John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Capt. James Holt, a Marine Corps fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of this legislative session.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Wisconsin, (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to talk about a number of subjects starting, of course, with the fact that millions of Americans have lost their health insurances because of the unintended consequences of the Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare. We also know that in addition to losing the coverage they had, which they were told they could keep, many have now been forced to pay higher premiums. The sticker shock from that has been something we have been reading a lot about. But whether there is sticker shock because of the higher premiums, many people have been finding that their deductibles are huge, making them effectively self-insured up to $5,000 for their health care costs, definitely not something they were promised as a result of ObamaCare. We also know that roughly 10 million people, about 10\1/2\ million people, remain unemployed in America and that 3.8 million of them have been unemployed for more than 6 months. Since the recession has ended-- and, of course, a recession is, technically speaking, two consecutive quarters of negative growth--I think, if asked, most Americans today feel as though we are still in a recession because of what is happening to them personally. We know that since the recession ended, median household income--one measure of economic health in the country--has gone down by $2,500. So at the same time people are experiencing higher costs for health care, for groceries, for gasoline, and other necessities of life, they are seeing that their median household income has declined by $2,500--a double whammy. According to a Joint Economic Committee analysis, if the Obama economic recovery had been as strong as an average post-1960 recovery, we would currently have millions more private sector jobs. I had the pleasure this last weekend of hearing a fascinating debate with Larry Summers, economic adviser and former president of Harvard University--a brilliant economist--and another brilliant economist, Senator Phil Gramm, who taught at Texas A&M. Senator Gramm was making the point that if we had had a typical recovery after a recession, it would have been a V-shaped recovery. We did not get that. The economy continues to grow slowly, unusually slowly, and they were both exploring the reasons for that. A lot has to do with uncertainty about the role of the Federal Government when it comes to taxes, when it comes to regulation, and when it comes to our escalating national debt--now over $17 trillion--and what that might mean in the future. But add all this up and Americans are continuing to feel increasingly pessimistic about the state of our economy, the state of their personal health care relationships with their doctors and hospitals, and the future of the country. That is something all of us ought to be profoundly concerned about. Yet rather than promote real health care reform that actually deals with the unaffordability of health coverage or something that will get the economy growing again, my friends across the aisle, many of them, spent last night--all night--talking about climate change. That is right, climate change. So the message to millions of people out of work or who have lost their health coverage or to people who are living from paycheck to paycheck because median household income has actually declined is that what America really needs right now is more taxes and more regulation and the big government that goes along with it. It is easy to see why many people think Washington is just out of touch with the concerns of average hardworking American families, and last night was an example. It is hard to square the message with the genuine concern for the middle class and middle-class prosperity. I mean, if we are really concerned about hardworking American families working from paycheck to paycheck just to make ends meet, I doubt we would have an all-night debate on climate change. If my friends across the aisle really did believe that job creation should be our top priority, they wouldn't have wasted precious time with last night's political stunt. For that matter, they wouldn't be opposing the Keystone XL Pipeline, which would single-handedly create thousands of well-paying American jobs. I realize that many people have good-faith concerns about the long- term implications of rising greenhouse gas emissions. Over the next three decades worldwide emissions are indeed projected to surge. But that has almost nothing to do with the United States and almost everything to do with developing countries such as China. As a matter of fact, the ranking member of the energy committee, the Senator from Alaska, and certainly the Senator from Wyoming know this very well. One of the reasons why carbon emissions in the United States are going down is because of the natural gas renaissance we have seen--because of unconventional shale gas exploration in places such as Texas and all around the country. So we are finding ways to reduce carbon emissions for those who are worried about those, as a result of taking advantage of the resources we have here in the United States, together with the innovative technology that is used to develop it. Those of us who oppose bigger, more intrusive government in the form of cap and trade