Tom Cotton

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. I yield back all time. Amendment No. 2749 to Amendment No. 2716 (Purpose: To improve the substitute amendment)

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, today I speak in support of the Cotton amendment to the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act. My amendment is straightforward. It simply would provide liability protection to any business or other private organization that shares cyber threat indicators to the FBI or the Secret Service. In its current form, the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act would require entities to submit these cyber threat indicators through a portal created and run by the Department of Homeland Security in order to receive liability protection. But there are also two exceptions that would allow entities to receive liability protection outside the DHS portal: first, if a submission was related to a previously shared cyber threat indicator, and second, if the submitting entity is sharing information with its Federal regulatory authority. But not every private entity has a Federal regulatory authority, thank goodness, so where a cable company can share with the FCC or an energy company can go to the Department of Energy or FERC, other businesses are forced to go to the DHS portal. Good examples are retailers such as JCPenney, Walmart, Target, and Home Depot. When the trade associations for two victims of the biggest cyber attacks in recent memory--Target and Home Depot--are pleading for this language, we should take notice and incorporate it. Anything else would be unfair, inequitable, and unwise. We ought to give these companies an alternative to the DHS portal. One simple reason is that nobody knows what the portal will look like, how it will function, or how much it will cost companies to interact with it. The Federal Government, after all, doesn't have the best track record for designing and deploying IT systems. Healthcare.gov was not exactly a resounding success. One could easily imagine a company trying to share a cyber threat indicator and getting an error message from the portal, just as millions of Americans received when they tried to sign up for ObamaCare. In this case, regulated businesses can just go to their regulator. Private and small businesses will be out of luck, though. This is the primary reason my amendment has such strong private support. Organizations such as the National Retail Federation, the chamber of commerce, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, and many others support this commonsense amendment. The second main reason that entities should be able to share directly with the FBI and the Secret Service is that the bill is about promoting collaboration between the government and the private sector, as the National Security Council says that we should in this tweet: ``More than any other national security topic, effective cybersecurity requires the US gov't & private sector to work together.'' I agree. As Director Comey recently told the Senate Intelligence Committee, the FBI has redoubled its efforts to reach out to private businesses in this area. This has paid dividends. And there is no entity in the Federal Government that the private sector trusts more on cyber security than the FBI. That is why Sony Pictures called the FBI when it was hacked by North Koreans last year. I also have to imagine that is the main reason the White House endorsed my amendment over the weekend when they sent out this very helpful tweet: ``If you are a victim of a major cyber incident, a call to @FBI, @SecretService, or @DHSgov is a call to all.'' My goodness, Susan Rice and I stand together in agreement that if you are a victim of a cyber incident, you should be able to call the FBI, the Secret Service, or the DHS. I thank the National Security Advisor and the White House for their support for the concept behind my amendment. I would also like to take a few moments to dispel a few myths about this amendment. The first myth is that the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act creates a single portal at DHS for liability-protected information sharing with the Federal Government and that the Cotton amendment would create an unprecedented second channel. This is false. The bill authorizes multiple liability-protected sharing channels with the Federal Government, not just one, through a broad exception to the DHS portal that permits certain regulated businesses to engage in liability-protected sharing of cyber threat information directly with any Federal regulators without requiring that it first pass through DHS. The Cotton amendment simply provides the same flexibility for businesses that already have established threat- sharing relationships with the FBI or the Secret Service to maintain their existing channels for sharing and not incur significant costs and delays to establish new ones with DHS. My amendment is consistent with this multichannel sharing approach. The second myth is that my amendment would harm privacy as it would allow the sharing of cyber threat indicators with the FBI and the Secret Service and that the sharing with these agencies wouldn't happen under the bill in its current form. This is also false. Under the current version of the bill, if an entity shares information through the DHS portal, the FBI and Secret Service will receive it. My amendment doesn't change that or the privacy protections in the bill. Both with and without my amendment, the FBI and Secret Service will get cyber threat indicators. The third myth is that the scrub DHS would have to conduct for personally identifiable information is not as rigorous under my amendment. Again, this is not true. The Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act requires all Federal entities receiving threat indicators to protect privacy by removing personal information that may still be contained in them before sharing with other entities. My amendment does not eliminate or weaken any of the bill's privacy requirements, as the FBI and Secret Service are required to protect privacy in the same way all other Federal entities receiving threat indicators. Finally, I simply want to note that the House-passed version of the bill contains a nearly identical provision, and that bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support on a 307-to-116 vote. To sum up, the Cotton amendment has overwhelming support in the private sector, including companies that have been victims of cyber crimes. It would lead to greater information sharing between the private sector and the Federal Government. It preserves the privacy protections in the bill. When it was included in the House bill, both Republicans and Democrats voted yes. I therefore ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Madam President, our Founders designed a constitutional government powerful enough to defend against all threats, foreign and domestic, yet safe enough itself not to threaten our liberty. The separation of powers is a primary feature of our Constitution. Our Founders knew that encroachment by the executive