[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 100 (Tuesday, June 13, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3440-S3451]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COUNTERING IRAN'S DESTABILIZING ACTIVITIES ACT OF 2017
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
resume consideration of S. 722.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the bill.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 722) to impose sanctions with respect to Iran in
relation to Iran's ballistic missile program, support for
acts of international terrorism, and violations of human
rights, and for other purposes.
Pending:
McConnell (for Crapo) amendment No. 232, as modified, to
impose sanctions with respect to the Russian Federation and
to combat terrorism and illicit financing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
U.S. Travel to Cuba
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, rumor has it that on Friday the President
will announce a change in U.S. policy toward Cuba. There are lots of
different rumors about what that might entail. I thought I would talk
for just a couple of minutes about the consequences of such action,
what has been accomplished in Cuba, what our goals are, and what I
think our goals should be.
We have had a long policy of isolation with regard to Cuba. For more
than 50 years, we tried to isolate the island and hoped the government
would change somehow. It didn't. For more than 50 years, we have
prohibited Americans from freely traveling to Cuba. We have had periods
that the restrictions have gone down a bit and then up again, but by
and large Americans have been prohibited, unless they fall into certain
classes, to travel to Cuba. Then, when they are in Cuba, their travel
around the island, the activities they undertake, are specifically
prescribed by the U.S. Government.
I always thought that certainly there is a place for economic
sanctions. Sometimes they can help nudge countries or push countries
toward a desired outcome--but a travel ban? You only impose a travel
ban under extreme circumstances, such as when national security reasons
dictate, and there hasn't, for a long time, been national security
reasons for a travel ban. I have always thought that as an American
citizen that if somebody is going to limit my travel, it ought to be a
Communist, somebody from another country that wouldn't let me in, not
my own government to tell me where I can and cannot travel. I think
most Americans feel that way.
I think we ought to first consider whom these sanctions are on. The
sanctions we have had for so many years have not really been on Cubans;
they have been on Americans. Gratefully, the previous administration
lessened these restrictions or lessened the impact around them. Around
2008 or 2009, the last administration said that Cuban Americans should
be able to travel freely at least. Prior to that, we had instances
where Cuban Americans would have to decide, if their parents, for
example, were still in Cuba and were aging, maybe their mother was
infirm--they had to decide if my mother passes away, do I attend her
funeral or if my father passes away within 3 years--see, it used to be
that Cuban Americans were limited to travel to the island just once
every 3 years. They had to decide whether to attend their mother's
funeral or their father's funeral. What a terrible thing for our
government to tell American citizens, that they have to choose whether
to attend their father's funeral or their mother's funeral. What kind
of a country is that? Why would we do that? Yet we did for a number of
years.
Gratefully, the last administration lifted restrictions on Cuban-
American travel and at the same time lifted considerable restrictions
on remittances, allowing money to flow more freely to relatives and
others on the island. That coincided with the time the Cuban Government
realized they couldn't employ every Cuban, not even at $20 a month, so
they said: Go ahead and find another line of work in the private
sector, run a bed and breakfast, have a private restaurant, have an
auto repair facility or a beauty shop. Hundreds of thousands of Cubans
have done so over the past 5 years, largely with seed capital provided
by travel from Americans, particularly Cuban-American travel and
remittances.
So there was a situation where virtually no Cuban was employed in the
private sector 5 years ago, but today as much as 25 percent of the
Cuban workforce is now in the private sector. They have obviously more
economic freedom. The average waiter in a Cuban private restaurant
brings in $40 to $50 a day, while the average Cuban working for the
Cuban Government brings in $20 to $30 a month. So there is
significantly more economic freedom for those in the private sector in
Cuba but also significantly more personal freedom as well. That is a
good thing. That stands with the policy and goal we always had to
increase freedom for the Cuban people.
Now we hear that the administration may want to turn back some of
that progress and say that Americans shouldn't be able to travel as
freely or as frequently to Cuba. Some of the rumors say they will limit
travel to once a year. We don't know if that will be for Cuban
Americans or all Americans. By the way, it seems rather strange to have
a policy that is ethnically based, where we say: You are a Cuban
American, you can travel, but if you are another type of American, you
can't. That just seems pretty un-American. We can't get back into a
situation where a Cuban American, living in the United States, will
have to choose whether they can attend their mother or their father's
funeral. I hope we don't get back into that time.
Another thing we ought to consider is that when Americans travel more
freely, as they have been able to do under what is called a general
license for individual travelers--that was one of the changes that was
made in just the past couple of years--then individual American
travelers tend to go to Cuba and stay in a bed and breakfast run by a
private Cuban citizen, travel in private taxi cabs, frequent a private
restaurant. My own family has done that.
If we go back to the time when American travelers have to travel
under a specific license or as a group, then those travelers will be
pushed toward the Cuban hotels which are owned by the Cuban Government
or military. Therefore, you have aided the Cuban Government more than
the Cuban people. Under no system will you be able to cut off money
completely from the Cuban Government or the private sector. There is
leakage everywhere. That is how economies work. Why in the world do we
have a policy where we directly benefit the Cuban Government
[[Page S3441]]
by pushing American travelers to the hotels they own rather than the
private homes owned by private Cuban citizens? It seems to me these
policies, if they are going to come forward--and it seems that they
might be--just go against the policies and the goals we have.
Another thing we need to consider is that in the old times, when we
had more restrictive policies on travel on Americans, those had to be
enforced somehow. That falls upon the Office of Foreign Assets Control
at Treasury.
OFAC, you may have heard recently, is the office we charge to enforce
our sanctions on Iran. We are putting new sanctions on Iran. They will
be charged with enforcing those. They will be charged with enforcing
sanctions on Russia and new sanctions on Russia as well. Sanctions on
North Korea, again, falls to OFAC. Yet we are telling OFAC that now
they are going to have to spend a considerable amount of time and
resources and manpower tracking down people going to Cuba to see if
they stick to their designated, approved itinerary, whatever that might
be, whatever we think they ought to be doing there, rather than what
they want to be doing there. That just seems foolish to me and a waste
of money, time and resources, and wrongheaded priorities with regard to
other priorities that we have on sanctions.
We had situations in previous years that would simply be laughable if
they weren't true, but I think the administration ought to consider
that when we have a restrictive policy on travel, we are going to have
situations that are just flat embarrassing to us. If that sounds crazy,
it doesn't sound crazy to Joan Slote of San Diego, who traveled to Cuba
in the year 2000 at the age of 72 with a Canadian company that
organized cycling tours. She was fined $7,500 in the United States
because she hadn't preapproved the itinerary and didn't follow the
guidelines. She went through a Canadian company to do that. The
subsequent fees totaled nearly $10,000. I think it was settled for
something less, but why in the world are we sanctioning and fining a
72-year-old woman who went on a biking tour in Cuba.
Consider the case of Cevin Allen in the State of Washington. He spent
part of his childhood in Cuba, where his parents were missionaries.
They built an Assembly of God Church in a town in southeastern Cuba.
His parents died in 1987 in a house fire. Ten years later, Allen
traveled to Cuba to scatter the ashes of his parents at the church they
had built. He also brought a family Bible to give to the church's
pastor. Cevin returned to the United States via Nassau, Bahamas, where
he told U.S. agents he had just been to Cuba. He told them the reasons
for his travel. His initial fine was $7,500.
Do we really want to be fining people who are scattering the ashes of
their parents? These aren't isolated incidents. This went on for a
while.
A woman from Indiana was fined for distributing Bibles in Cuba
because her itinerary didn't include a trip to the beach. She went to
the beach, I am told, to participate or to watch a baptism that was
happening at that time. Why in the world would we try to limit that
kind of travel? Yet that is what we would be doing if we go back to
restricting travel.
Maybe these rumors are overblown. Maybe we will not be imposing new
restrictions on travel, but if we are, I hope the administration will
consider these things.
There is another rumor out there that we know that if we diminish
American travel, therefore diminishing the amount of money that goes to
these Cuban entrepreneurs who are running bed and breakfasts and
private restaurants, then we can make up for it somehow by having some
of our government agencies teach entrepreneurship classes. Anybody who
has been in Cuba understands that Cubans who have survived on $20 a
month for decades are more entrepreneurial than we will ever be. They
don't need lessons in entrepreneurship, they need customers, and by
denying Americans the freedom to travel to Cuba, we will be denying
them customers, and they will be worse off. Their political freedom
will be diminished. Their economic freedom will be diminished. Their
personal freedom will be diminished. That is not what we want.
