Skip to main content

tv   U.S. Senate  CSPAN  April 23, 2015 12:00pm-8:01pm EDT

12:00 pm
vote:
12:01 pm
12:02 pm
12:03 pm
12:04 pm
12:05 pm
12:06 pm
12:07 pm
12:08 pm
12:09 pm
12:10 pm
12:11 pm
12:12 pm
12:13 pm
12:14 pm
12:15 pm
vote: the presiding officer: is there any senator wishing to vote or to change their vote? seeing none, the vote is 66 yeas, 34 nays. the motion is agreed to. cloture having been invoked under the previous order there will be up to two hours of postcloture debate equally divided between the two leaders prior to a vote on the lynch nomination.
12:16 pm
the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. mcconnell: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: madam president last week, the senate entered a unanimous consent agreement to get on the bipartisan iran congressional review act at a time to be determined by the two leaders. now that the senate has passed the antitrafficking bill and the lynch confirmation vote has been scheduled for later today it's my intention to turn to the iran legislation. therefore, i ask unanimous consent that at 3:00 p.m. today the senate agree to the motion
12:17 pm
to proceed to h.r. 1191 as under the previous order with debate only during today's session of the senate. following the offering of a substitute amendment by senator corker or his designee under the -- as under the previous order. i further ask that following leader remarks on tuesday april 28, senator corker be recognized to offer an amendment to the pending substitute. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. reid: madam president reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: it is my understanding that monday there will be opportunities for debate. is that right also, mr. leader? we'll do that at closing tonight. that will be good. madam president, i appreciate very much the understanding of the republican leader, the majority leader about how to proceed on this. this is a -- really an important piece of legislation. i don't know of a piece of legislation in recent years that's more important than this. so i look forward to the senate turning to this legislation.
12:18 pm
i again applaud and commend senators corker and cardin for their delicate, very good work they've done on this. this measure i repeat, is important. it deals with matters of international affairs and congress' role in carrying out the constitutional responsibilities that we have. this bill will take some time. i hope we can finish it as rapidly as possible. that's what i want. i also want to comment that i think it's important that i have the opportunity as i'm sure the republican leader, to have our caucus on tuesday so that we by that time will have an idea how we're going to proceed forward on this. there is -- i've heard that some senators want to offer amendments to really hurt this bill. i hope that, in fact, is not the case. i hope people are trying to be constructive. regardless of that, the leader has assured us there will be an open amendment process and so
12:19 pm
no matter how a person feels about this bill, they'll have an opportunity to offer these amendments. we need, in my opinion though, to support the corker-cardin agreement. those senators work so we can get the bill passed as quickly as possible. so i have no objection. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcconnell: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
12:20 pm
12:21 pm
12:22 pm
12:23 pm
the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: today the senate takes up theion of the 83rd attorney general. we all know that the former democrat leadership could have processed this nomination during last year's lame duck, but in the limited time that we had they chose to concentrate on confirming a number of judges and getting a losing vote on n.s.a. reform. ms. lynch at that time wasn't high on the priority of the democrat majority, but now i'm pleased that the senate was finally able to come to an agreement on the sex trafficking legislation so that we can turn to the lynch nomination.
12:24 pm
i voted against ms. lynch in committee and will oppose her nomination again when it's time to vote this afternoon and i'll spend a few minutes now explaining my reason to my colleagues. this nomination comes at a pivotal time of justice with the department of justice and our country. the next attorney general will face some very difficult challenges from combating cyber crime to protecting our children from exploitation and to help fight the war on terror. but beyond that, the new attorney general has a mess to clean up. the justice department has been plagued the last few years by decisionmaking driven by politics pure politics. some of these i mentioned
12:25 pm
before but i'd like to give you just a few examples. the department's own inspector general listed as one of the top management challenges for the department of justice -- quote -- restoring confidence in the integrity, fairness and accountability of the department end of quote. quite a major management challenge that the department faces. this inspector general cited several examples, including the department's falsely denying basic facts in the fast and furious controversy. the inspector general concluded this -- quote -- "resulted in an erosion of trust in this department." end of quote. in that fiasco, our government knowingly allowed firearms to
12:26 pm
fall into the hands of international gun traffickers and sorry to say it led to the death of border patrol agent brian terry. and then how did the department respond to all this obviously wrong action on their part? they denied, they spun and they hid the facts from congress. and if you hide the facts from the american congress, you're hiding the facts from the american people. they bullied and intimidated whistle-blowers. the same to the members of the press. and you might say to anyone who had the audacity to come forward in this investigation and help us uncover truth. but fast and furious isn't the department's only major failing under the holder agency.
12:27 pm
it's also the failure to hold another government agency accountable, the internal revenue service. we watched with dismay as that powerful agency was weaponized and turned against individual citizens who spoke out in defense of faith freedom and our constitution. what was the department's reaction to the targeting of citizens based on their political beliefs? they appointed a campaign donor to lead an investigation that hasn't gone anywhere and then after that the department called it a day. meanwhile, the department's top litigator, the nation's solicitor general is arguing case after case for breathtaking
12:28 pm
expansion of federal power. i've said this before but it bears repeating. had the department prevailed in just some of the arguments addressed before the supreme court in the last several years and i'm going to give you five examples. there would be essentially no limit on what the federal government could order states to do as a condition for receiving federal money. the environmental protection agency could fine homeowners $75,000 a day for not complying with an order and then turn around and deny that homeowner any right to challenge the order or those fines in court when the order is issued. three, the federal government could review decisions by religious organizations regarding who can serve as a minister of a particular
12:29 pm
religion. and four, the federal government would be able to ban books that expressly advocate for the election or the defeat of political candidates. and then lastly, the way this solicitor general argued that i said would bring the most massive expansion of federal power in the history of the country, he would let the fourth amendment, would have to -- the fourth amendment wouldn't have anything to do or to say about a police attaching a g.p.s. device to a citizen's car without a warrant and constantly tracking their every moment for months or years. now, i've given you five reasons of expansion of the federal government and these positions aren't in any way mainstream
12:30 pm
positions. at the end of the day the common thread that binds all of these challenges together is the department of justice has become deeply politicized and that's what happens when the attorney general of the united states views himself and these are his own words as topts wingman. -- as the president's wingman. because of all the decisions we've witnessed over the last few years i've said from the very beginning of this process that what we need more than anything else out of our new attorney general is independence ever since she was nominated, it was my sincere hope that miss lynch would demonstrate that that sort of independence -- demonstrate that sort of independence. it was my hope that she would make clear that while she serves at the pleasure of the president
12:31 pm
she is accountable to the american people. because the job of attorney general is defined by a duty to defend the constitution and uphold the rule of law. the job is not to simply defend the president and his policies. now, i voted for attorney general holder despite some reservations and misgivings. but i've come to regret that vote because of the political way he's led the department. i realize that the quickest way to end his tenure as attorney general is to confirm miss lynch but as i've said the question for me from the start has been whether miss lynch will make a clean break from the holder policies and take the department in a new direction.
12:32 pm
some of my democratic colleagues have said that no one has raised any objection to mrs. lynch's -- miss lynch's nomination. well this, of course, is inaccurate. no one disputes that she has an impressive legal background. it was her testimony before the committee that caused concerns for many senators including me. after thoroughly reviewing that testimony, i concluded that she won't lead the department in a different direction. and that's very unfortunate because after six years of attorney general holder's leadership, the department desperately needs a change of direction. i'd just like to remind my democrat colleagues that it wasn't too long ago that a majority of democrats voted against judge mukasey for attorney general. not based on his records but
12:33 pm
instead based upon his testimony before the committee. in fact, then-senator obama had this to say about judge mukasey -- quote -- "while his legal credentials are strong, his views on two critical and related matters are in my view, disqualifying." i asked miss lynch with her views on fast and furious, on the i.r.s. scandal and other ways the department has been politicized. she didn't demonstrate that she's -- that she'd do things differently. instead, she gave nonanswers. she was eloquent and polished but nonresponsive. the bottom line is that miss lynch doesn't seem willing to commit to a new independent way of running the department. now, that surprised me very much based on everything we were told i expect miss lynch to
12:34 pm
demonstrate a bit more independence from the president. now, i'm confident that if she had done so, she would have garnered more support. as i said when the committee voted on her nomination to illustrate this point, we need to look no further than the confirmation of secretary carter to the department of defense earlier this year. when he testified before the senate armed services committee secretary carter 3 -- carter demonstrated the type of independent streak that many of us were hoping that we'd see in miss lynch. most of the media reporting on the two nominations seemed to agree. headlines regarding the carter nomination from the "new york times" and "the washington post" commend his shift from the president's policies with
12:35 pm
headlines like -- quote -- "defense nominee carter casts himself as an independent voice." end of quote, "washington post." and in "the new york times" -- quote -- "in ashton carter, nominee for defense secretary a change in direction." but on the lynch nomination, those same newspapers highlighted that she defend defended the president's policy on immigration and surveillance with headlines like -- quote -- "lynch defends obama's immigration action," "new york times." and then the "huffington post" -- quote -- "lore ret la lynch defends -- loretta lynch defends obama's actions." secretary cart carter was confirmed with 93 votes. only seven senators voted
12:36 pm
against secretary carter's nomination. that lopsided vote was a reflection of his testimony before the senate which demonstrated a willingness to be an independent voice within the administration. unfortunately miss lynch didn't demonstrate the same type of independence. i sincerely hope miss lynch proves me wrong and is willing to stand up to the president and say "no" when the duty of office demands it. but based upon my review of her record i cannot support the nomination. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
12:37 pm
12:38 pm
12:39 pm
12:40 pm
12:41 pm
12:42 pm
12:43 pm
mr. schumer: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: thank you madam president. i rise today to discuss the nomination of loretta lynch a proud new yorker and soon to be attorney general of the united states of america. born in north carolina, her father was a fourth-generation baptist minister a man who grew up in the segregated south and her mother picked cotton when she was a girl so her daughter would never have to. well their daughter grew up to be one of the keenest legal minds our country has to offer someone who has excelled at every stage of her education and her career. while cultivating a reputation well deserved, as someone who is level-headed fair, judicious
12:44 pm
and eminently likable. madam president, if there's an american dream story loretta lynch is it. and still despite her intellectual and career achievements miss lynch has always been a nose-to-the-grindstone type, rarely seeking acclaim only a job well done. throughout her career, she's had a yearning to serve the public which began when she took a 75% pay cut to join the eastern district as a prosecutor. there she found her calling handling some of the toughest litigation cases in the country on cyber crime public corruption financial fraud police abuse and gang activity, organized crime and especially terrorism. when you look at the breadth and the depth of the cases she's handled, it's clear that loretta lynch is the law enforcement's renaissance woman. and because of her judicious
12:45 pm
balanced and careful approach to prosecuting on complex emotional community police relation matters miss lynch has always emerged with praise from both community leaders and police. america needs this kind of leadership in our top law enforcement position. in this age of global terrorism the a.g.'s role in national security has never been more important and i know her well because i was the person who recommended her to the president to be u.s. attorney twice. i know how good she is in some of the most difficult cases cases where the community was on one side and the police were on the other. she emerged with fair decisions that made both sides praise her. in this difficult world we're in where we have so much tension she's just going to be great. and that's why i was so proud when the president nominated her
12:46 pm
for attorney general. she's just great. but one sad note, there's one cloud on this sunny day and that is the long time it took to confirm her. we've heard about a whole lot of issues completely unrelated to her experience or her qualifications. no one has assailed loretta lynch, who she is, what she has done how good an attorney general she would be. one story about her as i mentioned, i originally recommended loretta lynch for the position of u.s. attorney in 1999 because i thought she was excellent. sure enough, she was. and when president bush took office miss lynch went to the private sector to earn some money. but when i had the opportunity to recommend a candidate for u.s. attorney again when president obama became president in 2009, i was certain i wanted miss lynch to serve again. she had only served for about a
12:47 pm
year and a half. she had done such a good job. i said, we need her back. but she had had a good life. she was making lots of money. had gotten married in the interim. so knowing what a great person she was i decided i'd call her late on a friday afternoon confident that with the weekend to think it over she'd be drawn to answer the call to public service. sure enough, when i called her friday afternoon she said to me, i was dreading this call, because she was happy in her life. but, sure enough, on monday morning she called me back, she said, i cannot turn this down because my desire to serve is so strong. so she's a great person in every way. on top of decades of experience at the highest levels of law enforcement and a sterling track record, loretta lynch brings a passion and deep commitment to public service befitting of the high office she's about to
12:48 pm
attain. she will make an outstanding attorney general. i believe every member of this body will be proud of her and i look forward to voting for her with great enthusiasm. madam president i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
12:49 pm
12:50 pm
12:51 pm
12:52 pm
12:53 pm
12:54 pm
12:55 pm
12:56 pm
12:57 pm
12:58 pm
12:59 pm
1:00 pm
quorum call: quorum call:
1:01 pm
1:02 pm
1:03 pm
mr. sanders: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sanders: mr. president i ask to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sanders: mr. president i rise in strong opposition to the fast-track bill that the finance committee approved last night that will be on the floor, i think, here next week or the following week on the trans-pacific partnership. the most important aspect, i think, of this debate is that
1:04 pm
what we are discussing with the t.p.p. is not a new concept. it's not like somebody came up and said i got a great idea. let's try this trade agreement and it's going to be really good for the american worker, the american middle class and the american people. the truth of the matter is that we have seen this movie time and time and time again. and let me tell you that the ending of this movie is not very good. it's a pretty bad ending, and i think most americans understand that our past trade agreements have failed american workers and have led to the loss of millions of decent-paying jobs. what i simply don't understand, if we were going forward in the first place new idea maybe give it a shot. but when we went forward with nafta, went forward with cafta went forward with permanent normal trade relations and we heard all of these folks telling us how great these agreements
1:05 pm
were going to be and it turned out that virtually everything that they said was inaccurate, not true, why in god's name would we go forward with another trade agreement which is in fact larger than previous trade agreements? and let me just give you an example of what i mean, mr. president. on september 19, 1993, president bill clinton said the following: "i believe that nafta will create 200,000 american jobs in the first two years of its effect. i believe that nafta will create a million jobs in the first five years of its impact." end of quote. so president clinton was pushing the nafta agreement very, very hard and that's what he's saying. in 1993, same year, the heritage foundation, one of the most conservative think tanks in the country -- so here you have a liberal president, bill clinton you have a conservative think tank the heritage foundation,
1:06 pm
this is what they said "virtually all economists agree nafta will produce a net increase of u.s. jobs over the next decade." in 1993 the distinguished senator from kentucky who is now our majority leader, mitch mcconnell, this is what he said -- and i quote -- "american firms will not move to mexico just for lower wages." mitch mcconnell. "american firms will not move to mexico just for lower wages." well was president clinton right? was the heritage foundation right? was senator mcconnell right? no. i think the evidence is pretty clear that they were all wrong. according to is the well-respected economists at the economic policy institute and their facts are usually hold up pretty well, nafta has led to the loss of more than 680,000 american jobs. 680,000 american jobs. what president clinton said was wrong. what the heritage foundation
1:07 pm
said was wrong. we lost substantial numbers of jobs. in 1993, the year before nafta was implemented the united states had a trade surplus with mexico of more than $1.6 billion. last year the trade deficit with mexico was $53 billion. we had a trade surplus of $1.6 billion. last year we had a deficit of $53 billion. how is that a success? i don't quite know. in other words mr. president nafta has been a disaster for american workers. what about the chinese trade agreement? i remember hearing all of the discussions about how great it would be if we had a trade agreement with a huge country like china, think about all of the american products that they would be buying manufactured here in the united states. here is what president clinton again, president bill clinton said about p.m.t. with china back in 1999.
1:08 pm
it's important to remember what people said because they're saying the same thing about this trade agreement. this is back in 1999, bill clinton president pntr with china -- quote -- "in opening the economy with china the agreement will create unprecedented opportunities for american farmers workers and companies to compete successfully in china's market. this is a 100-0 deal for america when it comes to the economic consequences." once again that's a liberal president. now you have the conservative think tanks who love unfettered free trade. in 1999 discussing pntr with china the conservative economists at the cato institute -- these are really conservative guys -- this is what they said -- quote -- "the silliest argument against pntr is that chinese imports would overwhelm u.s. industry. in fact, american workers are
1:09 pm
far more productive than their chinese counterparts. pntr would create more export opportunities for the americans than the chinese." what can we say about that? cato institute wrote in 1999 quoap quo the silliest argument against pntr is that chinese imports would overwhelm u.s. industry. yeah right. you go out to any department store in america and you buy products. where are those products made? guess what? they're made in china. it appears that chinese imports did overwhelm american industry. cato institute was dead wrong. mr. president, again nobody is really surprised that there is no more debate about this. pntr permanent normal trade relations with china that trade agreement was a disaster. the economic policy institute has estimated that that trade agreement with china has led to
1:10 pm
the loss of 2.7 million american jobs. the trade deficit with china has increased from $83 billion in 2001 to $342 billion in 2014. in terms of china, i don't know that the american people have any doubt about it. every time we go shopping, the products overwhelmingly made in china. people look in their own towns in their own states -- my state loss of more and more manufacturing jobs. since 2001 we have lost 60,000 manufacturing facilities in america. not all of it is attributable to trade. there are other reasons. but a lot of it is attributable to trade. millions of decent-paying jobs gone. people thrown out on the street as companies move to china vietnam and other low-wage
1:11 pm
countries. there is not a debate about it. that is exactly what has happened. corporation after corporation has said why do i want to pay an american worker $15 $20 an hour? why do i want to deal with the union. why do i have to obey environmental regulations? i can move to china. i can move to vietnam. i can move to malaysia, i can move to mexico. i can pay people pennies an hour bring the product back into the united states. that is what they said. that is what they have done. major corporation after major corporation has reduced employment in america at the same time as they have increased employment in other countries. and not only is it the loss of jobs, it is the race to the bottom. it is employers saying to workers, look, i'm cutting your health care. i'm not giving you a raise. and if you don't like it, i'm moving to china because we got people all over the world who are prepared to work for wages a lot lower than you are receiving. you take it or leave it.
1:12 pm
and that is one of the reasons why today the typical american worker is working longer hours for lower wages than he or she used to and why wages have gone down in america. that's what the global economy has done. that is what horrendous free trade agreements have pushed on american workers. that is the chinese free trade agreement. an estimated 2.7 million american jobs lost. you've got the korean free trade agreement which led to a loss of 60,000 jobs. our trade deficit from that company has gone up from $16 billion in 2012 to $25 billion in 2014. so you have a history here of failed trade agreement after failed trade agreement after failed trade agreement and people say we failed, we failed, we failed. let's do the same thing again and this time we're really,
1:13 pm
really really going to succeed. i don't think anybody believes that. i do understand that wall street loves this trade agreement. they are staying up nights worrying about ordinary americans and they understand that the major corporations in this country, all of them love this agreement and the drug companies love this agreement which should give you enough reason to l hold this agreement in doubt. now, mr. president the administration the obama administration says trust us. forget about the other trade agreements. this t.p.p. is something different. it's a better agreement. this time it will be different. this time it will support about 650,000 american jobs. well supporters of unfettered tree trade were wrong about -- free trade were wrong about nafta, wrong about cafta wrong about the korean free trade agreement. and surprise of all surprises they are wrong again.
1:14 pm
mr. president, if the fast track is approved, it would pave the way for the passage of the t.p.p. the trans-pacific partnership. as you know this trade agreement is poised to be the largest free trade agreement in history encompassing 12 nations that account for roughly 40% of the global economy. this is a very, very big deal. let me just talk about two of those countries who are involved in the t.p.p., and that is vietnam and malaysia. mr. president, we are fighting here -- and i understand there are differences of opinion. we are fighting here in the united states congress to raise the minimum wage. i happen to believe that a $7.25 minimum wage, which is what it is federally is aing -- is a starvation wage. i would like to see it go over a period of years up to $15 an hour. you may disagree.
1:15 pm
there are others who agree. let me tell you what the minimum wage is in vietnam. the minimum wage in vietnam is 56 cents an hour. 56 cents an hour. so you have american workers being forced to compete against people who make 56 cents an hour. and we have a situation just as one example of many, where the nike company a company which produces over 3,665,000,000 pairs -- 365 million pairs of athletic shoes all over the year, do you know how many of those athletic shoes are manufactured in the united states of america? 50 million? 20 million? 10 million? one million? zero. on the other hand, they employ
1:16 pm
330,000 workers in vietnam mostly young women and while they refuse to tell us -- give us the detailed information our supposition is most of those women make very very low wages. and let's be clear about what is going on. according to a november 11 2014 article in the vietnamese newspaper "tan ngen news" analysts acknowledge did vietnam's abundance of cheap labor has played an increasingly pivotal role in wooing foreign firms looking to set up manufacturing operations in a country with a population of 90 million" -- end of quote. in other words that's what it's all about. wages are very, very low in vietnam and companies from the united states and all over the world will go to that country.
1:17 pm
and allowing the t.p.p. to be passed will make it easier for multinational companies to shut down in america and move to vietnam, and that is wrong. and we talk about free trade agreement, it's -- free trade, it's important to understand what is involved. who are we competing against? are we competing against canadian workers whose standard of living is as high or higher than ours, workers in germany whose standard of living may be are higher than ours? no. you're competing against people who are struggling, struggle, to stay alive earning the lowest possible wages that keep a human being alive. last year the human rights watch published a report on vietnam and here are some of the quotes from that report. quote -- "the human rights situation in vietnam deteriorated significantly in 2013 worsening a trend evident for several years.
1:18 pm
the year was marked by a severe and intensifying crackdown on critics including long prison terms for many peaceful activists whose crime was calling for political change." in other words in vietnam if you speak up, you want political change, there is a likelihood you will end up in jail. vietnam bans all political parties, labor unions, and human rights organizations independent of the government. another quote "the authorities require official approval for public gatherings and refuse to grant permission for meetings, marches or protests they deem politically or otherwise acceptable." not my point here to beat up on vietnam. they are a struggling country a poor country who went through a terrible, terrible war with the united states that caused them incredible harm. but when we look at a trade agreement, when we say to american workers this is your competition, people who are
1:19 pm
making 56 cents an hour in some cases, people who can't form an independent trade union people who politically can't stand up and speak out for their rights, is that really appropriate and fair to the american worker? i don't think it is. i don't think it is. let me say a word not just on vietnam but another country in that consortium of partners in the t.p.p. and that is the country of malaysia. and, mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent to submit to the congressional record a "new york times" article of september 17 2014. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sanders: mr. president what "the new york times" article talks about is that today, there are nearly 200 electronics factories in malaysia where high-tech products from apple dell,
1:20 pm
motorola and texas instruments are manufactured and brought back into the united states. it turns out malaysia is a major center for for the manufacturing of electronics. and some of the largest electronics manufacturers in the world are centered or have plants in malaysia. if the t.p.p. is approved, that number will go up substantially. now, what is wrong with that? well let's talk about what is going on in malaysia. where american companies in this country and american workers will have to compete as part of the t.p.p. well it turns out that many of the workers at the electronics plants in malaysia are immigrants to that country and are forced to work there under subhuman working conditions. according to verite which conducted a two-year investigation into labor abuses
1:21 pm
in malaysia, which was commissioned by the u.s. department of labor this report was commissioned by the u.s. department of labor and this is what this report tells us. 32% of the electronic industry's nearly 200,000 migrant workers in malaysia were employed in forced situations because their passports had been taken away or because they were straining to pay back illegally high recruitment fees. according to "the new york times" article commenting on this study 92% of the migrant workers in malaysia's electronics industry had paid recruitment fees and that 92% of that group had paid fees that exceeded legal or industry standards defined as minor one month's wages.
