Hire More Heroes Act of 2015--Motion to Proceed--Continued

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I wish to begin my remarks this afternoon by commending my colleague from North Dakota for her weekly tributes to our Vietnam veterans. I have watched her do that week after week. It is very moving. It speaks volumes to her character as well as the character of the veterans from North Dakota.

NUCLEAR AGREEMENT WITH IRAN

Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to speak about one of the important issues facing the Senate today, for weeks, months, and maybe even years, and that is the debate we are having over the Iran nuclear agreement.

Many of my colleagues have already spoken very eloquently and very patiently about this agreement. I want to give one example. My colleague from Maine, Senator King, was on the floor the other day when I was presiding. He was imploring us to fully debate the issue. He stated: ``The truth emerges from the fire of an argument on an issue of this importance.'' I couldn't agree more. We should debate this issue. We should fully vet this issue. We should bring all of the voices of the people we represent into this body to debate this issue.

Where to begin? There is so much here, so many issues. We have seen some of them: centrifuges, enrichment, inspections, sanctions, and anywhere, anytime inspections. We have to examine all of that.

I thought it was important today to step back and take a look at some of the big issues. There are three issues that I believe are particularly important as we start this debate: first, the role of the American people and this body and the Congress with regard to this agreement; second, the basic underlying premise of this agreement--the driving force that in many ways is behind this agreement; and third, the main goal as has been agreed to by the President and by Members of this body on what we should be trying to achieve with regard to this agreement.

First, the role of the American people in this body. There is confusion, which has been perpetuated by this administration, that those of us who are asking questions and are skeptical of the agreement are somehow being partisan. The President said that Republicans, no matter the deal, will disagree with him and not vote with him. In some ways he seems to be making this about his personal agenda. But with all due respect to the President, the Iranian nuclear agreement is much bigger than President Obama--much bigger. The President will be gone in 18 months, and the American people will have to live with the consequences of this agreement for decades. That is why it is so important that the Congress debate and approve or disapprove this agreement. Yet, had the Obama administration had its way, we would not be doing this today--what we are doing right now--debating this agreement.

In fact, throughout this process, from the very beginning, they have been dismissive of the role of the American people through their representatives in Congress to weigh in and bring clarity and wisdom to what this agreement is all about. Just a few months ago, the President said that he did not want the Congress to be involved at all. We started debating an act on this floor to provide this body with an opportunity to review and approve. He said he would veto it--no involvement from the American people. The administration only backed off when a bipartisan group of Senators, Democrats and Republicans, stood firm--a veto-proof majority--and said: No, the American people need to be read into this agreement. That was when we passed the Iran Nuclear Review Act. I personally would have preferred that this be viewed as a treaty by the administration, but we are reviewing it now under that law.

The President and Secretary Kerry have taken the deal to the U.N. Security Council--again, before Congress and the American people even started to debate the issue. The Russians and Chinese were voting on this agreement before we had the opportunity to do so. Members of this body, Democrats and Republicans, implored the Secretary by saying: Don't do this; it is an affront to the American people. They didn't listen. Finally, the President is saying--even before we debate--if we are not in agreement with him, he is going to veto whatever we do in this body.

This is not how the Federal Government is supposed to conduct foreign policy. Throughout the history of this great body, weighing in and voting on international agreements and international treaties of this magnitude have been the Senate's most important job, the heart and soul of what we do in this body. Sadly, two former Members of this body--the President and the Secretary of State--have actively fought against our involvement.

But Alexander Hamilton knew better. In the Federalist Papers, he spoke about the critical role of the Senate in foreign affairs. He warned against the President having sole authority over issues of such a ``delicate and momentous kind.'' He argued vigorously for the Senate to have a say on critical foreign policy and national security issues. Our history and the Constitution reflect this, and that is where we come in, and that is why we are debating this.

In examining the agreement, I think it is important to understand and look at the bigger picture. What is the driving force? What is the underlying premise? What is the philosophy that is

[Page: S5503]
motivating this agreement? It is not hard to discern. From the beginning of the Obama administration, the President and his team have been focused on transforming our relationship with Iran to bring it into the community of respected nations, thereby transforming the Middle East. The President has talked about this a number of times. He highlighted this in a speech to the United Nations in 2013, and it is here again in the text of this agreement.
The text of the agreement states that the P5+1 expresses its desire to build a new relationship with Iran. That is in the agreement. This is a bold and ambitious goal, no doubt, but it is also dangerously naive. Interestingly, there is no reciprocal statement in the agreement by Iran about Iran wanting to have a new relationship with the United States or the West. We want it; they don't seem to want it. In fact, with its leaders regularly still chanting ``death to America; death to Israel'' even after the signing of this agreement, it seems very clear that Iran does not want a new relationship, and this is the biggest flaw of the agreement. It amounts to a high-stakes bet--the highest of stakes: the security of the United States--that Iran will change its behavior.

