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

Floor Speech

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the
amendment that I plan to submit. It is amendment No. 1173. It is my
intention to work with the managers of the Iran bill to get this
amendment filed and voted on soon. What I wanted to do is to talk about
this amendment for a little bit.

I want to begin by complimenting Senator Corker, Senator Cardin, and
others who have worked hard on the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of
2015. It is a good start to a critically important issue for all of us
and for the American people. The amendment that I am proposing and that
I am offering today will make that bill stronger, will give leverage to
our negotiators, and will make our country more secure. That is our No.
1 priority. That is what this amendment will help us do.

The simple question this amendment proposes is this. Should the
United States--our government, we, this body--allow sanctions to be
lifted on a country that our own State Department has designated a
state sponsor of terrorism? It is a simple, straightforward question.
In my view, the answer is also simple. The answer is no. Sanctions
should not be lifted on a state sponsor of terrorism, especially one
with a track record like Iran.

My amendment requires the President of the United States to declare
that Iran is no longer a sponsor of state terrorism before lifting
sanctions and allowing billions of dollars to flood into that country's
economy. It is that simple. We should not allow, facilitate or
encourage billions of dollars to go to a country that sponsors
terrorism, because I fear that we have been inured to the issue of
state sponsor of terrorism. I would like to focus on what that means a
little bit.

Let's first start with the states that are on the list: Yemen, Syria,
Sudan, Iran. These countries are all on the list because governments in
each state facilitate international terrorism. We are not talking about
rogue elements within a country that are killing people within their
own borders. We are talking about governments themselves, the bodies in
charge of a country, the bodies making and enforcing a country's laws,
supporting acts of international terrorism, including against our own
citizens.

Why is Iran on the list? Since its founding in 1979, the leaders of
the Islamic Republic of Iran and the government have been sponsoring
terrorism. In fact, our State Department has called Iran the world's
most active sponsor of terrorism. Since 1979, Iran has been responsible
for taking American hostages, for bombing our and our allies'
embassies, and for horrible acts of murder across the globe.

Here is the key point. It has not stopped. According to the State
Department, Iran continues to support terrorism--Palestinian terrorist
groups--and is actively fostering instability throughout the Middle
East right now, today. Last month, March 2015, a U.S. Federal judge
found Iran complicit in the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, the deadliest
attack on a U.S. Navy vessel since 1987.

Let's talk about Iran's involvement in Iraq. I am a Marine Corps
Reserve officer. In 2005, I was recalled to Active Duty for a year and
a half, serving as a staff officer to the commanding general of the
U.S. Central Command, John Abizaid. During that time, I deployed to
many parts of the CENTCOM area of responsibility. One of the biggest
concerns--perhaps the biggest concern--that we saw in Iraq during that
time was the increasing threat to our troops of improvised explosive
devices, especially what was referred to as explosively formed
projectiles, EFPs, the most deadly and sophisticated IEDs on the
battlefield.

Almost every time I was in Iraq with General Abizaid, he and his
staff were briefed on the details of this threat, showing captured
weapons systems, the twisted, charred remains of military vehicles that
had been hit by EFPs. Those EFPs killed more American troops per attack
than any other roadside bombs. They blasted through tanks, humvees or
anything they hit. They were deadly. They killed and maimed thousands
of our troops.

I still remember the courage and trepidation I saw in the eyes of our
brave military members who had to face this threat on a daily basis,
even some members of this body. To this day, I deeply distrust the
leadership of the regime that was responsible for these EFPs.

Make no mistake, that country was Iran. That much was confirmed by
our intelligence agencies and the State Department. But Iran has never
taken responsibility for these deaths, and it has not said that it will
stop this kind of terrorism.

Let me provide an example. In 2007, CENTCOM and intelligence
officials provided very detailed briefings on the fact that these EFPs
were coming from Iran. At the same time, Iran's U.N. Ambassador wrote
an op-ed in the New York Times and said that such charges and evidence
were being fabricated by the United States. That was the U.N.
Ambassador from Iran, Ambassador Zarif. In that op-ed he was telling a
lie to the American people.

