America's Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2015--Motion to Proceed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the recent bad behavior of Iran and some important steps that have been taken by the administration to push back on their support for terrorism, for illegal actions, and for their support for disorder in the Middle East but to also sound the alarm that this series of steady actions continues to raise the specter that Iran has an expanding reach in the region and poses a greater and greater threat to our allies and, in particular, our vital ally, Israel.

Just over a year ago, leading world powers came together in support of a framework for blocking Iran's path to developing a nuclear weapon. That framework ultimately became the JCPOA, or the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. In the months since that agreement took effect, Iran has taken steps to significantly restrain its nuclear program. That is true. They filled with concrete the core of their reactor at Arak. They shipped out of the country 98 percent of their accumulated stockpile of enriched uranium, and they have allowed searching inspections by the IAEA. Those are all good steps. Yet the Iran regime continues to engage in dangerous actions outside the nuclear agreement, including ongoing human rights abuses, support for terrorism in the Middle East, and its repeated illegal ballistic missile tests. All of those are ongoing reminders to us that America's security and the security of our allies demand constant vigilance and close scrutiny of Iran's actions.

Since last September, I have regularly called upon my congressional colleagues, the Obama administration, and our European allies to be wary of Iran's intentions and to continue to seek ways to effectively push back on its bad behavior.

The international community and the United States possess three major nonmilitary tools to lawfully counter Iran's continued bad behavior: financial sanctions, criminal charges, and weapons seizures. So let me first offer a number of examples of how each of these tools have recently been put to work.

First, financial sanctions. On March 24, the Treasury Department imposed new sanction designations on a number of entities and individuals who have supported Iran's ballistic missile program and on an Iranian airline, Mahan Air, which provides support services-- transportation--to the Quds Force, an elite Iranian military corps designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. Treasury Department.

On this floor in early March, I called for the United States and our European allies to further punish Mahan Air by eliminating the airline's access to international markets and airports. Since then, the Treasury Department has taken action against two companies, one based in the United Kingdom, another in the United Arab Emirates, that have provided financial and materiel support to Mahan Air.

I commend the Obama administration for effectively deploying another tool in our diplomatic toolkit--criminal charges. On March 21, the Justice Department unsealed charges against three individuals who allegedly acted on behalf of the Iranian Government and associated entities to engage in hundreds of millions of dollars of transactions barred by U.S. sanctions. These three Iranian individuals stand accused of illegally laundering the proceeds of these transactions and defrauding the banks to which the transactions were processed.

Two days later, on March 23, a consultant to Iran's mission to the United Nations was also charged with violating U.S. law. The seven charges levied against this individual include conspiracy to evade U.S. sanctions against Iran, money laundering, and arranging false tax returns.

Then the following day, March 24, the Justice Department unsealed an indictment of seven Iranian ``experienced computer hackers'' who led a coordinated campaign of cyber attacks from 2011 to 2013 that targeted 46 U.S. banks and a dam in Upstate New York in Rye. Unsurprisingly, the seven individuals charged have been linked to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the IRGC, the hardline conservative military force committed to the preservation of the radical revolutionary Iranian regime.

Just yesterday, the Justice Department announced that the United States negotiated the extradition from Indonesia of a Singaporean man conspiring to send U.S. equipment to Iran--equipment later found in unexploded roadside bombs in Iraq.

These various criminal charges demonstrate to Iran and the world that responsible members of the international community seek to resolve disputes through international norms and institutions or accepted ways of conduct, not provocative missile tests and ongoing violations of sanctions.

In addition, the fact that each of these indictments occurred after the implementation of the nuclear deal--while Iran did fulfill the letter of its commitments under the agreement--these ongoing violations demonstrate that the United States can continue to counter Iran's bad behavior and regional aggression without undermining the ongoing implementation and enforcement of the JCPOA.