Obviously, we want the Cuban Government to change. It has been
disappointing, the rate of change. Why would we take it out on the
Cuban people? Don't they have it tough enough with a Communist
government that wants to control and keep that control as long as they
can? Why don't we continue to help the Cuban people as they have been
helped over the past couple of years? We also want to consider the
cooperation we have with the Cuban Government with regard to issues
such as drug interdiction, environmental cooperation, immigration
enforcement. In the past couple of years, we had a lot of Cubans
rafting to South Florida because of the wet foot, dry foot policy. We
have had tens of thousands of Cubans crossing the Mexican border to
make it to Arizona or Texas or California or New Mexico to claim or to
be paroled into our system and ultimately perhaps to get citizenship.
Because of agreements we have had and the diplomatic cooperation we
have had over the past couple of years, and specifically over the past
couple of months, we have been able to reach an agreement where we
don't have that kind of migration and those kinds of issues. So there
are tangible benefits to the diplomatic cooperation we have had. I am
told we are not going to touch that; that we are not going to roll
back. We have diplomatic relations and that is a good thing.
We don't want to go back to the time where instead of an embassy, we
had a special interests section in Cuba and the Cubans had one here. I
hope the President of the United States and his Cabinet will consider
these things as they make decisions on what to do on Cuba. There are
changes to policy we can make, but I would argue they would be more in
terms of further liberalizing travel. We have a bill that has been
filed in the Senate with 55 cosponsors. It is a bipartisan bill to
completely lift the travel ban and get rid of it completely. If such a
measure is brought to the floor, I am confident there will be between
65 and 70 votes--maybe more--for such a bill. Instead, we seem to be
going in the other direction or the administration is talking about
going in the other direction. I hope they will reconsider.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 232, as Modified
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, Russia remains a hostile, recalcitrant
power that deploys its military, its cyber espionage activities, and
its economic tactics to harm the United States of America--to drive a
wedge between us and our allies.
President Obama began to impose tough sanctions for Russia's cyber
attacks, its cyber intrusion, its illegal annexation of Crimea, and its
continuing aggression in Ukraine and Syria. Congress joined in that
effort by enacting two measures to tighten and broaden those sanctions.
Lifting and relaxing those sanctions now would only reward Russia's
attempts to undermine our democracy.
The administration continues to exercise a policy of strategic
ambiguity when it comes to Russia, and the President, putting it
mildly, has sent mixed signals. Just last month, Gary Cohn, the
President's senior economic adviser, seemed to suggest that the United
States could relax sanctions on Russia, and, as press reports confirmed
2 weeks ago, in its early days, the Trump administration considered
removing all measures against Russia, according to former
administration officials. Think of that.
We all hear the discussion--maybe collusion, maybe not--about the
Russians' friendship with the administration, whether the Trump family
or the Trump businesses or the Trump White House has had some kind of
relationships--almost everybody here thinks--with the oilmen, with the
oligarchs, with the Kremlin, maybe even Putin himself. And to think
that soon after taking office, before the public and the rest of us
began to start learning more about Trump's ties with Russia, the
administration considered the removal of any kind of measures punishing
Russia.
[[Page S3442]]
This amendment, written by Senators Crapo, Corker, Cardin, me, and
our offices and our staffs, sends an unambiguous message that the
United States will not accept Russia's continued aggression, will adopt
tough measures to both punish its past actions and deter future
aggression against our country and our allies.
Over the last week, the chairs and ranking members of key Senate
committees conducted intense negotiations over a package of tough and
meaningful reforms and expansions to our current Russia sanctions
regime. We have had good, positive, productive, bipartisan
conversations. Last night we reached agreement on this broad package of
new measures that substantially expands sanctions on Russia in response
to its malicious cyber attacks, efforts to undermine democracy, and
continuing aggression in Syria and in eastern Ukraine. This package
assures Congress and the people we represent that we have more of a say
in this critical national security debate.
The amendment would do a number of things. It would codify and
strengthen six existing Obama administration Executive orders on Russia
and Ukraine and on Russian cyber activities and the sanctions flowing
from them.
It would provide for strict congressional review of any effort by the
President to relax and suspend and terminate or waive Russian sanctions
patterned after the Iran Review Act.
It would require mandatory imposition of sanctions on malicious cyber
activity against the United States, on corrupt Russian actors around
the world, on foreign sanctions evaders violating the Russia, Ukraine,
and cyber-related sanctions controls, on those involved in serious
human rights abuses in territories forcibly controlled by Russia, and
on special Russian crude oil projects around the world.
It would authorize broad new sanctions on key sectors of Russia's
economy, including mining, metals, shipping, and railways, as well as
new investments in energy pipelines.
It would crack down on anyone investing in corrupt privatization
efforts in Russia--something we have seen a lot of over 20 years.
It would broaden the Treasury Department's authority to impose
geographic targeting orders, allowing investigators to obtain ATM and
wire transfer records so Treasury can better target illicit activity of
Russian oligarchs in the United States.
It would require Treasury to provide Congress with a study on the
tangled web of senior government officials from Russia and their family
members and any current U.S. economic exposures to Russian oligarchs
and their investments, and that includes real estate.
It would require the administration to assess and report to Congress
on extending secondary sanctions to additional Russian oligarchs and
state-owned and related enterprises.
Since 2014, Congress has worked together--Republicans and Democrats--
to craft increasingly tougher sanctions to hold Russia accountable for
a long line of misdeeds. It is a long line indeed, from Russia's
violations of international law and of the sovereignty and territorial
integrity of Ukraine, to its role in the brutal repression in the war
in Syria, to the cyber attacks that we are learning more and more about
on Americans.
The Ukrainian community in my State--vibrant, successful,
progressive--and around the world knows firsthand the dangers of
unchecked Russian aggression. We should strengthen--not weaken, not
relax, not peel back--Russian sanctions.
I urge my colleagues here and in the House to support this amendment,
and I will urge the President to sign it into law. We must continue to
vigorously enforce and strengthen sanctions against Russia to send a
message to its leaders and the world that the United States of America
will not tolerate efforts to undermine democracy around the world.
Freedom of the Press
Mr. President, our democracy is founded on checks and balances--and
not just among the branches of government. Our Founders enshrined the
freedom of the press in the Bill of Rights for a reason. We can't have
a functioning democracy without freedom of the press. That is why last
week the Newseum marked its annual Day Without News to remind Americans
what our country would be--what we would be like, what we would look
like, how we would act--without a free press.
Journalists' entire job is to ask tough questions and to challenge
powerful interests. While in church, we comfort the afflicted,
journalists afflict the comfortable. Reporters put their safety and far
too often their lives on the line, whether it is covering floods and
hurricanes at home or traversing the globe to bring us the stories of
our troops. We depend on reporters in Ohio and around the world to both
bring us the stories that impact our day-to-day lives and to tell the
stories that simply otherwise might not be told.
Supporting a vibrant, independent, proactive press corps has rarely
been more important in our country. Yet, too often we see reporters
restricted, vilified, attacked, and even physically threatened, all for
doing the jobs for which they were hired.
Today brought news in this body that some people in this building--
some Members of the Senate--are trying to bar reporters from asking
Senators questions. This is outrageous. If Senators can't handle tough
questions from reporters about their plans to take healthcare away from
millions of Americans, maybe they should change the bill, not restrict
the reporters.
We remember that Oval Office meeting with Russian officials. We have
seen the pictures of the President of the United States with the
Russian Foreign Minister, with the Russian Ambassador. We have seen
those pictures, but what we need to remember about those pictures--
those photos that ran on front pages around this country and all over
the world--those photos weren't taken by American journalists. The
President of the United States threw them out of the Oval Office. Those
pictures were taken by the Russian state media.
The Russian state media was allowed to be in the room with the
President of the United States in the Oval Office--hallowed ground in
our democracy--while the American press was thrown out. The Russian
state media, the old Soviet news agency, TASS, the remnants of the old
Soviet propaganda machine, was allowed in, while the American press was
barred. When you hide from the press, you hide from the American
people.
On November 16, a group representing more than a dozen journalist
organizations sent a letter to the President-elect. They wrote: ``This
isn't about access for the press itself, it's about access for
Americans in diverse communities around the country.''
Having a strong, independent White House and congressional press
corps isn't just important for those reporters' stories. Think about
the signal it sends to mayors and city council members and State
legislators. If the Members of Congress--the President, by throwing
press out of the Oval Office and bringing in the old Soviet news agency
TASS, or the Senate, by throwing reporters out of the Senate--if they
don't have to be accountable, why should a mayor, why should a city
council person, why should a Governor think they should be accountable?
