Hire More Heroes Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I say to the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee how much I appreciate his good work, together with the ranking member Senator Cardin, whom he alluded to earlier, but the Senator from Tennessee just said something which I think every American should find troubling, and that is perhaps the single-most important national security issue facing the country since the authorization for use of force in Iraq in 2002; that there might be a partisan filibuster of our ability even to have that up-or-down vote on the resolution of disapproval.

I ask the Senator from Tennessee, is he aware of reports that the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini has said the Iranian Parliament will have the final word on this deal in Iran?

I wonder how the Senator would characterize a partisan filibuster in the U.S. Senate, preventing such an up-or-down vote in the Senate, while the Iranian Parliament would have the ability for that up-or-down vote in that institution.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as have all of our colleagues, I have been traveling around my State over the last few weeks listening to my constituents and trying to understand what their concerns are. I have to tell my colleagues that Washington is not in high repute. People sense the country is heading in the wrong direction. They have entrusted us with the way to navigate that, and they feel as though we have not succeeded in getting our country back on the right track. I know that when it comes to security issues--and of all the issues the Federal Government deals with, national security is the only one we can't delegate to someone else. It is our No. 1 responsibility as a Federal Government. State government can't do it. Local government can't do it. We can't do it for ourselves, so we depend on the Federal Government to make sure our Nation is safe and secure, which is a precondition for all of the other liberties and privileges we enjoy.

As part of the roundtables and visits I had, I took part in one in Houston, TX, where we addressed a wide variety of issues, but the No. 1 issue that came up was the Iranian nuclear deal. There is no issue more compelling or concerning to this particular group of folks or my constituents back home than the President's deal with Iran because people recognize that Iran is a state sponsor of international terrorism, and what this does is it paves the way to them getting bigger and more lethal weapons.

They are also very concerned, as they should be, that this deal requires us to trust an adversary who has done nothing to earn it. I know the President has said there is no trust involved, but in the absence of trust, one would at least think there would be adequate verification mechanisms.

Of course, I know Secretary Moniz has disavowed his earlier comments about anytime, anywhere inspections, and we then learned that there is this convoluted process of 24 days' notice and some arbitration before the IAEA will gain access to some sites and then, as the Associated Press reported, the sidebar deals, which, if these reports in the public domain are accurate, would basically require Iran to inspect itself.

The reason people are so anxious and concerned about this is there is no doubt about that. Their concerns are well taken, but I think of all the things that concern my constituents and the people I talked to during August about this deal, it is Iran's long history of supporting terrorism, including attacks on the United States and our allies.

It is no exaggeration to say the Iranian regime has American blood on its hands, and it has had for many years. Former Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice put it well when she said: Iran has been the country that has, in many ways, been kind of a central banker for terrorism. It is Iran that has been conducting these proxy wars against Israel, the United States, and our allies since the regime came into power as a result of the revolution in 1979.

Even President Obama and his National Security Advisor Susan Rice admitted earlier this summer that the Iranian Government could use the $100 billion in cash they are going to get as a result of sanctions relief to help fund terrorist attacks, to help fund these terrorist groups.

Here is what the President said. I guess he has resigned himself to it. He said: ``The truth is that Iran has always found a way to fund these efforts.'' Well, that does not make me feel any more at ease, nor should it make any of our allies feel any more at ease about Iran and its intentions and what it will do with these funds that will be relieved from sanctions. That does not even address the million barrels of oil a day which now Iran will be able to ply to markets all around the world and the revenue they will be able to generate from that.

The President may believe that there is nothing we can do about Iran funneling money to terrorist groups that seek to attack us and our allies, but we cannot afford to just shrug our shoulders with indifference. That seems to be what the President's reaction is: Well, Iran has always done it and they will do it with this money. But he acts as if there is nothing he nor we can or should do about it. Iran's history of bankrolling terrorist activity deserves our attention and should be the focus of this deal, and it should be a major consideration as we proceed to assess the merits of this nuclear arrangement and vote on a resolution of disapproval.

