[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9138-9149]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         COUNTERING IRAN'S DESTABILIZING ACTIVITIES ACT OF 2017

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
resume consideration of S. 722.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the bill.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 722) to impose sanctions with respect to Iran in 
     relation to Iran's ballistic missile program, support for 
     acts of international terrorism, and violations of human 
     rights, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       McConnell (for Crapo) modified amendment No. 232, to impose 
     sanctions with respect to the Russian Federation and to 
     combat terrorism and illicit financing.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


                          U.S. Travel to Cuba

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, rumor has it that on Friday the President 
will announce a change in U.S. policy toward Cuba. There are lots of 
different rumors about what that might entail. I thought I would talk 
for just a couple of minutes about the consequences of such action, 
what has been accomplished in Cuba, what our goals are, and what I 
think our goals should be.
  We have had a long policy of isolation with regard to Cuba. For more 
than 50 years, we tried to isolate the island and hoped the government 
would change somehow. It didn't. For more than 50 years, we have 
prohibited Americans from freely traveling to Cuba. We have had periods 
that the restrictions have gone down a bit and then up again, but by 
and large Americans have been prohibited, unless they fall into certain 
classes, to travel to Cuba. Then, when they are in Cuba, their travel 
around the island, the activities they undertake, are specifically 
prescribed by the U.S. Government.
  I always thought that certainly there is a place for economic 
sanctions. Sometimes they can help nudge countries or push countries 
toward a desired outcome--but a travel ban? You only impose a travel 
ban under extreme circumstances, such as when national security reasons 
dictate, and there hasn't, for a long time, been national security 
reasons for a travel ban. I have always thought that as an American 
citizen that if somebody is going to limit my travel, it ought to be a 
Communist, somebody from another country that wouldn't let me in, not 
my own government to tell me where I can and cannot travel. I think 
most Americans feel that way.
  I think we ought to first consider whom these sanctions are on. The 
sanctions we have had for so many years have not really been on Cubans; 
they have been on Americans. Gratefully, the previous administration 
lessened these restrictions or lessened the impact around them. Around 
2008 or 2009, the last administration said that Cuban Americans should 
be able to travel freely at least. Prior to that, we had instances 
where Cuban Americans would have to decide, if their parents, for 
example, were still in Cuba and were aging, maybe their mother was 
infirm--they had to decide if my mother passes away, do I attend her 
funeral or if my father passes away within 3 years--see, it used to be 
that Cuban Americans were limited to travel to the island just once 
every 3 years. They had to decide whether to attend their mother's 
funeral or their father's funeral. What a terrible thing for our 
government to tell American citizens, that they have to choose whether 
to attend their father's funeral or their mother's funeral. What kind 
of a country is that? Why would we do that? Yet we did for a number of 
years.
  Gratefully, the last administration lifted restrictions on Cuban-
American travel and at the same time lifted considerable restrictions 
on remittances, allowing money to flow more freely to relatives and 
others on the island. That coincided with the time the Cuban Government 
realized they couldn't employ every Cuban, not even at $20 a month, so 
they said: Go ahead and find another line of work in the private 
sector, run a bed and breakfast, have a private restaurant, have an 
auto repair facility or a beauty shop. Hundreds of thousands of Cubans 
have done so over the past 5 years, largely with seed capital provided 
by travel from Americans, particularly Cuban-American travel and 
remittances.
  So there was a situation where virtually no Cuban was employed in the 
private sector 5 years ago, but today as much as 25 percent of the 
Cuban workforce is now in the private sector. They have obviously more 
economic freedom. The average waiter in a Cuban private restaurant 
brings in $40 to $50 a day, while the average Cuban working for the 
Cuban Government brings in $20 to $30 a month. So there is 
significantly more economic freedom for those in the private sector in 
Cuba but also significantly more personal freedom as well. That is a 
good thing. That stands with the policy and goal we always had to 
increase freedom for the Cuban people.
  Now we hear that the administration may want to turn back some of 
that progress and say that Americans shouldn't be able to travel as 
freely or as frequently to Cuba. Some of the rumors say they will limit 
travel to once a year. We don't know if that will be for Cuban 
Americans or all Americans. By the way, it seems rather strange to have 
a policy that is ethnically based, where we say: You are a Cuban 
American, you can travel, but if you are another type of American, you 
can't. That just seems pretty un-American. We can't get back into a 
situation where a Cuban American, living in the United States, will 
have to choose whether they can attend their mother or their father's 
funeral. I hope we don't get back into that time.
  Another thing we ought to consider is that when Americans travel more 
freely, as they have been able to do under what is called a general 
license for individual travelers--that was one of the changes that was 
made in just the past couple of years--then individual American 
travelers tend to go to Cuba and stay in a bed and breakfast run by a 
private Cuban citizen, travel in private taxi cabs, frequent a private 
restaurant. My own family has done that.
  If we go back to the time when American travelers have to travel 
under a specific license or as a group, then those travelers will be 
pushed toward the Cuban hotels which are owned by the Cuban Government 
or military. Therefore, you have aided the Cuban Government more than 
the Cuban people. Under no system will you be able to cut off money 
completely from the Cuban Government or the private sector. There is 
leakage everywhere. That is how economies work. Why in the world do we 
have a policy where we directly benefit the Cuban Government by pushing 
American travelers to the hotels they own rather than the private homes 
owned by private Cuban citizens? It seems to me these policies, if they 
are going to come forward--and it seems that they might be--just go 
against the policies and the goals we have.
  Another thing we need to consider is that in the old times, when we 
had more restrictive policies on travel on Americans, those had to be 
enforced somehow. That falls upon the Office of Foreign Assets Control 
at Treasury.
  OFAC, you may have heard recently, is the office we charge to enforce 
our sanctions on Iran. We are putting new sanctions on Iran. They will 
be charged with enforcing those. They will be charged with enforcing 
sanctions on Russia and new sanctions on Russia as well. Sanctions on 
North Korea, again, falls to OFAC. Yet we are telling OFAC that now 
they are going to have to spend a considerable amount of time and 
resources and manpower tracking down people going to Cuba to see if 
they stick to their designated, approved itinerary, whatever that might 
be, whatever we think they ought to be doing there, rather than what 
they want to be doing there. That just seems foolish to me and a waste 
of money, time and resources, and wrongheaded priorities with regard to 
other priorities that we have on sanctions.
  We had situations in previous years that would simply be laughable if 
they

[[Page 9139]]

weren't true, but I think the administration ought to consider that 
when we have a restrictive policy on travel, we are going to have 
situations that are just flat embarrassing to us. If that sounds crazy, 
it doesn't sound crazy to Joan Slote of San Diego, who traveled to Cuba 
in the year 2000 at the age of 72 with a Canadian company that 
organized cycling tours. She was fined $7,500 in the United States 
because she hadn't preapproved the itinerary and didn't follow the 
guidelines. She went through a Canadian company to do that. The 
subsequent fees totaled nearly $10,000. I think it was settled for 
something less, but why in the world are we sanctioning and fining a 
72-year-old woman who went on a biking tour in Cuba.
  Consider the case of Cevin Allen in the State of Washington. He spent 
part of his childhood in Cuba, where his parents were missionaries. 
They built an Assembly of God Church in a town in southeastern Cuba. 
His parents died in 1987 in a house fire. Ten years later, Allen 
traveled to Cuba to scatter the ashes of his parents at the church they 
had built. He also brought a family Bible to give to the church's 
pastor. Cevin returned to the United States via Nassau, Bahamas, where 
he told U.S. agents he had just been to Cuba. He told them the reasons 
for his travel. His initial fine was $7,500.
  Do we really want to be fining people who are scattering the ashes of 
their parents? These aren't isolated incidents. This went on for a 
while.
  A woman from Indiana was fined for distributing Bibles in Cuba 
because her itinerary didn't include a trip to the beach. She went to 
the beach, I am told, to participate or to watch a baptism that was 
happening at that time. Why in the world would we try to limit that 
kind of travel? Yet that is what we would be doing if we go back to 
restricting travel.
  Maybe these rumors are overblown. Maybe we will not be imposing new 
restrictions on travel, but if we are, I hope the administration will 
consider these things.
  There is another rumor out there that we know that if we diminish 
American travel, therefore diminishing the amount of money that goes to 
these Cuban entrepreneurs who are running bed and breakfasts and 
private restaurants, then we can make up for it somehow by having some 
of our government agencies teach entrepreneurship classes. Anybody who 
has been in Cuba understands that Cubans who have survived on $20 a 
month for decades are more entrepreneurial than we will ever be. They 
don't need lessons in entrepreneurship, they need customers, and by 
denying Americans the freedom to travel to Cuba, we will be denying 
them customers, and they will be worse off. Their political freedom 
will be diminished. Their economic freedom will be diminished. Their 
personal freedom will be diminished. That is not what we want.
  Obviously, we want the Cuban Government to change. It has been 
disappointing, the rate of change. Why would we take it out on the 
Cuban people? Don't they have it tough enough with a Communist 
government that wants to control and keep that control as long as they 
can? Why don't we continue to help the Cuban people as they have been 
helped over the past couple of years? We also want to consider the 
cooperation we have with the Cuban Government with regard to issues 
such as drug interdiction, environmental cooperation, immigration 
enforcement. In the past couple of years, we had a lot of Cubans 
rafting to South Florida because of the wet foot, dry foot policy. We 
have had tens of thousands of Cubans crossing the Mexican border to 
make it to Arizona or Texas or California or New Mexico to claim or to 
be paroled into our system and ultimately perhaps to get citizenship. 
Because of agreements we have had and the diplomatic cooperation we 
have had over the past couple of years, and specifically over the past 
couple of months, we have been able to reach an agreement where we 
don't have that kind of migration and those kinds of issues. So there 
are tangible benefits to the diplomatic cooperation we have had. I am 
told we are not going to touch that; that we are not going to roll 
back. We have diplomatic relations and that is a good thing.
  We don't want to go back to the time where instead of an embassy, we 
had a special interests section in Cuba and the Cubans had one here. I 
hope the President of the United States and his Cabinet will consider 
these things as they make decisions on what to do on Cuba. There are 
changes to policy we can make, but I would argue they would be more in 
terms of further liberalizing travel. We have a bill that has been 
filed in the Senate with 55 cosponsors. It is a bipartisan bill to 
completely lift the travel ban and get rid of it completely. If such a 
measure is brought to the floor, I am confident there will be between 
65 and 70 votes--maybe more--for such a bill. Instead, we seem to be 
going in the other direction or the administration is talking about 
going in the other direction. I hope they will reconsider.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Amendment No. 232, as Modified

