Bob Corker

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, as has been said, the time is equally divided. Obviously, Republicans have spent a great deal of time on the floor. The order, just for people on our side who are coming and going on our side--we know the next speaker is Senator Feinstein, but it was a preagreed order of Hatch, Cornyn, Barrasso, and Gardner. It is my understanding that we may only have about 15 to 20 minutes of time left on our side until 5 o'clock. I just say that for the convenience of Members. Will the Presiding Officer tell us exactly how much time we have on our side?

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, first of all, I wish to thank our leader and I wish to thank Senator Reid for allowing us to come to this vote without a motion to proceed so we can begin this debate in a sober and responsible manner. I thank the leader. I know many Members on the other side of the aisle were concerned about maybe nefarious amendments being a part of this debate on the front end. I thank you for the way you set up this procedure so that we are focused only on the resolution of disapproval. That is something I know the other side had wanted, and I appreciate your setting it up in that manner. I also thank Senator Cardin. I thank him for being such a tremendous partner on the committee. I thank him for his diligence in making what I know was a tough decision on the substance. I truly appreciate his ability and the way he worked with us to ensure that we have this debate and this opportunity to vote. Let me step back and refresh people's memory. I know there has been a lot of discussion, and there are some who purposefully try to confuse what is happening here. But the fact is that the President decided long ago that he was not going to pursue a treaty. He instead was going to pursue what is called a nonbinding political commitment, and he was going to go directly to the U.N. Security Council for approval. As a matter of fact, he has already done that. In the course of discussions, we realized, just as the leader mentioned, it was actually we who brought Iran to the table. We had four tranches of severe sanctions that, as was mentioned, in most cases were objected to by the administration, but it was those sanctions and then the international community agreeing with those sanctions that brought Iran to the table in the first place. We had discussions. We realized that we understand the President planned to do this with an Executive agreement. By the way, I think everyone understands that when the President does that, it is only binding on his administration, it is not binding on future administrations, whereas a treaty, which goes through a whole different process, is binding on future Presidents. Because we had played such a role, we ended up with the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, and this agreement has now put us in place to debate this issue and to decide as a body whether we want to approve it or disapprove it. I thank Senator Cardin for his efforts in making that happen. I thank all the Senators in this body--98 of them; 1 was missing that day--who voted to put us in this place. As a matter of fact, I think all of us know that if it weren't for that, we would be having no discussion. This would have already been implemented. The President already went to the U.N. Security Council, and it is this pause that has allowed us to weigh in this way on behalf of the American people and to express whether we approve or disapprove of this agreement. Let me say this: When the President began back in 2012 and he said that he was going to negotiate with the P5+1 on this Iranian nuclear deal to end their nuclear program, I thought, that is outstanding. As a matter of fact, if the President can do that and if he had done that, I am sure we would have had 100 votes in favor of that. As a matter of fact, in other instances, he mentioned that he wanted to dismantle their nuclear program. Again, as the leader has mentioned, had he achieved that, none of us would be debating this issue. We would be thrilled with that outcome. But it was very evident that was not the course of action which was being pursued when we had the first agreement, the JOPA. We had another round. We had additional concessions. Finally, we got to the point where we all realized that what was happening--instead of a dismantling or instead of ending Iran's nuclear program, what this agreement does, if we were to approve it, it agrees to the industrialization of their nuclear program. We have a state sponsor of terror, and this agreement is approving the industrialization of their program. I think everyone knows that one of the great fallacies in this deal is that not only, with our approval, are they industrializing their program, but in 9 months all of the leverage shifts. Their country has a $409 billion economy. In the next 9 months, this country is going to get about $100 billion. That has not been disputed. Think about it--25 percent of their economy is going to be given to them in 1 year. Think about an $18 trillion country such as ours. If we were to get $4 to $5 trillion, think what we would be able to do with those resources. Over that 9-month period, regardless of what they do with PMD, regardless of what they do with other issues, the rest of the big economic sanctions are going to be relieved. Their economy is going to be growing. They are going to be cash-rich. They are going to be a much stronger country. I think it is probably important to talk about whom we are dealing with. I know Senator Cotton has alluded to this before, as have many others, but when we went to Baghdad through the years, most of us sat down with General Odierno. On his coffee table, he would have in front of him all of the devices Iran was using to kill and maim our soldiers. I think you will remember that there was actually a rush at one time to rush out humvees to try to protect our soldiers from having their limbs and body parts dismembered. Once we did that, the Iranians developed another device. It was made of copper. When it exploded, it would go through any type of metal. It was used to kill Americans. It was used to dismember them. As a matter of fact, when you see people in Tennessee, Wyoming, Kansas, or in other places walking up and down the street with prosthetics, that was Iran. Iran was responsible for the dismembering of so many Americans. They are the same people, by the way, who are supporting Assad right now. An amazing thing--the IRGC, which is the arm that directly reports to the Supreme Leader, is the shock force in Syria right now that is keeping Assad afloat. The ranking member and I recently went to see a display by the Holocaust Museum. A gentleman named Caesar had documented what Assad, with Iran's support, is doing to everyday Syrians in the country. As we sit here, what they are doing is torturing people. As a matter of fact, I wish you could see the pictures. They are actually amputating people's genitals. As we are sitting here in this comfortable setting, Iran is supporting Assad's ability to do that to his own people. We see on the TV screens what is happening. People are flooding out from Syria and flooding out from Iraq to get away from what is happening right now in the Middle East. We know that Hezbollah--another arm of Iran--through one of its proxies right now, is destabilizing Lebanon. We know that Hamas is being supplied rockets--sophisticated rockets, I might add--from Iran to shoot into Israel. We know that in Bahrain, where we have thousands of troops to keep the Strait of Hormuz open, they are supplying terrorist organizations there to disrupt that government and cause harm to the people who are serving us. So this is whom we are dealing with--the greatest state sponsor of terror that we know. We only named three, by the way. We named Syria, we named Sudan, and we named Iran. Obviously, when we worked through the first agreements and in the interim agreement where we agreed to enrich, that was quite a shock to most of us. Then they went through the first big round to reach this comprehensive agreement, and that agreement addressed a number of the issues the leader just laid out. But prior to going to Geneva, there were still, in this final round, some issues that needed to be addressed. I had one of those few calls with Secretary Kerry where I felt as though he was listening. I talked to him at length. I told him: Secretary Kerry, a lot of people are going to have difficulty ever approving a deal that allows Iran to industrialize their program like this. But how you finish these last pieces is going to say a lot qualitatively about how we really plan to implement this deal. At that time, of course, we still had the issues of previous military dimensions. Some people call it possible military dimensions. But we know they were developing a nuclear weapon. You certainly heard the presentation regarding how we are dealing with Parchin. It is really pretty amazing, after the AP report came out, how this has actually survived late-night comedy. We know that if the IAEA gives a report on Iran's previous military dimensions--I think you know Iran is supposed to be supplying the IAEA information and access to scientists regarding what they were doing. But regardless of what the quality of this is--if it is a D-minus report or an A-plus report--the fact is that they still get the sanctions relief they are seeking over the next 9 months. In addition to