t an agreement is a treaty, a congressional executive agreement or just an executive agreement. the first consideration is the extent to which the agreement involves commitments or risks affecting the nation as a whole. the third consideration whether the agreement can be given effect without the enactment of subsequent legislation by congress. the fact that we have this bill proves the fact that it needs subsequent legislation by congress. number five, the preference of the congress as to a particular type of agreement. that's what we're talking about here. the congress weighing in in the form of my amendment saying we want a role. we want a more robust role than is currently offered in this bill. the seventh is a the proposed duration of the agreement. er were going to be living with the impact, the effect, the results, the collateral damage of this agreement between iran and the other negotiating parties for a very, very, very

long time. so based on those considerations based on the fact that in the state department's own foreign affairs manual in determining whether something is a treaty or an executive agreement or a congressional executive agreement, there should be consultation with congress. i consider this amendment consultation with congress. g.n.p.again, all i'm asking with this amendment is to provide a minimal -- a minimal -- constitutional threshold a minimum constitutional role for congress in affirmatively approving a deal between iran and the rest of the world and america. so all this amendment really does, in effect, it just asks the president to bring that agreement before the american people before this congress, allow us to have input to

affirmatively approve this in both chairnlings both chambers, both the house and the senate, with a mere majority vote of both chambers. because what is currently on the floor in this bill -- and again i have a great deal of respect for the senator from tennessee. i know in his heart he believes this senate, this congress, should have a far more robust role and involvement in such a consequential agreement you about--but i also realize the challenge he's had dealing with our friends on the other side of the aisle and how very little involvement they are willing to agree to for this senate and for this congress. if the bill is passed, we need to clarify what that means in terms of approval. and probably the best way for me to point that out is i had a third amendment that i tried to

introduce. it was an amendment that was going to specifically describe what this bill does, with a vote of disaapproval, what that threshold really means in terms of this very consequential deal. so i offered an amendment i called it a very low threshold for approval congressional executive agreement. it would have allowed the agreement between iran and the rest of the world to be approved by this body, by this congress with a majority vote in the house and a vote of only 34 senators here in this body. now, very appropriately that amendment was ruled out of order. it was ruled unconstitutional by the parliamentarian as it should have been. because that is not approval of a process. that is not the way congress should weigh in, have input be involved in such a consequential

agreement. but that's exactly in a very convoluted process of votes of disaapproval that would have to be, first of all approved by -- voted on by 60 senators and then of course if that is vetoed, we would have to override that with 67 senators and two-thirds of the majority over in the house. and, again what this bill does, it will allow a very bad deal, potentially very bad deal between iran and the rest of the world and america to be approved by a majority vote in the house and vote of only 34 senators here in this chamber. so again with that reality with that clarity of what this bill does, the minimum role -- the minimum role that this bill allows -- i would urge all of my

colleagues to support my amendment that really provides for what should be the minimum involvement of congress: a majority vote, an affirmative vote of approval in both the house and the senate to any deal that this administration concludes with iran. with that, mr. president i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: i want to thank the senator from wisconsin for his great service on the foreign relations committee and i think he knows there's another amendment offered by another senator, the senator from texas that i think is very similar to this and we're working right now with the other side to try to bring that up. mr. johnson: will the senator yield? mr. corker: sure. mr. johnson: the difference between the two, as i understand them is the senator from texas' amendment would actually have a higher threshold than this. i think would rise to a 60-vote threshold. i am asking for something less

than that. to again clarify what this bill allows in terms of approval by this chamber. so even though we discussed this earlier, i don't believe i can combine the two because i think it's important to clarify the issue with an amendment that requires what i really do believe -- truly believe should be the minimum the minimum role the minimum affirmative approval of this agreement: a mere majority vote in both chambers. that is so reasonable. that is the minimum role the american people ought to have in terms of having a say on this. so you know, i have very -- i have never insisted on an amendment here in four years in the senate. i feel so deeply about this that i really ask both the senator from maryland and the senator from tennessee to please just allow a vote on this one

amendment. mr. corker: if i could mr. president, the senator is right. he doesn't offer many amendments nor do i. but the very first amendment that we voted on was the senator from wisconsin's. we had a conversation yesterday which i thought led to us considering, combining this request with the request from senator cruz, and i know we're working on that particular issue. but i understand, and we're trying to process these. i think he knows that, you know, we're trying to process votes and the very first one we processed was the one from the senator from wisconsin. so i appreciate his -- i really do appreciate his concerns. i think he knows i share his concerns about this agreement and i'm trying to get done what is possible. again, if i could wave a wand and cause the national security

waivers and we voted on for years ago if i could wave a wand and those go away, then we would be in a position where we would actually need to have an affirmative vote. but i do appreciate his concerns. i think he knows that we're trying to work through agreements down here and i appreciate his patience as we do so. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i just want to join in senator corker's -- senator johnson is a very valued member on the committee. the two of us are the representatives to the united nations this year. i know his passion on these issues. but i just want to underscore a couple points. the right now shall as of as of the of last night, there are 69 amendments.

the number of democratic amendments are 66. the number of republican amendments are zero. we are trying to maintain the bipartisan cooperation that we've had through this process so the senate could speak with a united voice because that gives us the strongest possible message as to the congressional role. and i must tell you this is a delicate balance how we have brought this bill forward. i don't think i'm underestimating the surprise that we received from our colleagues when they heard there was a 19-0 vote in our committee. so i just -- there's so many members who are working with us that have filed amendments, and i thank each one of them, trying to find areas where we, as we worked in the senate foreign relations committee can find a smonacommon spot to be able to advance those amendments. i'm optimistic that we're going to be able to deal with the amendments that have been filed.

but in direct response to senator johnson let me just point out the sanctions were imposed by the united states congress by votes of the house and the senate and the signature of the president. what is being negotiated between our negotiating partners -- the united states and iran -- is an agreement, if they're successful -- if the deal is struck -- that will prevent iran from becoming a nuclear-weapon state and will provide over time relief from iran from the international and u.s. sanctions that have been imposed. that is the framework. we know that's the sanctions brought them to the table. we all understand that. and we're very proud of the role that we played. but it is congress and only congress that can permanently change or modify that sanction regime. we're going to have to act. so i just take exception with senator johnson's view that we're 23409 not going to act. we are going to act because

only we can permanently change the sanctions regime. but what this bill gives us is an orderly way to consider the congressional review of this agreement or deal when it is finally reached. and i just wish my colleagues would not prejudge this. i've heard so many people say that something is going to happen. we don't know what the agreement is going to be. we don't even know if they're going to be able to come in with an agreement. when the obama administration came out with the framework agreement, there were many members of this chamber who said iran will never live up to the commitments in the framework agreement, that they'll break out, they won't pull back as they were committed to doing and the sanctions regime would not be able to stay in effect. and, guess what? a year later, they have complied with the framework agreement and they have, in fact -- the

sanctions regime has held tight during this period of time with our negotiating partners. do i share many of the concerns of my friend from wisconsin? i do. i do share those concerns. i am concerned as to whether or not the agreement will be strong enough to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state. we are going to look in our committee, if we can pass this bill in the same bipartisan manner in which we did in committee -- if we can do that the senator from wisconsin the chairman the ranking member, all of us in the senate foreign relations committee are going to get all the documents we're going to have time to review it and be able to answer those questions. the vote that we're having on the floor this week is whether we're going to have that opportunity. and i know that these amendments are well-intended. i understand that. i understand the deep feelings that each member has. but the bottom line, if the

amendment my friend is talking about got on the bill, we're not going to get that review. we're not going to have that orderly process. that's -- that's the facts. so i think the debate on the floor is critically important. we've been debating this bill for a week. we started it last thursday. 19-0 vote in committee. not a single democratic amendment. we think it's time to move this bill forward to the united states house of representatives. and, yes senator corker and i are going to accommodate the suggestions that have been paid by members. we're finding a way to do that. and we're going to continue to work that path. but at the end of the day, this is a very serious issue and i agree completely with senator graham and the comments he has made. this is an extremely important issue. it's got to rise above our individual desires so that collectively we can achieve something for the american people. that's what they want us to do. we have it in our grasp and i

really applaud the leadership of senator corker. he's got to work with all the republican amendments that have been filed. believe me, there's a lot of frustration in the democratic caucus as well as to why this bill is still on the floor and hasn't passed by now. but if we get everybody's patience, i am confident that senator corker and i will be able to work together so that we can accommodate the reasonable requests of our members and get this bill moving to the united states house of representatives. but let us maintain the balance that the senate foreign relations committee did and let us do what the american people want us to do, and that is listen to each other. we have different views. i understand that. but the way that you can reach common ground is to listen to each other and reach a reasonable compromise that doesn't compromise the principles for which we're trying to achieve. that's exactly what the senate foreign relations committee bill does and i urge my colleagues to exercise some restraint and

let's get this bill to the house of representatives. i yield the floor. mr. johnson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from is with wisconsin. mr. johnson: i would like to respond to a point frequently made by the supporters of this bill that this is the only way -- the only way -- that this body, the congress, the senate, the house of representatives will exceed secede the details of the bill. our commander in chief will be so brazen, so arrogant as to negotiate and conclude an agreement of such import, of such consequence that -- and he would then keep it secret from the american people and this congress. i hope that's not so. but if that's truly his belief, i would be happy to modify my amendment to require that same

disclosure of the information of the details of the agreement. i'd be happy to do that, be happy to work with the other side to do so. but barring that agreement i still am urging my colleagues and i'm urging this body to allow a vote on my amendment to clarify what this bill is and what it is not. it is not advice and consent. what it is is the minimum the minimum threshold the minimum involvement, the minimum input on the part of the american people through their elected representatives to pass judgment to affirmatively approve such a consequential agreement with a near majority of vote of both chambers of congress. is that asking so much? and it is true that we passed this bill out of foreign relations with a unanimous vote

