Bob Corker

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following disposition of the McDonough nomination, the Senate proceed to the consideration of the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 373 and 374; that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate; that following the disposition of the nominations, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nominations; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Tuesday, December 8; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; further, that following leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of the conference report to accompany S. 1177; finally, that notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture vote with respect to the conference report to accompany S. 1177 occur at 11:30 a.m.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned after the resumption of legislative session, following the disposition of the Etim nomination.

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

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise to share my voice with Lamar Alexander's at the loss of a great Tennessean and a great American. I appreciate so much Senator Alexander's chronologically going through much of the great Senator Thompson's life and talking about the personal experiences. Elizabeth and I, too, want to share our condolences with Jeri, Hayden, and Sammy, along with Tony and Dan, his sons by his first marriage with Sarah, and his brother Ken. I was able to talk to Tony last week as Fred was in hospice care. As you would expect, with Fred being the kind of person he was, never forgetting where he came from, they wanted to spend those last days together in quiet and didn't want a lot of phone calls or a lot happening to make people aware of what was happening. Fred had reached his end. No doubt, again, Tennessee has lost a great son as has our Nation. Fred was one of those people, as Lamar just mentioned, who had extraordinary talent. To me, what was so unique about him having that extraordinary talent is he also had the gift of knowing when and how to use it, from his extraordinary ability as a lawyer, as has been chronicled, to his ability when faced with a case that became something of national notoriety, to himself becoming an actor and playing a role that in this case he was in real life, and then to serving in the Senate in the way that he did. I, too, had the extraordinary privilege to also know Fred, as I have had in knowing someone like Lamar Alexander, who I think is one of the great public servants of our State, and Howard Baker, who has been a mentor to all of us and had such an impact on me, Lamar, and Fred. Back in 1994, as I was telling some Tennesseans earlier today, I was also running for the Senate in a race that no one remembers because of the results. As Lamar mentioned, everywhere you went, people wanted to see Fred. Fred had this extraordinary ability to capture people's imaginations. Fred was unabashedly proud of our Nation and never an apologist for what our Nation has done around the world to make the world a better place. I was able to drive around and see hordes of people gather around Fred. People would pat Bill Frist, me, and the other folks running in the other primary on the head and say: Someday you, too, might be a Senator. Fred was somewhat criticized that year because of the way he was going about the race. Again, it reminds me of how much talent he had and his ability to know how to use it. He told people: Look, the first time I run a television ad, this race will be over. He did, and it was. As Lamar mentioned, he went on to win by 20 points because of the way the people felt about him, not only around our State but around our country. Fred was very impatient with serving in the Senate, and I had multiple conversations with him about that. Actually, serving here, one can understand with someone like Fred, who constantly wanted to make something happen, how that was a frustration. But I know for a fact from watching his early days--coming in, heading the homeland security committee, and doing the many things he did--that he affected our State and country in a very positive way, which is something all of us would hope to emulate. We will miss him. He was a rare talent. He was one of those people who made you want to do better when you were around him. I thank him for his tremendous service to our country, I thank him for the tremendous and deep friendships he created all around our State, and I thank him for causing all of us to constantly remember where we came from. With that, I join Senator Alexander in again expressing our deep condolences to his family and all who were around him, especially when the end came. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER

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

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, today we have a series of votes that I know may be difficult for the American people, who may be looking on, to understand. In the Senate we have a procedure called cloture, which signifies whether Members are ready to end debate and move on to the vote on the substance of the bill we are now discussing. We have been on this now for 2 weeks. We have had 12 hearings in the Foreign Relations Committee, with my distinguished friend Senator Cardin as the ranking member, and we have had all kinds of debate on the floor. Almost every Senator in the Senate has spoken. Yet we find ourselves in this place where a bipartisan majority of Senators wish to send a vote of disapproval to the President and 42 Senators are keeping us from doing so. If I could just walk through this, first of all, in a strong bipartisan, almost overwhelming manner--almost four times since 2010-- this body has put sanctions in place against Iran to bring them to the negotiating table. I want to commend people on both sides of the aisle for making that happen. My friend, Bob Menendez, and Mark Kirk on our side, together with all the rest of us helped to make those things happen. When this body saw that the President, after we helped to bring Iran to the table, was going to negotiate a deal that cut us out--that, in essence, caused him to be able to go straight to the U.N. Security Council and cause a deal to be implemented--I worked with my friend Senator Cardin, and others, and we put in place something called the Iran review act, which gave us this ability to have 60 days to look at the proposal, to go through it, and to voice our approval or disapproval. We have had that debate. Unfortunately, because the President did not achieve what he said he was going to achieve--and by the way, if he had, there would be 100 Senators today voicing their approval. The President, when he began the negotiations, said he was going to end Iran's nuclear program. Unfortunately, from my perspective, he squandered--squandered--that opportunity. We had a boot on the neck of Iran, a rogue nation. We had some of the greatest countries in the world involved in the negotiations to end their program. Instead, we capitulated and have agreed to the industrialization of their nuclear program. We have agreed to let them continue their research and development so they can do what they are doing in an even quicker manner. We have allowed them to continue their ability to deliver intercontinental ballistic missiles. We all know they have no need for their program other than to develop a nuclear weapon. We know that. They have no practical need. So a strong bipartisan majority of this body wants to send to the President a resolution of disapproval. Yet today what is happening, I fear--for the third time--is that a minority--a partisan minority, I will say--of 42 Senators are going to block that from occurring. Now, look, I understand procedures around here. I do. I understand the cloture vote. I knew that when we agreed to this bill. We agreed to it being dealt with under what is called ``normal procedures.'' We agreed to that. I just want to remind people, though, that back in the gulf war, this body decided it was going to support President Bush--the first President Bush, Bush 41--when he really didn't need to come to Congress. But he came to us for the authorization of the use of military force and that was passed on a 52-48 vote--52-48. What we have happening today, though, is that we have 58 Senators here who disapprove of what the President has negotiated. They feel he squandered the opportunity given to him with our support. Instead of ending their program, he has allowed it to be industrialized. And so we have 58 Senators here who want to express themselves and to send to the President this resolution of disapproval. We have 42 Senators on a procedural vote who are keeping us from doing so--42 Senators. In essence, they are saying, I guess, we haven't debated this enough. Almost every Senator has expressed themselves. We have had 12 hearings in the Committee on Foreign Relations, with all kinds of classified briefings. The Committee on Armed Services had hearings, and the Select Committee on Intelligence had hearings. I just want to say that I know many people spent a lot of time. I know the ranking member looked at this backwards and forwards before he came to his own conclusion. This, to me, really is taking on a tone of Members of this body protecting the President--protecting the President--from having to veto something this body would send to him, which is a resolution of disapproval. So I am disappointed we are where we are. I am disappointed the Senate functions in the way it does today, where a majority of Senators who wish for something to happen cannot make it happen. In this particular case it is happening in a manner, in my belief, to really keep the President from having to veto this, which is what a majority of Senators in the Senate would like to see happen. With that, I hope that at least a couple of Senators here will decide that we have discussed this long enough and that we will allow this body to vote on the actual underlying substance. That is, by the way, what the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act was about. On a 98-to-1 basis Senators in this body said they wanted the ability--98 of us; 1 Senator was missing or we would have had 99--to weigh in on this topic, and now that is not going to occur. I believe my time is over. I understand the minority may have about 2 minutes left and then we will proceed to a vote. But I want to thank my good friend Senator Cardin, who I think serves in a very distinguished way. I could not have a better partner. So I thank him for his comments as they are about to come and also for his cooperation.