It is not just Washington reporters who are vital to democracy. It is
reporters in Ohio telling us the stories, bringing us the faces of the
opioid epidemic that devastates families and communities. It is Ohio's
editorial pages highlighting how important the Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative is to our drinking water and our State's economy. It has
enabled Senator Portman and me and bipartisan Senators all over the
Great Lakes, from New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois,
Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota--Senators from both parties fighting
back and stopping the cuts that would have destroyed so much of the
progress in cleaning up the Great Lakes. It is journalists in every
corner of my State highlighting the devastation that the proposed
budget would have on our schools and our housing and rural communities.
It is emphasizing again that 200,000 Ohioans right now are getting
opioid treatment because they have insurance from the Affordable Care
Act. It is reminding politicians in Ohio of both parties that those
people need insurance. That is what a free press does.
Parenthetically, I would add, my wife is a journalist. She is a
Pulitzer Prize
[[Page S3443]]
winner. She is a columnist. She is soon to be a novelist. She clearly
has outspoken views about this, as I do. She is a member of the press.
I am a Member of this body. We both believe in a free press. We both
believe in a free democracy.
We answer to journalists in this body because they are the eyes and
ears of the people we serve. If you can't understand--if none of us are
strong enough and articulate enough and gutsy enough to stand before
reporters who ask tough questions about your positions, then maybe you
ought to rethink your positions.
We need diligent, courageous reporters to dig up their stories. We
need independent editors to put them on front pages. We need media
organizations willing to hold the powerful accountable.
The American people have a right to know what is going on in their
own government, from the White House down to the city council office.
The behavior today of the Rules Committee--the Rules Committee
decision to ban reporters--television reporters specifically--from this
body is just reprehensible. Thomas Jefferson said, ``Our liberty
depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without
being lost.'' That is as true today as it was more than 200 years ago
at the time of our country's founding.
To all of the reporters out there, thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Amendment No. 232, as Modified
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I am glad to be down here with our ranking
member, Senator Ben Cardin from Maryland. I want to thank him and his
staff for working until 10:20 last night to complete negotiations on a
Russia amendment. I want to thank Senator Crapo and his staff and
Senator Brown and his staff for the work they did on the sanctions
component, where over the last 5 months they have worked with our
counterparts around the world to make sure that what we did in this
piece of legislation was something that was workable. Truly, I think it
has been a great effort by four different offices. I am glad that
cloture has been filed on that amendment, and I understand we are going
to vote on it tomorrow at 2 o'clock.
I will be very brief. Senator Cardin and I are here on the floor
together, and I know he wants to make some comments about this. Let me
just give a brief summary, if I could.
The amendment enhances Congress's role in determining sanctions
policy on Russia. It provides for the President to use a national
security waiver or sanctions termination after giving Congress 30 days
to review the proposed action.
I think everyone here knows I am a strong proponent of congressional
review. We began that under President Obama. To me, it gets us in a
place where we are playing an appropriate role in foreign policy.
The amendment codifies existing sanctions on Russia for their
activities in Ukraine and cyber space.
The amendment strengthens and expands existing conduct-based
sanctions by requiring the imposition of sanctions on actors
undermining cyber security, supplying arms to Syria, human rights
abusers, and those involved in corrupt privatization of government-
owned assets.
It mandates sanctions on Russian deep-water, Arctic, and shale
projects worldwide and yet allows for waivers to be made based on
national security interests of the United States.
This amendment prioritizes U.S. foreign assistance to allies in their
fight against Russian aggression. This is something I know Senator
Cardin worked hard on, and I appreciate his efforts.
It authorizes $250 million to establish the Countering Russian
Influence Fund to implement programs in EU and NATO member countries--
Senator Portman played a role in this as well, and I appreciate his
efforts--as well as candidate nations, to combat Russian interference,
with a priority given to programs that develop cyber security, address
public corruption, respond to humanitarian crises, counter
disinformation, and support democratic institutions.
It requires the State Department and other Federal agencies to
collaborate and develop a plan to reduce Ukraine's dependence on
Russian energy imports, which we know Russia has used to extort
Ukraine.
I think it is a very good piece of legislation. I appreciate the
contributions of many Members here. I know Senator McCain, Senator
Graham, Senator Rubio, and so many people here have been involved in
wanting to produce legislation that pushes back in this way. We have
tried to utilize the best of many bills that have been put forth.
Again, I cannot thank the ranking member and his staff enough for the
way they have worked with us to get us to this point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I just want to follow up briefly with
Chairman Corker. The two of us became friends in 2007, when we were
both elected to the U.S. Senate the same year and were part of the same
class. But I think the two of us really became close friends a little
over 2 years ago, when we were confronted with how Congress should deal
with the nuclear agreement being negotiated by President Obama with
Iran and our European friends, along with Russia and China.
As the two of us worked around the clock to try to develop an
appropriate review process so that Congress could play a constructive
role--we recognize that we are the legislative branch, and we have
oversight functions, but there is an appropriate role for us with
regard to Executive actions--we came out with something that no one
expected could be done; that is, nearly unanimous support in this body
for a review statute in regard to the Iran negotiations.
Chairman Corker has taken this same template and has now used that to
apply to Russia in the removal of sanctions on Russia. It started with
a bill that was put together by Senator Graham and me. It has been
modified through the negotiations we have had, as Senator Corker has
commented, with Senator Brown and Senator Crapo. But it does, in
effect, provide that there will be notice to Congress before the
administration can give any sanction relief to Russia, so there can be
transparency and a discussion and a debate. Then there is a process by
which Congress, if we feel strongly and can get the necessary support,
can disapprove of sanction relief.
I think that is the proper way for us to deal with one of the most
important bilateral relationships in the world--between the United
States and Russia--and it is appropriate that it is going to be an
amendment to the Iran sanctions bill because the review process came
out of the Iran agreement.
The review process would be triggered if there is action taken by the
President to give relief, but the legislation also includes additional
sanctions, as the chairman pointed out, with Russia. It does this in a
way that codifies the President's Executive orders so that there is now
congressional support for Executive orders. It expands those sanctions
in the area of cyber, as the chairman pointed out, and for energy
projects, financial institutions facilitating transactions, Russian
arms and related materiel to Syria, the corrupt privatization of
government-owned assets.
I particularly thank the chairman for the way he was able to
recognize that, in Russia, what we don't want to see us contribute to
is corruption, and we concentrate on the corruption issue, not the
business issue. It is the area of corruption that becomes the important
thing.
We tighten up a lot of the different sanctions. Then we set up a
process where there needs to be certified progress made; otherwise,
these are mandatory sanctions the President must impose.
As the chairman pointed out, negotiations included aspects of
legislation that was first introduced by Senator McCain and me on
sanctions, by Senator Graham and me on review of sanction relief, by
Senators Crapo and Brown on proposed legislation dealing with
sanctions, and Chairman Corker had significant drafting issues that he
brought to the table in our negotiations. So it was a free discussion,
and the end result is--I said this before but I want to underscore
this--the Banking Committee brought some very helpful suggestions to
make sure the financial sanctions worked. It is one thing that we want
to make sure there are penalties, but we have to make sure they
[[Page S3444]]
work right, and I compliment the work of the Banking Committee in
making sure that we use the right standards and that this will meet
international muster. It is absolutely essential that this template be
one in which our European allies can follow our leadership. If we
didn't do that, we could have been isolated, which would not have had
the same impact as I think these sanctions will have in working with
our European allies.
The chairman mentioned several of our colleagues on the committee. I
need to mention Senator Shaheen and Senator Menendez, who played very,
very important roles in our caucus. Senator Durbin and Senator Schumer
also played roles in this, and I acknowledge their contributions.
Included in this bill is the democracy initiative, which deals with
providing more unified support with our allies in Europe in fighting
Russia's propaganda and attacks on our democratic institutions. Senator
Portman made major contributions to that, as the chairman has also
acknowledged, and then, brought to us mainly through the Banking bill,
we have a strategy to trace terrorism and financing in terrorism, which
I think is very important to be included in the amendment.
We will have a chance to vote on this amendment at 2 o'clock
tomorrow. I encourage my colleagues to adopt this. Senator Corker and I
expect to be back on the floor tomorrow as we manage the underlying
bill, at which time I will want to comment on the importance of our
passing the Iran sanctions bill, which is vitally important because of
Iranian activities taking place today.
For all of those reasons, I encourage my colleagues to please read
the amendment that has been filed in a bipartisan effort to deal with
this challenge that Russia has provided through their activities in
attacking our democratic institutions, in their continued aggression in
Ukraine, and their human rights violations in Syria.
I might add that Senator Menendez's provisions on human rights
sanctions are included in this amendment. It really does, I think,
capture the essence of the broad consensus of the U.S. Senate and is
worthy of our support.
