Tom Cotton

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 23, 2015, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Eroding the Law and Diverting Taxpayer Resources: An Examination of the Administration's Central American Minors Refugee/Parole Program.''

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 23, 2015, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Surface Transportation Reauthorization: Building on the Successes of MAP-21 To Deliver Safe, Efficient and Effective Public Transportation Services and Projects.''

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 23, 2015, at 2 p.m., in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

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 April 23, 2015, at 11 a.m.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 23, 2015, at 9:45 a.m., in room SR- 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a Subcommittee hearing entitled ``FAA Reauthorization: Airport Issues and Infrastructure Financing.''

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 April 23, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 23, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 23, 2015, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health Policy be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 23, 2015, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA).''

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Health Care of the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 23, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``A Fresh Look at the Impact of the Medical Device Tax on Jobs, Innovation, and Patients.''

Mr. COTTON

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.

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

Mr. COTTON

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

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, in 1941, in an address delivered at an event in honor of the Canadian Prime Minister, Winston Churchill famously declared, ``Canada is the linchpin of the English-speaking world.'' As with most things, Churchill was able to see deeper truths and recognize Canada for what it really is. Today, I wish to recognize the close and vital relationship between the United States and Canada, our great neighbor to the north. Canada is a critical partner to both America and Arkansas. We ought to find every way to strengthen our relationship and avoid every possible trouble on the horizon. The bond between the United States and Canada starts with our common heritage and our common way of life, including individuals rights, constitutional democracy, the rule of law, open markets, and the defense of freedom around the world. Canada has stood with the United States in our toughest hours to defend our common way of life. Canadian troops fought alongside our GIs on D-day at Juno Beach, where 1 in every 13 Canadians perished. After the 9/11 attacks, Canada was one of the first countries to join our campaign in Afghanistan, where 158 brave Canadians died on the battlefield--the rough equivalent of 1,400 American troops. As with our own soldiers, we honor their ultimate sacrifice and entrust their families to the tender care of a loving providence. Canada has also been a willing partner in many other security and humanitarian operations around the globe, including Libya, Haiti, and the NATO-led stabilization force in Bosnia-Herzegovina in the 1990s. Moreover, Canada is part of the Five Eyes intelligence partnership, which has its roots in World War II. This partnership is vital to our national security, helping, for example, to disrupt a 2013 Al Qaeda- associated plot to derail a train traveling between New York and Canada. If successful, this attack could have killed dozens, perhaps even hundreds. Canada and the United States also share the world's longest border-- and the world's longest peaceful border. Over 300,000 people cross our shared border every day by every mode of transport. Americans too often forget ours is the most secure and mutually beneficial international relationship among nations, taking for granted our peaceful partner to the north. Our success as the global superpower and the ability to protect our interests and global stability depends heavily on our peaceful and productive relationship with Canada. Without it, the New World would not be able to project power into the Old. Our relationship with Canada is indeed productive, as Canada has remained our best and most important trading partner. Last year, $759 billion in goods and services moved between Canada and the United States. To put that into perspective, Canada purchased more goods from the United States than did all 28 members of the European Union combined and 2\1/2\ times more than did China. These purchases included everything from raw materials to paper produced in Ashdown, rice milled in Stuttgart, and construction hardware manufactured in Blytheville. Moreover, Canada is the largest supplier of energy to the United States. In January, in fact, the United States imported more oil from Canada than all OPEC countries combined, and Canada produces 97 percent of all U.S. natural gas imports. Of course, these numbers would be even greater if President Obama would finally approve the Keystone XL Pipeline which would also create thousands of high-paying American and Canadian jobs. Arkansas, like America as a whole, has benefited immensely from our close ties to Canada. Agricultural products, iron and steel produced in Arkansas factories, and countless other products manufactured in the natural state find their way to our friends in the north, providing Arkansans with good customers and good jobs. Indeed, Canada is Arkansas' No. 1 foreign customer and 66,000 Arkansas jobs depend on United States-Canada trade and investment, which totals $2.3 billion every year. Some of Arkansas' most recognizable names reflect these Arkansas- Canada ties. Murphy Oil, headquartered in El Dorado, has operated in Canada for over 60 years, producing oil and natural gas through stakes in several projects off the coast of Newfoundland and in Alberta and British Columbia. Walmart has also had a strong presence in Canada for over 20 years. Today, they employ over 90,000 Canadians across nearly 400 retail stores. Tyson and Skippy Peanut Butter are just two of the household names produced in Arkansas that are pantry staples in Canada. With agricultural products making up nearly 20 percent of Arkansas' exports to Canada, Arkansas' ranchers and farmers help round out Canada's pantries and freezers. Given these warm, longstanding ties to Canada, my team and I have worked closely with the Canadian Embassy during my time in Congress to promote and strengthen our relationship. Unfortunately, the Obama administration at times has impeded it. The Keystone Pipeline, for