because we were granted assurances because i realize this is a delicate negotiation. i realize our friends on the other side of the aisle simply refuse to have what i consider a minimum involvement. again, i appreciate and applaud senator corker for doing a bipartisan agreement reaching that agreement. but our understanding is this would be a completely open amendment process. the senator from maryland points out it is 66 amendments to 1 well let's start voting on them. we'll vote on the one democrat amendment. let's start voting on ours. eventually we'll tire. even we'll we will have made our points. even we will have conveyed to the american public what this bill is and what it is not. again, let me for a final time say what this bill provides. if passed, sure we get the

information, which we should get regardless but it sets up a process, a very convoluted process, votes of disapproval which would require 60 votes in this chamber to pass. we assume it would be vetoed. then it would require 67 votes in this chamber to override the veto and two-thirds of a vote in the house to override that veto. so in effect let me clarify one last time. instead of requiring the bare minimum of an affirmative vote of a majority of members of both chambers of congress, this bill would allow approval of this agreement by a simple majority in the house and only 34 senators providing that rubber stamp of approval to a bill that

could be incredibly consequential and that we will live with the consequences of, the results of for many, many years to come. with that, mr. president i yield the floor. mr. corker: mr. president again, i thank the senator from wisconsin and appreciate his service. i thank him for his support of this bill. look i agree with him. i wish it was different than it is. you know, the fact is that we will have a right to vote whether to approve or disapprove the lifting in the normal way but that will occur four or five years down the road. i think most of us want to weigh in now before the sanctions regime totally dispaits. with that i yield the floor and notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

# quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. collins: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that proceedings under the call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to proceed as if in morning business in order to introduce a bill. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: thank you mr. president. mr. president, i rise to introduce the small business taxceptor and growth act -- tax certainty and growth act of 20 2015. i am very pleased to be joined by my friend and colleague from pennsylvania senator casey in introducing this bipartisan bill. mr. president, i know it will come as no surprise to the presiding officer that small businesses are our nation's job

creators. firms with fewer than 500 employees generate about 50% of our nation's g.d.p., account for more than 99% of employers and employ nearly half of all workers. according to the bureau of labor and statistics, small businesses generated 63% of the net new jobs that were created between 1993 and 2013. mr. president, even the smallest firms have a notable effect on our economy. the small business administration indicates that businesses with fewer than 20 employees accounted for 18% of all private-sector jobs in 2013. our bill allows small businesses

to plan for capital un-vestments that arevite -- investments that are vital to expansion and job creation. it eases complex accounting rules for the smallest businesses and it reduces the tax burden on newly formed ventures. recent studies by the national federation of independent business nfib, indicate that taxes are the number-one concern of small business owners and that constant change in the tax code is among their chief concerns. that is certainly the case in the state of maine. when i talk with employers across the state they tell me constantly that the uncertainty in our tax code and in the regulations that are coming out of washington make it very

difficult for them to plan, to hire new workers to know what is going to be coming their way. a key feature of our bill is that it provides the certainty that small businesses need to create and implement long-term capital investment plans that are vital to their growth. let me give you an example mr. president. section 179 of the internal revenue code allows small businesses to deduct the cost of acquired assets more rapidly. the amount of the maximum allowable deduction has changed three times in the past eight years. three times in the past eight years. making matters worse it's usually not addressed until it's part of a huge package passed at

the end of the year of extenders, making this tax benefit unpredictable from year to year and therefore difficult for small businesses to take full advantage of in their long-range planning. essentially, they have to gamble that the tax incentive is going to be extended and that it's going to be made retrobeing a tough to the -- retroactive to the first of the year when it expired. just recently i spoke with a small business in maine. they told me that the uncertainties surrounding such surrounding section 17 has hindered their ability to make sound business decisions. the high-tech equipment that he needs requires months of lead

time. for a small business like patrick's, it's very risky to increase spending to expand and create new jobs when the deductibility of the machinery that helps make those jobs possible remains unknown until late-december. for business planning, this is information that is vital to have at the beginning of the year not at the end. this uncertainty has a direct impact on hiring decisions and the ability to take advantage of business opportunities. our bill permanently sets the maximum allowable deduction under section 179 at $500,000, indexed for inflation. it also is structured in such a way that it is really antarctickedtargetedto our smaller

businesses. our bill also permanently extends the ability of restaurants, retailers and certain businesses that lease their space to depreciate the costs of property improvements over 15 years rather than over 39 years. think of that, mr. president. what restaurant is going to be able to wait 39 years before doing upgrades and improvements? what we're trying to do here is to better match the depreciation schedule with the need to update a restaurant or a retail space. the small business tax certainty and growth act also allows more companies to use the cash method of accounting by permanently doubling the threshold at which the more complex accrual method

is required from $5 million in gross receipts to $10 million. this includes an expansion in the ability of small businesses to use simplified methods of accounting for inventories. our legislation also eases the tax burden on a new start-up business by permanently doubling the deduction for those initial expenses from $5,000 to $10,000. for a very small business, that's really important. like section 179 this benefit is limited to small businesses, and the deduction phases out for expenses exceeding $60,000. our legislation extends for one year a provision that provides benefits to businesses of all sizes, the so-called bonus

depreciation. mr. president, let me make clear that i continue to believe that congress should undertake comprehensive tax reform with three major goals. it should result in a tax code that is more pro-growth, that is fairer and that is simpler. and i urge the senate to undertake such a reform. but, in the meantime, the provisions of our bill would make a real difference in the ability of our nation's small businesses to keep and create jobs. let me give you another real-life example of what the small business expensing provision can mean. i'm proud to say that maine is known for its delicious craft beers. dan kliban founded maine beer company with his brother in 2009. in six short years the company

has added 21 good-paying jobs with generous health and retirement benefits. they plan to hire at least three more workers shortly. dan has noted that his company's business decisions were directly affected by section 179 expensing. but here's why. this provision allowed them to expand by reinvesting their capital in new equipment to produce more beer and hire more mainers. those are both good things. in the last three years they have taken the maximum deduction allowed under section 179 to acquire the equipment that they needed to expand their business. this year they hope to use the provision to finance the cost of a solar project that will offset

nearly 50% of their energy consumption. if their business had been forced to spread these deductions over many years its owners would not have been able to grow the business as they have done, nor create those good jobs. this economic benefit is multiplied when you consider the fact of the investment by maine beer company and maine's many other craft brewers on equipment manufacturers, the transportation companies needed to haul the new equipment to their breweries the increased inventory and their breweries and the suppliers of the materials needed to brew the additional beers. so it has a ripple effect that benefits many other businesses and allows them to create more jobs as well. mr. president, in february, nfib

released new research that backs this claim with hard numbers. they found that simply extending section 179 permanently at the 2014 level could increase employment about as much as 1,097,000 jobs during the ten year window following implementation. u.s. real output could also increase by as much as $18.6 billion over the same period. in light of the positive effects that this bill would have on small businesses, on job creation and on our economy i urge my colleagues to join us in supporting the small business certainty and growth act. i would note that the bill has been endorsed by nfib a leading voice for small business. and i would ask unanimous

consent that a letter of endorsement from the nfib be printed in the record immediately following my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: thank you mr. president. i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president are we in a quorum? the presiding officer: we are. ms. collins: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: mr. president, i would just ask to refer -- to

send to the desk and have appropriately referred the bill that i just spoke about. the presiding officer: the bill will be received and appropriately referred. ms. collins: thank you mr. president. my apologies to the manager of the bill that's on the floor. and i would ... i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you mr. president. last week i spoke on the floor about a new report by the bipartisan policy center. this report talked about the great progress that we've made so far in this congress as far as getting things done in a

bipartisan way. well, i believe that's good news. republicans in the senate are committed to continuing our progress and to holding more votes on areas of bipartisan agreement. so i want to speak today mr. president, about something that senators on both sides of the aisle agree that we can do to protect america's navigable waters. rivers, lakes and other waterways are among america's most treasured resources. in my home state of wyoming we have some of the most beautiful rivers in the world the snake river,if wind river, dozens of others. the people of wyoming are devoted to keeping these waterways safe and pristine for our children and grandchildren. they understand that there's a right way and a wrong way to do that. it is possible to have reasonable regulations to help preserve our waterways while at the same time allowing it to be used as natural resources. we've done it for years under

the clean water act. that's the right way to do it. the wrong way to do it is for washington bureaucrats bureaucrats, unelectable unaccountable, to write harsh and inflexible rules that could block any use of water or even use of land in much of the country. the environmental protection agency and the army corps of engineers have proposed a new rule a new rule that would expand the clean water act in what i believe is a dangerous new direction. the rule is an attempt to change the definition of what the law calls waters of the united states. under the rule, this term could include ditches it would include dry areas where water only flows for a short time after it rains. federal regulations have never before listed ditches and other manmade features as waters of the united states.