I yield the floor.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I thank my friend for his comments. Again,
I wish to reiterate that the Banking staff, Senator Crapo and his
staff, and Senator Brown and his staff did an outstanding job of
focusing on sanctions that would work in the appropriate way, as was
just laid out, and really brought out the best of the two committees to
come up with the legislation that we have.
I hope we will have a very strong vote tomorrow. I think this very
much supports U.S. foreign policy. I look forward to that taking place
tomorrow at 2 o'clock.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, Senator Corker
and Senator Cardin, for their fine work on the Countering Iran's
Destabilizing Activities Act, of course, and then this Russia amendment
that so many of us have been pushing for so long. I especially thank
Senator Cardin for his leadership on that, as well as Senator Brown and
Senator Crapo--and the work that Senator McConnell and Senator Schumer
did, as well as a lot of members of the Foreign Relations Committee,
who care a lot about this.
As I look at this, I look first at the Iranian part of the underlying
bill. We have had many disagreements in the last few years on the
Iranian nuclear agreement, but it is now critical. This is the time for
those who opposed the agreement and those who supported it to come
together to ensure that all of the parties to the agreement are
upholding their obligations.
When the United States and our allies agreed to the Iranian nuclear
agreement, we made it clear that we will continue to hold Iran
accountable for its nefarious activities outside of the four corners of
the agreement. We must hold Iran accountable for missile tests, for
financing terrorism, and human rights violations. That is our job, and
that is why I was an early cosponsor of the legislation before the
Senate today.
The Countering Iran's Destabilizing Activities Act of 2017 imposes
mandatory sanctions on those involved with Iran's ballistic missile
program, as well as those who fund terrorist organizations and commit
human rights violations. Iran's ballistic missile program is a threat
to regional and global security, and United Nations Security Council
resolution 2231 makes it illegal for Iran to develop ballistic missiles
that could carry a nuclear weapon. Any person or business involved in
helping Iran obtain illegal weapons should be banned from doing
business with the United States, have their assets immediately frozen,
and their travel restricted.
Minimizing the threat Iran poses also means holding it accountable
for funding terrorist groups that threaten Israel and seek to
destabilize the region. We should be doing everything in our power to
better track terrorist financing so we can stop the flow of money that
funds suicide bombers and illicit weapons.
Our mission here is clear: We must protect our own citizens and our
allies by enacting strong legislation to ensure that Iran does not
cheat on its international commitment. Iran must know that if it
violates the rules, it will be held accountable.
Democrats and Republicans have come together to get this done, and it
is my hope that we can pass the legislation this week, including the
amendment imposing strong sanctions against Russia, which is essential
to protecting our democracy from foreign interference.
Seventeen United States intelligence agencies have confirmed that
Russia tried to interfere in the 2016 election. That is not all. We
know Russia is using covert cyber attacks, espionage, and harmful
propaganda to try to undermine our democracy. They launched cyber
attacks against local election systems, a U.S. voting systems software
company, and the emails of more than 100 local election officials.
Russian-backed criminals hacked into Yahoo and stole data from 500
million accounts. They repeatedly harassed American diplomats in
Moscow.
The former Director of Intelligence, James Clapper, recently
testified that Russia will continue to interfere in our political
system. This is what he said:
I believe [Russia is] now emboldened to continue such
activities in the future both here and around the world and
to do so even more intensely. If there has ever been a
clarion call for vigilance and action against a threat to the
very foundation of our democratic political system, this
episode is it.
Vigilance--that is what we need right now. That is why I joined a
bipartisan group of my colleagues to introduce the Countering Russian
Hostilities Act, legislation that would impose strong sanctions against
Russia. These sanctions would address Russia's cyber attacks, its human
rights violations, and its illegal annexation of land in Ukraine and
Georgia.
I am also the cosponsor of the Russia Sanctions Review Act,
bipartisan legislation that would require congressional review if
sanctions against Russia are rolled back.
The Russia sanctions amendment offered today contains essential
portions of both of these pieces of legislation.
After those 17 intelligence agencies confirmed that Russia interfered
in our elections, President Obama enacted important sanctions against
officials in the Russian Government and hackers conducting malicious
cyber activity on behalf of the Russian Government. The amendment
before us today would codify those sanctions. The amendment also
strengthens sanctions against Russia's energy sector, corrupt Russian
officials, and those who supply weapons to the Assad regime.
The day the Obama administration was imposing these additional
sanctions on Russia, I was actually with Senators McCain and Graham in
Eastern Europe. The goal of our trip was to reinforce support for NATO
and our allies in the face of increased Russian aggression. On the
trip, we went to the Baltics, Ukraine, and Georgia, countries on the
frontlines of these fights. They know Russia's playbook well.
In our meetings with Presidents and Prime Ministers of these
countries, it was increasingly evident that if we don't stop Russia
now, cyber attacks against governments, political parties, newspapers,
and companies will only get worse. We heard about websites being shut
down and internet access
[[Page S3445]]
limited when one government--the Government of Estonia--simply had the
audacity to move a bronze statue from a public square to a cemetery. It
was of a Russian fighter. The Russian Government didn't like it, so
they cut down their internet access.
Also, there were members of the Ukrainian Parliament who were invited
to Lithuania. What happened to the Lithuanians in the Parliament? They
were hacked into. Ukraine itself was targeted by Russian hackers more
than 6,500 times over a 2-month period.
Most recently, Russia tried to undermine elections in France.
For years, our allies have been subjected to Russian aggression and
invasion. But they are undeterred, unwilling to give up on that which
they fought so hard for--independence, freedom, democracy.
So this is not just about defending our own democracy, as we look at
these Russia sanctions that are before us today, as we look at the
investigation that is ongoing and looking into the interference into
our election. It is about defending a democratic way of life and
democracies across the world. It is not just about the simple word
``election'' or the simple word ``democracy.'' It is not just about one
candidate or one political party. As Senator Rubio has noted, the next
time it will be the other party.
No, this is about our Constitution. It is about our own independence
from foreign powers. It is about freedom and the rights guaranteed to
us in our own Constitution. If that is undermined, if foreign
governments are allowed to come in and handpick who their candidate is
based on either propaganda or cyber attacks, then we lose our
constitutional rights because we the people are no longer determining
who our representatives are. Other countries are.
The world continues to look to America for our steadfast leadership.
The United States--a beacon for freedom and democracy--must continue to
stand up against Russian aggression, not just in word but in deed. That
is why it is so important that the Senate is coming together today to
pass strong sanctions against the Russian Government. We want the
Russian people to be able to have a democracy. We want them to be able
to have a democracy that doesn't do things like bring down planes in
Ukraine, that doesn't do things like try to influence other countries'
elections. That is why these sanctions are so important.
We know that the Russian Government today is actively working to
undermine our democracy and hurt American businesses. This is part of
the cyber war. We know that this unprecedented interference has been
orchestrated by the Kremlin so that Americans actually lose faith in
our own political system. Over time, Russia has grown more determined
in its effort to weaken democracies in its expanded sphere of
influence. Now, more than ever, Americans are looking to the Senate for
leadership. We must stand strong and united so that Russia and other
nations know that attacks against our democracy must not go unchecked.
The amendment before us on the sanctions is an important step in doing
just that.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Strange). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
U.S.-Mexico Sugar Agreement
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to express my
considerable disappointment with the U.S.-Mexico sugar agreement that
was announced just last week. This deal was concluded recently. The
fact is that this is a bad deal for the United States. I am completely
mystified as to why our Commerce Department would agree to it. It is a
bad deal for U.S. consumers, and we are all consumers. It is a bad deal
for American workers.
It completely fails to address the high price of sugar that we have
in America today. In fact, it makes the problem worse. It increases the
price that we all have to pay for sugar. It reduces choices for
consumers, and it absolutely threatens jobs in the many food-producing
industries that we have across our country. What it does is that it
continues the protectionist policies that favor a handful of big sugar
producers and refiners.
These are large, agribusiness companies, generally, already
subsidized by domestic agricultural policies that force American
consumers to pay artificially inflated prices for their products. It
also limits imports, and the fact is that the agreement should be doing
just the opposite. It should be giving us a free market in sugar so
that American consumers can shop for the best deal available in the
world, and that is exactly what it does not do.
Unfortunately, what they did at the Commerce Department is they
failed to prioritize the concerns of ordinary American consumers,
ordinary American workers. The fact is that the United States is a
significant net importer of sugar. We are a huge country, and we don't
produce as much sugar as we consume. So we import the difference.