instance, is not just good for American jobs but also a critical project for Canada's economy. Yet President Obama dismissed it as mere Canadian oil from Canadian companies--cavalier comments that minimize the pipeline's benefits for American workers, while also manifesting a casual disregard for our close ally's interests. Now we are seeing this neglect again with country-of-origin labeling requirements for meat products processed in the United States which threaten to disrupt trade between our two countries. These so-called COOL regulations needlessly require different labeling for products born, raised or slaughtered in either country. Today, processors are forced to either operate two production lines to keep their Canadian- born or raised cattle separate from those born and raised in the United States or maintain extensive records on where each head of cattle came from. These regulations unduly burden Canadian producers and American processors while also violating our treaty obligations. Yet they deliver little value to consumers. Yet, despite multiple adverse rulings from the World Trade Organization, the administration continues to pursue appeals, a process which is expected to end next month. As a result of these trade barriers and WTO rulings, Canada may be forced to impose reciprocal trade barriers on American products. Unfortunately, products already targeted for trade barriers include Arkansas rice, poultry, grains, and beef. If the administration does not relent, nearly $130 million in Arkansas agricultural trade with Canada will be threatened--more than half our State's annual total. We should put a stop now to this trade dispute that no one intended and no one wants. I stand ready to work with my fellow Senators and the administration to modify the labeling requirements at the earliest opportunity following a final WTO ruling. It will be good for Arkansas' farmers and ranchers, good for American consumers, and good for the health of the United States-Canada partnership. Let's work together to fix this problem, protect American jobs, and help our neighbor to the north remain our linchpin in the world.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, today we honor the 150th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's death. We all know the tragic story: On the evening of April 14, 1865, the 4-year anniversary of the beginning of the Civil War and just days after its end at Appomattox, President Lincoln was shot while attending the theater. The next morning, his last, labored breathing ceased. His fanatically unreconciled assassin was enraged by Lincoln's achievements: his saving of the Union; his emancipation of the slaves; his forecast that the freed slaves would soon be voting; his rededication of the Nation to the Declaration and to the Constitution in which it is embodied. Lincoln lived for these things, and he also died for them. Days earlier Lincoln's assassin, in attendance at the second inaugural, had ignored the reelected President's eloquent plea ``to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds,'' doing so ``with malice toward none, with charity for all.'' A year-and-a-half earlier, dedicating the cemetery at Gettysburg, Lincoln had said that ``history would little note nor long remember'' what he said. Here he was wrong--or at least falsely modest--for the Gettysburg Address is among the most beautiful and memorable speeches in history. He called upon us to ``be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us,'' and ``that government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth.'' His words call upon us still to take ``increased devotion'' from those at Gettysburg and every war since who gave ``the last full measure of devotion.'' Soon he would be among those honored dead, the final and most poignant casualty in the same war, and his death is another reason for us to renew our devotion to our great country. We should think, then, about Lincoln's message, which is like the message of our Nation. On the question of equality, Lincoln was as precise as a mathematician and as lyrical as a poet. Of equality and slavery, he said: As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy. Of equality and the Declaration, Lincoln said: I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all men, but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say that we are all equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness, in what respects they did consider all men created equal--equal in ``certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'' This they said, and this they meant. Now put these propositions together. We are unequal in most respects, but we are equal in our rights. We own ourselves, and no one else may own us. We own the government, and the government does not own us. We are entitled to our lives with the talents that God gave us. Any form of government that interferes with these rights is wrong. But in the world today are rogue nations that are growing in strength and violate these principles. They constitute a menace to our freedom and to civilization itself. At home, our government grows ever greater in its size, in its reach, and in its expense. The law is flouted increasingly by high authority. And our people say with increasing intensity that they mistrust and even fear their government. It may be for the people, but it is less and less ``of and by'' the people. On this 150th anniversary of Lincoln's death, let us be here reminded and dedicated to that cause for which Lincoln himself gave the last full measure of devotion. Let us dedicate ourselves, in Lincoln's words, ``to finish the work we are in,'' so that we ``may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.'' Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1118.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I want to replace the SGR permanently, but I also want to do it correctly. This bill has two payment models in the future. The first 4 years would give physicians a half-percent increase. In future years, though, CMS would be empowered to issue qualitative, subjective rules purporting to evaluate physician performance and patient outcomes. My amendment would simply extend the half-percent increase indefinitely. I think there are many reasons to vote for this amendment. CMS has not effectively used a blunt bureaucratic tool, such as SGR, so we shouldn't give them a nuance tool; second, CMS itself predicts we are going to have future doc fixes, which is going to undermine the stability doctors and patients need; third, the complexity of the outyear model is going to further drive consolidation, especially for rural and independent doctors; and, finally, CBO estimates this bill saves $10 billion. I urge a ``yes'' vote. Let us have a permanent doc fix that works for all doctors and patients.

