Cory Gardner

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the adjournment of the Senate, that the Record be kept open on August 6, from 11:30 a.m. until 1:30 p.m. for the introduction of bills and resolutions, statements, and cosponsor requests.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the adjournment of the Senate, committees be allowed to file bills and reports on August 6, from 11:30 a.m. until 1:30 p.m., and August 28, from 12 noon until 2 p.m.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of all nominations on the Secretary's desk in the Foreign Service except for the list which is at the desk; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc; that 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; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. GARDNER

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 230 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 185, S. 1347.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of and the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 228.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Environment and Public Works Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2559 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Environment and Public Works Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2131 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 192, H.R. 1531.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendment be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 187, S. 1362.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bills be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bills be printed in the Record, all en bloc.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 163, H.R. 720.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, today I honor the veterans of Honor Flight Northern Colorado that have made their 14th trip to Washington, DC to visit the memorials that stand in our Nation's Capital. This group includes veterans from various wars and generations, but all are linked by their service to our country. Ten years ago, the Honor Flight was created to fly veterans that had served in World War II to Washington, DC so they could visit their memorial located in our Nation's Capital. Now, the Honor Flight welcomes veterans from all over the country to fly to Washington, DC, free of charge, to visit the memorials of the wars these heroic veterans fought. Of the 123 veterans on the most recent Honor Flight, 25 served in World War II, 59 served in Korea, and 39 served in Vietnam. Few words are sufficient to show the gratitude and respect we all have for the courageous men and women who have fought for our country. They have preserved our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We stand here today to honor those who have risked their lives to protect the United States of America. Please join me in honoring Earnest Adams, Paul Babish, Oliver Bashor, Russell Brady, Martin Bunker, Arthur Crosthwait, Michael DeJiacomo, N Kenneth Furlong, Francis Gallagher, Roland Garner, Harold Hubbard, Erling Johnson, Howard Johnston, William Karr, John Kennedy, Herbert Leis, Charles Linhart, Russell MacCachran, Ray Madsen, Harriet Martin, Fred McClory, David Meier, Ronald Smith, Donald Stonebraker, Leo Weaver, Charles Archibeque, Donald Anderson, William Bacon, Bobby Barker, Louis Barrientos, Virgil Beck, Jack Benham, Alfred Benson Jr., James Birdsell, George Blake, Thomas Bornhoft, Robert Brezee, Alfred Brophy, Ralph Carlson, Charles Campion, Lewis Carder, Richard Cella, Marinus Christensen, Kenneth Clements, Earnest Cummins, Robert Davenport, Donald Deboodt, Kenneth Doty, Joseph Eckert, James Hagihara, Norman Harpole, Richard Hecker, Bobby Jones, Roy Kipfinger Jr., Richard Korth, John Lebsack, Robert Lionberger, Donald Matula, Paul McDill, Lawrence McGlone, Raymond Miller, Clifford Morey, Richard Orton, Placido Pando, William Peebles, Lupe Rodriguez, Evaristo Sanchez, Michael Schaughency, James Schofield, Earl Simmons, Frederick Smith, Ralph Spellman, James Stallard, James Stewart, William Strunk, Wilbur Tritthardt, Henry Trujillo, Melvin Veldhuizen, Allan Walcker, Orlin Williams, Charles Wood Jr., Donald Wuertz, Clarke Wykert, Rudolph Younger, Larry Arndt, Bruce Axelrod, Marvin Bartholomew, Jim Biggs, Alexander Bless, Clyde Brewer II, Randy Brooks, Lanny Clary, Guy Coombes, Robert Cowan, Robert Chapman, Waldo Decker, David DeJiacomo, Terry Diedrich, Kenneth Gareis, Bonifacio Hernandez, Larry Huddle, David Jovola, Donald Ketels, Clarke Lambert, Gary Lebsack, Dewey Mattly, Lorrie McLaughlin, Calvin Melcher, Irving Morales, Bryan Morgan, Richard Orton, Norman Peterson, James Porth, James Ray, Stephen Ray, Dave Sloan, Lawrence Stoddard, Harley Sullivan, Michael Torgerson, Andrew Valdez, Gregory Walent, Daryl Wiest, and Terry Wright.

