[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 44 (Monday, March 16, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1513-S1514]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                SENATE AGENDA AND NEGOTIATIONS WITH IRAN

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I listened to the impassioned speech by 
my colleague from Texas on the issue of human trafficking. There is no 
dispute here. This legislation is bipartisan. Democrats and Republicans 
are prepared to support the bill that has been offered on human 
trafficking by Republican Senator Cornyn and Democratic Senator 
Klobuchar. There are amendments pending I think which improve the 
bill--one by Senator Leahy about runaway children. In fact, we are so 
prepared to do this that we have put together a comprehensive 
substitute amendment to what has just been described which could be 
quickly passed on the floor. I do not believe there would be more than 
a handful of Senators voting no. I certainly would support the passage 
of the Leahy version.
  What is the difference? Senator Cornyn has injected into this 
important issue a side issue, but not an inconsequential one, on the 
Hyde amendment.
  Henry Hyde was a Congressman from Illinois who served in the House of 
Representatives with me for a period of time. He authored the Hyde 
amendment that said no Federal funds shall be used to pay for abortion 
procedures except in very limited circumstances--rape, incest, and the 
life of the mother. That has been put in appropriations bills every 
year since--without question, without challenge.
  What Senator Cornyn is trying to do is to make this permanent law, 
and make it part of a human trafficking bill. I do not doubt this is an 
important issue. I know it is because I have served in the House and 
the Senate. But I do question whether we should make every bill that 
comes along a vehicle or carrier for debating abortion or other really 
controversial issues.
  This question of passing a human trafficking bill to protect the 
scores--thousands--of victims of human trafficking is one which would 
pass in a heartbeat in the Senate if the Senator from Texas would 
remove this controversial section. Senator Leahy has offered that 
substitute. I hope we will have an opportunity to vote on it, and vote 
on it soon.
  As to whether this is a reflection of a dysfunctional Congress, well, 
most of the people back in Illinois and Chicago whom I run into--
particularly this weekend--have raised that issue from time to time, 
and I can see where the argument could be made. We now have a Congress 
controlled by Republicans--the House and the Senate--and the White 
House, obviously, with a Democratic President. It is a tough political 
terrain under the best of circumstances, and we certainly have not been 
facing the best of circumstances for a long time. There are just a lot 
of differences between the House and the Senate and the President and 
the White House, and many of those are manifest.
  What was the first bill the Republican majority in the Senate 
called--No. 1, Senate bill 1? The Keystone Pipeline--a bill to 
authorize the construction of a pipeline owned by a Canadian company in 
the United States. That was the highest priority for the Senate 
Republicans. The President said at the outset: Do not try to preempt my 
authority as President. I will veto it.
  But they insisted. We went through several weeks--2 or 3 weeks--of 
amendments, and we cooperated on the Democratic side. I think there 
might have been 30 or more amendments offered during that period of 
time. In the end, the bill passed with six or eight Democratic votes, 
was sent to the President, and was vetoed.
  So the first 3 weeks were spent on this politically controversial 
issue, for which, at the end of the day, the President's veto was 
sustained, and it was wiped off the slate.
  Then we went into a rather bizarre chapter here where the House 
Republicans insisted that before--before--they would fund the 
Department of Homeland Security--you know, the folks at the airport, 
the people who are guarding our borders--before they would fund the 
Department of Homeland Security to guard us against terrorism, we had 
to vote on five separate riders relative to the President's immigration 
Executive orders.
  They held up this appropriation--giving partial funding to it week 
after week after week--until we finally said: Enough is enough. Fund 
this agency that keeps us safe. Stop playing political games with this 
issue. It went back and forth and back and forth. Another 3 weeks were 
wasted on this issue before finally--finally--on a bipartisan basis we 
passed this measure funding the Department of Homeland Security and 
said to the House of Representatives: Please, stop putting extraneous 
issues on important matters like funding our government.
  I thought perhaps we turned the corner and moved in a more positive 
way, but we are mired now over this one, small provision in this bill 
which Senator Cornyn could remove in a heartbeat.
  Then last week came a blockbuster issue. I did not realize a week ago 
today that still a week later I would be going on Chicago television 
being questioned about a letter signed by 47 Republican Senators which 
was sent to the Ayatollah of Iran, a letter sent by 47 Republican 
Senators to the Ayatollah of Iran telling him and his government not to 
negotiate with the President of the United States in an effort to stop 
Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The author of this letter, 
Senator Cotton of Arkansas, and those who signed it, went to great 
lengths describing how they would, in fact, have the last word on 
anything negotiated by this President and that they planned on being 
around for a long, long time, urging the Ayatollah to not enter into 
negotiations with the President of the United States of America.
  There is no historic precedent for what just occurred--none. We have 
never had 47 Senators of any party send a letter to a head of state and 
say: Stop negotiating with the United States of America. And they did 
it. The press reaction across the United States has been overwhelmingly 
negative to this action that was taken by these 47 Senators. I could go 
through the long list here of what newspapers across America have said 
about that letter.

