Marco Rubio

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, today I recognize Richard El-Rassy, a 2015 summer intern in my Orlando, FL, office for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the people of the State of Florida. Richard is a student at the University of Florida, where he is majoring in business administration. He is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of his internship experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Richard for all the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, today I recognize Deidre Fragapane, a 2015 Summer intern in my Orlando, FL, office for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the people of the State of Florida. Deidre is a student at the University of Central Florida, where she is majoring in political science. She is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of her internship experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Deidre for all the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, today I recognize Sabrina Jerome, a 2015 summer intern in my Orlando, FL, office for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the people of the State of Florida. Sabrina is a student at the University of Central Florida, where she is majoring in legal studies. She is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of her internship experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Sabrina for all the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, today I recognize Robert Miller, a 2015 summer intern in my Orlando, FL, office for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the people of the State of Florida. Robert is a student at the University of Central Florida, where he is majoring in political science. He is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of his internship experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Robert for all the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, today I recognize Marc Sznapstajler, a 2015 summer intern in my Orlando, FL, office for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the people of the State of Florida. Marc is a student at the University of Central Florida, where he is majoring in political science. He is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of his internship experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Marc for all the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, today I recognize Kevin Rubio, a 2015 summer intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the people of the State of Florida. Kevin is a student at the University of South Carolina, where he is majoring in both history and political science. He is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of his internship experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Kevin for all the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, today I recognize Julia Alvarez Hierro, a 2015 summer intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the people of the State of Florida. Julia is a student at the Universidad Pontificia de Comillas, where she is double majoring in international relations and translating and interpreting. She is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of her internship experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Julia for all the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, today I recognize Gabrielle Gerecht, a 2015 summer intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the people of the State of Florida. Gabrielle is a student at McGill University where she is majoring in international development. She is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of her internship experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Gabrielle for all the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, today I recognize Ryan Hogan, a 2015 summer intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the people of the State of Florida. Ryan is a student at Ohio State University where he is majoring in psychology. He is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of his internship experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Ryan for all the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, today I recognize Caleb Orr, a 2015 summer intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the people of the State of Florida. Caleb is a rising senior at Abilene Christian University, where he is majoring in political science and sociology. He is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of his internship experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Caleb for all the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, today I recognize Artem Polovikov, a 2015 summer intern in my Orlando, FL, office for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the people of the State of Florida. Artem is a student at the University of Florida, where he is majoring in political science. He is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of his internship experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Artem for all the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, today I recognize Jared Blackburn, a 2015 summer intern in my Orlando, FL, office for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the people of the State of Florida. Jared is a student at the University of Florida, where he is majoring in political science. He is a dedicated and diligent worker who has been devoted to getting the most out of his internship experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Jared for all the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. RUBIO

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

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, on June 4, I was not present to vote on Senator Jeanne Shaheen's amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2016, amendment No. 1494 to H.R. 1735. I would have voted against this measure. Madam President, as well, had I been present for the vote on amendment No. 1889, I would have voted no on this amendment. I do not support telegraphing to the enemy what interrogation techniques we will or won't use and denying future Commanders in Chief and intelligence professionals important tools for protecting the American people and the U.S. homeland. Maritime Partner Capacity Building Efforts in the Asia-Pacific Region

