National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017--Motion to Proceed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I thank our colleague, the Senator from Oklahoma, for telling that marvelous story and offering some hope--not just talking about it but doing something about it as well.

Of course, it reminds me a little bit of our recent trip to Charleston and the amazing thing that happened there after a terrible tragedy when a young man opened a gun in a church and a killed a number of innocent people who were there worshipping and who had taken him in.

Just as the story told by the Senator from Oklahoma, one of the things we found when we visited Charleston later, as the Presiding Officer will recall, was the power of forgiveness. This changed the entire conversation when people in great pain, suffering an unspeakable tragedy, had the faith and the fortitude to stand and say: You hurt me, but I forgive you.

It was very, very remarkable. It reminded me of that experience. What Senator Lankford was telling us about Tulsa--the Tulsa race riot-- reminded me of the similar lesson and example. There is perhaps nothing more powerful than a good example, and we saw that rising out of great hurt and great hate.

I thank the Senator for telling the story and reminding me of that recent experience in Charleston.

Mr. President, sometimes when I go home to Texas, my constituents tell me: I don't know how you stand it. I don't know how you stand the frustration of working in Washington and dealing with some of the politics, the unnecessary obstacles, the procedures, just the delay-- the do-nothing aspects of this job.

Unfortunately, I was reminded of that again because we are here ostensibly working on a national defense authorization bill, burning daylight and wasting time when we could actually be dealing with the needs of our men and women in uniform--making sure they have the equipment, training, and the tools necessary to fight our Nation's wars and keep our Nation safe.

But we are just burning hours on the clock because the Democratic leader, in his--I was going to say in his wisdom. I don't think it is in his wisdom. I think it is just an effort to delay our ability to progress with this important legislation on a bipartisan basis. This is legislation, after all, that was supported by every Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. They know what is in the bill. It has been posted for a long time. Anybody who really cared enough to find out could have found out what was in this bill. We could be having a debate and a discussion about how we can improve it, about how we can reconcile the House and Senate versions and get it to President Obama for his signature so our troops don't have to wonder, so they don't have to wait, and so they don't have to worry about whether we care enough to get our work done to support them.

Despite all the foot dragging we have seen and the frustrations that are just inherent in this job--because things never happen as quickly as any of us would like, and I think certainly that adds to the public frustration--we actually have been getting some things done around here. It is just that we have had to grind them out and take a long time do them.

But I know the majority leader, Senator McConnell of Kentucky, is determined to complete this legislation, and we will. In Senator McCain, the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, we couldn't have a more forceful advocate for the men and women in uniform and the veterans. Of course, he was a great example of that true American hero--a former prisoner of war himself. You can tell how passionately he feels about doing our duty by our troops.

I did want to mention a few things I will be offering by way of amendments that I think will help make America safer and take some small steps toward correcting some of the foreign policy mistakes we have seen from this administration over the last few years.

The first two amendments I intend to offer focus on countering the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism; that is, the nation of Iran. The first amendment I have specifically targets an airline called Mahan Air, which is that country's largest commercial airline--the largest commercial airline and the No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism. This airline has repeatedly played a role in exporting Iran's terrorism. It supports the efforts of the Quds Force, an elite fighting unit of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards, and supports Hezbollah as well. We might as well call Mahan Air ``Terrorist Airways.'' That might be a more appropriate name. Because of its role in ferrying Iranian personnel and weapons throughout the region in the Middle East, it plays a big hand in undercutting the interests of the United States and our ally Israel.

Of course, everywhere you turn, Iran is up to some sort of mischief-- in Syria, obviously, with their efforts to shore up the corrupt and brutal regime of Bashar al-Assad, its support of Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist organizations. It seems like everywhere you turn, they are up to no good. And, of course, there is the nuclear agreement, which I think was enormously misguided, and they have thumbed their noses at the very basic elements of that agreement, demonstrating they have really no interest in complying with it. And the United States, in turn--well, actually the administration; because it is not a treaty, it doesn't bind future Presidents--but we have essentially, in the words of Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel, not contained or prevented Iran from gaining nuclear weapons; we have essentially paved the pathway.

Today, Mahan Air is working to add more international airports to its flights, including several in Europe. Given the links to terrorist activity, we have to consider the potential security risks to Americans and others who fly in and out of airports where Mahan aircraft may land.

This amendment would require the Department of Homeland Security to compile and make public a list of airports where Mahan Air flies, and it would require the Department of Homeland Security to assess what added security measures should be imposed on flights to the United States that may be coming from an airport used by Mahan Air.

I recently had the chance--and I have spoken about this--to go to Cairo with the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and the chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, my friend Michael McCaul of Texas. One of the things we looked at was airport security because there are flights that currently exist between Cairo and JFK Airport in New York. It is my understanding there are also flights planned from Cairo to Reagan National here in the District of Columbia.

Following the explosion on a Russian plane out of Sharm el-Sheikh in southern Sinai, it is pretty clear Egypt has a lot of work to do to improve its homeland security measures in both its screening of baggage and also personnel who work at airports.

So you can see why people would necessarily be concerned about the action of Mahan Air and what risk that might expose innocent passengers to. I hope my colleagues will review the proposal and support it.

The second amendment I have related to Iran would require President Obama to determine if Iran violated international law several months ago when it detained a number of U.S. sailors. Under bedrock rules of international law, all ships, including U.S. Navy ships, have the right to innocent passage through another nations' territorial waters. In other words, when one of our Navy's riverine boats is innocently transiting across Iranian waters and is not engaged in military activity or taking any other action that would prejudice the peace and security of Iran, it is against the law--against the law--for Iran to stop, board, and seize that vessel. Iran can't just remove our sailors from their boats and detain them in Iran because they feel like it or steal the GPS units from those boats.