onto the legislature, or vice versa, isn't only a political dispute but ultimately a threat to the freedom of all Americans. Thus they provided both branches with checks and balances to prevent such encroachment. Late last week, we learned shocking news. Armed agents of the executive violated the law to intimidate a Congressman from doing his job. This is exactly the kind of encroachment against which our Founders warned. The executive hasn't yet acted with anything like the gravity this matter deserves. Until it does, I intend to use the powers of my office to demand action and to protect our constitutional order. Let me say more about the shocking news. In an inspector general report issued last week, we learned that dozens of Secret Service employees illegally accessed the personnel file of Representative Jason Chaffetz. More than a decade ago, Congressman Chaffetz applied to the Secret Service; he was not hired. Now he is the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. In late March of this year, the committee held an important oversight hearing into a serious misconduct by Secret Service agents. Mere minutes into the hearing, an agent at the Secret Service's Washington office illegally searched the Service's database, which contains all manner of criminal, security, investigative, personnel, and other data. The agent discovered Congressman Chaffetz's old job application. This search was a blatant violation of the Privacy Act, about which the computer-based system explicitly warns on a prompt screen. The agent admitted conducting the search simply out of curiosity, presumably because Congressman Chaffetz was conducting an oversight hearing. Far from an isolated incident, word quickly spread throughout the Secret Service, and 45 employees accessed Congressman Chaffetz's records over the next week on 60 different occasions. These employees were located around the world, from London to Sacramento, in multiple headquarter offices, even on Bill Clinton's protective detail. The inspector general could identify only four instances of potentially legitimate access. Moreover, the inspector general concludes that the information was shared with hundreds of people--each a violation of the Privacy Act. Some employees realized their mistake and self-reported to their supervisor, according to the inspector general. While these employees indeed made a serious mistake, at least they owned up to it. Others remained defiant, saying they didn't read the warning banner or even claiming a right to satisfy personal curiosity because the personnel files are ``our database.'' Let me state for the record my admiration for the vast majority of Secret Service agents, officers, and other professionals. We saw their professionalism on display again last month during Pope Francis's visit and at the U.N. General Assembly. They are dedicated professionals who risk their lives to defend our Constitution and laws. Indeed, Secret Service whistleblowers aware of this situation helped to initiate the inspector general investigation. Like the soldiers with whom I served in the Army, the upstanding men and women of the Secret Service want to get rid of their bad apples more than anyone. Unfortunately, the senior leaders at the Secret Service once again failed their people. The inspector general identified 18 supervisors who knew or should have known of the illegal searches and disclosures. With but one exception, the inspector general found no evidence that these senior managers reported the matter up the chain of command or took steps to stop or remedy it. These leadership failures went all the way to the top. One example is Deputy Director Craig Magaw. When briefed by a subordinate, Mr. Magaw reportedly ``made a shooing hand motion and stated `Yeah, yeah we know.' '' Despite the gravity of the allegations, Mr. Magaw apparently took no steps to learn more or stop the illegal activity, and he claims not to recall this exchange. Another example is Chief of Staff Michael Biermann, whom the inspector general characterizes as the de facto gatekeeper for Director Joe Clancy and Deputy Director Magaw. Mr. Biermann admits to hearing rampant rumors about the Chaffetz matter within 24 hours of the hearing. Yet he also apparently didn't inquire any further to learn the truth or take action to stop illegal activity. The most egregious example of leadership failure in the inspector general report is Assistant Director Ed Lowery, the head of training for the Secret Service. Mr. Lowery wrote in this email about Congressman Chaffetz, ``Some information that he might find embarrassing needs to get out. Just to be fair.'' Lo and behold, 2 days later, a news Web site ran an article-- unsourced--about Congressman Chaffetz's decade-old job application to the Secret Service. I wonder who the source could have been. For that matter, I wonder if this kind of attitude from the head of training explains some of the Secret Service's recent struggles. There is even more egregious behavior not in the inspector general report. Thanks to a Friday afternoon news dump, we now know that Director Joe Clancy himself both knew of the Chaffetz matter at the time and misrepresented the facts to the inspector general. In the report, Director Clancy states he didn't learn about the matter until a week after the congressional hearing, on the eve of a Washington Post story about the matter. As we have seen, this would have made him a notable exception among the Secret Service's top leaders. But Director Clancy, confronted with this report, is now singing a different tune. He now admits that he heard of a ``speculative rumor'' the day after the hearing and a week before the Washington Post story. Yet Director Clancy says he considered the rumor ``not credible'' and ``not indicative'' of wrongful conduct. That admission alone is a damning and ironic confession of a gross leadership failure. Let's put this in context. Director Clancy was specifically hired just months earlier to clean up the Secret Service's leadership culture after a string of embarrassing incidents. At the very congressional hearing that started all of this, Director Clancy testified that he was ``infuriated'' that he hadn't been made aware of the latest security lapse. He further testified that he was ``working furiously to try to break down these barriers where people feel they can't talk up the chain.'' Despite all that, despite all the problems he was specifically hired to fix, despite hearing rumors that obviously should have triggered immediate investigation, he did nothing for a full week to look into the matter and put a stop to it, which he only did once the story hit the Washington Post. How could this happen? How could someone hired to change the culture of his agency be so indifferent to potential illegal activity and to such a constitutional affront to the legislature that he did nothing-- absolutely nothing--until the press broke the story? To make matters worse, Director Clancy misrepresented all of it to the inspector general until the report was released last Wednesday. If anything remotely like this happened in the Army, commanders