[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.

                          ____________________