mr. menendez: mr. president i rise to set aside and ask consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment number 72 to protect private property from unjust seizure by a foreign corporation. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from new jersey, mr. menendez proposes amendment number 72 to amendment number 2. mr. menendez: mr. president i ask waiver of the reading of the amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: mr. president -- the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: this is a very simple amendment. it prohibits trans-canada from using eminent domain proceedings to seize private property in order to build the keystone x.l. pipeline. as we all know, eminent domain is the power of a governmental entity to take private property and convert it to public use subject to reasonable compensation. now traditionally property could only be seized for public use such as a publi

mr. chairman, senator menendez. >> mr. chairman i appreciate senator cotton's strong concerns about iran which i share. however, the reason senator kirk and i created a calibrated staged effort is to do two critical things. if the agreements could not be achieved an agreement we could collectively support then it would be to consistently have iran understand the consequences of additional sanctions in an effort to get them to -- back to a table where they would agree to an agreement we could collectively support and do it in such a way that would still keep the international coalition that i think is critically important in order to have multi lateral sanctions affect which i think has been a key element of our ability to bring iran to the negotiating table. that's why we structured it in the way that we did. i think that being able to keep it in that context is incredibly important. it has nothing to do with giving the administration more time, it's really focused on how do we create the greatest consequence on iran the l

mr. menendez: mr. president i thank the distinguished ranking member of the energy committee to yield some time here, and i am not here for the purposes of legislation that we have been debating but i am here to take time on the senate floor on an occasion that i think is incredibly important to recollect, to commemorate and to talk about. 70 years ago today a soviet soldier evan martinochkin, arrived with his unit at the death camp at auschwitz and he said in an interview that he was instantly struck by the silence the smell of ashes and the emptiness but as they entered the gates evan and his unit were unaware of the atrocities, the war crimes that were to come to light over time. today, mr. president i rise in memory of the 1.1 million persons who perished there 90% of them jews. i rise in recognition of 1.1 million lost dreams, lost hopes, the lost wisdom of 1.1 million that will never be shared never be known and the lost potential of a generation that perished in that camp between 1940 and 1945.

mr. menendez: mr. president i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: mr. president i rise to say that nothing has changed in cuba since cuban arms were captured on this north korean ship going through the panama canal a year and a half ago, just after the obama administration started its secret negotiations with the cuban government. not the regime, not its mind set nor its oppression of its people. now, this is the essence of the regime. they put this missile systems and migs in a container ship going through the panama canal hid it under tons of sugar in violation of u.s. security council resolutions. the most significant violation of security council ruling as it relates to north korea in quite some time and certainly the biggest violator in all of the western hemisphere p. we could not trust the castro regime then and we cannot trust it now. what we can trust are the voices of those who promote human rights and democracy who have been arrested an

mr. menendez said the senior most democratic senator on the foreign relations committee that north koreaback on the terrorist list more steps like that would be important. what we've seen so far is pretty minimal. >> at the same time steven that north korea is making these threats we heard kim jong-un say let's have a dialogue with south korea. where does that play into this? >> well over the years that's often been a part of things. sometimes they try to play tough with america and draw closer with the people of the south. in the way they think of things i don't know it has worked terribly well and north/south relations are fraught with visits that come with a heavy price tag of transferring hard currency to north korean leadership and there have been scandals that enveloped presidential administrations of south korea. i don't think the current administration is interested in that. it's not necessarily new for them to smile with one happened and then try to be forceful with the other. >> guys thanks very much. we're obviously going to stay on top of this story for our viewers. >>> comin

mr. menendez: [inaudible] -- and after having had the benefit of having a hearing on the pipeline i've decided to oppose this bill for four basic reasons. first, on the bill i am deeply concerned that if approved, this pipe lynn will be the first of many pipelines opening one of the largest sources of carbon on earth to exploitation. second contrary to what many believe, i'm convinced this pipeline will simply not enhance, help, or in any positive way improve our energy profile. third, in my view, it is completely absurd for congress to take the role of permitting pipelines. it is a role we have never assumed and should not assume now. and, fourth, i believe it's ridiculous that our republican colleagues insist on language banning eminent domain for national parks legislation but oppose it when it comes to foreign or private projects like keystone. furthermore, mr. president we cannot underestimate the environmental impacts of this pipeline. the facts are clear. the resource in alberta is enormous. tar sands formations the size of iowa. the tar sands is 17% more greenhouse gas intensive than o

