Bob Corker

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, this amendment simply requires that, alongside the English text of any final agreement, the President submit to Congress the official Persian text of any final agreement, including the related materials and annexes. We all have seen the controversy surrounding the discrepancies between the American factsheet and the Iranian factsheet. This agreement is too important to rely on secondhand interpretations of the Senate. In order for Congress to adequately evaluate any agreement, we have to see what both sides believe this agreement is, and that requires the Persian text of the agreement. This is a commonsense amendment. I thank Senator Cardin for joining me in this amendment, and not unprecedented in any way. In fact, we just recently received a transmission of the China 123 agreement, which included the Chinese text. I yield to my friend, Senator Cardin.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I, too, want to thank the Senator from Wyoming for his continually constructive role and just the tone in which he talked about this last issue. I will say that in negotiations with Senator Cardin, we added all kinds of reporting mechanisms. It is true that the negotiations that are underway have nothing to do with alleviating any kinds of terrorist sanctions, human rights sanctions or ballistic missile testing sanctions. I will just say that should Iran commit an act of terrorism against an American, sanctions would be the minimum, I think, they would have to be worried about. I would think bombs and missiles on heads would be what they would be concerned about. I think we have in place mechanisms that allow us to know these things. I have a feeling that if Iran, again, commits any kind of act of terrorism against Americans--which is what is being talked about here--significant kinetic activity would be taking place. Sanctions, to me, would be the least of their worries. But I am pleased that we were glad to clear up all of the reporting requirements but also to stipulate, again, that in this particular bill we are talking about the nuclear file, not alleviating sanctions on any of the other components. Let me just say, if there is a deal--and this is something I have tried to make clear from day one--I hope it is a good deal. I know the Senator from Wyoming does too. We know the best route for us is to have a negotiated good deal. But in the event we end up with a negotiated good deal and sanctions are relieved, these four tranches of sanctions that we put in place since 2010 are then available to us to reapply in the event we find human rights violations, we find ballistic testing is getting out of hand or we have terrorist activity, to add again an additional crushing blow to the Iranian economy. I thank the Senator for his steadfast concern in this regard. I thank him for the way he works with all of us. I hope we are going to be in a process very soon to be voting on some amendments. I know we think we have agreed to some language, and hopefully that will begin very soon.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator for his continual focus on fiscal issues. I know he spent a great deal of time with a handful of folks at the White House two summers ago trying to come up with a plan to really save our Nation. I actually was just standing up a minute ago. I was about to suggest the absence of a quorum until I saw the Senator from Indiana, so the Senator can speak as long as he wishes on these waste issues. I thank him for the kind of Senator he is and his continual efforts to save our Nation from a national security standpoint and also our greatest national security risk right now which is our inability to get our fiscal house in order. So I thank the Senator for this, and I look forward to the debate over the next several days. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I yield the floor to my colleague, Senator Coats.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Kansas. I think he has articulated about as well as anybody the importance of passing the legislation on the floor. Many of my colleagues, I think, unlike the Senator from Kansas, in some ways fail to recognize that when we put the sanctions in place that brought them to the table, in the meanwhile they were going from 164 centrifuges back in 2003 to 19,000 centrifuges today. What Congress did in a bipartisan way was put four tranches of sanctions in place to begin putting pressure on them to stop and to get them to the table. We have done that, but in each of those cases, we gave the President unilaterally the ability to waive or suspend the sanctions ad infinitum--forever. It is something that my friend Senator Kaine from Virginia recognized in our meetings as we had the Secretary come forward and talk to us about the fact that, yes, you are going to have a vote on this. But we all recognized that was 4 to 5 to 6 years down the road after the sanctions regime had been totally alleviated. I just want to thank the Senator for being so articulate in his comments. The fact is that without this legislation--without this legislation passing--Congress will have zero. The President will go straight to the U.N. Security Council with the suspensions in his hands that we have already given them and implement whatever kind of deal he wants to implement. I have had a great conversation with my friend from Virginia today. I think this bill obviously does give Congress, as the Senator from Kansas mentioned, its rightful role. But I think it also gives the President a backstop when he is negotiating so that people will understand that we are going to play that role. So I thank the Senator very, very much for his comments and for the constructive way he is on so many of the big issues we deal with and for his cosponsorship of this very important legislation. With that, I yield the floor. I see my friend from Virginia.