Bob Corker

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, tonight the President is going to address an issue on which I know almost every American has been focused; that is, the rise of ISIS in Iraq and Syria and the beginning of that in many other places around the world. This is obviously a big speech. It is one that I know all of us will be paying attention to and watching. I am hopeful that what the President will do tonight is, first of all, explain to the American people from his perspective what our national interest is in ISIS. I think that should be very easy to do. I also hope that what he will do is lay out a general strategy. Obviously, in a speech such as this you never want to give every detail of what it is you want to do, but I hope he lays out the objectives he wishes to accomplish as he talks to the Nation and really the world about how he plans to deal with ISIS. So I wanted to say at the onset that I look forward to listening. I hope this is a speech that is meaty. I hope it is a speech that speaks to the essence of why we as a nation need to deal with the threat ISIS poses not only in the Middle East but, over time, in the West, with us being the greatest symbol. I know there have been many conversations with the administration about ISIS. I know that obviously their concern about ISIS has risen over time. Again, I look forward to very clearly listening to the speech. Most of us here in the Senate, if we were in the White House, might choose to guard the authorities we have. Many Presidents have said-- most Presidents have said they themselves have the authority to conduct operations of this nature. While that is debatable, that is not a topic I wish to debate. I know the President has said he has the ability to go about these actions, to take these actions without any additional authority from Congress. What they have said is they plan to not come to Congress. I think that is absolutely preposterous. If you think back in history, back in 1991 President Bush 41, in getting ready to undertake the activities in Desert Storm, felt as though he had the authority to move ahead with those activities. Yet they realized within the administration that the best thing they could do was to get the American people behind what they were doing, and the best way to do that was to seek an authorization from Congress, to have that debate, to have Members of the Senate be able to ask questions about how this operation was going to take place, to get people comfortable with what the objectives were going to be, and to finally win over the Senate. As a matter of fact, as I understand it, Sam Nunn, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee at the time, was opposed to this effort. Yet, with Bush 41 coming up with his Cabinet members to talk to Members of Congress, they were able to pass it over the objection of the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. But what that meant was there had to be interaction, there had to be questions and answers, and there had to be a feeling by Members of this body that what was getting ready to happen was something that was going to make a difference. So they came and did that. They were successful, and the operation itself was successful. President Bush 43 did the same. In 2001, after what happened with the Twin Towers and other activities around 9/11, the country was outraged. He actually sent forth his own AUFM, the Authorization for Use of Military Force. Action was taken. It was 60 words, it was broad, but action was taken. The same thing occurred in 2002, which led us to what happened in Iraq. So President Bush 43 did those same things even though he felt as if he himself had the authority to take on those activities without Congress approving them. But they felt it was much better for the American people to see what was going to happen and for Congress to be fully informed, to understand what the objectives were, and then to have Congress authorize it. This President, President Obama, came before us last year--almost 1 year ago exactly--and asked for an authorization on Syria. I find it truly preposterous and hugely lacking in judgment that this President is discussing--and hopefully he will change his mind in the next few days--undertaking activities in Iraq. Remember, the President declared that in 2011 the war in Iraq was over, that we had won, that it was a stable country. Yet this new enemy--I do not want to get into the past too much, but because of policies of this administration in both Iraq and Syria, things have changed. So now we have a new enemy-- ISIS--that has arisen. They are incredibly well funded, well equipped, well energized, and savvy to social media. We have seen the detestable things that this group is doing to people of all kinds of ethnic persuasions in Iraq. We understand the threat this is to Iraq and to the Middle East. What we also know is this is something that is affecting directly today not only Iraq but Syria. There is really no border there. It is porous. We actually know the ISIS headquarters are in Syria. So this is an operation that can in no way be confined just to Iraq. We have to deal with this in Syria. The President hopefully tonight--while laying out what our national interest is, while laying out what his general strategy is, while laying out what his objective is--certainly will talk about the fact that we have to deal with this in Syria. I will say to the Presiding Officer of the Senate that it seems to me, even if the President feels that he has the authority to do this with his own constitutional powers under article 2--even if he feels that--it is totally preposterous that he would not seek our authorization to take on a different enemy. Certainly, to take this into another country that we have not been involved with in this way in the past--Syria--to take on operations in that country with a different enemy and not come to Congress, to not seek the approval of the people whom the people of this country have elected to weigh in on these matters to me, again, is tremendously lacking in judgment. One of the benefits of the President coming to seek our approval is that he has stated over the weekend that he believes this could take 3 years. Let me say this one more time. This is a conflict that he believes could take 3 years in duration and take us into another country where we are now not involved in this matter anyway. He is talking about not coming to us. Again, bad things happen in conflict. Our Presiding Officer has a distinguished career in serving our country--and I honor that--a distinguished public service in the military, and he knows that things don't always go the way we intend. For the President to undertake something of 3 years in duration--by his own words, in another country and an enemy that is one of the most well-funded terrorist operations that we have dealt with, knowing that he has to pull together a coalition of people with very different interests but with like interests relative to this particularly detestable group of folks--to think that this President would undertake that without Congress being