I wish to pause a minute just to tell the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, not just because he is sitting next to me but because it is true, that I admire and appreciate his leadership through this very convoluted maze we have had to proceed down until we have gotten to this point. But how ironic would it be that after the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, working with the ranking member and getting a vote of Congress and a signature of the President allowing a resolution of disapproval--how ironic would it be if a partisan filibuster blocks an up-or-down vote on that resolution of disapproval. It is just shocking to me, but that is what the minority leader, Senator Reid, and indeed the President of the United States himself apparently are talking about--blocking a vote on the resolution of disapproval that they cooperated in crafting and that bears the President's signature, that process by which that is to play out.

But, again, that is another reason people get so disgusted with what they see in Washington--because they feel there is no accountability. People get away with whatever they can. There is no right and wrong anymore. There are no rules that apply to everyone evenly and evenhandedly. There is no--in the words above the Supreme Court of the United States--there is no ``equal justice under the law.'' It does not seem to apply.

Well, just digressing a moment and talking again about this threatened partisan filibuster of the resolution of disapproval--and again I hope and pray our colleagues across the aisle, the 41 who have said they will vote against the resolution of disapproval, I hope they will reconsider if they are even thinking about a partisan filibuster of the resolution itself and not even getting to the resolution of disapproval.

They have every right to vote according to their conscience and as they believe they should vote on the resolution of disapproval, but the idea of blocking a vote by a filibuster--it just strikes me as reckless and irresponsible, especially in light of this: I mentioned this to the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee a few moments ago, but I will come back to it because I find it so shocking.

A few days ago in the Wall Street Journal, there was a discussion or actually a report from the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, who declared Thursday--it said in this story of September 3--that the Iranian Parliament would have the final word on the deal. It says the Parliament speaker delivered a similar message to reporters in New York later in the day, saying he supports the deal which would lift crippling economic sanctions on Iran in return for curbs on the country's nuclear activities. The speaker of the Iranian Parliament said the agreement needs to be discussed and it needs to be approved by the Iranian Parliament. There will be heated discussions and debates.

I would hate the fact, if it was to occur--and I hope it does not--that the Iranian Parliament would have a more open, accountable, and democratic process than the Senate. I hope we do not head down the road of a partisan filibuster, no matter how this resolution turns out. It would be a mistake, it would be a self-inflicted wound to the Senate and to the respect which we would like to garner from the American people.

They would see this as business as usual, and I think it would add to their disgust. I hope Members, as they return to Washington today and as we begin to debate

this deal, I hope they will recall--and let me, just in a brief few minutes, refresh some of their collective live memories about Iran's long history of terrorism against the United States and our allies. I actually had a chance last week when I was in Dallas, TX, to discuss this matter with a gentleman named Rick Kupke in Dallas, TX. He actually lives in Arlington, TX, right between Fort Worth and Dallas.

But Rick was a former U.S. Foreign Service officer. He has learned firsthand how the Iranian regime targets and attacks Americans because he was the last American captured in 1979 at the U.S. Embassy in Iran during the Iranian hostage crisis. He was one of dozens of Americans held in captivity for 444 days under the constant threat of death. But many will also remember two other terrorist bombings that occurred in 1983 that targeted American citizens. One blew up the U.S. Embassy in Beirut and the other blew up the U.S. Marine barracks at Beirut International Airport. Combined, these bombings killed more than 250 American citizens, including 8 Texans, 7 of them marines and another a soldier.

It is well known and documented that these attacks were perpetrated by the terrorist group Hezbollah under the direction of the Iranian regime. That is how the Iranian regime does its dirty work. It does it through proxies, not directly but through proxies like Hezbollah.

Iran, while it has denied any involvement in these attacks, does not shy away from celebrating these bombings that have killed hundreds of Americans. In 2004, a little more than 20 years after the bombings, the Iranian Government erected a monument--a monument in its capital to commemorate the ``martyrs'' who carried out those attacks.