[[Page S1514]]

  The Detroit Free Press said: ``A blot on the 114th U.S. Senate.''
  The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: ``The senators who signed the letter 
should be ashamed.''
  The Salt Lake Tribune: ``Cringe-worthy buffoonery on the global 
stage'' is how they described that letter.
  The Courier-Journal in Louisville, KY, asked the question: ``Has 
Congress gone crazy?'' when they reflected on this letter. The Courier-
Journal went on to call those who signed it: ``Senate Saboteurs.'' 
Those are their words, not mine.
  The Salt Lake Tribune said: ``. . . the foolish, dangerous and 
arguably felonious attempt by the Obama Derangement Caucus of the 
Senate. . . .''
  The Kansas City Star said: ``Was Iran letter traitorous or just 
treacherous for GOP [Senators]. . . .''
  The Los Angeles Times called it ``insulting.'' They said: ``The 
Republican senators' meddling in that responsibility is outrageous.''
  It goes on and on. I won't read them all. It doesn't get any better. 
It gets worse. And to think that 47 Republican Senators would try to 
preempt any President of the United States.
  Today in Geneva, Switzerland, former Senator and current Secretary of 
State John Kerry sits down at a negotiating table across from Iran. On 
our side of the table are major allies trying to stop the development 
of a nuclear weapon in Iran. They will struggle. Maybe they will never 
reach an agreement. But what the 47 Senators said in a letter to the 
Ayatollah of Iran will not help.
  What is the alternative? If these negotiations fail, the alternative 
is Iran develops a nuclear weapon and endangers not only Israel but the 
Middle East and far beyond, and triggers an arms race in the Middle 
East for nuclear weapons. That is an outrageous, unacceptable outcome. 
Or, military action. Military action by Israel, perhaps, as Prime 
Minister Netanyahu suggested 2 weeks ago; military action by the United 
States. Is it worth our time to be negotiating to try to find a 
peaceful resolution, to try to find a way for Iran to stop developing 
nuclear weapons with verifiable inspections? We won't take them at 
their word. There have to be inspections. Or is it better, as these 47 
Republican Senators insisted, to walk away from the table? I think it 
is far better to continue these negotiations. I don't know if they will 
end up with a good agreement, but don't we owe it to our President, our 
Secretary of State, our government, our country, to at least see these 
negotiations through and then to read the agreement before 47 Senators 
send a letter condemning it and rejecting it? It was a sad day. But now 
let's turn the corner.
  The first thing we should do this week--the absolute first thing we 
should do--is approve the President's nominee to be Attorney General. 
Loretta Lynch appeared before our Judiciary Committee. Senator Hatch 
was there, and I think he may even concede what I am about to say: No 
one laid a glove on this magnificent lady--a prosecutor with a spotless 
record; an African American with a life story about witnessing the 
civil rights movement as it unfolded in this country in the 1960s; an 
extraordinarily good person--good family, good background, impeccable 
credentials. There wasn't a single thing said about her that would stop 
anyone voting for her.
  Now her nomination has been sitting for 128 days since it was 
announced. They are trying to set a record on the Republican side: No 
nominee for Attorney General has languished that long in the last 30 
years. If they have a complaint about this lady, let them say so. Their 
complaint: She was chosen by President Barack Obama. That is not good 
enough.
  This week, let us rise above the politics which have dominated the 
Senate since this session began. Let us do something constructive--
approve this Attorney General, take this offensive section out of this 
bill, and move it for passage. We can get it done in a matter of hours.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.

                          ____________________