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I wish to say, I knew the Senator from Georgia prior to being a Senator. He was an outstanding CEO in a major public company. He has done business all over the world. I know when he campaigned in Georgia for this seat, what he said was that he was going to be the adult in the room. I just want to say that he certainly has distinguished himself since he came here in acting that way and looking at the big issues that our Nation has to deal with. I know that he knows that still the greatest threat to our country right now is our inability to get our fiscal house in order, and I really believe that Senator Perdue is going to not just be a leader on the Foreign Relations Committee, as he already is--hugely helpful in the vote that we had last week relative to Iran--but I think as much as anybody in the Senate, Senator Perdue is going to help drive this body to responsibly deal with fiscal issues we have to deal with. We have a lot of work to do. We haven't even begun. I look forward to working with him, not only to ensure that our Nation is safe and secure but that we get our fiscal house in order. I could not be more gratified that Senator Perdue is part of this body and serving in the manner that he is. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER

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

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I am thrilled to be here on the floor with my partner, Senator Ben Cardin, who is the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee. We had an outstanding week last week in our Foreign Relations Committee in passing out this bill that is now before us on a 19-to-0 vote. I thank all of the members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which obviously includes Senator Cardin, Senator Risch, Senator Menendez, Senator Rubio, Senator Kaine, Senator Johnson, Senator Coons, Senator Flake, Senator Udall, Senator Gardner, Senator Boxer, Senator Perdue, Senator Shaheen, Senator Isakson, Senator Murphy, Senator Paul, Senator Barrasso, and Senator Markey. Also, before we get into discussing the text, I wish to thank Senator Bob Menendez and Senator Mark Kirk, who have been all things Iran. From the very beginning, these two Senators have led this body to put in place sanctions--crushing sanctions--that have led us to this place. I cannot thank them enough for their leadership in dealing with the issue of Iran. Last year, we did a significant amount of work on creating some kind of review process relative to a final agreement that might be worked out with Iran. I thank Senator Lindsey, Graham who has been a stalwart in ensuring that Congress play a role in the ultimate final deal that may or may not occur. Senator Graham has been steadfast in wanting congressional review. Senator John McCain has joined in that effort and has been outstanding to work with, as well as Senator Jim Risch and Senator Marco Rubio, who have also pushed for this type of legislation. When we began this process, there were some original--or when we moved to the process we are now in, there were some original supporters of this current bipartisan bill who really caused us to have the leverage, if you will, to move to the place where we are today. Again, Senator Menendez certainly was one of those who led us in that effort; Senator Graham; Senator Tim Kaine, who came here as a former Governor of Virginia and who has been so focused on Congress playing its appropriate role. Obviously, Senator McCain, as he has been a leader from the beginning, Senator Joe Donnelly, Senator Marco Rubio, Senator Heidi Heitkamp, Senator Kelly Ayotte, Senator Bill Nelson, Senator Jim Risch, and Senator Angus King have played a role in creating the leverage, if you will, to get us where we are today. As Senator Cardin knows, we now have 62 cosponsors of this legislation that is now before us, obviously from both parties. So I think this is quite an accomplishment. Obviously, we have a tremendous amount of work in front of us with this bill now on the floor. I know Senator Cardin and I hope that people will come to the floor and begin offering their amendments, begin debating, begin discussing. Obviously, we won't be taking up any amendments, per the order that is before us, until Tuesday, but we hope people will begin bringing their ideas and amendments to the floor and certainly begin discussing the important issue of Iran. Let me speak a little bit about what this bill does. First of all, I think everyone knows the administration is part of the P5+1. It is today negotiating an agreement to try to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. I think all of us know there was a political agreement that was achieved the first part of April that was more of a verbal agreement about how the P5+1 and Iran might interact in a manner that hopefully would keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. One of the things that I think everyone in this body knows and many people on the outside may not is that Congress has played a substantial and maybe the biggest role in getting