that, the inspections process--we have all had concerns about the fact that we have to wait 24 days. By the way, there is a lot of misunderstanding about the 24 days. That is after the IAEA raises a concern. That is after Iran responds to that. Some people have written that it could take as many as 40 to 45 days for this to occur. But then there is a 24-day period. Our leader referred to the IR-1. Iran has done a masterful job because they have gotten the P5+1 to focus on their IR-1 centrifuges. They have 19,000 of them. They are antiques. Truly, they are antiques. What they have going on right now is the development of IR-2s, IR-4s, IR-6s, IR-8s. I would ask you to go down to the SCIF and let some of our intelligence people tell you the speed--the difference between the IR-8 and IR-1. Let me say to you without giving any classified information that in a room the size of where I am standing to this back wall and actually much closer this way, in a small room like that, Iran can actually do the equivalent of 720 IR-1s. With a 24-day inspection process, our ability to detect in very small areas of Iran--a very large country-- this type of thing is going to be very difficult. So I talked to Secretary Kerry about those two things, and I am sorry, I feel as if we totally punted on those issues, and then for good measure, as has been mentioned many times, we threw in the lifting of the conventional arms embargo. I mean, where did that come from? What did that have to do with the nuclear power? We threw in the lifting of ballistic testing in 8 years. Again, what was that about? Then, with some really special and peculiar language meant, I think, to confuse, we lifted immediately their ability to test ballistic weapons. So let me say again that all of this we know is being done with a country that has no practical need for enrichment. They have one nuclear reactor--one. They can buy enriched uranium so much cheaper on the market. They have absolutely no need for 19,000 centrifuges. They have no need for an underground facility to protect from bombing. They have no need for the facility at Arak that produces plutonium. Many people have said that Iran wants to have the ability to deal with medical isotopes. They want to show to the rest of the Middle East that they are sophisticated. Do you know how many centrifuges they would need to do that? Five hundred. So what has all this been about? They have put their people through such grief, such economic depravity. They have been isolated from the world. They are a rogue community. And they have done all that to create a program that has, as we know, only one need, and that is so they can develop a nuclear weapon. I am very disappointed with where we have come up, and I am disappointed to add this as another problem. We are doing all this without a strategy in the Middle East. I wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post--not that anybody reads them--to talk about my disapproval of this deal. When you think about it, one of the great tragedies--again, we are seeing it play out on television. John McCain has been so good at talking about this issue. But what we are seeing play out right now is no strategy in the Middle East. It is the greatest humanitarian disaster of my lifetime. So what is going to happen without any strategy to push back against Iran, to push back against what they are doing in Syria, what they have been doing in Lebanon, what they are doing in Yemen, what they are doing in Bahrain, what they are doing certainly against Israel--Hamas-- without a strategy, this is going to be the de facto strategy. I will remind everyone again that in 9 months all the leverage goes away. Right now we have leverage over them. In 9 months, they have all their money and the sanctions have been relieved. Many of you have read statements that have been issued by the Supreme Leader and others that if we try to put sanctions on them for their terrorist activities, violations of human rights or other activities, you know what they are going to say. They are going to say: Hey, I am sorry. You are violating the agreement. Remember, this President has tried to obligate not just us from putting additional sanctions in place, but he has tried to keep State and local governments from putting sanctions in place. He is actually acting as a buffer against those people who in good conscience would want to push back against the terrible human rights activities that are taking place and the terrorism that is being exported. Again, this is going to be our strategy. Think about it. In a year, before the next President takes office, let's say we want to put sanctions in place to push back because Iran is supplying additional arms to Assad, as it appears Russia is doing right now, what is Iran going to say? Well, we are just going to begin development of our nuclear program. What if we say that we know they are in violation of the nuclear program, and therefore we are going to put sanctions in place, what are they going to say? Well, we are just going to resume the nuclear program. So in 9 months, literally, the leverage shifts from us to them. We are going to be very reticent to challenge them on any violations of this agreement. Candidly, we are going to be reticent to push back against the things they are doing to destabilize the region. I will close with this. I appreciate the leader setting up this debate. I appreciate Senator Reid allowing us to do this. I appreciate that 98 Senators have said: Look, this is probably the biggest foreign policy issue we are going to deal with during our time here in the U.S. Senate. I hope what is going to happen over the course of the next several days is that we will continue to express our approval by some, our disapproval by others--a bipartisan majority--and the reasons as to why some approve this. At the end of the day what I hope will happen is that--since all 98 Senators in this body said they wanted to debate this and wanted the opportunity to vote up or down on the substance of this deal--we will have enough colleagues in this Chamber who will agree that because it is the biggest foreign policy issue of our day and because 98 Senators stood up and said: No, Mr. President, you cannot implement this deal until we express whether we approve or disapprove this deal, we will have far more than 60 Senators who will agree to allow us to get to a final vote so everybody in this Senate can be accountable. This is an important issue. I thank my colleagues for the time to be able to discuss it in this way. With that, I will yield the floor. I thought Senator Cardin was next, but it looks as if it will be Senator Durbin.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I am really glad that the distinguished leader of the Armed Services Committee is going to speak next. The Senator from Arizona probably has more knowledge of the Middle East than almost anybody in this body, but it was my understanding that we were going to rotate back and forth. We actually have people who have asked to speak. Senator Reid had asked to speak, but he decided not to do so. Senator Cardin was going to speak. We were going to rotate between Republicans and Democrats. Senators had signed up for time to speak, and that was the procedure we were going to follow. It wasn't going to be just Republicans on the floor and then Democrats, but it appears the majority whip wishes to alter that status.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. I think in closing--I will leave the floor, so I am not burning up any more of our time--but I think there are very legitimate concerns about the fact we began this to dismantle Iran's nuclear program, to end their program, per the President, and by approval of this deal we actually are approving the industrialization of Iran's nuclear program--the greatest state sponsor of terror in the world. Obviously, that creates a lot of issues and concerns. That is why, I believe, we see so many people disapproving of this agreement. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California for her service on the Foreign Relations Committee and her passionate comments. Obviously, I am in a very different place policywise than she is. I do want to point out there is bipartisanship here. There is bipartisan disapproval. While I know the Senator from California knows a great deal about foreign policy, as she is the longest serving member on the committee, the two who have spent more time than anyone understanding the nature of this deal, the impact it is going to have on the region--more time because there has been more meetings with them--are the two Democrats, the ranking member today and the former ranking member, who both oppose this. So there is bipartisanship. I don't view this as political at all. I think we have been able to establish a strong bipartisan bill to vote on this. We have strong bipartisanship in both bodies, I might say, in the House and the Senate, in opposing this. I hope what we will be able to do is not cast aspersions about people's motives but really debate this on the substance. If I could, and then I will be glad to take my colleague's question. Without objection, I would like to yield the remainder of Republican time as in morning business in this manner: 20 minutes to Senator Cruz, who I think will be here momentarily; 20 minutes to Senator McCain; 15 minutes to Senator Vitter; and 5 minutes to Senator Kirk. I don't want to burn up a lot of our time, but if there is no objection.