would have been relieved of command months ago. The Army holds its leaders responsible for everything their unit does and fails to do, and we should expect no less from the Secret Service leadership. Jason Chaffetz and I served together in the House. He is a tough, smart guy, more than capable of standing up for himself, although I should say this is not a partisan matter. I would feel the same way and give the same speech if Secret Service employees violated the law to intimidate Representative Elijah Cummings, chairman Chaffetz's Democratic counterpart. Of course, for that matter, how do we know they didn't? But since I am neither in the House any longer nor on the committees that oversee the Secret Service or Homeland Security, why am I so outraged by the Secret Service or Homeland Security? Why am I so outraged by the Secret Service's misconduct in this matter? First, if Secret Service personnel will violate the law to intimidate and retaliate against the chairman of their oversight committee, what might they do to a normal Arkansan, to the little guy who doesn't have Chairman Chaffetz's megaphone and position of influence? What might renegade bureaucrats in other agencies do? Second, these abuses are far more than yet another example of government misconduct; they strike at the heart of our constitutional order. Although troubled by Secret Service lapses like the Colombian prostitute scandal, I haven't spoken out on these matters, believing my peers on the oversight committee could handle them, as they did. This case, though, goes far beyond simple misbehavior, even beyond violations of law. To reiterate, armed agents of a paramilitary law enforcement agency violated the law to intimidate the Congressman charged with oversight of that agency. The gravity of this scandal hasn't thus far been met with appropriate action from the highest levels of the executive branch. Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson stated last week that he is ``confident U.S. Secret Service Director Joe Clancy will take appropriate action to hold accountable those who violated any laws or policies of this Department.'' This response is woefully inadequate on multiple counts. First, when an abuse of power strikes at the heart of our constitutional order, it warrants at a minimum the attention of a Senate-confirmed department Secretary. Second, Secretary Johnson implies there may be some doubt about whether laws were broken. In fact, the inspector general identified no fewer than 56 instances of blatant illegal activity. Third, Director Clancy cannot be trusted to handle this matter given what we know now, although, to give Secretary Johnson the benefit of the doubt on this count, he issued this statement before Director Clancy's Friday afternoon admission of misrepresenting the facts to the inspector general. Responsibility for a constitutional confrontation such as this calls for a Presidential response. Yet President Obama has been silent. His spokesman last week acted as if an apology was enough and implied that it was really just a matter of procedures not being followed--as if there are appropriate procedures for the executive to violate the law to intimidate a Member of the legislature. He even suggested that the response thus far ``is a strong indication that there is effective leadership in place at the Secret Service.'' Effective at what, one must ask? This indifferent response is far short of what this situation demands. First, Secretary Johnson must take appropriate disciplinary action against all Secret Service personnel involved, including Director Joe Clancy, Deputy Director Craig Magaw, Chief of Staff Michael Biermann, and Assistant Director Ed Lowery. I invite Secretary Johnson to brief not only me but the entire Congress. Once he makes his decision about appropriate action--for instance, firings, revocation of security clearances, removal from supervisory positions or suspension-- he can explain his own reasoning. Congress can then decide whether this discipline is adequate. Most immediately, if it turns out that Director Clancy knowingly misled the inspector general, he should resign or be fired. He was hired to clean up wrongdoing at the Secret Service, not perpetrate it and cover it up. Second, and independent of workplace discipline, the Attorney General must start a criminal investigation of the Secret Service personnel who unlawfully accessed Congressman Chaffetz's personnel file and who disseminated its contents. Criminal violations of the Privacy Act and other statutes must be punished. The inspector general lacks criminal authority, and it is unclear from his report if he was able to take certain key steps, such as obtaining personal emails and phone records. Further, Secret Service officials sat in many of the interviews the inspector general conducted, raising genuine questions about improper influence in the process. What is needed is a vigorous and disinterested criminal investigation by a single Federal prosecutor at the Justice Department. Senators often make requests for action from the executive branch, which are almost as often ignored. Let me say for the record that these aren't requests; these are demands. They are quite modest demands, given these most serious constitutional stakes. Take and explain appropriate disciplinary action and start a criminal investigation. Until then, I will be compelled to act by exercising our constitutional authority over executive branch nominations. Every officer of the United States, from the President to the newest clerk, must understand that Congress will fend off this kind of executive encroachment and there will be severe consequences for attempting to intimidate the people's elected representatives or obstructing us from doing our jobs. I am not yet at the point of calling for a total blockade on all executive branch nominations, although I may reach that point. Right before this speech, though, I did register an objection to three prominent political nominations and there will be more to follow if the executive branch doesn't act swiftly. None of these are nominees to the Department of Homeland Security, partly because the Department has no pending nominees but mostly because this is a constitutional question, not a parochial matter about a single department. I take this step reluctantly and with no particular quarrel with these three nominations or future ones to which I might be compelled to object. I do not wish to prolong this dispute, only to defend our constitutional order. When President Obama and Secretary Johnson take appropriate action, I will likewise take action and release these and future objections. I hope our two branches can resolve this confrontation quickly and in keeping with our constitutional traditions. The American people deserve no less.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes, after which point I will be followed by the Senator from Montana.