Mr. GARDNER

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

Mr. GARDNER. Madam President, I rise today to join many of my colleagues in the Senate to express grave concerns with the currently proposed Iran deal from the administration. This deal is fundamentally at odds with the goals that these negotiations set out to achieve in the first place, which were to prevent a nuclear Iran. In fact, this deal does the opposite. It provides a patient pathway to the nation of Iran. With this deal, the administration has granted international blessing to a full-scale Iranian nuclear program in 15 years. With this deal, we let Iran keep its most prized nuclear assets, such as advanced centrifuges and to convert but not dismantle its nuclear reactors at Arak and Fordow. With this deal, the anytime, anyplace access to all of Iran's nuclear facilities became managed access. With this deal, inspectors need 24-day permission from Tehran to access their military facilities such as Parchin, which we know were used for nuclear weaponization work in the past. With this deal, our economic leverage in Iran through the sanctions regime that was painstakingly built over a number of years will be completely squandered. With this deal, Iran will rebuild its economy and add economic resilience against future sanctions through $100 to $150 billion in economic relief and lifting the sanctions. With this deal, the arms embargo on Iran will be lifted in a mere 5 years, allowing the regime to double down on its terrorism activities, including its support for Hezbollah, Hamas, and the murderous Assad regime in Syria. With this deal, the ballistic missile embargo will be ended in 8 years. The ballistic missile embargo against Iran will be lifted in 8 years, directly endangering Israel and further down the line, the U.S. homeland. As with many aspects of this agreement, hard-nosed verification gives way to Iran's wishes. According to the new U.N. Security Council resolution, Iran is ``called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons.'' That is the U.N. Security Council resolution. What if Iran ignores the call of the international community, as it has done through decades of deception and violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions? There is no other way to describe this deal other than as a massive win for the Iranian regime at the expense of the national security of the United States and our closest allies. The leaders of the nation of Israel, the nation which Iran has threatened to ``wipe off the face of the earth'' have agreed. Has the President listened to our military and the intelligence community before concluding this terrible deal? The 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review said: Even as Iran pledges not to pursue nuclear weapons, Iran's other destabilizing activities will continue to pose a threat to the Middle East, especially to the security of our allies and partners in the region and around the world. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, testified that ``under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on Iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking.'' Defense Secretary Ash Carter said: ``We want [Iran] to continue to be isolated as a military and limited in terms of the kinds of equipment and material they are able to procure.'' Yet we have the conventional arms embargo lifted in 5 years and the ballistic missile embargo in 8 years under this deal. The deal achieves none of those goals, but instead lets Iran off the hook to pursue arms exports and ballistic missile activities in only a few short years. Yesterday I had the opportunity to engage Secretary Kerry, Secretary Moniz, and Secretary Lew at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I was left confounded and stunned by their responses. I questioned Secretary Lew about several of the top nuclear figures who will be given sanctions relief under this deal. These are individuals who are given sanctions relief under this deal: Mohsen Fakhrizadeh-Mahabadi, known as the father of the Iranian nuclear program; Mr. Abbasi, whom the United Nations blacklisted in 2009 for being a close aide to Mr. Fakhrizadeh and working on nuclear programs in Iran and their very own ballistic missile program; and Gerhard Wisser, a German engineer who in 2007 was convicted and sentenced to 18 years in prison by a South African court for his role in supplying centrifuge components to the A.Q. Khan black market network of nuclear proliferation. They received sanctions relief under this deal. When I asked Secretary Lew what message these delistings will send to proliferators around the world, his response was: I think that the message is if you violate the rules and develop nuclear weapons and we and the world take action against you--it will have significant consequence. But if you reach an agreement and you unwind your nuclear program that also will have consequence. The moral of the story, according to testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is if you cheat long enough on a large enough scale, the United States will negotiate to give you complete amnesty from the consequences. It is a simply stunning outcome. When I asked Secretary Kerry whether lifting the ballistic missile embargo will make Israel