legislation or higher taxes such as carbon taxes or other job-killing greenhouse gas regulations are not denialists. I prefer to say we are realists. We understand America's contributions to global emissions over the coming decades will be relatively minuscule. We understand the economic costs of President Obama's regulations through the Environmental Protection Agency would vastly outweigh the environmental benefit. So why do they want to put a big wet blanket on the economy and on the aspirations and dreams of hard-working families in order to pursue policies in which the negative will vastly outweigh the positive benefit to American families? In fact, the Obama EPA itself has admitted its proposed greenhouse gas rule would not have a notable impact on U.S. carbon dioxide emissions until the year 2022. I would also note, despite having Members of his party talk about climate change all night--which is all it was, talk--there is no legislation they are offering, nor will the majority leader, who controls the agenda of the Senate, bring legislation to the floor to actually vote on it. So it is just talk or, perhaps I can say, it was just a lot of hot air. Our colleagues across the aisle--including the majority leader who controls the agenda of the floor in the Senate--seem to be content letting the President use his pen and phone, skirting the legislative process, not engaging with Congress to try to do things which actually are the priorities of the American people but instead to rely on unelected EPA bureaucrats. I could be surprised, but I would be surprised to learn if the consensus in America wouldn't be that we should be focusing on policies which create jobs, rather than destroy jobs and punish families in return for meager or nonexistent benefits. Speaking of destroying jobs and punishing families, the Congressional Budget Office--which is the official budgetary scorekeeper for Congress--recently estimated the President's proposal to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour would actually destroy up to 1 million jobs. I believe sometimes here in Washington people think those who actually create jobs can absorb regulations, taxes, and other economic burdens, together with the uncertainty many of those policies cause, and it will have no impact on their ability to continue to create jobs, grow jobs or to grow the economy. But the Congressional Budget Office has stated what should perhaps be intuitive, which is, if you raise the cost of doing business on businesses, they are going to have to find someplace to cut. What that means is they are going to have to cut more people from their jobs. They estimated up to 1 million people would lose their job if we raised the minimum wage 40 percent to $10.10 an hour. Remember, in the President's State of the Union Message he said a minimum wage hike like that would help low-income families. It is certainly a mystery to me how it would help a low-income family who is relying on a wage earner to provide income when they end up losing their job as a result of the policy. So the President's definition of ``help'' is unique, to say the least, because any policy which destroys up to 1 million jobs would be an absolute disaster for low-income families. The President also made his pitch for a higher minimum wage in the context of his concern about income inequality. He claims to be greatly concerned about income inequality. Yet his policies actually threaten to make it worse. But don't take my word for it. A news report from a major labor union argues that in its current form, the President's health care law will ``heighten the inequality that the administration seeks to produce.'' These are not political adversaries of our President and his party. These are supporters of the Affordable Care Act--ObamaCare--who have now said in its current form, unless changed, the Affordable Care Act-- or ObamaCare--will heighten the inequality the administration seeks to reduce. The report also notes that ObamaCare ``threatens the middle class with higher premiums, loss of hours, and a shift from part-time work and less comprehensive coverage.'' I think those would be very troubling words to the President and his allies who passed the Affordable Care Act--or ObamaCare--but so far they have fallen on deaf ears. Again, this report just in terms of its credibility was not issued by some Republican or conservative organization which was opposed to ObamaCare from the beginning. It was issued by a labor union which supported ObamaCare which has now found that what was promised has not actually been delivered in terms of its implication. So what union members and their families are learning the hard way is the promise of ObamaCare is very different from the reality. We were promised ObamaCare would actually expand coverage, it would reduce costs, it would help our economy, all without disrupting existing health care arrangements. In reality, the law has forced millions to lose their coverage and forced millions to pay higher premiums or higher deductibles, effectively being self-insured. Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office projects it will effectively shrink America's labor force by 2.5 million full-time workers over the next decade. Remarkably, the administration now wants us to believe it is actually a good thing so many people are reducing their work hours in order to keep their government-mandated health care. For example, chief White House economist Jason Furman has said working less to keep ObamaCare benefits ``might be a better choice and a better option than what they had before.'' Of course, they don't have a choice to keep what they had before because they have been forced into ObamaCare. If you don't buy the government-mandated insurance, then you are going to be fined by your friendly Federal Government. But think about it: The White House chief economist is celebrating the possibility of a dramatic decline in American work hours. I would remind Mr. Furman that America's labor force participation is already at historic lows. It is as low as it has been for 30 years. In other words, the percentage of people looking for work in America is at a 30- year low already, and Mr. Furman is celebrating the further depressing impact of ObamaCare on work in America. All else being equal, a reduction in work hours means a reduction in economic growth. It certainly means a reduction in income for the people working. We know a further reduction of economic growth will make it harder to create new jobs, improve living standards, and achieve broad-based prosperity--something I know we all hope for in America. This is a dangerous cycle, and it is definitely not something we should be celebrating. It is something we should be fixing. A truly compassionate agenda--not one that focuses on things which are largely irrelevant to the lives of Americans working families, but a truly compassionate agenda would seek to improve opportunity rather than encourage dependency. A truly compassionate agenda would place a much higher value on the dignity and self-reliance of American workers by making sure they have jobs. For that matter, a truly compassionate agenda would aim to dismantle ObamaCare and replace it with patient-centered alternatives which encourage work and encourage job creation. The type of agenda I have described is pretty much the exact opposite of what we have seen over the last 5 years, and the results speak for themselves. There is absolutely no reason we have to accept the status quo. With the right mix of economic policies, America can turn this ship around and restore the strong growth rates and robust job creation we enjoyed in the 1980s and 1990s. We will on this side of the aisle continue to promote such policies, and we look forward to working with our colleagues across the aisle when they finally come around to the realization the path we are heading on now is not one the American people are happy with or that they have to settle for. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Senator from Alaska for her wise words. I wasn't here for all of her remarks, but I was able to hear the percentage of her State that is owned by the Federal Government, which is extraordinary. I think she cited roughly 2 percent in Texas. That was a deal we cut in 1845, and it turned out it was a pretty good deal because Texas lands are overwhelmingly private lands rather than government lands. I think part of the point she was making as well is that while we have seen a resurgence of activity on private land, particularly when it comes to the shale gas, and on oil plays on public lands we haven't seen that same sort of productivity. If the Federal Government would simply take the same approach that the private sector is taking when it comes to developing these God-given natural resources, it could really boost our economy further and lower unemployment. So I thank my colleague for her wise words this morning. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the centennial anniversary of the Roman Catholic Diocese of El Paso, which took place on March 3, 2014. For nearly 400 years, the Catholic Church has served the needs of people in the El Paso area, beginning with the arrival of Franciscan missionaries in the late 1600s. By the time Pope Pius X founded the Diocese of El Paso on March 3, 1914, the Church had established a network of parochial schools and private sanatoriums to treat tuberculosis patients. The ministries, parishes, and schools were founded with a desire to share Catholic life and give witness to Christ. Today, under the leadership of its 6th bishop, Mark J. Seitz, the Diocese includes 64 parishes and missions, 11 schools, and a seminary that serve more than 600,000 Catholics. I invite my colleagues to join me in celebrating the Diocese's legacy of service and faith in El Paso. I ask God's continued blessing on the leaders and members of the Diocese as they carry on their good work in providing health care, education, and spiritual care to the people of West Texas.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) and the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) and the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I rise today to commemorate a very special day in Texas history, and I would say in American history. This is a day that inspires pride and gratitude in my State. I rise to commemorate Texas Independence Day, which is celebrated on March 2, this Sunday. I will read a letter that was written 178 years ago from behind the walls of an old Spanish mission that is now in San Antonio, TX. It is known as the Alamo. It is a letter written by 26-year-old Lieutenant Colonel William Barret Travis. In doing so, I am carrying on a tradition started by the late Senator John Tower, who represented Texas in this body for more than two decades. This tradition was later upheld by his successor, Senator Phil Gramm, and thereafter by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. It