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, Russia remains a hostile, recalcitrant 
power that deploys its military, its cyber espionage activities, and 
its economic tactics to harm the United States of America--to drive a 
wedge between us and our allies.
  President Obama began to impose tough sanctions for Russia's cyber 
attacks, its cyber intrusion, its illegal annexation of Crimea, and its 
continuing aggression in Ukraine and Syria. Congress joined in that 
effort by enacting two measures to tighten and broaden those sanctions. 
Lifting and relaxing those sanctions now would only reward Russia's 
attempts to undermine our democracy.
  The administration continues to exercise a policy of strategic 
ambiguity when it comes to Russia, and the President, putting it 
mildly, has sent mixed signals. Just last month, Gary Cohn, the 
President's senior economic adviser, seemed to suggest that the United 
States could relax sanctions on Russia, and, as press reports confirmed 
2 weeks ago, in its early days, the Trump administration considered 
removing all measures against Russia, according to former 
administration officials. Think of that.
  We all hear the discussion--maybe collusion, maybe not--about the 
Russians' friendship with the administration, whether the Trump family 
or the Trump businesses or the Trump White House has had some kind of 
relationships--almost everybody here thinks--with the oilmen, with the 
oligarchs, with the Kremlin, maybe even Putin himself. And to think 
that soon after taking office, before the public and the rest of us 
began to start learning more about Trump's ties with Russia, the 
administration considered the removal of any kind of measures punishing 
Russia.
  This amendment, written by Senators Crapo, Corker, Cardin, me, and 
our offices and our staffs, sends an unambiguous message that the 
United States will not accept Russia's continued aggression, will adopt 
tough measures to both punish its past actions and deter future 
aggression against our country and our allies.
  Over the last week, the chairs and ranking members of key Senate 
committees conducted intense negotiations over a package of tough and 
meaningful reforms and expansions to our current Russia sanctions 
regime. We have had good, positive, productive, bipartisan 
conversations. Last night we reached agreement on this broad package of 
new measures that substantially expands sanctions on Russia in response 
to its malicious cyber attacks, efforts to undermine democracy, and 
continuing aggression in Syria and in eastern Ukraine. This package 
assures Congress and the people we represent that we have more of a say 
in this critical national security debate.
  The amendment would do a number of things. It would codify and 
strengthen six existing Obama administration

[[Page 9140]]

Executive orders on Russia and Ukraine and on Russian cyber activities 
and the sanctions flowing from them.
  It would provide for strict congressional review of any effort by the 
President to relax and suspend and terminate or waive Russian sanctions 
patterned after the Iran Review Act.
  It would require mandatory imposition of sanctions on malicious cyber 
activity against the United States, on corrupt Russian actors around 
the world, on foreign sanctions evaders violating the Russia, Ukraine, 
and cyber-related sanctions controls, on those involved in serious 
human rights abuses in territories forcibly controlled by Russia, and 
on special Russian crude oil projects around the world.
  It would authorize broad new sanctions on key sectors of Russia's 
economy, including mining, metals, shipping, and railways, as well as 
new investments in energy pipelines.
  It would crack down on anyone investing in corrupt privatization 
efforts in Russia--something we have seen a lot of over 20 years.
  It would broaden the Treasury Department's authority to impose 
geographic targeting orders, allowing investigators to obtain ATM and 
wire transfer records so Treasury can better target illicit activity of 
Russian oligarchs in the United States.
  It would require Treasury to provide Congress with a study on the 
tangled web of senior government officials from Russia and their family 
members and any current U.S. economic exposures to Russian oligarchs 
and their investments, and that includes real estate.
  It would require the administration to assess and report to Congress 
on extending secondary sanctions to additional Russian oligarchs and 
state-owned and related enterprises.
  Since 2014, Congress has worked together--Republicans and Democrats--
to craft increasingly tougher sanctions to hold Russia accountable for 
a long line of misdeeds. It is a long line indeed, from Russia's 
violations of international law and of the sovereignty and territorial 
integrity of Ukraine, to its role in the brutal repression in the war 
in Syria, to the cyber attacks that we are learning more and more about 
on Americans.
  The Ukrainian community in my State--vibrant, successful, 
progressive--and around the world knows firsthand the dangers of 
unchecked Russian aggression. We should strengthen--not weaken, not 
relax, not peel back--Russian sanctions.
  I urge my colleagues here and in the House to support this amendment, 
and I will urge the President to sign it into law. We must continue to 
vigorously enforce and strengthen sanctions against Russia to send a 
message to its leaders and the world that the United States of America 
will not tolerate efforts to undermine democracy around the world.


                          Freedom of the Press

  Mr. President, our democracy is founded on checks and balances--and 
not just among the branches of government. Our Founders enshrined the 
freedom of the press in the Bill of Rights for a reason. We can't have 
a functioning democracy without freedom of the press. That is why last 
week the Newseum marked its annual Day Without News to remind Americans 
what our country would be--what we would be like, what we would look 
like, how we would act--without a free press.
  Journalists' entire job is to ask tough questions and to challenge 
powerful interests. While in church, we comfort the afflicted, 
journalists afflict the comfortable. Reporters put their safety and far 
too often their lives on the line, whether it is covering floods and 
hurricanes at home or traversing the globe to bring us the stories of 
our troops. We depend on reporters in Ohio and around the world to both 
bring us the stories that impact our day-to-day lives and to tell the 
stories that simply otherwise might not be told.
  Supporting a vibrant, independent, proactive press corps has rarely 
been more important in our country. Yet, too often we see reporters 
restricted, vilified, attacked, and even physically threatened, all for 
doing the jobs for which they were hired.
  Today brought news in this body that some people in this building--
some Members of the Senate--are trying to bar reporters from asking 
Senators questions. This is outrageous. If Senators can't handle tough 
questions from reporters about their plans to take healthcare away from 
millions of Americans, maybe they should change the bill, not restrict 
the reporters.
  We remember that Oval Office meeting with Russian officials. We have 
seen the pictures of the President of the United States with the 
Russian Foreign Minister, with the Russian Ambassador. We have seen 
those pictures, but what we need to remember about those pictures--
those photos that ran on front pages around this country and all over 
the world--those photos weren't taken by American journalists. The 
President of the United States threw them out of the Oval Office. Those 
pictures were taken by the Russian state media.
  The Russian state media was allowed to be in the room with the 
President of the United States in the Oval Office--hallowed ground in 
our democracy--while the American press was thrown out. The Russian 
state media, the old Soviet news agency, TASS, the remnants of the old 
Soviet propaganda machine, was allowed in, while the American press was 
barred. When you hide from the press, you hide from the American 
people.
  On November 16, a group representing more than a dozen journalist 
organizations sent a letter to the President-elect. They wrote: ``This 
isn't about access for the press itself, it's about access for 
Americans in diverse communities around the country.''
  Having a strong, independent White House and congressional press 
corps isn't just important for those reporters' stories. Think about 
the signal it sends to mayors and city council members and State 
legislators. If the Members of Congress--the President, by throwing 
press out of the Oval Office and bringing in the old Soviet news agency 
TASS, or the Senate, by throwing reporters out of the Senate--if they 
don't have to be accountable, why should a mayor, why should a city 
council person, why should a Governor think they should be accountable?
  It is not just Washington reporters who are vital to democracy. It is 
reporters in Ohio telling us the stories, bringing us the faces of the 
opioid epidemic that devastates families and communities. It is Ohio's 
editorial pages highlighting how important the Great Lakes Restoration 
Initiative is to our drinking water and our State's economy. It has 
enabled Senator Portman and me and bipartisan Senators all over the 
Great Lakes, from New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, 
Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota--Senators from both parties fighting 
back and stopping the cuts that would have destroyed so much of the 
progress in cleaning up the Great Lakes. It is journalists in every 
corner of my State highlighting the devastation that the proposed 
budget would have on our schools and our housing and rural communities. 
It is emphasizing again that 200,000 Ohioans right now are getting 
opioid treatment because they have insurance from the Affordable Care 
Act. It is reminding politicians in Ohio of both parties that those 
people need insurance. That is what a free press does.
  Parenthetically, I would add, my wife is a journalist. She is a 
Pulitzer Prize winner. She is a columnist. She is soon to be a 
novelist. She clearly has outspoken views about this, as I do. She is a 
member of the press. I am a Member of this body. We both believe in a 
free press. We both believe in a free democracy.
  We answer to journalists in this body because they are the eyes and 
ears of the people we serve. If you can't understand--if none of us are 
strong enough and articulate enough and gutsy enough to stand before 
reporters who ask tough questions about your positions, then maybe you 
ought to rethink your positions.
  We need diligent, courageous reporters to dig up their stories. We 
need independent editors to put them on