1:22 pm
94% of the migrants did not have their passports when vertie's investigators interviewed them. let me repeat that. the passports were taken away from 94% of the people that these investigators interviewed. now, if you are a migrant in a foreign country and your passport is taken away, you have no rights at all. you can't leave you may not be able to travel, you have no rights at all. in other words many of these workers who wanted to leave malaysia were unable to do so. they were forced to stay and continue to work under these subhuman conditions. mr. president, 30% of foreign workers -- this is again the report from verite -- commissioned by the u.s. department of labor -- 30% of
1:23 pm
foreign workers said they slept in a room with more than eight people. and 43% there was no place where they could safely store their belongings. well mr. president when we talk about competition and a competitive global economy i do not believe that the american worker should be forced to compete against workers who are literally held in slavelike conditions unable to leave the country, having their passports taken away, working for pennies an hour. so let me conclude simply by saying this -- this trade agreement is being pushed on the congress by the largest corporations in the united states of america. they love unfettered free trade. because it enables them to shut down in america and move to
1:24 pm
low-wage countries where they can employ workers at pennies an hour. this trade agreement is pushed on us by wall street, who wants to make sure that around the world they will have financial regulations that make it easier for them to do what they do rather than serve the economies of countries around the world. this legislation is are strongly supported by the pharmaceutical industry, who will have the opportunity to prevent poor countries around the world from moving to generic drugs and make medicine affordable to the poor people in these countries. so all of the billionaire dallas class -- billionaire class all of the corporate world supporting this agreement. who is opposing this trade agreement? well virtually every trade union in america whose job it is to stand up for american
1:25 pm
workers, they're in opposition. i was just at a rally with them the other day they are united. they are in opposition. you have many environmental groups who understand that this is a bad agreement. you have medical groups who understand this is a bad agreement for poor people in developing countries. and you have millions of workers in this country who do not want to compete -- they're not afraid of competition. we are a productive country. they do not want to compete against people making 56 cents an hour or forced labor in malaysia. that's where we are today. where we are today is do we go forward with a failed trade policy or do we take a deep breath and say enough is enough let us rethink trade policy let us figure out a way that we can grow the american economy, create decent jobs in the united states and, by the way, help poor people around the world. all of us want to see wages go
1:26 pm
up in poor countries around the world but that does not mean that wages have got to go down in the united states of america. so we need a trade agreement that works for our people, works for poor people around the world, but just is not a trade agreement that only works for the big-money interests in the united states. so i hope very much, mr. president, that the senate will take a real hard look at this trade agreement, take a hard look at what people have been saying for years about previous trade agreements and say we're not going down this failed path anymore. and with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
1:27 pm
1:28 pm
1:29 pm
mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the assistant democratic leader. mr. durbin: i ask consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president i came across an article in "the new york times" on sunday and it called my attention to the passing of an amazing man a man which had -- who has a connection to the united states senate. i rise today to pay my respect to a man of uncommon integrity dr. irwin schatz passed away on april 1 at 83. beloved and respected in the medical community dr. schatz spent his career helping people. he was a major contributor to the honolulu program a study on japanese american men in hawaii.
1:30 pm
dr. schatz was a rare critic of the tusk keyingy civil us supports experiment. the united states public health service conducted the clinical study on uneducated and poor african-american sharecroppers. they wanted to know about untreated syphilis on african-americans. 600 men were enrolled in the study. almost two-thirds had syphilis while the rest were used as control subjects. between 1932 and 1947, the date when pencil inwas determined to be the cure for the disease at least seven men died and their wives, children and untold number of others had been infected. men participating in the study were told they were being treated for bad blood bad blood wasn't running in the veins of these men. it was running in the veins of those who decided this study was worth more than their humanity. dr. irwin schatz was four years
1:31 pm
out of medical school, working as a hardiologist at henry ford hospital in detroit when he came across the december, 1964 issue of the journal archives of internal medicine which mentioned the tuskegee study. we cannot be sure how many other people read this issue but dr. schatz read it and he was horrified. dr. schatz wrote to the study's senior author, dr. donald rockwell. his letter was only three sentences long. these three sentences could have put his career at risk. here was this young doctor criticizing an investigation overseen by some of the leading figures in the american public health service. here's what he wrote. i am utterly astounded by the fact that physicians allow patients with potentially fatal diseases to remain untreated when effective therapy is available. i assume you feel the information which is extracted from the observations of this untreated group is worth their sacrifice. if this is the case, then i suggest the united states public health service and those
1:32 pm
physicians associated with it in this study need to re-evaluate their moral judgment in this regard. the sad reality is the center for disease control and prevention buried dr. schatz' letter and it would sit in their archives until 1974. "wall street journal" reporter found the letter the same year the health service employee turned whistle-blower peter buckston told the world about this horrific study. dr. schatz went on to serve in a variety of hospitals. in 1975, he joined the university of hawaii and eventually became chairman of their department of medicine. in 2009, he was named a medical hero by the mayo clinic because of his career but also because of the moral fury he expressed in that three-sentence letter. irwin schatz was truly a hero. my prayers and thoughts go out to his sons, jacob edward, steven and our colleague senator brian schatz, his nine
1:33 pm
grandchildren and his family. mr. president, i'd like to speak on a separate topic very briefly. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president the moment is finally going to arrive in just a few minutes when we are going to, i hope, approve by a bipartisan vote the nomination of loretta lynch to be our next attorney general. this is a milestone in the history of the united states, the first african-american woman to become attorney general of this country. i would like to say i'm sorry and i am, for the delay in bringing this nomination before the united states senate. it should have been done long ago. she is an extraordinary person from an extraordinary family. we have been blessed with her public service for so many years, and now she has reached the top in her career to be able to serve as our next attorney general. i will with a great deal of admiration and respect be voting in favor of this nomination. mr. leahy: mr. president. the presiding officer: the
1:34 pm
senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president i eagerly echo the words of my dear friend, the senior senator from illinois. this is a great historic moment. earlier today we ended the filibuster on this woman. on loretta lynch. we had the filibuster on the nomination of her to be attorney general of the united states. the good news is we ended the filibuster. the bad news is the first time in our nation's history that we had to overcome a filibuster for an attorney general nominee. of either party. 82 prior attorneys general going back to george washington straight through. not one of them has been treated the way loretta lynch has been
1:35 pm
treated. but those who know her strengths -- and i've gotten to know what a strong and good woman this is from her time as u.s. attorneys straight through her confirmation hearing. a confirmation hearing incidentally for those supposed to have brought witnesses and when i asked them are there any of you who were vote against her, not a single hand went up. see, i know her strength. i know she has persevered through much more difficult circumstances in her life. i believe this would make her even stronger. but i do hope after this extended delay -- and i'll leave with this -- i can only hope that senate republicans will show her more respect as attorney general of the united states than she has received as a nominee. she deserves all americans'
1:36 pm
respect and our gratitude for being willing to continue to serve our nation. loretta lynch is imminently qualified to be attorney general. she has twice been unanimously confirmed by the united states senate to be united states attorney for the eastern district of new york. her record as a top federal prosecutor in brooklyn is unimpeachable, and i have no doubt that as attorney general ms. lynch will effectively fairly and independently enforce the law. loretta lynch deserves to be considered by this chamber based on her record, her accomplishments and her extraordinary character. let us come together. let us make history by confirming loretta lynch to be the first african-american woman to serve as the attorney general of the united states. mr. president, i am prepared to yield back. i yield back all time.
1:37 pm
the presiding officer: without objection. all time is yielded back. the question is on the lynch nomination. mr. leahy: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:
1:38 pm
1:39 pm
1:40 pm
1:41 pm
1:42 pm
1:43 pm
1:44 pm
1:45 pm
vote:
1:46 pm
1:47 pm
1:48 pm
1:49 pm
1:50 pm
1:51 pm
1:52 pm
1:53 pm
1:54 pm
1:55 pm
joo
1:56 pm
vote:
1:57 pm
1:58 pm
1:59 pm
2:00 pm
vote:
2:01 pm
2:02 pm
2:03 pm
mr. leahy: mr. president could we have order so the vote can be heard? the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. as remind, expressions of approval or disaapproval are not permitted from the gallery. on this vote, the yeas are 56, the nays are 43. the nomination is confidence. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader.
2:04 pm
mr. leahy: could we have order? the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the senate will be in order. thank you. the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table and that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. further, that the senate resume legislative session and be in a period of morning business until 3:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak for up it ten minutes each. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the senator from vermont is recognized. mr. leahy: i appreciate the majority leader making the usual request that the president be notified. i have a sneaky suspicion the president knows what the final vote was. i yield the floor.
2:05 pm
the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
2:06 pm
2:07 pm
2:08 pm
2:09 pm
2:10 pm
mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. i wish that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, last thursday marked the 100th day of the new republican-led senate. while it's still very early there is still much to be done, but we can report that there has been bipartisan progress in a number of important areas. so i'm optimistic. i'm optimistic that the momentum that we have seen over the last several months is going to translate into further successes on behalf of americans. specifically mr. president to take out the "usa today" from last thursday, the first 100
2:11 pm
days of republican congress, the headline "lawmakers try to prove it's possible to be productive." so people are noticing the fact that we are keeping our campaign promises because during the last campaign season, we told people all across the country that if you just gave us the opportunity to govern, that we'd do it in a bipartisan way. in november the american people did send an unmistakable message to washington. voters across the country said they were tired of gridlock and tired of a lack of action. they said it was time for a new majority a republican majority, a majority to get the senate working again and to get america on a better course. republicans have responded and we're working hard to make the united states senate accountable again to the people who sent us here. now, you don't have to take my word for it. just the other day the bipartisan policy center came out with its healthy congress
2:12 pm
index. this is a group of former republican and democrat leaders of congress. they talked about how the new senate has been showing signs of life. the total number of days worked, they rorkts is up 43 days in the first 100 day versus 33 days in the last congress. and 33 days the congress before that. also the numbers of bills reported ow of committee is way up. in the first 100 days we had 15 bills routerred out of committees compared to just eight in the first 100 days of the previous two congresses. imagine that. committees are working and we're pushing out bipartisan bills. like the iran congressional review bill that passed unanimously in the foreign relations committee. mr. president, the number of amendments voted on is large than its been in previous congresses. in the first 100 days of this copping, we voted on more than 100 amendments. these are amendments by both
2:13 pm
republicans and by democrats. for all of last year, there were only 15 up-and-down votes on amendments just 15 for the entire year. this queer we topped that number -- this year we topped that number of amendment votes by january 22. that's just one more way that the united states senate is working again. in the first 100 days we passed a dozen bipartisan bills. we passed the bipartisan keystone x.l. pipeline jobs bill. we passed a bill to make much-needed reforms in the medicare program to reauthorize the children's health insurance program, we passed the clay hunt veterans suicide prevention act we reached an agreement to help victims of modern slavery who are abused and exploited by museumhuman traffickers sms these are just part of our commitment to work together to solve problems for the american people. on top of all of that, beesed a bight budget -- we passed a budget at that actually balances over the next ten years.
2:14 pm
even the former democratic senate leader tom daschle recently said, requests there's been more open debate and consideration of issues under senator mcconnell's leadership." that's exactly right. the senate is working again. and we're just getting started. i'm hopeful that we can to into work together and to find solutions on more issues that matter to the american people. as chairman of the indian affairs committee, i can tell you that we have made real progress on bills to improve the lives that people across -- of people across indian country. we passed bills to help protect children in foster care and to increase self-governance by indian tribes. it has been a positive agenda u along with six democrats and six republicans, i introduced a bill to speed up exports of american liquefied natural gas.
2:15 pm
we have bipartisan agreement on the need to streamline the permitting process for the sale of this clean american energy. this week we also made great progress on a bipartisan bill on the waters of the united states. i'm optimistic that we can reach an agreement with senators on the other side of the aisle to get that issue behind us. the american people want an honest debate on important issues like these. the american people want their representatives in the united states senate to be able to offer amendments. the american people want to see their senators take a stand and cast a vote up or down. that's how the united states senate should work. that's how the united states senate has been working for the first 100 days under republican leadership. so i'm pleased mr. president with how productive the senate has been over the first 100
2:16 pm
days. of course we want to do more and we will have the chance shortly. i look forward to more votes more debate, more consideration of ideas from both sides of the aisle. this mr. president, is the commitment that republicans made to the american people, and we are keeping that commitment. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
2:17 pm
2:18 pm
2:19 pm
2:20 pm
2:21 pm
mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. the majority leader is recognized. mr. cornyn: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i am happy to stand here today
2:22 pm
knowing that the senate has had a pretty good week of getting its work done, or i should say the people's work done and overwhelmingly passing important legislation that will actually help, first of all victims of human trafficking. but generally speaking, help make the lives of our constituents, the american people just a little bit better. talking about the antitrafficking legislation in particular something i'm particularly excited about the unanimous vote, 99-0 yesterday passing this piece of legislation after a hard-fought few weeks of debate. the justice for victims of trafficking act is a bill we all agreed was worth fighting for. why? because it is as important to the rich and powerful, the people who have a lot of influence here in washington, around the country? no. we thought it was worth fighting for because it would help the people who frankly need a
2:23 pm
voice. they need somebody to speak up for them because they can't speak for themselves. this antitrafficking bill, the justice for victims of trafficking act protects the most vulnerable people in our country. i want to thank the majority leader for his tireless help and commitment to making sure we got this job done to fight this monstrous crime and punish those who seek to hold our children in what has been appropriately called nothing less than modern-day slavery. as the majority leader said yesterday, today is a new day. the senate, under his leadership, is now in a new era of bipartisanship and functioning. if there's one thing i heard last year as i was campaigning for reelection in texas or traveling around the country -- and i'm sure the presiding officer had the same
2:24 pm
experience -- is people would tell me how frustrated they were with washington and the fact that no one seemed to be working together to try to solve the problems that were making their life more difficult. dysfunction was the most common word used. but now we are, i think after this first 100 days of the new congress demonstrating that we are capable of functioning and working together in the best interest of the american people. does that mean we're sacrificing our principles? people are republicans or democrats for good reasons. they have a different point of view. but what is inexcusable is for republicans and democrats to refuse to work together and get nothing done. i have a -- we have a colleague a very conservative colleague who years ago told me working with a very liberal colleague i asked him how is it that somebody that really represents the book ends in terms of ideology republican versus
2:25 pm
democrat liberal versus conservative how is it that you are actually able to get things done? he said to me, it's easy. it's the 80-20 rule. we take the 80% we can agree on and take the 20% we can't agree on for another day and another fight. as we are celebrating in a sense a new era of bipartisanship and functioning here in the united states senate, it's clear we can't rest on our laurels. we still have a lot of work to do. and i'd like to just spend a couple of minutes talking about that. our upcoming agenda will include some very, very important and weighty matters including the iran nuclear agreement review act which will give congress the ability and time to scrutinize any agreement reached between the obama administration and the p-5-plus-one nations while also
2:26 pm
prohibiting the president from lifting sanctions on iran during this period of review. this commonsense bill was unanimously reported out last week by the foreign relations committee. i think that was a little bit of a surprise to many given the fact that the president initially said that if congress were to pass this sort of legislation giving the american people a voice in this nuclear agreement, that he would veto it. well when this came roaring out of the foreign relations committee with unanimous support and when it became clear that enough democrats were going to join together with republicans to pass this legislation at a -- and prevent a veto by having enough votes to override the veto then the president very common senseically said i think i will sign it. i will agree to go along with that. so the president finally agreed
2:27 pm
with republicans and democrats in the senate that congressional oversight was warranted and admitted last week he would not stand in the way of this legislation. we are here not to guard our own prerogatives or privileges as individual united states senators. that means essentially nothing. but what we are here is to stand in the shoes of our constituents, the 26.9 million people that i represent in texas, the people of arkansas that the presiding officer represents and it is absolutely critical that we as the representatives of the american people have the opportunity to review this iran deal and to consider its implications and to debate them and to make that entirely transparent to the american people. because this is about not just the national security of the nation of israel. this is about our national
2:28 pm
security as well. as well as that of our other allies. so we'll spend much of the next few days perhaps through next week discussing this bill, so i won't belabor my thoughts on that at this time. but i did want to express a few concerns on the state of the proposed framework with iran. on april 2, president obama announced not a deal with iran but a -- and i quote -- "historic understanding with iran." well people naturally ask what does that understanding look like? what does it consist of? where can i get a copy of it so i can read it? to our surprise, there wasn't a deal. nothing was written. it was somehow an historic understanding that even the parties who negotiated it disagreed about the details. so it should come as no surprise that the president and the p-5
2:29 pm
plus 1 countries have not been able to secure an actual deal with iran which is our biggest threat and most dangerous adversary in the middle east. after all let's think about who we're talking to and with. the nation of iran. this is the number-one state sponsor of international terrorism, a country that has repeatedly lied to and deceives inspectors in the past as a matter of standard op -- operating procedure. as prime minister netanyahu reminded us last month for more than 30 years america has been hostile -- iran has been hostile to america and its allies. iran has subsequently killed americans mainly through proxies since the early 1980's until the present time. this is the same regime that continued to target the united states since 1979.
2:30 pm
it's the same regime that's been on the state department's terrorism blacklist since 1984, following an iran-backed terrorist attack that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of american servicemen, including many from my state. given this track record, does anybody really wonder what iran would do with a nuclear weapon? so as these important negotiations continue for the next months there remain a lot of question marks about iran's true intentions and about whether the deal, once it is done, that the obama administration is finalizing will essentially cement iran's status as a nuclear threshold nation. i remember prime minister benjamin netanyahu speaking to a joint meeting of the congress.
2:31 pm
he said the framework paves the way or paves the path to a nuclear weapon, which of course would represent a tremendous change in american policy. our policy has been, the administration's policy has been as stated, no new york for iran -- none. but at least according to the framework that has been leaked, there appears to be more of the nature of a pathway toward a nuclear weapon as opposed to a prohibition. so i look forward to continuing the discussion in the coming days. but iran is only one issue that we'll be turning to as the senate continues to work on bipartisan legislation to get work done for the american people. we'll be working on the very important issue of trade. now, trade is important to my state, and it's important to the united states. anytime we can open up new markets to the things that we grow here in our agricultural
2:32 pm
sector or the livestock we raise, the beef, pork, polltory -- poultry sector. anytime we can open a market to the things we make here in the united states, it strikes me it's a good thing. because while we occupy only 5% of the world's territory we constitute 20% of the purchasing power in the world. that means that 95% of the population 80% of the purchasing power in the world lies beyond our shores. so it just makes sense to me that we would want to open our markets, our goods that we make and grow and raise to markets overseas in this case primarily to asia. but once we take up the trans-pacific partnership once it's negotiated, then at some future point we'll turn to europe and the so-called t t-tip
2:33 pm
negotiation. last night the finance committee reported out the a piece of this else will. this is something that's been a misunderstood and confusing. people have asked why in the world would you with a tonight give the president authority to negotiate this trans-pacific partnership negotiation? and the simple answer is, this trade promotion authority is not just for president obama and his administration. he's only going to be there for the next 20 months. this will last for six years and go into the next presidential administration. and the fact of the matter is, you can't negotiate something as complex as a trade deal like the trans-pacific partnership with 535 negotiators -- in other words, all members of the senate all the members of the house. but what this does provide is that once a deal is reached it has to be laid before the congress it has to be laid before the american people so
2:34 pm
they can read it and understand it. and after about six months, then there will be a debate here in the senate and we will have an up-or-down vote. if we don't think it serves the interests of the united states, of our citizens and of our country, we can vote it down. but conversely, if we think that this does improve trade and the economic prospects jobs and wages for the american people, then we can vote it -- we can vote to approve it. so this bill will open up american goods and services to global markets, which is good for our economy good for jobsers and good for better -- good for jobs, and good for better wages, something that has been under a lot of negative pressure over the last few years. so mr. president just to sum up this week we passed legislation that will help thousands of victims of modern-day slavery typically a girl between the age of 12 and 14, who are routinely
2:35 pm
sex-trafficked by -- in our own backyards, and this will provide real resources that will not only help rescue them but begin to help them heal and to begin a path toward restoration. i think this is -- should be a proud accomplishment for the united states senate. but the bottom line is, we still have a lot of work to do, and i look forward to more accomplishments with my colleagues and for the new spirit of bipartisanship to continue as we tackle real problems for the american people. mr. president, i yield the floor. mrs. fischer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska is recognized. mrs. fischer: thank you mr. president. i come to the floor today to discuss the importance of trade and the nebraskans who depend upon it. since 1989, u.s. agricultural exports have nearly quadrupled in value. this is a direct result of our trade agreements which have
2:36 pm
opened foreign markets to our goods. in 2014 alone the value of u.s. agriculture exports was $152.5 billion, yielding a trade surplus of more than $43 billion. this surplus is the result of hard work by millions of american farmers and ranchers. my home state of nebraska is leading the way in progress as a top producer and exporter of agriculture and manufacturing products. in 2013, nebraska exported $7.3 billion in products tied to agriculture and the processing industries. the by trading internationally -- by trading internationally we're creating jobs and long-term income here at home. from farms and ranches to food processing transportation, and
2:37 pm
manufacturing industries, countless parts of our economy rely on the flow of goods across our nation and around the world. nebraska's govern,nebraska's governor, director of agriculture, and 22 nebraska agriculture stakeholders echoed the necessity of these trade agreements urging congressional leaders to quickly pass important legislation for these agreements to materialize. this point was reinforced in a recent "omaha world herald" editorial which noted that nebraska producers operate on a global scale and therefore understand the economic benefit of robust, free trade agreements. the u.s. department of agriculture estimates that every $1 billion of u.s. agricultural exports generates $1.3 billion in economic activity and supports the full-time work of
2:38 pm
approximately 6,600 americans throughout the economy. simply put international trade is an essential component of opening foreign markets to u.s. agriculture and food products. the best avenues we have to open new markets increase that productivity and create jobs: well that's through strong, fair inclusive free trade agreements. with more than 95% of the world's population located outside the united states, economic growth and job creation depend on trade opportunities that allow our u.s. companies and our producers to tap into new markets to sell more american products. as we debate the world's population continues to grow. in more and more countries we
2:39 pm
see a growing middle class with a mounting appetite. what do they want to eat? the they want high-quality meat and produce and food products from the united states of america. what a tremendous opportunity for american producers to capture new markets and reach more consumers worldwide. but these new markets cannot be developed unless the united states is at the table and at the table negotiating for comprehensive free trade agreements that ensure producers and exporters receive that fair deal. in order to accomplish this goal the senate must first pass trade promotion authority or the t.p.a. t.p.a. effectively combines congress' authority to regulate
2:40 pm
foreign commerce alongside the precedence authority to negotiate treaties. it reinforces the role of congress to set negotiation priorities and it requires the president to consult extensively with legislators throughout this entire negotiation process. under t.p.a., congress retains its authority to review and determine whether the proposed trade agreement will be implemented through an up-or-down vote. t.p.a. has been granted to every president since gerald ford. this long p standing long-standing and proven partnership between the legislative and executive branches is essential to finalizing those free trade agreements that create countless opportunities for american enterprise.