is a tremendous honor that this privilege has now fallen to me. On February 24, 1836, with his position under siege and outnumbered nearly 10 to 1 by the forces of the Mexican dictator Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, Travis penned the following letter: To the People of Texas and all Americans in the World: Fellow citizens and compatriots-- I am besieged by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna. I have sustained a continual bombardment and cannonade for 24 hours and I have not lost a man. The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion. Otherwise, the garrison are to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken. I have answered the demand with a cannon shot, and our flag still waves proudly from the walls. I shall never surrender or retreat. Then, I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism and everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid with all dispatch. The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily and will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in four or five days. If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself for as long as possible and die like a soldier who never forgets what is due to his own honor and that of his country. Victory or death. Signed: William Barret Travis. As we have since learned, in the battle that ensued, all 189 defenders of the Alamo gave their lives. But they did not die in vain. The Battle of the Alamo bought precious time for the Texas revolutionaries, allowing General Sam Houston to maneuver his army into position for a decisive victory in the battle of San Jacinto. With this victory Texas became a sovereign nation and an independent republic. For nine years the Republic of Texas thrived, as I said, as a separate nation. Then, in 1845, it agreed to join the United States as the 28th State. Many of the Texas patriots who fought in the revolution went on to serve in the Congress. I am honored to hold the seat originally held by then-General Sam Houston but later the president of the republic and U.S. Senator for Texas. More broadly, I am honored to have the opportunity to serve 26 million Americans that call Texas home because of the sacrifices made by these brave patriots 178 years ago. May we always remember the Alamo, and may God continue to bless Texas and these United States. IRS Intrusion Madam President, I will spend the rest of my time on a separate topic about which many Americans are greatly concerned, and I am one of them. It has been more than nine months since we first found out that the IRS was deliberately targeting certain political organizations for their political beliefs. At first, the Obama administration acknowledged that any abuse by the IRS was unacceptable. But then, in subsequent days and months, it has tried to play down the scandal and blame it on a few rogue operators in the Cincinnati Field Office. Yet the more we have learned, the more we realize the abuses involved significant coordination with the IRS headquarters here in Washington, DC. Because of these abuses, millions of Americans now worry that the Internal Revenue Service and their own Federal Government have been corrupted, and we have become more like a banana republic. This damage to the public confidence and the public trust is immeasurable, and much of the damage may end up being irreversible. Of course, the right response when the administration and Congress learned of these abuses would have been to clean house at the agency and give the American people ironclad assurances this would never, ever happen again. Of course, the right response would have been accountability, firing people, and strong support for congressional investigations on a bipartisan basis and the adoption of new safeguards against potential future abuses. Instead, we have seen that the investigations, most notably led in the House of Representatives, have been met with whitewash, and there have been active efforts to prevent Congress from actually uncovering the full story. That is a shameful response, and it is dishonest. Unfortunately, it is about to get worse. The Obama IRS is now proposing a new political speech rule that would force many 501(c)(4), or grassroots organizations, to dramatically change their activities or else form formal political action committees. If the groups are forced to register as political outfits, they will be subject to new campaign finance rules, which, of course, may be the whole point. As the Wall Street Journal noted earlier this week: The purpose of this disclosure is to set up donors as political targets for boycotts and intimidation so that the costs of participating in politics will be too steep. I might note the Supreme Court of the United States addressed this concern in a very important case decades ago, NAACP v. Alabama, where they held that under the First Amendment to the Constitution, the NAACP was not required to disclose its membership list because, at the time, sadly, they were worried about intimidation and targeting of their members. So the Supreme Court of the United States said that under the First Amendment of the Constitution and the freedom of association included there, the NAACP did not need to disclose its membership list because of this bona fide threat. These are not contrived concerns today. Back in 2012, donors to the Mitt Romney presidential campaign found themselves publicly attacked and slandered for daring