[[Page 9141]]

front pages. We need media organizations willing to hold the powerful 
accountable.
  The American people have a right to know what is going on in their 
own government, from the White House down to the city council office.
  The behavior today of the Rules Committee--the Rules Committee 
decision to ban reporters--television reporters specifically--from this 
body is just reprehensible. Thomas Jefferson said, ``Our liberty 
depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without 
being lost.'' That is as true today as it was more than 200 years ago 
at the time of our country's founding.
  To all of the reporters out there, thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.


                     Amendment No. 232, as Modified

  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I am glad to be down here with our ranking 
member, Senator Ben Cardin from Maryland. I want to thank him and his 
staff for working until 10:20 last night to complete negotiations on a 
Russia amendment. I want to thank Senator Crapo and his staff and 
Senator Brown and his staff for the work they did on the sanctions 
component, where over the last 5 months they have worked with our 
counterparts around the world to make sure that what we did in this 
piece of legislation was something that was workable. Truly, I think it 
has been a great effort by four different offices. I am glad that 
cloture has been filed on that amendment, and I understand we are going 
to vote on it tomorrow at 2 o'clock.
  I will be very brief. Senator Cardin and I are here on the floor 
together, and I know he wants to make some comments about this. Let me 
just give a brief summary, if I could.
  The amendment enhances Congress's role in determining sanctions 
policy on Russia. It provides for the President to use a national 
security waiver or sanctions termination after giving Congress 30 days 
to review the proposed action.
  I think everyone here knows I am a strong proponent of congressional 
review. We began that under President Obama. To me, it gets us in a 
place where we are playing an appropriate role in foreign policy.
  The amendment codifies existing sanctions on Russia for their 
activities in Ukraine and cyber space.
  The amendment strengthens and expands existing conduct-based 
sanctions by requiring the imposition of sanctions on actors 
undermining cyber security, supplying arms to Syria, human rights 
abusers, and those involved in corrupt privatization of government-
owned assets.
  It mandates sanctions on Russian deep-water, Arctic, and shale 
projects worldwide and yet allows for waivers to be made based on 
national security interests of the United States.
  This amendment prioritizes U.S. foreign assistance to allies in their 
fight against Russian aggression. This is something I know Senator 
Cardin worked hard on, and I appreciate his efforts.
  It authorizes $250 million to establish the Countering Russian 
Influence Fund to implement programs in EU and NATO member countries--
Senator Portman played a role in this as well, and I appreciate his 
efforts--as well as candidate nations, to combat Russian interference, 
with a priority given to programs that develop cyber security, address 
public corruption, respond to humanitarian crises, counter 
disinformation, and support democratic institutions.
  It requires the State Department and other Federal agencies to 
collaborate and develop a plan to reduce Ukraine's dependence on 
Russian energy imports, which we know Russia has used to extort 
Ukraine.
  I think it is a very good piece of legislation. I appreciate the 
contributions of many Members here. I know Senator McCain, Senator 
Graham, Senator Rubio, and so many people here have been involved in 
wanting to produce legislation that pushes back in this way. We have 
tried to utilize the best of many bills that have been put forth.
  Again, I cannot thank the ranking member and his staff enough for the 
way they have worked with us to get us to this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I just want to follow up briefly with 
Chairman Corker. The two of us became friends in 2007, when we were 
both elected to the U.S. Senate the same year and were part of the same 
class. But I think the two of us really became close friends a little 
over 2 years ago, when we were confronted with how Congress should deal 
with the nuclear agreement being negotiated by President Obama with 
Iran and our European friends, along with Russia and China.
  As the two of us worked around the clock to try to develop an 
appropriate review process so that Congress could play a constructive 
role--we recognize that we are the legislative branch, and we have 
oversight functions, but there is an appropriate role for us with 
regard to Executive actions--we came out with something that no one 
expected could be done; that is, nearly unanimous support in this body 
for a review statute in regard to the Iran negotiations.
  Chairman Corker has taken this same template and has now used that to 
apply to Russia in the removal of sanctions on Russia. It started with 
a bill that was put together by Senator Graham and me. It has been 
modified through the negotiations we have had, as Senator Corker has 
commented, with Senator Brown and Senator Crapo. But it does, in 
effect, provide that there will be notice to Congress before the 
administration can give any sanction relief to Russia, so there can be 
transparency and a discussion and a debate. Then there is a process by 
which Congress, if we feel strongly and can get the necessary support, 
can disapprove of sanction relief.
  I think that is the proper way for us to deal with one of the most 
important bilateral relationships in the world--between the United 
States and Russia--and it is appropriate that it is going to be an 
amendment to the Iran sanctions bill because the review process came 
out of the Iran agreement.
  The review process would be triggered if there is action taken by the 
President to give relief, but the legislation also includes additional 
sanctions, as the chairman pointed out, with Russia. It does this in a 
way that codifies the President's Executive orders so that there is now 
congressional support for Executive orders. It expands those sanctions 
in the area of cyber, as the chairman pointed out, and for energy 
projects, financial institutions facilitating transactions, Russian 
arms and related materiel to Syria, the corrupt privatization of 
government-owned assets.
  I particularly thank the chairman for the way he was able to 
recognize that, in Russia, what we don't want to see us contribute to 
is corruption, and we concentrate on the corruption issue, not the 
business issue. It is the area of corruption that becomes the important 
thing.
  We tighten up a lot of the different sanctions. Then we set up a 
process where there needs to be certified progress made; otherwise, 
these are mandatory sanctions the President must impose.
  As the chairman pointed out, negotiations included aspects of 
legislation that was first introduced by Senator McCain and me on 
sanctions, by Senator Graham and me on review of sanction relief, by 
Senators Crapo and Brown on proposed legislation dealing with 
sanctions, and Chairman Corker had significant drafting issues that he 
brought to the table in our negotiations. So it was a free discussion, 
and the end result is--I said this before but I want to underscore 
this--the Banking Committee brought some very helpful suggestions to 
make sure the financial sanctions worked. It is one thing that we want 
to make sure there are penalties, but we have to make sure they work 
right, and I compliment the work of the Banking Committee in making 
sure that we use the right standards and that this will meet 
international muster. It is absolutely essential that this template be 
one in which our European allies can follow our leadership. If we 
didn't do that, we could have been isolated, which would not have had 
the

[[Page 9142]]

