Hire More Heroes Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I do have concerns as well. Typically we reward people for a change of behavior; that is good behavior, going from bad to good--not static, old, bad behavior. The concern I have is with Iran. We have seen no change in behavior. The same battles are happening in Yemen as they are leading a coup. The same issues are happening in Syria where Russia and Iran are working together to prop up Bashar al-Assad. They are causing trouble in Bahrain. There is the same behavior in Lebanon with Hezbollah. There has been no change in behavior. Yet, the administration is determined to make an aggressive nuclear deal to change the status quo on our sanctions on Iran based on the hope of some future new good behavior when we have seen no present change in the behavior of Iran.

This doesn't line up with some of the statements from our own administration. For instance, in November of 2013, Secretary Kerry said that ``there is no inherent right to enrich. ..... We do not recognize a right to enrich.''

In December 2013, President Obama said, ``we know [fully that] they don't need to have an underground, fortified facility like Fordow in order to have a peaceful nuclear program.''

At the same time, in December of 2013, President Obama said, ``They don't need some of the advanced centrifuges that they currently possess in order to have a limited, peaceful nuclear program.''

But under this deal, not only are we giving them the right to enrich, not only are we allowing them to have fortified underground bunkers, we are also allowing them to have advanced centrifuges that the President has stated there is actually no reason for them to have, unless they are not using them for peaceful purposes.

I have heard over and over again for the last several days in this Chamber the conversation: If someone has a better deal, you should propose it, but this is the best deal that has been proposed.

Well, let me just throw a few ideas out there as a better deal for a proposal.

First, why don't we do this as a proposal: Why don't we actually have the opportunity to read the agreement? We would like to be able to see it. No one in this Chamber has seen all aspects of this agreement. No one in the House has seen all aspects of the agreement. It is not that we will not read it, we can't read it, because even the administration has said they have not read the entire agreement.

Now, I will state that we don't allow secret side deals between a bank and a car dealer when one is buying a used car. We certainly don't allow secret side deals that no one can see between the U.N. and Iran. I am astounded that this body is OK with signing off on an agreement that absolutely no one has read in its entirety. In fact, the administration has said they haven't even seen it.

The White House wants to have it both ways. They don't want to turn over the documents which the statute requires, but they also want to keep the part of the law that says Congress has only 60 days to review it. They want to say that by the end of this week it is done--but, no, we are not ever going to turn the documents over that the statute requires.

How about this for a different idea of what we can do for an agreement: They don't keep the advanced centrifuges. Since even the President has said there is no peaceful purpose for those centrifuges, if we are going to have a good, solid agreement, they do not keep the advanced centrifuges. Not only do they keep them, they keep them in cascade, they keep them running, they keep them spinning. There is no change in behavior on those centrifuges other than the promise that they won't put uranium in them.

How about this for an idea for a better agreement: We have onsite inspections that would actually allow Americans on the inspection team.

How about this for a better agreement: We don't lift the ban on missile testing and research on Iran which allows Iran to start missile testing and R&D again on ballistic missiles. We don't lift the ban on conventional weapons sales to Iran, which will allow Iran to start buying large supplies of conventional weapons and surface-to-air defense systems.

How about this change for a better agreement: Iran turns over their previous military dimensions of their nuclear program. They stated over and over again they don't have a nuclear weapons program or ambitions. What would be the problem, then, in inspecting their research facilities and their technology if nothing existed?

How about this for a better agreement: We don't agree to defend Iran in case in some future time they are attacked in their nuclear facilities by Israel. I think that is absolutely absurd to have in this agreement.

How about this: We at least allow Iran the opportunity to publicly acknowledge that Israel has the right to exist--and they currently don't acknowledge that Israel even has the right to exist--or we get our American hostages back, since we are lifting the sanctions on the individuals who personally killed hundreds of American soldiers. Those sanctions are lifted. Why can't we have our American hostages back?

Here is one simple idea: Why don't we have the same nuclear agreement with Iran that we had with Libya? When we negotiated the agreement with Libya years ago, their program actually ended. They actually turned their centrifuges over. They turned their nuclear material over. They allowed anytime inspections. While this administration continues to say over and over again that what we are asking for is not possible, it was actually done by the last administration in Libya.

This is not asking for something new or radical or different. This is asking for something enforceable and clear. Why can't we have the same nuclear agreement with Iran that we made with Libya and actually stop Iran from advancing toward a nuclear weapon?

I am convinced we can do better--we must, for the security of the Nation as a whole.

With that, I yield back.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source