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, 3 years ago when President Obama's opponent said that Russia was our chief geopolitical rival, President Obama chuckled and said: ``The 1980s called and they want their foreign policy back.'' Well, now the 1930s are calling President Obama, and they want their foreign policy back. Yesterday was the anniversary of Munich. How fitting that Russia conducted its first major military operations outside of its near abroad since the end of the Cold War on that anniversary in Syria yesterday, because the President's foreign policy has invited exactly this kind of provocation all around the world. President Obama and Secretary Kerry keep saying that they don't know what Russian intentions are, that they don't know Russia's goals are in the region. It is very simple. So let me lay it out clearly. Russia is an enemy. Vladimir Putin is a KGB spy who views the world as a zero-sum game. In the short term, he intends to prop up his tyrannical ally Bashar al- Assad, and he wants to preserve access to his expeditionary military bases outside of his country. In the medium term, he wants to either preserve Assad or he wants to replace him with a like-minded ally. He wants to diminish the power and prestige of the United States in the region. He wants to establish Russia as the main Middle East power broker, and he wants to divert attention from his continued occupation of Ukraine. In the long term, he sees an opportunity to divide EU and divide NATO at lower risk than it would take to conduct military operations such as Estonia or Latvia. If Europeans are going to be divided because of a refugee crisis of a few hundred thousand, imagine what could happen when Vladimir Putin turns up the heat in Syria and drives hundreds of thousands or more of those refugees into Europe. How has this come to pass? Why would he think he could get away with all of this? Because of the unending series of concessions and appeasement of Barack Obama toward Vladimir Putin. Before he was even elected to office in 2008, when Vladimir Putin invaded Georgia, Barack Obama--then a candidate--called for Georgia to exercise restraint while they were under an invasion. Just a couple of months later, he called for a reset in relations while there were still Russian troops on Georgian soil. A few months after that, he withdrew missile defense systems from the Czech Republic and Poland--on the 70th anniversary of Russia's invasion of Poland-- without so much as a heads-up and without getting anything in return. He entered into the New START treaty, which allows Russia to continue to grow their nuclear forces or requires the United States to reduce ours. In a ``hot mic'' moment, he was caught with Dmitry Medvedev, promising more flexibility toward Russia after the election of 2012. He fought tooth and nail against the Magnitsky human rights act, only accepting it once he realized it had overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress. He continues to look the other way as Russia violates the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. He jumped at the opportunity that Vladimir Putin provided him in 2013 to avoid carrying out his airstrikes in Syria and to enforce his own red line. Just as in Georgia, when Vladimir Putin invaded Crimea, he demanded restraint from the government of Ukraine. When Vladimir Putin began to conduct operations in eastern Ukraine, he looked the other way, he imposed weak sanctions. To this day, he refuses to arm them in the ways they are desperately calling for. So what should we do now? Again, I think it is very simple. Let me lay it out. We should make it clear that Vladimir Putin and Russia will not be a power in the Middle East. We should pressure our partners to do the same thing. We should establish no-fly zones in Syria and make it clear that any aircraft that enters those zones will be shot down. We should make it clear that we will fly where we want and when we want, that any aircraft in Syria--or, for that matter, in the vicinity of a NATO country--that turns on the transponder will be shot down as a menace to civil aviation and to our allies. We should ramp up our airstrikes in Syria against our enemies such as the Islamic State. We should threaten Iran with termination of the nuclear deal because they are continuing to provide support for Bashar al-Assad. We should make it clear that Israel retains the right to interdict missile shipments from Iran through Syria to the terrorist group Hezbollah. Let's not forget about Ukraine and Europe. We should arm Ukranian forces. We should give them the intelligence they need on Russian forces and rebels who are amassing on their border. We should enhance sanctions by expanding them across all sectors. We should move troops to base them--at least temporarily, if not permanently--on our eastern NATO flank in places such as Estonia and Latvia. Some say these responses will be provocative, but where will Putin's provocations end? What is really provocative is American weakness. Putin is humiliating the United States. If we don't draw a line now and enforce it, it will not be a choice between humiliation or war; it will be a choice between humiliation and war. I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. COTTON. Madam President, over the last year I have learned a lot about the magic of human life--from conception to growth in the mother's womb, to childbirth, to newborn development. This wasn't a part of my legislative work or my public duties. My newfound knowledge didn't come from a course of study reading scientific journals or consulting with medical experts; instead, like many parents, I learned through experience the blessings of my first child. My wife Anna gave birth to our very own little angel Gabriel almost 5 months ago. Since then, Gabriel has joined me on this very floor, at this very desk. Many of you have met our little man and happily agree that he appears to take after his mother. Gabriel has been a part of our family from the beginning, long before he was born. I remember when Anna and I first discovered she was pregnant. We were so excited, yet like so many new parents, also apprehensive for his health and safety. Then 1 year ago this week, we had our first appointment with the OB-GYN in Russellville. We couldn't believe it when we heard his little heartbeat on the ultrasound at barely 9 weeks. Anna recalls that she almost started crying, though I don't recall an ``almost'' for either one of us. Just 4 weeks later, as the first trimester concluded, we got one of those perfect ultrasound shots. We saw Gabriel in profile lying on his back, hands near his face, feet and legs kicked up in the air. We now know how much of his personality and habits he had already developed by that point because that position is how we usually find him when he wakes from his nap. Soon after, he began to flip around, kick and hiccup, which he also likes to do to this day. All of these things happened before the halfway point in Anna's pregnancy, before Gabriel reached 20 weeks. While he is precious and one of a kind for us, it is quite normal for a typical baby, as expecting parents can tell you and as modern medical science can now document. While Anna carried Gabriel to term and he was born happy and healthy, many babies aren't