behind him and having 535 Monday morning quarterbacks because there was never any buy-in by Congress to me is foolish. But because of what happened 1 year ago where our allies in the region who were going to help us deal with Assad were waiting by the telephone to respond because they, with us, were going to conduct activities against Assad about 1 year ago today--they watched on CNN as the President had changed his mind without even notifying them, without notifying their leaders or their armed services--there is a credibility issue. The President has talked about building a coalition, and he says that there are 12 countries that are already interested. I would say to him that coming to Congress would show that there is durability, that he has sought our support, that he has answered our questions, that his Cabinet members have laid out their plan, both in public and in private--talking about details that have no business in the public sphere--and that he has the buy-in of the Congress. I would say to the other members of the coalition, the people in the region who question our durability, question, candidly--I hate to say it--his credibility. They would say that after he had done this that they believe this Nation is unified in dealing with this issue. I just want to say again I hope the President is good tonight. I hope he delivers to the American people why this is in our national interest. I hope he lays out a strategy that makes sense. I hope he deals with the objectives that he wants to come forth with. Importantly, to me, I understand how we are going to deal with the ground in Iraq. I understand we have an Iraqi military--as weak as they are--that we can build off of. I understand that we have the Peshmerga--the Kurds--who we can build off of in support. What I don't understand in Syria, especially since year after year we have done nothing to support the moderate opposition like we have said we would do--or very little--let me not say nothing, but really very little. Since we have nothing of substance on the ground in Syria, how are we going to deal with that? Our Presiding Officer knows more about military officers than I do by far. But how do we deal with a country with nothing on the ground. I want him to explain that. But I think all of us would like to understand that. But, again, I think if he were to come to the Senate to seek our support overtly and to explain to the Presiding Officer, myself, and many others in this body how he has a strategy that could be effective, I believe that he would receive overwhelming support, and I believe he would have the durability necessary to deal with an enemy of this sort. I do hope, again, the President is on target tonight. I hope the President will seek our authorization for the use of military force-- now. I hear people say: Well, gosh, Corker, it is right before an election. So our President is going to talk to the Nation about what we are going to be doing with this enemy in Iraq, in Syria--candidly--and in other places. Because there is an election coming up, maybe he is not going to--I don't know that this is his reason, but I know there are a lot of people in Congress who say they don't want to deal with it before the election. Are you kidding me--the most significant decision that is made; that is, sending men and women in harm's way--because it is 2 months before an election. If there are people in this body who don't want to be put to the task by the President of asking for an amount, whether it is 2 hours, 2 days, 2 weeks, 2 months or 2 years before an election. Someone shouldn't serve in the Senate if they don't want to take up these issues and deal with them. I hope the President will change his mind. I hope the President will come to the Senate and seek our input and say that he wants an authorization and send us that authorization. That is what he did with Syria. Let's look at it. Let's deal with his Cabinet Members, both in public and private. Let's deal with him. Let us see his commitment. Let's understand the coalition that is being put forth and let's deal with this in the manner that people in the Senate should deal with it, but it should come only after the President seeks that authorization. That is an important thing for him to do. I hope he will do it tomorrow after giving his speech. I stand by ready to work with him in that regard, and I close with those comments. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, how much time am I allocated?

Mr. CORKER. Well I assure you that will not be the case. I will speak for possibly 10 minutes.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I first thank everybody who worked on this. I know there are a lot of political conundrums that people find themselves in. We have an August recess. This issue has come up. But I wonder if I could ask a question of the Senator from Oklahoma, who knows so much about these issues. Our staff has looked at the CBO report, and people keep talking about $10 billion on the floor, but the Choice Program is only funded for 3 years. It looks to me as if this bill is really creating an unfunded liability. It is a $250 billion cost over the next decade. I can't verify that based on the CBO numbers that have come out. But as we look at them, it looks as if the Choice Program continues and grows, and the number we are talking about is massive. So I do wish we had more detailed information from CBO, the kind of information we got on the first bill after the fact. For some reason, we are not getting it on this. But it appears to me that if this choice concept continues and we don't do those things to actually wind down and backfill--wind down VA for not providing services to these people because they are seeking it elsewhere--the cost of this could well be $250 billion over the next 10 years unpaid for. I would like for somebody to answer that. I don't know if Senator Coburn or someone else could. But we are not talking about $10 billion is all I am saying.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Well, I would say that every time I get a sense I want to do that, the Senator from California says something that challenges the integrity of another Senator, so it makes me not wish to do that. So I don't know. I will say that I am going to leave here and take into account--I have always understood that if it went through the committee, even though there are some issues I have with this legislation, because of the fact that we have so many cosponsorss, I do not want to be one Senator who holds up a piece of legislation. I want the will of the body to work. I always have. But I did want it to go through the committee process, and it was called off. I wish the Senator from California would quit saying things that I do not believe to be the case. We tried to make it go through the right way today. I really did. I appreciate so much the chairman and the way he works with me in that regard. But we will see. I get disappointed every time another word is said about this, and sort of characterizing not the way I understand we were going to do this. But we will see. I appreciate everybody's time.

