Protecting Volunteer Firefighters and Emergency Responders Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, today we will begin the most important
debate this Congress will have this year, probably this Congress,
perhaps in the entire tenure any Member of this Senate has. This debate
is not just about this piece of legislation but about a nuclear Iran
and the consequences a nuclear Iran would create for the world.

Iran is today the greatest threat to the world. Iran already is the
world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, according to the Obama
administration's own State Department. We see their regional aggression
on display in Syria, in Lebanon, in Iraq, and now in Yemen. They have a
very bad habit of killing Jews around the world, from Israel, to
Bulgaria, to Argentina. They hold four U.S. citizens hostage today
without just cause or due process. They do all those things without a
nuclear weapon and with tens of billions of dollars frozen overseas.

What could we expect if Iran is able to develop nuclear weapons
capabilities?

First, we will see more regional aggression as they use their nuclear
umbrella to continue their drive for regional dominance throughout the
Middle East. They would use the tens of billions of dollars sanctions
relief would give them not to build hospitals or schools or roads or to
improve the lives of their people but, rather, to prop up their
proxies, such as the Hezbollah or the Houthis or the Shiite militia
currently at risk of tearing Iraq apart.

Second, they are likely to use those nuclear weapons. Ayatollah
Khamenei, the original Supreme Leader, upon taking power said the
Islamic revolution did not care about Iran or the Persian nation or its
history, they cared about spreading worldwide Islamic revolution. This
is not a normal state, and these are not normal leaders.

Third, we will see a nuclear arms race throughout the Middle East. As
many Senators in this institution have heard from senior government
officials of Sunni states throughout the gulf, they cannot tolerate a
Persian Shiite nuclear power. Whether they develop with their
indigenous capabilities, in some instances, or whether they purchase it
from overseas, we will see the world's most dangerous and volatile
region strung with nuclear tripwires.

Fourth, these countries may provide nuclear weapons to terrorists to
be used against American troops in the region, against our allies, such
as Israel, or other countries or in one of the harbors on America's
coasts, if not in America's heartland.

Fifth, terrorists or insurgents could get their hands on nuclear
materials if they were able to destabilize or topple the wrong regime,
as has tended to happen in the Middle East in the last 4 years and in
recent decades.

The President started these negotiations on the grounds that we would
stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Yet he has consistently
backpedaled, conceded, and reversed himself. Rather than now trying to
dismantle and disarm Iran's nuclear arms program, we are content to
trying to manage it, to limit its breakout time to 1 mere year, if
that.

The United Nation's Security Council has passed multiple resolutions
saying that Iran has no right to enrich uranium. Yet now we are going
to concede Iran the right to keep thousands of centrifuges, to continue
advanced research into centrifuges, and to keep its stockpile of
uranium.

The President said barely more than a year ago, after the
negotiations started, that Iran had no reason to
have a hardened underground military bunker in which they kept
centrifuge cascades in Fordow. Yet, according to our own proposed fact
sheet--much of which Iran disputes--we are going to concede the Fordow
issue.

The President said at the very same time after negotiations had begun
that Iran had no reason to keep its uranium stockpiles, and Iran had,
in fact, reportedly agreed to tentatively export those to a third
party. At the last minute, in Switzerland earlier this month, they
reversed themselves, saying they were going to insist on keeping their
stockpile, and we conceded on that front as well.

We have insisted throughout the period of these negotiations that we
would not grant Iran immediate sanctions relief. The President's own
term sheet said we wouldn't grant such relief. Iran's term sheet says
differently. Just Friday, when confronted with this discrepancy, the
President said we may have to find creative ways around this
disagreement--creative ways to give Iran, the world's leading state
sponsor of terrorism, on its way to becoming a nuclear threshold power,
tens of billions of dollars and reportedly even a $50 billion signing
bonus, as if Iran were not a theocratic dictatorial regime but a blue
chip prospect in the NFL draft.

These negotiations have also excluded most of Iran's outlaw
behavior--currently developing intercontinental ballistic missiles for
which there is no reason other than striking the United States; holding
those four hostages without due process or fair trials--and stopping
its regional aggression and stopping its support for terrorism.

This legislation has some good elements in it. It would suspend the
President's ability to waive any sanctions for approximately 7 weeks
while we consider any proposed bill if such a deal is reached at some
point in the future. It would also require the President to certify
every 90 days that Iran is living up to its obligations under any such
deal. But it only goes into effect after such a deal is announced. Any
deal along the lines the President proposed 2 weeks ago is dangerous
for the United States and dangerous for the world, and it is Congress's
job to stop such a deal before it happens.

The sponsors of this bill didn't upend the constitutional baseline.
This bill should be submitted for a treaty. The President should have
to get 67 votes for a major nuclear arms agreement with an outlaw
regime. Instead, Congress has to get 67 votes in the Senate to block
such a bill. That is why I intend to support Senator Johnson's
amendment that would require this to be submitted as a treaty.

This legislation omits most of Iran's outlaw behavior, and it doesn't
lay out the terms on which Congress would insist, before there is
sanctions relief, in addressing this outlaw behavior. And it may allow
the President to argue in the future--if a mere 34 Senators vote
against a resolution of disapproval--and say that Congress has
acquiesced in his agreement and that he now has support from the
Congress and is not just acting on his own whim.

