Bob Corker

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. I am hoping we are going to be able to vote our conscience on this major issue by getting cloture invoked. I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call with respect to the cloture motions on amendment No. 2640 and H.J. Res. 61.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I notice a discussion taking place. I wish to speak for approximately 10 minutes prior to the vote, assuming that is acceptable to the minority.

Mr. CORKER. I thank the Senator very much. I will be very brief. I made these points earlier today, but I would just like to remind people as to why we are having this vote this evening. Almost unanimously, on four different occasions since 2010, Congress passed sanctions. Both sides of the aisle strongly supported sanctions being imposed upon Iran to bring them to the negotiating table. That was something which was very strongly bipartisan. When it came time to bring them to the table and begin negotiations, the President declared the goal was to end their nuclear program, and they began negotiations. And by the way, we celebrated that goal. I think there would be unanimous support for the agreement had that goal been achieved. But the President then declared that instead of bringing this as a treaty, which typically would be the case for an international agreement, or bringing it as a congressional-executive agreement, he was going to call this an executive agreement so that only he would be involved in it. That being known to this body, again in a very strong, bipartisan way--98 to 1--we voted for the first time since I have been here to take power away from the President and to keep him from invoking the national security waivers he had with the sanctions and to say: No, we want 60 days to go through this deal and we want the right to approve or disapprove and to vote our conscience. Let me say one more time that had the President achieved his goal, we would have unanimous support here supporting the deal itself. We would all be supportive of ending their program. But the administration squandered that opportunity and instead has agreed to the industrialization of their program, their development of intercontinental ballistic missiles, their development of even faster centrifuges to ensure they are a nuclear threshold state. What the public may not understand is taking place here now--we have had a debate. We had 12 hearings in the Foreign Relations Committee. We have had all kinds of Senators debating. As a matter of fact, Senators know more about the Iran deal than probably any international agreement in modern history. It has been studied and debated. So the minority, 42 Senators--I might say a partisan minority because they are all Democrats--a bipartisan 58 Senators--the 2 Senators who know more about foreign policy issues than any other Senators on the Democratic side oppose this deal. And now, in keeping with the Iran review act, the majority, a bipartisan majority, is wishing to have the opportunity to vote on the substance of the deal. What is happening is my friend the minority leader, who is here, began saying in August that he wanted to filibuster this, and my understanding is the administration has supported that. So what we have now is a partisan minority of people who are keeping the spirit of the Iran review act from coming into play by blocking our ability to actually vote up or down. That is what is happening. I want to make sure the American people understand that. I know Members of this body understand that. I want to close with this. Our majority leader, on every occasion where there has been an opportunity for this to devolve into something that was partisan and there was concern on the other side of the aisle about certain things that were occurring, at every point, the majority leader has acquiesced and agreed for things to progress in a way that the minority would feel that this was not a partisan effort. I wish to also point out that the majority leader, when we brought this resolution of disapproval to the floor, filled the tree. He filled the tree. My friends on the other side of the aisle did not want a bunch of amendments; they wanted only to vote on a resolution of approval or disapproval. In this case, since there is a bipartisan majority in support of disapproval, that is what we are hoping to vote on. But, unfortunately, what is happening again, it appears tonight based on the spirit, although I hope something changes--just last week, 42 Senators blocked the ability of the Senate to end debate and actually vote on the substance of the deal. I hope that changes. I hope tonight at least two Senators on the other side of the aisle will give us the ability to express ourselves on the substance of the deal and not block a bipartisan majority of Members who want to express themselves through a vote of disapproval. I yield the floor, and I thank the Senator for the time.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. I agree.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, just inquiring--it is my understanding that Senator Warner and Senator Coons are to speak now. Is that correct?

Mr. CORKER. It is my understanding that we have agreed to that.

Mr. CORKER. How much time is left? That is really what I was getting at.

Mr. CORKER. It is my understanding, then, that we will have that and then we move to an alternating session until the time of the vote. Is that correct?

Mr. CORKER. And there is 10 minutes left on the Democratic side?