Mr. CORKER. I will be glad to take my colleague's question briefly, but I don't want to burn up a lot of our time.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Yes.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I am going to have more lengthy comments to make on this topic a little later, but I did want first of all to thank the Senator from Illinois for his comments, and I certainly want to thank Senator Cardin--and I will do so more fully in just a moment. But I would like to remind the body that, yes, we went through several steps along the way to get to where we are today that certainly created consternation on both sides of the aisle. There were lots of things that occurred. A letter was referred to. There was an address to the joint Congress. There have been numbers of things along the way that have caused people to concern themselves that maybe this debate would end up being something that was partisan and of low level. What we have done is that we have actually marshaled ourselves through that, and we ended up with the Iran review act in short terms. That gives us the opportunity, as the distinguished Senator mentioned, to actually review this. We have done that. We have had 12 hearings on this topic--extensive hearings--in the Foreign Relations Committee, and many other committees have done the same. What we ended up putting in place, with 98 votes in the Senate--98 to 1; we had one Senator who was absent--is a process where all Senators could review this, could have the documents at their disposal to go through it, to go to classified briefings so they could understand--and should understand--fully what this agreement says and then have the right to vote. Certainly, some things happened along the way that, as I mentioned, created some consternation, but as a body, in Senate fashion, in lieu of letting that divide us and letting that create a scenario where we wouldn't review it and not vote on it, we created a process where we would review it and vote on it. It is my hope--and I know I have had a very nice conversation with the distinguished Senator from Illinois, and certainly multiple conversations with the distinguished Senator from Maryland--that over the process of this week that is what continues. I know that is what all of us want to see happen. I do think the American people deserve to know where Senators and House Members stand on this serious piece of foreign policy that is before us, and I want to thank everyone for their role in getting it here. As a matter of fact, I will move on, if I could, to what I had planned to say. I first want to thank Senator McConnell and Senator Reid for allowing this debate to take place this week without having a motion to proceed. I couldn't thank Senator Cardin more for being a colleague who really works to try to figure out a way for the Senate to play its appropriate role in foreign policy. It has been nothing but outstanding in dealing with him since he assumed this role, and I want to thank him for the way he has conducted himself. I would also like to remind people that without the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act there would be no role for Congress. One of the things I think has confused a lot of the American people--and there are a lot of people who would prefer this to have been a treaty--is the fact that under our form of government, the President is able to decide whether he is going to submit an agreement as a treaty or as an executive agreement. An executive agreement stays in place during the duration of that President's tenure and could be altered by the next President. A treaty is binding on future Presidents. This President, as we know, decided to go directly to the U.N. Security Council and, by the way, lift some congressionally mandated sanctions that we all helped put in place that actually brought Iran to the table. So with the knowledge of that, Congress stepped in and passed this piece of legislation that now gives us the right to review what the President has negotiated and to prevent him from lifting those congressionally mandated sanctions should we decide we disapprove of this deal. So this is a place where Congress came together and said: No, we want to play a role, even though a role is not contemplated under an executive agreement. I know this has been confusing to numbers of people, but this was the only vehicle capable of winning a veto-proof majority to provide Congress with this chance--a chance for the American people to have us, on their behalf, review this agreement and then vote. As I mentioned, we have had more than a dozen hearings. I have spent a great deal of time, as has the ranking member, as have all of our committee members--and the Presiding Officer the same--as have so many people going through this agreement, and I oppose implementation of this deal. I oppose its implementation. When the President first stated his goal--his goal of ending Iran's nuclear program--that was something that could have achieved tremendous bipartisan support in this body. As a matter of fact, onward there were discussions of dismantling the program. And as we all know today--and I will speak more fully on this tomorrow--rather than ending it, this agreement industrializes it. It allows the industrialization of the program run by the world's leading state sponsor of terror, and it does so with our approval. Now, that is a large step from where we began these negotiations. Had the President achieved the goal, I think what we would have in this body is 100 Senators standing up and supporting what he said he wished to do with these negotiations. But we have ended up with something that certainly is a far cry from that. Instead of having anytime, anywhere inspections, I think everyone understands there is a managed inspection process. Certainly, there are some issues relative to the IAEA that have given many Members tremendous concern. The thing that is one of the most troubling aspects of this is that through the course of these negotiations, the leverage--where right now, basically, the world community has had its boot on a rogue nation's throat--in 9 months the leverage shifts from these nations-- our nation being one of those--having them in a position where we might negotiate something that ends their program to now, where instead what happens is the leverage shifts to Iran. The leverage shifts to Iran. They are going to receive, as we know, billions of dollars. Most people think the number is around $100 billion. By the way, they have a $406 billion gross domestic product. That is the size of their economy. We are going to release to them over the next 9 months about $100 billion--25 percent of their economy in 9 months. The President has said, and surely others, that some of this is going to be used to sponsor terrorism. We know that. Think about if we had 25 