 
That is just what the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and 
Accountability Act would do.
  This bipartisan bill would also force America's trade negotiators to 
meet congressional objectives and consult with Congress regularly 
throughout the process. It would ensure that an agreement such as the 
Trans-Pacific Partnership could not be enacted without explicit 
congressional approval.
  It is a commonsense bill that was supported by a large number of 
Republicans and Democrats in committee, passing by a vote of 20 to 6. 
So there is no reason we shouldn't turn to this bill and then pass it.
  The other countries in the region have made clear that they will have 
regional trade agreements with or without us, whether we participate or 
not. And if we walk away, China will step right in, no question about 
that.
  So we will soon turn to the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities 
and Accountability Act, and when we do, we will have a choice to make: 
Would we rather seen Chinese workers and Chinese farmers or American 
workers and American farmers reap the economic benefits of selling more 
to this dynamic region?


                         Tribute to Don Ritchie

  Mr. President, on one final matter, I would like to bid a fond 
farewell to one of the smartest guys around here, Don Ritchie, who will 
be leaving us later this month. He has been the Senate's Historian 
since 2009. Don is only the second one we have ever had. His immediate 
and only predecessor, Richard Baker, hired him when the Senate 
Historical Office came into being in the mid-1970s. There were a lot of 
applicants to be Baker's No. 2 back then, but Don quickly rose to the 
top of the heap. Baker said he received ``several extremely heartfelt 
letters'' of recommendation for Don that were just literally ``over the 
top.'' One, he said, was from ``a leading diplomatic historian . . . 
who said that in his whole 30-odd years of teaching he had never 
encountered a more perceptive or diligent . . . [or] brighter student 
than Don.''
  ``No more superlatives,'' he said, ``could have been used.'' 
Apparently, no more superlatives were needed because Don Ritchie got 
the job, and, so it is clear, he hasn't disappointed, even though he 
did have to wait three decades for the big promotion.
  Don came into the Senate with all the hype of New Coke, but his 
performance and staying power have had more of a Coke Classic feel. Don 
likes to say he has ``a front-row seat to the best show in town.''
  Don is the only one we turn to when we want to learn more about where 
the Senate has been so we can chart a better course for where it is 
going. He has been a great resource for my staff and me over the years. 
Don's office is there as a resource for the American public, too. He is 
the guy you see on TV explaining the historical significance of events 
such as swearing-in ceremonies and inaugurations.
  I don't think any of us would want to face him on ``Jeopardy.'' His 
depth of knowledge really is something to behold. I am sure he has 
gained a lot of that knowledge from the part of his job he loves the 
most, which is conducting the Senate Historical Office's Oral History 
Project. He has interviewed just about everyone you could imagine, from 
Senators, to clerks, to police officers. He even got to interview a man

[[Page 6276]]

who once worked as a congressional page--listen to this--during the 
Presidency of William Howard Taft. That page provided ``some very good 
information,'' Don said, even if he kept ``falling asleep several times 
during the interview.''
  Here is how Roll Call once described Don Ritchie: the Senate's 
``memory keeper.''
  It is fitting, then, that the Senate voted recently to designate Don 
Ritchie as Historian emeritus. It is not as though he plans to slow 
down in retirement, anyway. ``Historians never retire,'' Don says, 
``they just have more time to research.''
  Along with research, Don also plans to spend more time with his three 
beloved grandchildren and to do some traveling with his wife Anne. The 
Senate wishes him the very best in retirement and sends its heartfelt 
congratulations to a man who has been an institution around here for 
four decades--four decades.
  The Senate would also like to offer its congratulations to Betty 
Koed, who has just been announced by the Secretary of the Senate as our 
next Senate Historian. We also wish Kate Scott well in her promotion to 
Associate Historian.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader is 
recognized.


