Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act -- Veto

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I came here to speak on another topic, but let me interject in light of the comments from our colleagues from across the aisle on the Keystone XL Pipeline. Everybody says, on a bipartisan basis, We want job-creating legislation. We want to facilitate the creation of new jobs here in America. When it comes to voting, our friends across the aisle seem to be stuck on voting against job-creating legislation, because our State Department has estimated that as many as 42,000 jobs would be created by the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline.

The thing that mystifies me the most about this debate is at last count, we had roughly 2.5 million miles of pipelines crisscrossing America. I have come to the floor before and I have suggested that people might want to do a search on their laptop or on their tablet for oil and gas pipelines, and they will see a map of those pipelines, and it looks like a spaghetti bowl, because they are everywhere. Indeed, we also know this is the most efficient and the safest way to transport natural gas and crude as well.

So I remain mystified by the fact that the President and many in his party seem determined to try to kill what is clearly job-creating, energy-providing legislation that would be from a friendly source.

THE ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH TO CONGRESS

Mr. President, turning to the Middle East, yesterday, as we all know, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered what can only be characterized as a powerful and important message about the common threats to the national security of Israel and the United States. Again, only in Washington would a speech such as this be controversial. I think most people would be concerned enough about the subject matter of what he talked

about that they would want to hear the insights and information he delivered in that speech. It was a powerful and important message, and really a call to arms for the United States and our allies in Israel against the threat of radical Islam, particularly in the form of Iranian terrorism.

His words reminded me why--as I know many on both sides of the aisle agree--we have no closer Middle Eastern ally than Israel. Unfortunately, his speech also reinforced the belief I have held for many years that we have no bigger adversary in the Middle East than Iran.

The cold, hard truth is that today, more than ever, Iran is a terror-sponsoring theocracy that is actively pursuing a nuclear weapons capability and trying to establish an Iranian axis of power from Tehran to Damascus to Beirut to Gaza. Iran claims a right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, but its leaders have routinely lied and attempted to deceive inspectors in the past as a matter of standard practice.

Prime Minister Netanyahu also reminded all of us whose memories might have dimmed that over the last 30 years, Iran has engaged in a war by proxy against the United States and our allies. I was reminded by a member of my staff of an article that came out in 2011 in the National Journal. The heading of it is: ``Record Number of U.S. Troops Killed by Iranian Weapons.'' It tells the tragic story that June of 2011 was the deadliest month in 2 years for U.S. troops, with 14 killed. These were primarily by Iranian-backed militias using very deadly weapons called explosively formed penetrators that could literally cut through the steel in our humvees and other armored vehicles like a hot knife through butter.

So given this track record that we were reminded of by the Prime Minister yesterday, and just the remainder that I have tried to provide here with this article, do we really believe that Iran would use its nuclear weapons in a way that would not make the world more unstable and less safe? Do we really believe that Iran, were they to get a nuclear weapon, won't give it to the same proxies that have been killing Americans and our allies in the Middle East and around the world, including the Shia militia, Hezbollah, Hamas, or the dictator in Syria, Bashar al-Assad, who has now killed roughly 200,000 of his own civilians in a civil war, and with almost 13 million people displaced not only internally, within Syria, but in neighboring countries and the like?

So as the P5+1 negotiations involving the United States continue, there remain serious questions about Iran's true nuclear intentions and about whether the deal the Obama administration is eagerly finalizing--whether it will cement Iran's status as a nuclear threshold nation. Based on some of the details we know so far, many of which are being held very close to the vest by the administration and not being made known to Congress, much less the American people, the President's deal would abandon longstanding U.S. policy of preventing a nuclear-armed Iran, period.

I remember when the former Secretary of Defense, Senator Hagel at the time--he became the Secretary of the Department of Defense--when asked about our policy toward Iran, stumbled a little bit in his answer but ultimately said that containment was not our policy. Our policy was to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. But it appears now that the deal that is being negotiated on the President's behalf by Secretary Kerry would abandon that longstanding U.S. policy of preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Instead, it would opt for a feeble 10-year containment plan. Such an outcome would be both dangerous and unacceptable.

So while I was glad to hear Leader McConnell announce yesterday that the Senate will soon consider bipartisan legislation that would give Congress the authority to approve any agreement that is reached by the administration, that was quickly replaced by confusion when I read that some of my Democratic colleagues, who have shown great courage in urging that Congress have a role in approving any negotiated agreement between Tehran and the White House--now they are suggesting they might filibuster their own bill and the vote we are going to have at 5:30 on Monday.

Yesterday, for example, one of our colleagues who had been a key sponsor of this bipartisan legislation said that he was outraged--outraged--that the Senate would vote on the very bill that bears his name. He indicated his outrage with the Senate not for voting on the substance of the bill, but basically because of the timing. He thought the timing was wrong. In other words, he opposes voting on his own bill because of the Senate procedures and the process. I don't know how we explain that back home. I couldn't sell that to my constituents in Texas, saying, I am a sponsor of this legislation; I think it is important and the right thing to do, but I am going to vote against it because I disagree with the majority leader's timing, or the procedure by which the majority leader is bringing this to a vote and debate in the U.S. Senate. Good luck explaining that to our constituents.

I suspect who is also not concerned with the process are the Israeli Government and the millions of innocent civilians who stared down an Iranian regime bent upon their annihilation every day. I suspect they could care less about the process. What they want to do is to stop Iran from getting the bomb.

So I sincerely hope everyone here who has supported Israel and embraced a policy of blocking Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon will calm down and work together and consider this important piece of legislation. Because as we heard yesterday, again, from Prime Minister Netanyahu, it has profound implications for both our national security as well as the security of our best ally in the Middle East.

Before the Obama administration initiated these misguided negotiations, Congress had created incredible economic pressure on the regime in Tehran through sanctions backed by the threat of military action. It also has helped, frankly, that America is now producing more oil, and the price of oil is now down around $50 a barrel, more or less. That has put incredible financial pressure on Tehran itself, because they have basically had to finance their terrorist ambitions around the world through these various proxies by use of high oil prices. But we had imposed tremendous sanctions on Tehran, which, of course, the administration is now in the process of rolling back.

I believe an approach of tough sanctions is one we must return to as quickly as possible. The President and some of his friends have suggested it is either this deal or war. That is a false choice. That is not true. It is either this deal or tougher sanctions, sanctions designed along with the credible threat of military action if Tehran continues on its path to get a nuclear weapon that I believe will ultimately have the best chance of success and deter them from getting it.

The concept of good-faith negotiation, though, strikes me as a little implausible when you are dealing with the rogue regime and state-sponsored terrorism. We simply cannot trust the Iranian leadership with nuclear weapons. Yet, sadly, the President seems to be traveling down a path to secure what he views as a legacy foreign policy accomplishment when he should be implementing an Iran policy that would best safeguard America and our allies for years to come.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source