Mexico happens to be the No. 1 source of imported sugar. We get about
35 percent of our imported sugar from Mexico. The NAFTA trade agreement
provided for free trade in sugar. It took a long time to get there, but
it contemplated an arrangement where Mexico could sell to American
consumers--like my wife, when she goes shopping at the store, and all
of our families--without duties, without tariffs, without taxes,
without obstacles.
But that didn't work out so well for some of the sugar producers. So
they went to court, and they accused Mexico of dumping sugar.
In order to avoid tariffs, the Mexican Government agreed to what they
call the suspension agreement. It is an agreement that basically sets a
minimum price.
So that is what we do. That is our sugar policy. The government
dictates it, essentially, in conjunction with foreign governments. It
is the American Government that has all the leverage here. We set
prices. We fix prices. We don't have a free market. We establish, by
central government fiat, what the price will be.
We also establish import quotas. We decide how much of foreign sugar
an American will be permitted to buy, reminiscent of ``Moscow on the
Mississippi.'' This is not how you have a free market that allows
consumers to have the choices and the benefits from lower competition.
I was concerned about where this negotiation was heading. So Senator
Jeanne Shaheen, a Democratic Senator from New Hampshire, and I sent a
letter to Commerce Secretary Ross to urge him to consider the impact on
consumers--which is all of us, I will reiterate--in negotiating this
deal. There was a similar letter from House Members. Unfortunately, it
apparently did not persuade our Commerce Department. In fact, this new
agreement--as I think I mentioned--leaves us with a policy that is
worse than it was before. This new so-called suspension agreement
increases the already-inflated price of sugar--2 percent higher for raw
sugar and 8 percent higher for refined sugar if it is imported from
Mexico.
How does it help the 320 million Americans? How does it help ordinary
Americans to be forced to pay more for the sugar that we all have to
buy? It is a staple in our food. The answer is that it doesn't help. It
hurts the single mom who is going to the grocery store to buy cereal
for her kids when she has to pay approximately twice the price of the
global price for sugar. Where does that money go? It goes straight out
of her pocket and straight into the pockets of this handful of wealthy
sugar producers in America. So it is absolutely bad policy for American
consumers.
Make no mistake about it. Higher prices for Mexican sugar mean higher
prices for American consumers--all of us. The Coalition for Sugar
Reform estimates that the new agreement--just the new agreement--will
cost U.S. consumers an additional billion dollars a year. That goes
straight to the growers, the producers. As I said, U.S. sugar prices
are already almost double the world prices, generally, because of the
ridiculous agricultural policy we have with respect to sugar. The
American Enterprise Institute reports that they believe that the
current policy already costs U.S. consumers $3 billion a year. So you
have the $3 billion a year from this flawed policy we used to have. Now
we just added another billion dollars a
[[Page S3446]]
year in costs to our consumers by virtue of this suspension agreement.
What the Commerce Department should be doing in these contexts is
described as to reduce and eliminate this mandatory price fixing,
eliminate these barriers to trade, and put U.S. consumers as the first
priority.
I will point out that it is not only Americans as consumers who are
harmed by this, but it is also Americans as workers. There are
industries that use sugar as a component in their food products. My
State of Pennsylvania, in particular, has a lot of these companies--200
confectioners. We have the most in any State. Our sugar-using
industries employ nearly 40,000 workers across our Commonwealth. We
have 600,000 workers across the country in the various food and
beverage industries that make products that we all consume that use
sugar. Guess what. Higher sugar prices jeopardize those well-paying
food manufacturing jobs. About 120,000 such jobs have been lost over
the last 2 decades because what happens is that American food producers
just can't compete. American food producers are forced to buy
artificially expensive sugar. Their foreign competitors don't have to
do that. Their foreign competitors can buy sugar on the world market at
about half the price. So guess what? An American candy maker or cereal
maker or other food maker is at a huge competitive disadvantage. We
have been losing them, in part, because we force them to pay these
artificially high prices.
Our own Commerce Department--the very same Commerce Department that
negotiated this deal--did a study. This is their work, not mine. They
estimate that when you artificially prop up the price of sugar, you
might save some jobs in the sugar-growing industry, but for every job
you save there, you lose three jobs in the food processing and
manufacturing industry--in the sugar consumption industry. What a
terrible trade. What a terrible arrangement.
I am very disappointed to learn about this. The Commerce Department
clearly failed to negotiate an agreement that would put consumers first
and consumers' pocketbooks first. Instead, we have increased prices
above the already artificially high levels. We have restrictions on
sugar trade, and, apparently, we have decided to pursue protectionist
policies that advance the interests of a small handful of wealthy
growers at the expense of several hundred million American consumers.
This strikes me as crony capitalism, and it is a huge mistake.
I hope that this is not a sign of what is to come in trade
negotiations. We are told that the administration is going to be
reevaluating and renegotiating various agreements, including NAFTA and
others. As they are being reconsidered, I hope we will not go down this
protectionist road of favoring a handful of the privileged few at the
expense of the many, as we apparently did in this agreement.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Climate Change
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, however loud, persistent, and powerful
the climate denial operation has been, we have to remember that it has
always been built on lies. It is a huge fortress of lies stacked upon
lies--lies about the science, lies about the scientists, lies about
doubt, lies about costs, lies through phony front groups, and lies
about where the money comes from and who is pulling the strings.
This fortress of lies protects a subsidy to the fossil fuel industry
that the International Monetary Fund puts at $700 billion per year. For
big, big money, you can do big, big lies, and they do. These have been
the biggest lies of our generation. But to paraphrase the great reggae
singer Jimmy Cliff: ``The bigger you lie, the harder you fall.'' To
paraphrase the ``Game of Thrones,'' ``The fall is coming.'' In the last
few weeks, there has been news that has shaken this fortress of lies
and moves us toward that fall. Shareholders are rising up.
For as long as there have been shareholder resolutions to fossil fuel
companies about climate change, there has been resolute opposition from
management to every vote. Hundreds of shareholder resolutions went down
to defeat until now.
Occidental Petroleum shareholders last month won the first victory
against management, and a week later mighty ExxonMobil was defeated by
its shareholders. This new reporting that shareholders have demanded
will help clear away the lies. The fall is coming.
There are even lies within the lies. To fend off this latest
shareholder resolution to try to make the company look less
irresponsible, ExxonMobil's CEO repeated the company's claim that it
knows climate change is real and supports a carbon fee--but it doesn't.
As everyone in this building knows, ExxonMobil maintains a massive
lobbying apparatus in Washington, and that massive apparatus is and
always has been resolutely opposed to any such thing as a carbon fee or
any serious climate action whatsoever, for that matter, unless maybe
ExxonMobil doesn't know what its own vast lobbying apparatus is doing.
Maybe ExxonMobil spends that enormous amount of money to exert its
influence in Washington to stop any climate action, and the CEO is
unaware of that going on. I doubt that. You be the judge of whether
that is credible.
It is not just shareholders rising up; attorneys general are starting
to win. The attorney general of New York has just filed pleadings in
State court in New York asserting that ExxonMobil's climate reporting
has been a ``sham''--to use the word from his filing; that, in the
oldest of accounting tricks, ExxonMobil kept two sets of books
assessing carbon pollution risk. After fierce opposition by ExxonMobil
lawyers using every trick in the book to delay and snarl the New York
attorney general, it looks now as if ExxonMobil may have lied to its
investors and its shareholders. If ExxonMobil has lied to its
shareholders, that is a violation of law, and that fall comes hard
indeed.
Secretary of State Tillerson evidently knew of and approved the two
sets of carbon pollution books when he was CEO of ExxonMobil. We will
see where this goes, but of all the people around Trump who might be
indicted, now we might add the Secretary of State.
The Attorney General of Massachusetts is also pursuing ExxonMobil
against equally fierce tactics by ExxonMobil lawyers. To try to get
away from the Massachusetts attorney general, the lawyers even went so
far as to claim--get this--that ExxonMobil was not doing business in
Massachusetts; that it didn't have the minimum contacts with the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts necessary for the State even to assert
jurisdiction. Well, the judge virtually laughed that argument out of
court, but it shows how desperate ExxonMobil must be feeling as it
tries to wriggle away from having to answer questions under oath.
Nothing turns a big lie into a hard fall better than having to put
that right hand up and give truthful testimony and face cross-
examination under penalty of perjury.
Will the Securities and Exchange Commission take a look at this sham
reporting, too, or has the Federal government, under Trump, degenerated
into such a fossil fuel banana republic that no Federal agency will do
its job against that industry or might it even chime in on the side of
industry Pruitt-style?