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

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I think I understand the frustration expressed by the ranking member. The ranking member knows I worked with him to ensure that when we had this debate, we stayed away from those issues that divide us. He knows I took multiple tough votes, as did others, to keep things in balance. There are Members of this body who feel as if this amendment the Senator is talking about is one on which they would have liked to have expressed themselves. Since we are in a place where it appears that 42 Senators are going to keep us from actually being able to go forward with the vote on whether we agree or disagree--the Senator and I are in the same place on this. But since that has occurred, I think out of frustration and knowing there were a number of Members who wanted to express themselves on the way this next amendment is--I think that is the reason that has occurred.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, if I could respond through the Chair, I think what people understand is that 42 Senators are causing a filibuster to take place and that we are not ever going to be able to get to that vote of conscience all of us have wanted to make. And since they know that, they understand this deal is going to go forward, and therefore, in order--since these people really never had the opportunity to express themselves in this manner--there never was an amendment during the debate relative to the amendment we now have before us. I think since they know it is going to go forward, since in essence the filibuster is underway that keeps this final vote from occurring and a motion of disapproval from going to the President, there is a divergence off of that to express themselves in a different way.

Mr. CORKER. If I could, and I very much appreciate--first of all, I could not work with a more thoughtful, diligent Member of the U.S. Senate than the ranking member. I think what the Senator's side needs to understand--and I have tried to articulate this--is that during these negotiations, we tried to set up a privileged motion where it was set up not unlike one, two, three agreements that we have. We understood that the minority leader--and I respect this--does not like privileged amendments, that the leaders like to control the floor, and in this case he wanted to be able to control his side. So we were not able to set this up as a privileged vote. As the Senator knows, we then agreed to do it under regular order--regular order--and the Senator and I agreed to those negotiations. What the Senator would be asking our side to do to move to a 60-vote debate is actually raise the threshold from a simple majority, which is the way regular order works. The Senator would ask us to raise the threshold to a 60-vote threshold, which is above and beyond regular order. So the Senator can understand how people don't understand why we would agree to raising that threshold. So, look, we understand what is getting ready to happen. The Senator and I have a lot of business to do relative to Syria, relative to Iraq, relative to refugees and others. I am disappointed that the Senate functions in the way it does. As I mentioned, back under the gulf war, back in 1991, instead of a filibuster, Members allowed us to vote on a--I wasn't here then, and I don't think the Senator was here then--on a 52-to-48 basis, people moved beyond the filibuster and allowed the majority to express themselves. I hope at some point in time the Senate will move to a place where we allow the majority to express themselves. This is not happening on a significant vote of conscience. I am disappointed in that, but I understand what the outcome is going to be, and I look forward to working with the Senator on other issues. Cloture Motion