Mr. CORKER. I will close by saying that I think it is perfectly fair for the chairman to say that if we can't have a bill like this discharged on the floor, then other resolutions which sometimes do come to the floor without going through committee because they do not have a binding effect--I can understand why he would take that position. But I really do appreciate the way the chairman has worked with me on so many occasions. Again, I am disappointed in the comments that were made earlier. But this is the understanding we have had. I think had the committee process gone forward, we probably would not have had votes. But we will just see. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I want to say that everything the chairman has said is absolutely correct. Of course, the committee can meet with the consent of everyone willing to do so. I appreciate him and his willingness to do that. I will say one of the members--I am actually speaking through the Chair to the chairman, if I could. I just had one of the members on the floor walk by and share with me that he really was not going to ask for a vote on amendments; he just wanted to share some thoughts but was going to pull them. I understand how the chairman would want to pull down a committee meeting if there were going to be lots of amendments, and I assure you I had no idea there would be any amendments. But I know some people brought some forward. My sense is that there may not have been a desire to have a vote on those, especially based on one of the Senators on our committee just walking by and sharing that with me. So what I might do in the interim is get on the phone and see if the committee members who had amendments actually wanted a vote on those or just wanted to express concerns. Maybe it is possible, within the time left, to handle this in a way that works for all. But I very much appreciate the chairman's willingness. I want to say to him again that I had no idea people had amendments to offer.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, let me say one more time, I have no amendments to offer to this bill. I was in no way going to load down this bill with any amendments. I just asked that it go through a committee process. By the way, if amendments should not be added to a bill, typically what happens is people vote them down. I would assume that had we had a committee meeting today--I know we had one scheduled earlier today--extraneous amendments would have been voted down. But with that, I am certainly, I can tell you at this point, ready to dismiss this issue. I have no desire to try to call members of the committee at this moment to try to resolve this. I am very disappointed that the Senator from California would take liberties to say such things that this Senator would come down and agree to a unanimous consent without it going through committee. I thank the chairman again for agreeing to do that. But it was called off because there were amendments. I understand that. I really do. But that is the prerogative. I think the Senator from Wyoming--standing in the well--had an amendment he wanted to have heard. I have not even seen the amendment. But that is what people do in a committee process. Again, if they do not want it attached to a bill, what they typically do is vote down the amendment. But I am very disappointed in the comments by the Senator from California. It looks as if this will not be heard. I am sorry.

Mr. CORKER. Well----

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I would just like to say that, look, I do not know what happened. We had a committee meeting scheduled today. The Senator is right that I agreed not to object to this and also not to offer any amendments in committee, and if it came through committee I was perfectly fine with it being unanimously consented to. For some reason, the Senator caused the committee hearing to be called off. So she is exactly right, I would not be down here objecting to something being discharged from committee had the committee meeting not been called off. I say to the chairman--I talked to him late last night. I thank him for trying to make this process work in the right way, and I thank his staff for being willing to set up a committee meeting today. But for some reason, the Senator from California decided she did not want to have the committee meeting. I am sorry she is sad. I am a little emotional now that she would suggest that I would agree to UC something, when I--yes, I will if it comes through committee. I do not understand why the committee was called off. But apparently the committee--the person sponsoring this bill apparently does not want to vote on amendments other members want to offer. Not me. I had no idea any members wanted to offer amendments, by the way, but they did, and I am sorry this has not worked out either. But that is the way it is. I have no idea why the committee meeting was called off. I would love for the Senator to tell me that.