2:41 pm
t.p.a. will allow us to actually complete the trade negotiations that are currently under way. america is on the brink of some very ambitious and pro- pro-growth deals. it will also provide our negotiators with the credibility that they need in order to conclude those trade agreements. our trading partners, they must be certain that the united states is serious about its trade priorities and that we are serious about our commitments. to get the best deal, there is no doubt that our trade negotiators need this vital negotiating tool. furthermore as this administration negotiates the two largest regional trade agreements in history we must
2:42 pm
position ourselves to extract the best deals possible. the trans-pathe trans-pacific partnership includes countries such as japan and vietnam and malaysia, which just have such great tremendous opportunities for our exports. this agreement will give us greater access to the fastest-growing economic region in the world. the trans-atlantic trade and investment partnership is between the european union and the united states, which together account for nearly half of global g.d.p. i support the negotiations for each of these regional trade agreements. both agreements hold enormous potential for continued progress in agricultural exports and
2:43 pm
they will create jobs here at home. the united states has negotiated free trade agreements with 20 countries over the past three decades. these trading partners only represent 10% of the global economy, but they consume nearly half of the united states exports. economic growth and american job creation would only expand under t.p.p. where negotiating countries represent the fastest-growing economies in the world. that said, it is critical that trade agreements eliminate barriers and level the playing field for american businesses. fair two-way market access that eliminates tariffs is essential
2:44 pm
to any comprehensive trade agreement. mr. president, we're in the 21 21st century and our trade agreements they should reflect 21st century principles. t.p.a. is critical to providing our trade representatives with the necessary tools to finalize these pending negotiations while also ensuring that the unsung heroes of the american dinner table -- our farmers our ranchers our food processors -- that they receive the greatest benefit. nebraska's farmers and ranchers, they are global leaders and the very best at producing safe, high-quality food to feed the world. it is imperative that foreign markets are open, balanced, and
2:45 pm
that they provide a level playing field for all of our u.s. products products one of the best ways that we can do this is by expanding free trade and authorizing the t.p.a. thank you mr. president. i encourage my colleagues to support this very important legislation. i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
2:46 pm
2:47 pm
2:48 pm
2:49 pm
2:50 pm
2:51 pm
2:52 pm
2:53 pm
2:54 pm
2:55 pm
2:56 pm
2:57 pm
2:58 pm
2:59 pm
3:00 pm
3:01 pm
s quorum call:
3:02 pm
a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: i'd like to ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order the motion to proceed to h.r. 1191 is agreed to. the clerk will report the measure. the clerk: calendar 30, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to ensure emergency services volunteers are not taken into into account as employees under the responsibility requirements contained in the patient protection and affordable care act. mr. corker judge: i call up amendment number 1140 which is the text of the substitute amendment to s. 6145 which was reported out of the foreign relations committee. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from tennessee, mr. corker,
3:03 pm
proposes amendment numbered 1140. mr. corker: mr. president, i am thrilled to be down here with my partner, senator ben cardin, who is ranking member on the foreign relations committee. we had an outstanding week last week in our foreign relations committee, passing out this bill that is now before us on a 19-0 vote. as you would expect, i'd like to thank automatic of the members of the senate foreign relations committee which obviously includes senator cardin but senator risch senator menendez, senator rubio, senator kaine senator johnson, senator coons senator flake senator udall senator gardner senator boxer, senator perdue, senator shaheen, senator isakson senator paul, senator murphy, senator barrasso and senator markey. before discussing the text i'd like to thank senator bob
3:04 pm
menendez and mark kirk who have been all things iran. from the very beginning these are the two senators who have led this body to put in place sanctions, crushing sanctions that have led us to this place. and i cannot thank them enough for their leadership in dealing with the issue of iran. last year we had a significant amount of work on creating some kind of review process relative to some final agreement that might be worked out with iran and i want to thank senator lindsey graham who has just been a stalwart on ensuring somehow congress played a role in the ultimate final deal that may or may not occur. but lindsey has been steadfast in wanting congressional review, senator john mccain has joined in that effort and has been outstanding to work with senator jim risch and marco rubio all have pushed for this type of legislation.
3:05 pm
when we began this process there were some -- when we moved to the process that we're now in, there were some original supporters of this current bipartisan bill that really caused us to have the leverage, if you will, to move to the place that we are. and, again senator menendez certainly was one of those and led on that effort. senator graham, senator tim kaine, who came here as a form er governor of virginia, but has been so focused on congress playing its appropriate role i obviously senator mccain as he has been from the beginning, senator joe donnelly senator marco rubio are some heidi heitkamp, senator kelly ayotte, senator bill nelson, senator jim risch and senator angus king. all of them played a role in creating the leverage if you will to get us where we are today and as senator cardin knows, we now have 62
3:06 pm
cosponsors of this legislation that is now before us. obviously from both parties. i think this is quite an accomplishment. obviously we have a tremendous amount of work in front of us with this bill now on the floor, i know that senator cardin and myself hope that people will come down and begin offering their amendments begin debating, begin discussing obviously we won't be taking up any amendments per the order that's before us until tuesday, but we hope that people will begin bringing down their ideas amendments and certainly discussing -- discussing the important issue of iran. let me talk just a little bit about what this bill does. i think first of all i think everyone knows that the administration is part of the p-5 plus 1 is today negotiating an agreement to try to keep iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. i think all of us know there was a political agreement that was achieved the first part of april that was more of a verbal
3:07 pm
agreement regarding how the p-5 plus 1 and iran might interact in a manner that hopefully would keep iran from getting a nuclear weapon. one of the things that i think everyone in this body knows and many people in the outside may not is congress has played a substantial and maybe the biggest role in getting iran to the table in the first place. there were three sets of sanctions or three types of sanctions that have been instrumental in making this happen. there have been the u.n. security council sanctions that have been put in place. the executive branch has put in place some sanctions. but congress especially four troches have been fuss in place, has created all kinds of inflation, caused them not to be able to export the oil only 40% of the oil they produce. it's hurt them in
3:08 pm
manufacturing, i see senator menendez has come to the floor and may not have heard me but i cannot thank him enough and senator kirk for their leadership on each set of those ton tranches. i think the second thing people may understand on the security council,if the white house has the ability to lift those sanctions any time they wish. they can obviously lift the executive sanctions. one of the things all of us have been concerned about though, is congress put in place the sanctions that really brought them to the table. we want to ensure that congress has the ability before those sanctions are lifted to be able to voice an opinion through a vote. so what this legislation does -- we're going to be talking about it over the next week a great deal, what this
3:09 pm
legislation does is four things. first of all it forces the administration in the event a final deal is agreed to, it forces the administration to bring all of those details to congress including the classified annexes that we would likely not see until six months or so after an agreement is reached without this legislation if we can pass it. secondly it keeps the executive branch from being able to lift the congressionally mandated sanctions that we put in place while we have a reasonable period of time to go through the documents that have been provided to us. thirdly, it allows congress to take a vote. the vote can take all kinds of forms, it can be a vote of approval also causes the leader to decide not to take a vote at all or we could take a vote of disapproval. and if decided that this was not something that was good for our country, not good for the
3:10 pm
middle east, then we could make -- cause this vote of disapproval to make place and if it passed, it would keep the executive branch from being able to lift the congressionally mandated sanctions that we have put in place. and the fourth and very important and very important component is that it causes us to know whether iran is in compliance or not. this bill stipulates if passed that the president would have to certify us, to certify to us every 90 days as to whether iran is in compliance. and if there is significant violations on a ten-day basis let us know that that has taken place so that we can respond accordingly. let me close by saying this -- i believe that everybody in this body hopes that we are able to achieve a negotiated agreement that will keep iran from getting a nuclear weapon. i think everyone understands that is the best thing for our
3:11 pm
country. i think everybody also understands that iran is a country that we have little trust for. iran is a country that is the major exporter of terrorism in the region. iran is a country that has a terrible human rights record. iran is a country that is really moving ahead relative to its ballistic missile design. and obviously iran is a country that has been doing some things in its nuclear program that give us reason to believe that they are moving towards a nuclear weapon. one of the worst things that we could possibly do is enter into an agreement with iran that doesn't keep them from getting a nuclear weapon. in other words is one that is faulty that has flaws and allows them to get a nuclear weapon and what that would mean is you'd have a situation where the number-one exporter of terrorism in the region not just had access to a nuclear weapon but very quickly had access to
3:12 pm
the $130 billion they have trapped overseas to conduct even more terrorism in the region. now, for their economy to all of a sudden be growing at more rapid rates, again to have resources available to conduct even more terrorism in the region and as you can imagine, having an actor like iran has acted -- and we hope at some point that behavior will change but as they have acted having access to a nuclear weapon certainly would create the possibility of nuclear proliferation in the region. so i think this is a very important piece of legislation. i want to thank senator cardin for the way that he has come into this and worked with us in a manner to reach an accommodation so that we have sufficient -- ample actually extraordinary support on both sides of the aisle to ensure that congress has its rightful role in this agreement. it's one of the biggest geopolitical agreements we will
3:13 pm
deal with probably during the time here here in the united states senate. so with that i want to yield the floor to my good friend, senator cardin. again, who has done exemplary work in bringing us to this point and thank him for all of his efforts. mr. cardin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: mr. president, i want to thank and congratulate senator corker for his extraordinary work in reaching this moment where we have brought to the floor of the united states senate a bill that deals with congressional oversight of the nuclear discussions and agreements taking place between the p-5 plus 1 our negotiating partners and iran. mr. president, it was just three weeks ago that the framework was announced by the white house and that senator corker and i started our discussions to see whether be we could find a common path forward on a bill to say the least that
3:14 pm
was very controversial. a bill which the president of the united states had threatened to veto, a bill in which there were democrats and republicans lined up on different sides of this issue and it appeared just about impossible that we could reach a bipartisan agreement and a path forward for the legislation. senator corker exercised the greatest leadership and diplomacy. he mentioned all the members of our committee. each of those members have pretty strong views on this issue. this was not a simple matter of people saying gee, i'll just yield to your thoughts. the only way we could reach this moment was to ask and solicit and listen to each member of the committee and that's what senator corker did and encouraged me to do the same in regards not just to the democratic members because
3:15 pm
senator corker talked to some of the democratic members i talked to some of the republican members. we had to have that type of confidence. so senator corker, again i want to congratulate you on the leadership it's been a real pleasure to work with you and i am proud that we bring this bill forward with a 19-0 vote from the senate foreign relations committee. we have a long history in this country of putting aside partisan differences on foreign policy issues. i know we often quote from one of our former colleagues, but i think it's worth me putting into the record and mentioning the comments of senator arthur vandenberg jr. he was a republican member of this body who said 63 years ago to me bipartisan foreign policy means a mutual effort under our indispensable two-party system to unite our official voice at the water's edge so that america
3:16 pm
speaks with maximum authority against those who would divide and conquer us in the free world. it does not involve the remotest surrender of free debate in determining our position. on the contrary, frank cooperation and free debate are indispensable to ultimate unity. in a word, it simply seeks national security ahead of partisan advantage. mr. president, that's exactly what the senate foreign relations committee did. we had a very robust debate. there were many different views but at the end of the day we spoke with unity and in speaking with unity our country today is stronger, and that's exactly where we needed to be. i want to -- what we're trying to do here, and i think as a result of the action of the senate foreign relations committee and i hope it will be approved by this body and by the house and sent to the president
3:17 pm
for signature, we are i think in a stronger position to accomplish our goal, and our goal is pretty simple -- to be prevent iran from ever acquiring a nuclear weapon because we know that's a game changer in the region. it's a game changer in regards to not just one country in that region but to just about every country in that region. their security is threatened and the u.s. security is threatened. so what we did in the bill that we bring forward to you is a compromise a compromise. each of us gave and listened and we found common ground. mr. president, we could use more compromise on the issues that confront this country and the work that we do here, and i would hope my colleagues would look at how we worked out these issues and use it as a model for other opportunities to move forward on issues that are
3:18 pm
important. senator corker pointed out why we are here, why we have a bill for congressional review. it started in the 1990's when congress passed sanctions against iran because we saw at that time that iran was developing the nuclear capacity to develop a nuclear weapon, and we said that that could not happen. we imposed sanctions against iran congress did this on several occasions in an effort to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state telling them that there would be an economic price to pay until they changed course. the administrations including president obama's administration worked with the international community, and we were able to get u.n. sanctions. congress -- congress' action was responsible to lead iran to be willing to negotiate and that's where we are today. and only congress, only congress
3:19 pm
can permanently remove those sanctions or permanently change those sanctions. so congress must be involved in the sanctions and in the discussions, and that's exactly what this legislation does. it provides an orderly process for us to review any agreement reached by the president and our negotiating partners with iran. no congressional action will take place until and unless the president submits an agreement that he has made with our negotiating partners and iran. the april 2 framework that was recently announced is not an agreement and is not subject to review. there would be a 30-day review period during which congress would have the opportunity to review the agreement. no sanction, additional sanction relief could be imposed during that 30-day period.
3:20 pm
mr. president, if you read the april 2 framework, the president has made it clear that iran will only get sanction relief if they earn sanction relief, if there is concrete progress made in dismantling their nuclear program. that could -- it's hard to believe that would take place within 30 days. so this 30-day period is a very reasonable period for congress to be able to review any agreement. as senator corker pointed out all information all information would be presented to us and we would have an opportunity for full hearings and debate as to what we should do. it would follow the regular congressional order as far as committee hearings and potential action on the floor of the senate and house. senator corker pointed out the options that we have. we could approve the agreement we could disapprove the
3:21 pm
agreement, we could pass legislation affecting the sanctions, we could take whatever action we think is appropriate, but no action is required. the agreement can commence without congressional action. and if we do take congressional action, the president has the prerogatives of a veto, and the president -- and if the president vetoes, we have the prerogatives of an override of the veto. that's how the checks and balance system of our country should operate. there's a second major component to this legislation. that is for the oversight of an agreement after it is reached and that is there would be a quarterly certification by the president of the united states to congress that iran is in compliance with the agreement and if there is a material greech it would trigger an expedited process so that congress could act that we could not only snap back sanctions that may have been released -- relieved but appropriately we could impose additional
3:22 pm
sanctions if iran had a material breach of the agreement. and that's very important because i think we all agree if we're going to have an effective agreement, that agreement must give us time before iran could become a nuclear weapon country that we can through full inspections determine if they have breached the agreement because quite frankly mr. president, no agreement's going to be based on trust because we don't trust iran. it's going to be based upon inspections and being able to confirm their compliance with the agreement and this review process and an expedited process in congress puts congress in the position of working with an administration to make sure that we take those effective steps. now, as senator corker pointed out, there are other issues with iran in addition to the nuclear proliferation issues. we have serious concerns about iran. it sponsors terrorism. its human rights violations against its own citizens is
3:23 pm
horrible. its ballistic missile program is of great concern. the threats against israel and other countries in that region are all a direct -- of direct interest to the united states. so in this legislation we provide for regular reports twice a year to the congress of the united states about the activities that iran is participating in in regards to terrorism and human rights, and i call our colleagues' attention to the detailed requirements on page 37 and 38 of the bill concerning issues about whether iran's financial institutions are engaged in money laundering, whether iran is advancing its ballistic missile program an assessment of whether iran has successly supported finance plan or carried out any terrorism against the united states, whether and to the extent to which iran supported terrorism all actions including
3:24 pm
international being taken by the united states to condemn and counter acts by iran involving terrorism, the impact of our national security and the safety of the united states citizens as a result of iran's actions reported in this paragraph. it's all required to be -- that that information be given to us, because we may want to use that for other strategies against iran. an amendment that was added requires an assessment of whether violations of internationally recognized human rights in iran have changed increased or decreased as compared to the prior 180 days. we're going to monitor their human rights record, and we will have that information. so yes, we are concerned about issues beyond nuclear proliferation but this agreement that is now being negotiated by the president deals with preventing iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state. it is clear -- i want to underscore this because senator corker was very strong to make
3:25 pm
sure this got into the bill. it says that the united states sanctions on iran for terrorism human rights abuses, ballistic missiles will remain in place under any agreement. we're not talking about actions we've taken against iran for terrorism or human rights violations. that's a separate issue. major concern to us. we're talking about here is how do we implement oversight and review an agreement concerning its nuclear weapon program. and now lastly, we make it very clear in this agreement that the president should determine that the agreement in no way compromises the commitment of the united states to israel's security nor its support for israel's right to exist. israel is a key ally of the united states and our friendship is deep, our commitment is solid. we make that very clear in the bill that is before you. let me just conclude with two additional points, one dealing with the amendment process.
3:26 pm
senator kirk pointed out we asked members who believe that they can improve this bill to come forward. let's see the amendments and try to work with you on the amendments. let's maintain the bipartisan cooperation we have here. let's maintain a strong bill that accomplishes the purpose. come down, let us take a look at it. remember, we had a lot of strong views in the senate foreign relations committee and we came together. let's keep that same spirit here and i would just urge those who may have amendments come on down, let us see them. we've got today. it's before next tuesday. let's share them with us so that we have an opportunity to -- to keep the unity that we have. and then lastly, mr. president i just want to join where senator corker began and that is to thank the incredible effort that took place on behalf of this bill. senator corker already mentioned all my colleagues that are involved here. i see senator menendez is on the floor. senator menendez and senator
3:27 pm
kaine both were on the floor. on the democratic side, they are the authors of this bill, they're the ones who drafted it. they're the ones why we're here today from the democrats. and i thank both of them. from the beginning they said we want a process to review. we're not talking about the merits. the merits some people pick up later and we want to preserve the normal prerogatives of the senate and we want to keep this -- keep politics out of it. that was their intent from day one. and quite frankly working with senator corker, quite frankly that's what i carried out in my negotiations with senator corker. to maintain that balance that was the intent of the legislation. so i thank both of them and the other members of our committees that were involved, and lastly on a point of just personal privilege right now because i might forget to do this later i just want to thank jodie herman of our staff and margaret taylor.
3:28 pm
i want to thank jean salgary on my staff and joycelyn much for the extraordinary time they put in. i want to thank president obama thank president obama for giving me his time so that i understood what he was trying to achieve and how we could work together to achieve the objectives of the united states and kitty fallon and dennis mcdonnell of his staff for the work that they put in so we could reach this moment. with that, mr. president i would yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president i want to rise in support of this bipartisan legislation with a sincere hope that we can pass the iran nuclear review act as it was unanimously voted out of the committee. now, i have worked tirelessly with the chairman and with the ranking member and with members of the committee senator kaine who had so much input in the
3:29 pm
conceptualization of what we want them to do, to build this bill -- to bring this bill to the floor with the strongest bipartisan support. in my view, the best way to send a clear message to tehran about our expectations is for congress to pass the corker-menendez nuclear agreement review act as it was voted out of committee. the spirit of bipartisanship that underscores congress' critical role in the highest priority national security, nuclear nonproliferation challenge of our time was unanimously passed out of the foreign relations committee and i hope we can send the same message from the senate floor. countering iran's nuclear ambitions has been something i have worked on passionately for a long time. senator corker and i fashioned language that became the framework of this final bill to ensure that congress remains engaged in reviewing and if
3:30 pm
there is an agreement overseeing its implementation. so i want to thank chairman corker. he has just done an exceptional job. he had this concept before any of us were agreed to it, and he was willing to work with us and was dogged, i must say until we got to the point that we could come together and offer the legislation in a bipartisan way and that has been the hallmark of this chairmanship, it was the hallmark of his time as ranking member when i was the chairman, and i really appreciate the fashion in which he has worked to continue to move the committee as i started it in a bipartisan way because as the ranking member, senator cardin, said that is when we are most powerful in terms of foreign policy. i want to thank senator cardin for his work in helping forge a deal both sides of the aisle can come to this floor and support with a clear conscience knowing we have sent a clear message to
3:31 pm
tehran and we are united as we have always been on iran policy. and on this issue we speak with one voice. the simple fact is, if the p-5 plus 1 and iran ultimately achieve a comprehensive agreement by the june deadline, at the end of the day congress must make a judgment on it, and have oversight responsibility, and this legislation provides it. it establishes a managed process for congressional review and a framework for congressional oversight. now, mr. president i differentiate between this agreement and others the administration has cited for exclusive executive action because the sanctions relief that is at the heart of this deal was crafted by congress and enacted by congress into law. it is primarily statutory and as the author of those sanctions working with others, i can tell
3:32 pm
you that we never envisioned a wholesale waiver of sanctions without congressional input and without congressional action. the limited sanctions relief provided in the law was intended to provide the president with discretion to waive specific sanctions in specific circumstances, such as the country was making real progress in reducing their oil purchases from iran. so my goal has always been one goal and that is to make certain that iran does not have the infrastructure to develop a nuclear weapon. i've worked towards that goal since my earliest days in congress. now, as we approach the witching hour for an agreement the best way to achieve our goal is with bipartisan support on this legislation that strengthens the united states' hand in moving from a political framework to a comprehensive agreement and sets out clear and
3:33 pm
decisive expectations for iranian compliance. the message we send to tehran is that sanctions relief is not a given, and sanctions relief certainly is not a prize for signing on the dotted line. this bill ensures that iran must fully comply with all provisions of an agreement that effectively dismantles its nuclear weapons program and provides robust inspection and verification mechanisms to ensure its compliance with every word of that deal. if iran breaches an agreement congress will have the ability to restore sanctions on an expedited basis. now, as i've said, i've been outspoken on this issue from the beginning for years for as long as i've been here. and, frankly i have many questions about the framework agreement. i have questions about the divergent understandings of the agreement. i have questions about the pace of sanctions relief.
3:34 pm
i don't believe that iran should get a signing bonus. i'm concerned by the president's most recent statement that greater sanctions relief could come up for iran. i have questions about iran's retention of research and development authorities and to what extent they can advance their research and development because great irresearch -- greater research and development means more sophisticated centrifuges that can spin faster and dramatically reduce breakout time towards a nuclear bomb. i'm concerned about the ability to snap back sanctions if there are violations of the agreement. from what i can see we have a committee process that will not guarantee that the snapback will take place or that it will take place expeditiously. i'm concerned about the international atomic energy administration's ability to obtain any time anywhere snap inspections. and what happened to iran having to come clean about the possible
3:35 pm
military and weapons dimensions of their program? and more than anything else, i'm concerned about what will happen when the critical elements of the proposed agreement expire after ten years. are we relegateed to accepting iran as a nuclear weapons state? the presumption that iran will become a compliant nuclear nonproliferation treaty state in that time for me is not borne out of their -- is not borne when you see their insistence and our acquiescence to keeping key nuclear infrastructure and key nuclear facilities under the agreement and it's not born out by history. iran has been been on a single path towards nuclear weapons for more than 20 years. by deceit and deception sometimes without detection until they were well established facilities. they have advanced their drive for nuclear power to the precipice of achieving a nuclear bomb.
3:36 pm
for me, these are all issues that speak more forcefully to the reasons for having congressional review and oversight of any potential agreement. now, i didn't fangs along with colleagues a sanctions regime for the sake of sanctions. it was for the sake of getting iran to deter its course. and there is no one who would want to see the successful result of that design than me. by the same token i do embrace what the administration has said time and time again that no deal is better than a bad deal, and i will independently judge what that deal is when there is a final deal. at a minimum, this legislation gives us the oversight role to monitor and address our concerns. so i urge my colleagues when the bill comes for a vote to vote for it as it was voted out of committee because it does what all of us want to do, provide a
3:37 pm
clear opportunity for a review of any agreement so we can express, if desired our support or opposition to any agreement and have a clear oversight role with established parameters for compliance. let's vote on what the agreement does not what it might have done or could have done if we had different amendments to it. now, i respect everybody's views and everybody's rights to have amendments. i hope that those who have ideas will work with the chairman and the ranking member. but i will oppose amendments, at least with my own vote, that i consider to be poisonous and undermine the very essence of what we accomplish in the senate foreign relations committee. sometimes you got to know when you hit a home run and be able to cross the plate and say we hit a home run. and i think you're -- not think you're still stuck in the dugout. what we did in the committee is
3:38 pm
as close to a home run as i can see it. let's vote on the merits of a bill that gives us the oversight and the ability to cast a judgment that we need to send a clear message we are united in our determination to prevent iran from ever becoming a nuclear weapons state and potentially igniting a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous tinderbox of the world. i urge my colleagues to suppress any intentions that would drive this to a point that we can't have that strong vote, that we can't send that strong message to iran. there is no stronger message to iran particularly in this critical time in which i think we strengthen the administration and the p-5 plus 1's hand by saying there is a congressional review and potential judgment. so that the final agreement that we get hopefully can be one that we can all embrace. and we can do that, we can actually have an effect by passing this legislation. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor.
3:39 pm
the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: i just want to again thank senator menendez for his tremendous leadership on this issue. he brought up a point that i wish i'd made in my opening comments and have made it every time i presented this bill else ways but a lot of people don't realize at present because of the waivers that are part of the sanctions that we put in place, some of them through independent piece of legislation, some of them through ndaa's. in each case the president was given a national security waiver. and, again as the senator mentioned, it was never thought that that waiver would be utilized to waive things ad infinitum. at present a lot of people don't understand this but the president today has the power without this legislation to go straight to the u.n. security council without coming to congress and implement whatever deal he wants to implement with iran. he has that ability.