safer, his response was this: ``absolutely no question whatsoever that Israel is safer.'' On the question of whether to lift the ballistic missile embargo against Iran, the Secretary of State believes that it will put Israel in a safer position to give the Iranians ballistic missiles by lifting the embargo. In fact, the Prime Minister has said in response to lifting a variety of sanctions, not including the ballistic missile embargo: ``I think to give Iran these capabilities is a grave mistake.'' Yet Secretary Kerry believes that by lifting the embargo--the ballistic missile embargo against Iran--there is absolutely no question whatsoever that it makes Israel safer. My guess is Prime Minister Netanyahu would certainly disagree with that statement. As he has already said, it would be a grave mistake. It is not just Prime Minister Netanyahu who believes it would be a grave mistake. It is the leaders on both the left and the right in Israel, who believe that lifting these provisions is a grave mistake. To Secretary Moniz, I quoted a top former IAEA official--an agency that was brought up before throughout the committee hearing, an agency that has done this time and again and that we rely on, respect, and trust to carry out the elements of this deal. Former IAEA official Olli Heinonen said of this inspection regime: ``A 24-day adjudicated timeline reduces detection probabilities exactly where the system is weakest: detecting undeclared facilities and materials.'' This deal gives 24-day notice, not anytime, anywhere inspections--24- day notice. It is not anytime, anywhere, 24-day notice, which will allow them to hide and to be able to present facilities and materials in an undetected and undeclared manner. Secretary Moniz responded to this question: ``We have to know where to look, and that's the traditional role of intelligence--ours and those of our allies and friends.'' If we are relying on intelligence to know where to look, what access did we actually gain from the deal with Iran? Finally, I asked the Secretaries how many imprisoned Americans will be freed as part of the deal. We all know the answer is none. Yet the father of Iran's nuclear program will receive sanctions relief. Deal or no deal, four Americans, including Pastor Abedini will continue to languish in Iranian jails. Deal or no deal, we will know nothing more about the whereabouts of Bob Levinson. Deal or no deal, this administration continues to leave American citizens as prisoners to Iran. These American citizens being held captive are but one more reminder of the regime we are dealing with and why they are not an equal and should not be treated as an equal negotiating partner. Let us never forget the nature of the regime that was on the other side of the bargaining table. On October 23, 1983, a terrorist attack on the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, killed 241 American service men and women. Hezbollah, the wholly owned subsidiary of Iran, is widely believed to have been behind the attack. Last week, Gen. Joseph Dunford, the President's nominee to lead the Joint Chiefs of Staff was asked about Americans killed in Iraq and Afghanistan by Iranian-supported militants. General Dunford said: ``I know the total number of soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines that were killed by Iranian activities and the number has been recently quoted as about 500.'' So can a regime that has killed at least 700 American soldiers be relied upon to implement this deal in good faith and in a constructive atmosphere based on mutual respect as stated in the text of the agreement? Does the Iranian regime deserve mutual respect from the United States? It does not and it should not. President Obama insists that the only alternative to this deal is war with Iran. That is a false choice and should be rejected. The alternative to this deal is what the administration said it would achieve; that is, a good deal based on continued economic pressure and a genuine dismantling of Iranian nuclear programs verified by what was said would happen all along, anytime, anywhere inspections, as promised by the administration. The President has gone to the United Nations to approve this deal without giving Congress or the American people a chance to consider the consequences of this agreement. I urge my colleagues to reject this Iranian nuclear gambit that endangers U.S. national security, the safety of our friends and allies around the world, and empowers the largest State sponsor of terrorism in the world. I yield the floor.