same impact as I think these sanctions will have in working with our 
European allies.
  The chairman mentioned several of our colleagues on the committee. I 
need to mention Senator Shaheen and Senator Menendez, who played very, 
very important roles in our caucus. Senator Durbin and Senator Schumer 
also played roles in this, and I acknowledge their contributions.
  Included in this bill is the democracy initiative, which deals with 
providing more unified support with our allies in Europe in fighting 
Russia's propaganda and attacks on our democratic institutions. Senator 
Portman made major contributions to that, as the chairman has also 
acknowledged, and then, brought to us mainly through the Banking bill, 
we have a strategy to trace terrorism and financing in terrorism, which 
I think is very important to be included in the amendment.
  We will have a chance to vote on this amendment at 2 o'clock 
tomorrow. I encourage my colleagues to adopt this. Senator Corker and I 
expect to be back on the floor tomorrow as we manage the underlying 
bill, at which time I will want to comment on the importance of our 
passing the Iran sanctions bill, which is vitally important because of 
Iranian activities taking place today.
  For all of those reasons, I encourage my colleagues to please read 
the amendment that has been filed in a bipartisan effort to deal with 
this challenge that Russia has provided through their activities in 
attacking our democratic institutions, in their continued aggression in 
Ukraine, and their human rights violations in Syria.
  I might add that Senator Menendez's provisions on human rights 
sanctions are included in this amendment. It really does, I think, 
capture the essence of the broad consensus of the U.S. Senate and is 
worthy of our support.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I thank my friend for his comments. Again, 
I wish to reiterate that the Banking staff, Senator Crapo and his 
staff, and Senator Brown and his staff did an outstanding job of 
focusing on sanctions that would work in the appropriate way, as was 
just laid out, and really brought out the best of the two committees to 
come up with the legislation that we have.
  I hope we will have a very strong vote tomorrow. I think this very 
much supports U.S. foreign policy. I look forward to that taking place 
tomorrow at 2 o'clock.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, Senator Corker 
and Senator Cardin, for their fine work on the Countering Iran's 
Destabilizing Activities Act, of course, and then this Russia amendment 
that so many of us have been pushing for so long. I especially thank 
Senator Cardin for his leadership on that, as well as Senator Brown and 
Senator Crapo--and the work that Senator McConnell and Senator Schumer 
did, as well as a lot of members of the Foreign Relations Committee, 
who care a lot about this.
  As I look at this, I look first at the Iranian part of the underlying 
bill. We have had many disagreements in the last few years on the 
Iranian nuclear agreement, but it is now critical. This is the time for 
those who opposed the agreement and those who supported it to come 
together to ensure that all of the parties to the agreement are 
upholding their obligations.
  When the United States and our allies agreed to the Iranian nuclear 
agreement, we made it clear that we will continue to hold Iran 
accountable for its nefarious activities outside of the four corners of 
the agreement. We must hold Iran accountable for missile tests, for 
financing terrorism, and human rights violations. That is our job, and 
that is why I was an early cosponsor of the legislation before the 
Senate today.
  The Countering Iran's Destabilizing Activities Act of 2017 imposes 
mandatory sanctions on those involved with Iran's ballistic missile 
program, as well as those who fund terrorist organizations and commit 
human rights violations. Iran's ballistic missile program is a threat 
to regional and global security, and United Nations Security Council 
resolution 2231 makes it illegal for Iran to develop ballistic missiles 
that could carry a nuclear weapon. Any person or business involved in 
helping Iran obtain illegal weapons should be banned from doing 
business with the United States, have their assets immediately frozen, 
and their travel restricted.
  Minimizing the threat Iran poses also means holding it accountable 
for funding terrorist groups that threaten Israel and seek to 
destabilize the region. We should be doing everything in our power to 
better track terrorist financing so we can stop the flow of money that 
funds suicide bombers and illicit weapons.
  Our mission here is clear: We must protect our own citizens and our 
allies by enacting strong legislation to ensure that Iran does not 
cheat on its international commitment. Iran must know that if it 
violates the rules, it will be held accountable.
  Democrats and Republicans have come together to get this done, and it 
is my hope that we can pass the legislation this week, including the 
amendment imposing strong sanctions against Russia, which is essential 
to protecting our democracy from foreign interference.
  Seventeen United States intelligence agencies have confirmed that 
Russia tried to interfere in the 2016 election. That is not all. We 
know Russia is using covert cyber attacks, espionage, and harmful 
propaganda to try to undermine our democracy. They launched cyber 
attacks against local election systems, a U.S. voting systems software 
company, and the emails of more than 100 local election officials. 
Russian-backed criminals hacked into Yahoo and stole data from 500 
million accounts. They repeatedly harassed American diplomats in 
Moscow.
  The former Director of Intelligence, James Clapper, recently 
testified that Russia will continue to interfere in our political 
system. This is what he said:

       I believe [Russia is] now emboldened to continue such 
     activities in the future both here and around the world and 
     to do so even more intensely. If there has ever been a 
     clarion call for vigilance and action against a threat to the 
     very foundation of our democratic political system, this 
     episode is it.

  Vigilance--that is what we need right now. That is why I joined a 
bipartisan group of my colleagues to introduce the Countering Russian 
Hostilities Act, legislation that would impose strong sanctions against 
Russia. These sanctions would address Russia's cyber attacks, its human 
rights violations, and its illegal annexation of land in Ukraine and 
Georgia.
  I am also the cosponsor of the Russia Sanctions Review Act, 
bipartisan legislation that would require congressional review if 
sanctions against Russia are rolled back.
  The Russia sanctions amendment offered today contains essential 
portions of both of these pieces of legislation.
  After those 17 intelligence agencies confirmed that Russia interfered 
in our elections, President Obama enacted important sanctions against 
officials in the Russian Government and hackers conducting malicious 
cyber activity on behalf of the Russian Government. The amendment 
before us today would codify those sanctions. The amendment also 
strengthens sanctions against Russia's energy sector, corrupt Russian 
officials, and those who supply weapons to the Assad regime.
  The day the Obama administration was imposing these additional 
sanctions on Russia, I was actually with Senators McCain and Graham in 
Eastern Europe. The goal of our trip was to reinforce support for NATO 
and our allies in the face of increased Russian aggression. On the 
trip, we went to the Baltics, Ukraine, and Georgia, countries on the 
frontlines of these fights. They know Russia's playbook well.
  In our meetings with Presidents and Prime Ministers of these 
countries, it was increasingly evident that if we don't stop Russia 
now, cyber attacks against governments, political parties, newspapers, 
and companies will only get worse. We heard about websites being shut 
down and internet access limited when one government--the

[[Page 9143]]

Government of Estonia--simply had the audacity to move a bronze statue 
from a public square to a cemetery. It was of a Russian fighter. The 
Russian Government didn't like it, so they cut down their internet 
access.
  Also, there were members of the Ukrainian Parliament who were invited 
to Lithuania. What happened to the Lithuanians in the Parliament? They 
were hacked into. Ukraine itself was targeted by Russian hackers more 
than 6,500 times over a 2-month period.
  Most recently, Russia tried to undermine elections in France.
  For years, our allies have been subjected to Russian aggression and 
invasion. But they are undeterred, unwilling to give up on that which 
they fought so hard for--independence, freedom, democracy.
  So this is not just about defending our own democracy, as we look at 
these Russia sanctions that are before us today, as we look at the 
investigation that is ongoing and looking into the interference into 
our election. It is about defending a democratic way of life and 
democracies across the world. It is not just about the simple word 
``election'' or the simple word ``democracy.'' It is not just about one 
candidate or one political party. As Senator Rubio has noted, the next 
time it will be the other party.
  No, this is about our Constitution. It is about our own independence 
from foreign powers. It is about freedom and the rights guaranteed to 
us in our own Constitution. If that is undermined, if foreign 
governments are allowed to come in and handpick who their candidate is 
based on either propaganda or cyber attacks, then we lose our 
constitutional rights because we the people are no longer determining 
who our representatives are. Other countries are.
  The world continues to look to America for our steadfast leadership. 
The United States--a beacon for freedom and democracy--must continue to 
stand up against Russian aggression, not just in word but in deed. That 
is why it is so important that the Senate is coming together today to 
pass strong sanctions against the Russian Government. We want the 
Russian people to be able to have a democracy. We want them to be able 
to have a democracy that doesn't do things like bring down planes in 
Ukraine, that doesn't do things like try to influence other countries' 
elections. That is why these sanctions are so important.
  We know that the Russian Government today is actively working to 
undermine our democracy and hurt American businesses. This is part of 
the cyber war. We know that this unprecedented interference has been 
orchestrated by the Kremlin so that Americans actually lose faith in 
our own political system. Over time, Russia has grown more determined 
in its effort to weaken democracies in its expanded sphere of 
influence. Now, more than ever, Americans are looking to the Senate for 
leadership. We must stand strong and united so that Russia and other 
nations know that attacks against our democracy must not go unchecked. 
The amendment before us on the sanctions is an important step in doing 
just that.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Strange). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      U.S.-Mexico Sugar Agreement