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I wanted to come to the floor to speak about the risk Iran poses to the world as a result of the legislation before the Senate at this moment. A lot has been talked about in the media over the last months--years, quite frankly--about the notion we are going to work out a deal with Iran that will prevent war. Sadly, I believe the direction the deal is headed almost guarantees war at some point, certainly in our lifetime, but maybe before the end of the decade. Let me back up and first describe the issue at hand. The issue at hand is that Iran, run by a radical Shia cleric--its government, I should say. Its people perhaps don't partake in this thought process, but its government whose head and supreme decisionmaker is a radical Shia cleric has made two decisions: The first is they feel it is their obligation to export their Islamic revolution everywhere in the world, and of course it begins with the Middle East; two, they have decided they want to become the hegemonic power in the region. They want to become the dominant nation, the dominant movement in the Middle East and in that entire region. So how do you achieve that? First, it requires you to drive the Americans out of the area, which is why we have seen them invest in all sorts of asymmetrical capabilities, such as these small little swarm boats they sometimes use to harass U.S. naval vessels. That is why we saw them just a week ago basically hijack a commercial vessel in international waters. The second thing they do is they sponsor terrorism. They have all these proxy groups in all these countries in the region doing their bidding. That is also asymmetrical warfare--asymmetrical meaning it is not frontal. It is using some nontraditional method to expand or to show their power. They use groups such as Hezbollah or the Houthis they are now involved with in Yemen and other parts of the world. The threat is, if you attack Iran, these terrorist groups will attack you. In fact, we have seen the hand of the Iranian Government in terrorist attacks. For example, we saw an attempt to assassinate the Ambassador of Saudi Arabia here in Washington, DC. We know that in 1994 there was a bombing in Buenos Aires linked to Iran. So they sponsor terrorism. The third aspect of their desire to become the hegemonic regional power is a nuclear weapon. What do you need to acquire a nuclear weapon? You need three things: The first thing you need is a bomb design. The truth is you can buy a bomb design. The second thing you need is a delivery system, an ability to deliver the weapon whether it is on an airplane or on a missile. That is why Iran is developing long-range rockets. They are expending a lot of money--despite all the sanctions on them, they are expending a lot of money to build these long-range rockets. That isn't for some fancy fireworks show or to put a man on the Moon. They are building these long-range rockets because they understand that is the second critical component of a nuclear weapons program. The third thing is you have to be able to get your hands on enriched uranium or reprocessed plutonium. No one in the world is going to import to them weapons-grade uranium or plutonium, so they have decided to build the infrastructure to do it themselves, and they do it the way North Korea did it. They do it the way other nations have done it when they tried to hide their programs. They do it by claiming they have a peaceful nuclear program they are trying to build. In essence, their argument is we don't want to build a weapon. We are just trying to build a nuclear reactor so we can provide electricity. That argument makes no sense for two reasons: The first reason is this is an oil-rich country. They do not really need nuclear energy in order to provide cost-effective energy for their country, and the other reason is it costs so much money to build the equipment to enrich and reprocess, they could just buy it already reprocessed or enriched. They could bring it into the country the way South Korea does and the way other nations do. So if it would be cheaper to bring these things in by simply importing it, as opposed to spending all this money enriching and reprocessing it themselves, why are they spending all this money on the infrastructure? The answer is because, at some point in the future, they know they are going to want a nuclear weapon. Now, perhaps they haven't made the decision they need it today, next week or next year, but they certainly, at a minimum, want to have the option to be a threshold nuclear power. I believe, knowing everything we know about them--both open source and classified--that whether they have decided to build a nuclear weapon or not, they will decide to build a nuclear weapon because it provides for them the sort of regime stability they crave. The radical Shia cleric who heads that country looks at North Korea and he looks at Libya and he says: Libya is what happens when you don't have a nuclear capability. North Korea is what happens when you do. Muammar Qadhafi is dead and out of power, but North Korea is still run by that madman. Why? Because he has a nuclear weapon. You can't invade him or touch him because of what he will do in response. I think they are guided by that principle. They are guided by the principle that they want to be the regional hegemonic power and nuclear weapons gives them that role. They are guided by a third equally sinister motivation; that is, the open and repeatedly stated desire to destroy the State of Israel, to wipe it of the face of the Earth. They haven't said this once in passing, the Supreme Leader of Iran has said this on hundreds of occasions. In fact, every Friday in Iran, at government-sanctioned religious events, they chant ``Death to America'' and ``Death to Israel.'' If there is one lesson in history, it is that when a nation or leader repeatedly says that we are going to kill you, you should take that seriously. When the nation that says we are going to kill you is using its governmental money to sponsor terrorism, you should take that even more seriously. When the nation that is going out saying we are going to kill you and wipe you off the face of the Earth is reprocessing plutonium or enriching uranium, you have a right to be extremely scared. The world understood this 8 years ago, 10 years ago, so it imposed U.N. Security Council sanctions on Iran--international sanctions. They were not easy to put together. A lot of countries in Europe had companies in those countries that were dying to do business in Iran. They didn't want these sanctions, but they did it. They were put in place. Then, about a year and a half or two ago, the President decided it was time to try to open up to Iran and try to work out a deal with them. Look, in normal circumstances, there is nothing wrong with that; right? Two countries