Iran to the table in the first place. There were three sets of sanctions, three types of sanctions that have been instrumental in making this happen. They include the U.N. Security Council sanctions that have been put in place. The executive branch has put some sanctions in place as well. But Congress especially has four tranches of sanctions which have been put in place since 2010 which really have had a crushing effect on Iran's economy. They haves created all kinds of inflation, and they have caused them not to be able to export the amount of oil--the 40 percent of the oil that they produce. That has hurt them in manufacturing. I see Senator Menendez has just come to the floor. He may not have heard me, but I cannot thank him and Senator Kirk enough for their leadership on each set of those tranches--putting them in place, taking the leadership, and bringing Iran to the table. I think the second thing people may understand is that on the U.N. Security Council sanctions, the White House has the ability, with the other members of the permanent Security Council, to lift those at any time they wish. They can obviously lift the executive sanctions. One of the things that all of us have been concerned about, though, is that Congress put in place the sanctions that really brought them to the table. We want to ensure that Congress has the ability, before those sanctions are lifted, to be able to voice an opinion through a vote. What this legislation does--and we will be talking about it a great deal over the next week--is four things: First of all, it forces the administration, in the event a final deal is agreed to, to bring all of those details to Congress, including the classified annexes we would likely not see until 6 months or so after an agreement is reached, without this legislation, if we can pass it. Secondly, it keeps the executive branch from being able to lift the congressionally mandated sanctions that we put in place, while we have a reasonable period of time to go through the documents that have been provided to us. Thirdly, it allows Congress to take a vote. The vote can take all kinds of forms. It can be a vote of approval. It also allows the leader to decide not to take a vote at all or we could take a vote of disapproval. If we decided that this was not something that was good for our country, not good for the Middle East, then we could cause this vote of disapproval to take place, and if it passed, it would keep the executive branch from being able to lift the congressionally mandated sanctions we have put in place. The fourth and very important component is that it causes us to know whether Iran is in compliance. This bill stipulates, if passed, that the President would have to certify to us every 90 days as to whether Iran is in compliance. If there are significant violations, on a 10-day basis, let us know that is taking place so we can respond accordingly. Let me close by saying this: I believe everybody in this body hopes we are able to achieve a negotiated agreement that will keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. I think everyone understands that is the best thing for our country. I think everybody also understands that Iran is a country in which we have little trust. Iran is a country that is the major exporter of terrorism in the region. Iran is a country that has a terrible human rights record. Iran is a country that is really moving ahead relative to its ballistic missile design. And, obviously, Iran is a country that has been doing some things in its nuclear program that give us reason to believe they are moving toward a nuclear weapon. One of the worst things we could possibly do is enter into an agreement with Iran that doesn't keep them from getting a nuclear weapon--in other words, one that is faulty, that has flaws, and that allows them to get a nuclear weapon. What that would mean is we would have a situation where the No. 1 exporter of terrorism in the region had access to not just a nuclear weapon but very quickly had access to the $130 billion-plus that they have trapped overseas to conduct even more terrorism in the region, which could allow their economy to all of a sudden be growing at more rapid rates and, again, to have resources available to conduct even more terrorism in the region. As we can imagine, having an actor such as Iran has acted--and we hope at some point that behavior will change--having access to a nuclear weapon certainly would create the possibility of nuclear proliferation in the region. So I think this is a very important piece of legislation. I thank Senator Cardin for the way he has come into this and worked with us in a manner to reach an accommodation so that we have sufficient, ample, actually extraordinary support on both sides of the aisle to ensure that Congress has its rightful role in this agreement. It is one of the biggest geopolitical agreements we will deal with probably during the time we are here in the Senate. With that, I yield the floor to my good friend Senator Cardin. Again, he has done exemplary work in bringing us to this point. I thank him for all of his efforts.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1140, which is the text of the substitute amendment to S. 615, which was reported out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

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