  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to express my 
considerable disappointment with the U.S.-Mexico sugar agreement that 
was announced just last week. This deal was concluded recently. The 
fact is that this is a bad deal for the United States. I am completely 
mystified as to why our Commerce Department would agree to it. It is a 
bad deal for U.S. consumers, and we are all consumers. It is a bad deal 
for American workers.
  It completely fails to address the high price of sugar that we have 
in America today. In fact, it makes the problem worse. It increases the 
price that we all have to pay for sugar. It reduces choices for 
consumers, and it absolutely threatens jobs in the many food-producing 
industries that we have across our country. What it does is that it 
continues the protectionist policies that favor a handful of big sugar 
producers and refiners.
  These are large, agribusiness companies, generally, already 
subsidized by domestic agricultural policies that force American 
consumers to pay artificially inflated prices for their products. It 
also limits imports, and the fact is that the agreement should be doing 
just the opposite. It should be giving us a free market in sugar so 
that American consumers can shop for the best deal available in the 
world, and that is exactly what it does not do.
  Unfortunately, what they did at the Commerce Department is they 
failed to prioritize the concerns of ordinary American consumers, 
ordinary American workers. The fact is that the United States is a 
significant net importer of sugar. We are a huge country, and we don't 
produce as much sugar as we consume. So we import the difference. 
Mexico happens to be the No. 1 source of imported sugar. We get about 
35 percent of our imported sugar from Mexico. The NAFTA trade agreement 
provided for free trade in sugar. It took a long time to get there, but 
it contemplated an arrangement where Mexico could sell to American 
consumers--like my wife, when she goes shopping at the store, and all 
of our families--without duties, without tariffs, without taxes, 
without obstacles.
  But that didn't work out so well for some of the sugar producers. So 
they went to court, and they accused Mexico of dumping sugar.
  In order to avoid tariffs, the Mexican Government agreed to what they 
call the suspension agreement. It is an agreement that basically sets a 
minimum price.
  So that is what we do. That is our sugar policy. The government 
dictates it, essentially, in conjunction with foreign governments. It 
is the American Government that has all the leverage here. We set 
prices. We fix prices. We don't have a free market. We establish, by 
central government fiat, what the price will be.
  We also establish import quotas. We decide how much of foreign sugar 
an American will be permitted to buy, reminiscent of ``Moscow on the 
Mississippi.'' This is not how you have a free market that allows 
consumers to have the choices and the benefits from lower competition.
  I was concerned about where this negotiation was heading. So Senator 
Jeanne Shaheen, a Democratic Senator from New Hampshire, and I sent a 
letter to Commerce Secretary Ross to urge him to consider the impact on 
consumers--which is all of us, I will reiterate--in negotiating this 
deal. There was a similar letter from House Members. Unfortunately, it 
apparently did not persuade our Commerce Department. In fact, this new 
agreement--as I think I mentioned--leaves us with a policy that is 
worse than it was before. This new so-called suspension agreement 
increases the already-inflated price of sugar--2 percent higher for raw 
sugar and 8 percent higher for refined sugar if it is imported from 
Mexico.
  How does it help the 320 million Americans? How does it help ordinary 
Americans to be forced to pay more for the sugar that we all have to 
buy? It is a staple in our food. The answer is that it doesn't help. It 
hurts the single mom who is going to the grocery store to buy cereal 
for her kids when she has to pay approximately twice the price of the 
global price for sugar. Where does that money go? It goes straight out 
of her pocket and straight into the pockets of this handful of wealthy 
sugar producers in America. So it is absolutely bad policy for American 
consumers.
  Make no mistake about it. Higher prices for Mexican sugar mean higher 
prices for American consumers--all of us. The Coalition for Sugar 
Reform estimates that the new agreement--just the new agreement--will 
cost U.S. consumers an additional billion dollars a year. That goes 
straight to the growers, the producers. As I said, U.S. sugar prices 
are already almost double the

[[Page 9144]]

world prices, generally, because of the ridiculous agricultural policy 
we have with respect to sugar. The American Enterprise Institute 
reports that they believe that the current policy already costs U.S. 
consumers $3 billion a year. So you have the $3 billion a year from 
this flawed policy we used to have. Now we just added another billion 
dollars a year in costs to our consumers by virtue of this suspension 
agreement. What the Commerce Department should be doing in these 
contexts is described as to reduce and eliminate this mandatory price 
fixing, eliminate these barriers to trade, and put U.S. consumers as 
the first priority.
  I will point out that it is not only Americans as consumers who are 
harmed by this, but it is also Americans as workers. There are 
industries that use sugar as a component in their food products. My 
State of Pennsylvania, in particular, has a lot of these companies--200 
confectioners. We have the most in any State. Our sugar-using 
industries employ nearly 40,000 workers across our Commonwealth. We 
have 600,000 workers across the country in the various food and 
beverage industries that make products that we all consume that use 
sugar. Guess what. Higher sugar prices jeopardize those well-paying 
food manufacturing jobs. About 120,000 such jobs have been lost over 
the last 2 decades because what happens is that American food producers 
just can't compete. American food producers are forced to buy 
artificially expensive sugar. Their foreign competitors don't have to 
do that. Their foreign competitors can buy sugar on the world market at 
about half the price. So guess what? An American candy maker or cereal 
maker or other food maker is at a huge competitive disadvantage. We 
have been losing them, in part, because we force them to pay these 
artificially high prices.
  Our own Commerce Department--the very same Commerce Department that 
negotiated this deal--did a study. This is their work, not mine. They 
estimate that when you artificially prop up the price of sugar, you 
might save some jobs in the sugar-growing industry, but for every job 
you save there, you lose three jobs in the food processing and 
manufacturing industry--in the sugar consumption industry. What a 
terrible trade. What a terrible arrangement.
  I am very disappointed to learn about this. The Commerce Department 
clearly failed to negotiate an agreement that would put consumers first 
and consumers' pocketbooks first. Instead, we have increased prices 
above the already artificially high levels. We have restrictions on 
sugar trade, and, apparently, we have decided to pursue protectionist 
policies that advance the interests of a small handful of wealthy 
growers at the expense of several hundred million American consumers. 
This strikes me as crony capitalism, and it is a huge mistake.
  I hope that this is not a sign of what is to come in trade 
negotiations. We are told that the administration is going to be 
reevaluating and renegotiating various agreements, including NAFTA and 
others. As they are being reconsidered, I hope we will not go down this 
protectionist road of favoring a handful of the privileged few at the 
expense of the many, as we apparently did in this agreement.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, however loud, persistent, and powerful 
the climate denial operation has been, we have to remember that it has 
always been built on lies. It is a huge fortress of lies stacked upon 
lies--lies about the science, lies about the scientists, lies about 
doubt, lies about costs, lies through phony front groups, and lies 
about where the money comes from and who is pulling the strings.
  This fortress of lies protects a subsidy to the fossil fuel industry 
that the International Monetary Fund puts at $700 billion per year. For 
big, big money, you can do big, big lies, and they do. These have been 
the biggest lies of our generation. But to paraphrase the great reggae 
singer Jimmy Cliff: ``The bigger you lie, the harder you fall.'' To 
paraphrase the ``Game of Thrones,'' ``The fall is coming.'' In the last 
few weeks, there has been news that has shaken this fortress of lies 
and moves us toward that fall. Shareholders are rising up.
  For as long as there have been shareholder resolutions to fossil fuel 
companies about climate change, there has been resolute opposition from 
management to every vote. Hundreds of shareholder resolutions went down 
to defeat until now.
  Occidental Petroleum shareholders last month won the first victory 
against management, and a week later mighty ExxonMobil was defeated by 
its shareholders. This new reporting that shareholders have demanded 
will help clear away the lies. The fall is coming.
  There are even lies within the lies. To fend off this latest 
shareholder resolution to try to make the company look less 
irresponsible, ExxonMobil's CEO repeated the company's claim that it 
knows climate change is real and supports a carbon fee--but it doesn't.
  As everyone in this building knows, ExxonMobil maintains a massive 
lobbying apparatus in Washington, and that massive apparatus is and 
always has been resolutely opposed to any such thing as a carbon fee or 
any serious climate action whatsoever, for that matter, unless maybe 
ExxonMobil doesn't know what its own vast lobbying apparatus is doing. 
Maybe ExxonMobil spends that enormous amount of money to exert its 
influence in Washington to stop any climate action, and the CEO is 
unaware of that going on. I doubt that. You be the judge of whether 
that is credible.
  It is not just shareholders rising up; attorneys general are starting 
to win. The attorney general of New York has just filed pleadings in 
State court in New York asserting that ExxonMobil's climate reporting 
has been a ``sham''--to use the word from his filing; that, in the 
oldest of accounting tricks, ExxonMobil kept two sets of books 
assessing carbon pollution risk. After fierce opposition by ExxonMobil 
lawyers using every trick in the book to delay and snarl the New York 
attorney general, it looks now as if ExxonMobil may have lied to its 
investors and its shareholders. If ExxonMobil has lied to its 
shareholders, that is a violation of law, and that fall comes hard 
indeed.
  Secretary of State Tillerson evidently knew of and approved the two 
sets of carbon pollution books when he was CEO of ExxonMobil. We will 
see where this goes, but of all the people around Trump who might be 
indicted, now we might add the Secretary of State.
  The Attorney General of Massachusetts is also pursuing ExxonMobil 
against equally fierce tactics by ExxonMobil lawyers. To try to get 
away from the Massachusetts attorney general, the lawyers even went so 
far as to claim--get this--that ExxonMobil was not doing business in 
Massachusetts; that it didn't have the minimum contacts with the 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts necessary for the State even to assert 
jurisdiction. Well, the judge virtually laughed that argument out of 
court, but it shows how desperate ExxonMobil must be feeling as it 
tries to wriggle away from having to answer questions under oath.
  Nothing turns a big lie into a hard fall better than having to put 
that right hand up and give truthful testimony and face cross-
examination under penalty of perjury.
  Will the Securities and Exchange Commission take a look at this sham 
reporting, too, or has the Federal government, under Trump, degenerated 
into such a fossil fuel banana republic that no Federal agency will do 
its job against that industry or might it even chime in on the side of 
industry Pruitt-style?
  Do you remember the question of whether the fossil fuel climate 
denial operation merits investigation under Federal civil racketeering 
laws? The tobacco industry was sued under Federal civil racketeering 
laws by the U.S. Department of Justice so there is a