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the agreement before us. I find in this line of work that repetition is sometimes useful. I know my friend from Illinois mentioned how we ought to be focused on something else, but I think all of us understand that there is an assumed deadline on this topic, which is set for tomorrow. I say to my friends on both sides of the aisle that the likelihood is that after tomorrow we will move on to the other types of business that we need to deal with. But this is not, as my friend from Missouri mentioned, an issue of political points. The issue with Iran is one of the most significant, if not the most significant, foreign policy issue that we will likely deal with while we are here in the Senate. I think it is important, while this is before us, to spend as much time as possible talking about this issue, focusing on this issue, debating this issue, and making sure that everyone understands what the contents of this Iranian deal are. I will walk through it, if I could for a few moments, and lay out why we are where we are today. I know the Presiding Officer is new here and brings a wealth of national security experience from previous posts that he had with the State Department prior to serving here. But what brought us here really was this body acting almost in a unanimous way to put sanctions in place four times since 2010. We worked with the House of Representatives to put sanctions in place because we knew that Iran was doing things, such as nuclear development, that were going to be damaging to the world. So we sanctioned and punished them. We put crippling sanctions on their economy, and we did that collectively. This is something that very few people on either side of the aisle objected to. We acted in unison. It was the crippling sanctions that we put together that really brought Iran to the table. Let's face it. Their economy and standard of living were causing people in Iran to become restless, and so finally Iran said: OK, it is time to talk. When these talks began, our President stated that what we would do in these talks was to end Iran's nuclear program. And just for what it is worth, I think people on both sides of the aisle celebrated that goal-- ending Iran's nuclear program. I might remind people who may be just tuning into this that Iran has 19,000 centrifuges right now, and 10,000 of those are operating. They built underground bunkers at a place called Fordow. It is hard to get to it. It is hard to take those out with munitions, if you will. They built a plutonium facility called Arak. By the way, much of this was done in a clandestine way. All of it was done violating U.N. Security Council resolutions. I will say everyone here understands fully that Iran has zero practical need for any of this. Iran has one nuclear facility. Everyone knows that it would be so much cheaper for them to just purchase enriched uranium to fuel that one facility. But they say: No, we want to be leaders in medical isotopes. For what it is worth, if Iran really wanted to develop the expertise around medical isotopes, they would have 500 centrifuges. So we all know that the purpose of this program has not been for civilian purposes. It has been to cause them to be a threshold nuclear country. We know that. Everyone knows that. They know that, we know that, and every country involved in the discussions with Iran knows that. First of all, we know what their goals are. So when the President says that in these negotiations what we are going to do is end Iran's nuclear program, I think most people in this body would celebrate that. So he began the discussions, and as he started moving along, it became very apparent to those of us paying attention that what he planned to do was to enter into what is called an executive agreement. Now, for people who don't do what we do on a daily basis, there are three ways that the President can enter into an international agreement. One way is through a treaty that requires a two-thirds approval by this body. A treaty is interesting because it binds future Presidents, and it binds future Congresses. But the President decided that was not the route he was going to take. There is a second route he could have taken, and that is called a congressional-executive Agreement. While it is not as strong as a treaty, it does create a law that is binding on future Presidents and future Congresses. The President decided he was not going to go that route. The President decided that he was going to do this unilaterally, through what is called an Executive agreement. As we know, an Executive agreement is something the President can do, if he chooses, on his own. The problem with it is that it doesn't survive his Presidency. Another President can do something very different. In this case, however, as everybody has analyzed this deal, everyone understands that we lose all of our leverage over the next 9 months and give it away. When people in this body began to realize that we brought Iran to the table--or at least played a heavy role in bringing them to the table--and that the President was going to use what is called a national security waiver to waive away all the congressional sanctions so that he could enter into this Executive agreement without ever talking to us, we achieved something else that was very important. As a matter of fact, this is the first time this has happened since I have been in the Senate, and there are a lot of misunderstandings about it. For the first time in Congress since I have been in the Senate--on a strongly bipartisan basis--we took power back from the President. We said: Mr. President, we know that you can enter into Executive agreements, but in this particular case, since we put the sanctions in place that brought them to the table--by the way, over your objections--we want a chance to go through this agreement in detail, and we want the right to either approve or disapprove. But you have to present us with this, and it has to sit before us for 60 days, which it will have done as of tomorrow, and we want the right to weigh in as to whether we believe the substance of this deal is good for our Nation. We had 98 Senators in this body vote for this. One of the Senators who was absent supported it, and that makes it 99. It is pretty remarkable that on a bipartisan basis 99 Senators said: No, we want this to lie before us because we believe this is one of the biggest foreign policy issues we are going to deal with, we believe that this is a vote of conscience, and we believe that every Senator and every House Member--which is unusual with these kind of agreements--should weigh in and be able to voice their opinion. So we have gone through the deal, and what is fascinating about it is--I hate to be pejorative, but we had almost unanimity on putting sanctions in place to bring them to the table. We had almost unanimity on the fact that we should be able to weigh in. It is my strong belief that in lieu of the President achieving the deal that he did or the goals that he stated to end Iran's nuclear program, obviously, we have done anything but that. So what has happened is we have totally squandered an opportunity to unite this Nation, and others, around ending their program. Instead, our Nation, with other ``great nations'' have agreed to allow Iran not only to not end their program but to industrialize it. We have agreed to let them develop intercontinental ballistic missiles so they can deliver a nuclear weapon. We agreed to let them do research and development. Right now they are using the old IR-1 centrifuges, which are like antiques, but we are going to allow them to do research and development on the IR-2s, IR-4s, IR-6s, and IR-8s, which we know are multiple times faster. We have lifted the conventional weapons embargo and the ballistic weapons embargo, for some reason, just throwing it in for good measure. We are allowing them, for the first time, to begin testing. So what has happened is now in this body, there is some tepid support--I see my friend from Michigan, I have other friends, and I haven't heard anybody come out and say this is a great agreement. What they are saying--not necessarily the Senator from Michigan but others-- is, well, we are where we are. We are where we are. This is not a very good agreement. It is flawed. Even though Congress, 200 times, has sent international agreements back to the executive branch--200 times--in this case: We are where we are. And our friends in Russia--by the way, has anybody seen what our friends in Russia are doing in Syria right now? Yes, they are really good friends. Has anybody seen what China is doing right now in the South China Sea? They are building their third airstrip, claiming territory that for thousands of years has belonged to other countries from the standpoint of territorial waters. People are saying--our friends and allies--what will we do about our friends and allies? So here is where we are. I could go on and on. I just cannot believe that our great Nation, with ``our friends'' from Great Britain, Germany, and France and ``our friends'' from China and Russia, squandered--squandered--an opportunity, had a rogue nation with a boot on its neck--a boot on its neck--we squandered the opportunity. Now, with our approval, they can industrialize their program. As a matter of fact, they don't have to violate the terms of this deal. They can just honor the terms of this deal. Their economy will flourish. By the way, it is hard for me to believe this, but I think most people understand that we are giving them back $100 billion. We are going to do that over the next 9 months. We are lifting the major sanctions that have crippled them. We are doing that without us even asking them to do much. From that point on, by the way, the leverage shifts from us to them. We are very concerned about what they are doing in Syria. By the way, they have doubled down on that since the agreement was reached with the nuclear file. We are very concerned about what they are doing with Hezbollah in Lebanon. We are very concerned about what they are doing with Hamas, allowing rockets to be fired into Israel. We are very concerned about what they are doing in Lebanon with the Houthis. We are very concerned about what they are doing in Bahrain with thousands of men and women in uniform trying to keep the strait open. We are very concerned about that, but in 9 months, if we express our concerns, what are they going to do? They are going to say: We have all of our money, you have lifted all the sanctions, and if you press back against us for terrorism or human rights or violations in this agreement that are minor, we are just going to start a nuclear program again. So it is kind of unbelievable that we have ended up in this place. What is happening on the floor now, just to explain to the American people, we have a process in the Senate which says that at the end of debate--by the way, we have had a lot of debate on this. We have had 12 hearings in the Foreign Relations Committee alone. The Presiding Officer serves on the Committee on Armed Services and they have had hearings. The Intelligence Committee has had hearings. We have had hearings as a body. We have had personal meetings. As a matter of fact, I would say this body knows more about this international agreement than any international agreement in modern times. As a matter of fact, thanks to us pushing back against this administration, the American people know more about this agreement than any agreement in modern times. It is amazing. Thank goodness we passed the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act; otherwise, none of this would be known--none of this. So where we are today is we all said this was one of the biggest foreign policy issues to come before us; we want the American people to know where we stand on the substance of the deal. So for people tuning in, here is the way the Senate works. When a vote comes before us--and right now, since there is a strong bipartisan majority of people who oppose this deal--as a matter of fact, the two most knowledgeable Democrats on foreign policy issues, the ranking member and the former chairman and ranking member, who know more about foreign policy than any Democrat in this body--both oppose this deal. So on a strong bipartisan majority, we have a group of people who think we can do better. Just like the 200-plus times we have sent agreements back to say do better, we are saying we think we can do better. So here is what is happening. When a bill comes or a vote comes before the Senate, we have these rules, and there is a rule that says there is a cloture vote. What cloture means is that people say: OK. We have heard enough about this. We believe it is time to take a vote. I just heard the Senator from Illinois say we have been talking about this way too long. It is time to move beyond it. He left out a minor detail; that is, it takes 60 Members of the Senate to say we have heard enough about it. It is time to vote. But what is happening is that we have 42 Members of one party who are in the minority--42 Senators who are saying: No, we are not going to allow this to move to a final vote. We are not going to do it. We know it is not about debate. We know--as a matter of fact, the second highest officer on the Democratic side says we need to move on to other business. It is time to move on to other business, and what we need to do is invoke cloture and let's vote. But let me tell my colleagues what is really happening here. It has sort of taken on--I have said this several times--it has taken on kind of a Tammy Wynette kind of flavor: Let's stand by our man. Let's stand by our man. We don't want the President to have to deal with a resolution of disapproval; we want to protect him from that. We don't want to embarrass him, that there is a bipartisan--by the way, the smartest, most well-versed, deeply informed on policy Member on his side of the aisle is agreeing with the vast majority of the Senate--58 Senators-- saying this is not good for our Nation because this does not end the program. By the way, if this ended the program, do we know what would be happening? We would have 100 Senators saying: Let's vote to approve this. This is outstanding. The President achieved his stated goal. But since that isn't the case, what we want to do is send a resolution of disapproval to the President. But we have 42 Senators on the one hand saying let's move on and let's deal with funding government but on the other hand are not agreeing to a final vote. So we have one more chance. I just want to say this. We have a lot of partisanship that happens here. Let's face it, we do. I get it. It happens. I am going to have to say in this case, the majority leader has allowed me to work with my friends on the other side of the aisle. He has allowed me to move this through in an appropriate way. At every juncture--when my friends on the other side of the aisle felt as though something was occurring that was adding unnecessary temper or maybe something was getting out of line and we needed to alter our course of action--at every juncture, the majority leader said: Senator Corker, if you think this is the best way of moving ahead to keep the bipartisanship that I have had with Senator Cardin and Senator Menendez and so many others, have at it. I just want to remind people that as we entered this debate--as we know, there are all kinds of inflammatory amendments that could be added to this debate--the leader filled the tree. Now, for people out in the listening audience, fill the tree, what does that mean. What he did was he kept any inflammatory amendments from being offered. The only thing that is before us--I know he has filed an amendment now. After two times, the minority will not let us move to a final vote. I know there is going to be one that is tough--I don't know if it is that tough or not--to vote on this Thursday, but the fact is that the purpose has been for us to move to a final vote. Forty-two Senators will not allow us to have that vote of conscience. I want to say again to those listening in, the process vote of any debate is not a vote of conscience. That is not a vote of conscience. The vote of conscience is, when we take the final vote, do we believe that this Iran deal--the President's Iran deal--is something that is good for our country, will create stability in the region, and certainly will keep them from getting a nuclear weapon. Fifty-eight of us don't think so. Actually, I have to believe, from listening to the comments of many of my friends when they talk about how flawed it is, I think there is actually a whole lot of concern, even though sometimes-- and I understand when you have a President of your own party, sometimes it is hard to go against the President. I get that. I understand the pressures that come to play when that happens. But where we are, I say to the American people and to my fellow Senators, is we want to move to a final vote, an up-or-down vote, which, by the way, by the rules of the Senate, is a majority vote. We want to move to that. We have 42 Senators who are keeping us from that. What I hope is going to happen over the course of the next 24 hours is that a couple Senators, a few, will say: Look, we did vote 98 to 1 to register our feelings about the substance of this most important agreement. We did. We really did do that. Maybe it is appropriate that we, on behalf of the American people, not get stuck on this procedural issue, this cloture vote. We have debated this plenty, so let's go ahead and move to a final vote. That is what I hope is going to happen. I am thankful, though--I do want to say one more time--I thank people on both sides of the aisle for having the gumption to buck the administration and to put in place four tranches of sanctions to get them to the table. I thank both sides of the aisle--by the way, led by Senators Menendez and Kirk, led by the two of them, one Democrat and one Republican--we did that together. I thank people on both sides of the aisle for putting us in the position to actually have the documents, to know what this deal is about, to have this debate, to be able to weigh in. I want to say one more time that had the President done what he said he would do--and that is negotiate to end the program--we would have 100 people supporting it, but he didn't. We all know that. Everyone knows that is not what has happened. We have agreed to industrialize their program, let them do research and development, let them create delivery mechanisms to make sure they can send these nuclear warheads they are going to be on the verge of developing a long way across the oceans to places such as America and other places. I don't know why we did that, but we did. So now we just want a chance to vote yes or no. Do we believe this is an agreement that will stand the test of time? Is it something that is good for our country? Do we believe this is something that if Iran wishes to, will keep them from developing a nuclear weapon? I look forward to the comments of my friend from Michigan, and I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER

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

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, as you know, today we are going to have a number of speakers coming down to talk about the deal that has been negotiated between the P5+1 countries--China, Russia, Great Britain, Germany, France, and the United States--and Iran. What is before us today is something called a resolution of disapproval. I know the procedures we deal with sometimes here on the Senate floor can be very confusing to the public. We are going through a process where we are trying to seek cloture. Cloture is a vote where people decide whether they are going to end debate on a topic and move toward the final vote, to cast their vote on the substance of what is before us. We had a similar type of vote before we left on Thursday. We had 58 Senators--a bipartisan majority--who wanted to move to a final vote. As a matter of fact, we had Senators from both sides of the aisle on the floor for some time debating the issue. It was one of the most sober, respectful debates we have had since I have been in the Senate. But a minority of the Senators voted not to end the debate. In other words, that is what the general public believes is a filibuster. And it kept us from being able to move to a final vote. Because there has been some confusion, what I thought I would do is lay out what exactly is happening here and how we got to this process. Under our form of government, when the President enters into an international agreement, he decides as to whether that is going to be a treaty, which, as we know, requires a two-thirds approval by the Senate, or whether it is something called a congressional-executive agreement, which is a little bit lower threshold, or whether it is just a pure executive agreement, in other words, the President himself has the ability, if he so decides, to enter into an executive agreement. One of the problems with an executive agreement is that it doesn't live beyond that President's term. When you invoke an executive agreement, what you are really doing is bypassing the buy-in of Congress. As a matter of fact, last week on the floor, I thought Senator Flake made one of the most salient points that have been made; that is, since the President and his team decided to cut out Congress and to attempt to do an executive agreement, they made no attempt whatsoever to get the buy-in of Congress. That is why we have ended up in the situation we are in. When I realized that the President, through this process, was going to enter into this agreement solely by himself--an executive agreement, which he has the ability to do--but that he was also going to use something called a national security waiver to do so--again, this gets a little complicated, and foreign policy can sometimes be complicated. Congress, on four different occasions, passed overwhelmingly in this body and overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives something that puts sanctions in place on Iran to try to bring them to the negotiating table. We did it four times. I have to say that in almost every instance, the administration pushed back against us putting sanctions in place. They said, ``Oh, the other countries won't be with us, and this will create problems.'' What happened as a result of us saying ``No, we are going to sanction Iran; we are going to do what we can to bring them to the table to end their nuclear program'' was that the other countries fell in line. They put in place similar sanctions to the ones Congress put in place. When we passed those four sets of sanctions, we gave the President something that is common, and that is called a national security waiver, where, if a crisis came up, he had the ability to waive those sanctions if he thought it was in our country's national interest. So when he decided to enter into an executive agreement around these negotiations with Iran and bypass Congress, what he also decided he was going to do is to use his national security waiver to waive the sanctions Congress put in place. Some of us on this side of the aisle realized that was very problematic, that because we brought Congress to the table and because we put the sanctions in place, we thought it was inappropriate for the President to use the national security waiver. By the way, we realize now that he was going to put a national security waiver in place for 8\1/2\ years and come to Congress 8\1/2\ years down the road to waive those sanctions permanently. That would have been long after the essence of this deal was done and over. So we were able to work with the other side of the aisle and pass a bill that has put us in the position we are in today, and that is allowing Congress to weigh in before those congressionally mandated sanctions are waived. Of course, if those sanctions are not waived, then, in essence, the Iranian deal cannot go forward under the terms that have been laid out. A lot of people have said: Well, Congress gave away authority. They enabled the President to do this without entering into a treaty. That is totally untrue. The President has the ability to decide to enter into an international arrangement through an executive arrangement, as he has done, if he so chooses. Now, again, the problem with that is, it doesn't stand the test of time because the next President can come in and alter that. As a matter of fact, this is the first time I can remember that Congress has taken back authority from the President because what we really did was said: Mr. President, no, you cannot go forward with this deal until we have all of the information, both classified and unclassified, and it is paused for 60 days while we go through this review process, which we know ends--it is debatable because we don't have all the materials, but they would say it ends this week. So this process wouldn't even be occurring if Congress hadn't taken back the authority that we took back from the President, put this pause in place, and given ourselves the ability to either approve or disapprove--disapprove in this case because many people believe the President squandered this opportunity. Here we had brought this rogue nation to the table, had a boot on its neck, its economy was suffering, and here we have this rogue nation that somehow has ended up in a situation where the President and others have negotiated to allow them not to end their program, which is what was said in the beginning. By the way, let me just say that had the President held to what he said on the front end, which was that we are going to end Iran's nuclear program, what we would be having today is almost unanimous support for this agreement. But instead they squandered that opportunity--squandered it--and instead have agreed