Why is that important? He is now the Foreign Minister of Iran. He is
now in charge of negotiating this nuclear deal. He is certainly not a
trustworthy man.

If sanctions are lifted, billions of dollars are going to flow from
companies and banks from around the world to the economy and government
of Iran. They are going to invest in businesses. They are going to
invest in the oil and gas sector. They are going to invest in banks.

What will the Iranian leadership likely do with that money? Do we
trust them to invest in schools and infrastructure and health clinics
so they can provide their citizens better lives?

Let's use history as our guide. Everything about that country's
leadership and everything about that country's history tells us that
that money--billions--is likely to be used to pump up their terror
machine around the world and target American citizens.

I know what we have heard from the administration: Do not worry. If
there is a violation of this agreement, these sanctions will snap back
into place. They will snap back--no problem, piece of cake.

After serving on Active Duty for that time I mentioned, I served as a
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State. I helped lead the effort in the Bush
Administration to isolate economically Iran, to go to our allies and
say you have to divest out of the Iranian oil and gas sector, the
Iranian financial sector.

There was no snap here. This was a slog. It took years to get
companies to divest. Yet now this administration is talking that we
will snap back. No problem, we will divest in a couple of days. It is a
fantasy. The Administration knows it. They should stop using the term
``snapback'' because it is not accurate. It is not accurate.

What is the alternative? The alternative is simple. Before lifting
sanctions on Iran, Iran needs to take the steps to get off the list of
countries that sponsor terrorism around the world. These are not
insurmountable steps. These would include having a clear record for 6
months. That is it, 6 months--not decades, not years--6 months of not
sponsoring state terrorism.

It would also require Iran to renounce terrorism. Simple, don't
engage in terrorism. Do not try to kill our citizens or the citizens of
our allies. Do not send your forces around the world to blow things up
or take hostages. Then we will consider lifting the sanctions. You do
not have to be our ally. You do not have to like us. We do not have to
like you. You do not have to change even the structure of your
government. You just should not target our citizens for murder the way
you are doing now as one of the biggest--the biggest--state sponsors of
terrorism in the world.

It has been said that such a requirement and an amendment such as
this would be a poison pill, meaning that if this amendment is added to the
Corker-Menendez bill, it will somehow signify the death of the bill. I
have thought long and hard about that. Do I want to be a Member of this
body who introduces a poison pill? Am I being unreasonable with this
amendment?

What I came to is this. It is our job--the most important job we have
in this body--to do everything we can to keep our citizens safe and to
enact good policy. Sometimes that means taking difficult positions, and
sometimes it means taking very reasonable positions, even though the
political process might make it seem as if this were a complicated and
difficult issue. This is not complicated. This is not difficult. This
amendment is a simple amendment. It is not difficult.

I wish to conclude with the question I began with. Is it good policy
for the United States of America to allow or even encourage countries
and corporations to do business with a state sponsor of terrorism,
particularly one that has a history of targeting and killing our
citizens? Is that good policy?

I believe the vast majority of the American people--Democrat,
Republican, any State in the Union--would say no, that is not good
policy. I believe that if the question were posed directly to the
American people, they would not consider this some kind of poison pill.
They might even consider this some kind of vitamin pill, one that will
make us stronger. It is a supplement to strengthen our negotiators'
position.

Right now there is confusion. It is in the press. The Iranians are
saying we have a deal that lifts sanctions immediately. The President
has said no, that is not necessarily clear. We have to be creative on
how this is going to happen.

This amendment will give the President and Secretary Kerry the
leverage to solve this critical issue, one that the President and the
Secretary of State should use and welcome to strengthen our position in
the negotiations and not view it as some kind of poison pill.

Again, it is a simple amendment. Before sanctions are lifted, the
President and the State Department need to make sure Iran is off the
list of states that sponsor terrorism. Iran could take the simple steps
to make that possible and the world would be a much safer place.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source