Mr. CORKER. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I just want to say the partnership Senator Blunt and Senator Boxer have on this issue is one that I think is spectacular. I have talked to both of them ad nauseam about this issue. Senator Blunt and I have had multiple conversations this week. He is one of our great leaders in this body and is always trying to find a way to come to a solution. Senator Boxer and I have worked on another issue this week, and I cannot tell you how much I have enjoyed working with her office. This is an actual bill. This is not a resolution. In order to try to expedite this being able to come to the floor before we go to the August recess, we had scheduled a committee meeting here today, one impromptu, but to go through the normal committee process. I thank Chairman Menendez for his cooperation and willingness to do that. As it was scheduled, it is my understanding that a number of Members had amendments to this bill. I know for that reason--and I understand this fully--the business meeting to actually have a markup in committee was then canceled. I know the chairman of EPW has committee protocol, and when committee members want to amend things they try to go through that protocol. I know Senator Blunt, being the leader he has been in the House and here, understands that process. I am going to, over the next hour or so--I have a little time here-- check with committee members and see, relative to the normal protocols, how they might feel about this coming directly to the floor. I just tried to do that a minute ago, but knowing this is not the typical way of doing things and knowing that people actually had some amendments--I know there were some reservations about the visa waiver process and other things--I am going to have to object. I do so with total respect for these two Senators but also for respect for the committee process we all try to work through together. So with that, I object. I do not know how long we are going to be in this evening but----

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, to my colleagues, we are now on the Senate Finance Committee bill. There is one major flaw in this bill. It has $2.8 billion worth of pension smoothing. This amendment does away with that. What it means is it would be a better bill, but we would also have to solve this problem. We have had 11 short-term reauthorizations of the highway bill. It is unbelievable. We have had five general transfers such as this, which is nothing but generational theft. So what this amendment will do is cause us to do our job by year-end. I urge a ``yes'' vote. I thank our cosponsors and hope this amendment will pass. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CORKER. I thank the Senator from Delaware and the Senator from California for going ahead with this amendment. I thank Senator Carper for this leadership not just on this issue but other issues. I know we are working with other long-term issues that need to be resolved, and I thank him for the way he is going about doing that. If I could just lay out what is happening today, a House bill is coming over here today that is a short-term extension. Mr. President, I don't know if you know this, but this will be the 11th short-term extension since 2008. Let me say that one more time. This will be the 11th short-term extension that has occurred since 2008. This is the fifth time we have taken money out of the general fund-- taken money out of the general fund--to fund the highway trust fund, which is supposed to be funded through user fees. So what I would like to say to my friends on this side of the aisle is that this is the fifth time for the highway trust fund, which builds highways and bridges around our country, that we are engaging in generational theft--generational theft--where we take money out of the general fund. Everyone knows it is not paid for. We use gimmicks to pay for something that the Constitution says we are actually supposed to deal with. The House sent over a bill, and there has been a lot of consternation on the floor about that. They used $6.4 billion worth of pension smoothing. Everyone in this body knows it is not a real pay-for. All it does is move revenues up a decade. And because it uses $6.4 billion worth of pension smoothing, it has a $5 billion budget point of order against it. Let me say that one more time--a $5 billion budget point of order against the House bill that is coming over. So there has been some consternation. People say: Well, if you don't take up the House bill, the road program is going to fall apart, and we are going to go home for the August recess and everybody is going to be blamed. Well, fortunately--fortunately--today Speaker Boehner said: No. If the Senate sends something over, we are going to send something right back. So everybody ought to be relieved. So it doesn't matter today that many of our Finance Committee members who serve with Chairman Wyden-- they have made commitments to him that we are going to get on the Senate Finance Committee, and they should all know it is not a problem now. The House today said they are going to send something right back. So the first vote that is going to take place today is a vote to strip out the House bill, which has $6.4 billion worth of pension smoothing--a total gimmick. Everyone knows it is not a pay-for. It loses money--loses money. And the Senate Finance Committee bill is going to--the first vote is to replace the House bill with the Senate Finance Committee bill--by the way, which was done under regular order, done the way bills are supposed to be done. Unfortunately, it also is a short-term fix. I have never voted for a short-term fix for the highway trust fund because it is so simple for us to resolve. The only issue is we haven't been willing to address it. There are no new ideas that I am aware of. I am going to have to vote against a short-term extension. But we have an amendment to improve it, and what that amendment does is it takes out all of the pension smoothing that unfortunately is in the Finance Committee bill. I thank them for doing their work, but it has $2.9 billion worth of pension smoothing, which, again, is a gimmick. In other words, it moves up revenues. It weakens, by the way, the pension system in our country. You ought to know that. It weakens our pension system. It moves money into this decade, but from then on it loses even more money. It is absolute--no offense to those who put it in place-- generational theft. So what this amendment does is it takes pension smoothing out of the Senate finance bill and leaves everything else in place. The secondary benefit is that it means the highway trust fund will not have funding except to make it through this year. What that means is that this body in 2014 will have the opportunity to actually deal with this issue. I have to tell you, seriously, I am embarrassed. I have been here in the Senate 7\1/2\ years--7\1/2\ years--and we have yet to deal with one of our long-term issues. I cannot remember a single issue this body has come together on to deal with one of our long-term structural issues. It is an embarrassment. They really aren't new ideas around here; there has just been a lack of willingness to deal with it. I thank the Senator from California, the Senator from Delaware, and others who will join in this amendment. And all we are doing is one thing: We are taking a gimmick out of the Senate finance bill and forcing this body to act responsibly before year-end. That is all. I would urge my colleagues to come to the floor and say: Look, it has been a long time, 11 short-term reauthorizations. By the way, think about the economic issues that come with this. We do these reauthorizations, and departments of transportation around the