what the administration is proposing now simply makes no sense. under this new rule, the new rule they're proposing isolated ponds could be regulated as waters of the united states. this is the kind of pond that might form in a low-lying piece of land with no connection to a river or a stream. it could be in someone's back yard. an isolated pond is not navigable water. that's not what the law was designed to protect. this is bipartisan, and there is bipartisan agreement that washington bureaucrats no business none at all regulating an isolated pond as a water of the united states. under this newly proposed rule, agriculture water management systems could be regulated as waters of the united states. we're talking about irrigation

ditches. an irrigation ditch is not navigable water. these are manmade ditches that people dig to move water from one place to another to grow crops. this kind of agriculture water is not what the law was designed to protect. there is bipartisan agreement that washington bureaucrats have no business regulating an irrigation ditch as waters of the united states. under this outrageously broad new rule washington bureaucrats would now have a say in how farmers and ranchers and families use their own property. it would allow the environmental protection agency to regulate private property just based on things like whether it's used by animals or birds or even insects. it could regulate any water that moves overland or infiltrates into the ground. this is an ominously

far-reaching definition. and it is the wrong way the wrong way to protect america's precious water resources. this rule is not designed to protect the traditional waters of the united states. it is designed to expand the power of washington bureaucrats. there's a better way to protect america's waters, and there is bipartisan support for it in this body. today i've introduced the federal water quality protection act, along with senators donnelly inhofe, heitkamp, roberts and manchin. that's bipartisan. it's a bipartisan agreement that says we need a different approach. this bill says yes to clean water and no to extreme bureaucracy. it will give the environmental protection agency the direction it needs the direction to write a strong and reasonable

rule that truly protects america's waterways. one that keeps washington hands off of the things like irrigation ditches isolated ponds, and groundwater. one that doesn't allow determinations to be based on plants and insects one that protects streams that could carry dangerous pollutants to navigable waters or wetlands to protect those waters from pollutants. it would make sure that washington bureaucrats comply, comply with other laws and executive orders that, well, they've been avoiding. they would have to do an economic analysis and conduct reviews that protects small businesses to protect ranchers to protect farmers. they would have to consult with the states, they have to make sure by consulting with the states we've got the approach that works best everywhere, not just the approach that washington likes best.

now, the environmental protection agency says that our concerns are overblown. the administration says that there's a lot of misunderstandings about what their regulation covers. it says that the agency has no intention of regulating things like i've just described. key word there is "intention." well, this bill would help to make sure that the rules are crystal clear. it gives certainty and clarity to farmers to ranchers, and to small business owners and their families. people would be able to use their property without fear of washington bureaucrats knocking on their door. we would also be able to enjoy the beautiful rivers and the lakes that should be preserved and protected. this bipartisan bill does nothing to block legitimate protection of the true waters of the united states. it simply restores washington's

attention to the traditional waters that were always the focus before. that's what this law should protect. this bill is one easy thing that we can do to protect americans from runaway bureaucracy. the senate, mr. president, has been very productive so far this year. we're going to keep going. we're going to go with more ideas that have bipartisan support. the federal water quality protection act is one of them. i want to thank the many cosponsors and mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent and have six unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they is have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and

that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you mr. president. i recognize the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. cotton: i ask the quorum call bely. ed. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cotton: i'm sending two amendments to the desk. two amendments to the desk, one for my own one on behalf of

senator rubio of florida. i've said time and time and time again --. a senator: mr. president? has there been a unanimous consent request? the presiding officer: the quorum call has been vitiated. mr. cardin: i'm sorry. mr. cotton: time and time again, a nuclear armed iran is the greatest threat this country face. i've said time and again the senate needs to have votes object the merits of this agreement. the president has taken us down a very dangerous path. the president has backtracked on his own words. he said that iran needed to live up to all of its obligations under international law. yet iran still has not disclosed the past military dimensions of its nuclear program. the president said after this negotiating process began in december of 2013, that iran has no need for a fortified underground military bunker in fordo you -- fordow yet they have conceded its existence.

the president has said we have to have fully verifiable, anywhere any time access to all sites in iran to ensure they're not cheating on any agreement, to include their military sites. yet the leaders of iran continue to say that we won't be able to access their military sites there will be no intrusive inspections. i, the senator from florida many other senators have submitted multiple amendments to ask for votes on these points. we have been consistently blocked from bringing up these amendments for a vote. it's fine if you want to vote no. if you think that iran should keep an underground fortified military bunker with centrifuge cascades. it's fine if you don't think they should have to disclose the past military dimensions of their nuclear program. but we need to vote. we need to vote no. it's even fine if you agree

about with those points but you think this is a delicate agreement that has to be prevented from being amended in any way but we need to vote. if you don't want to vote, you shouldn't have come to the senate. if you're in the senate and you don't want to vote, you should leave. as the senator from florida said yesterday, be a talk show host be a columnist. it's time that we have a vote and a simple majority threshold on all of these critical points. we are talking about a nuclear-armed iran. the most dangerous threat to our national security. the amendments i've offered first, would simply take the language of the bill that came out of the senate foreign relations committee and add those three points. first, -- first that iran shouldn't keep its nuclear

facility before it gets sanctions leave that iran can't get sanctions relief until they disclose the past military dimensions of their nuclear program, until they accept fully verifiable inspections regime. we deserve a vote on this. so mr. president i call up my amendment number 1197 to the desk to the text proposed proposed by amendment 1140. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk:. the senator from arkansas proposes amendment 1197 to the language proposed stricken by amendment 1140. mr. cotton: i ask unanimous consent the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cotton: i call up for senator rubio a second-degree amendment, amendment 11898. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from arkansas mr. cotton, for mr. rubio, proposes amendment numbered 1198 to amendment numbered 1197. on page 3 line -- mr. cotton: i ask unanimous

consent the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cotton: these amendments would would would do a very simple thing. one, they would require a vote on whether iran should get sanction relief before it disclose the nuclear program before it closes the underground bunker add fordow and before it submits to a verbal inspections regime. second it would require iran to acknowledge israel's right to exist before they get nuclear weapons because they continue to say that israel will be wiped off the map. and if they get nuclear weapons they will have the means to do so. mr. president, it is my intent to insist on a vote, but before a vote on this amendment a simple majority threshold the senate needs to vote. if you disagree with these policies vote "no." if you agree with the policies and you think this will upset a delicate compromise, vote "no"

and explain that. but we need to vote and we should start voting. mr. president, i now yield the floor. mr. cardin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: mr. president let me just point out a couple things. there are now 67 amendments that have been filed all by republicans, none by democrats. this bill passed the senate foreign relations committee 19-0. we have been working with republicans who have filed amendments senator corker and i, to try to accommodate them. and we have been making progress. we have been trying to schedule additional votes and i just want to thank senator corker and those who are cooperating with us in a way that we can try to move this bill forward. we're prepared to have votes but i think some of the tactics that are now being deployed are going to make it much more difficult for us to be able to proceed in an orderly way. that's every member's right to

take whatever actions they want to take, but i want to tell you that those of us who want to get this bill to the finish lines gets it gets a little frustrating. and we'll continue to focus on a way forward on this legislation but i want to make it clear we have been prepared to find orderly ways to proceed with votes and to deal with the issues that members have been concerned about but at times it becomes difficult with the procedures that are being used. with that, i yield the floor. mr. corker: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: i want to thank the ranking member. i want to thank the ranking member's staff. i want to thank the minority leader's office for working with us on what was going to be a series of votes tough votes. i have a sense that the context

of this has just changed. so i regret that. i'll be working with numbers of senators on some really controversy votes that we're willing to make as we already have. as a matter of fact, the only two votes we've had thus far were considered poison pill votes. and my friend from maryland was willing to have more poison pill votes, if you want to call them that -- tough votes. but i sense that the context of this may have just changed and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. mr. cotton: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. cotton: i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. cotton: let's have a talk about poison pill amendments.

i would sail these are not poison pills. these are vitamin pills. they are designed to strengthen this legislation and strengthen the u.s. negotiating position. who could object that israel has a right to exist as a jewish state? and that iran should not be allowed a nuclear weapon if they won't recognize that right? the president himself said they should close their underground fortified military bunker before getting sanctions relief. we're simply asking for a vote on what the president himself has said. and if the senator from maryland wants to talk about procedural tactics, let's be perfectly clear what happened here. the very first amendment brought to the floor on this bill was designed to stop any other amendment from being offered. for those of you who are watching, you should know that the only thing that that amendment says is that any final agreement must be submitted in farsi as well as english. that is a noncontroversial proposal which i'm sure we can adopt by unanimous consent and move on in an orderly fashion to any other amendment.

yet they continue to object to unanimous consent to bring up any other amendment designed to stop the senate from having to cast these votes. the amendments we have offered are no more of a procedural tactic than what the senator from maryland is doing himself. an amendment that could have been offered in committee an amendment that could have been voted on easily on tuesday when it was offered but is being used to block consideration of any other amendment. these are not tough votes. these should be easy votes. if you want to vote "no" vote "no." if you want to vote "no" and say it's designed to protect a compromise do that. but we should be voting. i yield the floor. mr. corker: thank you. madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: i know the senator from arkansas knows i have no issue with taking tough votes and will take them all day long. i would like to ask unanimous consent that we enter a quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection.

quorum call: the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. cardin: -- mr. cornyn: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: under the previous order i ask the chair lay before the senate the veto message to

accompany s.j. res. 8. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the message. cloim veto message dashes the clerk: veto message to accompany s.j. res. 8 joint resolution, united states code of the rules submitted by the national labor relations board relating to representation case procedures. mr. cornyn: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. sullivan: i ask unanimous consent to set aside the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sullivan: madam president i rise to speak in support of the amendment that i plan on submitting it's amendment 1173. i know it's my intention to work with the managers of the iran bill to get this amendment filed and voted on soon, but what i wanted to do is i want to talk

to this amendment for a little bit. you know, i want to begin by complimenting senator corker cardin others who have worked hard on the iran nuclear review act of 2015. it's a good start to a critically important issue for all of us, for the american people. the amendment that i am proposing, that i'm offering today, will make that bill stronger will give leverage to our negotiators and make our country more secure. that's our number-one priority and that's what this amendment will help us do. the simple question this amendment proposes is should the united states, our government we, this body, allow sanctions to be lifted on a country that our own state department has designated a

state sponsor of terrorism? it's a simple, straightforward question. in my view, the answer is also simple. the answer is no. sanctions should not be lifted on a state sponsor of terrorism, especially one with a track record like iran. my amendment requires the president of the united states to declare that iran is no longer a sponsor of state terrorism before lifting sanctions and allowing billions of dollars to flood into that country's economy. it's that simple. we should not allow facilitate, or encourage billions of dollars to go to a country that sponsors terrorism. because i fear that we have been inured to the issue of state sponsor of terrorism what that means, i'd like to focus on that a little bit. let's first start with the states that are on the list. yemen, syria sudan iran.