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I just want to again thank Senator Menendez for his tremendous leadership on this issue. He brought up a point I wish I had made in my opening comments. I have made it every time I have presented this bill elseways. But a lot of people do not realize that at present, because of the waivers that are part of the sanctions that we put in place--some of them through independent pieces of legislation, some of them through NDAAs--in each case the President was given a national security waiver. Again, as the Senator mentioned, it was never thought that waiver would be utilized to waive things ad infinitum. At present--a lot of people do not realize this--but the President today has the power, without this legislation, to go straight to the U.N. Security Council, without coming to Congress, and implement whatever deal he wants to implement with Iran. He has that ability. So when you think about what is happening here, and this is what is so powerful about this bipartisan effort, is that we together--we together--have said: Wait a minute. If we pass this legislation, we want to retake the ability ourselves to lift those sanctions or to have them lifted; we do not want the President going straight to the U.N. Security Council. I know Senator Kaine is on the floor. I cannot thank him enough for getting involved at the time he did. I remember distinctly in the committee meeting, where we had testimony from our Secretary of State, him articulating, better than anyone yet, the fact that at some point down the road we are going to have to permanently lift the sanctions, which, by the way, could be 5, 6, 7 years down the road, long after the sanctions regime has totally imploded. We are going to have to do it permanently down the road. Would it not make sense for us to go ahead and review this on the front end and have the opportunity, if we think it is not something worthy of this, to disapprove or to approve if we decide to do that. So I know Senator Kaine wants to speak. I cannot thank him enough for his knowledge of congressional responsibilities as it relates to these kinds of issues and his input, which was invaluable at the time it occurred. He really created the momentum for us to move ahead. I will yield the floor, thanking him very much for his efforts in this regard.

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 would like the Record to reflect that had the vote on the Schatz motion to instruct conferees been conducted by a rollcall vote, I would have voted nay. Bennet Motion to Instruct

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. Thank you, Mr. President. I certainly appreciate the statement of my good friend, and we have talked a good deal about this. I believe we ought to pay for everything we do around here. There are all kinds of ways for paying for things, including reducing spending on things we shouldn't be spending money on. So I would like to work with him in the future. I agree with him 100 percent that the amount of money that goes out the door should be equal to the amount of money that comes in the door, but I oppose this amendment just because of the way it was crafted. I wish he had said it needed to be paid for, and I would agree with that, but the way it is crafted leads me to want to oppose this, and I hope on our side we will do so.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, the Committee on Foreign Relations has adopted rules governing its procedures for the 114th Congress. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, on behalf of myself and Senator Menendez, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the committee rules be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORKER

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

Mr. CORKER. I yield back all time.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 15

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, on July 6, 2015, the Johnson City Chamber of Commerce will celebrate its centennial. For 100 years the chamber has promoted business, enhanced economic and community development, and served as a catalyst for improving the overall quality of life for people in the Tri-Cities. In many cities across Tennessee, chamber of commerce members are the lifeblood of the community. They are our educators, our bankers, our doctors, our pharmacists, and more, and they share a common dedication to improving the quality of lives of their fellow citizens. As a former businessman, chamber member and mayor, I know firsthand that what we do here in Washington, including Federal regulations and tax policies, has a direct impact on businesses and communities across Tennessee. For far too long, Washington has put off addressing these issues as well as what I believe should be our top priority: getting our fiscal house in order. As I speak with Tennessee chamber of commerce groups, one thing is obvious. They are ready for Washington to govern responsibly and finally focus on growing our economy, repairing our fiscal house and strengthening our Nation's role in the world. Some of America's greatest achievements and longest-lasting solutions have occurred when one party controls Congress and another the White House. It will take hard work, but I am optimistic. If the President rolls up his sleeves and provides leadership and if Congress acts responsibly, I truly believe we can begin to solve some of the big issues members of the chamber care most about. I congratulate the Johnson City Chamber of Commerce on their centennial celebration. I appreciate their input on how we can strengthen our communities and unleash the entrepreneurial spirit of our local businesses. I thank them for making the Tri-Cities a great place to live and do business, and I look forward to working with them for years to come.