that have a disagreement on some issues can work things out. There is a place for diplomacy in the would. The problem is the issue we have with Iran is not based on a grievance. They are not mad we did something and so that is why they are acquiring a nuclear weapon and if only we stopped doing what it is that aggrieved them they would go away. This is not a grievance-based problem. This is an ideological problem. If you read the founding documents of the Islamic Republic, it doesn't describe the Supreme Leader as the leader of Iran. Iran happens to be the country from which they operate. It describes him as the Supreme Leader of all Muslims in the world. That is why they believe it is their mandate, it is their calling to export their revolution to every corner of the planet but beginning in the Middle East, and the nuclear weapons capability would give them leverage in carrying out the goal they have. In their mind, nothing would be more glorious than the destruction of the Jewish State. So the President enters these negotiations, and it has been a process of constant appeasement, moment after moment. We went from saying no enriching or reprocessing, to you can enrich and reprocess at 5 percent, to you can enrich up to 20 percent for research purposes. We went from saying no enrichment ever to saying in 10 or 15 years all bets are off. There are still items in the negotiations that are not clear. The White House put out a fact sheet, a piece of paper, and it said this is what we agreed to. Iran put out a piece of paper just like it except it sounded like a totally different deal. For example, the U.S. fact sheet said sanctions on Iran would not come off until Iran complied, but Iran's fact sheet said no, no, sanctions come off immediately. Now, when you press the White House on it, they refuse to say that, in fact, it will be phased in and not immediate. That is why I filed an amendment. Even though I thought the President's deal as outlined in the fact sheet was not good enough, I filed an amendment to at least hold them to that. The amendment to this bill read very simply. It just said that whatever deal the President crafts has to reflect the fact sheet he provided the Senate, but we couldn't get a vote on it. The other amendment I filed is that any deal with Iran should be conditioned on Iran recognizing Israel's right to exist, and here is why that was so important. That was important because this is not just about the nuclear program. The deal the President is trying to sign is about removing sanctions, meaning money is now going to flow back into the Iranian Government's coffers. What are they going to do with this money? Are they going to build roads, hospitals, donate it to charity? No. Are they going to buy food and medicine for people hurting around the world, the hundreds of thousands who have been displaced by Assad, their puppet? No. They will use that money to sponsor terrorism, and the prime target of the terrorism they sponsor is the State of Israel. We couldn't get a vote on that amendment either. Apparently, there are Senators terrified of voting against that amendment, so they would rather not have a vote at all. So I am deeply disappointed by the direction this debate has taken because I felt--and I understand this deal was carefully crafted because I am on the committee that passed it, but I also understand that every Member of the Senate has a right to be heard in this debate. Unfortunately, only a couple of amendments were allowed to be voted on, with no one else having an opportunity to get their amendments voted on, amendments I thought would make this bill much more meaningful. Now we have reached this point where the majority leader has filed cloture on the bill because it is time to move on to these other issues, and I respect that. We now have to make a decision. The decision is not whether we are going to pass the bill we want or nothing at all, the decision is are we better off as a country with this bill or with no bill. If we don't pass a bill, the Senate can still weigh in on the Iranian deal, but the Iranian deal kicks in immediately, and unless and until the Senate acts, the sanctions will be off. At least the U.S. sanctions will be off. There is also no guarantee the White House will even show us the agreement if we don't pass a bill. If we pass a bill, it delays the sanctions being lifted for a period of time. It requires the White House to submit the deal to us so we can review it, and ultimately it calls for a vote--up or down--on approving the deal or not. It actually requires that the vote will have to happen, and there can't be any procedural process to impede it, for the most part. So at the end of the day, while this bill does not contain the amendments--we didn't even get a vote on the amendments we wanted--it doesn't contain the different aspects I thought would make it stronger, if left with the choice we have now, I don't think there is any doubt we are in a better position if this bill passes because, at a minimum, it at least creates a process whereby the American people, through their elected representatives, can debate an issue of extraordinary importance. If I am troubled by anything, it is that while this issue gets a lot of coverage, I am not sure the coverage accurately reflects what a critical moment this is. I said at the outset that I think a bad deal almost guarantees war, and here is why. Because the State of Israel-- such an important ally to the United States--is not thousands of miles away from Iran. Put yourself in their position for a moment. This small country, with a small population, 9 miles wide at its narrowest point-- with a neighbor to the north that openly and repeatedly says it wants to destroy them and is on the verge of acquiring a nuclear capability-- feels like their very existence is being threatened. Faced with that, Israel may very well take military action on their own to protect themselves. I think a bad deal exponentially increases the likelihood of that happening. I also think we look at the other nations of the region, because Iran is a Shia country--a Shia Persian country--but its Sunni Arab neighbors aren't big fans of the Shia branch of Islam. For example, Saudi Arabia, an incredibly wealthy country, has already said: Whatever Iran gets, we are going to get. If Iran gets the right to enrich and reprocess, we will enrich and reprocess. If Iran builds a weapon, we will build a weapon. And so it creates the very real specter that we will have an arms race--a nuclear arms race--in the Middle East. We are talking about a region of the world that has been unstable for 3,800 years.

Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, I think my colleagues have made an excellent point today in outlining all the details of how this program works. Let me back up and point out why we are even having this debate, other than the fact that it is expiring. It is because the perception has been created--including by political figures who serve in this Chamber--that the U.S. Government is listening to your phone calls or going through your bills as a matter of course. That is absolutely categorically false. The next time that any politician--Senator, Congressman--talking head, whoever it may be, stands up and says ``The U.S. Government is listening to your phone calls or going through your phone records,'' they are lying. It is not true, except for some very isolated instances--in the hundreds--of individuals for whom there is reasonable suspicion that they could have links to terrorism. Those of us in this culture in our society are often accused of having a short attention span. We forget that less than a year ago, Russian separatists shot down a commercial airliner armed by the Russians. Maybe even the Russians themselves did it. We forget that it was not long ago that Assad was using chemical weapons to slaughter people in Syria. The world moves on. What we should never forget is what happened here on the 11th of September of the year 2001. There are a number of seminal moments in American history that people always remember. They remember when President Kennedy was assassinated. Everyone in this room remembers where they were and what they were doing on that morning of the 11th of September of the year 2001 when the World Trade Center was attacked and the subsequent attacks happened. Here is the truth. If this program had existed before 9/11, it is quite possible we would have known that 9/11 hijacker Khalid Al Mihdhar was living in San Diego and was making phone calls to an Al Qaeda safe house in Yemen. There is no guarantee we would have known. There is no way we can go back in time and prove it. But there is a probability we would have; therefore, there is a probability American lives could have been saved. This program works as follows: If the intelligence agencies of the United States believe there is an individual who is involved in terrorist activity--a reasonable belief--and that individual might be communicating with people as part of a plot, they have to get an order that allows them access to their phone bill. The phone bill basically tells you when they called, what number they called, and how long the call was. Why does that matter? Because if I know that subject X is an individual who is involved in terrorism, of course I want to know whom they are calling. I would not be as interested in the calls to Pizza Hut or the local pharmacy, but I would be interested in calls overseas or calls to other people because they could be part of the plot as well. That is why this is such a valuable tool. My colleagues have already pointed out that if the IRS wants your phone bill, they just have to issue a subpoena. If virtually every agency--any agency of American Government--if your local police department wants your phone bill--in fact, if you are involved in a proceeding in a civil litigation and they want access to your phone bill because it is relevant to the case, they can just get a subpoena. It is part of the record. The intelligence agencies actually have to go through a number of hoops and hurdles, and that is fine. That is appropriate because these are very powerful agencies. I will further add that the people who are raising hysteria--what is the problem we are solving here? There is not one single documented case, not one single documented case--there is not one single case that has been brought to us as an example of how this program is being abused. Show me the story. Give the name to the world. Show us who this individual is who is going out there and seizing the phone records of Americans improperly. There is not one example of that--not one. And if there is, that individual should be fired, prosecuted, and put in jail. The solution is not to get rid of a program at a time when we know the risk of homegrown violent extremism is the highest it has ever been. We used to be worried about a foreigner coming to the United States and carrying out an attack, and then we were worried about an American traveling abroad and coming back and carrying out an attack. Now we are worried about people who may never leave here, who are radicalized online and carry out an attack. This is not theoretical. Just last weekend two individuals who were inspired by ISIS tried to carry out an attack in the State of Texas. One day--I hope that I am wrong--there will be an attack that is successful. The first question out of everyone's mouth will be: Why didn't we know about it? And the answer better not be because this Congress failed to authorize a program that might have helped us know about it. These people are not playing games. They don't go on these Web sites and say the things they say for purposes of aggrandizement. This is a serious threat, and I hope we reauthorize this bill.

Mr. RUBIO. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds to conclude.

Mr. RUBIO. We are talking about a region of the world that could have a nuclear arms race--one of the most unstable regions of the planet. So I hope we are going to get a good deal. I am not hopeful that we will. But I think we are better off if we have this process in place. So I hope this bill passes here today so that at least we will have a chance to weigh in on an issue of critical importance. I yield the floor.