to allow them to industrialize their program and a whole host of other things that had nothing to do with the nuclear file. Let me go back to the process. The President decided he was going to go straight to the United Nations. Congress said: No, you are not going to do that. You are going to come to us, and we are going to decide whether we approve or disapprove. So we have a lot of people out there. Some, I guess, just don't understand. Some, I think, do understand, but they are trying to somehow or another create this narrative that Congress is enabling the President. The fact is, we would have liked to have had more of a say in this. I would have liked for this to have been a treaty. But since the President determines whether these are treaties or executive agreements--and he decided in this case it was an executive agreement-- again, what Congress has done is said no and taken back a degree of authority. Unfortunately, what is happening is we have a minority of 42 Senators who have decided they are not going to allow an up-or-down vote. That is what has happened. What was dismaying to me was that during August the minority leader decided he was going to filibuster. I have a lot of respect--I think people know we have worked closely together in trying to make the Senate work here. But I was very disappointed that somehow or another this was going to take on sort of a Tammy Wynette feel to it, if you will, that, you know, ``We are going to stand by our man. We are not going to cause him to have to veto a resolution of disapproval.'' Somehow or another, instead of this being the sober, serious debate we thought it was going to be where a majority of Senators were going to be able to express themselves, in order to protect the President from having to veto something that the majority of the Senate in a bipartisan way disapproves of, somehow or another, we have this process underway. I do wish to say to the leader of the Senate that I appreciate very much the fact that up until this point, what he has agreed to do and has done is he has filled the tree--again, another term that I am sure sounds very unusual to people who are watching the Senate floor and don't understand the process. What he has done is he has said: No--up until this point anyway--we are not going to have a bunch of amendments that are tough for people to vote on; we are going to keep the debate to one topic, and that is the resolution of disapproval. That is what this is for. So tonight, in a second effort, beginning at 6 o'clock this evening, we are going to have a vote. The vote is going to be about whether--I mean, this is what the essence of it is--it is about whether we should end the debate and move to final passage. I think plenty of people have had their say. Others are going to be coming to the floor today to talk about the merits of this deal and the demerits of this deal. But I would hope, again, that the minority, which seems intent on trying to keep the President from getting a resolution of disapproval, which the majority of people in this body believe should be the case--in order to keep him from having to veto the will of the Senate, a minority of people here are keeping that vote from taking place. I close by thanking my friends on the other side of the aisle for two things. I actually want to thank everybody in this body. Since 2010, four times the Senate has weighed in to put crippling sanctions on Iran. Those sanctions brought them to the table. That was something which was done in spite of the fact that the administration was pushing back. Secondly, this body, with a vote of 98 to 1, passed the Iranian review act--in short, now called Corker-Cardin. We passed that on a 98- to-1 basis knowing that the President was issuing a veto threat up to 1\1/2\ hours before the committee vote took place. When they realized they were going to be crushed--I hate to use that word--overwhelmed in that committee vote, they lifted their veto threat about 1\1/2\ hours before that took place. But, again, on a 98-to-1 basis, this body said: No, we want to weigh in. We want to have the right to approve or disapprove. We want to pause. We want to see all of the documents. By the way, we have had 12 hearings in the Foreign Relations Committee--12--and all kinds of other one-on-one briefings. So we have had plenty of time to look at this. As a matter of fact, the American people know more about this deal than they ever would have had that process not been put in place. Again, it was put in place because the President decided he wasn't going to cause this to be a treaty; he wasn't going to ask for us to weigh in; he wasn't going to ask us on behalf of the American people to approve it; he was going to do it himself and go directly to the U.N. Security Council. As a matter of fact, he has done that. As a matter of fact, they moved the implementation date back so we could have our chance of weighing in in this way. Certainly, we would love to have much greater power and authority over this. So thank you to everyone here for putting the sanctions in place. Thank you for allowing us to weigh in. Let me remind people that if the President had achieved the goals he set out to end Iran's nuclear program--in other cases, he said dismantle Iran's nuclear program--what would be happening on the floor today is there would be an overwhelming, I would say unanimous vote in support of what the President did. But what is happening is we have a bipartisan majority that opposes this. And even those people who have come out in support of this have done so tepidly. They have talked about all the problems in the agreement. As a matter of fact, now there is a huge push to try to come up with a Middle East policy because we know we have none to push back against what is in this agreement. I am going to have more to say, but I realize my good friend Senator Hoeven is here. I wish I had known 4 minutes ago he was here. I have gone 4 minutes into his time, and I yield the floor. But I want to remind people in closing: Had the President done what he said the goal of the negotiation was--to end their program--we would have unanimous support. Instead, we have a bipartisan majority that opposes this bill, and we have a minority that has kept us, once, from being able to vote up or down. I hope with tonight's vote that will not be the case. I hope we will have the opportunity to send a resolution of disapproval to the President. I know he has said he would veto that, but I think it is important for us and the will of the body and the will of the country to be heard, and for it to reach the President's desk. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER. It is my understanding that we are equally dividing the time.