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, the Tennessee Valley Authority, or TVA, is a multibillion-a-year utility--one of the largest in the Nation. It plays a critical role in our economic development efforts in Tennessee by providing low-cost, reliable power that is essential to attracting, retaining, and growing jobs. Strong, independent leadership at TVA is a priority for all Tennesseans, and the Senate is scheduled to vote tomorrow morning on two nominees to serve on the TVA board. TVA board members' sole focus should be ensuring ratepayers throughout the Tennessee Valley have affordable, reliable power, and they must be free to operate the entity without undue influence from outside individuals. While I respect the two nominees currently being considered, I have grown increasingly concerned by the nomination process and the potential influence--or perception of influence--that an outside investor who has proposed a multibillion-dollar project to TVA has had on this process. I have shared those concerns with the White House and the majority leader through several conversations. I was particularly disappointed the majority leader announced he was moving forward with votes despite being aware of these issues--making it the first time TVA nominations have been confirmed by a rollcall vote since 1987. While I still believe the selection of TVA board members and their confirmations deserve a closer look moving forward, today I received copies of letters from Virginia T. Lodge and Ronald A. Walter that address the concerns regarding the potential influence of an outside individual who has business dealings with TVA. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of both letters be printed in the Record. The nominees' forthright letters and their decision to recuse themselves helps ensure that there is no appearance of a lack of impartiality, and I plan to support both of their nominations.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. I thank the Senator. I want to thank the Senator from South Carolina for his distinguished leadership on so many national security issues. I understand his frustration with our inability to actually take a vote on something that is such a commonsense measure. I also respect the committee process, as you could imagine, with the role I play and wished that our committee would actually take up this piece of legislation. I actually tried to offer something very similar to this in committee, and I actually did offer it, and the bill that was being offered, too, was taken down and no votes taken, because, again, of not wanting to deal with this issue. So I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for desiring to make something happen on this. As he mentioned, all of us want to ensure a successful negotiation. I cannot imagine there is a person in this body who doesn't want the negotiations between the P5+1 to end up with a good long-term conclusion. I agree based on the signals that are being sent. There are a lot of bipartisan concerns that have been expressed on this floor by people of both sides of the aisle, because people understand that this body, along with working with the House, put in place the sanctions that have actually gotten us to the place where we are in the negotiations. The initial agreement that was put in place was so much weaker than even the U.N. security resolutions that passed over and over and over relative to Iran. So I agree that by having us making the final say on this negotiation that it gives the administration some added strength that they were unable to show in the beginning. Obviously Iran is trying to tilt toward those within their own body, their own citizens, who certainly are concerned about negotiations and continue to bring that out throughout the negotiations. It seems to me that Congress would be an outstanding countervailing force. And obviously something of this magnitude--especially when Congress brought us to the table--this is the kind of thing that should be weighed upon. What the bill would do is obviously give us the opportunity within a defined amount of time to vote up or down on whether we agree that this should be put in place. It also puts in place some enforcement mechanisms. Then it also puts a clock on the negotiations, so, again, we cannot have these continual extensions. I recently read the newest book Henry Kissinger wrote. It was a great book to read, but it put in place one of the chapters that focused on these Iran negotiations and lays out the fact--and I know the distinguished Presiding Officer today knows this well because he focuses so much on nuclear issues and, like me, is very concerned about proliferation around the world. I have enjoyed working with him on the Foreign Relations Committee. Interestingly, one of the chapters lays out the progression that occurs. And Iran, just by stalling each time these negotiations take place, ends up in a better place. Again, I think all of us were very shocked with the interim agreement that was put in place first. I think this is a very commonsense piece of legislation. Let me point out something my friend from South Carolina did not point out. Without this, this is what is going to possibly happen--I hope it doesn't, but possibly happen. The administration can enter into a deal. The way we have crafted the sanctions, no