Therefore, I expect to offer and I expect to support amendments that
are offered in three main categories--first, an amendment that would
treat any resolution of disapproval as a privileged amendment subject
not to a 60-vote threshold but to a 51-vote threshold. We should not
let 34 Senators block a resolution of disapproval from going into
effect. We certainly shouldn't allow 41 Senators to impede the will of
59 Senators who disagree with any future deal from forcing the
President to veto it and depriving him of the ability to claim that
Congress has acquiesced to his action.

The second main category would be to limit the administration's
discretion in the future on reporting about breaches of an agreement,
should an agreement be reached and should it not be blocked by the
Congress.

This legislation says the administration should report potentially
significant breaches to the Congress and then determine whether those
potentially significant breaches are a material breach, which is
defined as substantially reducing Iran's breakout time or improving
Iran's nuclear program. We should strike those lawyers' vague terms.
They should submit every breach to us. They should submit every time
the breakout time is decreased or Iran's nuclear program improves its
position. It is our job as the people's representatives to decide
whether it is material, whether it is significant.

The third category of amendments is that Iran should not get
sanctions relief until they live up to their international obligations,
until they meet the very baseline terms the President himself laid out
at the beginning of these negotiations or even after the negotiations
had begun, and until Iran acts like a civilized country.

There should be no sanctions relief until the President can certify
that the hardened underground military facility at Fordow is closed. He
himself said Iran had no need for it.

There should be no sanctions relief until Iran has lived up to its
international obligation to the IAEA--the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog--and
disclosed the past military dimensions of its nuclear program, without
which inspectors have no baseline to know what the status of their
program is today.

There should be no sanctions relief until the President can certify
that Iran is not developing intercontinental ballistic missiles. They
have missiles that can defend their own territory and that can strike
most of their neighbors in the Middle East. They are developing
intercontinental ballistic missiles for one reason: to strike the
United States with a nuclear warhead.

There should be no sanctions relief until the President can certify
that Iran is no longer sponsoring terrorism because it goes to the
heart of the threat Iran poses. Other countries in the world are a
nuclear threshold power--Japan, Germany, and South Korea. We don't have
debates about those countries being a nuclear threshold power because
they are normal countries with normal leaders who do not call us the
Great Satan and Israel the Little Satan and threaten to wipe Israel off
the map. Until the nature of the Iran regime changes, we cannot allow
them to have weapons of this nature. And they will not change until
they have renounced terrorism.

Next, the President should have to certify that Iran is not
cooperating with North Korea--as it has done countless times on
ballistic missile programs and nuclear technology--an outlaw regime
whose current nuclear status foretells the future of this deal. In
1994, the agreed framework was supposed to stop North Korea from
becoming a nuclear power. Yet, just 12 years later, they have developed
nuclear weapons. Now, by most estimates, they have 20--a number that
could double in just a few years--with much of the United States
falling underneath the threat of a North Korean nuclear attack.

Next, there should be no sanctions relief until all four American
hostages are released--Pastor Saeed Abenini; Amir Hekmati, a decorated
marine; Robert Levinson; and Jason Rezaian, a Washington Post reporter.
That should have been a term before we even sat down at the table, that
no American citizen will be held hostage by an outlaw, third-rate
regime like Iran--before we started negotiating with them. They and
their families deserve no less.

There should be no sanctions relief until the President can certify
that Iran has agreed to anytime, anywhere inspections. This is an
ongoing point of major dispute between President Obama and Iran's
leaders, but if we can't go to their military facilities, if we can't
inspect any facility instantly, without notification, we will be
engaged in the same kind of cat-and-mouse regime that has caused
inspection regimes to fail time and time again.

Finally, Iran should recognize Israel's right to exist. It is not too
much to simply say that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish and a
democratic country. This is a country that just a few months ago was
tweeting--tweeting--nine different reasons why Israel should be
annihilated from the world.

These are very simple terms, most of which President Obama himself
outlined before these negotiations began or which are clear and binding
international obligations on Iran. They are good amendments that would
strengthen this bill--a bill that touches on the most important issues
that most of us will address during our time in the Senate.

When we considered the Keystone Pipeline bill--an important bill but
a bill that dealt with a single pipeline--we considered almost 250
amendments, and we voted on 40. Surely, we should have the same kind of
robust consideration, debate, and voting on this bill. I strongly
support the majority leader's call earlier this morning for exactly
that kind of robust process. Most of these amendments touch directly on
the heart of this legislation. I look forward to casting up-or-down
votes on a 51-vote threshold on all of these amendments and many more
that my colleagues may offer.

I regret that I may miss some of this debate. I may have to ask some
of my colleagues to submit amendments for me. My first child is due
today. By the time this bill gets to the floor next week for debate and
voting, I expect my first child will have arrived. But I will not allow
my son to live under the threat of a nuclear Iran--the threat of
nuclear attack and ultimate nuclear war--any more than I will allow the
sons and daughters of all Americans to live under that threat.

So I look forward to this debate. I look forward to stopping Iran
from getting a nuclear weapon.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source