[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 129 (Friday, September 21, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6601-S6603]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE NUCLEAR PROGRAM OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will
report S.J. Res. 41 by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 41) expressing the sense of
Congress regarding the nuclear program of the Government of
the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The Senate proceeded to consider the joint resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is now 2
minutes equally divided.
The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this resolution has 83 cosponsors. Even I
cannot lose this vote.
This resolution says it will not be the policy of the United States
to allow the Iranian regime to get a nuclear weapon and try to contain
them. President Obama has rejected containment. Governor Romney, 83
Senators have said that is a bad idea.
Very quickly, why will containment not work? If the Iranians get a
nuclear weapon, every Sunni Arab state will want one themselves. Israel
will never know a minute's peace. And my biggest fear: If we allow
these people to get a nuclear weapon, they will share the technology
with terrorists. The reason thousands have died in the war on terror--
not millions--is because the terrorists cannot get the weapons to kill
millions.
Senator Casey has been terrific. My Democratic colleagues, thank you
for working in a bipartisan fashion.
I yield now to Senator Casey.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I want to, first of all, thank all the
Members who are cosponsors, led by Senator Graham, Senator Lieberman,
and our team doing this.
This is bipartisan on a very important issue. I think it does three
things. It adds a sense of urgency because of the threat posed by an
Iranian nuclear program, it adds clarity, and also the resolve of the
American people to stop them.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, today I vote to support S.J. Res. 41,
reinforcing President Obama's policy of preventing Iran from possessing
a nuclear weapon rather than containing a nuclear Iran. I support this
resolution, which explicitly states that nothing in
[[Page S6602]]
it should be construed as an authorization to use force, because its
intention and its purpose is to echo and reinforce President Obama's
policy toward Iran. It is particularly important to make that clear
because there has been a lot of debate about the meaning of the term
``nuclear weapons capability'' in the resolution. But a brief
examination of the issue shows that the resolution and its language
support the President's policy of preventing Iran from developing or
acquiring a nuclear weapon.
An authoritative definition of a nuclear weapons capability was
offered in testimony by the Director of National Intelligence in 2009.
He stated that there are three parts of an effective nuclear weapons
capability: production of fissile material; effective means for weapon
delivery; and design, weaponization, and testing of the warhead itself.
According to this definition, the Senate and the President are
articulating the same position: we are committed to preventing Iran
from achieving all of those components of a nuclear weapons capability,
which amounts to saying that Iran must not develop or acquire nuclear
weapons.
That we are reinforcing the President's policy was one of the main
themes in the debate on the resolution on the floor of the Senate. When
this was debated in May, that is what both the sponsor, Senator Graham,
and the lead cosponsor, Senator Lieberman, emphasized repeatedly.
Senator Lieberman stated, ``This resolution's main focus is to
essentially back up with a congressional statement the position
President Obama has articulated: that no matter what happens,
containment of a nuclear Iran is not an acceptable policy from the
point of view of the security of the United States; that our policy is
to prevent the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from
acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.'' And Senator Graham stated,
``We are intending to echo a policy statement made by President Obama
that the policy of the United States will be--if you are listening in
Tehran--not to contain Iran if they obtain a nuclear capability.''
Again, Senator Graham stated, ``We are not coming up with a new idea:
we are just reinforcing an idea put on the table by our own President--
we are not going to contain a nuclear-capable Iran as a policy.''
Other leading voices on this issue in the Senate made the same point
at the time. Senator McCain stated, ``So this resolution we are
considering is no different in any way--in fact, it is less specific
than what the President of the United States has said and what I
believe most every Member of the U.S. Senate is on record one way or
the other saying: that the development of a nuclear weapon by Iran
would be an unacceptable situation.'' Senator Menendez similarly
characterized the resolution as ``making the intentions or amplifying
the intentions of the President crystal clear.''
Those intentions are to prevent Iran from developing or acquiring a
nuclear weapon. I share those intentions, and that is why I support the
resolution today.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will vote for this resolution which
reaffirms current U.S. policy towards Iran.
In doing so, I want to emphasize that it is my understanding that
this Resolution, which is non-binding, is in no way intended by its
sponsors to endorse, authorize, or otherwise encourage the use of
military force against Iran.
