Hire More Heroes Act of 2015
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this has been one of the most extraordinary measures that has come before the Senate in the time that I have served here. It is rare to have an issue of this historic moment, of this importance, one that literally raises a question about war and peace in the Middle East, and one that has been considered so carefully by both sides of the aisle for such a long period of time.
When I left for the August recess, here in the Senate most of the Members on my side of the aisle--the Democratic side--were still processing and reviewing the proposed agreement. And, over the course of August, these Members announced their public positions on the matter.
As of today, there are 41 of the 46 Democratic Senators who have announced they will support the Iran agreement. There are another four who are opposed to it, and one who is yet to announce her position. We expect that to happen shortly.
This is a unique matter. I asked my staff and others to research one particular aspect of this debate. The aspect I asked them to research was a letter sent on March 9 of this year by 47 Republican Senators. Forty-seven Republican Senators sent a letter to the leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Ayatollah.
To take you back in history, at that point in time when 47 Republican Senators sent that letter, the United States of America was in negotiation with Iran to see whether or not we could come to any kind of an agreement or understanding when it came to limit Iran's development of a nuclear weapon, something that I am sure all of us--both political parties--want to stop from happening. But in the midst of this delicate negotiation that was going on in Switzerland, 47 Republican Senators, including every Member of the Senate Republican leadership, sent a letter to the Ayatollah in Iran. It said:
It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution--the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices--which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress.
Forty-seven Republican Senators wrote to the Ayatollah in the midst of these delicate negotiations. It went on to say:
First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote. A so-called congressional executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate).
Forty-seven Republican Senators are advising the Ayatollah in Iran, in March, that he should know more about our constitutional form of government and understand that it will take Senate approval, which they say effectively means a three-fifths vote. They continue:
Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.
Second, [the 47 Republican Senators advised the Ayatollah] the offices of our Constitution have different characteristics. For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms. As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January, 2017, while most of us will remain in office far beyond then--perhaps decades.
Then the 47 Republicans Senators, in their March letter to the Ayatollah of Iran, say:
What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.
We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.
Forty-seven Republican Senators in March of this year, writing to the Ayatollah and basically telling him: Don't get your hopes up if you are negotiating with the United States, reminding him they will have the last word as Members of Congress, and also stipulating that a three-fifths vote will be required in the U.S. Senate.
Then they go on to say: Keep in mind we are going to be here a lot longer than any President; we may be the last person or the last group to make a decision on the future of these agreements. Then they are basically reminding them that Presidents come and go, and don't assume the next President will even honor an agreement reached by this President.
Think back 12 years ago. What if 47 Democratic Senators--in the midst of our negotiation as to whether or not we should invade Iraq--had sent a letter to Saddam Hussein saying: Don't negotiate with President Bush. Don't pay any attention to his negotiations. We are the Congress. We will have the last word.
I cannot imagine what the public response would have been, but that is exactly what happened here--47 Republican Senators intervening in a negotiation process with Iran, basically telling those sitting at the table: Don't worry about reaching an agreement with the United States of America and this President.
I know what would have happened if that would have come up when Dick Cheney was Vice President of the United States. We would have had 47 Democrats up on charges of treason.
Well, in this circumstance, this was not good judgment. I would like to stipulate that the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee did not sign this letter. I want to make sure that is clear on the floor. But the 47 who did have to answer a question: Why? When we are in delicate negotiations as the United States of America, and we don't have a final agreement, why would 47 Republican Senators want to intervene in those negotiations? Why would they want to say to the Ayatollah: Don't waste your time negotiating with this President.
It is troublesome. Many of them had reached a conclusion even before the agreement was written that they were going to oppose it. Witness this letter.
But others took time to consider it, to measure it, and to announce their position when it came to this matter. I respect them for doing that, even if they came to a different conclusion than I did. I know what happened on our Democratic side because I was in contact with virtually with every Member of our Senate Democratic Caucus during the month of August, talking to them about this.
There is real soul-searching here, real serious consideration. Some of them, of course, went to the source, met with our intelligence agencies, the State Department, Department of Defense, and came back to Washington when we were in recess. One Senator I know sat down for 5 hours in closed meetings with our intelligence agencies to ask questions that were on his mind about this agreement.
Others, of course, met with their constituents, talked about it, found differences of opinion within their own States. They thought about it long and hard, prayed over it.