percent of our GDP given to us over the next 9 months. We have an $18 trillion GDP--$4 trillion or $5 trillion given to us over the next 9 months. Certainly, this is going to have an impact on what they are able to do. What Iran is going to be able to say in 9 months--when we push back on violations in the agreement, when we push back on terrorism and we push back on human rights violations--is that because most of the sanctions will be lifted at that moment, they will have their money, and their economy will be growing, well, look, if you push back, we think this is unfair. They are already making these statements in Iran: We will just resume our nuclear program. So instead of our having leverage over them, they are going to have leverage over us. They are going to have leverage over us. This is in the vacuum of having no Middle Eastern policy. I don't say this to be pejorative. We know we have no policy in the Middle East to push back against Iran. We know that. So this agreement is going to end up being our de facto policy, and everything is going to be measured by this: What will Iran do if we push back? What if we push back against the fact that they are giving Hamas rockets to fire into Israel? What if we push back against what Hezbollah is doing in Lebanon and what they are doing in Syria? What if we push back against what the IRGC--the arm of the Supreme Leader--is doing right now to protect Assad? They are the shock force to keep Assad in power right now. We know that right now in prisons in Syria people are being tortured. We saw it firsthand. The ranking member and I went over to see what was happening at the Holocaust Memorial Museum presentation where Caesar, someone working for the Assad regime, took photographs. We know as we stand here in these comfortable settings in the Chamber of the Senate, people are being tortured, their genitals are being removed, and Iran is supporting that. We know that--the fact that they are going to have some resources to do more of that, to do the same thing with the Houthis in Yemen, to support terrorists and people who are trying to disrupt the Government of Bahrain. Look, the leverage shifts to them. All they can say--what they are going to be able to say--if we push back against those activities is this: Well, look, we think you are being unfair. We are just going to resume our program. I don't understand. This is beyond me. I have had no one explain it to me. I know the Senator from Illinois had the diplomats from the other countries come in. I have no idea why in this last meeting in Geneva we agreed to lift the conventional weapons ban after 5 years. What did that have to do with the nuclear file? And then we lifted the ballistic missile technology embargo in 8 years? What was that about? Then, as we know, with some really weird language that is in the agreement, we immediately lifted the ban on ballistic missile testing. I think everyone here knows--the people sitting in the audience, people watching--that Iran has no practical need whatsoever for this program--none. Let me say that one more time. Here is a country with 19,000 centrifuges--10,000 of them operating. They have an underground facility at Fordow. They have a facility at Arak that produces plutonium. They have all kinds of research and development. And by the way, this agreement approves further research and development of their centrifuges. As a matter of fact, it paves the way for them and also times it out perfectly for them to be in a position to be at zero breakout time, which is exactly what the President said they would be at, in 13 years. They can just agree to this agreement, and they can just continue to implement this agreement and be in that position. But they have no practical need--none. Some people have said: Well, if they really want to pursue the technology of medical isotopes, maybe--maybe--they could use 500 centrifuges. Think about this. We have a country with one nuclear reactor, a country that could buy the enriched uranium to provide the energy for that cheaply on the market. Instead, they have put their entire society through grinding sanctions that have harmed families. They have been doing that for years for something they have no practical need for. There is only one need, and we all know that, which is to be in the position to be a nuclear-armed country. So let me say one more time that every Senator here supported this process except for one. The American people deserve to know where their elected officials stand on this consequential agreement. I hope people on both sides will cause this to be a sober debate. I know it will be impassioned, and people will certainly be speaking strongly about the pros and cons of this agreement. I do hope at the end of the day--while I was gone--I digress--there were discussions about filibustering the right to vote on this Iran agreement. I read about it in some magazines here, that instead of this being about people expressing themselves relative to a policy they felt was important to the country, apparently all of a sudden it became about something else. I would just say to my colleagues, I don't know how we can be in a place where we have said to our constituents that we want to review and vote on this agreement and then, over some revisionist statement or thought, come up with a process that says: No, we are going to filibuster it; we really don't want people to vote. It is my hope that over the course of the next several days cooler heads will prevail and that we of course will have, I believe, a very sober debate. I think my friends on the other side of the aisle have seen what the leader just did to try to ensure that we keep the debate about approval or disapproval--in this case, disapproval--of this particular deal, and I hope that very soon we will all be able to express ourselves with a vote on the deal itself, whether we believe it is in our Nation's interest. I do not. Some do. Let's have a debate in a sober way.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Maryland for his comments and his tremendous leadership on this issue. I note that Senator Collins is here to speak. It is my understanding that she will speak for approximately 30 minutes. Senator Cornyn may be down shortly thereafter to speak and then Senator Kaine. I know some people referred to the fact that it is only those who wanted to go to war with Iraq who are supporting this. But not only did the ranking member not support going to war with Iraq, neither did Senator Menendez from New Jersey, who, again, opposes this agreement. That type of characterization certainly is not the way that this is. The two most knowledgeable Democrats in the Senate on this issue by far both oppose it. With that, I yield the floor to the distinguished Senator from Maine, who represents a beautiful State. We thank her for her contributions.