3:40 pm
and so when you think about what's happening here -- and this is what's so powerful about this bipartisan effort -- is that we together, we together, have said wait a minute, we want -- if we pass this legislation, we want to retake the ability ourselves to lift those sanctions or to have them lifted. we don't want the president going straight to the u.n. security council i know that senator kaine is here on the floor. i cannot thank him enough for getting involved in the time that he did. i remember distinctly in the committee meeting where we had testimony from our secretary of state and i remember him articulating better than anyone yet the fact that if -- at some point down the road we're going to have to permanently lift the sanctions which, by the way could be five, six, seven years down the road, long after this sanctions regime has totally imploded.
3:41 pm
we're going to have to do it permanently down the road wouldn't it make sense for us to go ahead and review this on the front end and have the opportunity if we think it's not something worthy of it to approve or disapprove if we decide to do that. i know senator kaine wants to speak. i cannot thank him enough for his knowledge of congressional responsibilities as it relates to these kinds of issues, his input which was invaluable at the time it occurred and candidly created the momentum for us to move ahead. with that i yield the floor thanking him very much for his efforts in this regard. mr. kaine: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: i rise to speak in favor of the corker-menendez bill and thank chairman corker for his kind words and the opportunity to work together on something in what i believe to be the best traditions of our committee and of the senate. i thank my ranking member, senator cardin, for being a great facilitator at the end to help us get over a number of
3:42 pm
challenging issues to a point of unanimity on the committee and to senator menendez, whose long-term interest in this issue has been so consistent and so helpful and whose work on this particular piece of legislation was critical. i believe senator corker began and i want to begin as well with a condolence to the family of dr. weinstein, a marylander, who the announcement today about his death in afghanistan in a drone strike sort of reminds us of the stakes that are involved in these kinds of issues. when we are talking about american military action or about diplomacy around a nuclear weapons program it's not a bill we're talking about it's not a concept we're talking about, we're talking about human lives and even in the best of circumstances, there will be days like today when there will be sad news and americans who are in harm's way because of the dangerous nature of the world and i feel like the announcement
3:43 pm
today about dr. weinstein our condolences to his family should remind us of the seriousness of our obligation. senator cardin started with that great wisdom of senator vendenburg that politics stops at the water's edge. we probably all now that was never 100% true. i know a little bit about some of the challenges that jefferson and other virginians had early and there's always politics but there is a core wisdom to that principle. a very important wisdom of course we're going to battle because we see things differently and people seeing things differently can sometimes get to a greater understanding. that's what we hope to do. but the reason politics should stop at the water's edge is because we want to send a unified message to our allies as they depend on us, we need to send a unified message to our adversaries about our intention but i would say this a personal
3:44 pm
way because of maybe representing the commonwealth of virginia we've got to send a unified message to the men and women in our this amendment services who serve who are serving in battlefields, serving in theaters of military operations around the world when we are contemplating decisions about something so big that could potentially lead to war we just deployed virginia-based ships like the theodore roosevelt to yemen to potentially check iranian ambitions vis-a-vis the huthi rebels those are virgin islandsians deployed on those ships, we owe it to those risking their lives to try to be as nonpartisan as we can so that they know they're not serving just because one party thinks they should or the other party thinks they should but the missions they're undertaking are missions of national consensus. i feel that very strongly and why i'm so gratified this bill
3:45 pm
reaches the floor on a fundamental matter in a bipartisan way. with respect to our negotiations with iran, there are a view out there on the table that if congress wanted to be involved, it must be because we are against diplomacy. in the he committee, i said that notion was offensive to me. there were those even who suggested that those who wanted a congressional oversight role were pro-war which was highly offensive and insulting. i am pro-diplomacy. i supported the president's commencement of these negotiations in november of 2013. i think america has a wonderful diplomatic tradition where we have been able to achieve a lot when diplomacy is done right. i actually think the negotiation period from november, 2013, today has produced tangible benefit for the united states, our allies and the world because iran has rolled back its stockpile of 20% enriched uranium. they have allowed inspections that they didn't allow before, and even nations and leaders who were skeptical about whether the
3:46 pm
negotiation would work have admitted to me, maybe i shouldn't have been skeptical. the negotiation period has produced some benefits. in the framework announced on april 2, i see some items that i like and i see some other things that i have some deep questions about, but a commitment by iran, for example, to roll back uranium stockpiles from 10,000 kill i grams to 300 kill i grams -- kilograms just a fraction of what would be necessary to produce even one weapon, would be very positive. but i say all that just to say that as a pro-diplomacy senator as someone who would love to find a negotiation that worked to a positive end, i believe strongly that a congressional review role of a matter such as this is necessary and it's helpful and it's something frankly, that the american public deserves. it's necessary for the reasons that have been described. now, the president under article
3:47 pm
2 powers has significant ability to conduct foreign policy and even strike agreements without congressional approval. there are many things a president can do in the foreign policy sphere without congressional approval, but this is fundamentally a negotiation about what must iran do to get out from under sanctions that congress has constructed congress has imposed congress has perfected and improved over years, and if that is the negotiation, there is no way to have an ultimate deal about the unwinding and eventual repeal of a congressional sanctions statute without congressional review. so congress is necessary to this deal. second congressional review is helpful. it is helpful for the negotiators as they are in this final chapter to know that they must negotiate to their very best because they'll have to sell this deal to congress as the elected representatives of the american people. that's a helpful discipline for our negotiators. it's helpful for the iranians who want to get out from under
3:48 pm
congressional sanctions to have some sense of how congress might ultimately look at this deal. put yourself in the iranian shoes. we want them to make huge concessions, not modest ones, but what is their incentive to make big concessions to get out from under congressional sanctions if they have no idea what congress will likely do? we have put a process in place that will give them some sense of what congress will do in an orderly way and that will be an incentive, i believe for larger concessions. and finally not only is this review bill necessary not only is it helpful it's what the american public expects and deserves and i think we have all been looking at the way the american public has been reacting to this negotiation. the american like are like all of us. they are deeply worried about an iranian nuclear weapons program. they're like all of us. they would love it if we could find a diplomatic end to the
3:49 pm
iranian nuclear weapons program. they're like all of us. they're skeptical about whether iran will follow an agreement. and they overwhelmingly believe that if there is an agreement it should be an agreement that congress approves. why do they think congress should approve it? is it because we have fantastic approval ratings? absolutely not. we don't have great approval ratings. but the american public says in our anxiety about whether we can trust iran on a deal, we will feel better if both the executive and the legislative have looked at this deal and concluded like you would try to get a second opinion from a doctor on something that was really important if both the executive and legislative conclude that it's a good thing for our country and our national security they're going to feel more comfortable given the natural anxiety they have about iranian compliance. and so that's why this bill is
3:50 pm
so important. finally, i want to talk about how the bill got here because i do think there's a lesson for the floor activity on the bill but also for the body more generally. this bill was filed an original version in 2014 and i did not sign onto it. our chairman, senator corker and i, were in the middle east in january with five other senators in saudi arabia, qatar and israel and as we returned after a set of discussions with both governmental leaders military leaders, civil society political leaders about many topics including the iranian negotiation, senator corker, a friend sort of challenged me a little bit. hey, you're the guy who likes to say that congress needs to play a role. i have been pushing hard for congress to play a role in an authorization of military force against isil. if that's what you think why aren't you on this bill about congressional approval of a deal with iran? and i said well, that's actually
3:51 pm
a very good question. you're right. i do believe in congressional approval. but there are some aspects of the bill that i don't like. and the chairman said to me then fine you rewrite it or propose amendments and let's see if we can work together. and so i did and others did and we put our best good-faith proposals down on the table and we found a listening ear and a staff and a set of senators on both sides of the aisle that were willing to try to exercise that congressional approval role but do it in the right way not the wrong way. when we filed this bill on september 27 there were two democratic original sponsors and two republican original sponsors and then there were five additional democratic cosponsors and five additional republican cosponsors. and so from the very day this bill hit the floor we were trying to build it in a bipartisan way to show that that vandenburg maxim although
3:52 pm
possibly not as true even when it was stated and certainly not as true today as we would like it that it still had some power, and we wanted to show the body that we could do it in a bipartisan way so that our allies and our adversaries and our troops would see that we could act in a bipartisan way on something so important. there were steps between the filing of the bill and the foreign relations committee action that threatened to push the bill off the bipartisan rails into partisanship in ways that might have served a short-term purpose but that would have probably killed the bill. and the chairman and others made sure that that did not happen. so when we got to the vote in the foreign relations committee and it went from two plus two to seven plus seven and eventually 19-0 we carefully worked at every step along the way to make this bipartisan to hopefully send an example on the floor that that's what it should be, robust debate and amendment, of course that's what this body is about, but we want to make sure
3:53 pm
that this review of this most important matter is done in a way that is careful and prompt and deliberate, according to rules that all can respect and all can understand. and so i conclude, mr. president, just with thanks to my colleagues on the committee, to the leadership of the chair both as the original drafter of the bill and then as the drafter willing to entertain other ideas and then as the chair of the committee trying to bring this to a productive place. i thank senator cardin for his great role in helping us bridge differences and especially for his communication with the whitehouse. the whitehouse threatened to veto this bill, but senator cardin probably better than most was able to listen to the concerns and then try to respond to the concerns in a way we could make the bill productive. this matter is so important that we -- we just can't tackle it in any way other than trying to
3:54 pm
follow to the best we humanly can that vandenberg maxim and i hope as we get into the deliberations on the floor next week that that will be the spirit of all the colleagues who tackle this most important matter. with that, mr. president i thank you and yield the floor. mr. cardin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: mr. president i just really want to thank senator kaine and i appreciate you outlining how this legislation went from unlikely to have much impact because we just didn't have the consensus and the numbers necessary to get it through to the finish line. it would have had a very, very difficult time getting through the committee let alone the floor of the senate and the house and signed by the president but how people listen to each other. so i'm glad the two of you went on the trip together because i think we need to do more of that here. and senator kaine and senator
3:55 pm
corker are both kids who have a deep respect for the proper role of the united states senate and the senate foreign relations committee and a united states senator. and i think -- i'm proud to serve with both of you and i'm pleased to see that we have found ways that we really can bridge differences in order to achieve a common purpose and we were not interested in scoring political points. we're interesting in doing what our responsibility is all about. so senator corker is now probing a way that we can reauthorize the state department, the role that our committee should have and therefore directly deal with our responsibilities in the united states senate through the appropriate committee. i think all of these are efforts that working together we can have the senate perform the proper role in this government of ours to make sure that there is the legislative branch weighs in where it's appropriate on
3:56 pm
foreign policy issues. i just really want to thank you senator kaine and senator corker for giving us a good model to how legislation should be developed. i was proud to work with senator corker so that we could get the whitehouse and get some of our members who didn't quite share the enthusiasm of this legislation to a place where they are comfortable in supporting the bill. not only supporting the bill but enthusiastically supporting the bill in order to get it done. i also appreciate you mentioning warren winestein. warren winestein was a resident of maryland. his wife elaine i have talked to on different occasions. a very brave woman. did everything she could to bring her husband home. warren winestein was a u.s. aid worker in pakistan. he did that because he wanted to do good for the world. he was very well respected carrying out his mission in a
3:57 pm
most professional way. he was on his way home basically when he got kidnapped in 2011, kidnapped by al qaeda. and as you know, the president announced today that he was killed in january along with an italian national who was also serving. and our thoughts and prayers go out to the family. our hearts are broken. and senator mikulski, congressman delaney and i have frequently met with the family over the years to try to put a spotlight at the appropriate time dealing with a hostage situation. it's very difficult to deal with a hostage situation when it's not a government that's holding a person, and it makes it much more complicated. but i do think in addition to doing everything we can to keep our americans safe, who go to these countries on our behalf
3:58 pm
using diplomacy basically and development assistance for a more stable country we've got to do everything we can to keep them safe, and we have to recognize the risk factors. in circumstances like this, we have to have strategies to do everything we possibly can to bring these people back home safely and i know we all share that but then we have to make the world a little bit safer and that's what this review statute is all about because i do believe it does give us a better opportunity to get the right agreement from iran that would prevent it from becoming a nuclear weapon power which is a game changer for the security in that region. let me mention just one other example. i'm going to put this information into the record. there was an enormous human tragedy. another boat carrying desperate refugees and migrants capsized in the mediterranean sea. the most recent instance, over
3:59 pm
850 men women and children had died. now, these are pretty desperate situations when you take these dangerous voyages. the number of people who have died in the mediterranean in 2014 we know that well over 280,000 refugees and migrants crossed the mediterranean sea many fleeing violence, conflict, persecution in syria iraq, atrea. we also know that yemen was involved here. last year's death total surpassed 1,750 victims. i mention that because what iran is doing in this region is adding to the migration and refugee issues. its support of terrorism and its involvement in yemen its involvement in syria its involvement in other countries is causing people to take desperate action in order to stay safe. so we are here today to do something about that.
4:00 pm
and, mr. president, i would ask consent if i could put into the record my statement in regards to the tragedy in the mediterranean. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: thank you. but i just -- it's just another motivation for us to do everything we can to provide the type of policies that are necessary in that region of the world, to make people safer to have sustainable countries that can protect all of its citizens. with that, mr. president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk should call the roll. quorum call:
4:01 pm
4:02 pm
a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. a senator: i ask consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cotton: mr. president today we will begin the most important conversation a debate not just about this piece of legislation, but a debate about a nuclear iran and the consequences that a nuclear iran would create for the world. it is today the gravest threat to the world. iran already is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, according to the obama administration's own state department. we see the regional aggression
4:03 pm
on display? syria, lebanon and iraq, and now in yemen. they have a very bad habit of killing jews around the world from israel to bavaria to argentina. they held four u.s. citizens hostage today without just cause or due process. they do all those things without a nuclear weapon and with tens of billions of dollars frozen overseas. what can we expect if iran is able to develop nuclear weapons capabilities? first, we'll see more regional aggression as they use their nuclear umbrella to continue their drive for regional dominance throughout the middle east. and as they use the tens of billions of dollars sanctions relief would give them not to build hospitals or schools or roads or to improve the lives of their people but rather, to prop up their proxies like hezbollah or the houhtis.
4:04 pm
likely, they to use those nuclear weapons. the original supreme leader upon taking power said that the islamic revolution did not care about iran or the persian nation or its hoamplet they cared about spreading worldwide islamic revolution. this is not a normal state and these are not normal leaders. third, we'll see a nuclear arms race throughout the middle east. as many senators in this institution have heard from senior government officials of sunni states throughout the gulf, they cannot tolerate a persian-shiite nuclear power whether they develop with their indigenous capabilities with some instances or whether they purchase it from overseas. we'll see the world's most dangerous and volatile region strung with nuclear tripwires. these countries may provide nuclear weapons to terrorists to be used against american troops
4:05 pm
in the region, against our allies like israel or other countries, or in one of the harbors on america's coasts, if not in the american heartland. or frinl fifth be, terrorists may get their hands on nuclear materials, as has tended to happen in the middle east in recent decades. the president started these negotiations on the grounds that we would stop iran from getting a nuclear weapon. yet he has consistently back backpedaled and reversed himself. rather than now trying to disarm iran's nuclear program we're content to try to manage it, to limit the breakout time to one mere year, if that. the united nations security council has passed multiple resolutions saying that iran has no right to enrich uranium that now we're going to concede iran the right to continue advantaged
4:06 pm
right into sentry fiewjts to keep its stockpiles. the president said less than a year ago -- or, i should say barely more than a year ago after the negotiations started that iran had no reason to have a hardened underground military bunker in which they kept centrifuge cascades. yet, according to our own proposed fact sheet much of which iran disputes, we're going to concede. the president said that iran had no reason to keep its stockpiles and iran had reportedly agreed to tentatively export those to a third party. at the last minute in switzerland, they reversed themselves saying they would agreeinsist on keeping their stockpiles. we have insisted that we would not grant iran immediate sanctions relief. the president's own term sheet said we wouldn't grant such
4:07 pm
relief. iran's term sheet cases differently. just friday when confronted with this screp an circumstance the president said we might have to find creative ways around this disagreement. creative ways to get iran on its way to becoming a nuclear threshold power tens of billions of dollars reportedly even a $50 billion signing bonus, as if iran was not a theocratic dictatorial regime but a blue chip prospect in the nfl draft. these negotiations have also excluded most of iran's outlawed behavior currently developing intercontinental ballistic missile, for which there is no reason other than striking the united states; holding those four hostages without due process or fair trials; stopping its regional aggression, stopping its support for terrorism. this legislation has some good elements in it. it would suspend the president's
4:08 pm
ability to waive captions for approximately seven weeks while we consider any proposed deal, if such a deal is reached at some point in the future. it would also require the president to certify every 90 days that iran is living up to its obligations under any such deal. but it only goes into effect after such a deal is announced and any deal along the lines the president proposed two weeks ago is dangerous for the united states and dangerous for the world. and it's congress' job to stop such a deal before it happens. now, the sponsors of this bill didn't up-end the constitutional baseline. this bill should be submitted for a treaty. the president should have to get 67 votes for a major nuclear arms agreement with an outlaw regime. but instead congress has to get 67 votes in the senate to block such a bill. that's why i intend to support senator johnson's amendment that would require this to be submitted as a treaty.
4:09 pm
this legislation omits most of iran's outlaw behavior, and it doesn't lay out the terms on which congress would insist before there is sanctions relief in addressing this outlaw behavior. and it may allow the president to argue in the future, if a mere 34 senators vote against a resolution of disaapproval to say that congress has acquiesced in his agreement and that he now has support from the congress, not just acting on his own whim. therefore, i expect to offer i expect to support amendments that are offered in three main categories: first, an amendment that would treat any resolution of disaapproval as a privilege amendment, subject not to a 60-vote threshold but a 51-vote threshold. we should not let 34 senators block a resolution of disaapproval from going into effect.
4:10 pm
we certainly shouldn't allow 41 senators to impede the will of 59 senators who disagree with any future deal, from forcing the president to veto it and depriving him of the ability to claim that congress has acquiesced to his action. the second main category would be to limit the administration's discretion in the future on reporting about breaches of an agreement should an agreement be reached and should it not be brought by the congress. this says that the administration should report potentially significant breaches to the congress so that -- and then determine whj those potentially significant breaches are a material breach, which it defines as substantially producing iran's break--out time or improving iran's nuclear program. we should strike those lawyers' vague terms. they should submit every breach to us. they should submit every time the breakout time is decreased
4:11 pm
or iran's nuclear program improves its position. it is our job as the people's representatives to decide whether that is material, whether it is significant. and the third category of amendments is that iran should not get sanctions relief until they live up to their international obligations until they meet the very baseline terms the president himself laid out at the beginning of these negotiations or even after the negotiations have begun. and until iran acts like a civilized country. there should be no sanctions relief until the president can certify that the hardened underground military facility at fordo is closed. he himself said there should be no sanctions relief until iran has lived up to its international obstacles to the iae. -- iaea and disclose its past
4:12 pm
nuclear program without which ink specialghts have no baseline to know what the status of their program is today. there should be no sanctions relief until the president can certify that iran is not developing intercontinental ballistic missile. they have missiles that can defend their own territory and that can strike most of their neighbors in the middle east. they are developing intercontinental ballistic missiles for one reason: to strike the united states with a nuclear warhead. there should be no sanctions relief until the president can certify that iran is not any longer sponsoring terrorism because it goes to the heart of the threat that iran poses. other countries in the world are a nuclear threshold power: japan and germany and south korea. we don't have debates about those countries being a nuclear threshold power because they are remain inial countries with normal leaders who do not call us the great satan and call israel the little satan and
4:13 pm
threaten to wipe israel off the man. until the nature of the iran regime changes, we cannot allow them to have weapons of this nature and they will not change until they renounce terrorism. next the president should have to certify that iran is not cooperating with north korea as it has done countless times on ballistic missile programs and nuclear technology. an outlaw regime whose current nuclear status foretells the future of this deal. in 1994 the agreed framework was supposed to stop north korea from become ago nuclear power that just is it 12 years later they developed nuclear weapons. now by most estimates they have 20 a number that could double in just a few years, most of which -- or most of the united states falling underneath the threat of a north korean nuclear attack. next there should be no sanctions relief until all four
4:14 pm
american hostages are released. pastor sigh yesterday ama dean, robert levinson, and jason resm are an, a "washington post" reporter. that should have been a term before we even sat down at the table, that no american will be held hostage by an outlaw like iran before we start negotiating with them. they and they are families deserve no less. there should be no sanctions relief until the president can certify that iran has agreed to anytime, anywhere inspections. this is an ongoing point of major dispute between president obama and iran's leaders. but if we can't go to their military facilities, if we can't inspect any facility instantly without notification, we'll be engaged in the same kind of cat-and-mouse regime that has caused inspections regimes to fail time and time again.
4:15 pm
finally, iran should recognize israel's right to exist. it's not too much to simply say that israel has a right to exist as a jewish and a democratic country, for a country that just a few months ago was tweeting -- tweeting nine different reasons why israel should be annihilated from the world. these are very simple terms most of which president obama himself outlined before these negotiations began but which are clear and binding international obligations on iran. they're good amendments that would strengthen this bill, a bill that touches on the most important issues that most of us will address during our time in the united states senate. when we considered the ask keystone pipeline bill, an important bill but dealt with a single pipeline, we considered almost 250 amendments. we voted on over 40. surely we should have the same robust consideration and debate
4:16 pm
when the voting on this bill and i called for the majority leader's cooperation this morning. most of these amendments touch directly on the heart of this administration. i look forward to casting up-or-down votes on a 51-vote threshold on all of these amendments and many more my colleagues may offer. i regret that i may miss some of this debate. i may have to ask some of my colleagues to submit amendments for me. my first child is due today. by the time this bill hits the floor next week for debating and voting i expect my first child will have arrived. but i will not allow my son to live under the threat of a nuclear iran, the threat of nuclear attack and ultimate nuclear war any more than i will allow the sons and the daughters of arkansans or all americans to live under that threat. so i look forward to this debate. i look forward to stopping iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
4:17 pm
mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
4:18 pm
4:19 pm
4:20 pm
4:21 pm
4:22 pm
4:23 pm
4:24 pm
4:25 pm
4:26 pm
4:27 pm
4:28 pm
4:29 pm
4:30 pm
quorum call:
4:31 pm
a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: thank you sir. i ask unanimous consent that the senate be in a period of morning business with -- the presiding officer: excuse me. the senate is still in a quorum call. mr. corker: if i could ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. corker: i ask unanimous consent that the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. corker: and with that, i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
4:32 pm
4:33 pm
4:34 pm
4:35 pm
4:36 pm
4:37 pm
4:38 pm
4:39 pm
4:40 pm
4:41 pm
4:42 pm
4:43 pm
ms. heitkamp: mr. president?
