[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 36 (Tuesday, March 3, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1227-S1229]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            THE ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH TO CONGRESS

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, at 11 a.m. this morning there will be a 
historic joint session of Congress. Usually a leader from some other 
country speaking at a joint session of Congress doesn't make history. 
It has happened over 100 times. I have attended many of those during 
the time I have served in the House and the Senate. What is historic 
about this session is that it was called unilaterally by the Republican 
Speaker of the House, John Boehner. Usually and consistently, joint 
sessions of Congress have been called on a bipartisan basis and in most 
cases involve the administration and executive branch. In this case 
Speaker Boehner made history his own way by saying he would announce a 
joint session of Congress welcoming the Prime Minister of Israel.
  I also checked with the Senate Historian, and it turns out there is 
another piece of history being made today. He can find no precedent 
where Members of Congress came forward from both the House and the 
Senate and announced publicly they would not attend a joint session of 
Congress, and that has happened today.
  That is a personal and private decision by each Member of Congress as 
to whether they wish to attend the joint session this morning. I am 
going to attend it primarily because of my respect for the State of 
Israel and the fact that throughout my public career in the House and 
Senate, I have valued the bipartisan support of Israel which I found in 
both the House and the Senate.
  I am proud that it was President Harry Truman--a Democrat--who was 
the first Executive in the world to recognize the nation of Israel. I 
am proud that throughout history Democratic and Republican Presidents 
alike have supported the State of Israel, and I have tried to do the 
same as a Member of the U.S. House and Senate.
  This meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu comes at an awkward 
moment. He is 2 weeks away from a national election in Israel. Some 
have questioned the timing of this. I will not raise that question 
because I don't know the political scene in Israel. I don't know if 
this visit helps him or hurts him, but it is, in fact, 2 weeks away 
from this important election.
  What we all agree on, I hope, both Democrats and Republicans, is one 
starting point: A nuclear Iran is unacceptable. We have to do 
everything we can to stop that possibility because it would invite an 
arms race in the Middle East--many other countries would race to become 
nuclear powers, and that would be destabilizing--and also because we 
know the agenda of Iran. It has been engaged in terrorist activities 
throughout the Middle East and around the world. Putting a nuclear 
weapon in the hands of a country that is dedicated to terrorism is the 
kind of concern that I hope all of us share when we look to the future.
  As Democrats and Republicans gather for the joint session, we are in 
common purpose: to stop the development of a nuclear Iran. What 
troubles me greatly is the criticisms I have heard on this floor and in 
the past week or two about the Obama administration and this issue. 
President Obama has made it clear from the start that he is opposed to 
having a nuclearized Iran. In fact, it was President Obama, using his 
power as President, who has really brought together the sanctions 
regime that is working to bring Iran to the negotiating table. He 
didn't do it alone, as one of my colleagues from South Carolina noted. 
There were times when Congress wanted to push harder than the 
President. But we have to concede the obvious: Were it not for the 
President's dogged determination, we would not have this alliance, this 
coalition imposing sanctions on Iran today that have made a difference 
and brought Iran to the negotiating table. Give President Obama credit 
for that. Whether it is Prime Minister Netanyahu or the Republicans, 
who are generally critical of the President, at least acknowledge the 
obvious. The President made his position clear that he opposes a 
nuclear Iran, and he made it clear that he would put his resources and 
energy into building a coalition to stop that possibility.
  Secondly, it is this President's leadership which has created the 
Iron Dome defense--the missile defense--which has protected Israel. 
That has been a very effective defense mechanism. I know that as 
chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, we appropriated 
hundreds of millions of dollars for that protection. President Obama 
initiated--if not initiated, was an early supporter of this effort and 
has funded it throughout his Presidency, and now it has kept Israel 
safe. I hope the Republicans and Prime Minister Netanyahu will give the 
administration credit for that effort to keep their nation safe.
  I will also say about negotiations that here is the reality: We have 
countries around the world joining us in a regime to impose sanctions 
on Iran in order to bring Iran to the negotiating table, and they are 
there. The negotiations are at a delicate moment--literally weeks away 
from seeing whether we can move forward. I hope they are successful. 
The President has said at best there is a 50/50 chance of success. It 
is just that challenging. But let's consider what the alternative will 
be if negotiations fail.