In addition, the Geneva Convention makes clear that Iran can't detain for no reason and exploit another nation's military servicemembers, especially not for propaganda purposes, which is clearly what they did. Iran can't force our sailors to apologize when they have done nothing wrong. Iran's Revolutionary Guards and their state-controlled media had a heyday with the videos and images of our sailors they captured and purposely humiliated.

It seems very likely, based on available evidence, that they violated our sailors' rights of innocent passage and very likely the Geneva Convention itself, and I think we need the Commander in Chief to call Iran into account. This type of destabilizing and dangerous behavior by Iran cannot occur without some consequences.

My amendment would require the President to determine if the rules of international law were broken and, if so, require the imposition of mandatory sanctions on Iranian personnel who were involved.

A third amendment I have introduced would grant tax-free income status to U.S. troops deployed to the Sinai Peninsula.

As I have mentioned before, after our trip to Cairo, we flew out to North Camp, a peacekeeping mission in the northern part of the Sinai. This is an area between the Gaza Strip and Egypt where, as part of the peace agreement between Egypt and Israel, negotiated by Prime Minister Begin, President Sadat, and President Carter, this peacekeeping operation was established. It is called the Multinational Force & Observers, and it is largely made up of U.S. military, although it is led by a two-star Canadian general and a number of Colombian soldiers and others.

Our troops play a strategic role in maintaining peace between Egypt and Israel right there in the northern Sinai, and their work is incredibly dangerous. Unfortunately, some Bedouin insurgents have now affiliated themselves with ISIS. They have claimed allegiance to the Islamic State and are regularly putting out improvised explosive devices, which kill Egyptian peacekeepers.

By granting our troops tax-free status for their pay, we can put them on equal footing with other American troops who are deployed in other dangerous places, such as Afghanistan and Iraq and other similarly dangerous hot spots around the globe.

Finally, I mentioned earlier this week that I will be submitting an amendment to support the human rights of the Vietnamese people. The President has been in Hanoi for the last couple of days, but, frankly, the conduct of the Communist regime is marked by the regular silencing of dissidents and the press and anti-democratic, heavyhanded tactics to stay in power at any cost, not to mention the denial of religious freedom. By one estimate, Vietnam is currently detaining about 100 political prisoners.

Clearly, this country does not come anywhere close to sharing the values we have here in the United States, democratic values, and rather than steadily improving, I am afraid there is no sign the Vietnamese Government is working to advance more freedoms for its people.

Just this last week, during the visit of President Obama, it was reported that several activists who planned on meeting with the President were detained by the Communist Party and prevented from doing so. Similarly, a BBC correspondent said that the Vietnamese Government ordered him to stop his reporting, simply silencing this reporter from the BBC. Earlier this month, the wife of a Vietnam activist testified before a subcommittee on the House Foreign Affairs Committee about her husband, a human rights lawyer, who was beaten by plainclothes officers and imprisoned. What was his crime? Well, according to the government, he was charged with ``conducting propaganda against the state.'' His wife hasn't seen or heard from him in months.

While I support increased economic and security ties with Vietnam, I don't believe we should sacrifice our commitment to human rights in the process. We should not be seen as tolerating this sort of anti- democratic behavior. At the very least, we shouldn't be rewarding it with new access to arms deals by completely lifting the longtime arms embargo against Vietnam. And what did we get in exchange? Well, I think it approaches zero or nothing.

My amendment would help ensure that we don't reward Vietnam for bad behavior, such as human rights abuses, when we confer upon them benefits, such as lifting the arms embargo, and that they show some respect for democratic values, religious liberties, and human rights.

We have to keep in mind that the Vietnamese people in that country have no real voice because they are subjects of a Communist dictatorship. We must do more to put pressure on the regime in Hanoi to empower their own people. Cross-Border Trade and Enhancement Act

Separately, Mr. President--and I see my colleague from Wyoming wants to speak, so let me conclude with this--earlier today, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee passed legislation I have introduced called the Cross-Border Trade and Enhancement Act, a bill that would help our ports of entry by strengthening public-private partnerships at air, land, and sea ports.

In Texas, because we share a 1,200-mile common border with Mexico, we have seen upfront and close the security challenges--which we need to do much more to address--but also the benefits of bilateral trade. As a matter of fact, trade between the United States and Mexico supports about 6 million American jobs.

We have seen time and time again how important these public-private partnerships are in helping to reduce wait times for the flow of commerce across the border and moving people and goods across safely and efficiently. This isn't just about convenience; this is about security and compliance with our laws, interdicting illegal drugs and other activities.

This legislation would also improve staffing, in addition to modernizing the infrastructure to help better protect legitimate trade and travel and keep our economy running smoothly.

I thank the chairman, Senator Ron Johnson, for his commitment to this issue and commend him for his diligent effort in leading the committee. I am glad the committee understands that the priority here is to strengthen our ports of entry at the border and across the country.

I am grateful not only for the committee's support but also the bipartisan support of other cosponsors, including Senator Klobuchar, the senior Senator from Minnesota, and Senator Heller, the junior Senator from Nevada.

As always, I appreciate my colleague on the House side, Henry Cuellar, for working with me on a bipartisan basis and introducing companion legislation in the House.

I hope now that the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has acted, this Chamber will take up the bill soon so we can build on the success of similar programs in Texas and across the country.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source