these countries are all on the list because governments in each state facilitate international terrorism. we're not talking about rogue elements within a country that are killing people withinnor own borders. we are talking about governments themselves the bodies in charge of a country the bodies making and enforcing a country's law, supporting acts of international terrorism including against our own citizens. why is iran on the list? since its founding in 1979, the referred of the islamic republic of iran the government have been sponsoring terrorism. in fact, our state department has called iran the world's most active sponsor of terrorism. since 1979, iran has been

responsible for taking american hostages for bombing our -- in our allies' embassies and for horrible acts of murder across the globe. and here's the key point madam president -- it hasn't stopped. according to the state department iran continues to support terrorism palestinian terrorist groups and is actively fostering instability throughout the middle east, right now today. and just last month on march 2015 a u.s. federal judge found iran complicit in the 2000 bombing of the u.s.a. cole, the deadliest attack on a u.s. naval vessel since 1987. let's talk about iran's involvement in iraq. i'm a marine corps reserve officer. in 2005, i was recalled to active duty for a year and a half.

serving as a staff officer to the commanding general of u.s. central command john abizaid. during that time i deployed to many parts of the centcom area of responsibility and one of the biggest concerns, perhaps the biggest concern that we saw in iraq during that time was the increasing threat to our troops of improviseed explosive devices, especially what was referred to as explosive -- explosively formed projectiles the most fist sophisticated and deadly i.e.d.'s. the general abizaid was briefed on this, showing the twisted charred remains of american military vehicles hid hit by e.f.p.'s. those e.f.p.'s killed more

american troops per attack than any other roadside bomb. they blasted through tanks humvees, anything they hit. they were deadly. they killed and maimed thousands of our troops. i still remember the courage and trepidation i saw in the eyes of our brave military members who had to face this threat on a daily basis. even some members of this body. to this day i deeply distrust the leadership of the regime that was responsible for these e.f.p.'s. and, madam president make no mistake, that country was iran. that much was confirmed by our intelligence agencies and the state department. but iran has never taken responsibility for these deaths and it hasn't said that it will stop this kind of terrorism. let me provide an example.

in 2007, centcom and intelligence officials provided very detailed briefings on the fact that these e.f.p.'s were coming from iran. at the same time, iran's u.n. ambassador where wrote and op-ed in "the new york times" and said such charges and evidence were being fabricated by the united states. that was the u.n. ambassador from iran, embassy zarif. in that op-ed he was telling a lie to the american people. why is that important? he is now the foreign minister of iran. he is now in charge of negotiating this nuclear deal. he is certainly not a trustworthy man. madam president, if sanctions are lifted, billions of dollars are going to flow from companies and banks from around the world to the economy and government of iran. they're going to investigate in businesses they're going to

investigate in the oil and gas sector, they're going to investigate in banks. what will the iranian leadership likely do with that money? do we trust them to invest in schools and infrastructure and health clinics so they can provide their citizens better lives? let's use history as our guide. everything about that country's leadership everything about that country's history tells us that that money billions, are likely to be used to pump up their terror machine around the world and target american citizens. now, i know what we've heard from the administration don't worry, if there's a violation of this agreement these sanctions will just snap back into place. they'll snap back. no problem. piece of cake. madam president, after serving on active duty for that time i mentioned, i served as a u.s.

assistant secretary of state. i helped lead the effort in the bush administration to economically isolate iran, to go 0 our allies and say you have to divest, divest, out of the iranian oil and gas sector, iranian financial sector. madam president, there was no snap here. this was a slog. it took years to get companies to divest. and yet now this administration is talking about we'll snap back no problem we'll divest in a couple days. it's a fantasy. the administration knows it, they should stop using the term "snapback" because it's not accurate. it's not accurate. so what is the alternative? the alternative is simple. before lifting sanctions on

iran iran needs to take the steps to get off the list of countries that sponsor terrorism around the world. and these are not insurmountable steps. these would include having a clear record for six months. that's it, six months. not decades, not years. six months. of not sponsoring state terrorism. it would also require iran to renounce terrorism. simple. don't engage in terrorism don't try to kill our citizens, or the citizens of our allies, don't send your forces around the world to blow things up or take hostages, and then we will consider lifting the sanctions. you don't have to be our ally. you don't have to like us. we don't have to like you. you don't have to change even the structure of your government. you just should not target our citizens for murder the way you're doing now as one of the biggest -- the biggest state

sponsor of terrorism in the world. now, madam president it's been said that such a requirement and amendment like this would be a poison pill many if this amendment is added to the corker-menendez bill it will somehow signify the death of the bill. now, i've thought long and hard about that. do i want to be a member of this body who introduces a poison pill? am i being unreasonable with this amendment? what i came to is this -- it's our job the most important job we have in this body, is to do everything we can to keep our citizens safe and to enact good policy. sometimes that means taking difficult positions and sometimes it means taking very reasonable positions. even though the political process might seem to make it seem as if this is a complicated

and difficult issue. madam president, this isn't complicated. this isn't difficult. this amendment is a simple amendment. it's not difficult. i want to conclude with the question i began with. is it good policy for the united states of america to allow or even encourage countries and corporations to do business with a state sponsor of terrorism particularly one that has a history of targeting and killing our citizens? is that good policy? i believe the vast majority of the american people, democrat, republican, any state in the union, would say no. that's not good policy. i believe if the question is posed directly to the american people they wouldn't consider this some kind of poison pill. they might even consider this some kind of vitamin pill, one

that will make us stronger. it's a supplement to strengthen our negotiators' position. right now there is confusion in the press the iranians say we have a deal, let's lift sanctions immediately. the president says no, we have to be creative on how this is going to happen. well madam president, this amendment will give the president, will give secretary kerry the leverage to solve this critical issue. one that the president and secretary of state should use and welcome to strengthen our position in the negotiations. not to view it as some kind of poison pill. again, it's a simple amendment. before sanctions are lifted, the president and the state department need to make sure iran is off the list of states that sponsor terrorism. iran can take the simple steps

to make that possible and the world will be a much, much safer place. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. madam president, i yield the floor. madam president i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you

madam president. i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: and i ask to speak as if we are in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: thank you madam president. a number of my colleagues yesterday came to the floor to talk about the f.d.a.'s failure to release the tobacco deeming rule and the delays that have occurred with respect to that rule. as difficult as the american people may find it to understand why there are these delays in issuing a rule that protects our citizens against tobacco use most particularly our children, we should all understand that these rules have real-life consequences. tobacco, in fact, is the leading cause of preventable death. in this nation, tobacco use kills more than half a million people every year. most smokers and tobacco users

begin as children. many under the age of ten. each day more than 3,200 people younger than 18 years old smoke their first cigarette and the consequences are inevitable. thousands of them will die early in life. cigarettes are the only product in the world that when used as the manufacturer intends it kills the customer, and if smoking continues at the current rate among u.s. youth 5.6 million of them are expected to die prematurely from smoking-related illness. tobacco use is a path to addiction and disease and it is a public health epidemic, and yet laws that protect the

public laws that forbid marketing to children, laws that are designed to uphold the public trust that we had have been unimplemented. my fight against big tobacco began in the 1990's when i was attorney general of the state of connecticut, and i helped to lead a lawsuit against tobacco companies from marketing to children. we succeeded in restricting tobacco companies from selling and aiming at children in their ads through sporting events and magazines and point of sale issues. we helped reimburse the states for the enormous amount of taxpayer dollars spent on tobacco-related diseases, and those payments continue today. they are supposed to be used for prevention and cessation

activities but unfortunately and tragically, much of that money now is used to fill gaps in state budgets. i've continued my fight against the tobacco company in the senate alongside dedicated colleagues like senator merkley and senator durbin who spoke yesterday in urging the f.d.a. to seek relief, to strive to do its job. of the tobacco-deeming rule in order to protect children and families from tobacco. the family smoking prevention and tobacco control act of 2009 gave the f.d.a. significant power and responsibility to achieve this goal. now it is f.d.a.'s responsibility to implement that law, to prevent young people from becoming nicotine addicts

damaging their health, risking their lives costing american taxpayers hundreds of millions, in fact billions of dollars. six years have passed since that law was passed. the f.d.a. has yet to implement it. and the reason is that it has yet to issue those regulations. it wasn't until last year, april 2014 five years after the measure was passed that, that the f.d.a. took the first step issuing draft regulations known as the deeming rule that would formalize this authority. the rule would allow the f.d.a. to control the formulation and saysale in particular to minors of e-cigarettes including puca and cigars.