[[Page 9145]]

model. You may remember that the question as to the fossil fuel climate 
denial operation was referred by Attorney General Lynch to the FBI--or 
so she testified.
  One wonders, did the FBI ever take an honest look? What was the 
outcome? Was there ever a report? Are they still looking at it?
  Remember that the Department of Justice won its civil racketeering 
case against the tobacco industry, they won it at trial, and they won 
again on appeal. The woman who won that case for the Department of 
Justice, the lead trial attorney for the Department, has said publicly 
that this climate denial operation also merits investigation as fraud. 
That would seem to be a knowledgeable opinion from the woman who won 
the last case, an opinion perhaps worth heeding, but did anything 
happen? Will anything happen?
  Forget too big to fail or too big to jail. Is the power of the fossil 
fuel industry now so great that it is too big even to investigate, even 
by the Department of Justice? Does it now take State attorneys general 
to do the job because the Federal government is so owned now by the 
fossil fuel industry?
  Think about it. What if the FBI reported to the Attorney General that 
there was a meritorious fraud case arising out of all the lies propping 
up climate denial? Who believes Attorney General Sessions would allow 
that case to go forward against his party's biggest backer?
  Well, the bigger the lie, ultimately, the harder the fall. One way or 
the other, this fact remains constant and true. There always will come 
a day of reckoning. With these shareholder victories and with these 
attorneys general victories, that day of reckoning is closing in--the 
day when they have to put that right hand up and testify truthfully and 
under oath, not just send out spin through front groups and operatives 
but testify truthfully under penalty of perjury.
  It is long overdue for truth to have its day.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.


                     Amendment No. 232, as Modified

  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Crapo-Brown-Corker-
Cardin Countering Russian Aggression and Cyber Attacks Act of 2017. 
This bill, filed as an amendment, was filed as amendment No. 232 to the 
Iran sanctions bill late last night.
  Yesterday, the Senate Banking and Foreign Relations Committees 
concluded their work on a groundbreaking piece of legislation regarding 
Russia sanctions. I say groundbreaking because the legislation not only 
ratchets up pressure against the Russian Federation for its illegal 
invasion and annexation of Crimea, continuing escalation of violence in 
eastern Ukraine, and its cyber activities against businesses and 
citizens of the United States, but it also, importantly, provides 
Congress with a strong oversight process over almost any termination or 
suspension of these sanctions.
  Senators Corker, Brown, Cardin, and their staffs spent many hours to 
ensure that we put together a thoughtful and measured product, and I 
thank them for their work.
  Senator Brown and I have worked together for months to try to craft a 
responsible Russia sanctions package, and Senator Corker has been a 
tireless champion of this measure as has Senator Cardin. I also would 
be remiss if I did not recognize the work of Senators McCain, Brown, 
Shaheen, and the many others who have worked to develop much of what 
has ended up in this legislation. All of us appreciate the leadership 
of Majority Leader McConnell and Senator Schumer, who worked with us as 
we came to our final agreement.
  The need for this legislation was underlined by the fact that many 
Americans have deep concerns about Russia's behavior over the past few 
years. Since coming to power, Russian President Putin has become 
increasingly belligerent, nationalistic, and autocratic.
  Currently, the United States has imposed sanctions on Russia for 
Russia's invasion and annexation of Crimea and its role in supporting 
the separatist movements in eastern Ukraine, Russia's increasing cyber 
attacks and cyber espionage against the United States, Russia's support 
for the Assad regime in Syria, and Russia's complicity for corruption.
  Although this is not an exhaustive list, it demonstrates the lengths 
to which Russia will go to seize power and influence in the 
international arena.
  Unfortunately, Putin's desire to increase Russia's political 
influence is not driven by a desire to raise the standard of living for 
Russians. Instead, it is driven by a craving to enrich and empower 
himself and his cronies.
  Over the course of the past 3 months, the Senate Banking Committee 
has held hearings assessing the impacts of the current sanctions regime 
against Russia. We examined the existing Russian sanctions architecture 
in terms of its effectiveness and its economic impact. The Russians 
have largely learned to live within the economic confines of the 
existing sanctions regime.
  In Putin's calculation, the cost of the sanctions do not outweigh the 
benefits of occupying Crimea and contributing to unrest in Ukraine, to 
continuing to support the Assad regime's assault on civilians in Syria, 
and conducting cyber attacks on people, companies, and institutions 
around the globe.
  Many of us on both sides of the aisle feel the United States needs to 
be much stronger in its response. Americans want to see the United 
States stand firm in the defense of our long-held values, which include 
respect for territorial integrity, human rights, and liberty.
  At this point, the only way to change Putin's cost-benefit analysis 
is to increase the pressure which we apply directly through sanctions.
  The Crapo-Brown-Corker-Cardin amendment is an effective way to 
increase the pressure on Russia for its irresponsible conduct. Our 
legislation signals to the world the unflagging commitment of the 
United States to the sanctity of territorial integrity, human rights, 
and good governance. Our amendment also demonstrates our resolve in 
responding to cyber attacks against U.S. citizens and entities and 
against our allies.
  In summary, the Crapo-Brown-Corker-Cardin amendment does four things: 
It escalates and expands the current sanctions regime against Russia; 
it creates new sanctions against Russia; it engages Congress at a 
higher level than before by providing a mechanism for Congress to vote 
before lifting any sanctions on Russia; and it increases the Treasury 
Department's ability to track illicit finance, including illicit flows 
linked to Russia.
  We escalate and expand the current sanctions regime against Russia by 
codifying and modifying six current Executive orders. Four of these 
orders relate to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and two relate to 
Russia's malicious cyber activity.
  We expand the sanctions under the Ukraine-related Executive orders to 
reach Russian deep-water, Arctic, and shale projects worldwide. We also 
permit the President to apply these sanctions to Russian railway, 
shipping, and metals and mining sectors.
  The amendment also creates several new sanctions against Russia. 
There are new sanctions for those who are engaged in significant 
activities undermining cyber security. These sanctions also apply to 
those providing material support for such malicious cyber actors.
  We also impose mandatory sanctions on entities engaged in special 
Russian energy projects and on foreign financial institutions 
facilitating transactions in response to Russia's continued aggression 
in Ukraine.
  The amendment includes tough sanctions on Russian Government 
officials, their relatives, and close associates responsible for 
significant corruption in Russia or elsewhere.
  It sanctions people who help others evade sanctions and people 
responsible for human rights violations in any territory controlled by 
Russia.
  Additionally, it sanctions those who work for or on behalf of the 
Russian defense and intelligence sectors, those who invest or support 
the construction

[[Page 9146]]