[[Page S1228]]

  First, if we can reach an agreement, we have to verify it. We can't 
take the word of Iran. We need to make certain that when they promise 
they will destroy certain equipment, they will not go forward in 
developing a nuclear weapon, we can verify that. Without verification, 
the agreement is worthless, and the President has said as much.
  Let's assume the worst case: Either the negotiations break down or 
the verification proves Iran did not negotiate in good faith. What then 
is the alternative? Well, if the coalition that imposed the sanctions 
believes we made good-faith efforts to bring Iran to a peaceful place 
and they failed, then we can continue the sanctions regime and put more 
pressure on them to move forward to a good solution. But if there is a 
feeling among our coalition that we have not negotiated in good faith, 
that we didn't make an honest effort to find common ground with Iran 
that avoids nuclearizing, we could lose the sanctions regime, and then 
it would become next to impossible to put the pressure on Iran to make 
them change.
  What the President is trying to do is to achieve through negotiations 
a peaceful end to this global challenge and secondly to make sure the 
sanctions regime--the countries that have joined us, P5+1 and others--
will continue to believe we are operating in good faith and continue to 
support us. The alternative is to allow Iran to develop a nuclear 
weapon. That is unthinkable. If it starts to occur, there will be a 
military response, and it will be deadly. I don't know the scope or 
nature of it. There is no way to guess. But we understand what it would 
mean if military action is taken against Iran because of the 
development of these nuclear weapons.
  Let me also say that I am considering and reviewing the so-called 
Corker-Menendez proposal that the Congress will review any agreement 
that is reached with the Iranians. I have not reached a decision yet 
because I think it raises a serious and important question of policy 
and the Constitution. We know that if we are dealing with a treaty, it 
is up to the Senate to step forward and approve such a treaty. But this 
is not a treaty; this is in the nature of an agreement. We have had 
nuclear arms agreements in the past that were not subject to 
congressional approval. We have had agreements on the environment and 
other issues that were not subject to congressional approval. I need to 
look and review carefully whether the Corker-Menendez legislation that 
has been proposed is a reasonable assertion of congressional authority.
  I will also add that it is obvious--and I wish to state it because it 
was raised as a question in the earlier comments--any congressionally 
imposed sanctions will require congressional action to suspend them. 
Ultimately, Congress has the last word on sanctions we have put into 
law. I don't think there is any question about that. Those sanctions 
imposed by the executive branch the President may remove or change by 
Executive order should he choose, but the congressional authority to 
continue sanctions or even propose new ones is not diminished by any 
agreement which is reached by the President.
  Earlier I listened to the majority leader as he came to the floor and 
spoke about a number of issues. I would like to address one of the 
issues he raised in criticism of the President. He criticized the 
President for proposing the closure of Guantanamo as a prison for those 
who we suspect are engaged in terrorism. The President's position on 
this has been very clear, and I have supported it for two reasons. 
First, we know Guantanamo has become a symbol around the world--a 
symbol which has been used against the United States when they want to 
recruit terrorists to attack our country. I think Guantanamo has 
outlived its usefulness and should be closed.
  The second point is one that is very obvious. We have over 300 
convicted terrorists currently serving their time in the existing 
Federal prison system. In Federal prisons across this Nation, including 
my State of Illinois, we have convicted terrorists who are reporting to 
their cells every day and are no threat to the community at large. They 
are being handled in a professional, thoughtful way by the men and 
women who work for the Bureau of Prisons, and there has never been any 
question as to whether the terrorists in this system are somehow a 
threat to this country. In fact, they are well contained and have been 
for a long time.
  The alternative at Guantanamo is one that even fiscal conservatives 
ought to think about twice. We are currently spending up to $3 million 
per Guantanamo prisoner each year to incarcerate them--almost $3 
million a prisoner. What does it cost to keep the most dangerous 