this past saturday was the one-year anniversary of the release of the proposed rule and over the past year youth use of unregulated tobacco products like e-cigarettes and the puca has skyrocketed. it has tripled among 11- to 18-year-olds. there is clear data, irrefutable evidence that the rate of use of these products that is increased even as some of the use of tobacco products has diminished. and this chart illustrates that evidence. it indicates that use among the regulated products has diminish

diminished while use of the unregulated products has increased. so laws work. rules have an effect. people can be saved from addiction and disease. and these products -- cigars, pipes, hookahs e-cigarettes -- lead to tobacco use in cigarettes. they addict to nicotine. they create the same kinds of public health menace that tobacco products do. we know that nicotine addiction is surging through e-cigarette use, which is a disastrous tribute to the ingenuity of big tobacco. in fact, many of the big tobacco companies have bought the e-cigarette companies because they know they can use the

e-cigarettes as a gateway nicotine delivery device, addicting children so that they will then shift to cigarette tobacco. so i am joining my colleagues in urging that the f.d.a. act as quickly as possible to implement these rules to finalize the regulations, to get them out of the regulatory apparatus the morass where they are now trapped, and make sure that our children and our citizens are protected against the marketing and the other abuses that are involved in the current sale of these nicotine-delivery devices marketed to children. i'm also proud to be introducing today a new measure the tobacco tax and enforcement reform act which is supported by senators

durbin reed, and boxer. i'm very grateful to them for their leadership, not only on this issue but over many years in fighting this battle against nicotine addiction and tobacco use, because congress has a continuing responsibility to combat cigarette smoking directly. and right now there are a number of areas where loopholes and gaps exist in the enforcement structure. we need to do more to fight illegal tobacco trafficking. we need to eliminate the tax disparities between different tobacco products. these gaps in our law and law enforcement failures create opportunities and incentives for violations of those laws, at great cost to the states because there is tax avoidance involved

in illegal trafficking. similar to the changes outlined in the president's budget proposal this bill would also increase the federal tax rates on tobacco products. in fact, these reforms would help the federal government and states collect nearly $100 billion, at a time when our states are strapped fiscally and our federal government needs that revenue as well. these kinds of revenues would not only reduce tobacco consumption but also aid the fiscal well-being of our states and federal government. but, most important maybe from the standpoint of law enforcement, it would force criminals, who engage in illegal trafficking to comply with the law. it would combat those criminals

who profit from the illegal sale of these products and traffic them across state lines sell illicitly and gain huge numbers of dollars from that legal noncompliance. economic research confirms: raise the price of tobacco and the use comes down, particularly among young people who are particularly sensitive to prices. they're sensitive to price increases because they have less disposable income. many no income. they have fewer dollars they can spend. and so they are more price-sensitive. in fact, every 10% in the real price of cigarettes will reduce the prevalence of adult smoking by 5%, and and youth smoking by 7%. adults are price-sensitive too.

increasing the cost of cigarettes makes people more likely to want to quit and to pursue tobacco cessation to break the addiction to nicotine, to seek help through quit lines through the patch and other pharmaceutical measures. the current tobacco tax code has many loopholes that enable even the least creative manufacturers to exploit them and incentivize many manufacturers to manipulate products so they can be classified in a lower tax category. these tax inequities and loopholes not only sharply reduce federal ref revenues, but they increase the overall use of tobacco and tobacco-related

harms. eliminating these tax despair disparities is one of the goals of the measure i'm introducing today by taxing all tobacco products at the same relative level as cigarettes. we can make progress against nicotine progression and the illnesses and diseases associated with tobacco use. the increase in tax rate on cigarettes by 94% per pack and setting the rates for other tobacco products at an equivalent amount would help people who are now addicted but it would also help america because, at the end of the day the real cost of cigarettes is not only to people who are addicted who endure the suffering and the pain of

cancer lung disease heart problems it's to their families and it's to all taxpayers because all of us -- literally all of us pay for the diseases that result from tobacco use through our insurance policies, through medicare and medicaid. we are the ones who bear the financial burden. due to these current tax inequities the g.a.o. has projected $615 million to $1.1 billion in losses to federal tax revenue right now and tobacco-related health problems cost the country almost $170 billion a year in direct medical costs. we can save money and save lives through this measure and i hope that my colleagues will support

it. every day that goes by without f.d.a. regulation harms children it hurts people who've become addicted, it hurts all america. every day that tax disparities exist, every day that illegal trafficking continues is a day when america pays in the casualties -- human suffering loss of productivity, loss of revenue -- and i hope that my colleagues will support these measures. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mrs. fischer: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: thank you, madam president. i rise today to discuss the negotiations with iran over its nuclear program. many of my colleagues have

spoken at length about some of their concerns, which i share. today, however, i would like to discuss my concern about the administration's increasing reliance on the idea that sanctions can be snapped back, that they can be snapped back into place in the event that iran violates an agreement. in its press release on the framework agreed upon earlier this month the white house stated if at any time iran fails to fulfill its commitments, these sanctions will snap back into place. on april 11, 2015, president obama stated -- quote -- "we are preserving the capacity to snap back captions in sanctions in the event that they are breaking any deal. if we don't have the capacity to snap back sanctions when we see a potential violation then we're probably not going to get a deal." close quote.

a week later at a press conference with the italian prime minister, president obama played down the question of whether iran would receive immediate sanctions relief and insists snapback provisions were not important. he said, "my main" -- "our main concern here is making sure that if i doesn't abide by its agreement, that we don't have to jump through a whole bufnlg of hoops in order to rein-state sanctions. that's our main concern. " i agree with president obama's goal. who wouldn't want harsh measures rein-stateed the moment that iran fails to comply with this agreement? the problem is, reality is far more complicated than that simple phrase "snapback" suggests. in a "washington post" column last week, the former c.i.a. director michael hayden, the

former deputy director general of iaea hinoken and middle east expert dr. take laid out the long and circuitous path that any action to rein-state sanctions on iran would have to take. their conclusion? it could take an entire year or even longer to simply confirm that iran has actually violated its obligations and navigate that bureaucratic process necessary to restore the sanctions on iran. a recent article in "the wall street journal" by henry kissinger and george schultz made a similar point. in it, they write "restoring the most effective sanctions will require coordinateed international action in countries that had reluctantly joined in previous rounds, the

demands of public and commercial opinion will militate against automatic or even prompt snapback." you know, some may argue that past history is irrelevant and that the negotiations will produce a new process allowing for quick restoration of the sanctions regime. such a process would still be far from automatic since significant time would be required to confirm iran's violation. but recent comments by russian deputy foreign minister sergei rifka made clear that this idea is not in the cards. speaking last week on the idea of snapping back sanctions he stated "this process should not in any way be automatic."

he went on to say that decisions on this matter should be taken in accordance with the procedures of the u.n. security council, through voting in the council and through the adoption of the appropriate resolutions. we must also bear in mind that sanctions take time to have effect the united states has had sanctions on iran since 1979. one could argue that the heavy sanctions that brought iran to the negotiating table they began back in 2010. but even in that case, it took years to create enough economic pressure for iran to even sit down with negotiators. the idea that we will be able to swiftly reimpose sanctions and that those sanctions are going to swiftly cripple the iranian economy and that they're tbg to

force iran did shall going to force iran to change its behavior, i believe that that is simply impossible. the point, madam president is that the practical reality of this issue is much more complicated than the talking points suggest. to me this underscores the importance of getting a good deal with iran and it demonstrates what a bad deal is so much worse than no deal at all. it took many years to build the global sanctions regime that brought iran to the negotiating table, and the fact is that it can be dismantled much faster than it can be rebuilt. we cannot afford to overlook key provisions or pretend that the precise terms of this agreement is of lesser importance.

of all the tools that we can use to influence iran sanctions relief is the most important. it should only be provided as part of a deal that is clearly in american interests. the security of our country and our families and the possibility of a nuclear middle east that hangs in the balance. and there will be no simple snap-back if this agreement doesn't hold. we need to be honest with the american people and not rely on unrealistic notions to justify any deal with them. thank you madam president. i of why. i would suggest the absense of a quorum call. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: i would ask we dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: thank you madam president. coming down to the floor to speak for a few minutes on the bill that we're debating now to provide some structure of congressional oversight over a potential, although not yet signed deal with iran. i just want to start simply with what we all agree on here. we all agree that we need to do whatever we can to ensure that iran never obtains a nuclear weapon. i have no doubt that 100 members of the united states senate would agree to that proposition. that's our guiding principle. it should be our north star. we may disagree on the best way to achieve a nuclear weapons-free iran, but we can all agree on our goal. so how do we get there is the question that we're debating.

i happen to be a member of the camp that believes that our best hope of achieving this goal is through diplomacy through a negotiated settlement that dramatically rolls back iran's nuclear program in a transparent and verifiable way. and while our negotiations still have a long way to go to get to that agreement we're closer now than we have been in decades. i and many of my colleagues strongly believe that we should give our negotiators the space to do their jobs and to see if a deal is ultimately possible. and that's really what this bill does. it postpones a congressional vote on these negotiations appropriately until the negotiations are finished. that makes sense right? there is no use in voting on a deal when we don't have a deal. and then it sets up time constraints for congress' review about a congressional deal. basically about 30 days. that's a reasonable period of time for us to debate the agreement. and if there is one it gives some certainty over our process

to those that are at the negotiating table. the president's critics seem to fall into two often overlapping camps. one strain of argument holds that this framework agreement that we have right now is just too weak and that our side should walk away from the table reimpose sanctions and hold out for a better deal. the second strain of argument, evidenced frankly by many of the amendments that have been filed to the underlying bill, holds that our negotiations shouldn't be jusut iran's nuclear program, that we should also be negotiating over all of the other bad things that are -- that iran does and supports. now, i don't think it's worth getting into a defense of the framework today since we're months away from a final deal, but to my mind if the final deal does look dmon extra bring like the framework we would be fools to reject it. does it allow iran to do nuclear research? yes, it does. does it allow them to keep some

centrifuges? yes. but anybody who thought that we were going to sign a deal that would effectively be an unconditional surrender was living in a fantasy land. the framework accomplishes our goal of protecting israel, the region and the united states from a quick nuclear breakout. the plutonium pathway at iraq has ended. the enriched stores basically go down to zero. they stay open but they can no longer do substantial enrichment. they will have international scientists and inspectors crawling all over their capacities. and inspections on the entire nuclear supply chain will be at a scale that is really totally completely unprecedented in the history of the nuclear age. it's a good framework. but even if you don't believe this i just think it belies common sense to think that walking away from the table now would get you a better deal. yes, we could reinstitute

sanctions, the united states could, and perhaps some of our partners would go along but they would be weaker than before because lots of countries who think this is a good framework wouldn't go along with us. just look at what russia and china have announced in the past few weeks. they basically have telegraphed that they're looking to do business with the iranians, notwithstanding what happens at the negotiating table. and we know what happens when we apply weak sanctions against iran alongside a policy of isolationism. they get stronger. how do we know this? because in 2002, we had a chance to cap iran's centrifuges at a few hundred. instead, after years of relatively weak sanctions and international isolation iran builds 20,000 centrifuges and put in place a secret nuclear facility. now, our most recent round of tough international sanctions in part because of the policies of this congress, worked to get to the table the negotiating table, but only because there

was a credible offer of a negotiated solution. we know exactly what happens what sanctions and isolation get us because we tried it for years. it gets us 20,000 centrifuges no international inspections and an increasing hard-line and inward-looking regime. and this last point and result is important because the people of iran actually don't think like their supreme leader. his grasp on power isn't absolute. in large part because iranians are much more moderate, much more internationalist and much more pro-american than their leader generally. khomeini knows this, and that's why when iranian voters elected a moderate, western-oriented president, the supreme leader allowed his team the space to negotiate this framework. now, no one can be certain but it is certainly plausible to believe that moderate forces inside iran are winning and that

our policy toward iran should consider whether our actions help the moderates or help the hard-liners. we don't want another hard-line administration but we're going to get one if we walk away from these negotiations now when thousands of iranians are cheering the opening of relations with the west. if we walk away, moderate voters are going to feel abandoned. hard-liners will be proven right. the two groups will be merged. politics inside iran will shift inward and extreme again. and for all of my republican colleagues who were so forceful in their criticism of the administration saying that president obama didn't do enough to support the green revolution, you would do far more damage to this cause by ending reformers' hopes of reproachment with the west right now. now, for the second argument, madam president, that we should settle all of our grievances with iran in one fell swoop right now.