4:44 pm
the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. ms. heitkamp: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. heitkamp: mr. president i also ask unanimous consent that destiny whitehead, an intern in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remaining of the session today. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. ms. heitkamp: mr. president i rise today to continue our efforts to honor our nation's and the north dakota's vietnam veterans who were killed in action during the vietnam war. 198 soldiers from north dakota died while serving in vietnam. today i'm honored to speak about some of these brave men and the stories their families have shared with us. i need to credit david irbir -- irsayer -- sorry david -- of bismarck a vietnam veteran for his service and for his years of reaching out to the family members of these fallen north
4:45 pm
dakota patriots. over the past 20 years david contacted each family to obtain a photo of each service member and a photo of his gravestone. i'm grateful for david meeting with my staff to share his collection of owe bit obituaries photos and news articles he's collected. the bismarck high students and their teachers who were also-reaching north dakota service members who didn't come home from vietnam and i'm happy today to include research from b.h.s.'s 11th grade students about two such men gary meyers and david bujalski. first of our soldiers is john frost. john was from hunter. he was born on march 16, 1948. he served in the army's 169th infantry brigade. john was 20 years old when he
4:46 pm
was killed on december 20, 1968. john was the oldest of three children and helped his dad on the family farm. during high school, john participated in the school newspaper, in choir in letterman's club, a school play and was a class officer. he was also an all-around athlete who earned letters in track, baseball, football, and basketball. his mother, lois, still remembers how proud she was the day he scored 33 points in one basketball game in a winning effort. after high school, john enrolled in valley city state college. he was a quiet fun loving boy who dreamed of returning to his hometown to work as a teacher and a basketball coach. john's mother and brother kevin remember john's kindness, especially towards his grandma alice while she was staying with the family recuperating from breaking her hip. while his parents were out of
4:47 pm
town john stayed home caring for his grandma even making potato pancakes for her. jon greenley. jon was from fargo. he was born on january 30, 1942. he served in the air force's 774th tactical aerial flight squadron. jon died on january 7 1966. he was 23 years old. jon was one of three sons. his brother doug remembers that jon respected authority. jon sent doug a letter stating that the only time he questioned their parents' judgment was when i was buying a lawnmower and they suggested he buy a type he didn't like. from a young age jon had an interest in planes and in the military. he joined the north dakota air national guard. when his parents wouldn't take him to see the air museum in
4:48 pm
ohio he hitchhiked there. jon attended north dakota state university and became president of the international relations group there. he was named outstanding rotc of the air force and was the first alternative to the air force academy. the fargo amvets post founded in 1980 was named after jon. his body has never been recovered. dan herdebu. dan was from baldwin. he was born on july 21, 1948. he served in the army's first aviation brigade. he was 19 years old when he died on march 10, 1968. dan and his two brothers attended their two-room school through the eighth grade and then they attended bismarck high school. dan had planned to put his aviation experience to good use by flying helicopters for law
4:49 pm
enforcement or medical facilities someday. dan's older brother eugene, was in basic training when dan was killed in a helicopter crash in vietnam. after dan's death eugene also served in vietnam and the army. alan heinz peter. alan was from minot. he was born on may 12, 1949. he served in the army's 101st airborne decision. alan died on september 6 1971. he was 22 years old. alan was one of four children. his brother gordie also served in vietnam and their father served in world war ii in the navy. alan's friends and family called him pete, remembering him as a hard worker who was smart and who was generous with his money. he was a jokester who liked everyone and everyone liked. his oldest sister jean tells
4:50 pm
about the time he wanted to watch the world series so he smoked a cigarette at school so he could get suspended. jean said alan was only 5'4" but he had a big personality. many many people attended his funeral, and still today remember him fondly. gerald alan al iverson. al was from oakes. he was born on may 26, 1947. he served in the army's ninth infantry division. he was 20 years old when he died on november 1, 1967. alan was the second youngest of 14 kids seven boys and seven girls. allen's siblings say he was a fun-loving brother with red hair and freckles. he loved baseball and fishing. he also enjoyed spending time with his older sibling's kids, the oldest in his family, and
4:51 pm
he wanted to get married someday and have six kids of his own. al had three months left before he was scheduled to return home. he was the first dickey county soldier to die in vietnam. norbert froehlich. he was a belfield, he was born on march 4 1947. he served in the army's 503rd infantry -- airborne infantry regiment. norbert died january 30, 19 . he was 19 years old. he was the ninth of ten kids and he grew up on his family farm. three of his brothers also served our country in the military. his friends both in the army and from high school remember norbert as a friend who stuck by them through thick and thin. his brother don says that norbert was wounded in vietnam and was supposed to be on r & r
4:52 pm
in australia but chose to stay in vietnam to help his fellow soapings. his church in belfield recognizes him every year on the anniversary of his death. after his death the army promoted norbert to corporal. gerhardt just. gerhardt just was from wishek and was born october 21, 1925. he served in the army's first aviation brigade. gerhardt died on august 27 1965. he was 39 years old. he is survived by his wife lillian his daughters otika and cora and his son butch. gerhardt joined the army serving in korea and then reenlisting in the army to provide for his family. gerhardt's oldest child otika, remembers it was so important for her dad to support his family financially that
4:53 pm
after his pickup caught fire and burned the diver's seat, he put a kitchen chair in the cab so he could drive to his second job. his kids have memories of spending some of their last time together working on the house he bought them, installing grass in the yard and painting the house just days before his deployment. gerhardt was killed just a month after arriving in vietnam. gerhardt's children appreciate how after his death gerhardt's parents and siblings always welcomed his widow and children into their family with open arms. gary meyers. gary was from fort yates and was born november 4, 1947. he served in the marine corps' third reconnaissance battalion. gary was 20 years old when he died on may 13, 1968. gary's father served in the army during the korean war and was stationed in germany where gary
4:54 pm
was born. gary spent one year at dickinson state university before enlisting. gary's sister linda remembers him as an outgoing person who loved to help people when he had a chance. he was an honor student and enjoyed playing sports, including wrestling football, and rodeo. when he wasn't busy with sports gary was helping his father -- helping his father work on their cattle ranch. gary's hometown friends and fellow soldiers report that gary was killed in vietnam while leading a mission to retrieve his lieutenant's body one month before gary was scheduled to return home to his family in the united states. larry olson. larry was from mchenry. he was born june 26 1945. he served in the army's 25th infantry division. larry died on june 19 1968. he was 22 years old.
4:55 pm
larry's grandfather served in world war i his father in world war ii, and his brother and nephews also served our country. larry was the oldest of six children. his sister rita remembers him as the big brother who always watched out for her and kept bullies away. he was a hard worker and a good friend. fellows soldiers from his regiment loved larry so much that they asked rita to show them his grave. richard borgman. rick was born in minot -- was from minot and was born on january 23 1947. he served in the army's 101st airborne division. he was 21 years old when he died on march 3 1968. rick's mother anita and sister pat remember him as a loving, gentle person.
4:56 pm
he participated in boy scouts, worked at the redall grocery store and enjoyed fast cars and life in general. rick left his widow linda and his son shannon and his daughter laura. linda learned she was pregnant with laura shortly after rick's funeral. linda remembers rick's good heart, great sense of humor and that he was loved by many. she said she can see rick whenever she looks at shannon and laura and that shannon's laugh is con the contagious, just like rick's was. linda's grateful that were second husband bruce sullivan a vietnam veteran adopted shannon and laura and lovingly helped her raise them. david bujalski. david was from carrington. he was born august 18 1940. he served in the army corps of engineers 65th energy
4:57 pm
battalion. on august 15 1967, david died. he was 27 years old. david was the youngest of six children lovingly called little david but after reaching the height of 6-his 6 the'2", his family -- 6'2", his family referred to him as a gentle giant. he greated from the top third of his class from west point and married barbara. they had a daughter, elizabeth, while david was stationed in germany. they moved moved to arizona and david became a commander. his first sergeant was quoted as saying he was revered by his cadre, loved by his students and respected by his superiors. david felt a duty to serve in vietnam and eight days after arriving there he was killed by a sniper. his second daughter, kathleen, was born six weeks later. david's brother jack also a west point graduate, wrote the
4:58 pm
following about his brother. david's life was too short for him to have reached his full potential. we can only conjecture as to what he would have achieved but we do know that he influenced the lives of all who knew him. leslie carter. leslie carter was from jamestown. he was born november 3, 1943. he served in the army -- or in the navy as a medic. he was 24 years old when he died on july 1, 1968. leslie left behind his widow marliss and his daughter heidi. he met his wife through his brother douglas. while home on leave leslie won marliss over and the couple later married. a year after their wedding their daughter heidi was born. heidi was 5 months old when her father died and never had an
4:59 pm
opportunity to meet him. one of leslie's high school friends who also served in the navy, james biths called leslie butch and remembered him as one of the nicest, most generous people he had ever had the pleasure of knowing. david cochran -- david coke ran -- cocoran. he was born may 5 1951. he served in the army 101st airborne division. david died on june 26 1969. he was 19 -- excuse me, he was 18 years old. david was one of five children and the only son. he loved hunting with his father grandfathers and uncles. he also enjoyed playing basketball and cars. david helped construct a figure 8 racetrack in grand forks and was happy to be able to race his own cars on the track a few times before it being -- before
5:00 pm
being deployed. wanting to serve his country like his world war ii veteran father david joined the army at age 17. his father hoped he would not be assigned to a combat unit because he was only 17. but a day after his 18th birthday he received his orders to vietnam. will bert fleck. wilbert fleck was born november 22, 1949. he served in the army's first infantry division. he was 19 years old when he died july 27, 1969. wilbert was one of 13 children, seven boys and six girls. six of the seven boys served in the military. wilbert's brothers and sisters remember him as a selfless, caring person. he was always willing to help out a neighbor.
5:01 pm
he was dedicated to caring for his aging grandparents and he was extremely protective of those he loved. wilbert died taking charge of his platoon after his platoon leader was killed. his sister pauline says that this was just the kind of person he was -- always willing to put the needs of others before his own. wilbert was pauline's best friend. lowell hardmire. lowell was from mont. he was born on february 16 1949. he served in the army's 196th light infantry brigade. he died on june 10 1970. he was 21 years old. lowell was the youngest of two sons. he was a blue-eyed boy who loved horses and growing up on his family farm and ranch in the prairie hills. in 1968, lowell graduated from high school and enrolled in the
5:02 pm
national electronics institute in denver before serving in the army. in vietnam lowell had various duties including rear security guard, walking on point patrol and radio operator. he was killed when his company came under a mortar attack. lowell's cousin lauren remembers lowell as a shy sweet young man. she said lowell's parents george and claa hardmeyer grieved lowell's death until their own in the 1990's. merlin peterson. merlin was from fargo and he was born on june 19 1936. he served in the air force's eighth tactical fighter wing. he was 35 years old when he went missing march 29, 1972. merlin was one of nine children, six boys and three girls.
5:03 pm
five of the boys served their country. three in world war ii and two in vietnam. merlin's brother bob remembers him as a wonderful boy who people couldn't help but love. bob jokes that merlin had personality to burn. merlin went missing when his plane was shot down by a surface to air missile. 14 years later in 1986, his body was finally recovered. years later his family was finally able to lay him to rest in arlington national cemetery. these are just a few stories that i hope sharing today with the senate and sharing today on the floor of the senate will remind us all of the tremendous sacrifice that not only these young men have provided for their country but the sacrifice also of their family, their children the wives that they left behind, the parents that
5:04 pm
they leave behind, and that it is a constant reminder we must never forget the duty to our country, we must never forget that those among us who have paid the ultimate price. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
5:05 pm
5:06 pm
5:07 pm
5:08 pm
5:09 pm
5:10 pm
5:11 pm
5:12 pm
5:13 pm
5:14 pm
quorum call:
5:15 pm
5:16 pm
5:17 pm
5:18 pm
5:19 pm
5:20 pm
5:21 pm
mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: mr. president, in the last congress i came to the senate floor to express my concerns about the state of the senate as an institution as it had been beset by destruction obstruction and corrosion of its vital characteristics. today i wish to real estate flect on some of the progress we have made in the first three montes of this congress in
5:22 pm
restoring this great institution to its essential role in our constitutional system and while significant progress has been made there there still remains much work to be done. essentially to properly understanding our work as senators. consider the particularly distinct purposes of the two houses of congress. the house of representatives is the organ of government design to embody the will of its people. its small constituencies and short terms allow its members to be as closely in touch swroarts as possible. with 435 members robust participation by every member in each debate is impossiblely cumbersome. these the house's work is defined by majority rule, as logically befits a body that represents the popular will. by contrast, the framers designed the senate to serve as what they called a necessary
5:23 pm
fence against fickleness and passion that sometimes drives popular pressure for hasty and ill-considered law making or, as edmond rand dueful put it the tush len sis and follow list of democracy. james madison defined its purpose as protecting people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led. through its character and institutional structure the senate not only checks transients and occasionally intemperate impulses, but also refines the popular will with wisdom and sound judgment. perhaps the most important characteristic that guarantees this important function is the senate's relatively small size, which enables each and every senator to contribute meaningfully in debate. the primacy of individual senators' rights has long guided the development of the senatest rules and traditions,
5:24 pm
including the right to extended debate open amendment consideration, and a committee system that gives all members from the most seasoned chairman to the newest freshman, a hand in drafting and improving legislation. moreover, there is the reality that to function efficiently and effectively, the senate frequently requires temporary modifications to the institution's offinstitutioninstitution's ofttimes complex agreements and rules. agreements that require the consent of all members to take effect. the rights of senators are a double-edged sword both a great genius of the institution and the source of some of the greatest pitfalls that may befall it. by giving a minority of senators sometimes even a minority of one great sway over the business of the whole body, each one of us is entrusted with
5:25 pm
enormous powers that can be used to grind the senate to a halt. these powers can be used to do enormous good when used wisely and judiciously from forcing a majority to reconsider misguided legislation to extracting important guarantees from the executive branch. in exchange for allowing a nomination to go forward the former senator from oklahoma, dr. tom coburn, was a leading exponent of these rights. during his in time in the senate, he was legendary of for his use of the rules to stop wasteful spending and limit the expansion of the federal government. while we may not always have agreed on particular matters, it is beyond question that his willingness to stand up for what he believed in, even in the face of overwhelming opposition, did enormous good for our nation. dr. coburn's service demonstrates exactly why the senate allows a minority to hold such sway over this body. nevertheless while the whole
5:26 pm
republic has benefited time and time again from the senate minority's judicious exercise of its rights, we know all too well how these rights can be abused. the senate's procedures have become bywords for mindless obstruction in recent years. in the mind of many of our fellow citizens, what drives the exercise of minority rights is not the interests of thoughtful legislating and productive oversight but rather, mindless partisanship and political grandstanding. from various quarters, including some within this very body, we ofng hear calls to eliminate the various rights of the minority and though these calls may be instinctively appealing, we should decisively reject them. after all without these minority rights, the senate would lose its unique character which mass allowed it to serve the republic so well for so many years. the senate, stripped of its minority rights, would merely duplicate the work of the house of representatives.
5:27 pm
those of us in the present day should recall that we are not the first in our nation's history to confront the poe teption for the senate's great dysfunction. particularly we should call recall the example of mike mansfield. senator mansfield served as majority leader from 1961 until 1977 holding that position for longer than any other senate leader. these were turbulent times for the nation and the senate alike when the issues of the day could hardly have been more divisive and problematic. near the beginning of his tenure when a determined minority stalled president kennedy's legislative priorities, senator mansfield faced great pressure from within miss own party to exert the majority's power more acertificatively. in an act of great courage mansfield resisted the calls of his more interesting colleagues to bend the senate's rules.
5:28 pm
he just plain resisted these colleagues. and thoughhe instead counseled that the remedy to gridlock -- quote -- "lies not in the seeking of shortcuts, not in the crack being of nonexistent whips not in wheeling and dealing but in an honest facing of the situation and a resolution of it by the senate itself by accommodation, by respect for one another and by mutual restraint." unquote. mr. president, senator mansfield was absolutely right and his wisdom is perhaps more relevant now than ever. for the senate to function effectively, senators of all stripes must practice mutual restraint republican and democrat. constructive people and non-constructive people, conservative and liberal
5:29 pm
majority and minority alike. in practice, restraint requires different sacrifices of different senators, depending on their position. for the jortd leadership, it is measured inbert by what sort of measures are brought before the senate for consideration. do they tndz to be divisive and partisan messaging bills or do they tend to be measures that can gather bipartisan support those that may offer less prospects of a messaging victory but greater prospect for actually becoming law? have the measures typically been considered by the committee of jurisdiction allowing for a thorough vetting and best chance for bipartisan consensus? restraint is also measured in how the majority conducts the senate's consideration of a particular measure. is there an open amendment process that allows all senators to contribute to the chamber's work and seeks means of mutual accommodation, or disco the
5:30 pm
minority leader -- excuse me, the majority leader fill up the so-called amendment tree, thereby freezing legislation in the exact form that he demands? is the full senate allowed sufficient time for full and free debate on a measure important enough for consideration on the floor? or does the majority leader move to end debate as soon as it begins. the need for mutual restraint also creates obligations from the minority. from filibusters to poison pill amendments to objections to routine unanimous consent requests and often underappreciated but incredibly important tool to chew up valuable time, senators in the minority have numerous ways in which they can grind this body to a halt and derail a measure. senators on both sides of the aisle, myself included, have relied on these means before. their use can be quite legitimate when employed
5:31 pm
judiciously and motivated by serious policy disagreement. however, when employed indiscriminately for the purpose of frustrating the operation of the senate for partisan gain, the use of such tactics is deeply improper. the appropriateness of the minority's behavior hinges in large part on the actions of the majority. with the power to decide the senate's business, including what the senate considers as well as how it considers it, the majority's behavior rightfully shapes the minority's response. majority restraint requires minority restraint. beginning productive legislating whereas majority overreach invites minority intransigence causing only dysfunction. mr. president, the senate's dysfunction over the past few years resulted from exactly that. repeated instances of overreach by the majority in direct
5:32 pm
contradiction to the restraint counseled by senator mansfield. this overreach occurred along a wide variety of fronts, many of which my colleagues and i spoke out against in great detail in the last congress. in the last congress, many bills that received floor consideration had bypassed the committee process. in fact, each of the past four congresses set a new record for the use of this devious procedure. the unfortunate but predictable result was the waste of the senate's valuable floor time on partisan messaging bills that no one seriously expected to become law. instead of allowing an open amendment process the previous majority used the procedural maneuver known as filling the tree. that is the parliamentary tree, to deny senators the right to offer an amendment. and by refusing to allow amendments out of a desire to prevent a vote on commonsense bipartisan ideas such as
5:33 pm
building the keystone x.l. pipeline and rolling back bureaucratic red tape the previous majority invited minority opposition to the underlying measures, killing important bipartisan legislation like the energy efficiency bill and the sportsmen's bill. in the last congress, almost a year went by during which the majority allowed votes on only 11 -- 11 minority amendments. during that period all 45 senators in the minority together got fewer votes son amendments than, for example one house democrat, congresswoman sheila jackson lee. in fact, the congressional research service confirms that the previous majority leader used his position to block the consideration of amendments more than twice as often as the previous six majority leaders combined. the previous majority also typically moved to end debate on a measure at the very same time it was brought up for consideration employing this
5:34 pm
tactic far more often than previous majorities. its effect is not to end debate on legislation but to prevent it altogether. and whenever those of us then in the minority resisted this demand that we end debate as soon as we begin consideration the majority wrongfully labeled it a filibuster. worst of all the majority used this supposedly unprecedented level of obstruction to take the drastic step of abolishing extended debate altogether. on most nominations using the so-called nuclear option. with the new leadership of the senate under the senior senator from kentucky, we have made enormous progress toward restoring this sense of mutual restraint. consider the sort of legislation the majority leader, the current majority leader has brought up for floor consideration so far this congress. the bipartisan hoeven-manchin bill to authorize the keystone
5:35 pm
x.l. pipeline. the permanent solution for medicare sustainable growth rate that passed 92-8. the child health insurance bill passed 92-8. the renewal of that. and the cornyn-klobuchar bill to fight the scourge of modern-day slavery known as human trafficking. these are not republican messaging bills. the majority leader has admirably avoided the temptation to fill our agenda with partisan bills just to score cheap political points. instead we have focused on bills that command broad bipartisan support. moreover consider the bills that the majority leader has indicated are next up for floor consideration. the corker-menendez iran agreement legislation that passed the foreign relations committee with unexpected and impressive unanimity. the bipartisan alexander-murray rewrite of no child left behind
5:36 pm
and the bipartisan congressional trade priorities accountability act that passed out of the finance committee last night with the support of 13 republicans and 7 democrats. by identifying these priorities, the majority leader has indicated that his focus on bipartisan committee-vetted legislation is not a fleeting illusion but a long-term commitment to responsible leadership. the way in which the majority leader has conducted our consideration of these bills also demonstrates this commitment to restraint. we have seen committee consideration of legislation restored as the norm. we have also seen a renewed commitment to an open amendment process. in january, for example the senate voted on more amendments in one week than in all of last year. think about that. one week. by my count, we have voted on 114 individual amendments in less than four months, the majority of which were offered by the minority. many of these were tough votes
5:37 pm
but the need to govern responsible pably far outwade any political costs. and instead of cutting off debate before it even begins, we have moved at a deliberate pace to allow the amendment process to flourish tempering our own desire to move legislation faster in order to legislate according to the best traditions of this body. mr. president, this is not to say that the past four months have been perfect. there have been times when the sailing has been a bit rocky. the current minority has repeatedly displayed admirable cooperation; the sort of mutual restraint that senator mansfield wisely lauded so many years ago there have been times when some of my colleagues have fallen prey to the temptations of partisan obstruction. in particular, i was extremely disappointed by the logjam that developed over the hyde amendment and impeded progress on the bipartisan human trafficking bill. the gridlock over what should
5:38 pm
have been an uncontroversial provision indicated a troubling unwillingness on the part of some to derail our efforts to legislate responsibly and instead resort to tired and discredited war on women rhetoric to win cheap political votes. while at the same time they voted for the very same hyde amendment in another bill. i was so encouraged by this week's resolution. the willingness on the part of the leaders on both sides of the aisle to break the gridlock reflected the best of the senate's great tradition of statesmanship and i want to express my thanks to the senior senators from washington, minnesota and texas. senators murray, klobuchar around -- and cornyn as well as everyone else who helped craft the compromise. by putting partisanship aside they have not only benefited the victims of human trafficking
5:39 pm
they have also helped reinvigorate the ethos of accommodation and mutual restraint, really at the heart of this institution. we should all look to this example as a model of leadership worthy of world's greatest deliberative body. mr. president, it is incumbent on all of us to get the senate back to work for the american people. just last night we put out this very very important bill in the finance committee. i was privileged to work with senator ronald wyden who is much more liberal than i was willing to reach an agreement to accommodate and to help getting that bill out of the committee. and it passed in a very, very solid way. and i give him a lot of credit. mr. president, it is incumbent on all of us to get the senate
5:40 pm
back to work for the american people. by returning to the spirit of comity that served this body so well for so long, we've already made real and meaningful progress. i urge all of my colleagues to continue in this noble pursuit. there will be times when some of us will wish we could go back to the system of just stopping everything. but in all honesty the system we're now undertaking is far superior to that which we put up with for the last four years prior to this year. mr. president, this is a great body. it's functioning as a great body again. the committees are functioning. senators are anxiously engaged in good causes. senators feel like they're part of the system now. senators are pleased to see that they have a chance to bring their amendments to the floor at least a good chance, and
5:41 pm
certainly to bring them up in committees. senators are pleased that their committees of jurisdiction are now committees of jurisdiction again. and these are just a few of the things that have made this a better senate. and i hope we can keep it going. i'm going to applaud my democratic colleagues for working with us. i've had some come up and say my gosh, it's wonderful to have amendments again. wonderful to be able to debate these things. it's really terrific to be able to you know, have people listen to us and our views and to have the committees function again. yeah, it is. it's really wonderful and i hope we can keep it up. i hope we can once again restore this great body as the greatest deliberative body in the world. it's worth doing. i hope that we can all participate in making it that great institution again. mr. president, i yield the
5:42 pm
floor. mr. president? i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk should call the roll. quorum call:
5:43 pm
5:44 pm
mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcconnell: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that on monday april 27 at 5:00 p.m. the senate proceed to executive session to consider executive calendar number 75, that there be 30 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form, that upon the use or yielding back of time the senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nomination and that following disposition of the nomination the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table with no further motion be in order to the nomination, that any statements related to
5:45 pm
the nomination be printed in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of h. con. res. 21, which is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h. con. res. 21, concurrent resolution authorizing the use of the capitol grounds for the greater washington soapbox derby. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of h. con. res. 25, which is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h. con. res. 25,
5:46 pm
concurrent resolution authorizing the use of the capitol grounds for the national peace officer's memorial service and the national honor guard and pipe band exhibition. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the rules committee be discharged from further consideration of s. con. res. 3 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. con. res. 3 concurrent resolution authorizing the use of emancipation all in the capitol visitor's center for an event to celebrate the birthday of king king kamehameha the 1st. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee will be discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the
5:47 pm
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate now proceed to en bloc consideration of the following senate resolutions which were submitted earlier today -- s. res. 149 s. res. 150, s. res. 151. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate shall proceed to the consideration of the measures en bloc. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 3:00 p.m. monday, april 27. following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date the time for the two leaders be reserved for use later in the day. following leader remarks, the senate then resume consideration of h.r. 1191 for debate only.
