Hire More Heroes Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, my dear friend and colleague and I disagree, but I very much respect the way he has conducted himself throughout this entire debate.

Every several years or so, a legislator is called upon to cast a momentous vote in which the stakes are high, and both sides of the issue feel very strongly about their views. Such is the case with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran. It demands reasoned and serious debate.

Over the years, I have learned that the best way to treat big decisions is to study the issue carefully, hear the full explanation of those for and against, and then, without regard to pressure, politics, or party, make a decision based on the merits. That is what I did with the Iran deal. I carefully studied the JCPOA, read and reread the agreement and its annexes, questioned dozens of proponents and opponents, and sought answers to questions that went beyond the text of the agreement. After deep study and considerable soul-searching, I announced that I would oppose the agreement and vote yes on the motion of disapproval.

While we have come to different conclusions, I want to give tremendous credit to President Obama for his work on this issue. The President, Secretary Kerry, and their team spent painstaking months and years pushing Iran to come to an agreement and, years before, assembling the international sanctions regime that brought Iran to the table in the first place. It was the President's farsightedness that led our Nation to accelerate development of the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, the MOP, the best military deterrent and antidote to a nuclear Iran. Regardless of how one feels about the agreement, all fairminded Americans should acknowledge the President's strong achievements in combating and containing Iran.

I also have a great deal of respect for the careful thought and deliberation my colleagues went through before making their final decisions. While I came to a different conclusion than many in my own caucus, I recognize for them that this is a vote of conscience, just as it is for me.

I wish to recount my reasoning here on the floor before a vote is taken. I examined this deal in three parts: nuclear restrictions on Iran in the first 10 years, nuclear restrictions on Iran after 10 years, and nonnuclear components and consequences of a deal. In each case, I didn't ask what is the ideal agreement. We are not in that world. I asked, are we better off with the agreement that we have before us or without it?

In the fist 10 years of the deal, there are serious weaknesses in the agreement. First, inspections are not ``anywhere, anytime.'' The potential delay of as many as 24 days before we can inspect undeclared, suspicious sites is troubling. It is true that declared sites will be monitored. That is one of the positives of this deal. But if Iran is going to cheat, it will not be at a declared site with the eyes of the world watching, it will be at a nondesignated site. If Iran is trying to cheat, it will certainly delay the inspection process as long as possible.

Even more troubling is the fact that the United States cannot demand inspections unilaterally. We require a majority of the eight-member joint commission. Assuming that China, Russia, and Iran will not cooperate, inspections would require the votes of all three European members of the P5+1 as well as the EU representative. It is a reasonable fear that once the Europeans become entangled in lucrative economic relations with Iran, they may not want to rock the boat by voting to allow inspections.

Additionally, the snapback provisions in the agreement seem cumbersome and difficult to use. While the United States could unilaterally cause snapback of all sanctions, there will be instances where it is more appropriate to snap back some but not all of the sanctions.

A partial snapback of multilateral sanctions could be difficult to obtain because the United States would require the cooperation of other nations.

If the U.S. insists on snapback of all provisions, which it can do unilaterally, the Europeans, Russians or Chinese might feel it is too severe a punishment and might not comply.

Those who argue for the agreement say it is better to have an imperfect deal than nothing. When you consider only this portion of the deal, it is indeed better to have inspections and sanctions snapback than nothing, but even for this part of the agreement, the weaknesses with both of those processes make this argument less compelling.

Second, we must evaluate how this deal would restrict Iran's nuclear development after 10 years. In my view, if Iran's true intent is to get a nuclear weapon, under this agreement it simply must exercise patience. After 10 years, it can be very close to achieving that goal. Iran would be stronger financially, better able to advance a robust nuclear program. Unlike its current unsanctioned pursuit of a nuclear weapon, Iran's nuclear program would be codified in an agreement signed by the United States and other nations.

Finally, we must consider the nonnuclear elements of the agreement. This aspect of the deal gives me the most pause. For years Iran has used military force and terrorism to expand its influence in the Middle East by actively supporting military or terrorist actions in Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, and Gaza.

Under this agreement, Iran would receive at least $50 billion in the future and would undoubtedly use some of that money to create even more trouble in the Middle East and perhaps beyond. The hardliners could use these funds to pursue an ICBM as soon as sanctions are lifted and then augment their ICBM capabilities in 8 years after the ban on importing ballistic weaponry is lifted. Restrictions should have been put in place limiting how Iran could use its new resources.

Using the proponents' overall standard, not whether the agreement is ideal or whether it is better to have it or not have it, it seems to me, when it comes to the nuclear aspects of the agreement, within 10 years we might be slightly better off with it. However, when it comes to nuclear aspects after 10 years and nonnuclear aspects, we would be better off without it.

Ultimately, in my view, whether one opposes or supports the resolution of disapproval depends on how one thinks Iran will behave under this agreement--whether contact with the West and a decrease in economic and political isolation will soften Iran's hardline positions or whether the current autocratic regime views this deal as a way to get relief from onerous sanctions while still retaining their designs on nuclear arms and regional hegemony.

No one has a crystal ball. No one can tell with certainty which way Iran will go. It is true, Iran has a large number of people who want their government to decrease its isolation from the world and focus on economic advancement at home, but this desire has been evident for 35 years. Yet Iranian leaders have held a tight and undiminished grip on Iran with little threat.

Who is to say that this same dictatorship will not prevail for another 10, 20 or 30 years? To me, the very real risk that Iran will not moderate and will instead use the agreement to pursue its nefarious goals is too great; therefore, I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy, it is because it is far too likely that Iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining nuclear and nonnuclear power. It is better to keep U.S. sanctions in place, strengthen them, enforce the secondary sanctions on other nations, and pursue the hard, trident path of diplomacy once more, difficult as it may be.

For all of these reasons, I believe the vote to disapprove is the right one.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source