Secretary of Defense Panetta, Secretary of State Clinton, former
Secretary of Defense Gates, and other top Pentagon officials have
strongly advised against the use of pre-emptive military force. They
said it would, at best, only temporarily halt Iran's nuclear program,
it would drive their program further underground, and it could ignite a
wider war in the Middle East that could spin out of control.
I am as concerned as anyone about Iran. But while this Resolution
reaffirms that concern, that is the extent of what it does. The policy
of the Administration, and of our allies is to support sanctions, to
use diplomacy, to resort to military force only if all other options
fail. This Resolution does not change that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time in favor has expired.
Who yields time in opposition?
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, a vote for this resolution is a vote for the
concept of preemptive war. I know of no other way to interpret this
resolution.
The resolution states that containment will never be our policy
toward Iran. While I think it is unwise to say we will contain Iran, I
think it is equally unwise to say we will never contain Iran.
We woke up one day and Pakistan was a nuclear power. We woke up one
day and North Korea was a nuclear power--India, Russia, China. But if
we would have announced preemptively that we were not going to contain
anyone, then we would be at odds with these countries, and what would
the solution be? Preemptive war.
Announcing to the world, as this resolution does, that containment
will never be our policy is unwise. A country that vows to never
contain an enemy is a country that vows always to preemptively strike.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is expired.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading
and was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the
third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer)
and the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) are necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Burr), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), the Senator from Oklahoma
(Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from
Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller)
would have voted: ``aye.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). Are there any other
Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 90, nays 1, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 197 Leg.]
YEAS--90
Akaka
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Blunt
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Lee
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--1
Paul
NOT VOTING--9
Boozman
Boxer
Burr
Heller
Inhofe
Kirk
Murray
Rubio
Vitter
The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 41) was passed, as follows:
S.J. Res. 41
Whereas, since at least the late 1980s, the Government of
the Islamic Republic of Iran has engaged in a sustained and
well-documented pattern of illicit and deceptive activities
to acquire nuclear capability;
Whereas the United Nations Security Council has adopted
multiple resolutions since 2006 demanding the full and
sustained suspension of all uranium enrichment-related and
reprocessing activities by the Government of the Islamic
Republic of Iran and its full cooperation with the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on all outstanding
issues related to its nuclear activities, particularly those
concerning the possible military dimensions of its nuclear
program;
[[Page S6603]]
Whereas, on November 8, 2011, the IAEA issued an extensive
report that--
(1) documents ``serious concerns regarding possible
military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme'';
(2) states that ``Iran has carried out activities relevant
to the development of a nuclear device''; and
(3) states that the efforts described in paragraphs (1) and
(2) may be ongoing;
Whereas, as of November 2008, Iran had produced, according
to the IAEA--
(1) approximately 630 kilograms of uranium hexaflouride
enriched up to 3.5 percent uranium-235; and
(2) no uranium hexaflouride enriched up to 20 percent
uranium-235;
Whereas, as of November 2011, Iran had produced, according
to the IAEA--
(1) nearly 5,000 kilograms of uranium hexaflouride enriched
up to 3.5 percent uranium-235; and
(2) 79.7 kilograms of uranium hexaflouride enriched up to
20 percent uranium-235;
Whereas, on January 9, 2012, IAEA inspectors confirmed that
the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran had begun
enrichment activities at the Fordow site, including possibly
enrichment of uranium hexaflouride up to 20 percent uranium-
235;
Whereas section 2(2) of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions,
Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-
195) states, ``The United States and other responsible
countries have a vital interest in working together to
prevent the Government of Iran from acquiring a nuclear
weapons capability.'';
Whereas, if the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran
were successful in acquiring a nuclear weapon capability, it
would likely spur other countries in the region to consider
developing their own nuclear weapons capabilities;
Whereas, on December 6, 2011, Prince Turki al-Faisal of
Saudi Arabia stated that if international efforts to prevent
Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons fail, ``we must, as a
duty to our country and people, look into all options we are
given, including obtaining these weapons ourselves'';
Whereas top leaders of the Government of the Islamic
Republic of Iran have repeatedly threatened the existence of
the State of Israel, pledging to ``wipe Israel off the map'';
Whereas the Department of State has designated Iran as a
state sponsor of terrorism since 1984 and characterized Iran
as the ``most active state sponsor of terrorism'';