Do you remember the question of whether the fossil fuel climate
denial operation merits investigation under Federal civil racketeering
laws? The tobacco industry was sued under Federal civil racketeering
laws by the U.S. Department of Justice so there is a model. You may
remember that the question as to the fossil fuel climate denial
operation was referred by Attorney General Lynch to the FBI--or so she
testified.
One wonders, did the FBI ever take an honest look? What was the
outcome? Was there ever a report? Are they still looking at it?
Remember that the Department of Justice won its civil racketeering
case against the tobacco industry, they won it at trial, and they won
again on appeal. The woman who won that case for the Department of
Justice, the lead trial attorney for the Department, has said publicly
that this climate denial operation also merits investigation as fraud.
That would seem to be a knowledgeable opinion from the woman who
[[Page S3447]]
won the last case, an opinion perhaps worth heeding, but did anything
happen? Will anything happen?
Forget too big to fail or too big to jail. Is the power of the fossil
fuel industry now so great that it is too big even to investigate, even
by the Department of Justice? Does it now take State attorneys general
to do the job because the Federal government is so owned now by the
fossil fuel industry?
Think about it. What if the FBI reported to the Attorney General that
there was a meritorious fraud case arising out of all the lies propping
up climate denial? Who believes Attorney General Sessions would allow
that case to go forward against his party's biggest backer?
Well, the bigger the lie, ultimately, the harder the fall. One way or
the other, this fact remains constant and true. There always will come
a day of reckoning. With these shareholder victories and with these
attorneys general victories, that day of reckoning is closing in--the
day when they have to put that right hand up and testify truthfully and
under oath, not just send out spin through front groups and operatives
but testify truthfully under penalty of perjury.
It is long overdue for truth to have its day.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Amendment No. 232, as Modified
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Crapo-Brown-Corker-
Cardin Countering Russian Aggression and Cyber Attacks Act of 2017.
This bill, filed as an amendment, was filed as amendment No. 232 to the
Iran sanctions bill late last night.
Yesterday, the Senate Banking and Foreign Relations Committees
concluded their work on a groundbreaking piece of legislation regarding
Russia sanctions. I say groundbreaking because the legislation not only
ratchets up pressure against the Russian Federation for its illegal
invasion and annexation of Crimea, continuing escalation of violence in
eastern Ukraine, and its cyber activities against businesses and
citizens of the United States, but it also, importantly, provides
Congress with a strong oversight process over almost any termination or
suspension of these sanctions.
Senators Corker, Brown, Cardin, and their staffs spent many hours to
ensure that we put together a thoughtful and measured product, and I
thank them for their work.
Senator Brown and I have worked together for months to try to craft a
responsible Russia sanctions package, and Senator Corker has been a
tireless champion of this measure as has Senator Cardin. I also would
be remiss if I did not recognize the work of Senators McCain, Brown,
Shaheen, and the many others who have worked to develop much of what
has ended up in this legislation. All of us appreciate the leadership
of Majority Leader McConnell and Senator Schumer, who worked with us as
we came to our final agreement.
The need for this legislation was underlined by the fact that many
Americans have deep concerns about Russia's behavior over the past few
years. Since coming to power, Russian President Putin has become
increasingly belligerent, nationalistic, and autocratic.
Currently, the United States has imposed sanctions on Russia for
Russia's invasion and annexation of Crimea and its role in supporting
the separatist movements in eastern Ukraine, Russia's increasing cyber
attacks and cyber espionage against the United States, Russia's support
for the Assad regime in Syria, and Russia's complicity for corruption.
Although this is not an exhaustive list, it demonstrates the lengths
to which Russia will go to seize power and influence in the
international arena.
Unfortunately, Putin's desire to increase Russia's political
influence is not driven by a desire to raise the standard of living for
Russians. Instead, it is driven by a craving to enrich and empower
himself and his cronies.
Over the course of the past 3 months, the Senate Banking Committee
has held hearings assessing the impacts of the current sanctions regime
against Russia. We examined the existing Russian sanctions architecture
in terms of its effectiveness and its economic impact. The Russians
have largely learned to live within the economic confines of the
existing sanctions regime.
In Putin's calculation, the cost of the sanctions do not outweigh the
benefits of occupying Crimea and contributing to unrest in Ukraine, to
continuing to support the Assad regime's assault on civilians in Syria,
and conducting cyber attacks on people, companies, and institutions
around the globe.
Many of us on both sides of the aisle feel the United States needs to
be much stronger in its response. Americans want to see the United
States stand firm in the defense of our long-held values, which include
respect for territorial integrity, human rights, and liberty.
At this point, the only way to change Putin's cost-benefit analysis
is to increase the pressure which we apply directly through sanctions.
The Crapo-Brown-Corker-Cardin amendment is an effective way to
increase the pressure on Russia for its irresponsible conduct. Our
legislation signals to the world the unflagging commitment of the
United States to the sanctity of territorial integrity, human rights,
and good governance. Our amendment also demonstrates our resolve in
responding to cyber attacks against U.S. citizens and entities and
against our allies.
In summary, the Crapo-Brown-Corker-Cardin amendment does four things:
It escalates and expands the current sanctions regime against Russia;
it creates new sanctions against Russia; it engages Congress at a
higher level than before by providing a mechanism for Congress to vote
before lifting any sanctions on Russia; and it increases the Treasury
Department's ability to track illicit finance, including illicit flows
linked to Russia.
We escalate and expand the current sanctions regime against Russia by
codifying and modifying six current Executive orders. Four of these
orders relate to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and two relate to
Russia's malicious cyber activity.
We expand the sanctions under the Ukraine-related Executive orders to
reach Russian deep-water, Arctic, and shale projects worldwide. We also
permit the President to apply these sanctions to Russian railway,
shipping, and metals and mining sectors.
The amendment also creates several new sanctions against Russia.
There are new sanctions for those who are engaged in significant
activities undermining cyber security. These sanctions also apply to
those providing material support for such malicious cyber actors.
We also impose mandatory sanctions on entities engaged in special
Russian energy projects and on foreign financial institutions
facilitating transactions in response to Russia's continued aggression
in Ukraine.
The amendment includes tough sanctions on Russian Government
officials, their relatives, and close associates responsible for
significant corruption in Russia or elsewhere.
It sanctions people who help others evade sanctions and people
responsible for human rights violations in any territory controlled by
Russia.
Additionally, it sanctions those who work for or on behalf of the
Russian defense and intelligence sectors, those who invest or support
the construction of Russian energy export pipelines, and corrupt
government officials who enrich themselves after making deals to
privatize state-owned assets.
Finally, it sanctions those who help the Assad regime acquire
chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons technology, ballistic or
cruise missile capabilities, or destabilizing numbers and types of
advanced conventional weapons.
The Crapo-Brown-Corker-Cardin amendment will result in some very
powerful new sanctions on Russia. Part of our agreement includes
congressional review language to ensure Congress exerts proper
oversight on the use of these powerful sanctions. We require the
President to notify Congress when imposing certain types of sanctions,
and we will have the opportunity to review any attempts to lift
sanctions with regard to Russia. We intend to use this review model on
all sanctions regimes moving forward, and I intend to work to apply it
to sanctions on Iran.
Amendment No. 232 is more than just the sanctions and congressional
review;
[[Page S3448]]
this legislation also includes important counterterrorism financing
provisions adopted by the House and Senate during the 114th Congress.
It requires the creation of a national strategy for combatting the
financing of terrorism and related forms of illicit finance. This
strategy ensures that the United States pursues a coordinated and
effective fight against illicit finance at all levels of the Russian
Government.
Our measure requires the strategy to enhance public-private
partnerships to prevent and detect illicit finance. The measure also
requires the Treasury Department to report on its efforts to identify
illicit finance flows linked to Russia affecting the U.S. financial
system or the financial system of our allies. We must engage all of our
allies, particularly our trading partners, to work with us so that we
achieve our objectives without collateral damage, which is so often the
case. It is important that our trading partners be with us on this
issue rather than being the victims of the actions we take.
This is a strong bipartisan measure that in important respects
represents the next step forward. Of course, this will not be the last
step if Russia does not begin to demonstrate verifiable steps toward
reducing its course of aggression on multiple fronts. Make no mistake--
the sanctions currently in place and those submitted in our amendment
last night are Putin's fault and not a result of Putin's confused
notions of Russian power and pride.
Even though unilateral actions are not the best option, America must
lead on this issue and encourage others to follow since the most
successful sanctions result from a united front of United States and
European Union cooperation.
Since the unlawful annexation of Crimea, the years of destabilizing
eastern Ukraine through relentless war, the global spread of cyber
intrusions, and Putin's indefensible support of Assad's leadership of
Syria, particularly in light of its recent chemical attack, fewer are
left in Europe to defend Putin's policies. The times call for clarity
of purpose and a correct amount of pressure. We have that in this
amendment.
Again, thank you to Senators Corker, Brown, and Cardin for your hard
work and support and to each of the other Senators from both sides of
the aisle who have worked to help develop and pursue the policies
adopted in this legislation. Thank you to Leader McConnell and Senator
Schumer for all of your help and support.
I look forward to passing this measure in short order, and I
encourage all of my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, today, I speak in favor of the Iran
sanctions bill. I am an original cosponsor of the bill, so it should
come as no surprise that I support it. My only concern is that we did
not pass it sooner.
As I stand here today, I cannot help but feel that this moment
highlights the folly of the last 8 years of President Obama's foreign
policy. For 8 years, President Obama did everything he could to curry
favor with the Ayatollahs in Tehran. He ignored popular protests, known
as the Green Movement, and the thousands of Iranians who cried out for
something more than sham elections. He lectured our Gulf Arab allies on
the need to ``share'' the Middle East with their sworn enemy in some
kind of cold peace. He insisted on putting daylight between us and our
friend Israel. He dallied and dithered as the regime helped its client
Bashar al-Assad help tear apart his own country in a brutal civil war.
Most infamously, he traded away billions of dollars in sanctions relief
for a flimsy, one-sided nuclear deal--a deal that did not prevent Iran
from getting a nuclear weapon so much as ultimately guarantee it in
just a few years.
What do we have to show for all of this? What did we get for looking
the other way for 8 years? Not a more reasonable Iran, not a more open,
tolerant, democratic Iran, not a friendlier Iran, but an emboldened
Iran--one that continues to launch ballistic missiles in willful
defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions. For everything
we have done to mollify the ayatollahs and their sensitivities, they
have gone out of their way to inflame ours. What did President Obama
do? Nothing but appease them.
But we should not lay these failures solely on the last President's
doorstep, because he represents a mindset that is too widely shared. It
is one that sees Iran's obvious imperial aggression in the Middle East
and yet still considers America the aggressor. It is one that tries to
compartmentalize and haggle with a regime whose leaders shout ``death
to Israel'' and ``death to America'' virtually every Friday. It is one
that refuses to call a spade a spade and say to the Ayatollahs that
enough is enough.
But today we are changing course--and not a moment too soon. This
legislation will finally hold the regime and Tehran accountable for
their brazen attempts to bully their neighbors and assert supremacy
throughout the Middle East. It will put heavy sanctions on anyone who
is involved in helping Iran develop ballistic missiles, circumvent our
arms embargo, or spread terrorism throughout the world.
I know there are those who consider this kind of a move to be
provocative, but I would say that it is the Iranian regime's aggression
that has been provocative. All of these sanctioned activities are
things that the regime and Tehran should not be doing in the first
place. I do not think it is provocative to hold our enemies to the same
standards as our friends. I do not think it is unreasonable to do what
we can to protect our friends and ourselves from Iranian-supported
terrorism and from a regime that is responsible for killing hundreds of
American troops in the Middle East. Instead, I think it is long
overdue.
Today, I am glad to see the Senate finally prepared to rectify these
grave mistakes.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Reauthorizing the National Flood Insurance Program
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the bipartisan
legislation that will reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program.
I wish to speak a little bit about flood insurance first before I talk
about our much needed legislation.
As most people know--but unfortunately some folks don't know or maybe
they forget--if you have homeowners insurance on your home and you have
a flood, you are not covered. Homeowners insurance does not cover
flooding. In order to be covered for flooding, you have to have a
separate policy, and about the only place you can go to get flood
insurance is from the Federal program--the National Flood Insurance
Program. Now, that is a bit of an overstatement. It is possible to buy
flood insurance from a private insurer--and certainly we want to
encourage private insurers to participate more in the flood insurance
market--but today, for the most part, if you want to carry flood
insurance, you have to get it through the Federal program, and that is
called the National Flood Insurance Program. It is administered by
FEMA.
It is hard to overstate the importance of flood insurance to the
American people. It is even harder to overstate the importance of flood
insurance to the people of Louisiana. The gross domestic product in my
State is about $220 billion to $230 billion a year. If you add up all
the goods and services that we as Louisianans produce every year, it
comes out to between $220 billion and $230 billion. Without flood
insurance, you can cut that figure in half. We would have to, in
effect, turn out the lights.
There are 450,000 flood insurance policies in my State. Many of those
people have to have flood insurance; it is a condition of their
mortgage. So the
[[Page S3449]]
Flood insurance program and, more specifically, the National Flood
Insurance Program, is extraordinarily important to America, but it is
even more extraordinarily important to the people of Louisiana.
We are introducing a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the National
Flood Insurance Program. The current program expires in September. If
we don't reauthorize it, most Americans who have flood insurance at the
present time will no longer be able to access it. It is critical that
the U.S. Congress act and act immediately.
The bill we are introducing--and I will explain in a moment whom I
mean by ``we''--is bipartisan legislation.
Now, there are a lot of issues that divide Congress today, and
reasonable people are entitled to disagree over some of these very
difficult issues, but there are also issues we can come together on,
and I respectfully suggest that flood insurance is one of them.
We have put together a bipartisan coalition, including Senator Bob
Menendez from New Jersey, who happens to be a Democrat; and Senator
Cory Booker from New Jersey, who happens to be a Democrat; Senator Thad
Cochran, chairman of our Appropriations Committee in the Senate, from
Mississippi, who is a Republican; Senator Marco Rubio from Florida, who
is a Republican; Senator Bill Nelson from Florida, who is a Democrat;
Senator Van Hollen from Maryland, who happens to be a Democrat; and
more Senators are coming on board.
We are introducing a bill called the SAFE National Flood Insurance
Program Reauthorization Act. SAFE, of course, is an acronym. It refers
to sustainable, affordable, fair, and efficient--SAFE--the SAFE
National Flood Insurance Program Reauthorization Act.
Let me briefly tell my colleagues what it does. I will start with
cost. It doesn't do a bit of good to offer someone insurance if they
can't afford it, and too many times that has been the case with flood
insurance. Right now, under the current program, the National Flood
Insurance Program is allowed to raise a homeowner's flood insurance
premium by 18 percent--not 10 percent, not 12 percent but by a
staggering 18 percent--and to do that every year. If you are insuring a
second home--let's suppose you have a vacation home--or if you are a
businesswoman or a businessman and insuring a commercial establishment,
the national program can raise your premiums every year by 25 percent.
Nobody can pay those kinds of increases.
No. 1, our bill would cap the amount the Flood Insurance Program can
raise someone's premium at 10 percent annually. I wish we could tap it
at zero percent annually, but 10 percent is certainly a lot better for
our people than 18 percent and 25 percent, respectively. If FEMA
properly implements some other provisions of our act, which I will talk
about in a moment, there will not be any increases.
No. 2, our bill, the SAFE National Flood Insurance Program
Reauthorization Act, would extend the National Flood Insurance Program
by 6 years. I wish we could extend it longer. I wish we could do 10
years or 15 years or 20 years, but it is necessary for us, as the
Presiding Officer knows, to get unified, bipartisan support on this
legislation, and we think 6 years--a 6-year authorization is probably
the best we can do to pass this bill.
No. 3, our bill will save about $750 million a year. Let me say that
again. Our bill will save about $750 million each and every year to be
used in the Flood Insurance Program. Here is how our legislation would
do it.
First, as we know, the Flood Insurance Program has a deficit. We have
had a large number of natural disasters, including floods, over the
past several years in our country, unfortunately. We had Hurricane
Sandy. We had Hurricane Katrina. In my State in Louisiana, last year we
had two horrible floods, both in the northern part of my State and in
the southern part of my State. In a couple of instances, we had 23
inches of rain in 2 days. I don't care if you live on Mount Everest, if
you get 23 inches of rain in 2 days, you are going to flood. Those
floods were very expensive.
Those catastrophes and many others caused the National Flood
Insurance Program to operate at a deficit. The deficit is $25 billion.
Another way of stating that is, the program owes $25 billion in debt,
but we owe it to ourselves. We don't owe it to a bank, we don't owe it
to a foreign country, we don't owe it to any private entity; we owe it
to ourselves, and we have been paying interest to ourselves out of the
premiums--the cashflow, if you will--of the Flood Insurance Program
every year. That 10 percent--10 cents out of every dollar that comes
into the National Flood Insurance Program--is devoted to just paying
the interest on this debt that we owe ourselves.
Our bill would suspend those interest payments for 6 years. That will
free up about $400 million a year.
We are also saving money by asking those who work with us in
implementing the National Flood Insurance Program to sharpen their
pencils. Let me explain what I mean by that. FEMA is in charge of the
National Flood Insurance Program, but FEMA doesn't run the program. It
doesn't run the insurance company that administers the policies. FEMA
hires private insurers in the private sector to actually run the
program. We call that the ``write your own'' program.
For the most part, those private insurers that administer the program
do a good job, but they don't have any risk. They have zero risk, none,
nada. The risk is on the National Flood Insurance Program--the Federal
government--and therefore the American taxpayer. We just hire the
private insurers to administer the program--to collect the premiums, to
sell the policies, to adjust the claims. So they have no risk. Yet we
are paying them 31 cents out of every dollar that the program would
take in.
Our bill respectfully suggests that is too much money. While we
appreciate the cooperation we get and the good work we get from the
private insurers who help us administer this program, we are going to
ask them--actually, we are going to tell them--to reduce their
compensation from 31 cents out of every dollar. That is going to save
about $350 million a year. So we just saved about $750 million a year
for the National Flood Insurance Program.
What are we going to do with the money? First, mitigation. With
flooding--and it is inevitable that we are going to have floods. I
don't know why bad things happen to good people, but they do. You can
pay a little bit up front or you can pay a whole lot later, and this is
what I mean by that.
If we spend the money on mitigation to protect against the flooding
that we know will inevitably happen, we will save money for the
American taxpayer in the long run, and we will use a portion of that
$750 million in savings to mitigate against flood risk. By mitigation,
I mean offering low- or no-interest loans to homeowners to elevate
their homes so they will not flood--building levees, building flood
walls. Our bill does not say specifically what mitigation measures
should be taken, and it does not say which mitigation projects will be
built, but it does say that mitigation is the answer, not the complete
answer but part of the answer. We haven't done enough of it. Now we are
going to have the resources to do it.
The second way we are going to use that money is to try to do a
better job with maps. We set rates in the National Flood Insurance
Program based on the likelihood that someone will be flooded. We
determine that likelihood by using maps drawn by experts using computer
models. We are not using the most up-to-date, state-of-the-art
technology to draw those maps, but if our bill passes, we will,
including but not limited to a new technology called LIDAR. I confess,
I don't understand the technology, but it is called LIDAR, Light
Detection and Ranging technology. It can be used to draw more accurate
flood maps to more accurately assess someone's propensity to flood.
Why is that important? You might be in a high-risk flood zone right
now and paying a large premium. With state-of-the-art technology, you
may be put into a lower risk flood zone and pay less. I am not
guaranteeing that result, but it is certainly possible. In any event,
we need to as accurately as possible assess the risk, and the only way
to do that is through proper mapping.
Our bill would also include a provision that will allow Congress to
provide better and greater oversight of FEMA in administering the
program. Let me say specifically what it will do.
[[Page S3450]]
The very able Administrator at FEMA who handles the Flood Insurance
Program testified before the Banking Committee a few months ago that if
one of these private insurance companies that administers the Flood
Insurance Program for us has lawyers or consultants who are not doing
their jobs, FEMA doesn't have the authority to fire them. This bill
will give FEMA the authority to fire those consultants, and here is why
this is important: Most of the lawyers, engineers, and other
consultants private insurance companies hire to help them administer
the program on behalf of the National Flood Insurance Program do a
pretty good job, but some of them do not. There have been recorded
instances both in New Jersey and in Louisiana where certain people,
engineers and lawyers, have seen it as their mission to do anything
they possibly can to keep a homeowner who has paid his or her hard-
earned money to buy insurance from getting the money they deserve if
they flood, and that is just wrong.
If you are trying to defraud the National Flood Insurance Program, we
need to fight you like a tiger. But if you have paid your premiums and,
unfortunately, you have flooded, you are entitled to get your money.
You should not be required to fight some engineer or some lawyer who is
throwing up obstacle after obstacle after obstacle. Our bill says that
if there are consultants who do that and the private insurance
companies don't want to fire them, then, by God, FEMA will, and we are
going to hold FEMA accountable.
A couple more points I will mention: This bill will also extend
coverage limits. Right now, the most flood insurance a homeowner can
buy is $250,000. While that is a lot of money, that doesn't cover some
homes, given the rate of inflation in America today, and our bill would
expand coverage limits to $500,000 for homes and $1.5 million for
commercial establishments.
I have talked to some of my colleagues in the Senate and in the
House, and some of them, whom I am happy for, represent States that
haven't had any major floods, and I hope they never do. But if we have
learned anything in the last few years in terms of flooding, we have
learned that just when men and women think they can control everything
in this world and can control their destiny, they can't control God and
Mother Nature. Flooding can happen at any time.
Let me say it again. You can live in a mountain State. You can live
on top of a mountain. But if you get 23 inches of rain in 2 days, you
are going to flood, and that is why you need flood insurance. That is
why this bill is not just important to coastal States like Louisiana,
Mississippi, Florida, New Jersey, and Maryland; it is important to all
Americans.
This is a bipartisan bill. Have I mentioned that? I think I did. This
is a bipartisan bill. It is supported by many Democrats. It is
supported by many Republicans. It is a bill that is not only important
for our economy, but it is important for the peace of mind of the
American people. I hope we will not let politics get in the way of
doing what we know to be right.
Once again, the bill is called the SAFE--which stands for
Sustainable, Affordable, Fair, and Efficient--National Flood Insurance
Program Reauthorization Act. I hope this body will come together as one
and support this much needed legislation.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rubio). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
permitted to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Honoring Lieutenant Patrick Weatherford
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay respect to a law
enforcement officer in my home State of Arkansas who lost his life in
the line of duty yesterday, Monday, June 12, 2017.
Lieutenant Patrick Weatherford of the Newport Police Department
joined other officers in responding to the call of a vehicle break-in
when he was shot. Sadly, Lieutenant Weatherford passed away later that
evening.
Lieutenant Weatherford served on the Newport police force for 15
years and recently graduated from the FBI Academy. He was also a
graduate of ASU-Newport and the University of Arkansas at Little Rock.
Lieutenant Weatherford was recognized as the 2016 Jackson County
Officer of the Year by Arkansas attorney general Leslie Rutledge.
His colleagues had great respect and admiration for him, and he was
known as an officer who performed his duties with professionalism and
skill.
This is the second Arkansas law enforcement officer we have lost in
2017. Any occasion when someone who is sworn to protect and serve their
community does not return home to the loved ones waiting for them is
incredibly sad and heartbreaking. Arkansans value the men and women who
volunteer to help ensure and enhance public safety knowing the risks
involved.
We are devastated by the loss of another law enforcement officer in
our State, and we thank all of those who sacrifice so much to protect
us.
I want to encourage my colleagues to pass the Honoring Hometown
Heroes Act to allow Governors to order the American flag to fly at
half-staff in recognition of the sacrifice of first responders like
Lieutenant Weatherford who make the ultimate sacrifice.
My thoughts and prayers go out to Lieutenant Weatherford's family and
friends, as well as the community he served, which will no doubt miss
him dearly. I pray they will all find comfort during such a difficult
time as this.
I also stand with all Arkansans in expressing our gratitude for
Lieutenant Weatherford's service and commit to honoring the sacrifice
he and others have made to protect us.
With that, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Cloture Motion
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk for
the committee substitute amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The bill clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the committee-
reported substitute amendment to Calendar No. 110, S. 722, a
bill to impose sanctions with respect to Iran in relation to
Iran's ballistic missile program, support for acts of
international terrorism, and violations of human rights, and
for other purposes.
Mitch McConnell, Roger F. Wicker, Mike Crapo, Mike
Rounds, Tom Cotton, Bob Corker, Steve Daines, John
Barrasso, Rob Portman, Jeff Flake, Dan Sullivan, John
Hoeven, James M. Inhofe, John Cornyn, John Thune, Cory
Gardner, Ron Johnson.
Cloture Motion
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk for
the underlying bill, S. 722.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The bill clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No.
110, S. 722, a bill to impose sanctions with respect to Iran
in relation to Iran's ballistic missile program, support for
acts of international terrorism, and violations of human
rights, and for other purposes.
Mitch McConnell, Mike Crapo, Jeff Flake, Roger F. Wicker,
Mike Rounds, Tom Cotton, Bob Corker, Steve Daines, Dan
Sullivan, John Hoeven, James M. Inhofe, John Cornyn,
John Thune, Cory Gardner, John Barrasso, Ron Johnson,
Rob Portman.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
mandatory quorum calls with respect to the cloture motions be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page S3451]]
____________________