country have no idea whether there is going to be funding in place. What do the contractors do? They don't hire people long-term. They don't buy equipment. Yet we come and do this 11 times since 2008. Five times, again, transferring money out of our general fund--the greatest generational theft that can occur--taking money out of the general fund and spending it over a 6-month period, paying for it over 10 years. To my Republican friends who railed against the President over the health care bill because he was using 6 years' worth of costs--by the way, I was one of those railers--6 years' worth of costs, 10 years' worth of revenues--we couldn't get off of it because it was so irresponsible. Yet in this bill we are going to spend the money over 6 or 7 months and pay for it over 10 years. It is an order of magnitude worse. I know that a lot of people have worked and they have said: No, there is no way we can come up with a solution by year-end. You have got to be kidding me. How could we not come up with a solution to such a simple issue--a trust fund that has been funded by user fees. How could we not figure out some way in 5 days? The Senate Finance Committee has some of the smartest people in the Senate on it. They know there are no new real options. The chairman has floated some ideas as to how to get there, and I applaud him for it. By the way, I know that the Senate Finance Committee is only doing its job today. In other words, you have to come up with a short-term solution. I got it. I cannot support it. I cannot support it. I cannot support another kicking of the can down the road on one of the simplest issues we have to deal with in the Senate because elections are coming. Let's face it. Every time it is the election. We can't deal with this issue, so what we said is: OK. We got it. We realize that during elections people don't really want to show their cards, apparently. So we are saying, hey, let's strip the gimmick that is in this bill--the pension smoothing that we all know is not a pay-for. It is a gimmick. Let's strip that and let's force the Congress before the end of this year to actually deal with an issue that is very important to our Nation. I hope people will support it. I have heard people say: Well, I just don't see how we can figure out a solution. You have got to be kidding me. I mean, how many new ideas are there relative to this? So, look, I thank my colleagues for joining in this amendment. I hope we will have support. Again, this amendment lessens the kicking of the can down the road. It takes out a gimmick. It forces us to deal with a long-term solution, which we should have done a long time ago. I thank all of those Senators who support this amendment. I hope others will consider it before they come down to the floor. I hope this Senate will have the opportunity--and the House--before year-end to actually deal with this issue. Again, let me say this: The kick-the-can down-the-road that is occurring takes us into next May and June. Think about it. So we are going to have a Presidential race underway. So then people are going to say: Oh, we can't deal with this issue. We don't want our nominees to have to deal with this issue. Remember, the primaries this year are early. So our Republicans will say: Well, we don't want to deal with this issue in May or June because a Presidential race is coming up. And the Democrats will say the same thing: We don't want our candidate to have to talk about this issue. So again and again we will kick the can down the road. We will engage in generational theft. We will weaken our economy. We won't do the things we should be doing with our infrastructure. It is the wrong thing to do. Please support this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, in order to set the context, I am going to say a few words on the opening, and then enter into a discussion with Senator Graham, Senator Rubio, and Senator McCain. But let me say that all of us--I know certainly myself--want to start by saying I strongly support the negotiations regarding Iran's nuclear program. I also strongly support the President's stated goal that we must prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Congress, in fact, has led the way on this point--Senator Graham, Senator Menendez, and many others, Senator Kirk--by building a broad multilateral sanctions regime that has forced Iran to the negotiating table. That is why today we are introducing the bill, the Iran Nuclear Negotiations Act, with a simple message: Allow Congress to weigh in on behalf of the American people on what is one of the most important national security issues facing our Nation. We hope the administration reaches a good agreement over the next 4 months that will prevent a nuclear-armed Iran from becoming a reality. But if and when they reach an agreement, let's bring all the details out in the open. Let's examine the agreement in its entirety, and let's determine if it is in our national security interests. To help ensure that that is the case, Senators Graham, McCain, Rubio, and myself are offering this bill that will do three things: First of all, have a Congressional review. First, it allows Congress to weigh in on any final deal the President reaches with Iran. The bill requires the President to submit any final deal to Congress for review, and then allows Congress to introduce a joint resolution of disapproval should it choose to do so. Second, it ensures Iran does not cheat on any final agreement. The bill requires the Director of National Intelligence to report on any violation by Iran to Congress. If determined there is credible and accurate evidence that Iran violated the agreement, all sanctions that have been temporarily lifted should be reimposed. Thirdly, in order to ensure the interim deal does not become the final deal, the bill puts a clock on negotiations. This clock is consistent with the timeline the administration itself has outlined. If the President does not submit a comprehensive final agreement to Congress, all sanctions lifted under the interim agreement would be restored immediately on November 28, 2014, 4 days after the end of the extension period. Let me be clear: Nothing in this bill talks about imposing new sanctions of any kind. Nothing in this bill would prohibit Congress from seeking further sanctions if it chooses to do so. This bill does not dictate the terms of what a final deal should look like. Rather, it helps to ensure the Iranians do not use the negotiations as a delaying tactic or cover for advancing their program. This bill is all about transparency. The administration can go out and try to get the best deal possible. They simply have to show Congress and the American people the results, letting the deal fail or succeed on its own merits. This should be an area of broad support and broad bipartisan agreement. Even Secretary Kerry, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that any final deal would have to pass muster with Congress. I want to stop here. I have some additional comments I might make. I know there are numbers of people here who wish to speak. I want to close with this. This bill represents a constructive, responsible role for Congress to play on this important national security issue to try to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, in the hope that Members on both sides of the aisle will agree, as Secretary Kerry has stated, that any final deal should have to pass muster with Congress and the American people. I know Senator Graham from South Carolina--no one has played a bigger role in trying to ensure that Iran does not become a nuclear-armed country. With that, I would love to hear his thoughts and his reason for wanting to be a part, with five Senators, in creating this piece of legislation.