I talked to them, always wanting to hear where they were, but never pushing them because I knew this was serious, and they took it seriously. That is where we find ourselves today.
I salute the Senator from Tennessee. As the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he and I may disagree on substance, but I respect him very much. He is a man of honor and a man of integrity, and he brings to this process the kind of attitude toward the Senate as an institution which I respect and I will continue to respect.
I also believe my colleague from Maryland, a close personal friend, Senator Cardin--though we see this issue differently--has really thought long and hard about it. We have been on the phone together many, many times during the course of August. I ruined a lot of his vacation trying to figure out where he was and what his process was. He took it very seriously. I respect him, although we came out to different positions on this matter.
That is the way it should be, and what the American people expect of us now is a debate befitting this great institution of the Senate. They expect us to come and conscientiously consider this matter on its merits and express our points of view, and virtually every Senator has already done that publicly, save one. In the course of this debate, the American people can follow it because it is a critical debate. What is at issue here is whether Iran will develop a nuclear weapon.
We believe that they have the capacity now to create as many as 10 nuclear weapons. We don't want that to happen. It would be disastrous for the world--certainly disastrous for the Middle East and Israel--and that is why leaders from around the world, 100 different nations, support what President Obama is striving to do.
What the President is trying to do is something I believe should be the starting point in every critical foreign-policy decision: Use diplomacy, use negotiation, and try to solve our problems in a thoughtful, diplomatic way. And if that fails, never rule out other possibilities, but start with diplomacy. That is what the President has done.
During the course of this Presidency, he organized nations around the world to join us in this effort. If this were just the United States versus Iran, we wouldn't be where we are today, but the President engaged countries which historically and recently have not been our allies.
Before we left for the August recess, we sat down with the five Ambassadors from nations that joined us in the negotiation. I looked across the table there to see the Ambassadors from China, from Russia, from the United Kingdom, and representatives of the embassies of Germany and France. I thought to myself, if you are a student of history, this is an amazing coalition: China, Russia, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and the United States all working together. And we brought into the sanctions regime other countries that didn't have the same direct involvement in negotiations but were with us. South Korea is a good example. Japan, another good example, joined us in this effort to put pressure on Iran. President Obama led this effort, and he was successful in this effort. The Iranians came to the negotiating table because we put the pressure on them--economic pressure that brought them to that moment.
Now we have before us this agreement. Some have said: You can never trust Iran no matter what they say. I would just harken back to the days of Ronald Reagan, who said of our enemies around the world when it came to agreements: ``Trust, but verify.''
Just recently we had an announcement made by Colin Powell, a man I respect very much, in support of this agreement. It was an announcement which surprised me in a way. I didn't know if he was going to take a position on this matter, but this article states:
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell expressed support for the [Obama] nuclear agreement with Iran on Sunday, calling the various planks Iranian leaders accepted ``remarkable'' and dismissing critics' concerns over its implementation.
``It's a pretty good deal,'' he said on NBC's ``Meet the Press.''
Critics concerned that the deal will expedite Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon, Powell added, are ``forgetting the reality that [Iranian leaders] have been on a superhighway, for the last 10 years, to create a nuclear weapon or a nuclear weapons program with no speed limit.''
He said the reduction in centrifuges, Iran's uranium stockpile and their agreement to shut down their plutonium reactor were all ``remarkable.''
``These are remarkable changes, and so we have stopped this highway race that they were going down--and I think that's very, very important,'' Powell said.
He also pushed back on skeptics who have expressed worries about the ability of independent inspectors to verify that Iran is following the agreement. Powell said that, ``with respect to the Iranians--don't trust, never trust, and always verify.''
``And I think a very vigorous ver i fi ca tion regime has been put into place,'' he said.
``I say, we have a deal, let's see how they implement the deal. If they don't implement it, bail out. None of our options are gone,'' Powell added.
I think he hit the nail on the head. General Colin Powell, who served our country in the military and as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, then as Secretary of State, brings a perspective to this which very few can. He is a man who risked his life on the battlefield, a man who knows the true cost of war, but a man who was empowered by another Republican President to lead us in diplomatic negotiations. This is the kind of clear-eyed approach that we need and want when it comes to an issue of this gravity.
I will have other things to say on this matter, as others will.