that this agreement is somehow illegitimate unless iran renounceshams and hezbollah unless they get right with israel unless they end their other nonnuclear weapons programs unless they release political prisoners and so on and so on. now, first there's not a single person here who agrees or supports iran's support for terrorism or its inflammatory rhetoric towards israel. no one is pleased with the iranian regime's record on human rights or its funding of hezbollah. but let's agree that in iran that pursues these policies and has a nuclear weapon is a far worse outcome one that should be avoided at all costs. the truth is that adding these issues into the nuclear agreement will mean that no deal is possible. in america we're strong enough to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

we can negotiate with an enemy or an adversary on one issue and reserve the right to fight another day or simultaneously on other issues. for evidence of this, i'd ask my republican friends to simply look to their great romanticized hero president ronald reagan. when he was negotiating a nuclear weapons deal with the soviet union he did not simultaneously try to address the ussr's support for proxies in central america or the middle east or their provocative naval activities in the pacific ocean. he knew that by taking one issue off the table it would make america and the world safer even if it didn't address all of our grievances at once. and he knew that if he did put everything on the table all at once then there would be no progress. just like a little kid can't eat a hot dog all in one bite, no matter how hard he tries we all have to make progress one bite at a time. that's often just how life and in fact, how negotiations tend to work. so i hope that my colleagues

will oppose these well-meaning amendments that are being offered. they have laudable goals. but in the real world, they are simply unrealistic within the confines of these negotiations, and they'll have the effect of killing the deal entirely. and on a broader scale i hope when this debate is done, madam president, that we can also ask ourselves some bigger questions. diplomacy is power. it's not weakness. talking to your enemies has been part of our national security toolbox for as long as we have existed as a nation. this country is tired it's weary of war for good reason. ten years of conflict in iraq didn't make us any safer and a lot of people, heroes, died in the process. but when we spend all of this time the majority of this congress engaged in detailed oversight over the president's

diplomatic endeavors and absolutely no time engaged in detailed oversight over a war in iraq and syria that is still months and months later unauthorized and extra constitutional then we send a bad message to america and to the rest of the world. we seem to have a developing double standard when it comes to oversight. we're all over the president when he talks to our adversaries, but we stand down when he fights them. lots of oversight over peace. very little over war. that's not where the american people are. they want their president to take extraordinary steps to avoid war. they don't want us to get dragged back into a ground war in the middle east. madam president, i'm supporting this bill today because i'll be first in line to reassert congress' power to set foreign policy right alongside the president, but i don't support congress sending a message that

diplomacy is somehow more worthy of rigorous oversight than military action. i don't think this is where the chairman of the foreign relations committee is coming from but there are certainly some members of his caucus who simply view american power solely through a military lens. that's dangerous because as we saw in iraq, large-scale military operations, they kill a lot of terrorists, a lot of bad guys but they often create two for every one they kill. in the end it's nonkinetic intervention that solves extremism, building and lifting governments, lifting people out of destitution and poverty countering radical propaganda and showing an america that backs up all of its talk about human rights and civil liberties with action. i'm so thankful to chairman corker for taking the time to work on this bill with senator cardin and senator menendez and others to make it something that we can truly rally around today.

that takes guts to show patience to give ground, to talk to people that you don't agree with. it's actually diplomacy that wins the day here more often than not. it's our guiding value as a bad as an institution. it's what makes this place work when it works and we are best when we recognize that the value of diplomacy and the results that we get from it doesn't expire at the edges of this chamber. thank you very much, madam president. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president i'd ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, we are finally seeing the united states senate doing what we were elected to do, and that is doing the people's work. i'm glad to see that there have been some reports in the press saying that the 114th congress and the new majority is actually following through in keeping our promises by passing important legislation that helps make the american people's life just a

little bit better. one of those things that we've done is the house and house and the senate have now met in a conference committee to agree on a budget. this is unfortunately an issue event in recent history. it was 2009 when the last budget was passed by the united states congress. that's a little embarrassing. it's actually very embarrassing. it's a scandal really. but now we are finally getting back on track. i'm glad to report, as the presiding officer knows that this is a budget that balances in roughly nine years. wish it were sooner, but that's what it is. no tax increases. and it also meets our obligation to keep the country safe and the american people secure by plussing up some of the defense accounts which i believe are important. all of our colleagues on our side of the aisle believe that

this should be our number-one priority. there are some things that only the federal government can do, and national security is at the very top of that list. we will have a vote perhaps as early as next tuesday on the budget conference report. yesterday we had a joint session of congress and heard from the leader of one of america's greatest allies, prime minister shinzo abe of japan. i had a chance to meet the prime minister briefly before his comments and i told him i said mr. mr. president, i actually graduated from high school in japan. my dad was in the united states air force and stationed at tachikawa air force base and that's where i finished high school. it was an honor to listen to the prime minister and like many of our colleagues i was very encouraged to hear his unwavering support for the u.s.-japan alliance. this is one of the most important alliances that the united states has in the world.

the prime minister spent a good amount of time talking about our shared values. he noted our mutual and unflinching commitment to democracy and freedom and our common goal of peace and prosperity. but one of the things i was particularly glad to hear the prime minister talk about was the shared values of freedom and democracy and why the trans-pacific partnership is so important not just to the united states not just to japan but to all, i believe 12 different countries that are negotiating this important trade agreement. and i couldn't agree more about the importance of trade. now, texas is the number-one exporting state in the nation, and that's one of the reasons why we are doing relatively well compared to the rest of the country economically. i know the presiding officer comes from a oil-producing and gas-producing state that is booming as well. but one of the reasons my state

is doing so well is because we figured out that the more people we can sell things to, that we grow or we raise or we make, the more jobs we have at home, the better our economy is and the better our people are. the trans-pacific partnership, i think, fits right in that formulation because the united states occupies roughly 5% of the world's -- of the planet, and we represent about 20% of the purchasing power of the planet. so that should tell us that 80% of the purchasing power lies outside and beyond our shores. and why in the world wouldn't we want to trade with those other countries and sell things to consumers in japan and all around the world including the region of asia that the pacific partnership is particularly focused on. the prime minister eloquently

articulated that the trans-pacific partnership promotes the spread of our values by reducing economic barriers. it's been observed by smarter people than me that countries that actually trade together are much less likely to go to war against each other. it just seems to be the way it works. and the more people we can improve our economic ties to around the world, it also improves not only prosperity, it also improves the peace. prime minister abe understands how important this agreement is not only for the 12 nations that make up the t.p.p., but for the entire global economy. this is at least in part because the 12 asia pacific countries involved in the partnership make up 40% of the world economy. 40% of the world economy. thankfully the prime minister assured us that he'll continue to work with the united states

to ensure the success of these negotiations. now, in a short time, perhaps maybe next week or the week after, we'll have an opportunity to take up something called trade promotion authority. this is congressionally conferred authority on the executive branch to engage in negotiations. it sets the parameters for those negotiations. very clear congressional direction for the president's negotiators -- ambassador frumin -- in negotiating this trans-pacific partnership. once it's concluded the negotiations, it will have to lie in public for up to 60 days, i believe the time frame is, so the american people can read it, be completely transparent. and i think that's a very, very important part of the process. i would be remiss, as i suggested earlier, if i didn't point out the important role of trade not only to the united states but also to my state in

texas. about $1.5 trillion of g.d.p. is attributable to the state of texas. and if we were an independent nation which we once were for nine years from independence to the time we were annexed to the united states in 1845, if we were still an independent nation we would represent the 12th-largest economy in the world. it would put us ahead of even robust economies like those of mexico and south korea. and it is primarily because of the role of exports. energy is an incredibly important part of our economy but it's not all of our economy. and if we could do what the presiding officer and others have advocate, is accelerate the export of liquefied natural gas and perhaps reconsider the ban on exporting of crude under some appropriate circumstances, i think we could do even better. according to a report released

earlier this month by the department of commerce and the u.s. trade representative, texas was far and away the leader of goods exported in 2014, with $289 billion of goods exported. $289 billion. so not to brag -- well, texans have been known to brag a little bit -- but just to state the facts, let me put it that way mr. president. compared to the state of california, the state with the second most goods exported by valuable exported a sizable $174 billion worth. that's a lot $174 billion for california, but it's still $115 billion less than the number-one state: texas. the same report revealed that texas also boasts some 41,000 companies, many small and medium-size businesses that export goods globally.