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

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I have an inquiry relative to the remaining time. I am not understanding what the quorum call time is doing relative to the splitting of time.

Mr. CORKER. And my understanding was that request was made and granted; is that correct?

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I know the public is greatly confused by cloture motions, and I will say, even as the person in charge of the bill, I am confused also, but I will let that stand, and I thank the Chair. I know the next speaker we are hoping to hear from will be Senator Cornyn at 2 p.m., Senator Scott at 2:20, Senator Blunt at 2:30, and then Senator Heller at 3 o'clock. I hope they will be down soon, and I will let the time be accruing against both sides by suggesting the absence of a quorum. I ask unanimous consent that during the period of time there is a quorum call, it be charged equally to both sides.

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

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Indiana, who served as Ambassador to Germany, who has been so diligent in the pursuit of truth and knowledge relative to this agreement and obviously is very concerned about its implications. He has been a stalwart. He is leaving the Senate at the end of this congressional term. We all are indebted to him for his tremendous concerns for our Nation's national security and the efforts of diplomacy to try to resolve the problems we have. I know we have another speaker coming to floor in just one moment, but really because of what the Senator just said, I want to reiterate one more time as to why we are where we are. Four times since 2010, the Senate overwhelmingly, working with the House, put in place sanctions on Iran--four times. That was met with tremendous pushback from the administration, which did not want to see those sanctions put in place by Congress. But those sets of sanctions are the very things that brought Iran to the table. The administration, along with Russia, China, Great Britain, France, and Germany, began negotiations with Iran because of the sanctions we overwhelmingly put in place in this body. Once they were about to reach a conclusion, the administration decided that instead of giving this to us in the form of a treaty--which is their choice. It is their choice under our form of government. I know we have a lot of people in our country who are very upset about this, but, in fact, it is their choice. They could have presented it as a congressional-executive agreement, which does live beyond that, but they decided instead that they were going to do it as an executive agreement and totally bypass Congress. That was their purpose. As a matter of fact, I wrote a letter to the President, and they responded very quickly: Yes, our plan is to bypass Congress and go directly to the U.N. Security Council. We are going to do this as an executive agreement. That obviously met with a lot of resistance here, but it is their choice. But the problem with that, of course, is that it only lasts while they are in office, and then the next Executive can change. Because all of us had brought Iran to the table and because the administration had planned to use a national security waiver to waive our sanctions--the ones that brought them to the table--we resisted. We began on our side of the aisle, saying: No, we want a voice in this. We brought them to the table. This is the biggest foreign policy issue that is going to occur while we are here, in all likelihood. We began pushing on this side of the aisle, and eventually we were able to get some support on this side of the aisle. Eventually we passed 98 to 1 a bill called the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, which, by the way, took back power from the President, basically saying: You cannot implement this for a 60-day period after it ends. You have to give us the materials. We have to be able to go through all the materials. Of course, we haven't gotten all of the materials. Then we have the right to disapprove or approve. But there is going to be a pause on behalf of the American people, we are going to go through this in detail, and then we are going to vote. That was actually a taking back of power from the administration which kept them from immediately being able to implement. We are in that period of time now. The administration has said the clock ends on Thursday. We are having this vote, but everybody has said in this body that this is a vote of conscience. Everybody has said that. By the way, I would add that overwhelming support for sanctions, overwhelming support for review--there would be an overwhelming vote of approval had the administration done what they said they were going to do when they began these negotiations, which was to end Iran's nuclear program. Had they done that, we would be seeing a totally different outcome here. There would be 100 people here voting in support of an agreement. But what they did was they squandered that opportunity--squandered it. Instead, with U.S. approval, Iran will be industrializing its nuclear program. Research and development will take place. All Iran has to do is adhere to the agreement, and it will be an advanced nuclear country. Again, if they had just done what they said, we would be supporting them. So now here we are. The American people have difficulty. We are in a process right now. In the Senate, we have something called cloture. When both sides of the aisle feel as though the debate has ended, we invoke cloture and then we move to the final vote. We have had plenty of debate. By the way, in the Foreign Relations Committee, we have had 12 hearings, not to count the informal meetings that have taken place. Every Senator in this body probably knows more about this nuclear deal than any international arrangement that has been agreed to in recent times. I mean, people have gone through it tooth and comb. So what is happening now is that we have a bipartisan majority that opposes this deal. What has happened--it is unfortunate, but Senator Reid--I don't know whether he saw this as a contest between himself and the majority. I don't know what happened. But in August, he decided he wanted to mount a filibuster. It is our understanding that the administration supported that filibuster. They wanted the Senate to block us from being able to vote our conscience. This next vote is not a vote of conscience. It is not. It is a demonstration of 42 Senators--at least that is what happened last time--42 Senators--a minority--refusing to let the majority, a bipartisan majority--the 2 most knowledgeable Democrats on foreign policy issues oppose this agreement. What they are doing is blocking us from having that vote of conscience. It has taken on a little bit of a Tammy Wynette kind of tone to me. It appears to me that this is about standing by their man. It is not about allowing us to vote our conscience. So, yes, people are upset. Almost unanimous support for sanctions to bring them to the table. Only one Senator disagreeing with our ability to weigh in. Now we are at a point where it is time to weigh in, and the minority leader, my friend from Nevada, has organized, with the administration's support, a filibuster, which is, by the way, put in place to make sure there is enough debate. We know there has been enough debate. But instead of allowing debate to end, tonight it appears. I hope there are some consciences in this body that say: Wait a minute, this is wrong. By the way, I know people say: Well, this is just the way the Senate operates. I will tell you this: I have voted for enough things I disagree strongly with to make the Senate work to be able to make this appeal to my friends. Look, 98 of us voted to allow us to vote up or down on whether we agree with the substance of this deal. It is totally inappropriate, from my perspective, that a minority of Senators, all on one side of the aisle--definitely a partisan act, a very partisan act-- appear intended to keep the President from getting a message of disapproval from the Senate. It appears to me that what they are going to do is do it again. I want to say to my friends on the other side of the aisle that our leader here has honored the request of the body--at least up until now. He has honored the request to be about a resolution of approval or disapproval. In this case, since a majority disapprove, it is a resolution of disapproval, but what we have seen him do is fill the tree. A lot of people don't know what that means, so I will explain. We could have had a lot of amendments--and up until this point we haven't had these amendments--that would have been pretty tough votes to make that are related to this arrangement, but not about the disapproval itself. What our leader has done--in order to keep the debate civil, sober, and focused on what we are here at hand about--he has actually filled the tree and kept those amendments from coming in place. We will have another vote at 6 p.m. We will keep it open for a couple of hours because it is a Jewish holiday, and we want to make sure that all of our colleagues can get back here and have the opportunity to register their vote. I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle: Is this really in keeping with the spirit of what we have done? I have had friends say: Well, we have known all along that it would take 60 votes. It doesn't take but a week here to understand that a cloture vote has to be overcome, and in the Senate that takes 60 votes. My friend from Virginia keeps saying: Well, we all know it takes 60 votes. Look, I understand. The American people understand that it takes 60 votes to move beyond cloture to get to a final vote, which, by the way, is an up-or-down vote at 51. So the American people understand what is happening: 42 Senators on the other side of the aisle, my friends, after voting 98 to 1 that we could weigh in, have decided that what they are going to do is keep us from being able to vote the majority, up or down, because they know if we do, a bipartisan majority--the two most knowledgeable Democrats on foreign policy disapprove it, making it 58 votes--would be able to send to the President the feelings of this body, and that is the majority believes that this deal should be disapproved and that the administration has squandered the opportunity that we helped create because they did not end the nuclear program. Instead what they have done with this deal was to basically legitimize it. As the Presiding Officer mentioned the other day, we are going to be helping them with technology. They will continue with research and development. We have lifted the ballistic-missile ban, the conventional ban, and we are going to agree to let them begin testing missiles immediately. As our Presiding Officer mentioned the other day: What do they need ICBMs for? Think about it. What do they need them for? I know it is time for Senator Moran to speak on the floor, so I will close with this: The American people know they have no practical need for this program--none. They have one nuclear plant. They could buy and enrich uranium much cheaper. We know this is about one thing, and that is them being a nuclear state, and, in essence, we are agreeing to the industrialization of their program. With that, I yield the floor to Senator Moran.