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I, too, want to begin today by thanking the Senators from Maryland and Tennessee for the work they have put into this process. It is important. It is important that Congress have a role in reviewing any deal the President concludes with Iran. This is an extraordinary threat to the world. This is a nation which is run not by the individual with whom they are negotiating; Iran is a country governed and run by a radical Shia cleric who has ideas about the future of the world that are frightening. What is more frightening is the information we have received from this administration about the framework they agreed to on April 2. It is a framework, for example, that would allow Iran to retain thousands of centrifuges and grant them the right to enrich uranium. It is an arrangement that would allow Iran to avoid dismantling its key facilities. It is an arrangement that allows Iran to continue to deny its past work on nuclear weapons. It is an arrangement that would allow Iran to retain a significant ballistic missile program, including efforts to develop a missile capable of hitting the very spot on which we stand right now. It is an arrangement that does nothing whatsoever on the cases of those Americans who are currently unjustly detained in Iran. It is an arrangement that does nothing to impact Iran's state sponsorship of terrorism or its brutal treatment of its own people. In fact, it is an arrangement that, if it goes through, will turn over billions of dollars into the hands of the chief state sponsor of terrorism on the planet. And it is an arrangement that will do nothing to bring an end to Iran's self-proclaimed support at the highest levels of its government for the destruction of the State of Israel. Since April 2 of this year, by the way, the Iranians have made clear that they are not willing to do many of the things the White House itself has claimed are part of this deal. We are going to get to that in a moment, but understand that when the White House announced this deal, they put out a fact sheet. They said: This is what the deal is about. Iran is disputing it. They do not have the same fact sheet. In essence, what Iran is saying was agreed to and what the United States is saying was agreed to are, apparently at this moment, two very different things. That alone should be concerning. In addition to that, this deal is going to be a dangerous deal, a bad deal not just for the United States and our allies in the region but especially for our allies in Israel. That is why it is important that Congress take a stand and ensure that this deal is not implemented unless its fundamental flaws are addressed. That is why I supported this legislation in the committee. I voted for it so we could be here on the floor to strengthen it--not in a committee of just 20 members but here with all of our colleagues--over a number of days, potentially weeks, so the country could see what is at stake. The first amendment I will offer today and hope we can overcome objections to is pretty straightforward. Here is what the amendment says: It says to the President that no deal can go forward unless the President certifies that the Iranian leadership has accepted Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. Why is that important? Because we will hear the argument that this has nothing to do with nuclear weapons, that this has nothing to do with the nuclear capacity of Iran. I am going to make the argument that that is not true. The first reason is--we have to understand why it is important for Israel to exist as a Jewish state. Israel is not just a country; it is a homeland for the Jewish people, created in the aftermath of the Holocaust with the belief that never again would there not be a place for the Jewish people to go and seek refuge and be able to live if they faced persecution--as they have for thousands of years and as they do even now but especially in the aftermath of the Holocaust. So Israel is not just a country. It has a special and unique purpose that sets it apart from any other nation on Earth. It was created as a homeland for a persecuted people who survived despite the deaths of 6 million human beings in the Holocaust, maybe more. It is now a homeland where they will be safe. It is also important to remember that beyond that, it is in the national security interests of the United States. What is Israel? Israel is a pro-American, free enterprise democracy. I promise that if there were more pro-American, free enterprise democracies in the Middle East, our lives would be a lot simpler and the world would be a lot safer and a lot better. But there is one, and this country must always be firmly on the side of that one country, this free enterprise, pro- American democracy in the midst of a region full of chaos and uncertainty. Why is that relevant to this deal? Here is why it is relevant. This is not just a deal about what Iran is allowed to do in its nuclear program; this is a deal that would lift billions of dollars' worth of sanctions off of the Iranian Government. And what is the Iranian Government going to do when they get access to those billions of dollars? Are they going to donate it to charity around the world to feed the hungry and house the homeless? No. Are they going to use it to substantially improve the rights of their people in their own country? No. They are going to use those billions of dollars to do what they are doing now with less money: export terrorism to every corner of the globe. Today, Iran is an active sponsor of terrorism in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Bahrain, Latin America, and Europe. This is the same government that tried to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador here in Washington, DC. This is the same Iranian Government that blew up a Jewish center in Buenos Aires. This is the same Iranian Government that tried to detonate a bomb in Uruguay. They use terrorism the way normal countries use diplomacy. Yet, now we are going to turn over billions of dollars to them. The reason why this has something to do with Israel is, what are they going to do when they have even more money to carry out these sorts of acts? They are going to invest it not just in their nuclear program, but they will invest it in their sponsorship of terrorism and they will invest it in their long-range rockets. What have they told us they want to do with this increased capacity? What have they told us is the chief goal of this Government in Iran? Why do they need this terrorism? Why do they need those weapons? Why do they need those long-range rockets? Well, let's take them at their word. Here is why they need it. They need it because, according to a tweet put out by the Ayatollah in July of 2014, ``This barbaric, wolflike and infanticidal regime of Israel which spares no crime has no cure but to be annihilated.'' In