Providing for Congressional Disapproval of a Rule Submitted by the National Labor Relations Board -- Veto

Floor Speech

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, sometimes when I travel, people ask me
what I do, and I tell them I am a retired Navy captain. And then they
say: Well, what do you do now? And I tell them I am a recovering
Governor. Then they say: Well, now that you are recovering, what do you
do? I tell them I am a servant.

Once, one guy said to me on an airplane: What do you mean you are a
servant?

I said: I serve the people of Delaware.

He said: Are you like a butler?

And I said: No, not really, but I do serve.

But I still think like a retired recovering Governor. I am proud to
be able to serve here. I loved being in the Navy. But at heart, I still
think and act a good deal like a retired Governor. Those others who
serve here in this body who have served as the chief executive of their
State sometimes feel the same way about how they approach their job. I
love doing that. I feel really lucky to have that choice. I feel very
lucky to be here to serve Delaware, the First State, in this capacity.

One of the key takeaways from my time as the chief executive of my
State was that when we had to negotiate deals, whether with our
neighboring States or with the Federal Government or actually with
folks who were thinking of starting a business in Delaware or growing a
business in Delaware, we had to do so with one unified voice in order
to be effective.

Now, we were trying to bring AstraZeneca, one of the largest
pharmaceutical companies in the world, and convince them to put their
North American headquarters in Delaware. We didn't have the whole
legislature to negotiate that deal. My cabinet and I were involved in
that negotiation, and we got a signoff from the legislature, at least
indirectly. We just couldn't have competing messages coming from all
the various elected officials, State senators, State representatives,
and so forth. The reason is that this would have undermined in some
cases very sensitive negotiations and hindered our ability to work
through some already tough issues. While I would consult
with Delaware's other State and local officials, as appropriate--and I
valued their insight and their opinions, even when I didn't necessarily
agree with all of them any more than they agreed with me--at the end of
the day, as chief executive of our State, I had to be the final
decisionmaker in a lot of cases in negotiating or advocating on behalf
of Delaware.

Now, as a U.S. Senator, I take really a very similar approach to
negotiating on many issues, including matters of foreign policy. I
support the idea that when the United States conducts diplomacy with
foreign governments, the United States should speak to that government
with a unified voice.

Our system is set up so that we do not have 535 Members of Congress
serving as negotiators and diplomats--and for good reason. That is the
case with trade deals--the kind of deal we are trying to negotiate
today with 11 other countries that come from this hemisphere all the
way over to Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Japan, and Vietnam. But
if we fail to speak with a unified voice in most of those negotiations,
including the one I just mentioned, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, then
forging international agreements with other countries is going to be
really tough and in some cases just about impossible.

When it comes to the negotiations with Iran over its nuclear
program--the negotiations that involve not just Iran, not just us, but
the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and
Germany as well--I have been a strong proponent of giving the President
and his negotiating team the flexibility they need to achieve the best
deal for our Nation.

I know many of our colleagues have strong views on the need for
Congress to play a direct role in the negotiations and to make sure
their voices are heard in this process. I understand that position, and
I respect that position as well.

There are also some in the Senate who believe that the best deal with
Iran is, frankly, no deal at all, and they are trying to maximize their
ability to kill the nuclear deal with Iran before it is ever finalized.

Another key lesson I learned as Governor--and I am constantly
reminded of it in the Senate--is that forging compromise is no easy
task. Bridging the divide of competing interests is never easy,
especially on issues as important as negotiations over nuclear weapons
and Iran. But that is what my colleagues--our colleagues--in the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee recently did.

Specifically, Senators Corker of Tennessee and Cardin of Maryland,
one a Republican and one a Democrat, worked to forge a compromise that
identifies an appropriate role for Congress in these nuclear talks.
This compromise will enable the President to maintain his prerogative
as our Nation's Chief Executive and Commander in Chief to negotiate on
behalf of the United States, while also ensuring that Congress is able
to weigh in on the final product of those negotiations should they come
to fruition. In my mind, that is a reasonable compromise that we should
all support regardless of our opinion on the prospect of the President
reaching an acceptable deal with Iran.

Let me explain why. First of all, Senator Corker and Senator Cardin's
compromise satisfies one of my key goals of not undermining our
negotiating team before any final deal can be reached with the
Iranians.

Second, for those who insist that Congress be given a chance to weigh
in on a final nuclear deal with Iran, this bill that we are debating
today and will probably debate a little more next week will empower
Members of Congress to cast a vote for or against any final deal before
it is implemented.

Finally, for those Members who think that no deal is the best deal,
this bill gives those Members the opportunity to make their case to our
respective colleagues at an appropriate time.

Now, Senators Corker and Cardin should be commended for their
tireless work to strike a compromise that should satisfy many of our
colleagues--not all, but many. I know they worked with the White House
to craft a bill that does not cut the legs out from underneath our
negotiators as they work to finalize a deal with Iran, and I want to
thank them for preserving the administration's ability to negotiate and
the Congress's ability to weigh in on the final deal.

As we cast our votes on amendments and final passage of this bill, I
would encourage us to consider the delicate nature of the compromise
that Senators Corker and Cardin have struck.

Too often in Washington we focus on what divides us rather than what
unites us. That is unfortunate and sometimes counterproductive for our
country--not just on this issue but on a host of important policy
matters. Compromise should not be a rare occurrence in our Nation's
Capital. Rather, it should be one of our guiding principles.

We should seize this opportunity, colleagues, to advance a compromise
that meets the needs of many of our colleagues, the President, and our
Nation. I urge our colleagues to join me in supporting Senator Corker
and Senator Cardin's legislation.

Some of my colleagues have heard me say before, whenever I meet
people who have been married for a long time, I love to ask those who
have been married 50, 60, 70 years: What is the secret for being
married 50, 60 or 70 years? I get a lot of different answers, as you
might imagine. Some of them are very funny, and some are quite
poignant.

Some of my favorites include a couple married over 50 years. I asked
them not long ago: What is the secret to being married 50 years?

The wife said of her husband: He could be right or he could be happy,
but he cannot be both.

More recently, with a couple who has been married over 60 years, I
asked the husband and wife: What is the secret to being married over 60
years? And each of them gave a different answer. The wife said
patience, and her husband of 60 years said a good sense of humor. That
is pretty good advice as well.

I have asked this question hundreds of times over the years, but the
best advice I have ever heard in asking that question is years ago from
the answers of a couple who had been married 65 years or so.

I said: What is the secret of being married 65 years?

They both said almost at the same time: The two C's.

The two C's. I had never heard that one before.

I said: What are the two C's?

One of them said: Communicate.

That is good.

The other one said: Compromise.

Those are two pretty good C's.

Since then, I have invoked their words any number of times, including
on this floor and here in Washington, DC, and in my own State of
Delaware.

Over the years, I have added a third C to it. The third C is
collaborate--collaborate. If you think about it, those two C's or those
three C's--communicate, compromise, and collaborate--are not just the
secret for a vibrant and long marriage between two people; they are
also the secret to a vibrant democracy.

As one of the Members of this body, I wish to again express my thanks
to Senators Corker and Cardin for communicating, for compromising, and
for collaborating in a way that could bring about a better future for
my kids, your kids, our grandchildren, and hopefully for the people of
Iran and hopefully for the people of Israel and a lot of other nations
that have a real interest in this issue--as we say in Delaware, a dog
in this fight.

As I close, I thank you for this opportunity to speak today. I hope
when we vote next week we will reward the efforts of those Senators
with the two C's--Cardin and Corker--and further embrace the three
C's--communicating, compromising, and collaborating--embrace their
efforts with an ``aye'' vote.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source