Mr. CORKER. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we are now going to have brief comments, alternating between the two sides. We will begin with Senator Gardner.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I was not planning to speak--I know Senator Capito is next in line--but I am really disappointed in my friend from Virginia indicating that somehow people on this side of the aisle did not study this deal, did not spend time understanding the details, and somehow people on this side of the aisle, in a knee-jerk way, made their decision. That is an insult, not something I would expect--not something I would expect to come from my friend on the other side of the aisle. I have enjoyed so much working with him and I will continue to. I respect him greatly. But, look, I don't want to start tit-for-tatting this. Certainly Senator Feinstein came out immediately in support of this, Nancy Pelosi came out immediately in support of this, and no doubt there were some people on this side of the aisle that did the same. I came out in opposition for this after--after--two Democrats had come out in opposition. So I wish those comments had not been made. We had 12 hearings in the Foreign Relations Committee, well attended by people on both sides of the aisle. I just take offense that somehow, because there is bipartisan opposition and only partisan support--that somehow those who support are more bipartisan. Now, I don't know. That is a leap I have not heard. I have said hundreds of times that if this deal achieved what the President said it was going to achieve, I would be voting for it. If this dismantled Iran's nuclear program, I would be voting for it. If this didn't industrialize their program, I would be voting for it. He said it would end their nuclear program. There would be 100 votes on the floor for that. This is a far cry from that. So I am sorry to have this kind of conversation on the Senate floor, but I have to say I have sat here listening to the speeches. I think people on both sides of the aisle have thought a great deal about this. I do think there has been extreme pressure. My friends on the other side of the aisle have told me they have never been addressed in such a personal manner by the administration--never. So, yes, there has been pressure. I understand that, by the way. If the shoe were on the other foot, it would be taking place. I got that. But, look, I think the debate has been thoughtful. I think, by and large, the vast majority of people on both sides of the aisle have been thoughtful. After the debate we have had, I am discouraged that my friend on the other side of the aisle would indicate that somehow because there is bipartisan opposition--bipartisan opposition--the most informed Members on the other side of the aisle, the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee and the former ranking member and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, are voting against that-- and because we happen to agree with the leading Members on the Democratic side, we are partisan? So I am sorry. Now, back to the procedure. There is no question--I have said this over and over--I understand regular order, and this bill was drafted under regular order. I got it. I understand that certainly the procedures in this body are that cloture is to end debate, and that takes 60 votes. I got it. It doesn't take but about a week here to understand the importance of cloture. So I have always known, and I have said this, that a threshold to get us to a place for final passage was going to be 60 votes. But we also passed the bill with 98 votes that said we wanted to vote. One Senator was missing who supported it. It would have been 99 to 1. So, look, I understand there can be debate about filibuster and all of that, but to say there was some preagreement--I mean, the text of the deal, the text of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act says that we are going to go through regular order. We caught a lot of grief over that as a matter of fact. I am sorry. A lot of people on our side wanted a privileged motion. We understand the leader on the other side didn't like privileged vehicles because he felt he lost control of the floor. We discussed that thoroughly last January. So, look, I understand how cloture is used. I understand how cloture is used. I got it. I understand it takes 60 votes, people in here saying, yes, we agree that we should end debate and, yes, we want to move on. I know that hasn't happened today. I understand a lot of times cloture is used as a vote, as you just indicated you believe that it does, but I just want to say, again, there has been no agreement. We understand the threshold. We understand the hurdle. We understand we didn't achieve it today. But to say that Members on this side somehow-- because we agree with the leading Members on the other side that this deal doesn't accomplish the goals the President said he wanted to achieve, that that makes us partisan, I am sorry, I disagree. We had many discussions in our office about the merits of this and the demerits of this. The fact is, I do think this agreement is fatally flawed. I am despondent over the fact that when we had a boot on the neck of this rogue nation that is the No. 1 exporter of terrorism around the world--when we had a boot on their neck--we gave away our leverage, and in 9 months--in 9 months--they are going to have all their money back, the major sanctions relieved, and no apparent change of behavior. Even Secretary Kerry in his letter to us said he doesn't expect that. So, look, I am disappointed that we have agreed, that the administration has agreed, and that, unfortunately, a minority of people in this body agree, and they have kept us from being able to send a disapproval to the President to veto. I am disappointed, when an agreement has been agreed to by this the President and by others that allows them to industrialize their nuclear program and gives them incredible--incredible--economic access. I think maybe the Senator might have responded to some recent comments on the floor. I hope that is the case. But I haven't seen anything but dignity on this floor over the last several days, people being incredibly knowledgeable--which they never would have been without this bill that the Senator from Virginia helped us bring about, crucial, in helping make that occur. But what has happened here is everybody in this body now knows more about this than they ever would have. Everyone has taken the time, I think, to understand this in great detail. And just because there are a few people who come out quickly on our side and on your side--and on your side--that doesn't diminish the fact that people have arrived at their decisions based on conscience as to whether they support it or not. I am disappointed, on the other hand, that we weren't able to move beyond cloture and to a final vote. With that, I yield the floor. My understanding is Senator Capito now has the floor.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I know the time has ended. I know that Senator Daines wants to speak very briefly. Senator Durbin is allowing that as long as we give back some time at a later moment. If we might have 3 minutes.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, first, I thank our honored President pro tempore for his outstanding comments. But while my distinguished friend from Illinois is on the floor, I thought I would walk through a unanimous consent request, if that is OK. I think it has been cleared with him. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time be further divided as follows: from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. would be Republican time, from 11 a.m. to 12 p.m. would be Democratic time, from 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. would be Republican time, from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. would be Democratic time, from 2 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. would be Republican time, from 2:30 p.m. to 3 p.m. would be Democratic time, from 3 p.m. to 3:45 p.m. it be equally divided between the leaders or their designees, and that Senator Menendez be given 15 minutes of the Republican time and 15 minutes of the Democrat time.