November of 2014, the Supreme Leader posted a chart on his Twitter account. It had ``9 key questions about the elimination of Israel.'' I am holding it here, but it can be found online. Here are some of those questions: ``Why should the Zionist regime be eliminated?'' ``What does elimination of Israel mean in the viewpoint of the Imam Khomeini?'' Meaning him. ``What is the proper way of eliminating Israel?'' ``How will the proposed referendum succeed?'' Well, here he is talking about actually calling for a referendum in Israel, but the Jews can't participate in the referendum, according to him. ``Why do we oppose compromise proposals?'' The point is that this is a country led by a leader who has made it very clear repeatedly, time and again, that one of their main objectives is the destruction of Israel and ending Israel's existence as a Jewish state. When someone says that over and over again, we should believe them. This is not for domestic consumption to make him look good in Iran, the way some in the administration would argue. I believe they mean it. Do you know why I believe they mean it? Because they sponsor terrorism in an effort to kill Jews and Israelis. In January of 2015, a suitcase full of explosives was found near the Israeli Embassy in Uruguay. The day after an individual left a suitcase bomb near the Embassy, a senior Iranian diplomat by the name of Ahmed Sabatgold left the country. Uruguayan authorities clarified a report claiming that he had been expelled from the country. They said no. They suggested that, in fact, he was a person of high interest with whom they would like to speak but that he left the country on his own. So the reason why the existence of Israel as a Jewish state is directly tied to this deal is simple. We are about to turn over billions of dollars into their hands, and we have every reason to believe they will spend a significant portion of that money to destroy our strongest and most important ally in the region and one of the most important allies in the world. The first amendment I have offered is pretty straightforward. It calls for any deal to require that Iran recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. The second amendment I will propose is even more straightforward, even more on point. Here is what it requires. It requires that this final deal be the deal the President says it is. Here is what I mean by that. I filed an amendment that basically took the White House's own fact sheet--by the way, I have problems with that fact sheet. The deal as the President describes it is not a deal I believe will work. It is not a deal I believe will prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. But just to take them at their word, just to prove this point and to ensure we are building safeguards into what we are doing here, I took the White House's own fact sheet, what they said the deal was about, and I say in this amendment that the final deal must be about those points that the White House already says it is. For the life of me, I don't understand why that would be controversial. My amendment is basically this. It says the deal has to be what you say it is. That is all my amendment says. Yet, somehow I have been told this is going to box in the White House. If it does, it boxes them in with their own words. But here is the reason I am doing it. Iran apparently negotiated a very different deal than the one the White House thinks we have. For example, the White House says this deal will impose permanent inspections on Iran. The State Department fact sheet says: ``Iran's adherence to the Additional Protocol of the IAEA is permanent, including its significant access and transparency obligations.'' The Iranian fact sheet says: ``Iran will implement the Additional Protocol on a voluntary and temporary basis for the sake of transparency and confidence building.'' That doesn't sound like the same deal to me. How about the inspection of military sites? In an interview on CNN, Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said: ``If we see a site that we need to inspect on a military facility, we can get access to that site and inspect it.'' But on April 9, Iranian Brigadier General Hossein Dehghan said: ``Visiting military centers are among the red lines and no visits to these centers will be allowed.'' How about the scope of the sanctions relief? The State Department fact sheet says: ``United States and European Union nuclear-related sanctions will be suspended . . . All past U.N. Security Council resolutions on the Iran nuclear issue will be lifted simultaneous with the completion, by Iran, of nuclear-related actions addressing all key concerns.'' But Iran says: ``According to the reached solutions, after the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan of Joint Action, all of the U.N. resolutions will be revoked and all of the multilateral economic and financial sanctions by the EU and the unilateral ones by the U.S. will be annulled.'' So are the sanctions limited or total? We say they are limited; Iran says they are total. There are three more differences. On the timing of the release, at a news conference on April 2, the President said: In return for Iran's actions, the international community has agreed to provide Iran with relief from certain sanctions--our own sanctions and international sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council. This relief will be phased as Iran takes steps to adhere to the deal. So the President is basically saying that every time Iran complies with a portion of the deal, an additional sanction will be phased out; it will be in steps. If they do something, sanctions come off slowly. Trust but verify. That is what the American Government says. That is what the President said in his own words. But Iran says: ``We will not sign any deal unless on the very first day of its implementation all economic sanctions against Iran are lifted all at once.'' How about restrictions on enrichment? Are there restrictions for 10 years or for 15 years? The United States and the State Department Fact Sheet says: Iran has agreed to not enrich uranium over 3.67 percent for at least 15 years . . . Iran has agreed to not build any new facilities for the purpose of enriching uranium for 15 years . . . Iran