for years this impressive amount of trade has helped our economy continue to grow while providing jobs for texans across the state. in fact, more than one million jobs in texas are supported by global exports. so why wouldn't we want to do more and create more jobs and more prosperity and more opportunity? i agree with prime minister abe that the trans-pacific partnership deal is vitally important to the united states, particularly at a time as we learned, i guess it was yesterday, maybe the day before, that the gross domestic product of the united states had grown by an anemic .2% in the last quarter, essentially saying our economy has flat lined. that is dangerous and it's also painful for the families of people out of work or looking for work or those who simply dropped out of the workforce. we need to do better by growing our economy creating those jobs so people can find work and provide for their families.

now, the trans-pacific partnership would help texas businesses. it would also help our farmers and ranchers both big and small. obviously the agricultural exports, and particularly the beef and poultry and pork exports to a country like japan would be very, very important. and as the president said the other day if we don't enter into this trans-pacific partnership deal where we will be setting the rules along with these 12 other -- 12 countries if we don't do this, what will happen is that china will in essence be setting the rules for asia. and that's something that we should not sit by and let happen. well increasing trade in the region will also provide a way forward for 21st century industries that made a home in texas, including electronics and machinery. we're not as well known for

electronics, manufacturing machinery as we are for the energy business or farming or ranching or agriculture. fortunately, as prime minister abe mentioned yesterday the t.p.p. goes far beyond economic benefits and also provides the united states an opportunity for greater influence in the region and in the process promote not only prosperity, as i said earlier, but also stability and security. just last week the "dallas morning news" made this point well by saying that t.p.p. is -- and i quote -- "not just about exports and imports. it's also about enhancing america's role among pacific nations and standing strong against an assertive china." so president obama has made that point as well, and i happen to think in this case he's absolutely right. so texas and our entire country stands to gain a lot from this pending traid deal, and i'm

happy to see the president is promoting this among some members of his own party who are a little bit divided on this issue. i think it's fair to say on this side of the aisle we're a little more unified but this is not something we're going to get done unless the president steps up and delivers votes from that side of the aisle from members of his own political party. and i hope he will roll up his sleeves and he will dive right in and engage and produce those votes. we can't produce those votes on that side of the aisle. only the president the leader of his party karen -- leader of his party can do that. i'm happy to see this chamber in the united states senate has continued in a spirit of bipartisanship by passing trade promotion authority out of the h senate finance committee and i hope we'll take it up here as a body very soon. as i said in conclusion this legislation will open up global

markets which is good for our economy, good for jobs and good for better wages for hardworking americans, including texas families. mr. president, i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. klobuchar: mr. president i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without

objection, so ordered. ms. klobuchar: mr. president i rise today in sphrong support of the iran nuclear agreement review act that is before the senate today. i thank senator corker and senator cardin for their incredible work bringing people together on the foreign relations committee. i urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill, as written. we must move forward to pass this legislation as quickly as possible to ensure that congress has a role in reviewing any nuclear agreement -- proposed nuclear agreement with iran. mr. president, that is critically important bill at a critically important time, preventing iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is one of the most important objectives of our national security policy, and i strongly supported the sanctions every step of the way that brought iran to the negotiating table. i've also supported the diplomatic efforts to address the threat posed by iran's

nuclear program. the framework that was reached in switzerland earlier this month is a positive step forward, but i think we all know that this process is far from complete. there are still many unanswered questions on the military die mentions of iran's nuclear program on how it's uranium stockpile will be handled and under what circumstances any sanctions relief would be provided and the timing of that relief. it is clear that there are still differences between iran and the rest of the international community on these issues. i believe it is important that negotiations continue to pursue a final agreement by june 30, that comprehensively addresses the threat posed by iran's nuclear program. again, one of the most objectives of the u.s. national security policy is to prevent -- prevent -- iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. now, the bipartisan legislation before us today will set up a process for congress to review

any final nuclear agreement with iran. it ensures that congress, that through our actions brought iran to the table will have access to all of the final details of the agreement and it preserves our right to have a final say in the potential lifting of the sanctions we led and how we were involved in compelling iran to negotiate in terms of these sanctions. senators corker and cardin worked so hard to strike a careful billion between the executive's prerogative to pursue the negotiations and congress' role in reviewing an agreement. their negotiations were a success, as i said. the bill passed the foreign relations committee unanimously 19-0 two weeks ago and that is a committee with a umin of senators with a -- with a number of senators with a broad range of views on every issue including on foreign relations and on these negotiations. the president would long threaten to veto any such bill,

has agreed to sign it. this is a significant victory for the senate and also for congressional oversight of foreign policy, something many of us have been pushing for. any nuclear agreement with iran will have significant long-term implications for the u.s., for israel and our allies in the region so it is critical that congress have the opportunity to review it. this bill ensures mr. president, that we have that opportunity. that is why it is so important that we act now to pass the legislation without delay and without amendments that undercut the bipartisan agreement on this bill. right now i understand that there are negotiations over a number of amendments that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to offer. i think we know that a number of these amendments up here -- appear to be written in a way that would undermine the bipartisan support for the bill or would somehow make this bill much more difficult in terms of

having a process. all this bill is, from my mind is a process to review instead of having a haphazard process this actually gives congress something we've been asking for for a long time. it has given us that ability to review this agreement and have a vote on it. i don't know how many times i hrd my colleagues from the other side of the aisle talk about it and may colleagues on this side of the aisle. we finally have a bipartisan way to do it so i think we need to be very careful moving forward when we look at some of these amendments. i certa colleagues' deep distrust and skepticism of the iranian regime. i am appalled by the continuing human rights abusesbuses, the unjustified detention of american citizens, everyone from "the washington post" reporter to a former marine to a christian pastor. i abhor the vicious threats that we hear against israel and against israeli leaders the track record of supporting

anti-semitism and the holocaust denial. i'm deeply concerned about the de-stabling actions in the region including iran's efforts to obtain more advanced missiles the support for militant forces and terrorists. i think we all know the issues that are going on here. and it is incredibly important that we work to address these issues. but there must be a recognition of the fact that what we are talking here is about a nuclear agreement. and i think every senator is going to want to look at that agreement and decide, does this make things safer or not? what effect does this have on israel? is it safer to have iran have nuclear capabilities when they've shown the propensity to do all of these other things that i've just mentioned? and i think many of us come down on the side of we want to see this agreement but we are glad these negotiations are going on, and we are particularly thankful that senator corker and senator cardin were able to come to an agreement of a process and get

that agreement through a highly diverse committee in terms of their political views and get that agreement there on a 19-0 vote. and also could i add we don't want to revive the threat of a presidential veto here. i'm sure, i know many of these amendments are unappealing to many of us, but not if they're going to be used as a way to bring down this process review agreement. and that is what essentially it is. we do not want to be damaging our own ability to be sure that sanctions relief will only come from a strong agreement that prevents iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. that outcome would certainly, i think, be fine with the iranians if that's what happens. and as our republican colleague from south carolina, lindsey graham, recently pointed out anybody who offers an amendment that will break this agreement

apart, the beneficiary, he said, will be the iranians. so let's not give the iranians a victory. let's pass this bill on a strong bipartisan vote, and let's do it now so it is very clear that congress stands united that we want ability to review this agreement. our foreign policy, mr. president, is more effective when we speak with one voice. it may be simplistic to say that politics should stop at the water's edge, but when it comes to iran the fact is that we have been unified. the past three votes in favor of major sanctions legislation in 2010 2011 and 2012 have been unanimous, 99-0, 100-0 94-0 respectively. and guess what? now the iranians are at the table negotiating a nuclear agreement. that is because we have stood together. across party lines, we have stood together and been strong and unified as a country.

the time has come to show that we are serious again serious about ensuring that a final agreement is strong and enforceable. and most importantly, blocks iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. we may not agree on everything, but we must certainly agree on something that so many of us have been talking about a role in the united states congress, a role in the united states senate in having a say over this agreement. that is all this bill is about. passing this bill will show our commitment to our country's security and the security of our allies and our partners. it transcends partisan politics, and that is something that when it comes to foreign relations and when it comes to dealing with a country like iran must stop at the water's edge. i thank our colleagues senator corker and senator cardin for working so hard to negotiate this agreement simply a process of review so that we can have a say, so that we can finally have a say. and i ask my colleagues to

support this. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk should call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: mr. president i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the

quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. carper: thank you. sometimes when i travel, mr. president, people ask me what i do, and i tell them i'm a retired navy captain. and they say well, what do you do now? i tell them i'm a recovering governor. and they say well, now that you're recovering, what do you do? i tell them i'm a servant. once one guy said to me on an airplane he said what do you mean you're a servant? i said i serve the people of delaware. he said are you a butler? i said not really, but i do serve. but i still think like a retired governor. i loved being in the navy. but at heart i still think and act a good deal like a governor. those others who served here in this body who have served as chief executive of their state sometimes feel the same way about how they approach their job. i love doing that. i feel really lucky to have that choice. i felt very lucky to serve

delaware the first state in this capacity. one of the key takeaways from my time as chief executive of my state was that when we had to negotiate deals whether with our neighbors states or with the federal government or actually with folks who were thinking of starting a business in delaware or growing a business in delaware we had to do so with one unified voice in order to be effective. now we're trying to bring astrazeneca, one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world, convince them to put their north american headquarters in delaware. we didn't have a whole legislature to negotiate that deal. my cabinet and i were involved in that negotiation. we got a signoff from the legislature. we just couldn't have competing messages coming from all the various elected officials u.s. senators state senators, rather state representatives and so forth and the reason why is because that would have undermined in some cases very sensitive negotiations that

ended our ability to work through some already tough issues. and while i would consult with delaware's other state and local officials as appropriate i value their insight i value their opinions, even when i didn't necessarily agree with all of them any more than they agreed with me. but at the end of the day as chief executive of our state i had to be the final decisionmaker in a lot of cases in negotiating or advocating on behalf of delaware. and now as a united states senator, i take really a very similar approach to negotiating on many issues, including matters of foreign policy. i support the idea that when the united states conducts diplomacy with foreign governments, that the united states should speak to that government with the unified voice. our system is set up so that we do not have 535 members of congress serving as negotiators and diplomats and for good reason and that's the case with trade deals and the kind of