That brings us to the third tool in our arsenal: weapons seizures. On Monday, the U.S. Navy announced that the previous week, the USS Sirocco and USS Gravely intercepted a vessel in the Arabian Sea that contained an illicit Iranian arms shipment to the Houthi rebels in Yemen. After boarding the ship, American sailors confiscated 1,500 AK-47s, 200 rocket-propelled grenade launchers, and 21 .50-caliber machine guns, including the various weapons pictured in this photograph I have in the Chamber. This marks the third successful interdiction of illicit arms in the Arabian Sea since late February. On March 20, a French Naval destroyer seized nearly 2,000 AK-47s, 64 sniper rifles, nine anti-tank missiles, and much more. That followed an interdiction a month earlier, on February 27, in which an Australian naval crew intercepted another shipment off the coast of Oman that contained 1,900 AK-47s, 100 grenade launchers, 49 machine guns, and other illicit arms, headed to Yemen by way of Somalia. All of these interdictions were done with coordination and support of the United States.

These interdictions are not just military exercises. They prevent weapons from falling into the hands of dangerous terrorists or Houthi rebels. Just as importantly, these actions send a strong signal to Iran that the international community continues to refuse to tolerate Iran's destabilizing actions and its support for terrorism.

The picture to my right shows an Australian vessel, the crew from the HMAS Darwin, part of a U.S.-led, multinational coalition intercepting and boarding a dhow that held a shipment of illicit arms, likely intended for the Houthi rebels of Yemen. The conflict in Yemen pits the Yemeni government stacked by a military coalition led by Saudi Arabia against the Houthis, a group allied with a former President and the radical Iranian regime.

Iran's support for the Houthis has devastated Yemen and the Yemeni people. Over a year of fighting has led to more than 6,000 deaths, including thousands of civilians, and more than 30,000 injuries. The human suffering has been dramatic. According to the World Health Organization, more than 21 million people--more than 80 percent of Yemen's population--today require humanitarian aid. Instead of aid, Iran sends weapons. These are not the actions of a responsible member of the international community. These are not the actions of a government the U.S. can trust. As the United Arab Emirates' Ambassador to the United States, Yousef Al Otabia, recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal, ``The international community must intensify its actions to check Iran's strategic ambitions.''

While I am pleased at recent actions by the U.S. Navy and our key allies from Europe and around the world in the region off the Arabian Sea, I think there is more that we can and should do. That is why in the months to come, instead of talking about giving Iranians access to U.S. dollar transactions, I think the U.S. should lead coordinated international efforts to enforce existing sanctions and seize the illicit arms shipments through which Iran continues to fan violence, terror, and instability--not just in Yemen, but in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and the broader Middle East.

The imposition of further sanctions, the levying of criminal charges, and the successful interdiction of weapons all show that the international community has an array of tools to push back against Iran. But just having the tools is not enough. We must continue to take action, and when multilateral mechanisms fail, Congress should work on a bipartisan basis to see what new tools or authorities we can give the administration to further crack down on Iran unilaterally.

Lest we need another reminder that Iran remains unwilling to meet the obligations required of a responsible member of the international community, on March 30, their Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei claimed that ballistic missiles are central to Iran's future--despite Iran's commitments under U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231.

The Obama administration should continue to designate bad actors for sanctions, pursue criminal charges where appropriate, and seek accountability for Iran's ballistic missile tests in the U.N. Security Council.

We must continue to work hand-in-hand with our international partners to interdict arms shipments to Hezbollah, to the Houthis in Yemen, and to the murderous Assad regime in Syria. We must not accommodate Iran in any way, given its continued ballistic missile launches, its repeated human rights abuses, and its continued support for terrorism.

I remain concerned about the message sent by rumors of allowing offshore financial institutions to access U.S. dollars for foreign currency trades in support of so-called legitimate business with Iran. We must keep in mind that both our words and our deeds send a strong signal to Iran, to our European allies, and our vital ally, Israel.