Mr. COTTON. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, this amendment establishes a reserve fund to ensure the Fish and Wildlife Service considers the cumulative economic impact of a critical habitat designation and not just the incremental impact when listing a previously designated critical habitat. A critical habitat designation provides additional protections for endangered species, but States like Arkansas have seen critical habitat designations that do not take into account the full economic impact on farmers, ranchers, and landowners. Previously, the full economic impact of a designation was considered, but that has been modified recently so only the marginal impact between the endangered species listing and the critical habitat designation is considered. Any reforms should not change the listing process, and I would not suggest we should change the listing process in this measure. I simply want to account for the full economic impact of such designations, and I urge my colleagues to cast a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable provision of the Budget Act, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I know Guantanamo Bay operations are a controversial matter in this Chamber. This amendment does not address that. I took a group of Senators to Guantanamo Bay a couple of weeks ago. Soldiers are living in substandard barracks. Communication facilities are not adequate. Even if you oppose detention operations at Guantanamo Bay, you should know that, in barely 20 years, there have been five different humanitarian operations at Guantanamo Bay, to include post- Haiti earthquake operations. This amendment would allow for construction to ensure that Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, regardless of detainee operations, treats our troops to the highest standards they deserve, and preserves it for humanitarian contingency operations in the future. I urge a ``yes'' vote. I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment with the modifications at the desk.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, for decades, this Congress has provided bipartisan support to the U.S.-Israel alliance in part because the support of the American people for the Israeli people is so strong. Unfortunately, for almost as long, the United Nations has singled out Israel for unfair, discriminatory treatment, whether it is the 1975 Zionism is Racism Resolution or the recent obsession of the Human Rights Council. It has been the longstanding U.S. policy to prevent unfair, discriminatory treatment against Israel at the United Nations and other international institutions. I believe it is urgent that this Congress reaffirm that policy. This amendment will allow a funding mechanism to adjust funding to the United Nations or other international institutions should they target Israel for unfair, discriminatory treatment. I hope we never need this mechanism, but I believe it is critical that Congress reaffirm our commitment to the U.S.-Israel alliance in preventing unfair, discriminatory treatment.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds to conclude.