                         Tribute to Don Ritchie

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, three decades ago, when Senator Robert Byrd 
began drafting a series of lectures on the history of the United States 
Senate, to whom did he go for help? Don Ritchie. Ten years ago, when 
Dan Brown, the popular author of the best-selling ``DaVinci Code,'' 
wanted information about the Capitol for his new novel, to whom did he 
go? Don Ritchie. Even now, when famed historian and biographer Robert 
Caro needs facts for his five-volume work on Lyndon Johnson, he goes to 
Don Ritchie. Well, for 39 years, any person needing valuable insight 
into the United States Senate and its history has known where to go--
the Senate Historian, Don Ritchie. And Don has obliged, sharing his 
wealth of knowledge with anyone who asked--Senators, staff, authors, 
historians, and visitors.
  But after four decades of service, Don will officially retire from 
the Senate Historical Office at the end of this month.
  As the senior Senator from Kentucky stated, from his first day here 
in the Senate, Don Ritchie made this institution a better place. The 
first-ever Senate Historian, Don's predecessor, Richard Baker, once 
said, ``March 8, 1976--that's a date, like my wedding anniversary, that 
I remember.'' Indeed, that was the day Don Ritchie was hired as an 
Associate Historian in the newly formed Senate Historical Office.
  Don Ritchie, a former marine, was fresh out of graduate school at the 
University of Maryland, having received his Ph.D. in history just a 
year earlier. He was getting his start in the profession, driving all 
over the DC area, teaching at George Mason, Northern Virginia Community 
College, and University College. He was also working part time with the 
American Historical Association. When offered a job in the Senate 
Historical Office, he jumped at the chance. The rest is, as they say, 
history.
  Don has served honorably as Senate Historian. Prior to that, he 
worked as Associate Senate Historian for 33 years. Over the combined 40 
years of service, Don has authored 12 books, 3 textbooks, and a fourth 
is now on the way. He has lectured on Senate history at just about 
every major historical society in America. He has become a fixture on 
C-SPAN. But his crowning achievement would be his development of the 
Senate Oral History Project. Don has recorded countless interviews with 
people who worked in the Senate, from Parliamentarians, to clerks, to 
pages. Future generations of historians will better understand the 
Senate of the 20th and 21st centuries because of Don Ritchie's Oral 
History Project. That is an accomplishment which will stand forever.
  On a more personal note, I have so appreciated Don's insight and 
expertise. Every week, I begin my caucus by calling on the Senate 
Historian, and he talks to us about so many fascinating things, things 
we do not ordinarily know about, but they are all interesting, whether 
it is Prohibition, whether it is events that took place in the first or 
second Roosevelt administration--it does not matter what it is. These 
are times I look forward to, and, quite frankly, it shuts up my caucus. 
When he shows up, they are suddenly attentive. I would like to think 
they are not more attentive to him than to me, but I would think that 
is the case. As I said, our lunches can be fairly boisterous, and they 
stop all conversation to listen to Don Ritchie. That is because so 
often Senators walk away from his lectures with a better understanding 
and appreciation of the Senate.
  He has been invaluable to me and every other Senate Democrat. As we 
heard from the majority leader, he also has been very good for the 
Republicans.
  As he prepares for a new chapter in his life, I wish him the very 
best. It is good news that he and his wife Anne will be jumping into 
retirement together. As we have heard, for historians, retirement only 
means more time to pore through books and find out what someone else 
missed and try to take another run at writing something that is 
interesting.
  After a successful career as an archivist and historian, his wife 
Anne is retiring from the National Gallery of Art. Together, Anne and 
Don will have plenty of time to spend with their two daughters, 
Jennifer and Andrea, and their three grandchildren, Cami, Jack, and 
Boone.
  Even in retirement, Don will continue reading and researching about 
this institution he and I love so dearly--the Senate. After all, as Don 
himself points out, ``Historians don't retire''--as Senator McConnell 
said--``they just get more time to research.''
  Thank you, Don Ritchie, for your four decades of service to the 
Senate and your country. You really will be missed.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rounds). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  Mr. REID. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, may I ask the minority leader if it would 
be possible to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is in a quorum call.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Through the Chair, I ask my friend from Indiana how long 
the Senator wishes to speak as in morning business.
  Mr. COATS. No more than 10 minutes.
  Mr. REID. I do not care. I would just like to know. That is fine.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Indiana be recognized 
for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COATS. I thank the minority leader for this opportunity.


                   Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act

  Mr. President, recently on this floor, I spoke about the need to pass 
the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act with robust, veto-proof, 
bipartisan majorities. That is asking a lot, but I did so because this 
is the only chance we have to prevent President Obama from having a 
free and totally independent hand to conclude a flawed agreement with 
the Government of Iran. We cannot allow that to happen.
  This Congress has pleaded for and worked for and will achieve the 
opportunity to play a major role in this decision, which is a decision 
of historic consequence.
  Let me repeat what I just said. This bill is the only chance we have 
now to prevent President Obama from having

