Hire More Heroes Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I am going to have more lengthy comments to make on this topic a little later, but I did want first of all to thank the Senator from Illinois for his comments, and I certainly want to thank Senator Cardin--and I will do so more fully in just a moment. But I would like to remind the body that, yes, we went through several steps along the way to get to where we are today that certainly created consternation on both sides of the aisle. There were lots of things that occurred. A letter was referred to. There was an address to the joint Congress. There have been numbers of things along the way that have caused people to concern themselves that maybe this debate would end up being something that was partisan and of low level.

What we have done is that we have actually marshaled ourselves through that, and we ended up with the Iran review act in short terms. That gives us the opportunity, as the distinguished Senator mentioned, to actually review this. We have done that. We have had 12 hearings on this topic--extensive hearings--in the Foreign Relations Committee, and many other committees have done the same.

What we ended up putting in place, with 98 votes in the Senate--98 to 1; we had one Senator who was absent--is a process where all Senators could review this, could have the documents at their disposal to go through it, to go to classified briefings so they could understand--and should understand--fully what this agreement says and then have the right to vote.

Certainly, some things happened along the way that, as I mentioned, created some consternation, but as a body, in Senate fashion, in lieu of letting that divide us and letting that create a scenario where we wouldn't review it and not vote on it, we created a process where we would review it and vote on it.

It is my hope--and I know I have had a very nice conversation with the distinguished Senator from Illinois, and certainly multiple conversations with the distinguished Senator from Maryland--that over the process of this week that is what continues. I know that is what all of us want to see happen.

I do think the American people deserve to know where Senators and House Members stand on this serious piece of foreign policy that is before us, and I want to thank everyone for their role in getting it here.

As a matter of fact, I will move on, if I could, to what I had planned to say. I first want to thank Senator McConnell and Senator Reid for allowing this debate to take place this week without having a motion to proceed. I couldn't thank Senator Cardin more for being a colleague who really works to try to figure out a way for the Senate to play its appropriate role in foreign policy. It has been nothing but outstanding in dealing with him since he assumed this role, and I want to thank him for the way he has conducted himself.

I would also like to remind people that without the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act there would be no role for Congress. One of the things I think has confused a lot of the American people--and there are a lot of people who would prefer this to have been a treaty--is the fact that under our form of government, the President is able to decide whether he is going to submit an agreement as a treaty or as an executive agreement. An executive agreement stays in place during the duration of that President's tenure and could be altered by the next President. A treaty is binding on future Presidents.

This President, as we know, decided to go directly to the U.N. Security Council and, by the way, lift some congressionally mandated sanctions that we all helped put in place that actually brought Iran to the table. So with the knowledge of that, Congress stepped in and passed this piece of legislation that now gives us the right to review what the President has negotiated and to prevent him from lifting those congressionally mandated sanctions should we decide we disapprove of this deal.

So this is a place where Congress came together and said: No, we want to play a role, even though a role is not contemplated under an executive agreement. I know this has been confusing to numbers of people, but this was the only vehicle capable of winning a veto-proof majority to provide Congress with this chance--a chance for the American people to have us, on their behalf, review this agreement and then vote.

As I mentioned, we have had more than a dozen hearings. I have spent a great deal of time, as has the ranking member, as have all of our committee members--and the Presiding Officer the same--as have so many people going through this agreement, and I oppose implementation of this deal. I oppose its implementation.

When the President first stated his goal--his goal of ending Iran's nuclear program--that was something that could have achieved tremendous bipartisan support in this body. As a matter of fact, onward there were discussions of dismantling the program. And as we all know today--and I will speak more fully on this tomorrow--rather than ending it, this agreement industrializes it. It allows the industrialization of the program run by the world's leading state sponsor of terror, and it does so with our approval.

Now, that is a large step from where we began these negotiations. Had the President achieved the goal, I think what we would have in this body is 100 Senators standing up and supporting what he said he wished to do with these negotiations. But we have ended up with something that certainly is a far cry from that.

Instead of having anytime, anywhere inspections, I think everyone understands there is a managed inspection process. Certainly, there are some issues relative to the IAEA that have given many Members tremendous concern.

The thing that is one of the most troubling aspects of this is that through the course of these negotiations, the leverage--where right now, basically, the world community has had its boot on a rogue nation's throat--in 9 months the leverage shifts from these nations--our nation being one of those--having them in a position where we might negotiate something that ends their program to now, where instead what happens is the leverage shifts to Iran. The leverage shifts to Iran.

They are going to receive, as we know, billions of dollars. Most people think the number is around $100 billion. By the way, they have a $406 billion gross domestic product. That is the size of their economy. We are going to release to them over the next 9 months about $100 billion--25 percent of their economy in 9 months.

The President has said, and surely others, that some of this is going to be used to sponsor terrorism. We know that. Think about if we had 25 percent of our GDP given to us over the next 9 months. We have an $18 trillion GDP--$4 trillion or $5 trillion given to us over the next 9 months. Certainly, this is going to have an impact on what they are able to do.

What Iran is going to be able to say in 9 months--when we push back on violations in the agreement, when we push back on terrorism and we push back on human rights violations--is that because most of the sanctions will be lifted at that moment, they will have their money, and their economy will be growing, well, look, if you push back, we think this is unfair. They are already making these statements in Iran: We will just resume our nuclear program.