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the west coast port slowdown and comments that were made by the administration as they relate to that slowdown, along with legislation I have introduced called the PORTS Act, legislation I hope to pursue during the transportation debate we are going to commence with over the next several days and also as it relates to that west coast port slowdown, the economic impact that slowdown had on our economy. On June 30 of last year, the labor contract that covered nearly 20,000 workers at 29 west coast ports expired. Port management and the ILWU began negotiations a year before, but in September of 2014 those talks ground to a standstill. Instead of remaining at the table and trying to find a solution and negotiating in good faith, both parties decided to begin jockeying for leverage. The longshoremen purposefully slowed down their work and drastically decreased productivity while still taking home a full day's pay. In the real world, employees can't show up at work and not do their work or slow it down dramatically, not have the productivity they are expected to, and still get everything they want, but in the back worlds of labor union politics at the ports, that is business as usual. And business has been good at the ports. According to employer data, a full-time longshoreman earns about $130,000 a year, full-time employment $130,000 a year, while foremen earn about $210,000. That is a pretty good paycheck, and the contract raises these wages even higher. Workers pay nothing for health coverage that includes no premiums and $1 prescriptions. Providing this health care costs employers about $35,000 per employee per year. They are also eligible for a maximum pension of over $80,000 per year upon retirement, so $130,000 salary for a longshoreman, $210,000 if you are a foreman, $35,000 for health benefits, and $80,000 per year worth of pension upon retirement. But what happened for the rest of us this past year when the slowdown occurred on the 29 west coast ports, the effect of the slowdowns weren't just limited to the port owners. When the longshoremen decided to slow down their work, the goods flowing through these ports backed up and international trade ground to a halt. This has had devastating economic impacts in States far beyond the west coast and around the Nation as a whole. Nine excruciating months after the labor contract expired, the parties finally reached a deal but not before costing U.S. businesses and consumers billions upon billions of dollars and ruining the credibility of our exporters abroad. When it comes to the administration, though, the response was pretty alarming as well. Labor Secretary Perez was just asked about this economic disaster of the west coast ports slowdown when visiting the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. His response: ``The collective bargaining process worked.'' As a result of the west coast port slowdown, the administration's response was: ``The collective bargaining process worked.'' The Labor Secretary made these comments while visiting Los Angeles, Long Beach, the two busiest ports of the country. So let's take a look at what the collective bargaining process did at those ports. This is a ship finder map of Los Angeles and Long Beach showing ships anchored offshore this week. This is recent data. These are ships that are anchored off the shore of Los Angeles and Long Beach just this past week. This is what it looks like when the ports are operating and functioning normally. You will notice there is a lot of blue ocean and not many ships anchored offshore. Ships can quickly unload imported products and load American-made exports for distribution around the world. There is no backup, no congestion, and no disruption to our country's economy. But this is what Los Angeles and Long Beach--the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach--looked like during the slowdown during the crisis. Dozens upon dozens of ships anchored and idled waiting for ships in port to be unloaded. You can see all the ships that are backed up compared to the previous chart. The Journal of Commerce reported that there were 32 ships anchored off the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach at one point during the slowdown. There has been a lot of discussion recently about the need for a long-term surface transportation bill that invests in 21st century infrastructure, but just take a look at the kind of dysfunction antiquated labor laws can cause. This is an aerial shot. You can see this is off the wing of an airplane where you can see all of the ships that are backed up waiting at these ports to be unloaded, ships that carry the goods for our economy, the goods that make our economy run. Congestion like this is a nightmare for American farmers, businesses, and consumers. Farm exporters were charged exorbitant fees for warehouse space to store their agricultural goods as they rotted and spoiled. Meat and poultry companies alone faced port charges in excess of $30 million per week. So if people were earning $130,000 a year and not doing their work unloading ships, American farmers, poultry, and meat producers were charged $30 million per week. Businesses further up the supply chain were also affected. One large U.S. base manufacturer has calculated the cost of lost sales, warehouse space, additional inventory, and transportation at $100 million in total as a result of the delays at the west coast ports. Those are just the direct costs. American businesses also lost credibility and future customers as the foreign buyers turned to other nations for more stable supplies. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the west coast port delays forced layoffs and downsizing in the U.S. leather industry. Chinese tanners are now turning to European and Brazilian producers to fill their orders. This is a $3 billion industry that had to lay off workers because of the dispute of the west coast ports. Apparently, the administration again thinks the process worked just as it was supposed to work. Efficient trade through U.S. ports is critical to maintaining and growing economic opportunity in States across this country. According to the American Association of Port Authorities, U.S. ports support 23 million jobs, and the value of related economic activity accounts for 26 percent of our national GDP. Twenty-six percent of our national GDP comes from our ports system. Contract negotiations related to labor disputes at our ports clog up these vital arteries and cause problems throughout our national supply chain. If you need further proof of whether this impacted our economy--that picture we just saw of all the ships stacked up at L.A. and the ports in California--according to Federal Reserve economists, the disruptions on the west coast were great enough to affect the entire economic output of the country. This chart shows the quarterly change in national GDP. Once negotiations stalled, you will notice GDP growth started to decline. So here we are in the third quarter of 2014. Remember, we started talking about September of 2014, when the slowdowns really started. By the time we get to the last quarter of 2014 and the first quarter of 2015, you can see the labor dispute contributing to the decline of our national GDP. Our economy shrank as a result of port slowdown. In the first quarter of this year, when the slowdowns were in full swing, the economy actually shrank by 0.2 percent. You can see it, in the third quarter--this is the last quarter--to the first quarter of this year. Twenty-six percent of our GDP depends on these ports. The Fed economists also found that disruptions disproportionately affected exporters sending American-made goods abroad for sale overseas. Exporters didn't have access to imported raw materials and parts they needed to build their products. This caused supply chains to back up and eventually reduced output and employment. So the Fed is telling us that the collective bargaining process at the ports measurably reduced economic growth and American jobs across the country by crippling American businesses, but only in the backward worlds of labor union politics could this economic disaster be considered everything is working just fine. Only in a union-dominated industry could this catastrophe be considered a success. That is why I have introduced the PORTS Act. Our legislation would discourage disruptions at U.S. ports and incentivize speedy resolution of disputes by strengthening and expanding the well-known Taft-Hartley process. Over 100 national agricultural, manufacturing, and retail organizations support the PORTS Act because they are fed up with the status quo. They disagree with the administration, which thinks shrinking our economy is everything working just fine. There are some who oppose the PORTS Act, and those are the labor unions. In fact, earlier this month, the AFL-CIO put out a statement saying legislation like the PORTS Act was not needed. You can see what has happened without the PORTS Act is economic decline, people being laid off, farmers losing millions of dollars, products rotting in warehouses because of the backups. In just 5 years--5 years from now--the labor contracts on both the east coast and the west coast will expire. Imagine what would happen if we had labor disputes occurring on the west coast and the east coast at the same time, people who were willing to threaten that 26 percent of our national GDP over a dispute, while the administration says everything is working just fine. It is critical we have the necessary tools in place to prevent another debilitating crisis. If we learned anything from this past dispute, it is that Labor Secretary Perez is wrong--the current process does not work. And the AFL-CIO is wrong--legislation like the PORTS Act is desperately needed. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in supporting this important legislation. Let us not pinch our economy in an economic vice from the east and the west. Let's find economic opportunity to grow our Nation together. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, today I commemorate the annual Colorado Dragon Boat Festival on their 15th-anniversary celebration taking place on July 18 and 19 at Sloan's Lake in Denver, CO. The Dragon Boat Festival is a ritual that is more than 2,000 years old. This sporting event has spread to cities around the world, and Denver's Dragon Boat Festival is no exception. This cultural event celebrates Colorado's diverse Chinese and Taiwanese population. Thousands of competitors and spectators alike gather downtown for this annual race. The Colorado Dragon Boat Festival has been recognized as one of Denver's largest and most prolific cultural events. In 2011, the CDBF earned the Denver Mayor's Diversity Award. In 2013, the event received the Denver Mayor's Award for Excellence in Arts and Culture. Additionally, Director Erin Yoshimura was the first Asian American to win the Boettcher Foundation's Livingston Fellowship. As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and International Cybersecurity Cooperation, I am dedicated to strengthening relationships with our Asian communities at home and abroad. Best of luck to the 52 teams competing in this year's race, and I look forward to many more years of celebrating the Colorado Dragon Boat Festival.