as lucky, but thanks to the miracle of medical science, babies age just 20 weeks after fertilization can increasingly survive if born at that extremely premature age. A remarkable study published earlier this year in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded that babies age 20 to 22 weeks can survive with skilled and proper, though not extraordinary, medical intervention and treatment. Likewise, advances in perinatology have made fetal surgery more common and successful, sometimes as early as 16 weeks. These breakthroughs can help correct or ameliorate certain fetal conditions. Not only can 20-week-old babies survive outside of the womb, but they can also undergo successful surgery inside the womb. It is common practice in these surgeries to administer anesthesia, not just to the mother but specifically to the baby in utero to prevent both from feeling pain. In other words, medical science increasingly confirms the common experience of parents and the religious and ethical belief of the ages that an unborn baby is just as much a person as you, as I, as each of us, only more innocent, more helpless and therefore even more deserving of protection, especially by the halfway point of the pregnancy. They feel pain and they seek life. It is particularly heartbreaking that such babies are killed in our country. By some estimates, 10,000 babies 20 weeks or older are aborted each year. By this point most Americans have seen the gruesome videos of Planned Parenthood officials callously discussing the dismemberment of babies to harvest and sell their organs. They cavalierly talk about using ``less crunchy procedures'' to preserve the organs, subjecting the baby to excruciating pain and death for profit. This is a sad reality in America today. Just 2 miles from where I stand, just 5 blocks from the White House is an abortionist who advertises on his Web site for abortions without restriction up to 26 weeks--right up to the third trimester. It is far past the medically accepted point of viability. Who knows how many other abortionists do the same, just more discreetly. It is past time to end this barbaric practice and protect these innocent babies. Therefore, I strongly support the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act and urge my fellow Senators to do the same. This legislation would stop the abortion of babies 20 weeks or older, with certain reasonable and widely supported exceptions. I understand that abortion provokes strong feelings on both sides of the question. I acknowledge that reasonable people of good will disagree about the wisdom and morality of early first-term abortions, but I am mystified as to why we cannot come together and agree to protect babies who feel pain and who can survive outside of the womb. It is not just I and large majorities of the American people who feel this way; the civilized world overwhelmingly rejects this kind of late- term abortion. Only seven countries allow elective abortion after 20 weeks, including Communist dictatorships like China and North Korea, which also inflict enforced abortion and sterilization on their people. By contrast, countries to our left, like France and Germany, heavily restrict or ban abortion after the first trimester and so does Belgium, home of the European Union. Even Russia bans elective abortion after the first trimester. Our abortion policy is one case where we should be ashamed of our international isolation and follow Europe's lead in protecting innocent life. In our country, founded as it is on the equal rights of mankind and the unalienable right of life, it is deeply disappointing that the laws don't protect those most innocent lives among us, particularly when medical science now has the ability to do so. These scientific advances, like life itself, are miracles. These days it may seem like a miracle when a law passes around here. If that is the case, as a father, as an American, as a lawmaker, I think a miracle is called for now if it ever was.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 16, 2015, at 10 a.m.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 16, 2015, at 2:30 p.m. in room SR-418 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 16, 2015, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``A Review of Regulatory Reform Proposals.''

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 16, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Achieving the Promise of Health Information Technology: Improving Care Through Patient Access to Their Records.''

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 16, 2015, at 10:15 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Reforming the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.''

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 16, 2015, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:15 p.m., to conduct an oversight hearing entitled ``EPA's Gold King Mine Disaster: Examining the Harmful Impacts to Indian Country.''

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 16, 2015, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``The U.S. Role and Strategy in the Middle East: Syria, Iraq, and the Fight against ISIS.''

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 16, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Oversight of the Cause, Response, and Impacts of EPA's Gold King Mine Spill.''

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I feel at times as if I have exhausted my words against the nuclear deal with Iran. I have inveighed against the wickedness of the Ayatollahs, their responsibility for the deaths of hundreds of American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, their support for terror, and their attacks on Israel and other American allies. It is the height of folly, weakness, and credulity to give Iran tens of billions of dollars in sanctions relief and put them on the path to nuclear weapons. Indeed, I feel as if I can say nothing more than I have already said. But, fortunately, the Democrats who support the Iran nuclear deal have supplied cogent arguments against the deal. Thus, rather than speak myself, I will simply let the Democrats speak in their own astonishing words. Here are the Democrats on the expiration of the deal. I remain extremely concerned that after 15 years, the restrictions on how much uranium Iran can enrich and to what level expire and Iran will once again return to its current status as a nuclear threshold state with a breakout time of just a couple of months, if not weeks. It is disconcerting that Iran can achieve this status without breaking the rules or bending the agreement. To be clear, in fifteen years, Iran will be allowed to be a legitimized threshold nuclear state. . . . My fear is that 15 years from now, America and the world will face an Iran that sees its enrichment power as legitimized, that is wealthier and more economically powerful, and an Iran that is fortified with new weapons and air defenses as embargoes on conventional arms and ballistic missiles expire five and eight years from now. That was Senator Peters. I acknowledge that legitimate