I yield the floor to my colleagues.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there are many brokenhearted people today in the small town of Fox Lake, IL. They are mourning the loss of Lieutenant Charles Joseph Gliniewicz. His friends and family called him Joe. At work they called him GI Joe. That all-American nickname was an admiring tribute to Lieutenant Gliniewicz's nearly 30 years of service to the U.S. Army, the Army Reserves, and to his appearance and demeanor.
At age 52, Lieutenant Gliniewicz was fit and strong. He stood ramrod straight. He wore his hair high and tight like a drill sergeant. But the physical characteristic people mention most about Lieutenant Gliniewicz was his smile.
Everyone knew GI Joe in Fox Lake, IL. He served on the town's police force for 32 years. He was supposed to retire at the end of last month, but he stayed on just 1 more month to ensure the smooth transition of a volunteer youth program to which he devoted thousands of hours over nearly 30 years.
A week ago today, September 1--the day that would have been Lieutenant Gliniewicz's first day of retirement--he was shot and killed in the line of duty. It was 8 o'clock in the morning. Lieutenant Gliniewicz was driving down a road lined with open fields and abandoned-looking businesses when he spotted three men who raised suspicion. He radioed the police dispatcher that he was going to pursue them on foot. The dispatcher asked if he needed help. Lieutenant Gliniewicz said: Sure, send them. When backup officers arrived 3 minutes later, they couldn't find him. A few minutes later, they found Lieutenant Gliniewicz 50 yards from his patrol car. He had been fatally shot.
Law enforcement agencies are still searching for the three men responsible. They have only a very sketchy description: three men, two White, one Black.
In the days that followed the murder, hundreds of law enforcement officers poured into Fox Lake in Lake County. They were joined by members of just about every major law enforcement agency, all people can think of, including the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the FBI, and even the Secret Service. Dozens of officers suffered heat exhaustion as they searched the woods and swamps. They are still searching today for his killers. We all want to see them brought to justice swiftly.
Lieutenant Gliniewicz was married for 26 1/2 years to his wife Melodie. They call her Mel for short. They were parents of four sons ranging in age from early twenties to their teens. One of his sons serves in the U.S. Army.
The day after Lieutenant Gliniewicz's murder, hundreds of local folks turned out for a rally in Fox Lake to show their love for him and his family. It would just break your heart to see pictures of Melodie Gliniewicz and her four now fatherless sons smiling through their anguish, trying to support each other and their grieving neighbors.
Folks in Fox Lake said that Joe Gliniewicz loved his town and he was always the first to volunteer at whatever local administration needed help with an event. One resident told the local newspaper:
Everyone in town knew who he was. Whether you were on a first-name basis or knew his rank, you knew he was a great guy.
This resident added:
Just being involved in his community, he took pride in it. This is where he lived, and it's what he fought to protect. He took great pride in making the town of Fox Lake the place it is.
Lieutenant Gliniewicz was a volunteer with the Special Olympics and a lot of other groups. The organization he was closest to was the Fox Lake Police Department Explorers, a group who mentors young people who want to aspire to law enforcement. Joe Gliniewicz established Fox Lake's Explorer Post No. 300 nearly 30 years ago. Over the years, he has seen hundreds of explorers in training get into law enforcement and the military. His death is felt so deeply by these young people, by Lieutenant Gliniewicz's family, friends, and neighbors, and by his brothers and sisters in blue not only in Fox Lake but throughout Illinois and across America.
Lieutenant Gliniewicz was the first on-duty officer fatally shot in Lake County, IL, since 1980 and the third law enforcement fatality in Illinois this year, according to the Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund. According to the Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, firearms-related deaths of law enforcement officers in the United States are down 24 percent this year compared to the same period last year, January 1 to September 8. There were 34 last year and 26 this year. While that downward trend is good news, even one police officer killed in the line of duty is way too many.
In Fox Lake and in towns across America, countless families have replaced the lightbulbs on their front porches with blue lightbulbs to show their support for their local police.
Yesterday, on Labor Day, there was a memorial service at the high school for Lieutenant Gliniewicz. They packed it with law enforcement officials from all over--not just Lake County, IL, but the Midwest and across the Nation. It was an 18-mile funeral parade or funeral caravan that went off to the cemetery afterward--18 miles long--and it was filled with admirers and friends and people standing on the roads with homemade signs.
Lieutenant Gliniewicz really made a difference in people's lives. It is sad to lose him. When we reflect on the great contribution he made to his community, to his county, to my State of Illinois, and to our Nation, it is with heartfelt gratitude that we say to his family: We are by your side.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source