In the months and years to come, we must make clear to Iran not just that we will not waiver in enforcing the terms of the JCPOA, but also that our commitment to a successful nuclear agreement will not prevent us from taking action when Iran's bad behavior warrants it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I come to the floor to address the question of the ongoing vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. I listened with great interest to the remarks of my friend and colleague from the State of Missouri, and I think we have reached a different conclusion about how and when the American people should have their say in the question of the filling of this vacancy.

In my view, vacancies on the Supreme Court of the United States have consequences, and vacancies that go on for a great length of time have even bigger consequences. I don't believe there has been a vacancy that has lasted a year since roughly the time of the Civil War. Although we don't know this today, we don't know how long this vacancy may last.

My concern is that in the absence of a willingness to meet with the President's nominee--to hold hearings and to proceed to a vote--should that position remain firm on the part of my colleagues on the other side, we are likely looking at a year-long vacancy.

I certainly agree with my colleague, my friend from Missouri, that the Supreme Court plays an absolutely central role in our constitutional order. As he recited at length, the cases decided are of great significance. I bring to my colleague's attention that in recent weeks, on March 22 and March 29, the Court handed down tied decisions in two central cases. These four decisions are not just a waste of judicial resources, they fail to provide clarity to the litigants, the American people, and leave lower courts without a controlling precedent.

In the 3 weeks since President Obama did his job under the Constitution and nominated Chief Judge Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy created by the untimely passing of Justice Scalia, we have already seen these consequences of the Senate's refusal to engage proactively in advice and consent and consider this nomination.

Much has been made of what was said on this floor by my predecessor in this seat, the now-Vice President, then-chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, former Senator Joe Biden. I just wish to draw my colleague's attention to the entire remarks made by Senator Biden. His entire remarks include a section near the end where he said that if the President--there was not then a vacancy on the Supreme Court--would consult with the Senate and moderate in his choice and advance a consensus candidate, that candidate might well be deserving of it, might well win then-Senator Biden's support, as had been the case in several other nominations.

I will simply put to my friend and my colleague that President Obama has advanced for our consideration a nomination in Chief Judge Garland who is genuinely qualified and who has a long record in his 19 years on the DC Circuit of rendering decisions that put him right in the center of the American judiciary.

I very much look forward to having the opportunity to meet with him in person tomorrow. I think it is important that all of us give the deference and respect to the President's constitutional role implicit in our being willing to meet with his nominee. Frankly, I have profound questions about whether advice and consent by this body can be given by refusing to hold hearings and refusing to take a vote.

My Republican colleagues, friends, have asserted that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice, and I agree. I think the best way for the American people to exercise that voice is for this body to do its job, for the Senate Judiciary Committee to conduct full, fair, and open hearings, and to allow Judge Garland to answer searching questions of the sort that many of us are asking him privately, but then we should ask publicly and then have a vote--a vote by the people's representatives in this body.

That is the purpose of this Senate. There has been an election for President, the President has done his job under the Constitution, and we have a nominee. This is a fully constituted Senate--some of us in our last year of service, some in our sixth, and some in our first or second. We can be the appropriate channel of the people's voice following an open hearing, and we should cast a vote. We should not leave this Supreme Court with a vacancy that lasts months and months, maybe as long as a year.

Every term the Supreme Court receives over 7,000 petitions for certiorari. The Supreme Court hears a carefully chosen fraction of those cases, weighing constitutional principles and legal issues that are dividing the circuit courts. It is a sacred duty, a central duty in our constitutional order for the Supreme Court to be rendering important and meaningful decisions. Why would we delay the filling of this vacancy on the Supreme Court a full year? I can't see the value in that position. I understand many of my colleagues have cited precedent, have cited history, and have reached different conclusions than me.

I simply hope the 16 of my Republican colleagues who have expressed a willingness to meet with Judge Garland will continue to grow and that more of my colleagues will meet with him and then consider carefully what the consequences are for our role in advice and consent, not just for this vacancy but for the many more that may follow in the decades to come.

Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source