concerns have been raised about Iranian activities after the first 10 years of the agreement, sometimes referred to as the ``out years.'' During this time, Iran's breakout time could shrink substantially. Senator Reed of Rhode Island. When key restraints begin to expire in 10 to 15 years--a blink of an eye to a country that measures its history in millennia--our country will still have to deal with an Iranian leadership that wants to build an industrial-scale nuclear enrichment program. That's a big problem. Senator Wyden. None of us knows what lies 10 or 15 years on the horizon. I have deep concerns about what the shape of Iran's nuclear program could look like beyond this horizon. . . . Senator Bennet. And here are the Democrats on Iran's financing of terrorism: Iran will be disruptive in the Middle East and fund terrorist activities. This regime will continue to deny Israel's right to exist. The Quds Force will still be listed as a terrorist organization, and Iran will continue to exacerbate tensions with allies in the region. Senator Gillibrand. Let's be clear, Iran is a sponsor of terrorism and an abuser of human rights. This deal doesn't change that. Senator Heitkamp. It is certainly possible, perhaps probable, that Iran will use its additional resources and access to conventional arms to increase its support for terrorist groups. Senator Merkley. I do share concerns about parts of the agreement, including how Iran could use funds from sanctions relief to continue funding Hezbollah and other terrorists around the world. It is clear they have been funding these activities despite crippling sanctions. And we are right to be concerned that additional funds from sanctions relief, or any other sources from other countries if this agreement is not approved, could be used to continue these outrageous activities. Senator Stabenow. Here are the Democrats on Iran's continued nuclear activities and enrichment: With this deal, we are legitimizing a vast and expanding nuclear program in Iran. We are in effect rewarding years of their deception, deceit, and wanton disregard for international law by allowing them to potentially have a domestic nuclear enrichment program at levels beyond what is necessary for a peaceful civil nuclear program. Senator Booker. It is certainly possible that Iran will use its nuclear research or nuclear energy program to provide a foundation for a future nuclear weapon program. Senator Merkley. Here are the Democrats on Iran's adherence to the deal: Iran is a bad and dangerous actor. We all agree on that. Senator Boxer. Critics insist America cannot trust Iran. I agree . . ., I still have serious doubts about their government. Senator Carper. We need not, and indeed should not, trust the Iranian regime. Implementation of this agreement may be challenging and we need to be prepared for the possibility that Iran will violate the agreement. Senator Casey. When Iranian extremist leaders chant ``Death to America'' and ``Death to Israel,'' the first question we have is, ``How in the world can we trust them to live up to an agreement?'' The answer is: We cannot. Senator Stabenow. Even under the deal, we should expect that Iran will cheat when it can, particularly at the margins; that it will continue or even ramp up its destabilizing activities and sponsorship of terrorism with the additional resources provided by increased sanctions relief; that it will seek to break out if the opportunity presents itself after 15 years when specialized inspections fade and many limits on its nuclear program are lifted. Senator Booker. Iran has misled us in the past when it comes to their nuclear program. Senator Markey. What a condemnation of Iran, what an indictment of this nuclear deal with Iran. But this indictment comes from the supporters of the deal. Despite their own words, these Democrats have chosen to give Iran billions of dollars that will be used to fund terror and war and ultimately put Iran on the path to nuclear weapons. So let there be no mistake for history about the consequences of these Democrats' choice: When Iran detonates a nuclear device, these Democrats will bear responsibility. When Iran launches a missile capable of hitting the United States, these Democrats will bear responsibility. When Iran kills more Americans, as it has in Iraq and Afghanistan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere, these Democrats will bear responsibility. When Iran imprisons American hostages, these Democrats will bear responsibility. When Iran attacks Israel through Hezbollah's missiles or Hamas's tunnels, these Democrats will bear responsibility. When Iran kills Jews around the world in places like Argentina and Bulgaria, these Democrats will bear responsibility. When Iran massacres its own citizens, these Democrats will bear responsibility. President Obama and these 42 Democrats bear a direct political, moral, and personal responsibility for the coming crimes and outrages of Iran's ayatollahs. There will be grave consequences for them and for all of us.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, over the past 5 months, we have learned much about the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and the intentions of Iran's ayatollahs. We know the nuclear deal will release billions of dollars to the terrorist-sponsoring Iranian regime. We know Qasem Soleimani and other terrorists who have killed Americans will be relieved of international sanctions. We know the side deals between the IAEA and Iran--side deals we have yet to see in this Senate--may entrust the Iranian regime to collect its own verification samples at its most secret nuclear facilities, allowing Iran to monitor itself instead of insisting on real, verifiable, and independent inspections. We know the right to enrich at all, which this administration conceded early on in these negotiations, will trigger an arms race in the Middle East. Just this week, the ambassador from the United Arab Emirates told the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee that if this deal goes through, the UAE may no longer abide by its nonproliferation agreements and may begin an enrichment program. I fear Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and other countries may follow suit. We know the ayatollahs--fresh from the negotiating table at Vienna-- continue to lead Quds Day crowds in chants of ``Death to America'' and issue threats at our president and our people. And, yes, we know that the deal will begin to expire in a mere 10 to 15 years, unleashing a nuclear-capable Iran on the world, free of international sanctions, with a healthier economy, and without the restraints that American diplomacy has painstakingly cultivated over the past decade. But, in the end, our vote on the Iran nuclear deal won't turn on any of these particulars. Ultimately, this vote isn't about specific centrifuge numbers or enrichment levels or the exact scope of sanctions relief. No, it is simpler than that. This vote is about history. It is about the responsibility of this Senate and the greatest Republic in history. It is about where we want the course of history to lead