prisoners in the Federal prison system in the maximum security prisons? 
No more than $60,000 a year--$60,000 to keep them in the Federal prison 
system and $3 million to keep them in Guantanamo. It is 50 times the 
cost, if my calculations are correct. That suggests to me a horrible 
waste of money--money that could be better spent to keep America safe 
rather than maintain this symbol of Guantanamo.
  Secondly, an argument was made by the majority leader earlier that we 
made the mistake of bringing our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. 
I disagree. This notion of a permanent army of occupation by the United 
States in the Middle East is certainly not one that I welcome. We need 
to encourage those countries--Iraq and Afghanistan--to develop their 
own capacity to protect their own countries. The United States can be 
helpful. We can provide support. But ultimately we have to call on 
these countries to step forward and to defend themselves with our 
support so long as they are fighting the forces of terrorism.
  I see my colleague Senator Menendez is on the floor.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I appreciate my distinguished colleague 
yielding some time to me.
  I rise in anticipation of the speech of our ally and our partner, 
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, to the soon-to-be joint 
meeting of Congress.
  I agree with many of my colleagues that the political timing of the 
Prime Minister's speech to the Congress is a challenging one and one 
that didn't derive itself under the best of circumstances. But I also 
think very clearly that it is important to listen to what the elected 
leader of the people of Israel--the one true democracy in the Middle 
East, a major trading partner of the United States, a major security 
ally of the United States, and the one country most likely to be voting 
with us in common cause in international forums--has to say.
  There is a history here that I think drives the leader of the Jewish 
people to the circumstances in which he feels so passionately about the 
security of his country. If you traveled to Israel, as I have, and I 
think many Members here have as well, here is a country in which you 
can go from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem on a good day in 45 minutes. It is a 
country which--if you fly its width, it would take just a couple of 
minutes. It is a country which has its back to the sea and which is 
surrounded by neighbors who, generally speaking, are hostile. It is a 
country whose people have a history in which there are those who have 
sought to annihilate them. Maybe we cannot fathom those challenges, but 
those are the challenges of the people of Israel. So when you have an 
issue such as Iran's march toward nuclear weapons, you have an 
understanding of why the people of Israel have a concern for the 
existential threat that Iran, if it achieves nuclear weapons, is 
ultimately capable of creating.
  I have worked as hard as anyone else. As a matter of fact, I started 
my focus on Iran when I was in the House of Representatives and found 
out that the United States was sending voluntary contributions to the 
International Atomic Energy Administration beyond our membership dues 
to do what? To create operational capacity of the Bushehr nuclear 
facility--not in the national interest and security of the United 
States, not in the interest of our ally, the State of Israel, and I led 
a drive to stop those voluntary contributions.
  Since then--it has been almost 20 years now--I have been following 
Iran's march toward nuclear power, not for peaceful purposes--because, 
let's be honest, a country that has one of the

[[Page S1229]]

world's largest oil and other reserves doesn't need nuclear power for 
domestic consumption, and because of what we clearly believe was the 
militarization of its efforts at Parchin that, in fact, there were 
purposes that were not benign.
  We all hope for a deal. Although today when Foreign Minister Zarif 
said in response to President Obama's comments that 10 years should be 
the minimum timeframe for a deal, he--Foreign Minister Zarif--said that 
is unacceptable, illogical, and excessive, that is a problem.
  So I look forward to listening to what the Prime Minister has to say 
about the challenge to all of us--our national security and to Israel's 
national security--and to understand all of the dimensions, historical 
and otherwise, so we can conclude and make our own judgments. If Prime 
Minister Cameron can come here and lobby the Congress on sanctions, 
which is fine with me, then I think it is also fair to listen to what 
the Prime Minister of Israel has to say, and I look forward to hearing 
what he has to say.
  With that, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________