of Russian energy export pipelines, and corrupt government officials 
who enrich themselves after making deals to privatize state-owned 
assets.
  Finally, it sanctions those who help the Assad regime acquire 
chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons technology, ballistic or 
cruise missile capabilities, or destabilizing numbers and types of 
advanced conventional weapons.
  The Crapo-Brown-Corker-Cardin amendment will result in some very 
powerful new sanctions on Russia. Part of our agreement includes 
congressional review language to ensure Congress exerts proper 
oversight on the use of these powerful sanctions. We require the 
President to notify Congress when imposing certain types of sanctions, 
and we will have the opportunity to review any attempts to lift 
sanctions with regard to Russia. We intend to use this review model on 
all sanctions regimes moving forward, and I intend to work to apply it 
to sanctions on Iran.
  Amendment No. 232 is more than just the sanctions and congressional 
review; this legislation also includes important counterterrorism 
financing provisions adopted by the House and Senate during the 114th 
Congress. It requires the creation of a national strategy for 
combatting the financing of terrorism and related forms of illicit 
finance. This strategy ensures that the United States pursues a 
coordinated and effective fight against illicit finance at all levels 
of the Russian Government.
  Our measure requires the strategy to enhance public-private 
partnerships to prevent and detect illicit finance. The measure also 
requires the Treasury Department to report on its efforts to identify 
illicit finance flows linked to Russia affecting the U.S. financial 
system or the financial system of our allies. We must engage all of our 
allies, particularly our trading partners, to work with us so that we 
achieve our objectives without collateral damage, which is so often the 
case. It is important that our trading partners be with us on this 
issue rather than being the victims of the actions we take.
  This is a strong bipartisan measure that in important respects 
represents the next step forward. Of course, this will not be the last 
step if Russia does not begin to demonstrate verifiable steps toward 
reducing its course of aggression on multiple fronts. Make no mistake--
the sanctions currently in place and those submitted in our amendment 
last night are Putin's fault and not a result of Putin's confused 
notions of Russian power and pride.
  Even though unilateral actions are not the best option, America must 
lead on this issue and encourage others to follow since the most 
successful sanctions result from a united front of United States and 
European Union cooperation.
  Since the unlawful annexation of Crimea, the years of destabilizing 
eastern Ukraine through relentless war, the global spread of cyber 
intrusions, and Putin's indefensible support of Assad's leadership of 
Syria, particularly in light of its recent chemical attack, fewer are 
left in Europe to defend Putin's policies. The times call for clarity 
of purpose and a correct amount of pressure. We have that in this 
amendment.
  Again, thank you to Senators Corker, Brown, and Cardin for your hard 
work and support and to each of the other Senators from both sides of 
the aisle who have worked to help develop and pursue the policies 
adopted in this legislation. Thank you to Leader McConnell and Senator 
Schumer for all of your help and support.
  I look forward to passing this measure in short order, and I 
encourage all of my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COTTON. 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. COTTON. Mr. President, today, I speak in favor of the Iran 
sanctions bill. I am an original cosponsor of the bill, so it should 
come as no surprise that I support it. My only concern is that we did 
not pass it sooner.
  As I stand here today, I cannot help but feel that this moment 
highlights the folly of the last 8 years of President Obama's foreign 
policy. For 8 years, President Obama did everything he could to curry 
favor with the Ayatollahs in Tehran. He ignored popular protests, known 
as the Green Movement, and the thousands of Iranians who cried out for 
something more than sham elections. He lectured our Gulf Arab allies on 
the need to ``share'' the Middle East with their sworn enemy in some 
kind of cold peace. He insisted on putting daylight between us and our 
friend Israel. He dallied and dithered as the regime helped its client 
Bashar al-Assad help tear apart his own country in a brutal civil war. 
Most infamously, he traded away billions of dollars in sanctions relief 
for a flimsy, one-sided nuclear deal--a deal that did not prevent Iran 
from getting a nuclear weapon so much as ultimately guarantee it in 
just a few years.
  What do we have to show for all of this? What did we get for looking 
the other way for 8 years? Not a more reasonable Iran, not a more open, 
tolerant, democratic Iran, not a friendlier Iran, but an emboldened 
Iran--one that continues to launch ballistic missiles in willful 
defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions. For everything 
we have done to mollify the ayatollahs and their sensitivities, they 
have gone out of their way to inflame ours. What did President Obama 
do? Nothing but appease them.
  But we should not lay these failures solely on the last President's 
doorstep, because he represents a mindset that is too widely shared. It 
is one that sees Iran's obvious imperial aggression in the Middle East 
and yet still considers America the aggressor. It is one that tries to 
compartmentalize and haggle with a regime whose leaders shout ``death 
to Israel'' and ``death to America'' virtually every Friday. It is one 
that refuses to call a spade a spade and say to the Ayatollahs that 
enough is enough.
  But today we are changing course--and not a moment too soon. This 
legislation will finally hold the regime and Tehran accountable for 
their brazen attempts to bully their neighbors and assert supremacy 
throughout the Middle East. It will put heavy sanctions on anyone who 
is involved in helping Iran develop ballistic missiles, circumvent our 
arms embargo, or spread terrorism throughout the world.
  I know there are those who consider this kind of a move to be 
provocative, but I would say that it is the Iranian regime's aggression 
that has been provocative. All of these sanctioned activities are 
things that the regime and Tehran should not be doing in the first 
place. I do not think it is provocative to hold our enemies to the same 
standards as our friends. I do not think it is unreasonable to do what 
we can to protect our friends and ourselves from Iranian-supported 
terrorism and from a regime that is responsible for killing hundreds of 
American troops in the Middle East. Instead, I think it is long 
overdue.
  Today, I am glad to see the Senate finally prepared to rectify these 
grave mistakes.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


           Reauthorizing the National Flood Insurance Program

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the bipartisan 
legislation that will reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program. 
I wish to speak a little bit about flood insurance first before I talk 
about our much needed legislation.
  As most people know--but unfortunately some folks don't know or maybe 
they forget--if you have homeowners

[[Page 9147]]

insurance on your home and you have a flood, you are not covered. 
Homeowners insurance does not cover flooding. In order to be covered 
for flooding, you have to have a separate policy, and about the only 
place you can go to get flood insurance is from the Federal program--
the National Flood Insurance Program. Now, that is a bit of an 
overstatement. It is possible to buy flood insurance from a private 
insurer--and certainly we want to encourage private insurers to 
participate more in the flood insurance market--but today, for the most 
part, if you want to carry flood insurance, you have to get it through 
the Federal program, and that is called the National Flood Insurance 
Program. It is administered by FEMA.
  It is hard to overstate the importance of flood insurance to the 
American people. It is even harder to overstate the importance of flood 
insurance to the people of Louisiana. The gross domestic product in my 
State is about $220 billion to $230 billion a year. If you add up all 
the goods and services that we as Louisianans produce every year, it 
comes out to between $220 billion and $230 billion. Without flood 
insurance, you can cut that figure in half. We would have to, in 
effect, turn out the lights.
  There are 450,000 flood insurance policies in my State. Many of those 
people have to have flood insurance; it is a condition of their 
mortgage. So the Flood insurance program and, more specifically, the 
National Flood Insurance Program, is extraordinarily important to 
America, but it is even more extraordinarily important to the people of 
Louisiana.
  We are introducing a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the National 
Flood Insurance Program. The current program expires in September. If 
we don't reauthorize it, most Americans who have flood insurance at the 
present time will no longer be able to access it. It is critical that 
the U.S. Congress act and act immediately.
  The bill we are introducing--and I will explain in a moment whom I 
mean by ``we''--is bipartisan legislation.
  Now, there are a lot of issues that divide Congress today, and 
reasonable people are entitled to disagree over some of these very 
difficult issues, but there are also issues we can come together on, 
and I respectfully suggest that flood insurance is one of them.
  We have put together a bipartisan coalition, including Senator Bob 
Menendez from New Jersey, who happens to be a Democrat; and Senator 
Cory Booker from New Jersey, who happens to be a Democrat; Senator Thad 
Cochran, chairman of our Appropriations Committee in the Senate, from 
Mississippi, who is a Republican; Senator Marco Rubio from Florida, who 
is a Republican; Senator Bill Nelson from Florida, who is a Democrat; 
Senator Van Hollen from Maryland, who happens to be a Democrat; and 
more Senators are coming on board.
  We are introducing a bill called the SAFE National Flood Insurance 
Program Reauthorization Act. SAFE, of course, is an acronym. It refers 
to sustainable, affordable, fair, and efficient--SAFE--the SAFE 
National Flood Insurance Program Reauthorization Act.
  Let me briefly tell my colleagues what it does. I will start with 
cost. It doesn't do a bit of good to offer someone insurance if they 
can't afford it, and too many times that has been the case with flood 
insurance. Right now, under the current program, the National Flood 
Insurance Program is allowed to raise a homeowner's flood insurance 
premium by 18 percent--not 10 percent, not 12 percent but by a 
staggering 18 percent--and to do that every year. If you are insuring a 
second home--let's suppose you have a vacation home--or if you are a 
businesswoman or a businessman and insuring a commercial establishment, 
the national program can raise your premiums every year by 25 percent. 
Nobody can pay those kinds of increases.
  No. 1, our bill would cap the amount the Flood Insurance Program can 
raise someone's premium at 10 percent annually. I wish we could tap it 
at zero percent annually, but 10 percent is certainly a lot better for 
our people than 18 percent and 25 percent, respectively. If FEMA 
properly implements some other provisions of our act, which I will talk 
about in a moment, there will not be any increases.
  No. 2, our bill, the SAFE National Flood Insurance Program 
Reauthorization Act, would extend the National Flood Insurance Program 
by 6 years. I wish we could extend it longer. I wish we could do 10 
years or 15 years or 20 years, but it is necessary for us, as the 
Presiding Officer knows, to get unified, bipartisan support on this 
legislation, and we think 6 years--a 6-year authorization is probably 
the best we can do to pass this bill.
  No. 3, our bill will save about $750 million a year. Let me say that 
again. Our bill will save about $750 million each and every year to be 
used in the Flood Insurance Program. Here is how our legislation would 
do it.
  First, as we know, the Flood Insurance Program has a deficit. We have 
had a large number of natural disasters, including floods, over the 
past several years in our country, unfortunately. We had Hurricane 
Sandy. We had Hurricane Katrina. In my State in Louisiana, last year we 
had two horrible floods, both in the northern part of my State and in 
the southern part of my State. In a couple of instances, we had 23 
inches of rain in 2 days. I don't care if you live on Mount Everest, if 
you get 23 inches of rain in 2 days, you are going to flood. Those 
floods were very expensive.
  Those catastrophes and many others caused the National Flood 
Insurance Program to operate at a deficit. The deficit is $25 billion. 
Another way of stating that is, the program owes $25 billion in debt, 
but we owe it to ourselves. We don't owe it to a bank, we don't owe it 
to a foreign country, we don't owe it to any private entity; we owe it 
to ourselves, and we have been paying interest to ourselves out of the 
premiums--the cashflow, if you will--of the Flood Insurance Program 
every year. That 10 percent--10 cents out of every dollar that comes 
into the National Flood Insurance Program--is devoted to just paying 
the interest on this debt that we owe ourselves.
  Our bill would suspend those interest payments for 6 years. That will 
free up about $400 million a year.
  We are also saving money by asking those who work with us in 
implementing the National Flood Insurance Program to sharpen their 
pencils. Let me explain what I mean by that. FEMA is in charge of the 
National Flood Insurance Program, but FEMA doesn't run the program. It 
doesn't run the insurance company that administers the policies. FEMA 
hires private insurers in the private sector to actually run the 
program. We call that the ``write your own'' program.
  For the most part, those private insurers that administer the program 
do a good job, but they don't have any risk. They have zero risk, none, 
nada. The risk is on the National Flood Insurance Program--the Federal 
government--and therefore the American taxpayer. We just hire the 
private insurers to administer the program--to collect the premiums, to 
sell the policies, to adjust the claims. So they have no risk. Yet we 
are paying them 31 cents out of every dollar that the program would 
take in.
  Our bill respectfully suggests that is too much money. While we 
appreciate the cooperation we get and the good work we get from the 
private insurers who help us administer this program, we are going to 
ask them--actually, we are going to tell them--to reduce their 
compensation from 31 cents out of every dollar. That is going to save 
about $350 million a year. So we just saved about $750 million a year 
for the National Flood Insurance Program.
  What are we going to do with the money? First, mitigation. With 
flooding--and it is inevitable that we are going to have floods. I 
don't know why bad things happen to good people, but they do. You can 
pay a little bit up front or you can pay a whole lot later, and this is 
what I mean by that.
  If we spend the money on mitigation to protect against the flooding 
that we know will inevitably happen, we will save money for the 
American taxpayer in the long run, and we will use a portion of that 
$750 million in savings to