Mr. CORKER. I did read those reports. I said to my friend from Illinois earlier: Look, there has been so much that has occurred from the very beginning that has caused people on each side to, in some cases, raise the partisan flag or think that this is a debate which could devolve into something that was of that orientation. What we have done, as the Senator mentioned, is we have risen above that, and we passed something that allows us to debate and to vote. I read with interest what the Supreme Leader has said. I think he is hedging his bets, and no doubt he is going to take it to their Parliament and allow them to vote and debate. I hope that here, the citizens of our country will be shown that same respect and expect that their Senators and their House Members will have the opportunity to vote on the actual policy which has been negotiated and agreed to by these various countries. I hope that will be the case and, yes, I was very aware of that. With that, without objection, I wish to yield the floor to my great friend, the ranking member on the Foreign Relations Committee. Together, we have marched through some incredible hearings. I think all of us have studied this dutifully. That could not have occurred without his incredible cooperation and that of his staff. I thank him for his leadership. I thank him for his willingness to seek a place where the Senate can deal with this in the appropriate way. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations I report favorably the following nomination list which was printed in the Record on the date indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that this nomination lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the highway bill. I understand there will be a cloture vote tomorrow and then potentially, if that is achieved, final passage the day after. I want to say again that I appreciate the efforts of so many in various areas, that my comments today are not intended to be directed at any individual or either side of the aisle. I was elected in 2006 and I came in during 2007, so I have been here roughly 8\1/2\ years. One of the reasons I ran for office was to deal with our Nation's fiscal issues. I was so concerned about the direction in which our country was going. As you know, just about every military leader we have will tell you that the greatest threat to our Nation's national security is us, those of us here in Congress, and the way we deal with our fiscal issues. The simplest fiscal issue I know of to solve is the highway bill because it is simple math. It is not like Medicare, where all these actuarial issues have to be dealt with and you have to make assumptions about the impact on care and all those kinds of things. The highway bill is just simple math. It is so easy. There is money that comes in and there is money that goes out. I think everybody in this body knows the highway bill was set up based on a user fee program where people who are using the highways pay for that through user fees and then the money would be there in a trust fund--a real trust fund--where, in fact, the money would go out. So we would have a system in our country where we would pay for our highways and other infrastructure in that regard. As a matter of fact, the State of Tennessee has zero road debt because that is exactly the way they handle their State portion. I know a lot has been said about this Presidential race and what is driving some of the interesting anomalies that are occurring right now. People are saying: Well, certain candidates are receiving a lot of attention because of the anger people in America have toward Washington. I would just say that this bill--this is an outline of it-- should be exhibit A as to why people in America are angry at Washington. Both sides of the aisle, both ends of the Capitol, this is exhibit A. Again, I understand this was a combined effort with lots of people, but let me point out a few things. No. 1, we have had five general fund transfers--in other words, taking money out of our general fund and sending it over to the highway trust fund. That has totaled $60 billion since 2008. We have these wonderful young interns who come up here to learn about Washington. They come up here to experience Washington. They have read in their history books and other places--in civics--about this being the greatest deliberative body in the world. I would think that in most cases they probably look up to people here on the floor. Some of them may aspire to someday actually serve in the Senate. But what they are going to be witnessing should this bill become law is 100 folks in this room--not all of them but a number of people in this room--voting to basically steal money from them. They are stealing money from you so that all of us can look good to our constituents and pass a highway bill. So we are going to steal money from you so that we don't have to deal with this issue. It is called generational theft. So to the pages and to the people you have been working with for so long, just know--and I don't know any other way to describe this. Let me explain. This is a 3-year bill we are going to pay for over 10 years. One hundred percent of the spending, in other words, takes place between the years 2016 and 2018--100 percent of the spending--but 69 percent of the offsets, the money coming in, actually comes in--you heard me say 2016 to 2018--between 2022 and 2025. So that would be like your mother or father going to the grocery store and buying groceries and saying: Well, I am not going to pay for this today; I will pay for this in 7 or 8 or 9 years down the road. Every time they went to the grocery store, they did that. You can imagine how your household finances would operate if that is what they did. If this bill becomes law, that is what the people in this body will be doing to you. It is generational theft. We use these tricky accounting rules around here where if we pay for something over 10 years even though we spend the money in 1 year, we count that, believe it or not, as paid for. It is even worse on something like a highway trust bill. See, this is something where money is supposed to come in at the same rate money is going out. You can expect some aberrations on when money comes in and when money goes out on other kinds of programs--you can expect that-- but not on the highway trust fund. This is the kind of math, by the way, each of you probably knew about in the third or fourth grade, where you could figure out how much money is coming in and how much money is going out. But on both sides of the Capitol and on both sides of the aisle, since 2008, instead of dealing with this issue--which, by the way, means you have to make some tough choices. You could spend less money in the trust fund. That would be a way to make it add up. You could devolve some of the responsibilities back to States. By the way, so many roads are now becoming roads the Federal system pays for, there might be a good argument for that. There is a good argument for that. Or you could just increase revenues and make sure those who are driving on the roads in our country today pay more to do it. But that is not what is going to happen. We are going to pull a trick on the American people. And here I get back to that anger issue and the reason so many people are upset with Washington. Again, this is exhibit A. As a matter of fact, only 9 percent of the money coming in over this 10-year period comes in during the period of time we are spending on the highway bill. Can you believe that? Yet we say it is paid for. Let me tell you what else we are doing. This is fascinating to me. Congress, in its brilliance, has created a system where only Fannie and Freddie--remember the two behemoths that had $5 trillion in housing mortgages in our country, the big giants that failed back in 2008? What we have done in this bill--I am not going to do it, but if people vote for this bill, what they will be agreeing to do is to extend the guarantee fee on mortgages out, by the way, the last couple of years of this bill, so, again, money comes in way beyond the time we spend it. So let's say you guys go to college. I know many of you will. When you get out, you decide to buy a home. Let me tell you how we, in our wisdom, have decided to pay for our highways. We are going to make you pay more for your mortgage. You are not going to know that, by the way; we are going to hide it in your mortgage. See, we want to make sure the American people don't really know how we are paying for these things. We try to hide these things from folks so that when we run for reelection, we don't create any ire amongst the public. This one is hard for me to believe. Now, I can understand some people in this body supporting this, those who support Fannie and Freddie continuing on forever, because what we are really doing is now the Federal Government, in order to pay for our roads, is relying on Fannie and Freddie. So how could you do away with them? Think about it. We have had so many people in this body talk big about winding down Fannie and Freddie and about how they are a threat