for our children and our grandchildren. This vote is not about a party or a President. After all, the Iranians chant ``Death to America,'' not ``Death to Democrats,'' not ``Death to Republicans,'' not ``Death to our President,'' but ``Death to America.'' Just this week, the Iranians again labeled America the Great Satan. So this vote is about empowering an evil, terror-sponsoring regime and continuing this history or seizing the moment to change history. If this deal is approved, in just a few years, Iran may test a nuclear device, as North Korea did in 2006, just 12 years after a similar nuclear agreement. With a rumbling explosion that will shake the Earth, Iran may announce its status as a nuclear power and the opening of a second nuclear age that our Nation has struggled so long to prevent. If Iran goes nuclear, history will not remember kindly the Senators who supported this nuclear deal. It won't remember your hand-wringing, your anguished speeches, your brow-furrowing. It won't remember your gullible beliefs about the flawed inspection system or unworkable enforcement mechanisms. It won't remember your soft rationalizations that this deal is ``better than nothing'' or ``the only alternative to war.'' History will remember your vote and only your vote. It will remember that you opened the gate to Iran's path to a nuclear weapon. It will remember you as the ones who flipped the strategic balance of the Middle East and the world toward the favor of our enemies. And it will remember you, this Senate and this President, as the ones who, when given the chance to stop the world's worst sponsor of terrorism from obtaining the world's worst weapon, blinked when confronted with this evil. A world menaced by a nuclear-capable Iran is a terrifying prospect. Over the past three decades, Iran has waged a low-intensity war on the United States and our partners. Iran has financed and trained Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists to do its bidding as their proxy. Iran fueled the virulent insurgency whose roadside bombs and suicide attacks devastated Iraq and sadly killed or maimed thousands of American troops. And Iran has sowed unrest throughout the Middle East and propped up Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, creating a crisis that has engulfed the entire region and that is fast spreading beyond its borders and other parts of the world. Iran has done all of this without nuclear weapons. Should it be allowed to continue enrichment and conduct research and development on nuclear technology--as this deal lets it--the ayatollahs will grow even more brazen, fearsome, reckless, and insulated from conventional forms of deterrence and pressure. Upon the expiration of this deal--or its repudiation by the ayatollahs at a time of their choosing-- Iran's strategy of terror and intimidation will become nuclearized. That is the world we may face in a few short years because of your votes. That is the threat we will confront if you bestow your blessing on a nuclear program run by the anti-American, anti-Israel, Jihadist regime in Tehran. So we should soberly recognize that the context of this vote isn't a debate that is fast coming to a close. The context isn't demagoguery or backroom pressure from a lameduck President, and it isn't the effect of this vote on our political fortunes. The context for this vote is the broad sweep of history. In late 1936, Winston Churchill spoke on the years of British appeasement in the face of German rearmament. He observed: The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences. Churchill's words are as true today as they were then. We are entering a period of consequences. Because of your vote today, the consequences may well be nuclear. God help us all if they are. I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I would like to recognize six Arkansas families who recently were named finalists for the Arkansas Farm Bureau Farm Family of the Year. Their hard work, dedication, and passion have been instrumental not only in the success of their individual farms but our State's agriculture industry as a whole, the largest industry in Arkansas. The Arkansas Farm Family of the Year program is the longest running program of its kind in the country. Each year a panel of judges selects families who demonstrate outstanding efforts in production, conservation of energy and resources, and leadership in agricultural and family affairs. This year's finalists are John and Mikki Hamilton of Searcy, Allen and Melissa Glidewell of St. Joe, the Wildy Family Farms in Manila, Brent and Ronda Butler of Siloam Springs, the Fueller family of Poplar Grove, Phil and Lesia Hamaker of Junction City, Billy and Charlotte Wilchman of Cleveland, and Roy and Carolyn Ham of Arkadelphia. These eight families farm a wide variety of crops, including cotton, corn, soybeans, tomatoes, strawberries, peanuts, rice, poultry, and cattle. Growing up on our family farm in Dardanelle, I learned it takes the whole family to make a farm successful. I want to thank not only these couples but also their children for the sacrifices they have made and the importance they place on the agriculture industry in the community and State. Congratulations on this well-deserved recognition.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I have to object. Again, this is not so much about a particular nominee but the fact that the Court of Federal Claims is operating with 11 active judges, and when you include the senior judges ready, able, and willing to hear cases, they have more than 16 judges allowed by statute, and those judges will continue to receive their salary even if we confirm any of these new judges. Furthermore, as someone who has practiced at the Court of Federal Claims myself many moons ago when I was a lawyer, albeit not a very good one, I know the caseload there has always been complex, and I simply think the judges who are at the court are ready, willing, and able to handle the court's work. Therefore, I must object.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will object. The reason we should not confirm new judges to the Court of Federal Claims has little to do with these nominees and more to do with the court itself. It doesn't need new judges. We should keep in mind that the number of active judges authorized for the Court of Federal Claims by statute, 16, isn't a minimum number, it is a maximum. It is our duty as Senators to determine if the court needs that full contingent and to balance judicial needs in light of our obligation to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars. What the caseload data shows is that the court does not need all 16 judges--far from it. As we can see from this chart, since 2007, the court's caseload has dropped dramatically and consistently every year. Last year, the court had 2,528 cases on its docket. That is 51 percent fewer than in 2011 and 68 percent fewer than in 2007, when the court had 7,185 cases on its docket. Today, a full-time judge on the court is responsible for an average caseload of 180 cases. That is far less than the average caseload of 324 cases in 2011 and the average of 488 cases in 2007. In light of the dramatic drop in caseloads at the court, it is hard to justify spending more money to confirm additional judges. The court currently also uses a contingent of six senior judges who have retired from active status but can continue to hear cases. While there are currently only 11 active judges, there are actually a total of 17 judges at the court hearing cases. Furthermore, we should understand that senior judges receive a lifetime annuity worth a full-time salary regardless of whether they handle cases. If the Senate confirms the five nominees, this will expand the number of judges receiving a salary at an extra cost of $800,000 every year. The bottom line is that there is no caseload crisis at the Court of Federal Claims. If anything, there is a caseload shortage. It therefore makes no sense to spend more taxpayer dollars on judges that the court simply does not need. I object.