What I fear the most is if they don't change--and there is no sign that they are going to--within 10 years, by its own terms, this agreement will enable Iran to have a much stronger economy, a significant ballistic missile capability, to be on the verge of a nuclear bomb and still be the world's largest sponsor of state terrorism. This is a huge risk for the security of our country and our allies in the Middle East.

It doesn't have to be this way. This agreement could have mitigated these risks. We do this all the time in diplomacy. We tell countries that we negotiate with: If you improve your behavior, you will get rewarded incrementally, step by step--step by difficult step. For example, during the debate we had on the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, I offered an amendment that was simple, but it was based on this issue: Sanctions would be lifted on Iran once Iran came off the list of countries that sponsored state terrorism. Simple. If you improve your behavior, you will get rewarded. This agreement does not do that. Instead, when you look at the structure of this agreement, it allows Iran to get almost all of the benefits up front.

Almost half of this agreement is about our obligations to lift sanctions in very minute detail--our obligations to lift sanctions on Iran within the next several months. Think about that. We had the leverage. The countries that negotiated this are among the most powerful in the world. We had Iran on the ropes with strong, American-led sanctions. We had the leverage, and we lost it with this agreement on the hope that Iran will change its behavior.

So far, it is clear that their leaders did not get the memo on the change of behavior or on the new relationship. Iran is still destabilizing the Middle East, holding Americans hostage, threatening Israel, and supporting terrorist groups, such as Hezbollah and others, throughout the world. In fact, Iran, which is a nation that has had imperial ambitions throughout the Middle East for centuries, could very well accelerate its destabilizing activities as a result of the power and prestige this agreement provides them.

Supporters of this agreement, including the President, are arguing: Look, United States, we have done this before. We have negotiated with our enemies to a positive end. President Reagan did it with the Soviet Union. He got a constructive deal. But this is a flawed analogy both strategically and tactically. When we negotiated with the Soviet Union, it was a negotiation between the world's two superpowers that were armed with nuclear weapons, similar military strength--thousands of military weapons. Here, however, we are bringing a nuclear pariah into the club of nuclear powers. This is very different.

Tactically, Team Obama has never demonstrated the desire to walk away from this deal. This wasn't the case with President Reagan. He famously walked away from the Soviets in Reykjavik, Iceland, over a verification issue on the INF agreement. ``This meeting is over,'' President Reagan said to George Shultz, his Secretary of State, when he thought we were giving away too much. ``Let's go, George. We're leaving,'' said the President. And they did. They left. A year later, Mikhail Gorbachev came back to the table and agreed to onsite inspections of their nuclear facilities. America and the USSR signed the INF treaty, and Soviet power began to unravel. Contrast that to the experience we have heard about in the last few months of these negotiations on the issue of conventional weapons and ballistic missiles.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, GEN Martin Dempsey, testified in front of the Armed Services Committee very recently. He said: ``Under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on Iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking.'' That was said by the No. 1 military adviser to the President of the United States. But we did. Within 7 days of that statement, we did. The embargo on conventional weapons and ballistic missiles is going to be lifted as part of this agreement.

When the Russians and the Chinese pushed this position at the very end of these negotiations, Secretary Kerry should have listened to General Dempsey's military advice and he should have done what Secretary Shultz did. He should have walked. He should have walked away to get a better deal.

Finally, I wish to conclude by underscoring what everybody, from the President to Members of this body, has agreed should be the principal negotiation objective of this agreement, which has always been to keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and to dismantle its nuclear capability.

In fact, this body weighed in last year--March of 2014--in a letter written by 81 U.S. Senators to the President of the United States about these negotiations. The letter had a number of benchmarks for the negotiators. One stated that sanctions ``must continue until Iran abandons its efforts to build a nuclear weapon.''

The letter then goes on to cite another critical basic goal of the agreement. It states: ``We believe any agreement must dismantle Iran's nuclear weapons program and prevent it from ever having a uranium or plutonium path to a nuclear bomb.'' Last year, 81 Senators stated that. Let me repeat that: ``We believe any agreement must dismantle Iran's nuclear weapons program and prevent it from ever having a uranium or plutonium path to a nuclear bomb.'' I agree with the 81 Senators. Mr. President, 40 Democrats, 40 Republicans, and 1 Independent signed that letter, and 72 of those Senators are still Members of this body. But they need to ask themselves: Are they sure this goal has been achieved?

I have read this entire agreement. I believe this goal has not been achieved, and that should deeply concern all Members of the U.S. Senate.

Let me conclude by quoting someone I normally do not quote on the floor of the U.S. Senate--Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, who just this past Saturday stated the following: ``Even after this deal our policy towards the arrogant United States will not change,'' and then he led the crowd he was before into chanting ``Death to America.'' That is the country that we are hoping and risking our future on that will change, that we will have a ``new relationship'' with, as the agreement states.

To the American people: We will continue to debate this critical issue.

In the words of my colleague from Maine, we will bring the fire to the debate and a truth will emerge. Unfortunately, here is one truth that I find self-evident: Iran is not changing anytime soon. That is because this agreement didn't force it to.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source