[[Page 9148]]

mitigate against flood risk. By mitigation, I mean offering low- or no-
interest loans to homeowners to elevate their homes so they will not 
flood--building levees, building flood walls. Our bill does not say 
specifically what mitigation measures should be taken, and it does not 
say which mitigation projects will be built, but it does say that 
mitigation is the answer, not the complete answer but part of the 
answer. We haven't done enough of it. Now we are going to have the 
resources to do it.
  The second way we are going to use that money is to try to do a 
better job with maps. We set rates in the National Flood Insurance 
Program based on the likelihood that someone will be flooded. We 
determine that likelihood by using maps drawn by experts using computer 
models. We are not using the most up-to-date, state-of-the-art 
technology to draw those maps, but if our bill passes, we will, 
including but not limited to a new technology called LIDAR. I confess, 
I don't understand the technology, but it is called LIDAR, Light 
Detection and Ranging technology. It can be used to draw more accurate 
flood maps to more accurately assess someone's propensity to flood.
  Why is that important? You might be in a high-risk flood zone right 
now and paying a large premium. With state-of-the-art technology, you 
may be put into a lower risk flood zone and pay less. I am not 
guaranteeing that result, but it is certainly possible. In any event, 
we need to as accurately as possible assess the risk, and the only way 
to do that is through proper mapping.
  Our bill would also include a provision that will allow Congress to 
provide better and greater oversight of FEMA in administering the 
program. Let me say specifically what it will do.
  The very able Administrator at FEMA who handles the Flood Insurance 
Program testified before the Banking Committee a few months ago that if 
one of these private insurance companies that administers the Flood 
Insurance Program for us has lawyers or consultants who are not doing 
their jobs, FEMA doesn't have the authority to fire them. This bill 
will give FEMA the authority to fire those consultants, and here is why 
this is important: Most of the lawyers, engineers, and other 
consultants private insurance companies hire to help them administer 
the program on behalf of the National Flood Insurance Program do a 
pretty good job, but some of them do not. There have been recorded 
instances both in New Jersey and in Louisiana where certain people, 
engineers and lawyers, have seen it as their mission to do anything 
they possibly can to keep a homeowner who has paid his or her hard-
earned money to buy insurance from getting the money they deserve if 
they flood, and that is just wrong.
  If you are trying to defraud the National Flood Insurance Program, we 
need to fight you like a tiger. But if you have paid your premiums and, 
unfortunately, you have flooded, you are entitled to get your money. 
You should not be required to fight some engineer or some lawyer who is 
throwing up obstacle after obstacle after obstacle. Our bill says that 
if there are consultants who do that and the private insurance 
companies don't want to fire them, then, by God, FEMA will, and we are 
going to hold FEMA accountable.
  A couple more points I will mention: This bill will also extend 
coverage limits. Right now, the most flood insurance a homeowner can 
buy is $250,000. While that is a lot of money, that doesn't cover some 
homes, given the rate of inflation in America today, and our bill would 
expand coverage limits to $500,000 for homes and $1.5 million for 
commercial establishments.
  I have talked to some of my colleagues in the Senate and in the 
House, and some of them, whom I am happy for, represent States that 
haven't had any major floods, and I hope they never do. But if we have 
learned anything in the last few years in terms of flooding, we have 
learned that just when men and women think they can control everything 
in this world and can control their destiny, they can't control God and 
Mother Nature. Flooding can happen at any time.
  Let me say it again. You can live in a mountain State. You can live 
on top of a mountain. But if you get 23 inches of rain in 2 days, you 
are going to flood, and that is why you need flood insurance. That is 
why this bill is not just important to coastal States like Louisiana, 
Mississippi, Florida, New Jersey, and Maryland; it is important to all 
Americans.
  This is a bipartisan bill. Have I mentioned that? I think I did. This 
is a bipartisan bill. It is supported by many Democrats. It is 
supported by many Republicans. It is a bill that is not only important 
for our economy, but it is important for the peace of mind of the 
American people. I hope we will not let politics get in the way of 
doing what we know to be right.
  Once again, the bill is called the SAFE--which stands for 
Sustainable, Affordable, Fair, and Efficient--National Flood Insurance 
Program Reauthorization Act. I hope this body will come together as one 
and support this much needed legislation.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rubio). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Honoring Lieutenant Patrick Weatherford

  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay respect to a law 
enforcement officer in my home State of Arkansas who lost his life in 
the line of duty yesterday, Monday, June 12, 2017.
  Lieutenant Patrick Weatherford of the Newport Police Department 
joined other officers in responding to the call of a vehicle break-in 
when he was shot. Sadly, Lieutenant Weatherford passed away later that 
evening.
  Lieutenant Weatherford served on the Newport police force for 15 
years and recently graduated from the FBI Academy. He was also a 
graduate of ASU-Newport and the University of Arkansas at Little Rock.
  Lieutenant Weatherford was recognized as the 2016 Jackson County 
Officer of the Year by Arkansas attorney general Leslie Rutledge.
  His colleagues had great respect and admiration for him, and he was 
known as an officer who performed his duties with professionalism and 
skill.
  This is the second Arkansas law enforcement officer we have lost in 
2017. Any occasion when someone who is sworn to protect and serve their 
community does not return home to the loved ones waiting for them is 
incredibly sad and heartbreaking. Arkansans value the men and women who 
volunteer to help ensure and enhance public safety knowing the risks 
involved.
  We are devastated by the loss of another law enforcement officer in 
our State, and we thank all of those who sacrifice so much to protect 
us.
  I want to encourage my colleagues to pass the Honoring Hometown 
Heroes Act to allow Governors to order the American flag to fly at 
half-staff in recognition of the sacrifice of first responders like 
Lieutenant Weatherford who make the ultimate sacrifice.
  My thoughts and prayers go out to Lieutenant Weatherford's family and 
friends, as well as the community he served, which will no doubt miss 
him dearly. I pray they will all find comfort during such a difficult 
time as this.
  I also stand with all Arkansans in expressing our gratitude for 
Lieutenant Weatherford's service and commit to honoring the sacrifice 
he and others have made to protect us.
  With that, 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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 9149]]




                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk for 
the committee substitute amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The bill clerk read as follows:


                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the committee-
     reported substitute amendment to Calendar No. 110, S. 722, a 
     bill to impose sanctions with respect to Iran in relation to 
     Iran's ballistic missile program, support for acts of 
     international terrorism, and violations of human rights, and 
     for other purposes.
         Mitch McConnell, Roger F. Wicker, Mike Crapo, Mike 
           Rounds, Tom Cotton, Bob Corker, Steve Daines, John 
           Barrasso, Rob Portman, Jeff Flake, Dan Sullivan, John 
           Hoeven, James M. Inhofe, John Cornyn, John Thune, Cory 
           Gardner, Ron Johnson.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk for 
the underlying bill, S. 722.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The bill clerk read as follows:


                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No. 
     110, S. 722, a bill to impose sanctions with respect to Iran 
     in relation to Iran's ballistic missile program, support for 
     acts of international terrorism, and violations of human 
     rights, and for other purposes.
         Mitch McConnell, Mike Crapo, Jeff Flake, Roger F. Wicker, 
           Mike Rounds, Tom Cotton, Bob Corker, Steve Daines, Dan 
           Sullivan, John Hoeven, James M. Inhofe, John Cornyn, 
           John Thune, Cory Gardner, John Barrasso, Ron Johnson, 
           Rob Portman.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
mandatory quorum calls with respect to the cloture motions be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________