to support Governor Romney and participating in the political process. For that matter, something even more sinister happened to one Idaho businessman by the name of Frank VanderSloot. In April of 2012, Mr. VanderSloot was one of 8 Romney donors who were condemned by an Obama campaign Web site and called ``less than reputable.'' Shortly thereafter, a Democratic opposition researcher began searching for Mr. VanderSloot's divorce records. Meanwhile, the IRS decided to audit 2 years worth of tax filings for Mr. VanderSloot and the Labor Department announced a separate audit of the workers employed on his cattle ranch. Coincidence? I suspect Mr. VanderSloot was targeted because of his political activities. It was a deeply troubling question in 2012, and it is even more troubling today, given all we have learned about the IRS targeting since that time. I offer as my next example the experience of one of my constituents, Catherine Engelbrecht in Houston, TX. Ms. Engelbrecht is a Texas businesswoman who founded both the King Street Patriots and an organization called True the Vote. She was mainly concerned about the integrity of the ballot and training people to participate in the process and express themselves more effectively through that process. But she found herself targeted by multiple Federal agencies, including the IRS, the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and OSHA, none of which had ever contacted her family's businesses before her involvement in grassroots activism. As Ms. Engelbrecht recently told a House committee investigating: We had never been audited, we had never been investigated, but all that changed upon submitting applications for the nonprofit statuses of True the Vote and King Street Patriots. Since that filing in 2010, my private businesses, my nonprofit organizations, and family have been subjected to more than 15 instances of audit or inquiry by federal agencies. Make no mistake. The proposed IRS rule would make it even harder for people such as Ms. Engelbrecht to participate in the political process--something that is her constitutional right--and it would strongly discourage other similarly interested and concerned citizens from exercising their rights. In other words, it would strike at the very heart of self government, and at the very heart of the American democracy. The IRS was meant to be a tax collection agency, period--not to be the police of political speech and political activity. But now we know, after the Affordable Care Act was passed--now more commonly called ObamaCare--we now know the IRS is in charge of enforcing ObamaCare by collecting the penalties for people who don't buy government-approved health insurance. But, still, that is apparently not enough of a job for the IRS, even though the work they are already doing they are not doing very well. With this now 501(c)(4) rule, the IRS would effectively become a campaign finance regulator. As the advocates for this rule are aware, we already have an agency responsible for enforcing campaign finance rules. It is called, strangely enough, the Federal Election Commission, and it is a strictly bipartisan institution, as it should be. If the President and my friends across the aisle want to change campaign finance laws, they should either draft legislation or make their case to the Federal agency that has the jurisdiction to deal with them: The election commissioners at the Federal Election Commission. But turning the IRS into a de facto arm of the FEC is just more political overreach, and it is going to be ripe for abuse. Indeed, not only would the proposed 501(c)(4) rule further distract the IRS from its core mission, it would trample the First Amendment, intimidate people from exercising their rights of free speech, and it would weaken our participatory democracy. I also note the rule would not cover the political activities of some other tax-exempt organizations. I am sure this was just an oversight. Labor unions are exempted. So why, if the Treasury is proposing this rule--why, if this is going to be given to the IRS--would we carve out some of the largest donors and participants in the political process in America today, which is organized labor? Not for reasons of fairness, I suppose but, rather, because the proponents of this rule basically want to tilt the scale in their favor, once again, and they want to suppress the speech and the political activity of people they disagree with-- which is un-American. Not surprisingly, the IRS has received tens of thousands of comments on the rule, and most of these comments have been critical. This morning in the Senate Judiciary Committee, my colleague Senator Cruz read a comment from the American Civil Liberties Union that was critical of this rule. I don't agree with a lot of the policies of the American Civil Liberties Union, but they are absolutely right in this instance. Given the tremendous importance of this issue, including the potential consequences and damage to First Amendment rights, we need to make sure this rule is not implemented as proposed. I urge all of my constituents in Texas and all Americans and everyone within the sound of my voice to continue making their voices heard and to continue to urge President Obama and the IRS commissioner to stop this dangerous IRS power grab. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I wish to say something about the Iran sanctions legislation that is contained in the alternative bill of which Senator Burr has been the chief architect. First I wish to speak briefly on what is happening in the Ukraine. Late last year, the country's increasingly autocratic President, Viktor Yanukovych, refused to sign a trade agreement with the European Union after coming under strong pressure from Russian leader Vladimir Putin. His refusal to sign the trade deal, coupled with the government's persistent attacks on democracy and civil liberties, as well as growing fears of Moscow's effort to turn Ukraine into a puppet state, sparked massive street protests in the capital city of Kiev. When the government responded with violence, the situation rapidly spiraled out of control until eventually President Yanukovych was expelled from office and forced to flee. It has been almost a decade since Ukraine's Orange Revolution captured the attention and spirits of freedom lovers across the globe. Now the country is once again at a crossroads. The decisions that are made in the days and weeks that lie ahead will determine whether Ukraine is allowed to flourish as a pro-Western democracy or it is forced to languish in corruption and authoritarianism as a Russian satellite. It is time for the President of the United States--the Commander in Chief, President Obama--to remind the world where America stands in the ongoing battle between democracy and dictatorship. It is time for him to rethink the so-called reset policy that has done nothing but embolden Vladimir Putin and discourage Russian human rights activists. It is time for the President to make absolutely clear that Russian meddling in the sovereign affairs of Ukraine is absolutely unacceptable. As for Putin himself, it is time people everywhere see him for what he really is: a brutal thug who epitomizes corruption, repression, and dictatorship. Turning to another important issue, which is what is happening in Iran, just a few months ago, after years of mounting sanctions and economic pressures, it appeared the West had finally gotten the Iranian dictatorship's attention and it was literally on the ropes. But then, for some reason, we chose to let them off the hook and to throw them a lifeline and to give up some of the very best leverage we had obtained over the course of years for minor concessions and hollow promises. While the Obama administration is still trumpeting the November 2013 Iranian nuclear agreement as a diplomatic watershed, I remain deeply skeptical and concerned that we threw an economic lifeline to the world's leading state sponsor of international terrorism, even though the ayatollahs have shown no real willingness to abandon their decades- long quest for a nuclear weapon. Of course, were Iran to achieve a nuclear weapon, there would be a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, dramatically destabilizing that already very volatile region of the world. So given that reality, along with Iran's well-documented record of duplicity, I have joined with 58 other of my Senate colleagues-- Republicans and Democrats alike--in sponsoring new sanctions legislation. We have been ably led by the Senator from Illinois Mr. Kirk and other leaders. It is something called the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act that would take effect if and only if Tehran violated the Geneva agreement. In other words, this is a backstop to the negotiations that Secretary Kerry has had and that the President has pointed to, but amazingly the Obama administration has taken the very bizarre position that the Democrats who are supporting this legislation--this backstop legislation that would do nothing to undermine the negotiations between the Secretary of State and other nations in the region--the President is now urging Democrats to stop supporting this important piece of backstop legislation, even though a commanding majority of the Senate has indicated their support for it. In fact, the President has gone so far as to promise a veto of this legislation if it reaches his desk. Of course, it is not true, as the President argues, that this legislation would effectively sabotage the Geneva deal. In truth and in fact, what it would do is provide, as I said, a backstop but reinforce what the President and Secretary Kerry are so proud of in terms of what they have already negotiated. If Iran follows through, then this sanctions legislation would be of little force and effect. I am not sure I understand the administration's concern. After all, if the administration thinks Iran will follow through on its Geneva commitments--something I am personally skeptical of--but if the President thinks they will follow through, then there is nothing to worry about. But if the administration believes that Iran will fail to honor those commitments, then it never should have made the deal in the first place and it should have welcomed this amendment, this piece of legislation, this backstop sanctions legislation that would buttress what they have negotiated. I believe today what I have believed for many years--that our only hope for a peaceful resolution of the Iranian nuclear crisis is to combine tough sanctions with the credible threat of military action. That is the only thing that will bring the ayatollahs to the table, and that is why we need to vote on new sanctions as soon as possible, preferably this week, to demonstrate that there will be serious consequences if Iran fails to uphold the Geneva deal or if it tries to delay indefinitely a final agreement. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.