[[Page 6277]]

a completely free hand, with no opportunity to address it in a 
bipartisan way, to achieve success in rejecting a bad agreement.
  Passage of the bill before us will result in either forcing critical 
and absolutely necessary improvements in the deal now being cooked with 
our Secretary of State and the President and his people or defeating a 
bad deal if a bad deal is presented to us.
  The stakes in this game are beyond calculation. I personally regard 
this as the most consequential issue of my entire public career. Our 
failure to have an opportunity to have this Congress--the 
representatives of the American people--bring before the American 
people what is in this deal and the consequences if this deal is not a 
good deal that will prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons 
capability--this is absolutely essential. The only chance we have to 
exercise our constitutional right, which I believe, but our right to 
address something of this consequence is to pass the Corker-Cardin 
bill.
  It is not the perfect bill. It is not the bill that I think perhaps 
even Senator Corker would have preferred. But it is where we are. The 
only way we could get here and get bipartisan support for this was to 
do this.
  This gives us the opportunity to do the following: A Congressional 
review period will be provided before implementation. An opportunity 
for Congress to vote on the agreement will be provided under Corker-
Cardin.
  A limitation on the President's use of waivers to suspend sanctions 
that have been put in place by this body will be taken away. A 
requirement that Congress receive the final deal will be lost. The 
requirement that the President certify that Iran is complying will be 
taken away. A mechanism for Congress to rapidly reimpose sanctions in 
the event of violations will be lost. Reporting on Iran support for 
terrorism, ballistic missile development, and human rights violations 
will be lost. All of this is lost if we do not stand together and 
insist on the right to engage in this. We must pass this or the defeat 
will be of historical consequence.
  This bill is the only chance, as I said, that Congress has to weigh 
in on a potential agreement. The stakes are too high. The consequence 
is too great to engage in changes. Many well-intended statements have 
been made by my colleagues, and I endorse every word of what has been 
said. Amendments have been offered that, had they not been offered by 
someone else, in a different fashion, I would have wanted to offer. We 
can still offer those going forward.
  But in order to achieve the bipartisan support necessary to deny the 
President the opportunity to have a free hand in cutting any deal he 
wants and the concessions already given--this should raise alarms in 
each of us in terms of support for this bill which is before us.
  What are the stakes? What are the consequences? Former Secretaries 
Kissinger and Shultz and other foreign policy experts did a recent Wall 
Street Journal piece and said this:

       If the Middle East is ``proliferated'' and becomes host to 
     a plethora of nuclear-threshold states, several in mortal 
     rivalry with each other, on what concept of nuclear 
     deterrence or strategic stability will international security 
     be based?

  They continue:

       It is in America's strategic interest to prevent the 
     outbreak of a nuclear war and its catastrophic consequences. 
     Nuclear arms must not be permitted to turn into conventional 
     weapons. The passions of the region allied with weapons of 
     mass destruction may impel deepening American involvement.

  In closing, I want to address statements offered by some who argue 
that passing this bill is unnecessary because in 2017 we will have a 
new President in the White House and that President will be a 
Republican. Well, I hope that is so, but there is obviously no 
guarantee of that. But in the meantime--in the meantime--Iran will 
achieve a free hand to go forward with newly acquired wealth, the will 
to achieve and the technical capability to achieve nuclear weapons 
capability.
  Let me conclude by supporting a statement that was made by Max Boot, 
a respected foreign policy analyst:

       Skeptics about the looming nuclear accord with Iran may be 
     taking comfort from the promises of Republican presidential 
     candidates to tear up the treaty as soon as they reach the 
     Oval Office. They shouldn't be. Even assuming a Republican 
     wins the White House next year--

  Which, as we know, is not a certainty. Hopefully, from our 
standpoint, we hope that is the case--

     pulling out of the agreement won't necessarily fix its 
     defects. In fact, it could make the situation even worse.
       The U.S. would then get the worst of both worlds: Iran 
     already would have been enriched by hundreds of billions of 
     dollars of sanctions relief--and it would be well on its way 
     to fielding nuclear weapons with de facto permission from the 
     international community. To avoid this nightmare scenario, 
     the best play from America's standpoint could well be to keep 
     the accord in place to at least delay Iran's decision to 
     weaponize.
       In short, don't expect salvation in 2017. If the accord is 
     signed its consequences will be irrevocable. Whatever a 
     future president does or does not do, Iran's hard-line regime 
     will be immeasurably strengthened by the agreement. That 
     makes it all the more imperative to stop a bad agreement 
     now--not two years from now.

  I urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to vote to give 
Congress--this Congress--the right and the opportunity to scrutinize 
every single word of what is being negotiated with the Iranians, to 
inform the American people, and then achieve what I would hope would be 
an overwhelming rejection of the agreement if it does not achieve the 
goal of denying Iran its nuclear weapons capability. This is a very 
important vote before us. I think we need to look at what the end goal 
is and how we can best get there under the circumstances which we now 
are in. We would all like to be in a different position. But to achieve 
and get to this particular point, we are looking at this particular 
bill to give us a say--a meaningful say--and an opportunity to reject a 
bad agreement which at this particular point in time, in my view, does 
not achieve what we need to achieve and should be thoroughly 
scrutinized by us and the American people.
  I yield the floor.


                       Reservation Of Leader Time

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the leadership time 
is reserved.

                          ____________________