Later in 1985, Hezbollah, together with another terrorist group, hijacked a Trans World Airlines flight, holding hostages and beating its passengers for 2 weeks. More than half of those passengers were American citizens, including a group of six U.S. Navy sailors, one of whom was murdered.

In 1996, a bombing on a housing complex in Saudi Arabia was linked to Iranian officials that resulted in the death of 19 U.S. servicemembers, wounding more than 500.

More recently, the Defense Department has acknowledged that during Operation Iraqi Freedom, at least 500 Americans died at the hands of Shiite militias who were equipped by Iran with different types of lethal weapons. It became well known that the explosively formed penetrators, which melted the armor used to shield Americans and our allies in Iraq, were produced by the Iranian Government, and the Quds Force trained people to use those against Americans and our allies.

Then, right here in our Nation's Capital just 4 years ago, Iranian officials were implicated in a plot to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the United States. That plot reportedly included plans to bomb the Israeli Embassy in Washington as well. That is a staggering list of aggressions against the United States and our allies, both at home and abroad since the Iranian regime came to power in 1979.

I don't have the time right now to discuss the Iranian fingerprints on the havoc being wreaked in the Middle East, from Yemen to Syria, to Iraq. In all the major hotspots of the world, Iranian fingerprints are all over these activities. Of course, Iran has long sponsored militant groups on Israel's borders, which have attacked Israel with rockets, hundreds of rockets and terrorism.

In southern Lebanon, Iran funds and supplies Hezbollah, which threatens Israel's northern border, against which Israel went to war in 2006. In Gaza, on Israel's southwestern border, Iran has long sponsored Hamas. Particularly as Iranian-Hamas relations have frayed in recent years, Iran has sponsored the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Suffice it to say that over the years, Iran has sown chaos across the Middle East, attacking the United States and our allies, while publicly celebrating the death of Americans in Tehran. So with this regime's long history of aggression against the United States and its allies, I find it troubling that the President characterizes any thoughtful questioning of the merits of this deal as akin to warmongering. That is what the President has said: If you don't like this deal, the alternative is war. To which I would say: Wrong, Mr. President. The alternative to this deal is a better deal.

According to the President's twisted logic, those who are skeptical of this same Iran, which I have described has time and time again demonstrated its aggression against the United States and which has articulated its principle opposition to this deal--the President would characterize the critics of this deal as the real belligerents encouraging war. In fact, he went so far as to say that Republican opponents of this deal--he has not said this yet about the opponents of this deal who are members of his political party, but he has about Republicans, that those who share the concerns are ``making common cause'' with Iranian hardliners who chant ``Death to America.''

Well, this debate and this vote are simply too important for it to degenerate into partisanship. I know this is something the Senator from Tennessee feels very strongly about. He has tried to elevate the debate and to work in a bipartisan way to bring us to this vote on a resolution this week.

I hope we don't follow the President down this low road of partisan rhetoric, which actually only serves to distract us from examining the deal and identifying the true character of the regime that we are somehow making common cause with and hoping against hope that they won't continue at some point to break out and pursue those nuclear weapons.

This is not like the Soviet Union. This is not Ronald Reagan negotiating with the Soviet Union. This is a theocratic regime that is led by an Islamic extremist who has American and other allied blood on his hands and makes no bones about it.

So this debate needs to help the American people find the answer to this crucial question. I think it boils down to this: Will this deal make America and our allies safer? I think that ultimately is the question.

As we prepare to vote on this resolution of disapproval, I hope that we will have a civil, enthusiastic, and spirited debate, as the speaker of the Iranian Parliament said they will have in their body, and we will be able to openly and honestly discuss different points of view. That is the Senate is supposed to be--a place where that can happen and where it should happen. The American people deserve that kind of debate, not a partisan filibuster that cuts off the debate prematurely and tries to hide accountability for the ultimate outcome on the resolution of disapproval.

I look forward to that spirited debate, and I hope any thought that any of our colleagues might have had about engaging in a partisan filibuster of this important resolution will fade quickly from their minds.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source