Mr. CORKER. If I could, since the Senator and I have worked together on the committee, the administration came to us when they didn't have to. They came to us on the authorization for the use of force in Syria. We came together over a very short amount of time, Democrats and Republicans, and crafted something of which I am very proud. It didn't end up coming to the floor because a different course of action was taken, but the fact is that the administration sought our input on something that, as the Senator from South Carolina just mentioned, may pale compared to the impact of this Iranian negotiation relative to nuclear arms. So this is something that is very important. I agree with the Senator from South Carolina--I believe that if something is presented, we would act very much in the same manner. It would be a sober discussion. People would understand the importance of it. And I think, from the administration's standpoint, the Senate saying grace over it and approving it gives him additional buy-in from the American people that we are behind him if they negotiate a good deal. On the other hand, if they don't, obviously we should have the right to weigh in and keep the sanctions that have been put in place by us. Everybody says: Well, the administration still has to come back and talk with you all about sanctions. That is not true. There is a waiver provision in there. They can't be undone permanently. But I think it gives us the appropriate say-so. I thank the Senator so much for his leadership and for everybody's time on the floor and for working on this issue. Hopefully, as the Senator mentioned, this will become something that is very bipartisan.

Mr. CORKER. Obviously, just the way the Senator asks the question-- and obviously nobody in this Senate has spent more time on these issues than the Senator from Arizona--and I thank the Senator so much for his leadership on the Armed Services Committee and also on the Foreign Relations Committee and on all of these issues--absolutely not. When you have a deal that is aimed, that says there is a built-in extension, you know that people aren't going to focus until the very end. So we expected there to be an extension. I was very disappointed, though, to know that we were giving additional sanctions relief. I am very concerned because of the way this has happened. In March the administration agreed to allow them to enrich uranium, which was a big setback. I mean, we don't allow our best friends. We approved one, two, three agreements. The Senator and I just did one the other day in the committee with Senator Rubio. Senator Risch is also a part of this bill. But with our closest friends and allies we do not approve enrichment. So here we are really doing something that will undo many of the agreements that we have and certainly have--as Senator Graham of South Carolina mentioned--a tremendous impact on the region. There is no question people in the Arabian Peninsula right across the strait are looking at a country that has been their foe--and looking at potentially their having the capability to enrich uranium. Yes, this agreement started in a very bad place, but I think we all want to see a diplomatic solution. We want this to be successful. I would add that Rouhani has the Supreme Leader whom he has to go back and talk to. He can always use that. The Supreme Leader, as Senator Graham mentioned, wants 100,000 centrifuges--not the 19,000 centrifuges they have. I would say to our administration to have us as a backstop--where Congress has to approve this. That would actually be an aid to them as they move down this negotiating path. I look at this as an asset to them, and I look at our fulfilling our responsibilities if this bill becomes law. I thank the Senator for asking.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a presentation and colloquy with my fellow Republican colleagues for up to 25 minutes.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, in order to set the context, I am going to say a few words on the opening, and then enter into a discussion with Senator Graham, Senator Rubio, and Senator McCain. But let me say that all of us--I know certainly myself--want to start by saying I strongly support the negotiations regarding Iran's nuclear program. I also strongly support the President's stated goal that we must prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Congress, in fact, has led the way on this point--Senator Graham, Senator Menendez, and many others, Senator Kirk--by building a broad multilateral sanctions regime that has forced Iran to the negotiating table. That is why today we are introducing the bill, the Iran Nuclear Negotiations Act, with a simple message: Allow Congress to weigh in on behalf of the American people on what is one of the most important national security issues facing our Nation. We hope the administration reaches a good agreement over the next 4 months that will prevent a nuclear-armed Iran from becoming a reality. But if and when they reach an agreement, let's bring all the details out in the open. Let's examine the agreement in its entirety, and let's determine if it is in our national security interests. To help ensure that that is the case, Senators Graham, McCain, Rubio, and myself are offering this bill that will do three things: First of all, have a Congressional review. First, it allows Congress to weigh in on any final deal the President reaches with Iran. The bill requires the President to submit any final deal to Congress for review, and then allows Congress to introduce a joint resolution of disapproval should it choose to do so. Second, it ensures Iran does not cheat on any final agreement. The bill requires the Director of National Intelligence to report on any violation by Iran to Congress. If determined there is credible and accurate evidence that Iran violated the agreement, all sanctions that have been temporarily lifted should be reimposed. Thirdly, in order to ensure the interim deal does not become the final deal, the bill puts a clock on negotiations. This clock is consistent with the timeline the administration itself has outlined. If the President does not submit a comprehensive final agreement to Congress, all sanctions lifted under the interim agreement would be restored immediately on November 28, 2014, 4 days after the end of the extension period. Let me be clear: Nothing in this bill talks about imposing new sanctions of any kind. Nothing in this bill would prohibit Congress from seeking further sanctions if it chooses to do so. This bill does not dictate the terms of what a final deal should look like. Rather, it helps to ensure the Iranians do not use the negotiations as a delaying tactic or cover for advancing their program. This bill is all about transparency. The administration can go out and try to get the best deal possible. They simply have to show Congress and the American people the results, letting the deal fail or succeed on its own merits. This should be an area of broad support and broad bipartisan agreement. Even Secretary Kerry, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that any final deal would have to pass muster with Congress. I want to stop here. I have some additional comments I might make. I know there are numbers of people here who wish to speak. I want to close with this. This bill represents a constructive, responsible role for Congress to play on this important national security issue to try to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, in the hope that Members on both sides of the aisle will agree, as Secretary Kerry has stated, that any final deal should have to pass muster with Congress and the American people. I know Senator Graham from South Carolina--no one has played a bigger role in trying to ensure that Iran does not become a nuclear-armed country. With that, I would love to hear his thoughts and his reason for wanting to be a part, with five Senators, in creating this piece of legislation.