Mr. CORKER. Yes, that is correct.

Mr. CORKER. Thank you. Mr. President, so our side knows what will occur between now and the end of our time, the next 15 minutes will be for Senator Graham, then 10 minutes to Senator Barrasso, and then 10 minutes to Senator Flake. With that, I yield the floor to one of the best national security voices in the United States of America, Senator Graham of South Carolina.

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I want to thank the Senator for his comments. Just so we know how we are organized on this side for the next hour--and I think we are about evened up on the time, maybe 3 minutes more needs to come our way but roughly even. For the next 30 minutes, we have Senator Coats, one of our outstanding foreign policy, national security Senators, who served as an ambassador; 15 minutes for Senator Grassley; and 15 minutes for Senator Roberts. I thank you so much for being here and your incredibly responsible way of facing this issue.

Mr. CORKER. Again, Madam President, I thank my colleague very much for his passionate comments and his concern from day one about this agreement. I think we ran over a little bit. I know Senator Brown of Ohio ran over. If I can ask how much time remains on our side, I think we maybe go to 1:04 p.m., at least, or something like that.

Mr. CORKER. So I know you all each asked for 15. If we could make it, instead, 14 each, so it is equally divided, Senator Roberts will enjoy that. This will be equally divided between our distinguished Senator Grassley and Senator Roberts, and I thank them for letting me intervene and thank them both for being here.

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, he may conclude.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, before I make closing comments, I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call with respect to the cloture vote this afternoon.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I wish to begin by thanking the vast majority of this body for the fact that over--for four times since 2010, Members of this body almost unanimously passed sanctions that brought Iran to the table--people on both sides of the aisle. I want to thank people for that. I want to thank this body for another reason. When we realized that the President was going to negotiate with Iran and do so through what was called a nonbinding political commitment and that he was going to take this agreement directly to the U.N. Security Council--he was not going to cause it to be a treaty, but he was going to cause it to be an agreement that he could execute without our involvement--because of the fact that we brought Iran to the table through the sanctions that we collectively put in place, we rose up and we passed a bill on a 98-to-1 basis that allowed us to go through this process we are going through today. I want to thank Senator Cardin, who has been an outstanding ranking member. I want to thank Senator Menendez before him, who was an outstanding chairman and ranking member. What this agreement said we would do is we would debate. I want to stop there and say that I think we have had a dignified debate. People on both sides of the aisle have handled themselves as Senators, and I am very proud of that. The other piece of that was that we would vote, that we would let the people of this country know where we stood. We have a bipartisan majority that disapproves of this deal. The most substantial foreign policy people on the Democratic side oppose this deal. Always we have known that yes, we were going to do this under regular order, and under regular order what that means is there is this procedural vote where the Senate decides that debate has ended and we are going to move to a final vote. We are at that juncture, and I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that on a 98-to-1 basis voted to allow us to vote to now vote yes on this cloture motion, to allow the Members of this Senate, who have handled themselves so responsibly, to be able to record on a majority basis where we stand on this issue. The majority of the people in the Senate believe that this deal that has been negotiated is not in the national interest of this country, will not make our Nation or the Middle East safer, and I hope that all of us are going to have that opportunity to vote after we pass this procedural hurdle. I hope that all Members will vote to allow this to proceed to a final vote within the next few days. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER

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

Mr. CORKER. I say that for the convenience of people on our side who may come and go. That is the order. I know that obviously--how much time does the Democratic side have?

Mr. CORKER. So just based on the process put forward by the minority whip--obviously we will have one more speaker over here. I assume you will have Democrats to fill the time on your side until 5. I want to make that known to people. Thank you.