mr. chairman, ranking member menendez, thank you very much. mr.hairman, congratulations to your chairmanship. i very much look forward to working with you. i think it's very appropriately restrained hearings here today in this conference on the subject of iran and nuclear negotiations. it is of paramount importance to our national security. secretary kerry, undersecretary sherman, and her whole team was in geneva last week as part of the effort to get to an agreement where we can be sure that iran's nuclear program is used for peaceful purposes. i want to let you know where that is today. i will try to give you as much detail as i can. it is hard to get into some detail in the public without undermining the negotiations. we are making made to continue. we share the same goal to make the world a safer place by resolving the international committees concerns. our core goals are clear and consistent. any agreement reached must successfully cut off the pathways that iran has. the uranian pathways, plutonium pathways, and a potential covert pathway. an

menendez. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the center's intent and in general construct i am largely in agreement and appreciate the distinguished chairman of the senate foreign relations committee i have worked with for the last two years and he has put a lot of time and effort on this. here is why not at this time can i support even the sense of the senate. this is an issue that we have been discussing with senator corker because oversight of international agreements and disarmament issues come within the jurisdiction of the senate foreign relations committee. the members of that community have participated in a multitude of oversight hearings and classified briefings both on the negotiations and terms of the agreement. if we were to decide that we should vote on an agreement which i am inclined to believe we should do but we need to come to an agreement on how that boat would be -- how that vote would be taken subject to voting thresholds and the consequences consequences, if any that exist if the agreement was

with that, ranking member menendez. >> thank you, mr. chairman.w, i have to be honest with you the more i hear from the administration and its quotes the more it sounds like talking points that come straight out of tehran. and it feeds to the iranian narrative of victimization when they are the ones with original sin. an illicit nuclear weapons program, going back over the course of 20 years they are unwilling to come clean on. so i don't know why we feel compelled tox$Ñf make their case when in fact -- do you dispute any of the things i said in my opening state about actions that they have taken as it relates to the u.n. monitors? as it relates to fuelling that rod? as it relates to those other elements? do you dispute any of those? just yes or no? >>w3 ranking member, no i think you're largely correct. >> so then the bottom line is they get to cheat in a seriesko of ways -- i'll call it cheat you won't. but they get to cheat in a series of ways and we get to worry about their perceptions. tokÁquote from your testimony, and i'll quote directly ev

with that, ranking member menendez. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you know, i have to be honest with you, the more i hear from the administration and its quotes, the more it sounds like talking points that come straight out of tehran. and it feeds to the iranian narrative of victimization when they are the ones with original sin. an illicit nuclear weapons program, going back over the course of 20 years, they are unwilling to come clean on. so i don't know why we feel compelled to make their case when, in fact -- do you dispute any of the things i said in my opening state about actions that they have taken as it relates to the u.n. monitors? as it relates to fuelling that rod? as it relates to those other elements? do you dispute any of those? just yes or no? >> ranking member, no i think you're largely correct. >> so then the bottom line is, they get to cheat in a series of ways -- i'll call it cheat, you won't. but they get to cheat in a series of ways and we get to worry about their perceptions. to quote from your testimony and i'll quote directl

menendez. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me also welcome colleagues on the committee. it's an extraordinary committee to serve on, confluence of national economics of united -- security of the and not -- united states, the economics of united states, in a global context as well as major issues for which america is exceptional on democracy, human rights among other issues. i welcome you. i think you'll find an extraordinary experience. of since this is the first hearing that we've had of the new committee, i want to congratulate the chairman on his ascendancy to the chairmanship. during the two years i was chairman, we worked extraordinarily well, and in a collaborative fashion and in the midst of partisanship in the senate as a whole this committee was an island of bipartisanship on so many major issues that overwhelmingly passed the committee in almost every instance with strong bipartisan support. we look forward to working with you in the same context, same comity and same goals at the end of the day. we look forward to you having a very successful chairmanship of t

