Hire More Heroes Act of 2015--Continued

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep concerns with the nuclear agreement negotiated between the United States and other world powers and Iran.

In May, Congress acted in a bipartisan way to enact the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. The Senate passed the legislation 98 to 1, and the House passed it 400 to 25. The bill was signed into law by President Obama.

This critically important legislation provides Congress, as the representatives of the American people, the ability to examine and vote on an agreement that will have tremendous impact on the future security of the Middle East and the world.

When the Senate passed the legislation in May, I said the bill would allow Congress to hold the administration accountable for negotiating an enforceable and verifiable agreement that would stop Iran's progress toward a nuclear weapon.

Negotiators have completed their work. Review of the agreement is underway. Committees are holding important hearings. We had one this morning. After the August recess, Congress will have the opportunity to vote on a resolution that approves or disapproves of the deal reached with Iran.

I believe the agreement is flawed in several ways. First, the agreement fails to provide for an inspections regime that is strong enough to prevent Iran from fulfilling its nuclear ambitions. Any agreement with Iran should include rigorous and immediate inspections of suspected nuclear sites. There has been much talk and hope of an anywhere, anytime inspection regime, but anywhere, anytime inspections are not what this agreement provides. Instead, under this agreement, it could take 24 days, and potentially longer under the Joint Commission process, before inspectors have access to a suspected nuclear site. It is obvious Iran could hide elements of a nuclear program, such as the construction of centrifuges, before inspectors could ever gain access to a suspected nuclear site.

Iran has already failed to meet the transparency requirements of the interim Joint Plan of Action. The International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, consistently warned of Iran's failure to meet those standards of full transparency and in its June 2015 report stated that ``the Agency remains concerned about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed nuclear-related activities involving military related organizations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile.''

Given Iran's lack of transparency, I believe the content of this agreement does not contain strong enough mechanisms to prevent Iran's clandestine development of a nuclear weapon.

Second, I find it more troubling that Congress--or even the administration--has not been given access to the understanding between Iran and the IAEA regarding how Iran's compliance with the agreement will be implemented. This has been the subject of great discussion.

Third, I am concerned the agreement will provide Iran with financial resources that they could use to continue to fund terrorist groups that put Americans and our allies at risk. We know they were doing it in the past. We know of their desire to do it in the future. It is troubling that when the sanctions against Iran are lifted, the nation will immediately receive approximately $150 billion in assets. As a designated state sponsor of terrorism for over 30 years, Iran has funded proxy wars across the region.

These wars range from Shia militias in Iraq to Houthis insurgents in Yemen. Iran further threatens our allies through funding Hezbollah and Hamas and propping up the regime of Bashar al-Assad, who continues to slaughter his own people.

While no one knows for sure how Iran will spend the signing bonus it receives from sanctions relief, the regime's prior behavior provides the best evidence of how it will act in the future. I hear the argument that the internal infrastructure of the country has fallen into disrepair because of the sanctions and because of the lack of the economic activities. Yet we have to look at Iran as still funding terrorist activity while allowing their own country's infrastructure to become failed and compromised.

What makes us think that with the new flush, $150 billion signing bonus, Iran is going to change their priorities all of a sudden? I personally have trouble with that.

Finally, I am worried the decision to lift the embargo on conventional arms and ballistic missiles sold to Iran will allow Iran to present a greater threat to its neighbors. In addition, it could precipitate a military buildup in the region, which will in turn increase volatility in an already volatile region. Despite these questions and concerns, the administration has argued that our only options are to accept the deal or to go forward with Iran.

To accept this binary choice is to say the American people should accept this deal, regardless of how one-sided it may be, in order to avoid a military conflict with Iran.

As a newspaper in my State, the Charleston Gazette-Mail, editorialized yesterday, this argument ``paint[s] a simplistic picture that allows [its proponents] to gloss over the very real problems with this deal.''

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source