On the recordSeptember 17, 2014
Reserving the right to object, I wish to note that this is a treaty that has attracted a fair amount of controversy. It is a treaty that was voted on in 2012 and failed to receive the requisite two- thirds majority vote in order to be ratified in this body. This treaty received additional consideration this year in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on July 22 and received a 12-to-6 vote. There are a number of our colleagues, both on and off the committee, who have concerns with this treaty, who would like the opportunity to propose amendments, along with our consideration of this document. Under the proposed unanimous consent request, we would not be allowed to propose any amendments, and we would be given 2 hours--only 2 hours--to debate it. Given the significance of treaties, and the fact that they carry the effect of the law of the land once ratified, I think this body deserves more, certainly, than the opportunity to debate it for only 2 hours. To be precluded here from the ability to present any amendments would not be an appropriate thing for to us do. On that basis, I object. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The Senator from Iowa.