menendez? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your courtesy. secretary, let's be honest. as it relates to consultation there were long consultations with members who were in agreement with the president's proposed policy changes but none who might be in disagreement. that is on cuba. that gives rise to the concern that there will be no consultations but notification only to those of us who may concern about the nature of any agreement or continuous sanctions. it was the subject of your conversation with me when you were a nominee, questions i asked you before the committee. i'm disappointed. with reference to march 24, if there is a "deal" will that deal be written? >> at this point, i cannot tell you. the expectation would be that we would be able to show all of the critical elements of the deal, and whether there would be an actual initial agreement that would be turned into a technical agreement, i can't tell you. >> wouldn't the outlines of the deal be something that the iranians and the p5 plus one could sign on to? >> it would be my expectation but as i sit here tod

i believe that senator menendez is saying, on, mr.to do it now. >> he was the leader of the committee. he still would not stand up to the president very much. he had a couple of statements, but he did not push this forward. i need more time. if you do anything else to put pressure on the iranians, you will be responsible for blowing this negotiation up. the idea that it is even going well is ridiculous. look at what they just did and lemon. the iranians are emboldened. >> i think that you and i understand that an iranian nuke is a very thing. >> it is a game changer. stuart: why is the president leaning towards accommodating this? >> he has always had this idea. he has always put pressure on the wrong individuals. he is a terrible ago shooter. look at what he did with cubans and alan gross. what he is trying to placate a base. let's called everything down. stuart: it is a sad story. back to the big story of the day. apple. tom, i have three sectors that we want to look at with you today. would you buy apple at $116 per share? >> no. i

mr. chairman, my time is expired. i'll withhold my second question and try to get it in at another time. >> we go to senator menendez at. >> i understand. >> let me say, i appreciate the panel. we have made some enormous strides in our economic recovery since the financial meltdown and recession of -- starting in 2008. we've seen some robust job growth declining unemployment, growing gdp. there's still work to do. in my mind the focus on measures that we should be looking at strengthening middle class incomes investing in our infrastructure and improving educational opportunities. with that in mind, most i think, members of this committee believe that there is a pressing need to reform and simplify our tax code. however, opinions begin to diverge when we are talking about what are the goals for reform. what they should be and how exactly we go about accomplishing though goals. i think the president made it pretty clear where he stands on this question. and i strongly agree with him that we need to be focused on measures to help middle class families instead of keeping in place tax loopholes geared toward special intere

mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: i ask consent that the menendez amendment number 72 be modified with the changes that are at the desk. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection the amendment is so modified. ms. cantwell: mr. president on behalf of senator manchin i call up his amendment number 99. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from washington ms. cantwell, for mr. manchin, proposes an amendment numbered 99. ms. cantwell: i ask that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cantwell: mr. president i want to yield to senator boxer so she could call up her amendment. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: i call up amendment 113. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from california mrs. boxer, proposes amendment 113 -- mrs. boxer: i would ask it be considered as read, and i would ask to have two minutes just before the vote starts to explain this amendment. ms. murkows

senators bennet, senator carper, senator leahy, senator menendez, senator murphy senator warren and senator whitehouse for cosponsoring this amendment. mr. president, this amendment is extremely simple. it's about one page and i'll read it in a moment. but it raises a very, very profound issue as to how we do public policy not just on issues related to climate but on issues in general. and that is as we go forward tackling the very difficult problems facing our country and the world whom do we listen to? whose advice do we take as we proceed? and i would argue that historically and appropriately what we do as a nation is we listen to the experts. that is what we do. and i think that in this debate when we deal with the keystone pipeline when we deal with the issue of climate change, it is absolutely appropriate that we listen to what the overwhelming percentage of scientists are telling us. you know, mr. president i hear some of my colleagues say you know, this is complicated and i'm not a scientist. i don't know. but let me be very, very frank. i am not a scientist and i did not do terribly well in biology and physics in college but i