has agreed to not enrich uranium at its Fordow facility for at least 15 years . . . Iran has agreed to not conduct research and development associated with uranium enrichment at Fordow for 15 years. That is a lot of 15 years. What does Iran say? On April 4, on an Iranian state TV channel, its Foreign Minister said: The limitations are for 10 years and then enrichment will continue its own scientific progress. We have accepted 10 years of limitations. Last but not least, research and development--is it limited or not limited? The United States, in our fact sheet, says it is limited. Iran will not use its IR-2, IR-4, IR-5, IR-6, or IR-8 models to produce enriched uranium for at least 10 years. Iran will engage in limited research and development with its advanced centrifuges, according to a schedule and parameters which have been agreed to by the P5+1. The group that negotiated all this. That is what the U.S. fact sheet says. But what does Iran say? Iran says no. Iran will continue its research and development on advanced machines and will continue the initiation and completion phases of the research and development process of IR-4, IR-5, IR-6, and IR-8 centrifuges during the 10 year period of the Comprehensive Plan for Joint Action. So these are at least six major points of difference where Iran is saying the deal says one thing and the United States is saying the deal says another. What my amendment does is it takes what we say the deal is and puts it in the bill and says: Any final deal must be what you told us it is, not what Iran says it is. Yet, somehow, apparently, that is controversial. This is not a game. This is a very serious matter because this is a country--and I don't mean its people but its leaders--that has shown the willingness to sponsor terrorism and do atrocious things all over the world. When you read in the newspaper about civilians being barrel-bombed and gassed and killed in Syria, do you know why Assad is able to do that? Because of the help he gets from Iran. When you read about the rockets that flood into Tel-Aviv and Jerusalem and Haifa and cities all across Israel every couple years as Hezbollah launches attacks, hiding behind human shields while they are trying to kill Israelis, do you know how they are able to get them? Because of help from Iran. When you read in the newspaper that yesterday the Iranian military hijacked a vessel in international waters, when you read that they tried to kill the Saudi Ambassador in Washington, DC, when you read that they tried to set off a bomb in Uruguay, when you read how in 1994 they did set off a bomb at a Jewish center in Buenos Aires, Argentina-- this is who we are dealing with. Now they are on the verge of being able to enrich weapons-grade uranium and reprocess weapons-grade plutonium. Now they are headed quickly toward building a long-range rocket capable of reaching not just Israel but Europe and the United States. This is a very significant moment because this President is about to sign a deal that will place in their hands billions of additional dollars. If this is the terrorism and the nuclear activity they are pursuing now with sanctions on them, imagine how much more they will be able to afford to do once the sanctions are lifted. That is why it is so relevant on this point of Israel but also on the details of this deal. By the way, as I said, and I will repeat it, the State Department fact sheet, what the President says the deal is--I am not comfortable with that either. I don't think that will work. It is not as if I am celebrating what they say the deal is. All I am asking is this: At a minimum, before you bring and sign a deal, at least let it be what you say it is. Don't come back here in 6 months and surprise us with ``By the way, it was the Iranian's fact sheet that had it right and not ours.'' So I hope we will be able to move on these amendments. I don't think they undermine this one bit. I think they are relevant to the debates we are having. I think they are relevant to the decision we are being asked to make. And it is about time this body takes this up. Congress has an important role to play. The people of Florida whom I represent speak on these issues on this floor through me and the senior Senator from Florida. We have a right to have these issues debated. This is not some minor issue we are talking about; this is the security not just of our strongest ally in the region but of our very own country. So I hope we will have an opportunity to have debates on these amendments. When we hear people say: If these amendments pass, we are going to lose the support of the bill; the President might veto it-- well, if you want to make that argument, make that argument, but let's have a vote on it. What is wrong with having a vote on an amendment? If you don't want to vote on the amendment because you disagree with me, stand up and say you disagree with the amendment and you vote no. If you agree with the amendment but you are going to vote against it because you think it unravels this process that is being put in place, then say that. But let's have a vote on it. If you don't want to vote on things, don't run for the Senate. If you don't want to vote on things, don't run for office. Be a columnist. Get a talk show. Everyone who runs for office knows that what we are called to do here is vote on issues on which sometimes we are uncomfortable. There is a microphone at your desk. Come to the floor and give a speech and explain to the world why you are voting against a deal that requires Israel to have a right to exist. And if you say you believe Israel has a right to exist but you are voting against it because you don't want to unravel the deal, people will respect it. You can make your argument, but vote. Don't tell me we can't have votes on these things. You can argue that we shouldn't pass it, and I will argue against you, but don't tell me we can't even vote on it because then what you are saying is you want to be protected from taking a position on it, you don't want to take a position that you think is tough, and that I find to be unacceptable. So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment in order to call up the two amendments I just described, amendment No. 1141 and amendment No. 1148, en bloc.