to our Nation. I have actually written a bill to try to deal with that and had a lot of support from people on both sides of the aisle. We all talk big, but let me tell you what we are going to do. To pay for the highways, we are going to continue the policy of making sure that every time somebody gets a mortgage, they pay a little more for that mortgage--the entire time, by the way, that mortgage is in place. That generates about $2 billion. Of course, the American people won't know or see that, and so that, of course, makes it very popular. Let me talk about another one. This is fascinating to me. The Federal Reserve System has been paying a dividend to member banks that invest in their regional Feds. Since 1930, that dividend rate has been 6 percent. I don't know if that is the right number. By the way, some people are confusing this with a monetary policy issue, which is the amount that is being paid on the reserve. That is not what this is. This is something which has been in place since the 1930s. We never had a hearing on it, by the way, and I have no idea what we should be paying, OK? I have no idea. But just out of the blue, to generate $17 billion--without a hearing; never been a hearing; as a matter of fact, I would say most people in this body have never heard of this issue--to pay for our roads and again make sure we stay in great stead with our constituents back home so we don't have to make any tough choices, we are going to change that from 6 to 1.5 percent. That generates $17 billion. But, again, it keeps us from having to deal with this issue head on. By the way, a lot of that money comes in way beyond the period of time we are spending the money on the roadways. This is the one that gets me. I love this one. I love this one. We are going to sell 101 million barrels of oil from something called the Strategic Petroleum Reserve from 2018 to 2025. We have a big Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is in our national security interests. As a matter of fact, I would say that if President Obama were to propose this particular pay-for, most everyone on our side of the aisle would just raise unbelievable--I need to choose my words--would be very upset. It would be dead on arrival because what it does is it weakens our national security. We have the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. In a time of crisis, we want to make sure the people in America have access to this Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This is so grave. We are generating $9 billion, by the way, in the years 2018 through 2025--again, beyond the time of even paying for this highway measure. So again, it is generational theft--selling assets down the road to pay for things today. It generates $9 billion, and half of the sales occur in 2024 and 2025. So it is kicking the can down the road. For America, please, please, be upset about this. Please, please, be angry about this. Let me tell you what we are doing. We all make investments and pay attention to the markets a little bit. We hope we can save some money. Oil is selling today at under $50 a barrel. But let me tell you at what we have decided we are going to sell this oil. We are just going to make it up--at $89 a barrel. Think about that. Congress in its wisdom has decided we are going to sell 101 million barrels of oil. We are so bright and we can anticipate the future so well that we know, by golly, that when we sell this oil between 2018 and 2025, it is going to be at $89 a barrel, even though it is under $50 a barrel today. But we know that because we represent America. We have been elected to the Senate. So that is how we are generating it. By the way, if during that period of time oil happens to be selling at $74 a barrel, we break even. If it sells for anything under that, it is less. But by the way, there is $9 billion of made-up money just because we have decided that is what the price of oil is going to be at that time. I just have to say that this is one of the most irresponsible pieces of legislation I have seen come this far in the Senate. Let me say this one more time. This has to be one of the most irresponsible pieces of legislation that I have seen make it this far in the Senate. I am very disappointed with where we are. I am not directing that at anybody. People on both sides of the aisle are involved in getting it where it is today. People on both sides of the building have used these types of gimmicks and tricks to basically involve ourselves in abject generational theft, keeping us from making tough decisions today. They are not even tough, to be honest--just using our God-given common sense, the same thing that most Americans get up every day and have to deal with. I have been so uplifted in my home State and by my home town of Chattanooga to watch how ordinary citizens with huge patriotism and large amounts of common sense have dealt with the tremendous tragedy in our hometown. I have just been overwhelmed by it. I wish all of America could see the response of people who wake up every day carrying out their ordinary duties, husbands and wives and sons and daughters. They care about our Nation. They care about its future. They care about our military. They care about people who protect us. I wish that somehow people could see that. I know people see it in all of their hometowns around the country. I know people see this greatness. Yet in this bill, I don't see any common sense. How could we pay for our highways utilizing this type of pay-for? So I rise to say that I don't support this piece of legislation. I think that has been made clear. I hope that as people analyze the pay- fors--which, again, in my opinion could not be more ridiculous on something like a highway bill--this bill will go down, and we will figure out a way to deal with this in a more productive way. Again, the right way to deal with this, if you have a trust fund, is to have fees that come in and the same amount that go out. I think in this minor conversation here, these pages probably get that. I think America gets that. I hope, again, this bill does not pass. I hope it does not become law, and I hope we can gather and figure out another way of dealing with this in a responsible way that doesn't use gimmicks, as this certainly uses. I don't know how anybody could say: By the way, the Senate has assumed that in the years 2024 and 2025, oil will sell at $89 a barrel. Now, if the Senate was that good at giving financial advice--certainly, if we look at our balance sheets and the deficits we have been running, people would know that is anything but the truth. The fact is that this bill should not become law and should not be supported. I intend to vote against it. I intend to encourage others to vote against it. I hope that at some point in my tenure here we will actually begin to deal with our fiscal issues head on, in a direct way that solves them for the long term and really doesn't sweep them under the rug for this generation, unfortunately, to have to clean up our mess. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I am here with our senior Senator Lamar Alexander to speak on something very tragic that occurred in our State and in my hometown. I rise to honor the lives of five American heroes--the five American heroes we honor today with the lowering of the flags here at the U.S. Capitol. Our community is heartbroken, as has been said many times, our State is heartbroken, and I believe our Nation is heartbroken that these outstanding young men died in the way they did, but we honor their lives. We mourn their loss. We think of the greatness they embodied: Thomas Sullivan, David Wyatt, Carson Holmquist, Skip Wells, and Randall Smith. I think as the Nation has learned about these individuals carrying out what many would consider to be mundane activities in support of our U.S. military, those who protect us, they understand the greatness they symbolized, most of them having served in Afghanistan and Iraq and some of them younger, beginning their careers, but all having excellent backgrounds and exemplifying the very best America has to offer. Our Nation mourns, our community mourns, and we have lost five of our greatest. Also, hospitalized in Chattanooga today is a young man named Dennis Pedigo, whose mother and father both served on the Chattanooga Police Department, and he has followed in their footsteps. I think people have heard all around our country the tremendous heroism that was exemplified by the Chattanooga Police Department, which rushed at the assailant and brought him to his end--by the way, trained to do so, trained to go at them. This was not a SWAT team, but these were patrol squads that were trained to deal with this kind of situation and no doubt saved the lives of other people in doing so. So we honor them. We honor all of them. We celebrate them. As a community we have been harmed, and our community has prayed. We had a vigil on Friday night that was extraordinary. Senator Alexander was there with our Governor, our mayor, county officials, and others. It was an extraordinary time of our community