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, there are certain policies that should not be controversial. It should not be controversial to expect that the laws of this Nation be enforced--equally, fairly, and fully. It should not be controversial to expect local city governments to refrain from actively frustrating the enforcement of Federal law. It should not be controversial to say that an illegal immigrant and repeat felon who has been deported multiple times should not be set free to again threaten law-abiding Americans, much less be in possession of a weapon. But in our current debate about immigration, these ideas are indeed controversial when, in fact, they should be matters of simple common sense. I acknowledge that reasonable people can and do differ on issues such as border security and enforcement and the status of illegal immigrants present in our Nation. But we should not disagree about the importance of the rule of law and the need to protect the safety of the American people. That is why I have introduced an amendment that will withhold Federal immigration and law enforcement funds from any State or city that declares itself a sanctuary for illegal immigrants. If a city directs its law enforcement officers to frustrate Federal immigration law, it should not expect U.S. taxpayers to underwrite that effort. Last week, a young woman, Kate Steinle, was murdered on a San Francisco pier popular with tourists while walking with her father. It was apparently a random crime, one committed by an illegal immigrant-- Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez--with a long rap sheet. Lopez-Sanchez was in the United States despite having been deported five times previously, and he should have been deported a sixth time. Earlier this year, Lopez-Sanchez was in custody of Federal immigration authorities after he finished a Federal prison sentence, and was awaiting deportation after being designated an ``enforcement priority.'' Federal authorities handed him over to San Francisco first so he could face outstanding drug charges and requested that they be notified if San Francisco planned to release him. San Francisco did in fact release him in April after dropping charges, but it never notified anyone. The city's government simply allowed Lopez-Sanchez to walk free. This is because San Francisco has proudly deemed itself a sanctuary city. It has passed city ordinances barring its officers from assisting the enforcement of immigration law, freeing itself of the most basic responsibility to cooperate with Federal immigration authorities to keep dangerous criminals off the streets and out of the country. Indeed, Lopez-Sanchez has admitted that he goes to San Francisco because it is a sanctuary city. This is an outrage to anyone who respects law and order. One might think that it would draw a strong reaction from the Obama administration. The administration, after all, has unequivocally declared that the Constitution and our laws do ``not permit the States to adopt their own immigration programs and policies, or to set themselves up as rival decisionmakers based on disagreement with the focus and scope of Federal enforcement.'' That is a direct quote from the administration's legal brief to the Supreme Court arguing against an Arizona law designed to help Federal officers enforce immigration laws. One would think the administration would be at least as tough on sanctuary city laws that openly flout Federal immigration policies and endanger law-abiding citizens. Yet the administration has enabled--even encouraged--these sanctuary cities for years. Americans have a right to expect that governments at the local, State, and national level will carry out their most basic duty to enforce the law and protect public safety. We should all be able to agree that a family enjoying a public space such as San Francisco's piers should not have to fear being shot dead. We should all be able to agree that criminals who should be deported under our laws should not be set free with impunity. There should be no sanctuary for hardened criminals in this country. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, today, on July 7, we have seen yet another extension of the nuclear negotiations with Iran--a terrorist- sponsoring, anti-American, outlaw regime with the blood of hundreds of Americans on its hands, from Lebanon, to Iraq, to Afghanistan. This extension is yet another folly. Yet the President and the Secretary of State act as if it is cost free. These extensions are not cost free. First, Iran repeatedly violates the interim agreements--for example, by enriching uranium beyond specified limits or exporting more oil than allowed. Second, we have repeatedly taught Iran a very dangerous lesson, which is that the window for diplomacy never ends with this President and the United States. They can get extension after extension after extension, and we will grant concession after concession after concession. Just 3 months ago, Iran reneged on its commitments to send its uranium stockpiles overseas and to close its underground fortified military bunker. Now, again, they have taken that lesson and introduced a new demand into these negotiations. They are now demanding that the West lift its arms embargo on conventional arms to Iran at a time when Iran is destabilizing the entire Middle East and that we lift sanctions on their ballistic missile program, which was explicitly ruled off the negotiating table at the beginning of these negotiations. Well, here is my proposal: If Iran wants to introduce new terms to the debate at this late hour, the U.S. Government should leave the table. We should break off the negotiations, and we should say to Iran: If you want to introduce new terms, you will release American hostages within 24 hours. Bob Levinson, Amir Hekmati, Saeed Abedini, and Jason Rezaian will be released within 24 hours or the negotiations are over, we will reimpose sanctions, the U.S. Congress will impose new sanctions. It is a disgrace that we are letting Iran add new terms to the negotiations at this late hour when four Americans are still held hostage by the Government of Iran. Mr. President, I yield the floor.