Hire More Heroes Act of 2015
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, this is a critically important debate on a nuclear deal that is going to have long-lasting impacts on our national security and the security of our friends and our allies. This debate is happening because 98 Senators expressed the desire to have a say on this agreement. This process will allow the American people to speak through their elected representatives, and I can say the American people overwhelmingly oppose this agreement. New public opinion polls released in just the last few days indicate that Americans in general are opposed to this deal by a margin of 2 to 1. Only 21 percent support it.
I participated in meetings with constituents in 25 of Iowa's 99 counties during the August work period. The message I received was overwhelmingly in opposition to this agreement. That is the same message I am hearing from Iowans who have written or called since the deal was announced in July.
After many weeks of studying the terms of the Iranian deal, also hearing from experts and attending classified briefings, and engaging in dialogue with my constituents, my initial skepticism has been confirmed. I have come to the conclusion this agreement presented to us is a bad deal that will not increase our national security or the security of our friends and allies and should be rejected.
The United States began the negotiations from a position of very real strength. The international sanctions were obviously hurting Iran, and Iran wanted out from under those sanctions. The sanctions regime that Congress put in place over the objections of President Obama drove Iran to the negotiating table.
The administration, leading up to the negotiations and throughout the entire process, outlined the conditions for a good deal. President Obama and Secretary Kerry both made important statements about the goals of the negotiations. The goal was, of course, to dismantle Iran's nuclear program. Secretary Kerry himself said in the fall of 2013 that Iran has ``no right to enrich,'' and that a good deal with Iran would ``help Iran dismantle its nuclear program.''
Despite all these assurances that negotiations would include ``anytime, anywhere'' inspections, the deal falls real short. President Obama negotiated away from these positions over the course of these negotiations.
This agreement accepts and legitimizes Iran as a nuclear threshold state. Iran will not dismantle many important parts of its uranium enrichment infrastructure, contrary to past U.S. policies that Iran not be allowed to enrich.
Iran also is permitted to continue a vast research and development program. Many of the significant limitations expire after 10 short years, leaving Iran an internationally legitimate nuclear program.
Iran could fully abide by this deal and be a nuclear threshold state, contrary to what we were promised by this administration and the initial goals that were announced by the President.
Now, with respect to inspections, international inspectors will not have anytime, anywhere access. They will have what is termed ``managed access.'' In fact, the deal provides Iran with a 24-day process to further delay--we know what will happen--and hide prohibited activities. Iran has a track record of cheating, otherwise I couldn't say those things. They have cheated on past agreements. This deal allows Iran to stonewall the inspectors for up to 24 days.
The agreement also includes side agreements between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency that we can't review. Even the administration has not seen them. And people in this country expect us to read before we vote.
Of course, we can read the agreement, but we can't read side agreements that the law requires be given to the Congress to read under this special law. So we are going to be voting on things which we haven't seen and which the law says we should see.
The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, which passed the Senate 98 to 1, requires the administration to provide to Congress access to all ``annexes, appendices, codicils, side agreements, implementing material, documents, and guidance, technical or other understandings and any related agreements'' as part of our agreement with the President. It seems in this case we are being asked to put our faith in the Iranian regime to not cheat, contrary to what we know about them.
Iran has not provided details on the past military dimensions of its nuclear program even though the U.S. position was, very simply, that Iran had to come clean about that history before any sanctions relief. It is critical, for a robust verification regime to work, that the International Atomic Energy Agency have a full accounting of Iran's past efforts and stockpiles. Yet it appears that Iran will be allowed to supervise itself by conducting its own inspections and collect samples from its secretive military facility in Parchin, where much of the military dimensions of its nuclear program had been carried out.
I also oppose the last-minute decision to lift the embargo on conventional arms and ballistic missiles. GEN Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in July that ``we should under no circumstances relieve pressure on Iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking.''
They didn't listen to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. So under this agreement, after just 5 years the conventional arms embargo will be lifted. After just 8 years the ballistic missile embargo will be lifted. Iran has long sought the technology to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles, which would be a direct threat to the United States and our allies. And Iran's past arms trafficking to the Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist organizations has long threatened the State of Israel and other Middle Eastern allies as well, and it of course threatens stability--very much so--in the region.
Once Iran has complied with the initial restraints on its nuclear program, many sanctions will be lifted. This will release somewhere around $100 billion of frozen Iranian assets. The lifting of sanctions and release of these funds will only exacerbate Iran's support for terror and tradition of terror, with Iran having access to tens of billions of frozen assets to bolster its conventional military and further support global terrorism.
Even Obama administration officials have said that Iran is likely to use some of the funds to purchase weapons and fund terrorism that would threaten Americans and Israelis. Now, isn't that something--this administration negotiating an agreement where it is assumed that we are going to give them further resources to support efforts to kill Americans and Western Europeans.
The concept of ``snapping back'' these sanctions is another issue that has been discussed. These sanctions also appear less effective on the issue of snapping back than originally claimed. The complicated process to reimpose sanctions is unlikely to work even if Iran fails to comply with the agreement. Iran views snapback sanctions as grounds to walk away from the agreement, so any effort to reimpose sanctions will be regarded by all parties as to whether or not to dissolve the agreement and impose sanctions.
I support a robust diplomatic effort that will prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability, but I also strongly disagree with proponents of this agreement who argue that the only alternative to this deal is war. That, of course, is a false choice and intellectually dishonest.
Iran came to the negotiation table because it desperately sought sanctions relief. If this deal were rejected, we could impose even tougher sanctions, allowing our diplomats to negotiate a better deal that would more adequately safeguard our Nation's security interests and that of our allies. A better deal would not legitimize Iran as a nuclear threshold state, it would not trade massive sanctions relief for limited temporary constraints, and it would not provide concessions that will trigger a regional nuclear arms race.
If we reject this deal, we could push for an international agreement that would truly dismantle Iran's nuclear program and verifiably prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.
A better deal would not ignore Iran's past bad behavior. Iran has for many years been the most active state sponsor of terrorism. Iran has an egregious record of human rights violations and the persecution of religious minorities. It continues to imprison U.S. citizens. At least 500 U.S. military deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan are directly linked to Iran and its support for anti-American militants.
This agreement will free up tens of billions of dollars in frozen Iranian assets without addressing any of these issues. We know Iran will use some of that money to support terrorist activities throughout the Middle East, and those are extended into the United States and Western Europe. Iran provides support for the brutal Assad regime in Syria, the Houthi rebels in Yemen, and provides weapons, funding, and support to Hamas and Hezbollah.
This deal appears to be the result of desperation on our side for a deal--any deal--and the Iranians knew that and took advantage of our weakness.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRASSLEY. This deal is a result of President Obama's philosophy of leading from behind. As a result of this philosophy, we now have enemies who don't fear us and friends and allies who don't follow us because they question our credibility and they question our leadership. We have a more dangerous world because of it.
President Obama himself said that it is better to have no deal than a bad deal. This deal has far too many shortcomings and will fail to make America and our allies safer. It will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, while providing a windfall that will allow them to ramp up their bad behavior.
Obviously I oppose this deal, and I hope we can send a signal to the administration and Iran that we need a deal that improves our national security and the security of our friends and allies in the region and responds to the common sense of the American people who, through the polls, have shown they know this to be a bad deal.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source