5:48 pm
the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate shall be adjourned until monday 3:00 p.m. on april 27. >> earlier today lawmakers confirmed loretta lynch to be the next u.s. attorney general. about 56-43 and the begin debate on a measure that would require the obama administration to make any nuclear agreement with iran to congress for review. work on the bill continuing next week. you can follow the senate live on c-span2 an members gavel back in. loretta lynch confirmed today by a vote of 86-43 10 republicans crossing the aisle to vote in favor. kelly ayotte thad cochran,
5:49 pm
susan collins -- the only senator who did not pass the vote, texas and ted cruz. we will take a look at some of the remarks from earlier today on the lynch nomination and then will open the phones for your calls come get your opinion before the final confirmation vote these remarks were before the final confirmation vote and we begin with senator cruz. >> mr. president, today i rise to talk about what has come to define the obama administration, which is a consistent pattern of lawlessness the disrespect the constitution, the disrespect of the congress, the disrespect of the people of the united states. in any administration under any
5:50 pm
president, a person charged with being the chief law enforcement officer is the attorney general. i've been blessed to work in the is department of justice, and there is a long tradition, a bipartisan tradition of attorneys general remaining faithful to the law and to the constitution, and setting aside partisan considerations of politics. unfortunately that tradition has not been honored during the obama presidency. attorney general eric holder has been the most partisan attorney general united states has ever seen. the attorney general has systematically refused to do anything too seriously investigate or prosecute the irs targeting citizens for expressing their first amendment rights. indeed he has a signed investigation to a major democratic donor and partisan democrat who was given over
5:51 pm
$6000 to president obama and the democrats. eric holder has abused the office and has turned it in many respects into a partisan arm of the democratic party. he is the only attorney general in history of the united states to be held in contempt of congress. and so there are many, including me, who would very much like to see eric holder replaced. the are many come including me, would very much like to see an attorney general who will return to the bipartisan traditions of the department of justice of fidelity to law and that includes most importantly the willingness to stand up to the president who appointed you even if he or she is from the same political party as are you. during the confirmation hearing, i very much wanted to support loretta lynch's nomination. bringing in a new attorney general should be turning a positive page in this country
5:52 pm
your but, unfortunately the answers that ms. lynch gave at the confirmation hearing, in my opinion, wind or unsuitable for confirmation as attorney general of the united states. that was a shame. ms. lynch's record as the u.s. attorney for the eastern district of new york had earned her a reputation as a relatively no-nonsense prosecutor. so is my hope we would see similar approach and similar answers from ms. lynch at the confirmation hearing. instead, she chose to embrace the lawlessness of the holder justice department. when she was asked whether she would defend president obama's the legal executive amnesty which president obama himself has acknowledged no fewer than 22 times that he had no constitutional authority to undertake in which a federal court has now enjoined as unlawful, she responded affirmatively saying she thought
5:53 pm
the administration's contrived the legal justification was quote, reasonable. the nominees went on to say she sees nothing wrong with the president's decision to unilaterally grant lawful status and work authorization that are explicitly barred by federal law to nearly 5 million people who are here in this country illegally. when asked further who has quote moral right to chuck a united states citizen or united states citizen or person who came to this country illegally she responded quote, i believe that the right and obligation to work is one that is shared by everyone in this country, regardless of how they came here. well, mr. president, a very large majority of american citizens would beg to differ. rule of law matters. when she was asked about the limits of prosecutorial discretion, the dubious theory the president obama's put forth to justify his illegal executive amnesty, she could give no limit
5:54 pm
to that theory. when asked if a subsequent president could use prosecutorial discretion to order the treasury secretary not to enforce the tax laws and to collect no more income taxes in excess of 25% she refused to answer. when asked if a subsequent president could use that same theory to exempt the state of texas, all 27 million people, from every single federal labor law and environmental law she refused to answer. when asked if she agreed with the holder justice department that the government could place a gps sensor on the car of every single american without probable cause, she refused to answer. that extreme he was rejected by the united states supreme court unanimously. when asked if she agreed with the holder justice department
5:55 pm
that the first amendment gives no religious liberty protection whatsoever to a churches or synagogues the choice of their own pastor or their own rabbi, she again refused to answer. likewise that extreme view was rejected unanimously by the united states supreme court. indeed just as elena kagan appointed by president obama said at the oral arguments at the holder justice department position that the first amendment says nothing about the religious liberty of a church or a synagogue, justice kagan said i find your position amazing. i'm sorry to say that ms. lynch was unwilling to answer whether she holds that same amazing position that the first amendment does not protect the religious liberty of people of faith in this country. when asked after hearing if she believed the federal government could employ a drone to kill a united states citizen on u.s.
5:56 pm
soil come if that individual post no imminent threat, she refused to answer. when asked if she would be willing to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the irs is targeting of citizens and citizen groups for their political views, something which president obama said he was quote angry about an american people have a right to be angry about. and when asked if she would appoint a prosecutor who was at the minimum not a major obama donor, she refused to answer. this nominee has given every indication that she will continue the holder justice department lawlessness. that was her testimony to the senate judiciary committee. i wanted to support this nomination and i wanted to see a new attorney general to be faithful to the law, utter answers made that impossible. -- but her answers made it
5:57 pm
impossible. and i would note there is a difference. eric holder begin disregarding the constitution loss after he was confirmed as attorney general. ms. lynch has told the senate that's what she's going to be. i that meets each and everyone of us bears responsibility in my view no senator can vote for this confirmation consistent with his or her oath given the answers are given. and i would note a particular onus that falls on the new republican majority. for several months i've called on republican majority to block the confirmation of president obama's executive and judicial nominee other than vital national security positions unless and until the president rescinds his lawless amnesty. i'm sorry to say the majority leadership has been unwilling to do so. the republican majority, if it so chose, could defeat this nomination but the republican minority has chosen to go forward and allow loretta lynch to be confirmed. i would note that are more than
5:58 pm
a few voters back home that are asking what exactly is the difference between a democratic and republican majority when the exact same individual gets confirmed as attorney general promising the exact same lawlessness, what's the difference? that's a question each of us will have the energy to our constituents we come home. in my view the obligation of every senator to defend the constitution is front and center, why we are here. we have a nominee who was told the united states said she is unwilling to impose any limits whatsoever on the authority of the president of the united states in the next 20 months. we are sadly going to see more and more lawlessness, more regulatory abuse or abuse of power more executive lawlessness. now more than ever we need an attorney general with the integrity and faithfulness of law to stand up to the
5:59 pm
president. attorney general in both parties republican and democrat, have done so when credible allegations of wrongdoing by richard nixon were raised. is attorney general elliot richardson appointed a special prosecutor, archibald cox, to investigate regardless of partisan politics. likewise when credible allegations of wrongdoing by bill clinton rose, his attorney general reno, a democrat appointed robert fips, the independent counsel to investigate those allegations. eric holder has been unwilling to demonstrate that same faithfulness to law and unfortunately, ms. lynch has told the senate she too is unwilling to do so. for that reason i urge all of my colleagues to vote no on cloture and to insist on an attorney general who will uphold her oath to the constitution and to the people of the united states of america. i yield the floor. >> mr. president speak with senator from minnesota.
6:00 pm
>> mr. president i come to the floor of the senate today to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of confirming loretta lynch as attorney general. i disagree with my colleague from texas. i serve on the judiciary committee as does he. i listened to her questions. i asked her questions but i listened to her answers come and mind you she is past her senatorial interview. she has picked up support from some republicans. ..responses to 900 written questions. and what i would like to most focus on today is the claims that i just heard from the senator from texas that she is somehow lawless. okay. let's look through the facts here. she has earned the support of members of both parties. do the republicans that support her for this position think she is lawless? i don't think so. she has earned the support of
6:01 pm
top law enforcement groups and 25 former u.s. attorneys from both republican and democratic administrations. now, let's stah t now, the obvious. she is supremely qualified for attorney general a world-class legal mind unwavering commitment to justice unimpeachable character, and an extraordinary record of achievement. during her time as district attorney in new york she tackled cases from public corruption to civil rights violation. she currently leads the us attorney's office charged with prosecuting more terrorism cases sense 9/11 than any other including the al qaeda terrorists who plotted to attack the subway system.
6:02 pm
you hand this important job of going after terrorists to someone who respects and enforces the law not as my colleague from texas has said someone who is lawless just this week are us attorney invited six people in the twin cities area that were plotting to go back to assist isis, the terrorism group. i care about having an attorney general that knows how to handle terrorism cases will leave the justice department and understand the importance of going after these cases. loretta lynch is exactly the type of tested leader we need to lead the effort. she has been endorsed by the new york police commissioner i don't know if my colleagues from texas consider that. the president of the international association of
6:03 pm
chiefs of police rudy giuliani. these are not people that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle normally say our lawless. this is a story of loretta lynch. she has a lot of patience. when she when she was a little girl she took a test and an incredibly well, so well they did not believe she took it and asked her to take it over again and she scored even higher. she was valedictorian of her class. this is a little awkward. we might want a white student to share the honor. she said all right. that is a woman who has been through something. she waits no longer after today. the other thing i heard from senator cruise is that somehow she is lawless because she supported something -- from senator ted cruz is that somehow she
6:04 pm
is lawless because she supported something but legal issues surrounding an executive order regarding immigration. every attorney general sense eisenhower's administration has advised their president on these issues the 1st george bush, 2nd george bush, ronald reagan. there was some kind of executive order issued involving immigrants. we have liberians in minnesota that have been there for decades because of unrest in the country under an executive order. that is one example of a group of people that have been able to stay in our country legally work in our hospitals work in our industry raise their families in this country because of executive orders. to say that it is sometimes lawless for her to support the simple idea that a
6:05 pm
president can issue an executive order -- of course we can debate the merits of that. of course that would be better so that the president could tear up his executive action. the.is that every attorney general in a republican administrations since dwight eisenhower has supported the president when they issued an executive order. this idea saying it is somehow illegal and makes this nominee wallace is just plain wrong. we look forward to another robust debate on immigration policy. it policy. it should be debated and passed by congress. ms. lynch should be judged on her record and are record alone, and we should be proud to have her as our next attorney general of the united states of america. thank you, and i yield the floor.
6:06 pm
>> the senator from california. >> mr. president, i would like to make a few remarks on loretta lynch. while she should have been confirmed as attorney general months ago i want to make the following issues known. her qualifications are stirring education and experience as united states attorney under two presidents as well as her accomplishments are unassailable. i have never seen a nominee in my 22 years handle a confirmation hearing with such poise and answer questions with such command. during the hearing i said loretta lynch was a combination of steel and velvet. that, for me sums it up perfectly. i met her and was deeply impressed. i reviewed the record and
6:07 pm
find her to be a firm yet fair prosecutor. as a matter of fact probably the prosecutor in the toughest southern district of new york that exists in america. having having read this large and important united states attorney's office under two presidents she is a proven leader and knows how to bring people together to get the job done. i think that is important. let me talk about national security. the eastern district of new york where missed when she ms. miss lynch served as us attorney has led the nation and terrorism convictions among all us attorney offices since 2001. she has overseen these cases the six individuals connected to a man part of an al qaeda plot planning to set up balls on the new york subway system
6:08 pm
a man who attempted to use a weapon of mass distraction against the new york federal reserve bank for individuals who plotted to attack jfk airport , an individual who tried to go to yemen to join al qaeda in the arabian peninsula two individuals who were allegedly members of al qaeda and the tax united states military forces overseas. in february her office announced three individuals had been charged with attempting and conspiring to provide material support to isil. her office has also charged 11 individuals alleging that they illegally worked to secure more than 50 this pieces of high-tech equipment for russian military and intelligence agencies. at her confirmation hearing
6:09 pm
which emphasized the importance of the government having the full panoply of investigative tools and techniques to deal with the ever evolving threat of terrorism. in sum sum, i am confident she is going to be a very strong voice leading the justice department on issues of national security and i can only say i think those of us on the intelligence committee see -- and mr. president, you are one of them -- this becomes more important everyday. her experience is just as deep on domestic issues. as united states attorney for a major urban district she clearly understands the importance of protecting us from gangs and organized crime issues that are front and center in my home state of california. her work in this area shows she understands local and
6:10 pm
international criminal organizations. there are four specific cases that i we will leave in my remarks for the record documents are very specific. she is also made combating human trafficking a priority over the last decade her office is anti- trafficking program has indicted more than 55 defendants in sex trafficking cases and rescued more than 110 victims of sex trafficking including more than 20 minus simply put loretta lynch has been on the frontlines in investigating and prosecuting a range of perpetrators and and i believe she will continue that work as attorney general. i would be remiss if i did not express my extreme disappointment in the delay
6:11 pm
over ms. miss lynch's confirmation. we have before us a nominee with impeccable credentials to serve as the nation's chief law enforcement officer. during her confirmation sen. leahy -- senator leahy -- and i think that you were there, mr. president -- asked a panel of witnesses pro and con to raise there hand if they a poster. not a single witness raised their hand. to me that spoke volumes. even republicans who will vote against her because they disagree with the president praise her credentials and personal qualifications. but despite all of that the senate subjected her to i think, and inexcusable delay particularly sensitive because this would be the 1st african-american woman as attorney general in the history of the united states
6:12 pm
and if you look at race relations today and the impartial and important role that the department of justice place, it seems to me that her appointment may well be the most important possible appointment at this particular.in time. her nomination has been pending for 56 days on the floor command that is more than twice as long as the seven most recent attorneys general combined. so, hopefully it is done now i recognize that the other side we will say they could not move the nomination because of the trafficking bill or some other reason, but the fact remains that this historically customarily move back and forth between executive and legislative business and could have done that here as well. we have confirmed district
6:13 pm
judges individuals who serve in various other executive capacities including subcabinet positions. so we could have easily considered a nominee for one of the most important posts in the government. let me conclude with this. i regret a vote on the nomination cannot be unanimous and hope it will be close, but i don't think it will be possible. she is that good. she deserves a unanimous vote. she is as fine as i have seen in my time in the senate. senator durbin remarked in committee that her confirmation will be a truly momentous occasion for the senate and for our nation. he said that this should be a solemn, important and historic moment for america. i believe he was right that
6:14 pm
this is an uncommon nominee at an uncommon time you can display a tremendous we will drive, motivation, and sense of justice of our united states attorney general. i am honored to cast my vote in favor of her nomination. >> from missouri. >> briefly this should be a happy day for america. this should be a day that is circled in the calendar as another day as the president of the senate those that this is about the american dream. this woman is the embodiment of the american dream in action. we should be celebrating her confirmation to the most
6:15 pm
important law enforcement position in the united states of america. why am i not happy? i am sad. i am depressed. because what we will witness in a few minutes is base politics at its ugliest. it does not get any uglier than this because what we are saying today with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are saying today, it does not matter if you are qualified if you are one of the most qualified nominees for attorney general in the history of our country. it makes no difference. we have a new test. you must disagree with the president nominates you. let me say that again because we love common sense and this defies common sense.
6:16 pm
you must vote against a nominee for the of the duly elected president of the united states because she agrees with the duly elected president of the united states. think of the consequences of that vote. think what that means to the future of advice and consent of the senate. if we all adopt this base politics i cannot get elected president in the same against violence. violence. how is any president going to assemble a next? because it will be incumbent on all of us to be against cabinet members who have the nerve to agree with the president has selected them for the team. it is beyond depressing.
6:17 pm
it is disgusting. she is so qualified. she has worked hard all her life. prosecutors prosecutor prosecuted more terrorists than almost anyone on the face of the planet and the notion that this has occurred because she agrees with the man who selected her i i think everyone needs to understand what that means to the future if all of us embrace that pays politic in this decision. it is not a happy day. it is a sad day. i am proud of who loretto inches popout she will be attorney general of this country, said it will be a close vote. thank you, mr. president. >> mr. president, loretta lynch is an historic nominee i worry about this body making history for the wrong reasons.
6:18 pm
the senate republicans she becomes the 1st out of 82 attorneys general in our nation's history to face a filibuster has had to wait longer than any other. she is an historic nominee. on one hand on one hand and historic nominee for the right reasons, 1st african-american woman highly qualified. but what a shame that we have the 2nd time in history to have her be the 1st out of 82 filibuster to be held to this very disturbing double standard this woman has had to face this almost all her life. i we will vote for her. mr. president, i yield back
6:19 pm
my time. >> and some of the debate from earlier today on the loretta lynch nomination now confirmed as the 1st african-american female attorney general of the united states. a look at how that vote broke down this afternoon. ten republican senators voting with democrats on this. here is the list.
6:20 pm
the phone numbers are up on your screen. also, we can take a look at a couple of tweets before we get your 1st phone call the department of justice congratulating loretta lynch on her confirmation with a picture of the person she will be succeeding. they help had a comet about the senate republicans who voted and how they voted, in danger of losing their seats and politico reporting that ted cruz, a vocal critic of loretta lynch, skip the confirmation vote. and cnn mentioning that after five months the senate confirms loretta lynch as
6:21 pm
the 1st african-american woman to be atty. gen. first call is michael on the line from pennsylvania, democratic line. go ahead. >> caller: am going to congratulate the selection of loretta lynch as the new attorney general, and i am glad that some of the republicans were wise enough to skip the partisan, bipartisan voting. a woman is certainly deserves the right to be our current atty. general. >> host: thanks. marty is on the line in warren, michigan independents. >> caller: yes i believe her past record is good. she has a responsibility to up hold the constitution. if she agrees with the president about the situation they are getting free tax money.
6:22 pm
no. i'm going to make sure i work to lose office. >> host: long beach washington on the line for democrats. >> caller: yes i want to congratulate loretta lynch for being put in as attorney general. i am ashamed of some of our senators, the way they acted what they did. and for senator ted cruz not to vote it's like a two -year-old. thank you. >> host: you bet, sen. kayfor, the senator ted cruz the only one who did not cast a vote for loretta lynch out of all 100 senators. you are he on the line democrats line. >> caller: hello. how are you doing today?
6:23 pm
>> host: pretty good. what do you think about loretta lynch? >> caller: am glad but i glad, but i hope she do better than eric colder and president obama did because, see, i just need to say one thing back in november of 2010 i was living in shelby county. now, we voted for democrats state representative and then voted for a democrat that would be in the state senate. why is there a republican representing shelby county? i have since moved out of that county because -- i mean, we voted for a democrat and a republican representing us. went to the supreme court.
6:24 pm
the supreme court said well, the kkk or whoever of the republican party or citizens united said well they gave us too much money and were not going to tell you where it came from where it went. can you get an answer to that question for me? i don't understand -- i might be rambling, but my.is 2010 we voted for a democrat for the state representative of the state senate. >> host: got it. i we will leave it they're. facing a number of issues. across the country in recent times. going on now kelly waiting. go ahead.
6:25 pm
>> caller: hello. how are you doing? >> host: good. thanks. >> caller: am glad she got confirmed. it did take a little while, but it shows how the knew senate is going to be more compromising to get things done. i just hope that she is willing to look at things with your glasses instead of a racial tent, as i think eric holder did. >> host: thanks for the call from ohio. let's take a look at some of the comments on facebook. you can join the conversation there as well. lisa says it's going to be a lot 564 days 20 hours 60 minutes until obama is out of office and all his minions with them.
6:26 pm
tom takes a different tack. congratulations. another great atty. gen. with the best president in the world. world. jerry is on the line lake charles indiana for independence. >> caller: hi. how are you? >> host: good. thanks. >> caller: i agree with senator mccaskill's comments earlier at being so thoroughly disgusted with both the senate and the congress. the tea party people are throwing up obstacles constantly and have been doing so since president obama came into office. i do not 100 percent support the president's policies. however, i believe that he is our duly elected president and the people that he selects for his cabinet should be -- with certain exceptions, you know they should be approved easily. we waited five months for this vote and we still see the republicans splitting
6:27 pm
themselves down those tea party, non-tea party party, non- tea party lines. and i want to applaud the republican senators that voted for her nomination to have the bravery and courage to do that in the face of this neocon onslaught that they are facing right there in their own chambers. i we will hang out and let you get on with your discussion. >> host: thank you for the call. it took longer than the previous seven attorney general to get confirmed combined for the religious nomination to finally get a vote. again, ten republicans joining with democrats to vote for this -- for the attorney general. fifty-six to 34 was the final vote. you can see their.
6:28 pm
changing tack from their party siding with democrats to vote yes to get the nomination loretta lynch past. and we're taking phone calls the next call from jacksonville, florida republican line. >> caller: listen i changed parties a few years back to republican. i really am confused why i did. eric holder had his own agenda as does president obama. president obama puts people in positions for his own reasons, as you have seen. i don't have to say anything else for the. i feel this is wrong and the woman is going to do the same thing eric holder did. have a good day. >> host: all right.
6:29 pm
democrat. >> caller: yes i want to say to those who were offended by the fact that loretta has been nominated and is attorney general i am happy, happy for the republican supporter an office and i am just -- i'm sorry, i think eric holder holder was also a great attorney general and a proud of president obama for putting loretta and as his attorney general. i hope that our senate and everyone in the congress can work together and make the united states a better country. >> host: we heard from a number of centers throughout the day and will take a look next up with the minority leader had to say about the nomination of loretta lynch. here he is. >> we have republican senators who are saying what a wonderful woman she is. she is great. very vocal.
6:30 pm
the senior senator from utah senior senator from south carolina senior senator from arizona. it soon became apparent that the republican leadership suddenly no one is interested in moving the lynch confirmation along you know that is what they said they should do. her nomination dragged on for months. in fact, i repeat, she has waited longer to be confirmed in the 1st 54 attorney general's combined for longer than atty. gen.'s dominated by every president from george washington to woodrow wilson and beyond. what should have been a quick confirmation would be anything but that. ..
6:31 pm
fast and furious, then go do whatever it might be, people can't even submit requests for freedom of information act. it has taken years for people to get that so if anybody thinks loretta lynch is going to walk in the door and do anything other than what eric holder has been doing for the last six years they have to have rocks in their head. it's going to be the same continuous thing to hide everything from the public until they are out of office. >> host: we have a tweet here just an idea of what loretta lynch may be bringing to the
6:32 pm
table. to this post with her. alice hu says lynch to bring prosecutors perspective to the justice department. as attorney general c. has a portfolio that prayed -- includes dealing with cyberattacks and dealing with police in race. issue strikingly similar to what she is that what the narrod. katie is next from riverside california, and independent. >> caller: hi, thanks for taking my call. a heartfelt congratulations to loretta lynch for finally being confirmed. it's been dismaying to watch this long flawed -- to her confirmation and i want to thank the republicans that let reason and common sense to let it
6:33 pm
prevail. i am proud of loretta lynch and i'm proud of the president's bringing her in. she is capable and will probably do an outstanding job. was good katie in california they are. let's look at a couple more comments on facebook. you can join the conversation anytime at facebook.com/c-span. here's one from mike saying forcing her to wait a record 160 days for this for purely political reasons was stupid unprofessional and made republican senators look like world-class fools and gail says this is not a good thing. it's not a historic thing. it's another nail in the constitutional coffin. another call from chicago illinois on the democrats lying. al is ready to share his opinion. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. i think the united states as a world leader, how is the rest of the world looking at a duly elected president?
6:34 pm
he won fairly and squarely. he can't get anything done and it's just really distressing to me. we are supposed to be the world leader and we have got to be the the -- of the world. this woman is definitely qualified without a doubt and i have no doubt she will do a great job in the short time she will be an so i just hope america can get over it. i am a democrat but i don't hate republicans. i just want the country to do well so i'm just hoping republicans can get over it. okay, a black man won okay get over it. >> host: are right out. i will let you have the last word and let you know the phone phone lines against marty "washington journal" 7:00 a.m. eastern and also on a companion network. if you want to see some of the debate over the loretta lynch nomination before the vote happened this afternoon you can join us on our companion network
6:35 pm
c-span 8:30 p.m. eastern. we will start here and c-span2 with a look at what alabama senator jeff sessions had to say about her nomination. >> mr. president we will be soon voting on confirmation of mrs. lynch to be the attorney general of the united states of america. that office is a part of the president but it also is on office that is achieved law for america and is the top official in our government is required to adhere to the law even to the point of telling the president no if he gets it in his head as presidents sometimes do to do something that violates the law. as corporate lawyers do for the ceo of corporations. mr. president you can't do this. this is wrong. don't do this. at some point attorney general's have been known to resign before
6:36 pm
they would carry out policies that violate the law. so we are deeply concerned in this country about the president's executive amnesty the unlawfulness of it, the breadth of it, the arrogance of it to the point that it's a direct assault on congressional power and legitimacy. a direct attack on laws passed by the people to representatives and we have got a big problem. ms. lynch has said flat out that she supports those policies and is committed to defending them in court against any complaint about it. so i think congress has a real world here. we do not have to confirm someone to the highest law enforcement position in america
6:37 pm
if that someone is publicly committed to denigrating congress, violating the law of congress violating even the wishes of congress and the american people. we don't have to confirm anybody anybody. it's the power congress has given. the president is asserting powers he has never been given anywhere in the constitution by the american people. we will be doing what we have a right to do and i think we should do that. now let me know that i'm going to quote -- i was going to say this anyway but i was pleased that mr. andrew mccarthy who prosecuted some of the top terrorist cases in america former u.s. attorney, assistant united states attorney very critical and very strongly of the belief that she should not be confirmed but he says this. a vote against ms. lynch's confirmation is not an assessment that she has
6:38 pm
performed and competently or in an ethically in her prior government positions. it is a vote against the presence blatantly unconstitutional policy and against mrs. lynch's support of that policy. senators senators are bound by oath to uphold the constitution. ms. lynch's record as a federal prosecutor cannot overcome her commitment to violating the constitution. we have a right to assert that. we are paid to make decisions about that. and i think mr. mccarthy is correct. congress was given certain powers as a co-equal branch of government not only to protect the congress as an institution, but to restrain other government branches from overreaching and one of those powers as the senate's power to confirm or not confirm and this check on executive powers can be used as congress sees fit. but, it should not be abused as
6:39 pm
the president should not use his nominees to abuse the constitution or to advance an unlawful agenda. the attorney general is a top law enforcement officer in the country. this is not traditionally apolitical position. it's a lot position. anyone who occupies the office must serve the american people and under the laws of the constitution of the united states. they are not above it. the supreme court has clearly helped the president is subjected to the laws. it has always been a part of the law of the land. so the senate must never confirm an individual to an office such as this who will support and advance a scheme that violates our constitution and eviscerates a status law and congressional authority.
6:40 pm
no person who would do that should be confirmed and we don't need to be apologetic about it. ms. lynch has announced that she supports and if confirmed would advance the president amnesty scheme that would provide trillions of social security and medicare benefits tax credits up to $35,000 a year according to the congressional service and even the possibility of migration and citizenship for those who entered our country illegally. or overstayed unlawful. macs of the president has done this even though congress has repeatedly rejected legislation he supports that would allow the scheme to be implemented. he asked for a. congress considered it. congress said no.
6:41 pm
president obama's unlawful and unconstitutional executive action nullifies current immigration law to a degree most people have not fully grasped how far he has gone in these actions. the immigration and nationality act is the law of the land and his actions replaces him with the very measures congress refused to adopt. even king george iii didn't have the power to legislate without parliament so during her confirmation hearing for the judiciary committee i asked her whether she supported the president's unilateral decision to make his own immigration laws. here's a portion of the transcript. i have to have a clear answer to this question. ms. lynch do you believe executive action announced by president obama is legal and constitutional, yes or no?
6:42 pm
ms. lynch, as i read the opinion opinion, the department of justice opinion which would be under her supervision, i do believe it is senator. of course a lawful duty of the attorney general is to enforce the laws that exist, not ones that she or the president wish existed. one of the most stunning elements of the president scheme is the work permits to up to 5 million illegal immigrants taking jobs directly from citizens and legal immigrants in our country. commissioner on the u.s. united states commission on civil rights has written at length about how this undermines the rights of u.s. workers especially african-american workers and other minorities suffering from high
6:43 pm
unemployment. he says those citizens who are suffering from high unemployment and low wages have their rights undermined when the president ignores the plain law that protects them from excessive surge of illegal workers. so at her confirmation hearing i asked ms. lynch about what she might do to protect the rights of u.s. workers. and by the way the attorney general holder our current attorney general astoundingly in comments he made some months ago declared that there is a civil rights this -- to citizenship in america for people into the country unlawfully. how can this possibly be that the attorney general can get so removed from his responsibility to enforce the law that he says if someone comes into the country unlawfully they have a civil right to citizenship.
6:44 pm
so that was part of the reason i asked him this question. quote, who has more right to a job in this country, a lawful immigrant who is here or a citizen or a person who entered the country illegally? ms. lynch, i believe that the right and the obligation to work is one that is shared by everyone in this country regardless of how they came here. and certainly if someone is here, regardless of status i would prefer that they would be participating in the workplace than not participating in the work place closed quote. so this individual would be the chief law enforcement officer of our country, and i believe that is a fundamentally flawed statement and comment.
6:45 pm
it's unprecedented for someone who is seeking the highest law enforcement office in america to declare that someone in the country illegally had a right to a job when the law says if you were here illegally you can't work. this nation is george washington university law professor jonathan turley who has testified a number of times here often called why our democratic colleagues put it this nation he says is that quote a constitutional tipping point. professor turley who is a nationally recognized constitutional scholar self-described supporter of president obama testified before the house of representatives in february of last year before the president announced this november amnesty and said this. quote, the current passivity of congress represents a crisis of
6:46 pm
faith for members willing to see a president assumed legislative powers in exchange for insolent policy gains. the short-term insular victories achieved by this president will come at a prohibitive cost if the current and balance is not collected. constitutional authority is easy to lose and a transient shift to politics. it's far more difficult to regain. if a passion for the constitution does not motivate members of congress perhaps a sense of self-preservation will be enough to unify members. president obama will not be our last president. these acquired powers will be passed on to his successors. when that occurs members may loathe the day that they remain silent as the power of government shifted so radically to the chief executive.
6:47 pm
a powerful personality that engendered this loyalty will be gone but the powers will remain. we are now at the constitutional tipping point of our system. if the ballots is to be reestablished, it must begin before this president leaves office and that will likely require every possible means to reassert legislative authority. one of those means is it advise and consent power. to approve or disapprove nominees for higher office. it was created for just such a time as this. it's a legitimate constitutional power of congress. it is not only appropriate but necessary that the senate refused to confirm the president's nominee wanat president has overreached and assumed the legislative powers of congress that is particularly
6:48 pm
necessary when the presidents nominate his being appointed specifically for the improper purpose of advancing the president's unconstitutional overreach. all through the powers of the office for which they have been nominated. mr. president we have a number of problems with regard to executive branch overreach and executive branch failure to be responsive to congress. congress ask legitimate questions and often we don't get answers from the people who are paid by the taxpayers and you
6:49 pm
are authorized by us. i think that is another matter that we need to consider before we confirm people. the department of justice has been recalcitrant too often in producing information that they shouldn't produce. mr. president i want to go a little bit further because some of this goes to the core of what it is that we are talking about. is this just a dispute, a policy dispute between congress and the president? no comic goes much deeper than that. the actions of the president are just stunning beginning with the so-called memos. he had an ongoing issue orders that carry out what he wanted done and that's how they have done these unlawful activities. i will just point out some of them. beginning with memos and 2011
6:50 pm
under the guise of prosecutorial discretion based unlimited resources the administration began written provisions of immigration and nationality such as section 235 which requires the secretary of homeland security to place it illegal aliens into removal proceedings to be deported into removal proceedings once they are found which requires them to do that. they don't have the discretion to do that create indirect contribution of clearly written law the morton memos generally direct u.s. customs enforcement personnel to refuse to initiate removal proceedings against certain aliens to administratively close such proceedings if they have had
6:51 pm
been initiated or terminate such proceedings if they had been initiated. the begins the opening salvo and it administrations assault on our immigration laws. this is huge. officers respond to the presidential leadership. the following year on june of 2012 the administration created through executive fiat a program that congress consistently refused to enact into law. the deferred action for childhood arrivals. this program not only shielded certain illegal aliens from the threat of removal but it also provided them with work authorization. the bill could travel outside the united states without fear of being refused re-entry through grants that advanced parole. and the social security number, a photo i.d..
6:52 pm
by the way this resulted in immigration customs and enforcement officers being so concerned at this radical reversal under the laws of the united states that they found a lawsuit against their supervisors asserting that they are being required to violate the law of the united states rather than being able to carry out their sworn duty which was to enforce the laws of the united states. the judge was sympathetic to the matter but for technical legal reasons of standing concluded that the case wouldn't go forward but it's on appeal now i think still. so this is remarkable that our law officers, many of them 10 20, 30 years in law enforcement suit their supervisors because they were being ordered to
6:53 pm
violate the law and set of to enforce the law. we ought to listen to that and they have repeatedly told us what's happening is outrageous and pleaded with congress to stop. but then in november of last year after congress refused to pass the administration's referred legislation providing amnesty to illegal aliens the administration created through executive fiat a number of other programs that further eroded enforcement of our immigration laws. notably two of the most visible programs are the deferred action for parents of americans and lawful permanent residents come the so-called daca program and an expanded version of daca both of which were blessed by the department of justice. the office of legal counsel and the attorney general. ron, unlawful actions less by the chief law enforcement
6:54 pm
officer in the country. less visible are policies that prevent the enforcement of immigration laws against certain criminal aliens such as the november 20 2014 memorandum from jeh johnson secretary of the department of homeland security titled policies for the apprehension and attention and removal of undocumented immigrants which excludes from enforcement priority categories, whole categories of criminal offenses defined in section to a and 27a2 of the ina. we have observed a decimation of law enforcement in this country involving immigration. as the direct result of the president's determination to create a legal system that he believes is right but the people through their elected congress
6:55 pm
have refused to make laws. this is a direct threat to who we are. professor turley is so insightful about this. this is not some right-wing extremist. in testimony before the house committee he said i believe the president has exceeded his brief brief. the president is required to faithfully execute the laws. he goes on to say quote this goes to the very heart of what is the madisonian system if a president daniel literally change the meaning of the laws in substantial ways or refuse to enforce them it takes off like that very thing that stabilizes our system. i believe the members vote today
6:56 pm
will allow that to happen. when i teach constitutional law i ask my students what is a limiting principle of your argument? when that question is presented to this white house to often its answer is in the first-person. the president is a limiting principle or at least a limiting person. we can't rely on that type of assurance in our system. madison knew, no people can be given total power without limits. he goes on to say professor turley does, quote the problem with what the president is doing is that he is not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. he is becoming the very danger the constitution was designed to avoid. that is the concentration of power in any single branch. this newtonian orbit that the three branches exist is a
6:57 pm
delicate one but it is designed to prevent just this type of concentration. when i asked explicitly does he believe the president violated the constitution, he said the essay quoted before there can be no greater danger for individual liberty and i really think the framers would be horrified by that shift because everything they have dedicated themselves to is creating this orbital balance and we have lost it. he goes on to say to congress or as a challenge to us colleagues. he says i believe congress is facing a critical crossroads in terms of continued relevance in this process.
6:58 pm
what this body can now become as a debating society where can issue rules and laws that are either complied with are not complied with by the president. i think that's where we are. a president cannot ignore an express statement of policy grounds in terms of institutional issue. look around you. is this truly the body that existed when it was formed? sitting there in the house of representatives talking to members of congress. they said look around you. is this truly the body that existed when it was formed? doesn't have the same gravitational pull and authority that was given to it at the framers? you are the keepers of that authority. you took an oath to uphold it and the framers assumed assumed that you would have the institutional wherewithal and frankly in addition to defend the turf that is the legislative branch.
6:59 pm
i think we need to defend law in the congress of interest. congress should not confirm someone who will advance this unconstitutional policy. congress has a limited number of powers to defend the rule of law and itself as an institution and to stop executive branch from overreaching. it is unthinkable that we would know those powers in the face of such a erect threat to our constitutional order and it is an escalating pattern of overreach by the president that we are seeing. every day we allow the person to erode the powers of congress we are allowing the president to erode the sake of constitutional rights of the citizens that we serve. we have a duty to this institution and to the american people. not to confirm someone who is
7:00 pm
not committed to those principles. but rather who will continue to violate them. so i oppose this nomination and i urge my colleagues to do so. i think it should be a bipartisan vote in rejecting this nomination and in doing so congress will send a clear message that we expect the president to abide by the law passed by congress not to violate them. mr. president i thank the chair and i yield the floor.
7:01 pm
earlier today senators began debate on a measure that would require the obama administration to submit a nuclear agreement with iran for congressional review. the chair of the senate foreign relations committee bob corker of tennessee and the ranking member ben cardin of maryland came to the floor to express
7:02 pm
support for the measure. senator cardin also talked about the u.s. operation in afghanistan that killed an american and an italian back in january. this is an hour. >> mr. president i am thrilled to be down here with my partner senator ben cardin who is a ranking member on the foreign relations committee. we had an outstanding week last week in our foreign relations committee, passing out the spell that was now before us on a 19-0 vote. as you expect i would like to thank all of the members of the senate foreign relations committee which obviously includes senator cardin senator risch, senator menendez, senator rubio, senator kane senator johnson, senator coons, senator flake, senator udall, senator gardner, senator boxer, senator shaheen senator isakson, senator murphy, senator paul,
7:03 pm
senator barrasso and senator markey. also before we get into discussing the text i would like to thank senator bob menendez and mark kirk. these are the two senators that has led this body to put in place sanctions question sanctions that have led us to this place and i cannot thank them enough for their leadership in dealing with the issue of iran. last year we had a significant amount of work on creating some kind of review process relative to some final agreement that might be worked out with iran and i want to thank senator lindsey graham who has just been stalwart on ensuring that somehow congress play a role on the ultimate deal that may or may not occur by glenn c. has been steadfast and congressional review. senator mccain has joined in that effort and has been
7:04 pm
outstanding to work with. senator jim risch and marco rubio all have pushed for this type of legislation. when we began this process there were some -- when they moved to the process that we are ill and there were original supporters of this bipartisan bill that really called us to have the leverage of the will to move to the place that we are and again senator menendez certainly was one of those and let on that effort. senator graham senator ted kaine who came here as a former governor of virginia but had been so focused on congress playing its appropriate role. obviously senator mccain as he has been from the beginning, senator joe donnelly senator marco rubio, senator heidi heitkamp, senator kelly ayotte senator bill nelson, senator jim risch and senator angus king. all of them played a role in
7:05 pm
creating the leverage if you will to get us to where we are today and a senator cardin knows we now have 62 co-sponsors of this legislation that are now before us obviously from both parties. so i think this is quite an accomplishment. a obviously we have a tremendous amount of work in front of us with this bill now on the floor. i know that senator cardin and myself hope that people will come down and begin offering their amendments begin debating, begin to discussing. obviously we want be taking up and the amendments are the order that is before us until tuesday but we help the people will begin bringing down their ideas and certainly discussing the important issue of iran. let me talk just a little bit about what this bill does. i think first of all i think everyone knows that the administration is part of the p5+1 today negotiating an
7:06 pm
agreement to try to keep iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. i think all of us know that there was political agreement that achieved in the first part of april that was more of a verbal agreement regarding how the p5+1 and iran might interact in a manner that hopefully will keep iran from getting a nuclear weapon. one of the things that i think everyone in this body knows than many people outside may not use congress has played a substantial and maybe the biggest role in getting iran to the table in the first place. there are three sets of sanctions three types of sanctions that have been instrumental in making this happen. there is than the u.n. security council sanctions that are then put in place. the executive branch has put in place sanctions but congress especially for sanctions have been put in place since 2000 which really have had a crushing effect on iran's economy.
7:07 pm
it has created all kinds of inflation and has caused them not to be able to ask -- export only 40% of the oil they produce. it has hurt them in manufacturing. senator menendez has just come to the floor and he may not have heard me but i cannot thank him enough and senator kirk for their leadership on each side of those policies taking a leadership in bringing iran to the table. i think the second thing that people may understand on the u.n. security council sanctions the white house has the ability with the other members of the security council to lift those those sanctions at any time they wish. they can obviously lift the executive sanctions. one of the things that we have been concerned about his congress put in place sanctions that brought them to the table. we want to ensure that congress has the ability but for those sanctions are lifted to be able
7:08 pm
to voice an opinion going forward so what this legislation does which we'll be talking about a great deal over the next week what this legislation does is for things. first of all it forces the administration in the event a final deal is agreed to it forces the administration to bring all those details to congress including the classified annexes that we would likely not see until six months or so after agreement is reached without this legislation if we can pass it. secondly it keeps the executive branch from being able to lift the congressionally mandated sanctions that we put in place while we have a reasonable period of time to go through the documents that had been provided to us. thirdly, it allows congress to take a vote. the vote can take all kinds of forms. it can be a vote of approval. it also calls the leader not to
7:09 pm
take a vote at all or we can take a vote of disapproval. if we are able, we decided this is not something that's good for our country not good for the middle east than we could make a -- cause a vote of disapproval to take place in the past would keep the executive branch from being able to lift the congressionally mandated sanctions that we have put in place. the fourth and important component is that it causes us to know whether iran is in compliance or not. this bill stipulates his past that the president would have to certify to us every 90 days as to whether iran is in compliance compliance. if there are significant violations on a 10 day basis let us know that is taking place so we can respond accordingly. let me close by saying this. i believe that everybody in this body hopes that we are able to
7:10 pm
achieve a negotiated agreement that will keep iran from getting a nuclear weapon. i think everyone understands that is the best thing for our country. i think everybody also understands that iran is a country that we have little trust for. iran is a country that is the major exporter of terrorism in the region. iran is a country that has terrible human rights record. iran is a country that is really moving ahead relative to its elastic missile designed and obviously iran is a country that has been doing some things in a nuclear program but give us reason to believe that they are moving towards a nuclear weapon. one of the worst things we could possibly do is enter into an agreement with iran that doesn't keep them from getting a nuclear weapon. in other words one that has flaws and allows them to get a nuclear weapon and what that would mean is you have a
7:11 pm
situation where the number one exporter of terrorism in the region not just have access to a nuclear weapon but very quickly had access to the 130 billion plus in dollars that they have tracked overseas to conduct even more terrorism in the region. for their economy to all of a sudden be growing at rapid rates do have resources available to conduct even more terrorism in the region and as you can imagine having to enact that iran has enacted and we hope at some point that will change but having access to a nuclear weapon certainly would create the possibility of nuclear proliferation in the region. so i think this is a very important piece of legislation. i want to thank senator cardin for the way he has come into this and worked with us in a matter -- manner to reach accommodation so we have sufficient ample extraordinary
7:12 pm
support on both sides of the aisle to ensure that congress has its rightful role in this agreement. it's one of the biggest geopolitical agreements that we will deal with probably during the time we are in the united states senate. with that i want to yield the floor to my good friend senator cardin. again he has done exemplary work in bringing us to this point and thank him for all of his efforts. >> mr. president. >> the senator from maryland. >> mr. president i want to thank and congratulate senator corker in for his extraordinary work in reaching this moment where we are brought to the floor of the united states senate a bill that deals with congressional oversight, the nuclear discussions and agreements taking place between the p5+1 hour negotiating partners in iran. mr. president of is just three weeks ago that the framework was announced by the white house and
7:13 pm
senator corker and i started our discussions to see whether we could find a common path forward on a bill to say the least that was very controversial, a bill which the president of the united states had threatened to veto, a bill and which they were democrats and republicans lined up on different sides of this issue and it appeared just about impossible that we could reach a bipartisan agreement and a path forward for the legislation. senator corker exercised the greatest leadership and diplomacy. he mentioned all the members of our committee. each of those members have pretty strong views on this issue. this was not a simple matter of people saying gee i will just yield to your thoughts. the only way we could reach this moment was to ask solicit and
7:14 pm
listen to each member of the committee and that is what senator corker did and encourage me to do the same with regards not just to the democratic members because senator corker talk to some of the democratic leaders -- members might talk to some of these democratic members. senator corker again i want to congratulate you on the leadership. it's been a real pleasure to work with you and we bring this bill forward with a 19-0 vote from the senate foreign relations committee. we have a long history in this country if putting aside partisan differences on foreign-policy issues. we often quote from one of farc former colleagues but i think if we could put into the record mentioning comments of his senator arthur vandenberg junior who is a republican member of this body who said 63 years ago to meet bipartisan foreign policy means a mutual effort
7:15 pm
under our indispensable two-party system to unite our official voice at the water's edge so that america speaks with maximum authority against those who will divide and conquer us in the free world. it does not involve the surrender free debate but determining her position. on the contrary franco operation and free debate are indispensable to ultimate unity. in a word it seeks national security ahead of partisan advantage. mr. president that's exactly what the senate foreign coat racial -- foreign relations committee did. we had a robust debate. there were many different views. at the end of the day we spoke with unity and in speaking with unity our country today a stronger and that's exactly where we needed to be. i want to, what we are trying to do here and i think as a result
7:16 pm
of the action of the senate foreign relations committee and i hope it will be approved by this body and by the house and sent to the president for signature, we are i think it is stronger position to accomplish our goal. our goal is pretty simple, to prevent iran from ever acquiring a nuclear weapon because we know that's a game-changer in the region. it's a game-changer in regards to not just one country but to just about every country in that region. their security is threatened and u.s. security is threatened. so, what we did in the bill that we brought forward to you is a compromise, a compromise. each of us gave endless and. we found common ground. mr. president we could use more compromise on the issues that confront this country and the work that we do here. i would hope my colleagues would
7:17 pm
look at how we worked out these issues and use it as a model for other opportunities to move forward on issues that are important. senator corker pointed out why we are here, why we have a bill for congressional review. starting in the 1990s when congress passed sanctions against iran because they we saw that time that iran was developing a nuclear capacity to develop a nuclear weapon and we said that could not happen. we imposed sanctions against iran. congress did this on several occasions in an effort to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear weapon state telling them there would be an economic price to pay until they change course. administrations including president obama's administration worked with the international community and we were able to get u.n. sanctions. congress action was responsible
7:18 pm
to lead iran to be willing to negotiate and that's where we are today. and only congress, only congress can permanently remove those sanctions are permanently change those sanctions so congress must be involved in the sanctions and in the discussions. that's exactly what this legislation does. it provides an orderly process for us to review any agreement reached by the president and our negotiating partners with iran. no congressional action will take place until and unless the president submits an agreement that he has made with our negotiating partners and iran. the april 2 framework that was recently announced is not an agreement and is not subject to review. it would be a 30-day review period during which congress
7:19 pm
would have the opportunity to review the agreement. no sanctions, additional sanction relief could be imposed during that dirty period. mr. president if you read the april set -- april 2 framework the president has made it clear that iran will only get sanction relief if they earn sanction relief if there is concrete progress made in dismantling their nuclear program. it's hard to believe that would take lace within 30 days so the 30-day period is reasonable period for congress to be able to review any agreement. as senator corker pointed out all information, all information would he sent to us and we would have an opportunity for full hearings and debate as to what we should do. it would follow the regular congressional order as farce committee hearings and potential
7:20 pm
action on the floor of the senate and the house. senator corker pointed out the options that we have. we could approve the agreement. we could disapprove the agreement. we could pass legislation affecting the sanctions. we could take whatever action we think is appropriate but no action is required. the agreement could commence without congressional action and if we do take congressional action the president have the prerogative of a veto and the president vetoes we have the prerogative of of an override veto. that is how the check and balance system of our country should operate. it's the second major component to this legislation and that is for the oversight of an agreement after it has reached. that is there would be a quarterly -- but in a state of congress that iran is in compliance with the agreement and if there is a material breach it would trigger an expedited process so that congress could act so we could not only snap back to sanctions
7:21 pm
that may have been released but if appropriate could impose additional sanctions if iran had a breach of the agreement and that's very important because i think we all agree if we are going to have an effective agreement that agreement must give us time before iran could become a nuclear weapon country that we can through full inspections determine if they have breached the agreement. quite frankly mr. president no agreement is going to be based on trust because we don't trust iran. it's going to be based upon inspections and being able to confirm their compliance with the agreement. if they don't comply with the agreement we need to make sure we have adequate time and take adequate steps to prevent them from becoming a nuclear weapons state. this review process and expedited processing congress puts congress in a position of working with the administration
7:22 pm
to make sure that we take those effective steps. now as senator corker pointed out there are other issues with iran in addition to the nuclear proliferation issues. we have serious concerns about iran. it sponsors terrorism. its human rights violations against its own citizens is horrible. its ballistic missile program is of great concern. the threats against israel and other countries in that region are all of direct interest to the united states. so in this legislation we provide for regular reports twice a year to the congress of the united states about the activities that iran is participating in regards to terrorism and human rights and i call our colleagues attention to the detailed requirements on page 37 and 38 of the bill concerning issues about whether
7:23 pm
iran's financial institutions are engaged in money laundering whether iran is advancing his ballistic missile program and assessment of whether iran is strictly supported financing plans are carrying out terrorism against united states whether and to the extent iran has supported terrorism. all actions including international -- taken by the united states to stop counter attacks by iran involving terrorism. the impact of the national security to save united states citizens as a result of iran's actions in this paragraph. it's all required that information be given to us because we may want to use that or other strategies against iran iran. it requires an assessment of what the violations of internationally recognized human rights have changed increased or decreased as compared to the prior 180 days.