Mr. CORKER. If I could, since the Senator and I have worked together on the committee, the administration came to us when they didn't have to. They came to us on the authorization for the use of force in Syria. We came together over a very short amount of time, Democrats and Republicans, and crafted something of which I am very proud. It didn't end up coming to the floor because a different course of action was taken, but the fact is that the administration sought our input on something that, as the Senator from South Carolina just mentioned, may pale compared to the impact of this Iranian negotiation relative to nuclear arms. So this is something that is very important. I agree with the Senator from South Carolina--I believe that if something is presented, we would act very much in the same manner. It would be a sober discussion. People would understand the importance of it. And I think, from the administration's standpoint, the Senate saying grace over it and approving it gives him additional buy-in from the American people that we are behind him if they negotiate a good deal. On the other hand, if they don't, obviously we should have the right to weigh in and keep the sanctions that have been put in place by us. Everybody says: Well, the administration still has to come back and talk with you all about sanctions. That is not true. There is a waiver provision in there. They can't be undone permanently. But I think it gives us the appropriate say-so. I thank the Senator so much for his leadership and for everybody's time on the floor and for working on this issue. Hopefully, as the Senator mentioned, this will become something that is very bipartisan.

Mr. CORKER. Obviously, just the way the Senator asks the question-- and obviously nobody in this Senate has spent more time on these issues than the Senator from Arizona--and I thank the Senator so much for his leadership on the Armed Services Committee and also on the Foreign Relations Committee and on all of these issues--absolutely not. When you have a deal that is aimed, that says there is a built-in extension, you know that people aren't going to focus until the very end. So we expected there to be an extension. I was very disappointed, though, to know that we were giving additional sanctions relief. I am very concerned because of the way this has happened. In March the administration agreed to allow them to enrich uranium, which was a big setback. I mean, we don't allow our best friends. We approved one, two, three agreements. The Senator and I just did one the other day in the committee with Senator Rubio. Senator Risch is also a part of this bill. But with our closest friends and allies we do not approve enrichment. So here we are really doing something that will undo many of the agreements that we have and certainly have--as Senator Graham of South Carolina mentioned--a tremendous impact on the region. There is no question people in the Arabian Peninsula right across the strait are looking at a country that has been their foe--and looking at potentially their having the capability to enrich uranium. Yes, this agreement started in a very bad place, but I think we all want to see a diplomatic solution. We want this to be successful. I would add that Rouhani has the Supreme Leader whom he has to go back and talk to. He can always use that. The Supreme Leader, as Senator Graham mentioned, wants 100,000 centrifuges--not the 19,000 centrifuges they have. I would say to our administration to have us as a backstop--where Congress has to approve this. That would actually be an aid to them as they move down this negotiating path. I look at this as an asset to them, and I look at our fulfilling our responsibilities if this bill becomes law. I thank the Senator for asking.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I thank the leader for her comments and her ability to build consensus around the reauthorization as she did in the committee. This is the fifth time since 2008--I have been here since January of 2007--that we have done a temporary extension. It is an absolute embarrassment. Not only do we not get the benefit of the economic growth that would come from people knowing there is a program in place where they can enter into long-term contracts and they can buy construction equipment, in addition to that, this is a tremendous problem of absolutely being generational theft. I will get to those comments, and I thank the Senator from Delaware for his leadership and for being here on the floor. I will be fairly brief and will yield the floor for him. I think if every Senator were asked if they were opposed to using budget gimmicks, they would say yes. I am sure the Presiding Officer would say the same. They say the budget should not be used as an offset to pay for spending. Time and time again, Congress avoids the tough decision and instead throws our kids under the bus so we can tell people back home that the legislation was passed and paid for. I have long been against the disgraceful practice of spending money today and paying for it in the future. It is shameful, it is irresponsible, and it is generational theft. Yet here we are this week looking for a way to pass a bill that would pay for spending that is already happening by using a blatant budget scheme called pension smoothing. Pension smoothing is one of the worst kinds of budget gimmicks. Not only does it allow Congress to spend money today and pay through savings accrued in the future, but the gimmick actually loses money. Let me say that one more time. The gimmick actually loses money and drives our Nation deeper into debt. Pension smoothing is Congress cooking the books. It shifts tax revenue