Hire More Heroes Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we listened to the comments of Senator McConnell, the Republican leader. He has given us a ``litany of horribles'' when it comes to the conduct of the nation of Iran. He has given us fair warning that this is a country that we cannot trust because of past conduct. I think the point that needs to be made at this moment is I don't disagree with his premise or his conclusion. But I ask him and all others in his similar political position: How can Iran with a nuclear weapon be a better thing for this world, for the Middle East, or for Israel?

I think the answer is obvious. That is why the President, in league with our major allies and some not so frequent allies, has brokered an agreement to send in international inspectors to destroy the centrifuges which are building these nuclear weapons, to put a concrete core in the reactor that produces the plutonium, and to continue the inspection of Iran nonstop so that they do not develop a nuclear weapon.

That to me is an ultimate positive outcome. Does it cure all of the horribles that have been listed by the Senator from Kentucky? Of course not. But how can he imagine that Iran with its record would be in a better position--or that we would be in a better position--if Iran had a nuclear weapon? I do not think so. That, I think, is the issue before us. I have to harken back to the statement made yesterday by my colleague from Michigan. She is in contact with the family of one of the prisoners being held there. They are concerned, I am concerned, that dramatizing these four prisoners as part of our political debate on the floor, which is what the Republicans have done with their amendment is a risky process. We want these prisoners to come home safely. We voted that way overwhelmingly.

Playing them as part of a floor strategy by the Republicans is risky. I wish we would not take the risk at their possible expense. So I would urge my colleagues to join me in voting against the cloture motion that is going to come before us at 11 o'clock to move forward on this particular amendment.

I will close by saying, the press reports last night explained why we are here wasting a week in the Senate: Because of the Republican presidential debate and because of the fact that even some of the Republican presidential candidates reserved a vial of venom to be used against the leader here, the majority leader of the Senate and the Speaker of the House.

It is clear they are under immense pressure to show their Republican manhood. That is what this exercise is all about.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, on July 14, President Obama announced a landmark agreement between key world powers and Iran, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, JCPOA, that removes Iran's path towards a nuclear weapon. This is a truly historic agreement that rolls back Iran's nuclear infrastructure, places severe limits and inspection on any such future work, and commits Iran to never build a nuclear weapon.

And while Iran's behavior in the region remains deeply troubling, particularly in terms of threats to Israel, this agreement ensures that such belligerence will not occur with a nuclear threat.

Per the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, the announcement of the agreement set in motion a congressional review period which ended today.

In the past week, the majority leader has tried three times to pass a resolution of disapproval and three times it failed. During these debates, I have listened to many of my Republican colleagues make some outlandish claims with regard to the Iran deal. And now, instead of accepting this fact, some in this body have taken their displeasure a step further by claiming that because the JCPOA is not a treaty, it will no longer be in force in a new administration.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Throughout our history, the United States has entered into executive agreements, like the JCPOA, without congressional approval on a wide range of subjects, including nonproliferation, international security, and bilateral cooperation.

When President Nixon negotiated the Shanghai Communique in 1972 with China, which led to the normalization of relations with a country that was as mistrusted then as Iran is now, did anyone try and claim that it would no longer be valid once Nixon left office?

I also do not recall this argument being made just a couple of years ago when President Obama negotiated the Framework for Elimination of Syrian Chemical Weapons, another example of an executive agreement. And of course there are many other examples, including the Algiers Accords, numerous status of forces agreements, and the establishment of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

Claiming now that the JCPOA ends when President Obama leaves office is a terrible break from congressional tradition and threatens to undermine American international credibility. Who would negotiate with the United States if they believed such agreements would be abrogated with a new President?

These statements are truly reckless. Let it be clear once and for all that this agreement can and will extend beyond the current administration.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source