deal we're trying to negotiate today with 11 other countries that come from this hemisphere all the way over to australia new zealand malaysia, japan and vietnam. but if we fail to speak with a unified voice in most of those negotiations, including the one i just mentioned the transpacific trade partnership then forging international agreements with other countries is going to be really tough and in some cases just about impossible. when it comes to the negotiations with iran over its nuclear program the negotiations that involve not just iran, not just us but the five permanent members of the national security -- the united nations, permanent members of the security council and germany as well, those negotiations, i have been a strong proponent of giving the president his negotiating team the flexibility that they need to achieve the best deal for our nation. i know that many of our colleagues have strong views on the need for congress to play a

direct role in negotiations and to make sure that our voices are heard in this process. i understand that position, i respect that position as well. there are also some in the senate who believe that the best deal with iran is frankly no deal at all and they're trying to maximize their ability to -- to kill the nuclear deal with iran before it's ever finalized. another key lesson i learned as governor and i am constantly reminded of in the senate is that forging compromise is no easy task. bridging the divide of competing interests is never easy, especially on issues as important as negotiations over nuclear weapons and iran, but that is why -- and that is what my colleagues, our colleagues of the senate foreign relations committee recently did. specifically senators corker of tennessee and cardin of maryland one a republican, one a democrat, worked to forge a compromise that identifies an appropriate role for congress in

these nuclear talks. compromise will enable the compromise that they have negotiated will enable the president to maintain his prerogative as our nation's chief executive and commander in chief to negotiate on behalf of the united states. while also ensuring the congress is able to weigh in on the final product of those negotiations should they come to fruition. in my mind, that's a reasonable compromise. that's a reasonable compromise that we should all support regardless of our opinion on the prospect of the president reaching an acceptable deal with iran. let me explain why. first of all senator corker and senator cardin's compromise satisfies one of my key goals of not undermining our negotiating team before any final dealreached with the iranians. second for those who insist that congress be given a chance to weigh in on a final nuclear deal with iran, this bill that we're debating today and we'll

probably debate a little bit more early next week, this bill will empower members of congress to cast a vote for or against any final deal before it's implemented. and finally for those members who think that no deal is the best deal, this bill gives those members the opportunity to make their case to our respective colleagues at an appropriate time. now, senators corker and cardin i think should be commended for their tireless work to strike a compromise that should satisfy many of our colleagues. not all but many. i know they worked with the whitehouse to craft a bill that does not cut the legs out from underneath our negotiators as they worked to finalize a deal with iran. and i want to thank them for preserving the administration's ability to negotiate and congress' ability to weigh in on the final deal. as we cast our votes on amendments and final passage of this bill, i would encourage us to consider the delicate nature

of the compromise that senators corker and cardin have struck. too often in washington, we focus on what divides us rather than what unites us, and that's unfortunate, sometimes counterproductive for our country. on not just this issue but on a host of important policy matters. compromise should not be aare occurrence in our nation's capital. rather it should be one of our guiding principles. we should seize this opportunity, colleagues, to advance a compromise that meets the needs of my colleagues and our colleagues and the president and our nation, and i urge our colleagues to join me in supporting senator corker and senator cardin's legislation. mr. president, some of my colleagues have heard me say before whenever i meet people who have been married a long time i love to ask those who have been married 50, 60 or 70 years, i love to ask them what's the secret for being married 50, 60 or 70 years?

i get a lot of different answers, as you might imagine. some of them are very funny and some of them are actually quite poignant. one of my favorites is a couple who had been married over 50 years. i asked them not long ago what's the secret for being married 50 years? and the wife said of her husband, she said he could be right or he could be happy but he cannot be both. more recently, a couple who have been married over 60 years i asked the husband and wife what's the secret of being married over 60 years. each of them gave a different answer. the wife said patience and her husband of 60 years said a good sense of humor. that's pretty good advice as well. the best advice i think i've ever heard in all the -- i've asked this question hundreds of times over the years but the best advice i've ever heard in asking that question, the answers to it are the couple years ago who said to me when asked -- they had been married

65 years or so. i said to them what's the secret of being married 65 years? and they both said almost at the same time the two c's. the two c's. and i had never heard that one before. i said what are the two c's? one of them said communicate. that's good. the other one said compromise. i thought those are two pretty good c's. and since then, i've invokes their words any number of times including on this floor and here in washington, d.c. and my own state of delaware. over the years i've added a third c to it and the third c is collaborate. collaborate. if you think about it, those two c's or those three c's communicate, compromise, collaborate are not just the secret for a vibrant marriage between two people, they're also the secret for a vibrant

democracy. as one of the members of this body i want to express my thanks to senators corker and cardin for communicating for compromising and for collaborating in a way that could bring about a better future for my kids, your kids our grandchildren and hopefully for the people of iran and hopefully for the people of israel and a lot of other nations who have a real interest in this issue as we say in delaware a dog in this fight. as i close i thank you for this opportunity to speak today. i hope when we vote next week we reward the efforts of -- for senators for the two c's cardin and corker, and further embrace of the three c's communicating, compromising, and collaborating we'll embrace their efforts with an aye vote. thank you mr. president and

with that i note the absence of a quorum. thank you. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator massachusetts. mr. markey: thank you mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that the roll call -- the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. so ordered. mr. markey: thank you mr. president. technology can be transformative. black rotary-dial phones have given way to iphones. sunlight and wind have become electricity. camera tripods have beget selfie sticks. there are certain things, however, that do not need to be reimagined re-purpd or redesigned. there are items that serve no societal benefit whatsoever. example number one: the

cigarette. yet new cigarettes have exploded into the marketplace known as everything from e-cigs, to advanced nicotine delivery systems to vaip ricers. like many emerging technologies, these products are designed to appeal to young people. they are more accessible to young people and are explicitly marketed to young people. because of this, we are being forced to write another dark chapter in the history books. after more than four decades of research, there are several incontrovertible facts. nicotine is addictive. it affects brain development. it in combination with tobacco is responsible for claiming millions of lives. these facts are true, and were true decades ago. at the same time that big tobacco willfully consistently,

publicly and falsely denied them. today e-cigarette sales in the united states alone top $1 billion. the use of e-cigarettes among middle and high school students tripled from 2013 to 2014, accounting for upwards of 13% of high school students. new data reports that nearly 2.5 million american young people currently use e-cigarettes. this data is not at all surprising when we consider the way these nicotine-delivery products are targeted at young people and how these products are available in a myriad of flavors, from cotton candy to van nil la cupcake to coca-cola. strawberry-flavored vpe liquid

can contain as much nicotine and sometimes more than a traditional significant revment and we know from years of research that flavor attracts young people. and the younger a person is when they start tobacco use the more difficult it will be for them to quit. that's why congress explicitly banned the use of cigarettes with flavors like cherry and bubble gum because of their appeal to young people. over the past decade, we've made great strides educating children and teens about the dangers of smoking. we cannot allow e-cigarettes to snuff out the progress that we've made preventing nicotine addiction and its deadly consequences. e-cigarette use is growing as fast as the students who are using them, and we need to put in place the rules to ensure that we stop it.

first, we need to ban the marketing of e-cigarettes to young people in the united states. second, we need to ban the use of flavorings, the use of fruit and candy-based flavors is clearly meant to attract children. cherry-crush e-cigarettes pose the same addiction risk as the minty cools of the 1970's smed third, we should ban online sales of e-cigarettes. the f.d.a. should prevent the online sales of these products to keep them out of the hand of children. last week marked one year since the f.d.a. -- this the first step to makerring sure children and teens can be protected from the harms of these devices.

oneyear later these rules have not been finalize mentd. until they are new cigarettes will continue to target young people with appealing marketing advertising, and product flavorings. every day the f.d.a. fails to act is another day young americans can fall prey to harmful products pushed by the tobacco industry. last year at a commerce committee hearing when i asked several e-cigarette company leaders to commit to ceasing the sale of these types of flavored products a few of them agreed, but the vast majority have not and will not stop this marketing campaign. today's electronic cigarettes are no better than the joe camels of the past because e-cigarettes children, and teens do not mix. young people are getting addicted to nicotine, putting

their health and their futures at grave risk. it is time for the f.d.a. to step in and to stop the sale of these candy-flavored poisons especially to the children of the united states. my father started smoking two packs of camels when he was 13 years of age. it was the cool thing to do. my father died from lung cancer. the tobacco industry denied -- denied that there was any linkage between tobacco between smoking and cancer and death. my father died from it. he started smoking at age 13 because it was a cool thing to do. and once you are a. dicted, once you get the 13-year-old the 14, the 15, two packs of camel joe camel a day, it is hard to stop. here's something else that we

know: that if a young person doesn't start to smoke until they're 19, they're highly unlikely to start at all because they've reached beyond a point where it's attractive to them from a peer-pressure perspective. and so what do these companies have to do? these companies have to find way to market to young people, to give them flavored e-cigarettes to make it appealing to them because they've got to get them when they're 13, 14, 15, 16. that's the marketing plan. it's all been the marketing plan. since my father started smoking when he was 13, and he would say to me, eddie, you have no idea how hard it is to stop. you have no idea how much -- i need to smoke, how much i need

the nicotine. and you could see it. and is it started when he was a kid. and that's the way it begins, because people don't start smoking when they're 20 years of age. we all know that. everyone listening to this knows that. and that's why this marketing campaign is so invidious. that's why what they're doing plays right into what we've known for a century is the business plan of the tobacco industry. so i urge the f.d.a. to act. i urge the members of this body to rise up to ensure that we don't have another generation that suffers the same fate as the previous generations have, in fact, had to live with, which is this addiction that is given to them at a very young age. so i thank you mr. president for the opportunity to speak

here this afternoon and i yield the floor back the balance of my time and i doubt the presence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: