Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have had the honor of serving in the Senate now for three terms, and I'm in my fourth term. I have been on the Senate floor a major part of my public life and witnessed a lot of things that have occurred here. I remember quite a few of them, but the one that sticks in my memory goes back to 2002. It was the end of September or the beginning of October--I will get the exact date--and there was a critical debate taking place on the floor of the Senate that went late into the night. The final vote happened around midnight. The question was whether the United States should be authorized to invade Iraq.

I remember that debate because we were still reeling from the tragedy of 9/11. We were still determined to keep America safe. We worried about our vulnerabilities and our strengths. The George W. Bush administration, after several months of preparing for this debate, led most Americans to believe that Saddam Hussein, the leader in Iraq, possessed weapons of mass destruction. Some of the testimony even suggested those weapons could threaten our allies, our friends, and even the United States of America.

It was in that context that a decision was made to invade Iraq, but first the decision had to come through Congress. The American people had their chance through their elected representatives in the Senate and the House to make that decision.

The public sentiment behind the war in Iraq was overwhelmingly positive as we voted. The belief was that we had to stop Saddam Hussein before there was another attack on the United States like 9/11. Sentiments ran very high. The rhetoric was heated.

I remember that night. I remember there were two of my colleagues on the floor after everyone had gone home. One was Kent Conrad, the Senator from North Dakota, and the other was Paul Wellstone, the Senator from Minnesota. Now, 23 of us had voted no on authorizing the war in Iraq. It included the three of us who remained.

I was up for reelection, as was Senator Wellstone. I went to Paul Wellstone in the well of the Senate and I said: Paul, I hope that vote doesn't cost you the election in a few weeks.

Paul Wellstone said to me: It is all right if it does. This is who I am and this is what I believe, and the people of Minnesota expect nothing less.

The story unfolds. In the ensuing weeks Paul Wellstone died in a plane crash before the election took place, but I still remember that moment, and I remember what I considered to be an act of conscience by my friend and colleague from Minnesota.

I thought about the thousands of votes that I have cast in the House and the Senate, and only a handful are still right there in front of me. They include the votes that you cast that relate to war. You know if you vote to go to war even under the right circumstances, innocent people will die. Americans will die. There is no more serious or grave responsibility than to take those questions of foreign policy as seriously as or more seriously than virtually any other issue.

Fast forward to where we are today. We will leave this week and be gone for 4 or 5 weeks and return in September. The first item of business will be the Iran agreement. I view this vote on the Iran agreement in the same class as the vote on the war in Iraq. It is a question, a serious foreign policy question, about whether Iran will be stopped from developing a nuclear weapon. We have added into this conversation the decision of Congress as to whether they approve the President's treaty. That doesn't often happen, but it will in this case.

We have to look at the possibility that Congress will reject the Iran treaty. Even if the President vetoes it, there is still a question as to whether Congress would override that veto. We have to ask ourselves: What happens if this Iran agreement comes to an end? Military action--some form of military action.

One of the Senators on the other side of the aisle assured us 4 days--we will take care of the Iranian nuclear problem in 4 days. He wasn't here when we were told the war in Iraq would last 2 weeks. So 4,844 American lives later, with tens of thousands injured, and trillions of dollars spent, that war ended with a result that none of us really view as a success for American foreign policy.

Now we face that same question. Those who would reject the Iranian agreement have a responsibility to come to this floor and explain what happens next.

Yesterday we called a meeting. I asked the Ambassadors from the five nations that joined us in the negotiations with Iran to come meet with Members of the Senate on the Democratic side. We had the Ambassador from Russia, the Ambassador from China, the Ambassador from the United Kingdom, and the Deputies Chief of Mission from Germany and France. About 30 Democratic Senators gathered to ask questions in a completely off-the-record, informal atmosphere.

The first question asked was, what happens if Congress rejects this Iranian agreement? What happens the next day? What is the next step? They said the notion that we will sit back down at the table with the Iranians, in the words of one of these Ambassadors, is far-fetched.

We have spent 35 years bringing Iran to this table. These nations joined us in an effort to try to stop Iranians from developing a nuclear weapon. These nations are satisfied that what we have put together is an agreement that is verifiable with inspections.

When I think back to Ronald Reagan, I didn't agree with him on a lot of things, but I sure agreed with what he said when it came to these agreements, ``trust, but verify.'' There is verification in this agreement. The IAEA, which is the United Nations group that inspects atomic facilities around the world, is tasked with inspecting and reporting and continuing to investigate Iran throughout the life of this agreement.

Can we trust them? Well, just as a historic reminder, it was the IAEA that said to the United States: There are no weapons of mass destruction that we can find in Iraq.

We ignored them. We invaded. We paid a heavy price for it. It turns out they were right. Some of our leaders were just plain wrong. The agency has credibility, it has a track record, and it is authorized under this agreement to move forward.

What struck me, as I looked at those Ambassadors sitting across the table from 30 Members of the Senate yesterday, was how historic this moment is. China, Russia, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and the United States were all together negotiating, trying to bring at least some modicum of peace to the Middle East. Some of the statements that were made were compelling.

A gentleman from the German side said: I won't go into the history of Germany--you know it well--but I will tell you we are more committed to the survival of Israel than any nation in Europe.

Any student of history knows exactly what he was speaking of. Now we have an opportunity to turn to diplomacy to avoid the military and avoid war. And what do we find? In April of this year, 47 Senators on the other side of the aisle sent a letter to the Ayatollah in Iran, the Supreme Leader of Iran, and said: Do not negotiate with President Obama and the United States. Whatever you think you have agreed to is subject to congressional approval, and don't expect the next President of the United States to abide by any agreement.

Forty-seven Senators from the other side of the aisle signed that letter. What would have happened if 47 Democratic Senators had sent a letter to Saddam Hussein before the invasion of Iraq and said the same thing: Don't negotiate with President Bush. Don't even think that you can avoid a war.

I think they would have had us up on charges. At least Vice President Cheney would have. But in April, before the agreement was even announced on the other side of the aisle, 47 Senators said: Don't waste your time negotiating. I think they are wrong.

I think we ought to go back to the words of John Kennedy. John Kennedy said: We should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate.

Leaders in our country--Republican Presidents--have stepped up to that negotiating table with a flurry of criticism that they would even sit down with these enemies of the United States and try to find a more peaceful world. Ronald Reagan sat down with Gorbachev looking for containment of nuclear weapons. It was Richard Nixon, another Republican President, who sat down with the Chinese to open relations with them while the Chinese were supplying and fortifying the North Vietnamese fighting American forces. Despite that criticism, they had the courage to sit down and look for a diplomatic way to find a more peaceful world, and that is what we face today.

This Iran agreement is our opportunity to test diplomacy, and I invite Israel, our friends and allies in Israel, to join us in holding Iran to the letter of the law in this agreement. Join us in reviewing these inspections. Join us in calling for the availability of these facilities so we know exactly what is going on with Iran from this point forward. Let's join together in a force to make this a more peaceful world. I think this is our chance. I know this is a vote of conscience for me, and I am sure it is for all of my colleagues. I hope there will be the courage to try diplomacy before we turn to war.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source