that Treasury would collect in the future to the present. It starts losing money when the smoothing ends and continues beyond the 10-year window--combining a highway trust fund bailout that spends 10 years of revenue in 10 months. Let me say that one more time. What we are going to be voting on this week spends 10 years' worth of revenue in 10 months. I just want to say that my friends, my Republican friends--all of us--had problems when the President was trying to pass this health care bill because he used 6 years' worth of costs and 10 years' worth of revenues, which is orders of magnitude better than what is getting ready to happen in this bill this week--again, 10 months' worth of spending, 10 years' worth of revenues. Pension smoothing also increases the chances that taxpayers will be on the hook for the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation bailout sometime in the future because it weakens the corporate pension system. So here we are weakening our balance sheet and simultaneously weakening the PBGC. The PBGC deficit already exceeds $30 billion. At the expense of taxpayers and workers who rely on pension plans, this budget scheme benefits big businesses while allowing Congress to avoid real spending decisions. I understand the conventional wisdom is that in the haste to leave town this August, enough Senators will be here to support the House bill with the pension smoothing gimmick included and not even try to do better. That is the conventional wisdom. I also understand that some will try to scare Members into voting for the House bill by claiming the House cannot pass anything except this short-term patch endorsed by the President with $11 billion in gimmicks to extend the highway funding until June. Although 367 House Members voted for this rushed package, it is the responsibility of the Senate to weigh in and offer an alternative. As I have done in previous years, I will continue to oppose these short-term patches to the highway trust fund that allow Congress to avoid doing its job in passing a long-term, sustainable solution to reform and pay for the program. At the very least we should cut the gimmicks in this bill by $3 billion and do away with pension smoothing. I rarely use exhibits, but this is the gimmick of all gimmicks. Look at what happens when we use it to pay for a short-term bill: We collect the money during the window that it is counted, and then from then on we are losing money. This is a double loser. It is amazing that we could even come up with these kinds of schemes to pay for an already insolvent program, and we do it by putting our country further in debt in the future and, candidly, weakening our corporate pension system. I am pleased there is bipartisan momentum to change this. I hope my colleagues will support the amendment Senators Carper, Boxer, and I are offering that would reject the budget gimmicks in this bill and force Congress to stop shirking its responsibility so we can work toward passing a long-term transportation bill. There is going to be a push by some to say that we shouldn't take up anything the rest of this year. I would think every Member of this Congress who realizes we have allowed ourselves to get into the jam we are in would want to show the responsibility of actually dealing with this this year. We have a number of Members who are retiring. Many of them spent a lot of time on issues such as this. I would like to see them have the opportunity to come up with a long-term solution. I would imagine that if we did that, the House would want to support a more fiscally conservative alternative, which is what our amendment achieves. I hope we will all back our words with actions and reject this irresponsible pay-for once and for all and do something far more responsible. Before I yield the floor, I want to say I really appreciate Senator Carper's continual effort as a former Governor to try to do those things that are common sense, that are pragmatic, and that make our country stronger along the way. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. So when you think about the possibilities of their being able to create, as the Senator mentioned, a dirty bomb--which would create tremendous terror wherever it might have been implemented--that is something I think is frightening--more than frightening. It would be something that would be not quite as destabilizing as, obviously, having a full-blown nuclear weapon, but something that would be very damaging to world security.

Mr. CORKER. I thank the Senator again for his tremendous contributions to this body and every foreign policy debate that we have. The President did seek congressional approval on the authorization of the use of military force in Syria. It was not something he had to do, but he sought it, and I am pleased that he did. I was proud to be a part of writing that agreement with our chairman and other members of the committee to give him the power to do that. And actually, to be candid, I regret that things took the course they took, but the President elected to do that. As the Senator mentioned, a nuclear-armed Iran is a whole different scale. What I hope will happen is that the President will agree there will be no more extensions if they ask for one in the next few days, and I am almost certain that is what is going to happen. No. 2, I hope you will commit to letting Congress weigh in on the final decision. I actually think that will be useful for them in the negotiation. I really do think that having a backstop would be useful to them, but if the President doesn't agree to that, I hope we, on our own, will pass legislation which ensures that is the case. I yield the floor.