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I am moved by the comments of my friend. He told me the story regarding the discussion with his 8-year-old grandson. I wish to reiterate that had the President and those he designated to negotiate done what they said they were going to do--and that was to end Iran's nuclear program, something we all celebrated--and if the good Senator could say to his grandson that is what we got out of the deal, what we would have here today is unanimous support of approval. This body was so involved in bringing Iran to the table. It is unbelievable the way--in these days and times, since 2010, four times the Senate has voted almost unanimously to put sanctions in place to bring Iran to the table. It is also hard to believe the administration took the one issue that has caused us to almost have unanimity which, let's face it, is rare in these times--the one issue where we have had almost unanimity is to bring it to the table by passing sanctions and then give us a right to weigh in. They were trying to go around Congress by going directly to the U.N. Security Council. But what they did on an issue that the American people are solidly behind--and that is Iran not having nuclear weapons--what they did was squander-- squander--the one opportunity for this body to act in unison; that is, to approve what they have done. As the Senator just mentioned, what they have agreed to--what the partisan minority Senators on the other side of the aisle will not even allow us to vote on--vote our disapproval where a bipartisan majority disapproves--what they have agreed to, literally, is, with U.S. approval, Iran can industrialize their nuclear program, can develop long-range missiles, can be involved in research and development, which makes the IR-1 centrifuges, where all the focus has been, look like antiques compared to what they are going to be--what they are developing right now, and we are allowing them to do that. Again, this is in a country that has no need for a nuclear program--none. I mean, there is no practical need for the pain they have put their citizens through for the past several years under these crushing sanctions that brought them to the table that we put in place--no reason for that. They want to be a threshold nuclear country, and our government--our officials--has agreed to that. They have agreed to that at a time when we have no Middle East policy--none. We are watching on television refugees from countries that are the result of the fact that we have no Middle East policy. In that vacuum, this Nation--this administration, without this being disapproved and sent back--this Nation is going to agree to the industrialization of the No. 1 state sponsor of terror, which is propping up the regime that is causing all of these refugees to be flooding into Europe and other places. With that, I see Senator Cassidy of Louisiana who has been such a stalwart on national security issues, and I will yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I do want to clarify, the bill specifically states regular order. It is not the rule of the Senate that final votes are on 60 votes. They are on a majority vote. I don't want anybody in the Senate or certainly the public to think that somehow we have a rule that bills pass on 60 votes. That is not the case. That has been a tradition on major issues, but that is not the rule. The bill specifically states we will settle under regular order, which means when cloture is invoked--which hopefully will happen tonight--we will have a simple majority vote, up or down.

Mr. CORKER. If it is brief. I know people have a meeting to go to.

Mr. CORKER. It is a major issue.