coming together around what has happened. I do believe that what people all over the country and the world have heard about ``Chattanooga strong'' is true, and I think our community will be even stronger because of what has happened, and our Nation must understand where we are in the world and that these types of activities will possibly continue. I had a very good conversation on Friday with the Pentagon to talk about what they are doing. I know threat activity has been rising for some time, and they are looking at what needs to be done to ensure this doesn't happen again. I had a very good conversation this morning with Senator McCain, who I know is leading efforts with House Members to figure out if there is a way to add something to the NDAA, a piece of legislation that we can deal with very quickly here so we can make sure we have policies to protect lives. Our community is praying for these individuals. It is my hope that we will put policies in place to ensure we appropriately protect these individuals. In addition to that, there are tangible things we can do. I know that when something like this happens, there are certain types of Federal benefits. Our offices are working together with outside groups to coordinate that. Thankfully, our community has come together to make sure these families have the financial support they need beyond that. There is an effort under way in Chattanooga now--and I hope people around the world will participate--to make sure that the financial support that is necessary to sustain these families in light of what happened occurs. My friend and a great Tennessean--or at least we claim him as that because he lives in Chattanooga for part of the year--Peyton Manning, has lent his name to this effort. My sense is that we will see a generous outpouring to ensure that, at a base level, some of the financial needs of these families, if not all, will be dealt with in an appropriate way. I will close by saying this. Our community has been shocked, as has the world. We have lost five outstanding people, and it has shaken their families. I had the opportunity to meet briefly with the family of the fallen sailor, the last person who passed. He was riddled with bullets, and the Erlanger trauma squad worked with him for hours and hours and hours trying to save his life. Finally, after a tremendous fight, he lost his life--again, in the line of duty. The needs of these families are great. While our community is praying, they will try to meet their needs in other ways. How do we respond to this? Lamar and I have both mentioned what comes out of this, and the fact is that I feel that our community is like none I have witnessed from the standpoint of its compassion to others. My sense is that the way our community is going to respond to this is much like what I would refer to in Genesis 12, where God said to the Jewish people that they were blessed to be a blessing. I think most people in our community, our State, and our Nation believe we have been incredibly blessed, and my sense is that in addition to responding to the specific needs that need to be dealt with both here in Washington and back home and certainly at the State level, our community is going to rise up and ensure that, because we have been blessed, we continue to be a blessing to others. That is my hope, and that is what I am seeing happen. I have never seen such an outpouring of compassion anyplace else in my life. I am proud to represent Tennessee. I am proud that my hometown has responded in the way that it has, in spite of a deep mourning and grief that we have for these outstanding men who lost their lives in the line of duty. Senator Alexander and I will submit a resolution later today, and my sense is that the entire Senate will want to be a part of it. With that, I will turn to my distinguished friend, a great colleague, and one of the greatest Senators our State has ever had, Lamar Alexander.

Mr. CORKER

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

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I wish to join our senior Senator in expressing our deep sorrow for those who have been affected and extending our thoughts and prayers to the families. Details are still emerging. We believe this took place in multiple locations, and I know the local representatives there are dealing with this effectively as they move ahead. I thank the Senator for having us take the time right now to express our sorrow and support for those who are dealing with this issue. I hope those who were injured will survive and end up having full lives, but we know some people were tragically injured. I appreciate the reach-out that has taken place at the local, State, and Federal level to ensure that we are aware of what is occurring. With that, I yield the floor. charter school authorizing language

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators .

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I rise today to speak on the matter before us, which is the trade promotion authority that is so important to our Nation. I realize that whenever we deal with issues such as this, there are always parochial issues that people deal with in order to make sure their State's interests are represented well. I realize, for instance, that issues such as the Ex-Im Bank are very important to various people around our country based on manufacturing operations that happen to be in their States, and I respect that. I appreciated yesterday that we were able to move beyond an issue that was holding us up and get to a place where we are going to be able to vote on some final amendments and, hopefully, move trade promotion authority into fruition. I know we have talked a lot about these parochial issues. I want to move back to those in just one moment, but I want to talk about the importance of trade promotion authority and an agreement that I hope will come to fruition after we pass this, which is TPP. I know that many in our country--especially now as we see things on our television screen and in newspapers about unrest that is taking place around the world--have been concerned about our foreign policy. We have been concerned about the effectiveness of what we have been doing. One of the areas that our committee focused on this last week was much of what is happening in the South and East China Seas at present. Because of those activities, I was in Southeast Asia within the last 12 months. Let me just say that there are concerns there among friends, people who want to move more toward a Western-based value system in their countries. They are very concerned about many of the activities that are taking place in the South China Sea but also about the economic dominance that is occurring now in China as it continues to export not only its strength into the South China Sea but also its economic dominance. They have been very concerned about the fact that our pivot to Asia really hasn't borne much fruit. They haven't really been able to see anything very substantial taking place in that regard. I think people on both sides of the aisle have concerns about what is happening in that area. But here we have an opportunity to do something that has nothing to do with military might, has nothing to do with things that could evolve down the road such as kinetic activity or anything along those lines. We have an opportunity now to hugely shape that part of the world by passage of this trade promotion agreement, which will allow the countries to finally put their last deal on the table. Without this, there is no way we are going to get to a final TPP agreement that will bring that region more closely aligned to the United States. It calls us to do much greater business with them, which will help people in Tennessee. It will help people in West Virginia. It will help people all across this country to be able to export goods to other places. But, importantly, it will draw those countries more closely to the United States, and it will act as a buffer against the dominance that is taking place now with China. In meeting after meeting, constantly I was asked: Will the United States come together and deal with this issue in an appropriate way? Will the United States actually be our partner? Will the United States work with us to make sure that our economies expand as the United States' economy expands? Will we be able to count on the United States to enter into an agreement where we have a balance, where we have the opportunity not just to export our goods to China and deal with China but also have the opportunity to deal with the United States? Can we count on the fact that the United States is going to promote free enterprise, is going to promote the rule of law, is going to promote anticorruption, is going to move away from state-owned enterprises, which in many cases is dominating that area? I just want to say that TPP--and passage of TPA, in order to cause us to come to a final agreement on TPP--is in our national security interest. It is the best way for us to counter what is happening in the region that we consider to be a threat. It is the