permanent--no permanent--arrangement can be made to undo the sanctions. Only Congress can do that. But the way the sanctions regime has been put in place, the President in many cases does have the ability on a temporary basis to do away with the sanctions. It is evident that the administration very much wants something to happen. I want to see something happen, but the way this has gone, it appears they want something to happen that possibly will not stand the test of time. Let's say they enter into an arrangement by November 24. They undo the sanctions temporarily. If that happens, basically the work that has been done around here for years is over. It is done because it will be impossible from a practical standpoint to ever get those sanctions back in place, especially sanctions with the many other countries that are involved. So if the President enters into an agreement and temporarily does away with sanctions, I think everybody in this body understands it is going to be almost impossible for those to be put back in place. So the damage is already done. And that is why it is so important from my perspective, with Congress having played the role that Congress has played to help put us into this position, very important for Congress to have the opportunity to have the congressional review this bill lays out. Look, I think it is pretty evident with the denying, if you will, of this bill coming to the floor, which was expected, I think it is very evident that Congress is not going to have the opportunity between now and the 24th to weigh in. It is my hope that somehow if these negotiations unfortunately end up putting us in a very bad place--I hope that doesn't happen. I hope the outcome is much better than what is anticipated. But if it ends up unfortunately being something that is not good for our country, I hope what will happen is the next time we ask to bring this bill up--because of time being of the essence, the next time it would be brought up, hopefully Members of this body would agree that Congress would weigh in in a rightful manner. Congress would weigh in to make sure we don't enter into a deal as a nation that puts us in a very bad place in the longer term relative to what Iran is doing. I thank the Presiding Officer for allowing me to speak. I do not see Senator Rubio here in the body. I yield the floor. It is my sense that Senator Rubio may come down and want to speak to this. But I do want to say in closing, all of us here hope the administration puts our Nation and the world in a place to know that Iran will not have the capability of developing nuclear weapons. That is what this piece of legislation is about. Without it, I hope the administration still does that, obviously, and that we wake up on November 25 surprised--but happily surprised--that we ended up in a place that will stand the test of time. I yield the floor and it has been a while, but I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I want to thank the leader for coming down and thank him for agreeing to a time when we both can be here. I do want to say that we could deal with it exactly in the way that I laid out and keep the government from shutting down because we would be passing exactly the same language. But I understand. I talked privately with the majority leader about this. I understand people do not want to do that over in this body. They do not want to separate the two. I know that the majority leader-- that is his right, to object to dealing with these issues in the same language that I laid out. I do appreciate him coming down. I disagree very strongly with this approach. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER. It is my understanding the leader is on his way down. I have a unanimous consent request that I would like to offer. I know that he wants to say a word. I will preliminary make some comments. When he gets here, out of respect for his time, I will ask that unanimous consent request. Let me move on by saying that the President gave a speech a week ago. We have a hearing today in the Foreign Relations Committee. Secretary Kerry and others will assess our strategy in Iraq and Syria related to ISIL. I just want to say these obviously are very important decisions. One of the pieces of this strategy is that instead of the President coming and asking for an authorization for the use of military force--which, in my opinion, is the sound judgment, to come and ask us for that support so the American people are behind this effort, by virtue of the House and Senate taking that up. They are not going to do that. Instead they are asking for the authority to do a very, very small piece of that, which is to train and equip some members of the moderate, vetted Syrian opposition and to do so in the country of Saudi Arabia. So they are asking for an authorization to do that overtly. It is something about which many people have questions. It is something that for many years, for some time, I have supported and actually been disappointed that the administration has left hanging the people of Syria whom we encourage now to take on Assad. So that is a very important vote, a vote that all of us should take as a freestanding vote. But instead what is getting ready to happen is coming over from the House is a continuing resolution bill that funds the government. So instead of voting on the continuing resolution, which is a totally separate matter, and voting on arming the vetted moderate opposition the way the President has requested, as a separate vote so, No. 