Whereas the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has
provided weapons, training, funding, and direction to
terrorist groups, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and Shiite
militias in Iraq that are responsible for the murders of
hundreds of United States forces and innocent civilians;
Whereas, on July 28, 2011, the Department of the Treasury
charged that the Government of Iran had forged a ``secret
deal'' with al Qaeda to facilitate the movement of al Qaeda
fighters and funding through Iranian territory;
Whereas, in October 2011, senior leaders of Iran's Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Quds Force were implicated
in a terrorist plot to assassinate Saudi Arabia's Ambassador
to the United States on United States soil;
Whereas, on December 26, 2011, the United Nations General
Assembly passed a resolution denouncing the serious human
rights abuses occurring in the Islamic Republic of Iran,
including torture, cruel and degrading treatment in
detention, the targeting of human rights defenders, violence
against women, and ``the systematic and serious restrictions
on freedom of peaceful assembly'' as well as severe
restrictions on the rights to ``freedom of thought,
conscience, religion or belief'';
Whereas President Barack Obama, through the P5+1 process,
has made repeated efforts to engage the Government of the
Islamic Republic of Iran in dialogue about Iran's nuclear
program and its international commitments under the Treaty on
the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, done at Washington,
London, and Moscow July 1, 1968, and entered into force March
5, 1970 (commonly known as the ``Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty'');
Whereas representatives of the P5+1 countries (the United
States, France, Germany, the People's Republic of China, the
Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom) and
representatives of the Islamic Republic of Iran held
negotiations on Iran's nuclear program in Istanbul, Turkey on
April 14, 2012, and these discussions are set to resume in
Baghdad, Iraq on May 23, 2012;
Whereas, on March 31, 2010, President Obama stated that the
``consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran are unacceptable'';
Whereas in his State of the Union Address on January 24,
2012, President Obama stated, ``Let there be no doubt:
America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear
weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve
that goal.'';
Whereas, on March 4, 2012, President Obama stated ``Iran's
leaders should understand that I do not have a policy of
containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a
nuclear weapon'';
Whereas Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta stated, in
December 2011, that it was unacceptable for Iran to acquire
nuclear weapons, reaffirmed that all options were on the
table to thwart Iran's nuclear weapons efforts, and vowed
that if the United States gets ``intelligence that they are
proceeding with developing a nuclear weapon then we will take
whatever steps necessary to stop it'';
Whereas the Department of Defense's January 2012 Strategic
Guidance stated that United States defense efforts in the
Middle East would be aimed ``to prevent Iran's development of
a nuclear weapons capability and counter its destabilizing
policies''; and
Whereas, on April 2, 2012, President Obama stated, ``All
the evidence indicates that the Iranians are trying to
develop the capacity to develop nuclear weapons. They might
decide that, once they have that capacity that they'd hold
off right at the edge in order not to incur more sanctions.
But, if they've got nuclear weapons-building capacity and
they are flouting international resolutions, that creates
huge destabilizing effects in the region and will trigger an
arms race in the Middle East that is bad for U.S. national
security but is also bad for the entire world.'': Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
That Congress--
(1) reaffirms that the United States Government and the
governments of other responsible countries have a vital
interest in working together to prevent the Government of
Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability;
(2) warns that time is limited to prevent the Government of
the Islamic Republic of Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons
capability;
(3) urges continued and increasing economic and diplomatic
pressure on the Islamic Republic of Iran until the Government
of the Islamic Republic of Iran agrees to and implements--
(A) the full and sustained suspension of all uranium
enrichment-related and reprocessing activities and compliance
with United Nations Security Council resolutions;
(B) complete cooperation with the IAEA on all outstanding
questions related to the nuclear activities of the Government
of the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the implementation
of the additional protocol to Iran's Safeguards Agreement
with the IAEA; and
(C) a permanent agreement that verifiably assures that
Iran's nuclear program is entirely peaceful;
(4) expresses the desire that the P5+1 process successfully
and swiftly leads to the objectives identified in paragraph
(3), but warns that, as President Obama has said, the window
for diplomacy is closing;
(5) expresses support for the universal rights and
democratic aspirations of the people of Iran;
(6) strongly supports United States policy to prevent the
Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from acquiring a
nuclear weapons capability;
(7) rejects any United States policy that would rely on
efforts to contain a nuclear weapons-capable Iran; and
(8) joins the President in ruling out any policy that would
rely on containment as an option in response to the Iranian
nuclear threat.
SEC. 2. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an
authorization for the use of force or a declaration of war.
____________________