best way to promote American values. In the process, what we are doing is actually raising the standard of living of Americans. So this is a win-win. Again, I know we have a lot of parochial issues that people care about rightly--I don't challenge that--and that could possibly get in the way. I hope that over the course of the next several hours, we will figure out a way to appropriately deal with amendments that allow people to voice concerns, especially concerns that they have in their own respective States. But I hope, when we move beyond that, when we move beyond disposing of those amendments as a group, that we will come together and pass this TPA, which, more than anything else we can do now in the region, will cause us to be a bulwark and will cause us to allow people to move toward the Western values that we hold so dear. That brings me to an issue, first, on the national security front. We have a host of former Secretaries of Defense who have signed a letter-- people on both sides of the aisle, former generals who have worked in the region. They know how important TPA is and TPP following on. They know how important they are to our national security interests. In addition, I think you know we have had 10 Treasury Secretaries who signed a letter talking about one of the amendments that may be on the floor dealing with currency. I don't know what the office of the Presiding Officer is like right now, but we are being inundated with emails, especially from the auto industry, regarding this currency issue. During the crisis, I know the Presiding Officer was serving in the House of Representatives, and I was in the Senate. During the auto crisis, the Senate debated issues relative to the auto crisis. I know the House did the same. But during that crisis, President Bush, late in December, decided that he would use U.S. taxpayer monies to bail out the auto industry. And President Barack Obama, who was elected and came into office shortly thereafter, followed up on what President Bush had put in place. Through something called TARP, which was unexpectedly put in place to be utilized to bail out the financial industry--again, something that was regrettable and had to take place--the auto industry was bailed out. Taxpayers of the United States bailed out the auto industry to the tune of $80 billion. So $80 billion we invested in the auto industry. What that did was not just bail out the large entities that needed the money, but it bailed out the supply chain that worked to support what they did in their manufacturing operations. And so the taxpayers of this country, in a massive way, in an unprecedented way, back in 2008 and 2009, injected taxpayer money--taxpayer money--into private enterprises to make sure they would survive. It was obviously controversial. Today, obviously, many jobs have stayed in place as a result of that. People certainly have differing opinions about what should have happened during that time. I fear what is happening right now is that the auto industry is back and asking for another bailout. In our office anyway, and I think other offices around the Capitol, we are hearing from the auto industry right now about a currency provision--a provision they want inserted in TPA in order to give them another bailout. They want to ensure, as we move into this agreement, that they will have a competitive advantage. I think all of us understand that the President has said he would veto TPA if it has this currency provision in it. We have had Treasury Secretaries--10 of them, highly respected on both sides of the aisle-- who have told us we should not have currency provisions of this type in a TPA agreement. I think we understand the difficulties having these currency provisions in TPA will create in actually completing the TPP agreement, which again I have mentioned before. Obviously, it is important to us economically, but it is hugely important to us from a national security standpoint and from our national interest standpoint. So I know these currency issues sometimes are difficult to deal with. I think it is important certainly for Senators to be able to express concerns about things that may happen in their own States, and I respect that. I respect that, but I hope as a body we will rise above giving another bailout to the auto industry because, if we do, it will greatly complicate our ability to enter into an agreement called TPP, which will be in our national interest, it will be in our economic interest, and it certainly is something Treasury Secretaries, Defense Secretaries, and others who know of the great national interest at stake oppose. I thank the chair for the time. I hope as a body we will do what is good for our Nation and not just for a small group of people; that we will do something that will stand the test of time; we will do something that will increase the standard of living for these pages who sit before us today and cause them to be safer; that will cause American values to be more prolific and certainly benefit our Nation's economy. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators .

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I will have to ask for a unanimous consent request on something in just a moment, but I think they are still working out some details. Before I move to that, I thank the Senator from Indiana. He has done so much to further this cause of us having a congressional review on whatever is negotiated with Iran. All of us want a good agreement, but we want to ensure that we play a role in ensuring that is the case. I cannot thank the Senator enough for his leadership on this issue and so many other issues that matter relative to our national interests around the world and the safety of our citizens. Again, I thank the Senator so much. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the pending substitute amendment at 2 p.m. today.

Mr. CORKER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that at 11 a.m., Senator Lankford be recognized to deliver his maiden speech and that the time from 11:30 a.m. until 12:50 p.m. be equally divided, with the majority controlling the first half and the Democrats controlling the second half.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished ranking member. I will be very brief. I thank our ranking member, who could not have been more of a gentleman, more of a leader on this issue, and I cannot thank him enough for his efforts and his staff's. I thank also Senator Menendez, who before was ranking member of the committee and is such a leader on this and has been from day one relative to the sanctions on Iran and bringing them to the table. I would also thank Senator Graham. We began this process in July of last year. And so many others have been involved. Senator Graham obviously helped drive this. So did Senator Kaine, on the Democratic side of the aisle. But we have had so many rocks, such as Jeff Flake and others who have just been steady in helping make this happen. Since there is only a short amount of time, I do want to encourage my colleagues here in the Senate to support this cloture motion. We have been on the floor now for 2 weeks, and I know there have been a lot of process issues that we have dealt with. At the end of the day, without this bill there is no review of what happens relative to Iran. So we worked hard to create a great bipartisan balance. I think we have an opportunity to do something that really is in some ways a landmark piece of legislation, in that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in a bipartisan way with a 19-to-0 vote has basically taken back the power that the President now has to work collaboratively to make sure that we have the opportunity to see the details, as my colleague has mentioned, of any deal that may be negotiated with Iran, that it stand before the Senate and give us time to actually go through those details, that we see all the classified annexes and everything that go with this. We have the opportunity, should we choose, to pass a resolution of approval or disapproval. And then, very importantly, the President has to certify every 90 days that Iran is in compliance. So let me just restate that, without this bill, there is no limitation on the President's use of waivers to suspend the sanctions Congress has put in place. There is no requirement that Congress receive full details of any agreement with Iran. There is no review period for Congress to examine and weigh in on an agreement. There is no requirement that the President certify Iran is complying. And there are really no expedited procedures for Congress to reimpose rapidly sanctions should Iran cheat. So, in summary, no bill, no review; no bill, no oversight. I think the American people want the Senate and the House of Representatives on their behalf to ensure that Iran is accountable, that this is a transparent process, and that they comply. With that, I concede that the Presiding Officer wants to move ahead. Again, I thank our ranking member for his distinguished service and all of my colleagues who have brought us to this moment. I yield the floor.