So instead of our having leverage over them, they are going to have leverage over us. They are going to have leverage over us. This is in the vacuum of having no Middle Eastern policy. I don't say this to be pejorative. We know we have no policy in the Middle East to push back against Iran. We know that. So this agreement is going to end up being our de facto policy, and everything is going to be measured by this: What will Iran do if we push back?

What if we push back against the fact that they are giving Hamas rockets to fire into Israel? What if we push back against what Hezbollah is doing in Lebanon and what they are doing in Syria? What if we push back against what the IRGC--the arm of the Supreme Leader--is doing right now to protect Assad? They are the shock force to keep Assad in power right now.

We know that right now in prisons in Syria people are being tortured. We saw it firsthand. The ranking member and I went over to see what was happening at the Holocaust Memorial Museum presentation where Caesar, someone working for the Assad regime, took photographs. We know as we stand here in these comfortable settings in the Chamber of the Senate, people are being tortured, their genitals are being removed, and Iran is supporting that.

We know that--the fact that they are going to have some resources to do more of that, to do the same thing with the Houthis in Yemen, to support terrorists and people who are trying to disrupt the Government of Bahrain.

Look, the leverage shifts to them. All they can say--what they are going to be able to say--if we push back against those activities is this: Well, look, we think you are being unfair. We are just going to resume our program.

I don't understand. This is beyond me. I have had no one explain it to me. I know the Senator from Illinois had the diplomats from the other countries come in. I have no idea why in this last meeting in Geneva we agreed to lift the conventional weapons ban after 5 years. What did that have to do with the nuclear file? And then we lifted the ballistic missile technology embargo in 8 years? What was that about? Then, as we know, with some really weird language that is in the agreement, we immediately lifted the ban on ballistic missile testing.

I think everyone here knows--the people sitting in the audience, people watching--that Iran has no practical need whatsoever for this program--none. Let me say that one more time. Here is a country with 19,000 centrifuges--10,000 of them operating. They have an underground facility at Fordow. They have a facility at Arak that produces plutonium. They have all kinds of research and development.

And by the way, this agreement approves further research and development of their centrifuges. As a matter of fact, it paves the way for them and also times it out perfectly for them to be in a position to be at zero breakout time, which is exactly what the President said they would be at, in 13 years. They can just agree to this agreement, and they can just continue to implement this agreement and be in that position. But they have no practical need--none.

Some people have said: Well, if they really want to pursue the technology of medical isotopes, maybe--maybe--they could use 500 centrifuges. Think about this. We have a country with one nuclear reactor, a country that could buy the enriched uranium to provide the energy for that cheaply on the market. Instead, they have put their entire society through grinding sanctions that have harmed families. They have been doing that for years for something they have no practical need for. There is only one need, and we all know that, which is to be in the position to be a nuclear-armed country.

So let me say one more time that every Senator here supported this process except for one. The American people deserve to know where their elected officials stand on this consequential agreement. I hope people on both sides will cause this to be a sober debate. I know it will be impassioned, and people will certainly be speaking strongly about the pros and cons of this agreement.

I do hope at the end of the day--while I was gone--I digress--there were discussions about filibustering the right to vote on this Iran agreement. I read about it in some magazines here, that instead of this being about people expressing themselves relative to a policy they felt was important to the country, apparently all of a sudden it became about something else.

I would just say to my colleagues, I don't know how we can be in a place where we have said to our constituents that we want to review and vote on this agreement and then, over some revisionist statement or thought, come up with a process that says: No, we are going to filibuster it; we really don't want people to vote.

It is my hope that over the course of the next several days cooler heads will prevail and that we of course will have, I believe, a very sober debate. I think my friends on the other side of the aisle have seen what the leader just did to try to ensure that we keep the debate about approval or disapproval--in this case, disapproval--of this particular deal, and I hope that very soon we will all be able to express ourselves with a vote on the deal itself, whether we believe it is in our Nation's interest. I do not. Some do. Let's have a debate in a sober way.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORKER. I said to my friend from Illinois earlier: Look, there has been so much that has occurred from the very beginning that has caused people on each side to, in some cases, raise the partisan flag or think that this is a debate which could devolve into something that was of that orientation. What we have done, as the Senator mentioned, is we have risen above that, and we passed something that allows us to debate and to vote.

I read with interest what the Supreme Leader has said. I think he is hedging his bets, and no doubt he is going to take it to their Parliament and allow them to vote and debate. I hope that here, the citizens of our country will be shown that same respect and expect that their Senators and their House Members will have the opportunity to vote on the actual policy which has been negotiated and agreed to by these various countries. I hope that will be the case and, yes, I was very aware of that.

With that, without objection, I wish to yield the floor to my great friend, the ranking member on the Foreign Relations Committee. Together, we have marched through some incredible hearings. I think all of us have studied this dutifully. That could not have occurred without his incredible cooperation and that of his staff. I thank him for his leadership. I thank him for his willingness to seek a place where the Senate can deal with this in the appropriate way.

With that, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Maryland for his comments and his tremendous leadership on this issue. I note that Senator Collins is here to speak. It is my understanding that she will speak for approximately 30 minutes. Senator Cornyn may be down shortly thereafter to speak and then Senator Kaine.

I know some people referred to the fact that it is only those who wanted to go to war with Iraq who are supporting this. But not only did the ranking member not support going to war with Iraq, neither did Senator Menendez from New Jersey, who, again, opposes this agreement. That type of characterization certainly is not the way that this is. The two most knowledgeable Democrats in the Senate on this issue by far both oppose it.

With that, I yield the floor to the distinguished Senator from Maine, who represents a beautiful State. We thank her for her contributions.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source