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I appreciate the passion of the Senator from Maryland. He makes points that I think are very relevant to debate once we are on the amendment. That is all I am asking for, a vote on the amendment. He is making an argument right now why he thinks we should not pass this amendment. I respect the orderly process. I did not necessarily recognize that coming to the floor and trying to get my amendment pending would somehow unravel this orderly process, but I am more than happy to work within the orderly process, whatever that process entails. I would be more than happy to have it explained to me, where I fit in, in this orderly process, and at the appropriate moment we will file the amendment. But I wanted a vote on the amendment, and then the argument you made here today can be made. The only other point I would make is it is true, tragically, that there are a number of countries in the Middle East that do not recognize Israel's right to exist. The difference is those countries are not trying to build a nuclear weapon, nor are they building long- range rockets, nor do they use terrorism as an instrument of statecraft, nor do they every Friday hold ceremonies in which their top leader chants ``Death to Israel'' and ``Death to America,'' nor do they actively support terrorist groups around the world that exist for the sole purpose of destroying Israel itself, nor do they have billions of dollars in sanctions that are about to be released. At the end of the day, there is a big difference between what is happening in Iran and the billions of dollars we are about to turn over to them and these other countries that, unfortunately, do not recognize Israel's right to exist but are not going around actually actively trying to destroy the State of Israel. The last point is on the differences in the details. Listen, I do not think the fact sheet the State Department put out is sufficient. I think the deal, as described by the President, is not good enough and will not lead to the prevention of a nuclear weapon. But all I am asking for in my amendment is for the deal he submits to be the one that he says he negotiated. He has told us already we have reached a preliminary agreement. He has announced it to the world what that preliminary agreement is. All I am saying is what you submit to us must be what you told us it is. Here is why I say this: Because this negotiation has been going on for a while. Every month that goes by, Iran gains more concessions, and our position slips further and further. If you look where we were at the beginning of this process to where we are today, it is a very different place from where we were not that long ago. We are in a very different place than we were in terms of what we had originally said. When this whole thing started 10 years ago, 12 years ago, the U.N. Security Council put sanctions on Iran and said you are not even able to enrich or reprocess. Now they are allowed to enrich and reprocess. They are even allowed to enrich and reprocess at an even higher rate for research purposes. If these negotiations keep going on, we are going to end up building the bomb for them at the rate it is going, because every year and every month that goes by, they gain more and more concessions. All I am trying do is, at a minimum, freeze this in place and say, Mr. President, you have told us that you have negotiated a deal. Mr. President, you put out a fact sheet that told us what the deal is. You have represented it to the American people as the deal, and now all this will say is what you submit to us must be what you told us you agreed to on April 2. Do not come back here in 6 months and submit to us a deal, and as it turns out the Iranian fact sheet is the one we should have been relying on. All I am asking, even though I do not think that what he has agreed to is sufficient--all I am asking in my second amendment is that the deal he submits be the deal he says it is, nothing more and nothing less. I hope that through this orderly process the moment will arrive, before we vote on passage of this, that my amendments can be heard and voted on. I respect the arguments that others make about why they cannot support them and what they think they will ultimately do to the process. All I am asking for are votes on these amendments, and then everybody is free to vote the way they want and for the reasons they want. I yield the floor.

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, just as a point of clarification, I am a member of the committee that heard these amendments, particularly the one on Israel's right to exist. They were available to me at the time. I chose not to offer them in consultation with the Senators who worked so hard to put them together. I could have offered my amendment in the committee. I did not in order to work in a cooperative way to move it from the committee onto the floor. I will admit that I did not speak to Senator Cardin about this in particular, but I was told by multiple Members that the right place and the right time for me to offer this amendment would be on the floor, not in the committee, because the hope was to get it to the floor as quickly as possible. So in an effort to move this issue to the floor, I held back on filing this particular amendment with regard to Israel's right to exist on the assurances and on the conversations that we had that, in fact, when we got to the floor, these amendments would be heard. Now, if, in fact, it turns out that today is not going to be the day we vote on the amendment, I understand that. I know there are a lot of other people with ideas they want voted on. My understanding is and I have been told that there is potentially the effort here to say we shouldn't have any amendment or just have three or four amendments, and I think that is an unfair position to take. I am not saying that is what the Senator from Maryland is arguing. But I hope that at some point, as the order is established--I will continue to make this motion in the hope that this amendment can not just be pending but can be part of this debate. I respect the views of my colleagues, some who I think will come to the floor and say they agree with me on the substance of it but don't want to vote on the amendment because they think it endangers the agreement we have in place or the bill that is in place. But I do think it deserves a vote, and I do think it deserves that debate. So I hope in this orderly process that is established, these two amendments--I have filed seven, but I prioritized these two--these two will get the consideration I believe they deserve.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I am proud that Florida has such a rich history and relationship with NASA. From the earliest launches of rockets that established manned missions, to the Apollo program and the continued support for the International Space Station, my home State of Florida is proud to take ownership in NASA's past and will certainly be a part of its future. It is imperative that we continue to have a robust space exploration program that promotes America's economic, scientific, and security interests, and that effectively utilizes its resources. NASA must have strong leadership and I believe Dr. Dava Newman will serve the Administration well in her new role as Deputy Administrator of NASA. While other obligations kept me from Washington, I would have voted in favor of her nomination.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. I yield the floor.

Mr. RUBIO. Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of my amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and that is where the United States should have its Embassy. However, since 1995 when Congress passed the Jerusalem Relocation Act, that is how it has been recognized. However, a waiver has been used over the last 20 years to avoid this move. This amendment would allow funding to achieve what is already in the U.S. Code. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from South Carolina.