1, we have the opportunity individually to weigh in on those two measures separately, as the House is doing right now-- instead, what is going to happen, as I understand from the majority leader, is we are going to take up that vote in a combined way. I think that is a poor way to run the Senate. It is a poor way for the people of the United States to understand where we are on important issues. Just to give an example, I do not support the funding levels in the CR. I voted against the Murray-Ryan budget. I couldn't believe that in such a short amount of time we were willing to do away with the budget caps we thought so important to the fiscal well-being of this Nation. So I do not support the funding levels for the continuing resolution and had planned to vote against it. Now there is a piece in it that is an important foreign policy piece that I think needs further debate, where we are authorizing the arming and training of the moderate opposition through December 11 as a part of this bill. That, to me, is an inappropriate way for us to do business. I think every Member of this body ought to have the opportunity to vote on each of those. So the request I am going to make when the leader gets here is not to change any of the wordage--I realize time is of the essence. We have two bodies that sometimes do not act in concert in appropriate ways. But my unanimous consent request is to ask that properly these be separated, the language be identically the same. So what I have done is I have at the desk a bill that lays out the authorization for arming and training the vetted moderate opposition in Saudi Arabia and other places. I have that exact language that is coming over from the House so that the Presiding Officer, myself, and others can weigh in on that issue. Once that issue is dealt with-- again, it would take 15 or 20 or 30 minutes for that to occur--we could then move over to the continuing resolution, which, again, has a different set of supporters, generally speaking. So I do wish this body would debate the issues of great importance to our Nation. I know that in this hearing with Secretary Kerry, on both sides of the aisle there are numerous questions about how this strategy is going to work in Syria and how, with no ground force on the ground and us planning to train people in a very short amount of time, a very small amount of people--we are not going to give them very sophisticated equipment--how that ground game, that ground effort is going to be effective. I wish this body would take that up and debate it. To me, it is an important issue. It is an issue that I have supported for some time. At the same time, the efficacy of it has changed. One of the things that is fascinating to me--General Dempsey yesterday: All of a sudden, we are going to train them. By the way, they have been organized because they want Assad out. They have been fighting against Assad in Syria. But we are going to train them to fight ISIS or ISIL, which has not been the rallying entity for the Free Syrian Army to organize. So, look, I plan to support publicly, as I am right now, this first phase of arming and training them because I have been pushing for it for so long. I worry about its efficacy. It seems as if the goals of it now are very different. But I am OK authorizing that until December 11 and we can hear more about it. But I do not support the funding levels in the CR. This is not an appropriate way for us to do business. I am going to ask unanimous consent--I hope the majority leader is going to be here in a minute. I would like to get back to the hearing on Syria that we are having in foreign relations. I understand he may well be on the way. With that--as a matter of fact, I may pause for a minute. Let me just make a point I made earlier with Secretary Kerry at the hearing. I do not want to debate whether the President has the legal authority to conduct a war, a multiyear war, a war that many people say may take up to a decade in another country against another enemy. I do not want to debate whether he legally can do that. I know he is tying himself to the 2001 authorization, which I assure you no one was contemplating. But I do not want to debate that. I know there are all kinds of article II people--all kinds of people who believe the President can do almost anything he wishes relative to military engagement. I just want to talk about how lacking in judgment it is for three people--the President, the Vice President, and the Secretary of State-- to attempt to do this over a multiyear period, in a different country, with a different enemy, and not come to us. That lacks in judgment. That lacks in judgment because bad things are going to happen. Mistakes are going to be made. Five hundred thirty-five Monday-morning quarterbacks make no sense. Holding the country together is what is important. So selling that plan, selling the details, having us have the opportunity to tease out and understand how this is going to work is an important part of the process that they are skipping. I see the majority leader is here. I know he is busy. I thank him for coming to the floor. I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the two leaders prior to the consideration of H.J. Res. 124, the CR, that the Senate proceed to the consideration of my bill--the exact same language as coming over from the House--which is at the desk--that is the same language as included in the CR regarding Syria; that there be up to 4 hours of debate followed by a vote on passage of my bill.