and congress knows, senators like menendez from new jersey a democrat has said, mr. president, your approach has not worked. it's time to use congress as a leverage to get iran to do that which you have tried to do for six years and failed. >> they say, look, they have said in the past that it's illegal and immoral to have a bomb. you don't believe what they say in tehran, that it's against their tenets? >> no, i wouldn't trust iran as far as i can throw this building. iran has proved themselves to be unhonorable unhonorable, distrustful. they're an enemy of israel and of the united states. they're causing chaos in the middle east and against american interests. they should not be interested. use reagan as an example. trust but verify. verify and if you can't verify you can't trust. >> so ellen, what about trust, don't verify, and what about these sanctions? >> well, first of all, i don't think the sanctions are going to work and i'll tell you why. number one, iran has taken -- well, they took and put them in jail in july and an american who has iranian citizenship w

mr. sanders: thank you. madam president i rise today to speak on behalf of my amendment to the proposed keystone x.l. pipeline bill, and i want to thank senators bennet, carper, leahy, menendez, warren, and whitehouse for cosponsoring this amendment. madam president my amendment is extremely simple. it is about a page and a half, and i think it is easy understood by anyone who reads it. and this is what it says: simple straightforward. quote -- "it is the sense of congress that congress is in agreement with the opinion of virtually the entire worldwide scientific community that, one climate change is real; two climate change is caused by human activities; three, climate change has already caused devastating problems in the united states and around the world; four, a brief window of opportunity exists before the united states and the entire planet suffer irreparable harm; ans, five, it is imperative that the united states transform its energy system away from fossil fuels and toward energy efficiency and sustainable energy as rapidly as possible." madam president that's it. that is the entire amendment. and what this amendment does is simply ask the members of the united stat

mr. menendez. mr. menendez: mr. president the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: this amendment protects private property from unjust seizure by foreign corporations using eminent domain proceedings against the will of those who are not willing sellers. let me read from a letter from nebraska landowners to the majority leader where they say "dear senator mcconnell: our farms and ranches are directly at risk of tar sands and benzene spills. we ask even knowing that you support the keystone x.l. pipeline that you vote for senator menendez's amendment that makes it clear that trans-canada cannot take land from unwilling sellers. we ask you to stand up for our property rights and not permit eminent domain be used for private gain." i'd like to yield the balance of my time to senator tester on this. mr. tester:man, i support did the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: mr. president, i support the pipeline. i think it has a lot of good benefits but make no

mr. menendez: mr. president i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: mr. president, as we approach the end of, i think of the votes on the legislation on the keystone pipeline -- i understand we're having a series of votes later tonight -- i know that what is likely to be next up is the question of the department of homeland security funding and i hope that we can come collectively together to fund the department of homeland security, the department that keeps us safe in an unsafe world, the department that we created after september 11th to bring disparate government agencies all charged with keeping our cities, our ports our airports, our railways, highways bridges and neighborhoods safe from the threat of global terrorism. and i particularly understand that as a member of this body who represents according to the f.b.i., the most dangerous two miles in america the chemical coastway airport seaport along the hudson waterfront. this is a department tha

mr. president the original agreement said that further that all these amendments be listed -- limited to 60-vote affirmative threshold adoption except for cornyn and menendez and that no second degrees be in order. so the original agreement we entered into allowed for this vote. the presiding officer: the consent agreement was for a vote in relation to each amendment and the motion to table is in order. ms. cantwell: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: a quorum is present. the yeas and nays have been previously ordered. on the motion to table. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote: the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber who wish to vote or change their vote? if not the ayes are 53, the nays are 46. and the motion to table is agreed to. ms. murkowski: move to reconsider. a senator: lay it on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 24, offered by the senator from vermont mr. sanders. who yields time? mr. sanders: mr. president? the pre