look. i am happy to work with other colleagues who want to further advance issues which i think are legitimate as it relates to iran but not necessarily as it relates to the determing factor as to whether or not we will have a say on any potential final agreement as it relates to a nuclear agreement with iran. that i think is paramount. i hope we don't lose sight of it and i hope we can send the same strong inincredibly bipartisan votes that we have had on iran because that sends a clear message to our allies as to our expectations. it sends a clear message to iran of what we will expect and the standard that we will hold them up to. anything short of that will only create the opportunity for those who have a different vision about what we seek to achieve to try to accomplish it. i don't think we want that. i don't think that's anybody's intention. i don't judge anyone in terms of

their intent. i only ask them to think about the consequences to our greater goal. with that, mr. chairman -- mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. corker: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: i'd like to ask unanimous consent in a moment but first i want to thank the distinguished senator from new jersey who has as much as anybody in this entire congressional body, both house and senate -- actually he and senator kirk, lead stalwarts on iran and without his efforts we wouldn't even be in negotiation right now. and i cannot think him enough for his -- thank him enough for his positive contributions for his leadership as ranking member and chairman. i want to thank him. i at this point would like to ask unanimous consent that the time until 6:10 today be equally divided in the usual form and that following the use or yielding back of that time the senate vote on the following amendment: johnson number 1150.

further that there be no second-degree amendments in order to the amendment and that it require 60 -- a 60 affirmative vote threshold for the adoption of the amendment. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection so ordered. mr. corker: if i could just follow up, mr. president i've been in extensive conversations with former secretary of state condoleezza rice who i know has tremendous respect on this side of the aisle. she sent out a release today in response in response to this amendment that's coming before us today that the proposed iranian nuclear agreement is classically an executive agreement and doesn't need to be a treaty with the advice and consent of the senate. this is our former secretary of state under george w. bush. but congress should be able to opine given the congressionally mandated sanctions would have to be lifted. i think that everybody on our side of the aisle understands

that with four tranches, four tranches of sanctions that congress put in place we brought them to the table with senator menendez leading that effort. and in each of those cases like is traditionally done, we gave a national security waiver. no one ever thought the president would use the national security waiver to kick the can down the road for years on the congressionally mandated sanctions without our approval. but everybody in this body that's been here in recent times participated in giving the president, if you voted for these sanctions and in some cases they were unanimous giving the president the unilateral ability to waive the sanctions. and so if we pass this underlying bill, which we now have 67 cosponsors, we're taking back we're taking back that authority. but to try to deem this as a treat "y" visa losing effort --

treaty is a losing effort. in essence it will destroy our ability to have any is a so in -- to have any say so in one of the biggest geopolitical events of our time. if this were to pass the outcome would be no limitations on the president's use of waivers in the sanctions we put in place. none. no requirement that congress receive the deal at all never mind the classified annexes which go with it, which by the way, the american people will never see will never see. but on their behalf we would like to see. no review period for congress to see the deal and vote before it is implemented. no requirement that the president certify iran as complying, no reporting on iran's support for terrorism ballistic missile development and human rights violations. i just want to say to my friends, voting for this -- voting for this treaty is in

essence saying that you're willing, you're willing to throw what has been put together aside. even though we have 67 -- 67 cosponsors. look i wish that we had the ability to vote affirmatively but we gave that away, and almost everybody in this body was a part of giving that national security waiver away. so this is an executive agreement. our former secretary of state who we love and cherish says this is an executive agreement. and we can wish it was a treaty or we could try to deem it's a treaty. but the effect is we would have no role if we were to pass this amendment by johnson a friend of mine. we will have no role in this. i urge people to vote "no." i know there's going to be some debate between now and 6:10. i appreciate the ranking member being here with me and i yield the floor to him. mr. cardin: madam president i first want to join senator

corker in thanking senator menendez for his leadership on this issue. i've said that on previous occasions on the floor. clearly his leadership working with senator corker, working with senator kaine who developed the bill for the appropriate review for the congress. so to senator menendez, thank you very much for all of your hard work on this bill. i want to identify myself with the comments of senator corker in opposition to the johnson amendment. but let me just give you one more reason. i -- i respect the intent of the the -- of those who support this amendment but let me tell you what it means. it means that if this were, in fact, a treaty that we would be saying that we would be delegating to other entities the decision on whether to eliminate the sanction regime that we in congress imposed. now, i've listened to my colleagues particularly on the republican side who say they don't want to delegate that

authority that congress should keep its legislative authority. well if you believe congress should keep its legislative authority, then it's up to us to determine whether we're going to change or eliminate or modify the sanction regime then you can't be for a treaty because a treaty we give away that power. now, i don't think you really mean to do that but that's the intent if this were to be turned into a treaty, that we would be giving up our power. secondly, i don't know how you're going to explain it to our colleagues in the house of representatives. the presiding officer served in the house. i've served in the house. senator menendez served in the house. the last time i checked, we imposed these sanctions because a bill passed both the senate and the house. and now we're saying that the approval process is going to ignore the house of representatives, solely going to be a matter for the united states senate on a ratification of a treaty? that doesn't seem like a workable solution. so my point is to concur in the

observations of senator corker. this is clearly an amendment that if it were adopted would say we are not going to have an orderly review process for congress to be able to weigh in, we're not going to be able to get the material to set up the logical review by the senate foreign relations committee that we're going to lose all the benefits of this bipartisan bill if this amendment were to be approved. so for all those reasons i would urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. and i know that -- i think i have about one minute remaining and i'd be glad to yield that to senator johnson if he would like to have a few moments -- a minute and a half to try to rehabilitate his amendment. mr. johnson: thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. mr. johnson: mr. president i appreciate the senator from maryland yielding time. i can quick answer your question. if this amendment fails in terms of involving the house, i have another amendment that if the

senate decides not to deem this a treaty -- and i believe it should be ceemed a treaty -- we can also deem -- should be deemed a treaty -- we can also deem this a congressional agreement which, of course, would have to be voted on by both houses. i think the fact of the matter is is this does rise to the level of a treaty. again, there's no specific criteria in terms of what creates a treaty or comprises a treaty, what doesn't. what in the end determines whether something's a treaty is how it's approved by congress. and from my standpoint, when you take a look at the considerations in the foreign affairs manual in terms of what actually provides, you know, causes something to become a treaty the extent to which the agreement involves commitments or risks affecting the nation as a whole. i think this deal between iran and america and the world affects and risks, you know, certainly affects the nation as a whole. another consideration is whether the agreement can be given effect without the enactment of

subsequent legislation by the congress. and i think the fact we're even debating this bill lends credence to the fact that congress needs to be involved. so this really in the end though, is not about involving congress. this is about involving the american people. i think the american people should have a say through their elected officials as to whether or not this is a good deal or a bad deal. and, you know, the fact that this bill does allow some involvement, some role it forces the administration to, for example provide us the details of the bill. can you imagine the arrogance that they won't even provide the details without this bill. butter again i appreciate the senator yielding time. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote: the presiding officer: are there any senators in the

chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not on this vote the yeas are 39 and the nays are 57. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment the amendment is not agreed to. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that chris stavish an education fellow and karen armitage both from my office be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this congress?

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: mr. president may i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you. mr. president, the evidence of climate disruption caused by carbon pollution is clear and overwhelming yet the u.s. senate is sleepwalking through this history. i'm here today for the 97th time to say that we must wake up. climate disruptions are felt in every corner of the globe from every fleer to the reaches of the -- floor to the reaches of the atmosphere and pole to pole. the united states is antarctic nation. we have been since secretary of state seward negotiated the purchase of alaska from russia

in 1867 for about $11 million. from our vantage point of the arctic circle we're witnessing disruptions. the arctic region has been warming for decades twice as fast as the rest of the planet. alaska's warmest year on record was 2014, going back to at least 1918. here i'm talking about measurements. it's not a theory. this year's alaskan winter was so mild that the start of the famous iditarod race had to be moved from anchorage to fairbanks, more than 300 miles to the north so that the mushers could find snow and hard-frozen rivers to sled on. the arctic biodiversity assessment a project drawing on more than 250 scientists from 15 countries details the risk to the iconic wildlife and landscapes of the arctic.

the reports' chief scientist said -- i'll quote him -- polar bears and highly adaptive organisms cannot move farther north so they may go extinct. we risk losing several species forever. the report is clear, climate change is the most serious threat to arctic biodiversity and to its fisheries and tourism. arctic warming has wreaked havoc on the ice cover of the arctic terrain and oceans. look at the greenland ice sheet. in 2012, the national snow and the ice data center recorded melting over a larger area than ever in more than 30 years of satellite observations. here's a map of the average annual days of melting across the greenland ice sheet from 1979-2007.

that's the average. here's 2012. some areas like along here, the southwestern coast saw more than 120 days of melting in 2012 scientists estimate that the water pouring out of this ice sheet accounts for 30% of current global sea level rise. if the entire greenland ice sheet were to melt the seas would rise six meters. here's what 20 feet of sea level rise would look like for the east coast. much of rhode island's coastline here would be lost. florida -- ground zero for climate change -- would lose the entire southern region of the state. here's miami completely underwater. and here's tallahassee's new oceanfront.

sea ice in the arctic, not just land ice is also in full retreat. our scientists at nasa track disappearing sea ice using satellites. since nasa started measurements in 1979, arctic ice coverage has diminished in almost all regions and seasons. the winter record low ever -- ever -- was this march. the ice is not just a feature of the arctic landscape it supports the way of life of native peoples. thinning ice dangerous to traverse threatens traditional sustenance like whale hunting. sea ice protects the shoreline from powerful ocean storms and waves. as that ice barrier fades away, land and infrastructure flood and wash away. entire villages are facing wholesale relocation, as senator

murkowski from alaska has indicated on the floor. and it's the climate that has sustained them for generations that is being disrupted. a new national security theatre has opened in the arctic has melting ice frees up the northwest passage for transportation and shipping, for new fishing grounds and for its national -- natural resources. the departments of homeland security and defense need new strategies and equipment to protect american interests in this new theatre. in 2013, the pentagon released its arctic strategy. then-secretary of defense chuck hagel former republican senator said -- and i quote -- "climate change is shifting the landscape in the arctic more rapidly than anywhere else in the world. while the arctic temperature rise is relatively small in absolute terms its effects are significant transforming what was a frozen desert into an evolving navigable ocean giving

rise to an unprecedented level of human activity." his words are echoed by former coast guard commandant, admiral robert papp jr. who's now the u.s. special representative to the arctic region. it's his job to help manage risk in this remote but increasingly accessible region of the world. and he had this to say about the disruptions of the arctic climate. "i'm not a scientist but i can read what scientists say. i'm in the world of consequence management. my first turn in alaska was 39 years ago and during the summertime, we had to break ice to get up to the beren strait and to kotzebue. 39 years later flying up there we flew into kotzebue at the same time of year and i could not see ice anywhere. to it is clear to me there are

changes happening. but i have i have to deal with the consequences of that." last weekend secretary kerry headed to the canadian city of ekaloquit to assume the chair on the arctic council on behalf of the united states. it's a forum for arctic nations to work together to secure a sustainable arctic future. secretary kerry made it clear that climate disruption would be a focus for america's chairmanship saying plainly -- and i quote -- "the ability of future generations to be able to adapt and live and prosper in the arctic the way people have for thousands of years is tragically but actually in jeopardy. so if we want to know where the problem begins all we have to do is look in the mirror." secretary kerry sees this

problem for what it is and knows we need to lead in addressing climate change. congress too should seize the opportunity to do big things, to understand the changes that are occurring and to protect against these climate disruptions. our executive homeland and national security leaders must deal in real-world consequences. so should we. they don't have the privilege of shrugging off serious mature risk analysis. neither should we. but the big polluters and their front organizations ignore the consequences of carbon pollution, cherry-pick the evidence and traffic in denial doubt and delay. deniers are quick to point out that antarctic sea ice is increasing while arctic sea ice

is melting. but the fact is that overall the globe is losing sea ice at a rapid pace. since satellite measurements began the planet has been losing sea ice at an average rate of 13,500 square miles per year. the deniers usually also leave out the melting of the great ice sheets of antarctica. remember sea ice floats on the sea and its melting doesn't much raise the sea level. ice sheets rest on land and their melting adds to the seas. scientists now warn that the melting of some of these massive antarctic ice sheets may have -- quote -- "passed the point of no return." mr. president, rhode island has already experienced nearly 10 inches of sea level rise.

the implications of antarctic ice sheet melting are measured in feet, not inches. many thought the alaska purchase was a mistake. some called it seward's folly. but secretary seward had vision when he secured alaska for the united states, and now it is a treasured part of this great nation. we in congress and the senate should try to see through the haze of polluter influence and muster some vision ourselves on what scientists and world leaders alike call the greatest challenge of our time. the u.s. should be leading not stalled by special interest politics. secretary kerry knows we should lead. he's made fighting carbon pollution a priority for the state department in the lead-up to the global climate talks in paris this fall. more than 100 democratic members

of congress sent a letter last month to the president supporting u.s. leadership in these talks. we told the president -- and i quote -- "we stand ready to help you seize this opportunity to strengthen the global response to climate change." but what do our republican colleagues try to do? they try to undermine american leadership. the majority leader openly warned other countries that the u.s. would not be able to meet its climate plan and that they should proceed with caution before entering into a binding unattainable deal. mr. president, it's past time to take action. the price of being wrong on this will be very high particularly if the reason turns out in the

eyes of history and our fellow nations to have been partisan politics and special interest influence. one of america's great powers is the power of our example. and what a sickening example we are setting now. our inaction, mr. president is our folly. it is, indeed, time to wake up. i yield the floor. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: a senator: mr. president i note the absence of a quorum and i ask unanimous consent that it be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. boozman: thank you mr. president. i'm here today to honor a long-time champion of arkansas, congressman john paul hammer schmidt who passed away earlier this month at 92 after a long life as a dedicated public

servant. as a member of the greatest generation john paul served as a combat pilot during world war ii and was a decorated war hero. as a congressman from the third district of arkansas for 26 years and the only republican member of the delegation at the time he worked across the aisle to provide infrastructure and various improvements to arkansas, paving the way for the growth in the northwest corner of the state. even following his retirement more than 20 years ago john paul continued to serve the people who fondly referred to him as j.p.h. he always put arkansas first. his vision for a two-party system in arkansas led him to seek elected office. he paved the way for the republican party in the state and his vision continues to be realized as the party continues its growth in the state. john paul is a name that is just as familiar in arkansas as it is to my colleagues in the senate. i served with him before serving in this chamber as well as many members of the house who worked

alongside him during his years in elected service. and through decades more of providing assistance to his beloved arkansas. he would have been -- you would have been hard pressed to find a kinder gentler man than john paul hammerschmidt. his wisdom and counsel has shaped my washington experience more than anyone else. when i ran for congress in 2001, i saw john paul offer advice. i quickly learned as a newly elected member of congress from the third district of arkansas how fond his former colleagues were of him. senior members of the house of representatives had so much respect for him that they welcomed me into their inner circle because he had given his approval. it was john paul who taught me that after the election was over there were no more republicans or no more democrats, there is only the people of arkansas. his dedication to his constituents during his career in public service was unmatched and is a marker we should all

strive to meet. during his time in congress, he served in the minority but he would disagree without being disagreeable. i always value john paul's friendship and his continued advice. john paul set the standard for helping arkansans. that bar is something members of the arkansas congressional delegation continue to strive for today. his vision to improve life for arkansans led him to serve in the house of veterans' affairs committee as well as the house transportation and infrastructure committee. by the time he retired he served as the latter's ranking member. using his position on the t.m.i. committee, he helped secure funds for roads and interstate projects as well as i-40 which now bears his name. the northwest arkansas regional airport as well as protecting the buffalo river and getting the designation as a first national river. john paul had big shoes to fill. he believed he could make a difference in the lives of arkansans because he believed in

loving his fellow man. we were capitalizing on the benefits he helped provide as a testament of his time in washington. from all arkansans i thank john paul for his devotion to public service, his leadership and his dedication to arkansas. his example is something we should continue to strive for here in washington. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 36, s. 304. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 36, s. 304 a bill to improve motor vehicle safety by encouraging the sharing of certain information. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding with the measure?

without objection. mr. boozman: i ask consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to the bill as amended be read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. boozman: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 153 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 153, recognizing the importance of the united states-japan relationship to safeguarding global security, prosperity and human rights. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. boozman: mr. president i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. boozman: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that the president of the senate be authorized to appoint a committee on the part of the senate to join with a like committee on the part of the house of representatives to escort his excellency into the house chamber for the joint meeting at 11:00 a.m. on wednesday, april 29, 2015. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. boozman: as in executive session, i ask unanimous consent that the nomination of peter neffinger of ohio to be assistant secretary of the homeland of security be referred to the committee on science and transportation that reporting out of the discharge or the nomination the nomination then be referred to the committee on homeland security and governmental affairs for a period not to exceed 30 calendar days after which the nomination if still in committee, be discharged and placed on the executive calendar. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. boozman: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. wednesday april 29. following the prayer and the pledge the morning hour be deemed expired the journal of proceedings be approved to date and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. following leaders remarks the senate will be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each until 10:30 a.m., with the time equally divided in the usual form. further, that at 10:30 a.m., the senate recess subject to the call of the chair to allow the joint meeting with the japanese prime minister. finally, that following the joint meeting the senate resume consideration of h.r. 1191. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. boozman: senators are asked to gather in the chamber at 10:35 a.m. tomorrow to proceed as a body to the hall of the

house for a joint meeting. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned until the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. johnson: mr. president, i would like

>> mr. president i would like to speak to this amendment. >> the chairs are nice. the chair chairs recognize. >> mr. president is deal that the administration is involved in making with iran has serious implications are not only america's financial security but really the peace and security of the world. it is true that at this point in time nobody knows what really is in the deal. we certainly have been given a framework in terms of what the deal is supposed to be but what we do know is even within that framework as it has been described to the american public there are serious discrepancies in the way this administration has typified the framework of the deal and what the ayatollah in iran, how they describe the deal. for example, according to our president the sanctions will only be lifted once iran has

complied with major components of the agreement. according to the ayatollah those sanctions would be lifted immediately. that's a big discrepancy. according to this administration we will have the right to inspect to ensure verification and accountability of any agreement. but the ayatollah disagrees with that. the ayatollah certainly says there will be no inspections on military sites. now, if we want to enter into this agreement to prevent iran from creating a nuclear weapon surely we should have the right to inspect the military sites. another pretty serious discrepancy in terms of the administration's idea or understanding of what this framework is versus the ayatollah is what's going to happen with the 10,000 kilograms of enriched uranium? according to this administration it will be shipped out of the

country not available for any kind of nuclear program. according to the ayatollah so those are major discrepancies in terms of what disagreements are about. the types of discrepancies that need to be fully vetted and the american people need to understand what that is. there's also been deceptions about this agreement. for example we have heard repeatedly in hearings that this administration will insist that any, any agreement will ensure that the nuclear component within iran will be for peaceful purposes. i just have to point out that there is no peaceful purpose for iran to have nuclear enrichment. if they want peaceful nuclear power they can certainly do what a number of other countries that have peaceful nuclear power do they can purchase the uranium fuel from outside countries. the only reason iran would

subject themselves to the sanctions, to the isolation and economic harm to the economy and the people is because they want nuclear weapons to blackmail the region and the world. and of course, this administration talks about sanctions. that's deceptive because once the sanctions are relaxed, once the sanctions are lifted it would be virtually impossible once hundreds of billions of dollars of investment from the west from other countries go to iran. it will be impossible to put the sanctions back in place. almost virtually impossible. we have had a sanctions regime starting resolutions dating back to 2006. it took years for the sanctions to take hold. i had to keep iran to the bargaining table. unfortunately this administration and its negotiations relax those sanctions to a point that it

acknowledged, basically acknowledged iran's enriched uranium and in that sense basically back where we began. there are deceptive to the vacations of what this deal is and what it would be. the purpose of my amendments are to bring clarity to what the iran nuclear agreements review would be and what it is not. now i give the chairman and the ranking member in the senate foreign relations committee a great deal of -- to come up with some sort of deal, some sort of plot law that would give congress some kind of her role into this incredibly important deal. but this is not congress's rightful role. this is not what the framers felt through the constitution would need. it is far from it.

there are basically three points of international agreements. there is a treaty. there is a congressional executive agreement and then there's just the executive agreement. there is really no set criteria on what makes one international agreement a treaty or an executive agreement. what in fact basically the final determination is how that particular agreement is ratified or approved by congress or not approved by congress. i believe when you look at the considerations in the state department own foreign-policy manual, consideration number one the extent to which this agreement involves commitments are risks affecting the nation as a whole. i would say this agreement with iran certainly involves risks to affect our entire nation.

consideration number three whether the agreement can be given the enactment of legislation from congress. the whole point of this particular ask is that we have placed sanctions we have put sanctions in place here by passing laws in congress that congress does realize we have a role in lifting those sanctions. consideration number five this type of agreement. there can be dispute and that is at the heart of what my amendment would deal. it involves congress in determining what exactly this deal is. is it a treaty? is it a congressional executive agreement? or is it simply an executive agreement that really does not have long-lasting effects? now i would argue for the purpose of the point of my first amendment, i believe this is of such importance that this deal

is so important, the security of this nation and world peace rises to the level of a treaty. so my amendment simply strikes the act, strikes the ryan nuclear agreement review act and replaces it with a simple statement that this congress deems this agreement with iran as a treaty. the other thing my amendment does is it removes the waiver authority this congress granted the president as it relates to be sanctions. that would then require this president and iran to come to this congress as contemplated by our constitution for the advice and consent of this body so that 67 senators would have to vote affirmatively that this is a good deal. basically the american public

would be involved in the decision to their elected representatives. the american public is not being given the opportunity right now. what is happening right now under this iran nuclear agreement review act is we have turned advice and consent on his head. we have lowered the threshold to what advice and consent means when it relates to this iran deal. we are going to vote hopefully we will vote on this amendment prevent the second amendment in case this one does not succeed. i have an executive amendment. if this congressman and senators not want to treat this as a treaty we should minimally treated as a congressional executive agreement and i'm willing to lower that threshold under procedures to a simple majority vote of both houses. 50%. i contemplated writing in the amendment to really detail what

this agreement truly is or what this review act really is. a low threshold congressional executive agreement. when i say low threshold i mean what is going to happen here if we pass the agreement review act. we will get a vote of disapproval. if 60 senators agree that this is a bad deal for america and they disapprove of it we can pass that disapproval. then it goes to the president for signature. he can veto that. of course if he vetoes that it would take two-thirds of this body to override that veto and two-thirds of the house to override that veto. that requires 67 senators. if we are unable to muster the 67 voters to override the veto of our voter disapproval on a bad deal between iran and america what we in fact have done is we have given 34 senators the ability to approve

that bad deal. so when i offer that amendment to the parliamentarian they will basically show that in its clarity that what this iran nuclear agreement review act really is a very low threshold approval by this body. the parliamentarian i think very appropriately ruled that amendment out of order unconstitutional. you can approve something with just 34 votes in the united states congress and the united states senate. i think that is my point. so vocally and i appreciate the fact that we will be able to vote on my amendment deeming this deal between america and i ran a treaty so if that the american people have the ability to weigh in to have a say in whether or not this is important enough to be affirmatively

approved as our constitution contemplates with the international agreement of this importance. it's be affirmatively approved by the vote of 67 senators and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment could i yield the floor. >> mr. president. i want to thank the senator for his active involvement on the foreign relations committee. he is a valuable member and i appreciate his concern about this issue. i know that he understands that this is an amendment that is likely not to pass and let me tell you why. four times since 2010, congress has put in sanctions that most people believe is what brought iran to the table, for different charges that began in 2010. almost every one of these cases they have had huge bipartisan support. i know the senator knows this but what happened was when those

were gone three of those four times the senator voted to give the president and national security waiver on the congressionally mandated sanctions so i know the senator knows this well. we have talked about extensively. i know that he has had conversations with the secretary of state worm or secretary of state condoleezza rice if i have multiple times and she agrees that this is an executive agreement and let me tell you why. the reason it's an executive agreement is right now the president has the ability to go straight to the u.n. security council and alleviate the u.n. security council sanctions. obviously he has the ability to do that with the executive sanctions that he himself put in place and what congress has done and i know the senator participated because he too wanted to make sure that we sanctioned iran to bring this to the table as we have, but i know the senator and i have said

three of those times he gave the president the unilateral ability to waive the sanctions. i was very concerned about this and wrote a letter to the president about two months ago asking how you plan to do this. obviously i got a response round the chief chief of staff and they made it very clear they plan to go straight to the u.n. security council and it's my understanding that what they plan to do is use something called a nonbinding political commitment. that's what they plan to do with iran as they come to an agreement and then have that endorsed by the u.n. security council so while i very much appreciate the sentiments of the senator who i love working with i'm glad we have a businessman of his caliber here, i think he knows that what we are actually doing here is something that is unprecedented and that is what we are taking back from the president authority that authority been given to him and

causing him to have to bring this agreement to us. i know it's not to the level he would like and it's not at the level i would like. i mean i agree with that but let me just say this. we know that in the event this amendment would pass it would be vetoed and therefore substituted for the bill before us. what that would mean is no limitation would be on the president's use of waiver to defend sanctions we put in place knowing congress receives a deal at all nevermind the classified annex as we know aren't they part of and by the way that the american people are never going to see. without the bill on the floor the american people will never see it. we won't see it on there by half because we believe that on behalf of the american people somebody should go through this bill and detail if there's a deal to be reached. there were no -- be no review. not for congress before it's implemented no requirement that the partisans -- president

certify that iran comply. no agreement for iran to rapidly reimpose the sanctions and terrorism ballistic missile development and human rights violations. now look if i can wave a magic wand or all of a sudden donkeys flew around the capital, i would love for us to have the ability to deem this. i think the senator knows i mean that. i would love for us to have to affirmatively approved this but unfortunately a lot of us are article ii folks and we think the president has the ability to negotiate. we have no idea that this president would consider sending these sanctions ad infinitum forever. no idea and i think even people on this side of the aisle were shot great as a matter of fact senator kaine in a meeting with secretary kerry, i'm sorry --

and one of our hearings he said you are going to have the right to vote on it. of course what he meant was five years down the road six years down the road after the sanctions have been eliminated. so look, i have strong agreement with the sentiment of our senator. somebody i love serving with but let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. let's ensure that we have the ability to see the details of this deal that is before us. that it doesn't start until we get all the classified annexes on behalf of the american people some of which are here in the gallery watching on their behalf we have the ability to see an amendment grade and by the way up we don't like it, guess you know the way the senate operates. you have to have a 60 vote threshold. in the house it's a simple majority. it's a simple majority in the house. so look i agree with the

sentiment. this is one of the biggest geopolitical issues that will potentially happen if an agreement is reached in our lifetime in the senate and i just hope that people in spite of the fact agree with the sentiment will vote against the johnson amendment when it comes to the floor make sure we can pass the bill that's before so that on behalf of the american people we have the opportunity to see it, to weigh in and by the way one of the things that's very important that lives beyond is every 90 days the president having to comply that iran or having to certify that iran is complying with the agreement. >> the senate voted down senator johnson's amendment that would deem any nuclear deal with iran to be a treaty subject to the advice and consent of the senate. if the amendment had been approved that would have meant the iran agreement would require the approval of two-thirds of the senate or 67 senators.

but as we said the amendment failed. >> madam president, i rise to express my support for the iran nuclear agreement review act. the only measure now before us that will prevent president obama from having a free and independent hand to conclude a flawed agreement with the government of iran. the white house and the ayatollah in iran must know that the united states congress will not tolerate a bad deal. secretly struck a hunter bags without our approval. this bill the menendez bill being managed by senator or grant -- on the floor before us meet our engagement and it's the only vehicle we have two send that message.

does the passage of the review at is absolutely essential. its passage will would send that message more important than any amendment no matter how correct are well conceived. if those amendments would doom the bill in this vital role. we have come to a moment of decision in this chamber. it is clear at last that we are finally close to a vital congressional role in evaluating any deal something president obama previously had been determined to avoid. i have long been concerned that the president is determined to implement his version of the deal with iran on his own circumventing the congress. this is not acceptable. resolving this issue with iran is the most significant foreign-policy and the security challenge of our age. it cannot be pursued simply by the president. overreaching or potentially

overreaching his constitutional authority a longing for legacy and desperate for a deal. a supermajority in congress would reject the deal if it is presented to us that he has struck the wrong deal. fortunately, the presidential support was finally provided after the foreign relations committee voted on an entirely bipartisan basis to give congress a role in this matter. .. strategy that brought us to that result in committee required the sponsors of this bill the iran nuclear agreement review act to keep the focus on its core purpose. and while there were many amendments considered or offered

in the committee that could have improved the bill the corker-menendez bill passed by the foreign relations committee is a necessary first step in achieving the goal of congressional engagement in one congressional engagement in one of the most important issues of our time. it is clear the most important goal at this stage of negotiations is that congress must have a determining voice and accepting or rejecting any deal. the passage of legislation will spell out with precision what sort of deal might be acceptable, what concessions may be going too far and what the consequences may be if iran backs away from acceptable conditions.

the worst possible outcome congress will have become no longer a matter of concern. the ukrainians will have a green light to continue negotiations. they're hand maximum advantage. as much ground as necessary to get a deal they so desperately desire. to avoid that outcome we must focus on keeping the

bipartisan majority solid and robust. a much more crucial vote of the iran deal itself where our focus needs to be. we then must use the next two months to analyze the negotiations in switzerland. identify the witnesses and determine how to proceed. as it now stands as outlined by the so-called political framework i am profoundly unhappy with what has been agreed to by this administration. if this is what we see i will vote against it and do my best to make sure others do as well. we must make sure the white

house knows we require the deal is to be accepted. this is not a recent or uninformed position. i have been deeply involved with this issue for the past several years and have been concerned about the growing threat since at least 2001. back then when i was ambassador the biggest challenge was to persuade germany to support the invasion of iraq. the israeli ambassador talking to me about the ultimate threat. an even greater threat coming and that this would continue to grow until we took it seriously and out with it effectively. i cochaired with senator rob the bipartisan policy

focused deeply on the iran nuclear issue and offer detailed analysis and recommendations. task force members included many members. ambassadors and foreign-policy analysts .-dot particularly in the middle east a number of key generals who served with the military on middle eastern affairs and a number of other names. our reports covered the elements of a deal acceptable and can best meet we thought, our national security needs. all aspects of the some material production must be limited and controlled.

activities at activities at the various nuclear facilities and the type of research and development that must be curtailed the issue of irani and stockpiles nuclear weapon design activities missile development the critical need of adequate inspection regimes and the duration of any future deal. we also examined the requirements of the necessary military option that must back up any diplomatic efforts and sanctioned pressure to achieve the right result. apply the pressure needed along with other ratcheting sanctions if iran continued to defy the wishes of the united nations the united states, the free world and those who have spoken up about the consequences deadly consequences of the

iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons. i have supported negotiations as an essential tool. this is not a rush to war but doing everything we can to prevent war and i have supported ardently negotiations to try to achieve necessary results putting ever increasing pressure on irani and regimes to achieve the desired result. not taking off the table the use of force if necessary only if everything else failed because they have stated that irani and possession of nuclear weapons is simply unacceptable.

other nations have said the same thing and now we are looking at something that might allow iran to break all of those commitments. we need a solution that guarantee security. ensuring iran will never have nuclear weapons. unfortunately it is clear to me the framework agreement and subsequent development that these negotiations are off track and have been for some time and do not begin to meet the minimum criteria outlined in our several bipartisan policy center's.

the framework proposal that has been agreed to. the obama administration negotiated tactics have been seriously flawed from the beginning abandoning central principles at the outset of negotiations, an agreement that builds and allow iran to retain a robust industrial capacity ability to enrich uranium the core of nuclear weapons. this was never the intention of the international community until the obama administration negotiators took the helm and changed direction. originally it was deemed to be just too hard to achieve. the result is that iran can now have the right to enrich

uranium the fundamental demand from the beginning and one of the united nations security council has firmly and consistently refused until this administration began negotiations. in the wake of that fundamental concession we will have to rely on elaborate monitoring mechanisms to keep uranium enrichment enterprise within agreed levels. on the surface there is a lot of reassurance we will be able to detect cheating and the president has emphasized this.repeatedly. i have seen this before served in the senate when we were told agreements with north korea could be verified. we were misled. today 20 years after the

nuclear agreement negotiated by the administration that country has an estimated 20 nuclear warheads and the chinese experts tell us that the north koreans will have more than 40 by the end of next year and an effective icbm intercontinental ballistic missile. all that work command developing a huge dangerous arsenal was done after we concluded a negotiated agreement to end the nuclear program confident that we would be able to detect cheating. let me repeat that. all that they have achieved in violation of the agreement we made has occurred after that agreement not before.

today we sit as a dangerous nuclear armed nation 20 nuclear warheads that could be easily and have been attached to icbms. now i feel we're making the same mistake. it has become difficult to maintain that the agreement under consideration by this administration will provide the transparency we need. senior iranian officials including ayatollah himself and the chief of the iranian revolutionary guard have said repeatedly that there will be no international inspections of irani and nuclear facilities. we know that much of it has gone on in such facilities.

barring access to them must be the end of any deal. such hard-line statements by the regime of there negotiating tactics i do not take comfort from that. it must be proven at the negotiating table not simply declarations from the white house. give the administration complete transparency and total ability to monitor iranian compliance anywhere in the country that all members of congress must stand up and reject. further, many sinister details hidden from those not steeped in the technical details. many show negotiators caved on key issues. in fact the entire negotiation process has been a steady concessions as we

give way on one issue after another. there are many examples of this agreement to allow continuing research and development of the most advanced centrifuges safely buried deep within the margin. they will not be a uranium enrichment. the developments once the agreement expires. the final years covered by the outline. the breakout time will have gone to zero. a mortal blow to this

agreement in my view and comes from the chief advocate of the deal. the 4th problem is the eccentric -- the sensual issue of sanctions relief. the white house fact sheet indicated that sanctions would be looked at broadly as they show compliance. the iranian negotiators and supreme leader immediately refuted. i'll sanctions must be lifted immediately president obama responded all of a sudden he was not concerned about the timing issue with away sanctions would be lifted.

the so-called snapback provisions that would reimpose sanctions. these presidential comments signal publicly that once again the ayatollah has had his way. sadly, no one gives credibility. another mortal flaw is the issue of expiration dates. the outline in the white house talking points are designed to confuse the issue. various time frames have been mentioned. the fact is the core limitations on the iranian nuclear infrastructure if implemented over time expire and ten years, others and 15 the sanctions will have long since disappeared and iran

will then have the technical ability to spread and nuclear arsenal. ten years or even 15 years is tomorrow afternoon in this dangerous game for the world's future. the president in his own words tells us everything we need to know. what is a more relevant fear they have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium. this is indeed the most relevant fear presented by the negotiations namely the fear that iran will be given the path to nuclear weapon possession with consequences that are unacceptable.

we should all agree that is the most relevant fear presented by these negotiations but at this moment it seemed less probable we will be called upon to consider a deeply flawed agreement but this is not entirely unavoidable. we have time to press negotiators on both sides to change the outcome. the iranians must know that congress has become an important player. there will be no knew constraints. if they want something they must give ground. if not they will face painful and relentless sanction pressure. this is a profound moment in history a nuclear armed iran would present a danger

to the middle east the united states and the world preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons has always been at the heart of our nuclear strategy. more than that it is at the heart of the future of the world. allowing iran to develop the capacity to develop those weapons and igniting a nuclear arms race must be prevented. there is nothing whatsoever partisan about this request. neither i or my republican colleagues are attacking the president all wishing him ill. similarly i trust our democratic colleagues will not blindly support the president no matter what agreement emerges.

in many ways, the future of these negotiations is now in our hands. we have passed the iran nuclear agreement review act with as much bipartisan support as we can achieve in order to play a role in this process. we must not provoke a veto that can be sustained thereby depriving congress of our role and voice. we must press we must press the white house to demand an agreement that permanently halts irani and nuclear ambitions and then evaluate objectively and honestly the agreement that emerges accept it if we can rejected if we must. this is a sound duty. i trust each of us will be up to the task and challenge i yield the floor.

>> madam president i see the senator is prepared to speak. i would like 1st to thank the senator for his extraordinary leadership. he is one of those individuals who worked closely to find a common way to resolve extremely challenging issues that we have. let me take you back. most people thought it was impossible for the senate to get together on a bill that would provide a way to review a potential agreement with iran on nuclear weapons there was a vote scheduled a recess and most of us thought the bill would come out but would be one the

president would continue to threaten to veto. and then the senate foreign relations committee went to work and were able to resolve these issues. one of the key players traveling during the recess in africa doing important work i doubt if he got any sleep because i was getting calls in the middle of the night giving us constructive ways to deal with difficult issues of congressional views -- congressional review and make sure they had the information needed. i want to thank the senator for his extraordinary leadership and work on behalf of the legislation we have before us. i yield the floor. >> the senator from delaware >> i would like to thank the

senator for his gracious remarks. i come to the floor to speak about the uranian nuclear negotiations and the need for congress to play a constructive and meaningful role. this week the full senate will consider the nuclear agreement review act which would ensure congress has the ability to consider any nuclear deal before any congressionally enacted sanctions are rolled back. this will ensure that congress exercises oversight over the implementation of agreement through rigorous reporting requirements. this bill passed the foreign relations committee, the united states senate unanimously. members worked tirelessly together to ensure it would receive bipartisan support and carefully negotiated a deal that defeated

amendments that would have prevented the obama administration from continuing to negotiate in good faith and in my you is a testament to there leadership that we were able to come together on a bipartisan bill and that the president has said he would sign. i have been hugely frustrated by the failure of republicans and democrats to come together to pass legislation. republicans are now in the majority and have a chance to move past obstructionism and show in the senate we have an opportunity to pass a bill that the senate plays a constructive role in protecting the united states national interest. he wants a functioning senate regular order the senate to play its rightful role. here is the chance.

this review has happened. the republican chair of the foreign relations committee working well with his democratic counterpart crafted this bill. it has passed the community which has fully and fairly debated the bill and many amendments. as many republican senator said a very broad range of views but came together to pass this bill unanimously. if that is not regular order i do not know what is i believe we should respect the committee process. that bill gives leader mcconnell the opportunity he wants to ensure the senate exercises its role. i particularly like my republican colleagues sat

there and said anyone who monkeys with this bill will run into a buzz saw. anyone who offers an amendment that will break the support will merely benefit the iranians. that is why i stand here today to urge my colleagues to avoid attaching amendments outside the scope of the current negotiations and pass this bill and is currently supported by the majority of senate republicans. over the last two years iran has responded to congressionally enacted sanctions by coming to the negotiating table to discuss and deal with these programs the obama administration has been engaged in difficult and demanding negotiations. after a few extensions that have effectively frozen and

rollback parts of the program the administration is in the final phases of negotiation. the president release parameters of a potential deal. a few remaining critical gaps to be finalized. this bill is not a referendum in the president's decision to pursue a path of diplomacy not a referendum. the bill before us has a simple clear goal about creating an orderly process that allows congress to review any deal. it would ensure congress can play a constructive role after an agreement is reached by determining whether the deal is strong enough. yet my colleagues have insisted on making this a partisan exercise rather

than keeping it be responsible bipartisan measure before us now. we will have that chance. it is not about killing the negotiations before they have a chance to conclude not about creating a list of complaints about the destructive behavior. it could and should pass now in its current form without amendment. i'm believe i have been as outspoken as anyone but i am troubled by amendments being offered. human rights records are atrocious. it is continuing to threaten israel and cowardly

dangerous, and just plain wrong and must release the americans currently holds hostage. these are legitimate concerns for consideration but are outside the scope of the current negotiations. congress must resist the temptation to make it a sticking. let's be clear. there are already sanctions. the parameters said us sanctions will remain in place under the deal. no one is talking about removing the sanctions. the critical importance of preventing it from ever

building a nuclear weapon. i have long believed a a nuclear armed iran would pose a grave threat to the region israel, and the world. .. global security. that's why throughout the negotiating process i have remained adamant no deal is better than a bad deal and have closely consulted with the administration on that point and others. i've metropolitan with officials to discuss these recently announced parameters and been clear i remain concerned about closing the remaining gaps and the need to maintain pressure on the iranian regime to close any pathway to their development of a nuclear weapons capability. i support this bill as it is. it is responsible and focused on the issue at hand. it ensures that congress gets to weigh in if a deal is reached and it strengthens this administration's ability to negotiate the best deal it possibly can. every republican in the senate

foreign relations committee voted for this bill, all ten of them from senator rand paul and senator are rubio and senator johnson, all nine democrats on the foreign relations committee supported this bill as well. all 19 senators on this foreign relations committee represent as wise arange of foreign views as could exist. so i would urge my colleagues on both sides to pause and reflect before supporting amendments that would make this a partisan exercise rather than a prudent use of congressional authority. if they want congress to play a responsible role overseeing any potential deal, this bill gives us that chance. the alternative >> the alternative to this bill is not a better bill. it is a deal without any meaningful congressional input. i have been as critical of iran and distrusting as anyone in the body but if unrelated amendments become attached