7:24 pm
we will have that information so yes we are concerned about issues beyond nuclear illustration but this agreement is negotiated by the president preventing iran from being a nuclear weapons state. it is clear and i want to underscore this as senator corker is strong to make sure this is in the bill says that the united states sanctions on iran for terrorism human rights abuses ballistic missiles will remain in place under any agreement. we are not talking about actions we have taken against iran for terrorism or human rights violations. that's a separate issue. it's a major concern to us. what we are talking about here is how to implement oversight review and agreement concerning its nuclear weapons program. and lastly we make it very clear in this agreement that the president should determine that the agreement in no way compromises the commitment of the united states to israel's security north support for
7:25 pm
israel's right to exist. israel is a key ally to the united states and our friendship is deep. our commitment is solid and we make that very clear in the bill that is before you. let me just conclude with two additional points when dealing with the amendment process. senator corker pointed out we asked members who believe they can oppose -- approve this bill let's try to work on the amendments. let's maintain the bipartisan cooperation we have and maintain a strong bill that accomplishes its purpose. let's take a look at it. remember we have a lot of strong views in the senate foreign relations committee and we came together. let's keep that same spirit here here. i would urge those who may have amendments, come on down and let us see them. you have got today and that's before next tuesday. share them with us so we have an opportunity to keep the unity
7:26 pm
that we have. and then lastly mr. president i just want to join where senator corker began and that is to thank the incredible effort that took place on behalf of this bill. senator corker already mentioned all of my colleagues involved here and i see senator menendez is on the floor. senator menendez and senator kaymer both on the floor. on the democratic side they are the authors of this bill. they are the ones who drafted it. they are the ones that way we are here today from the democrats and i think those of them. from the beginning they said they want a process. we are not talking about the merits. we want to preserve the normal prerogatives of the senate and we want to keep politics out of it. quite frankly that's what i carried out in my negotiations
7:27 pm
with senator portman to maintain that balance so i think both of them in the other members of our committees that were involved. lastly unappointed just personal privilege right now because i meant to do this later, i just want to thank jody herman of our staff and martin taylor. i want to thank my staff and chris lynch and extraordinary time they put in and i want to thank president obama. i want to thank president obama for giving me his time so i understood what he was trying to achieve in working together in order to achieve the objectives of the united states and katie fallin and dennis mudd donna of the staff for the work they put in so we could reach this moment. would that mr. president i would yield the floor. >> mr. president. >> the senator from new jersey. >> mr. president i want to rise in support of this bipartisan
7:28 pm
legislation with a sincere hope that we can pass the iran nuclear were asked if it was unanimously voted out of committee. now i have worked tirelessly with the chairman and with the ranking member and with members of the committee senator kaine who had so much input in the conceptualization of but we wanted to do to bring this bill to the floor with the strongest bipartisan support. in my view the best way to send a clear message to tehran about our expectations is for congress to pass the corker menendez iran nuclear amendment review act as it was voted out of committee. in the spirit of bipartisanship that underscores congress is critical role in the highest priority national security nuclear nonproliferation challenge of our time was unanimously was passed on the
7:29 pm
foreign relations committee and i hope we can send the same message from the senate floor. countering iran's nuclear missions has been something i worked on passionately for a long time. senator corker anti-fashion language that became the framework of this final bill to ensure that congress remains engaged in reviewing hand if there is an agreement overseeing its implementation. so i want to thank chairman corker. he has done an exceptional job. he had this concept before any of us agree to it and he was willing to work with us and was dogged i must say until we got to the point where we could come together and offer legislation that bipartisan way. that has been the hallmark of his chairmanship and it was the hallmark of his time as ranking member when i was the chairman and i really appreciate the fashion which he has worked to continue to move the committee as i started it in a bipartisan
7:30 pm
way towards the ranking member. senator cardin said that is where we are the most powerful in terms of foreign policy. .. by the june deadline, at the end of the day congress must make a judgment on it, and have oversight responsibility, and this legislation provides it. it establishes a managed process for congressional review and a framework for congressional oversight. now, mr. president i differentiate between this agreement and others th and others in the administration cited for exclusive executive action because the sanctions relief that is at the heart of this deal was crafted by congress.
7:31 pm
and enacted by congress, into law. it is primarily statutory. and as the author of those sanctions, working with others i can tell you that we never envisioned a wholesale waiver of sanctions without congressional input and without congressional action. the limit satisfactions relief provided in the law was intended to provide the president with discretion to waive specific sanctions in specific circumstances, such as a country was making progress in reducing oil purchases from iran. my goal has been to make certain that iran not have the infrastructure to develop a nuclear weapon. i've worked towards that goal since my earliest days in congress. now as we approach the witching hour for an agreement the best way to achieve our goal is with bipartisan support on this
7:32 pm
legislation that strengthens the united states' hadn'ts in moving from a -- hands in moving from a political framework to a comprehensive agreement and sets out clear and decisive expectations for iranian compliance. message we sent is that satisfactions relief is not a given, and sanctions relief certainly is not a prize for signing on the dotted line. this bell ensures that iran must fully comply with all provisions on the agreement which dismantles this nuclear weapons program and provides robust inspection and verification mechanisms to ensure compliance with every word of the deal. if iran breaches an agreement, congress will have the ability to restore sanctions on an expedited basis. i have been outspoken on this issue from the beginning, for years, for as long as i've been here. and frankly, have many questions
7:33 pm
about the framework agreement. i have questions about the divergent understandings of the agreements and questions about the pace of sanctions relief. i don't believe that iran should get a signing bonus. i'm concerned by the president's most recent statement that greater sanctions relief could come up front for iran immigrant have questions about iran's retention of research authority and to what stepped they can extend their research and development, because greater research. and development means more sophisticated centrifuges that can spin faster and reduce breakout time for a nuclear bomb. i'm concerned about the ability to snap back sanctions if there are violations of the agreement. we have a committee process that will not guarantee that the snapback will take place or that it will take place expeditiously. i'm concerned about the international atopic energy administration's ability to
7:34 pm
obtain any type of snap inspection, and what happens to iran having to come clean about the possible military and weapons dimensions of their program? more than anything else i'm concerned about what will happen when the critical elements of the proposed agreement expire after ten years. are we'll gaited to accepting ---we -- the presumption that iran will become a compliant nuclear nonproliferation state is not born when you sue their insistence and our acquiescence to keeping key nuclear infrastructure and key nuclear facilities under the agreement. and it's not born out by history. iran has been on a single path towards nuclear weapons for more than 20 years by deceit and deception.
7:35 pm
sometimes without de. they head advanced their driver for nuclear power to the precipice of achieving a nuclear bomb. for me these are all issues that speak more forcefully to the reasons for having congressional review and oversight of any potential agreement. it was for the sake of getting iran to deter its course. and there is no one who would want to see the successful result of that design than me. but by the same token, i do embrace what the administration has said time and time again, that no deal is better than a bad deal. and i will independently judge what that deal is when and if there is a final deal. at a minimum, this legislation gives us the oversight role to monitor and address our
7:36 pm
concerns. so i urge my colleagues when the bill comes to a vote, to vote for it as it was voted out of committee because it does what all of us want to do provide a clear opportunity for a review of any agreement so we can express its desires our support or opposition to any agreement and how the court oversight role will establish parameters for compliance. let's vote on what the agreement does, not what it might have done or could have done if we had different amendments to it. i respect everybody's views and everybody's rightses to have amendments. i hope that those who have ideas will work with the chairman and the ranking member, but i will oppose amendments, at least with my own vote, that i consider to be poisonous and undermine the very essence of what we accomplished in the center foreign relations committee. sometimes you have to know when you hit a home run and be able
7:37 pm
to cross the plate and say, we hate home run and that you're not still stuck in the dugout. what we did as a committee is close to a home run. so let's vote on the merits of me bill. give us the oversight and able to cast judgment, we need to send a clear message we're united in iran never becoming a nuclear weapon state and potentially igniting a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous tinderbox of the world. i urge my colleagues to suppress any intentions that would drive this to a point that we can't have that strong -- that we can have that strong vote and send a strong message to tehran. no stronger message in which we strengthen the administration and the p5 plus 1 by saying there is a congressional review and potential judgment. so that the final agreement will
7:38 pm
hopefully be one we can all embrace and we can have an effect by passing this legislation. with that mr. president, i yield the floor. >> the senator from tennessee. >> i just want to again thank senator menendez for his tremendous leadership on the issue. he brought up a point i wish i'd made in my opening comments comments and made it every time i presented the will. a lot of peep don't realize at present that because of the waivers that are part of the sanctions we put in place some through independent piece of legislation, some of them through ndaa in each case, the president was given national security waiver. and as the senator mentioned it was never thought the waiver would be utilized to waive thingsed a infiniteum. so the president has the power can without this legislation to
7:39 pm
go straight to the u.n. security council, without coming to congress and implement whatever deal he wants to implement with iran. he has that ability. and so, when you think about what is happening here -- this is what is so powerful about this bipartisan effort -- is that we together we together have said, wait a minute, we want to -- if we pass this legislation, we want to re-take the ability ourselves to lift those sanctions, or to have them lifted. we don't want the president going straight to the u.n. security council -- i know that senator -- i cannot thank him enough for him getting involved. i remember distinctly in the committee meeting where we had testimony from our secretary of state, and i. him articulating better than anyone yet the fact that if -- at some point down the road we
7:40 pm
have to permanently lift sanctions, which could be five six, seven years down the road long after the sanctions regime has totally imploded. we have to do it permanently don the road, wouldn't it make sense for us to review this on the front end and have the opportunity, if we think it's not something worthy of this to disapprove or to approve if we should decide to approve that. i know senator mccain wants to speak. i cannot thank him enough for his knowledge of congressional responsibility as it relates to these issues. his input which was invaluable at the time that it occurred and candidly created the momentum for us to move ahead. with that-year-old the floor, thanking hem very much for his efforts in this regard. >> the senator from virginia. >> i rise to speak in favor of the corker menendez bill and thank chairman corker for his kind words and the opportunity to work together on something in what i believe be the best
7:41 pm
traditions of our committee and the senate. i thank my ranking member senator carden, for being a great facilitator at the to end help us get over a number of challenging issues to a point of unanimity on the committee, and to senator mens in the des -- menendez, who is evident has been so consistent and so helpful and whose work on this particular piece of legislation was critical. i believe senator corker began, and i want to begin at well with condolence to the family of dr. weinstein, a marylander the announcement of his death inas -- in afghanistan in a drone strike reminds us of the stakeness these issues. when we talk about american military action or diplomacy around a nuclear weapons program, it's not a bill we're talking about. it's not a concept. we're talking about human lives and even in the best of circumstances, there will be
7:42 pm
days like today when there will be sad news and americans who are in harm's way because of the dangerous nature of the world, and i feel like the announcement today about dr. weinstein, our condolences to his family, should remind us of the seriousness of our obligation. senator carden started with the great wisdom of senator vandenburg that politics stops at the water's edge. we probably all know that was never 100% true. i know a little bit about some of the challenges jefferson and other virginians had, but there's a core wisdom to that principle. a very important wisdom. of course we're going to battle because we see things differently, and people seeing things differently can sometimes get to a greater understanding. that's what we hope to too. the reason that politics should stop at the water's edge is because we want to send a unified message to our allies, as they depend on us.
7:43 pm
we need to send a unified message to our adversaries about our intention. but i would say in a personal way, because of maybe representing the commonwealth of virginia we have to send a u-fighted message to the men and women in our armed services who are serving in battlefields, who are serving in theaters of military operations around the world, when we are contemplating decisions about something so big that could potentially lead to what we just deployed, virginia-based ships like the theodore roosevelt to yemen, to potentially check iranian ambitiouses vis-a-vis the houthi rebels those are virginiaon are who are deployed on those ships. we owe it to those who are serving and risking their lives to try to be as nonpartisan as we can, so that they know they're not serving just because one party thinks they should or the other party thinks they shark but the missions they're
7:44 pm
undertaking are missions of national consensus. i feel that very strongly. that's why i'm so glad that this bill now reaches the floor on a fundamental matter in a bipartisan way. with respect to our negotiations with iran there was a view out there on the table that if congress wanted to be involved it must be because we're against diplomacy. in the committee i said that notion was offensive to me. there were those who suggest it that those who wanted a congressional oversight role were pro war, which was highly offensive and insulting. i am pro diplomacy, i supported the president's commencement of these negotiations in november of 2013. i think america has a wonderful diplomatic tradition where we have been able to achieve a lot when diplomacy is done right. i actually think that a negotiation period from november 2013 to today has produced tangible benefits for the united states, our allies and the world because iran has
7:45 pm
rolled back its stockpile of 20% enriched uranium and allowed inspection they didn't allow before, and even nations and leaders who are skeptical about whether the negotiation would work, have admitted to me, maybe i shouldn't have been skeptical. the negotiation period has produced some benefits. in the framework announced on the 2nd of april i see some item is like and other thing i have deep questions about but a commitment by iran, for example to roll back uranium stockpiles from 10,000-kilograms to 300-kilograms, fraction of what would be necessary to produce even one weapon. but i say all that just to say that as a pro-diplomacy senator, as one who would love to find a negotiation that works to a positive end believe strongly that a congressional review role of a matter such as this is
7:46 pm
necessary and it's helpful and something that the american public deserves. it's necessary for the reasons that have been described. now, president under article ii hours has significant able to conduct foreign policy and strike grandmas without congressional approval. many things a president can do in the foreign policy sphere without congressional approval. but this is fundamentally a negotiation about what must iran do to get out from under sanctions that congress has constructed. congress has imposed. congress has perfected and improved over years. and if that is the negotiation, there is no way to have an ultimate deal about the unwinding and eventual repeal of a congressional sanctions statute without congressional review. so congress is necessary to this deal. second congressional review is helpful. it is helpful for the negotiators, as they are in this final chapter to know they have
7:47 pm
to negotiating to their very best because they have to seal the toll to dong as the representatives of the american people. it's helpful for the iranians, who want to get out from under congressional sanctions to have some sense of how congress might ultimately look at this deal. put yourself in the iranian shoes. we want them to a make huge concession, but that is their incentive to make big concessions to get out from under congressional sanctions if they have no idea what congress will likely do. we have put a process in place that will give them some sense of what congress would do in an orderly way, that would be an incentive i believe for large incentives. finally, not only is this review bill necessary, not only is it helpful, it's what the american public expect tuesday and deserves. we have been looking at the way the american public has been reacting to this negotiations.
7:48 pm
the american becoming like all of us they're deeply worried about an iranian nuclear weapons program. they would love it if we could find a diplomatic end to the iranian nuclear weapons program. they're like all of us, they're step kick cal about whether -- skeptical whether iran will follow an agreement. and they overwhelmingly believe that if there is an agreement it should be an agreement that congress approves. why do they think congress should approve it? is it because we have fantastic approval ratings? absolutely not. we don't have great approval ratings. but the american public says, in our anxiety about whether we can trust iran on a deal, we will feel better if both the executive and the legislative have looked at this deal and concluded, like you would try to get a second opinion from a doctor on something that was really important, if both the executive and legislative conclude it's a good to go for
7:49 pm
our country, they'll feel more comfortable given the natural anxiety they have about iranian compliance. and so, that's why this bill is so important. finally, want to talk about how the bill got here. i do think there's a lesson for the floor activity on the bill and for the body more generally. this bill was filed in original version in 2014 and i did not sign on to it. our chairman, senator corker and i, were in the middle east in january, with six -- five other senators in saudi arabia qatar, and israel. as we returned after a set of discussions with both governmental leaders military leaders, civil society political leaders senator corker a friend can challenged me a little bit. you're the guy who likes to say that congress needs to play a role. i've been pushing hard for congress to play a role in an authorization of military force against icing.
7:50 pm
if that's what you think why aren't you on this bill about congressional approval of a deal with iran? and i said well that's actually a very good question. you're right issue do believe in congressional approval, but there some aspects of the bill don't like and the chairman said to me then fine you rewrite it or propose amendments and let's see if we can work together. and so i did and others did, and we put our best good faith proposals down on the table and we found a listening ear and a staff and set of senators on both sides of the aisle that were willing to try to enter size the congressional approval role but do it in the right way north the wrong way. when we filed this bill on the 27th of september there were two democratic original sponsors and two republican original sponsors, and then there were five additional democratic cosponsors and five additional run cosponsors. and so from the rer day this
7:51 pm
bill hit the floor, we were trying to build it in a bipartisan way to show that the vandenberg bill not as true even when it was stated and certainly not as true today as we would like, but still has some power and we wanted to show the body we can do it in a bipartisan way so our allies ands a sir varies and troops could see we can act in a bipartisan way on something so important. there will steps between the filing of the bill and the foreign relations committee action that threatened to push the bill off the bipartisan rails, into partisanship, in ways that might have served a short-term purpose but would have probably killed the bill. this chairman and others made sure that didn't happen. when we got the vote in the foreign relations committee, and i went from two plus two to seven news seven and eventual lip 19-0 we carefully worked at every step long the way to make
7:52 pm
this bipartisan and hopefully send an example, it should be robust debate amendment. but we want to make sure that this review of this most important matter is done in a way that is done carefully and promptly and according to rules all can understand. i so i conclude with thanks to my colleagues on the committee to the leadership both as the original drafter of the bill and then as the drafter willing to entertain other idea, and then as the chair of the committee trying bring this to a productive place. i thank senator cardin for his great role in helping us bridge differences and especially for his communication with the white house. the white house thenned to veto the bill-but senator corden was able to listen to the concerns and respond to the concerns in a way we could make the bill productive.
7:53 pm
this matter is so important that we just can't tackle it in any way other than trying to follow it the best we humanly can, the vandenberg maxime, and i help next week that it will be the spirit of all colleagues. with that, mr. president, i thank you, and yield the floor. >> mr. president. >> senator from maryland. >> mr. president, just want to thank senator kaine and i appreciate you outlining how this legislation went from unlikely to have much impact because it didn't have the consensus and the numbers necessary to get it through to the finish line. it would have had a very difficult time getting through the committee, let alone the floor of the senate and the house and signed by the president. but how people listened to each other. so, i'm glad the two of you went
7:54 pm
on the trip together because i think we need to do more of that here and senator kkain and senator corker have a deep respect for the proper role of the united states senate and the senate foreign relations committee ask the united states senator. and i think i'm proud to serve with both of you, and i'm pleased to see we have found ways we really can bridge differences in order to achieve a common purpose. and we were not bed? scoring political opinions. we're interested in doing what responsibility is all about. so, senator corker is now -- a way we can reauthorize the state department, the role our committee should have and therefore, directly deal with our responsibilities in the united states senate through the appropriate committee. i think all these are efforts that working together we can have the senate perform the
7:55 pm
proper role in this government of ours to make sure there is the legislative branch weighs in where it's appropriate on foreign policy issues itch after that to thank you senator kaine and senator corker for giving us a good model how legislation should be developed and i am proud to work with senator corker so we could get the white house and get some of our members who didn't quite share the enthusiasm of this legislation to a place where they're comfortable in supporting the bill. -- i mean not supporting the bill but enthuseasicly pouterring the bill. i appreciate you mentioning warren weinstein. warren weinstein was a resident of maryland. he -- his wife, elaine, have talked to on different occasions, very brave woman. did everything she could to bring her husband home. warren weinstein was usaid
7:56 pm
worker in pakistan. he did that because he wanted to do good for the world. he was very well-respected carrying out his mission, in a most professional way. was on his way home when he got kidnapped in 2011, kidnapped by al qaeda. and as you know the president announced today that he was killed in january, along with al-an italian national who was also serving and our thoughts and prayers first go out to the family. our hearts are broken. and senator mccluskey congressman del -- delaney and have made with the family in dealing with the hostage situation. it's difficult to deal with a hostage situation when it's not a government that is holding the person. makes it much more complicated. i do think in addition to doing
7:57 pm
everything we can to keep our americans safe, who go to these countries on our behalf, using diplomacy, basically, and develop assistance for a more stable country. we have to do everything we can to keep them safe and we have to have strategies to do everything we possibly can to bring these people back home safely and i know y'all share that. but then we have to make the world a little bit safer, and that's what this review -- statute is all about, because i do believe it does give us a better opportunity to get the right agreement from iran that would prevent itself from becoming a nuclear weapon power, which is a game-changer for security in the region. let me give you one other example. there was an enormous human
7:58 pm
tragedy, another boot carrying desperate refugees and migrants capsized in the mediterranean sea and 850 men, women and children have died. now, these are pretty desperate situations win you take these dangerous voyages. the number of people who have died in the mediterranean in 2014, we know that well over 280,000 refugees and migrants crossedded the mediterranean sea, many fleeing violence, conflict, persecution in iraq eritrea, yemen is valid here. last year's death toll surpassed 1750 victims. i mention that because what iran is doing in this region is adding to the migration and refugee issue. its support of terrorism, and its involvement in yemen, its involvement in syria, its involvement in other countries,
7:59 pm
is causing people to take desperate action in order to stay safe. so we are here today to do something about that. and mr. president, i would ask consent -- if could i put into the record in a separate place my name regard to the tragedy in the mediterranean. >> without objection. >> thank you. it's just another motivation for us to do everything we can to provide the type of policies necessary in that region of the world to make people safer to have sustainable countries that can protect all of its citizens. >> coming up tonight, president obama apologizing for the deaths of two civilians killed by a drone strike against al qaeda. then secretary of state john kerry talking about international trade, and house democratic leader, nancy pelosi giving here weekly briefing. the president today making a statement apologizing for a drone struck near the
8:00 pm
pakistan-afghanistan border that killed two hostages being held by al qaeda. the civilians were italian national giovanni lo porto, and american warren weinstein. mr. weinstein lived in maryland just outside of washington, dc. a one-time truck driver in brooklyn college professor who learned to speak ten languages languages languages and traveled the world to provide assistance to people in dangerous places. he worked for usaid when he was kid indianed the pakistan four years ago. here their president's remarks from the white house earlier today. >> this morning i want to express our

105 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on