[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 26, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1140-S1141]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAN

  Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I come to the floor today to talk about 
a grave threat to the United States of America, a grave threat to the 
world, and a grave threat to our friend and ally, the State of Israel; 
that is, the threat of Iran's nuclear weapons program.
  As we stand here today, pending has been legislation filed by Senator 
Richard Burr which contains important sanctions which are essentially 
an insurance policy to make sure that Tehran does not play the United 
States of America and that they are, in fact, serious about stopping 
their nuclear weapons program. Unfortunately, there is a long history 
with Iran where we talk and they enrich. This is why it is so important 
right now that we have this insurance policy.
  These sanctions pending would only go in place if Iran violates the 
interim agreement that has been entered into between the administration 
and other countries in the world and Iran and if they fail to reach a 
final agreement that is acceptable to the security interests of the 
United States of America and to our allies in the region to make the 
world a safer place.
  We cannot accept a nuclear-capable Iran. Why is that? Iran is a 
country that has threatened to wipe the State of Israel off the face of 
the Earth. Iran has called our country ``the Great Satan.'' Iran is the 
world's worst state sponsor of terrorism. They have supported terrorist 
groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas. They have, unfortunately, obviously 
worked against our strong ally Israel. They have supported the 
murderous Assad regime, providing Assad arms so he can murder his own 
people.
  Unfortunately, there are so many examples of the danger of Iran 
having nuclear weapons capability. If Iran gets this capability, 
unfortunately we will also find ourselves in a position where we are in 
a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, a Sunni-Shia arms race, which 
would then also threaten the world and make that region even more of a 
tinderbox.
  So we now find ourselves at a critical moment. I am deeply worried 
that the sanctions regime this Congress has worked so hard to put in 
place on a strong bipartisan basis is unraveling and we need an 
insurance policy to make sure Iran knows they are not going to play us 
and unravel these sanctions. The way we can do that is by having 
sanctions legislation passed which is prospective.
  If Iran is serious about a nuclear weapons agreement that takes away 
their capability of having a nuclear weapon, then they should not have 
a problem with prospective sanctions by this Congress. Again, those 
sanctions would only go in place if they violate the interim agreement. 
If their words mean anything, then they shouldn't have a problem with 
the fact that we are just saying: If you violate it, we will impose 
additional sanctions. We will not allow this sanctions regime to 
unravel.
  What is the significance of this sanctions regime? The work done by 
this Congress on a bipartisan basis and with our partners around the 
world is what has brought Iran to the table. All of us want a 
diplomatic resolution that stops Iran from having a nuclear weapon, but 
we need to go into this with clear eyes, which is why having this 
insurance policy is so important. A final agreement with Iran will only 
be meaningful if it ensures they will not have the ability to enrich 
because their ability to enrich makes it easier for them to immediately 
ramp up to nuclear weapons capability.
  I recently attended a security conference in Munich and met with some 
representatives of the Arab nations. They were asked in an open forum: 
If an agreement is reached and Iran is allowed to enrich, what will the 
rest of you want to do? Their answer was that they will want the right 
to enrich too.

  This final agreement must stop Iran's ability to enrich. If we do not 
stop them, we will not only face the risk of Iran being able to quickly 
ramp up to a nuclear weapon and its capability to harm the world but 
also the risk that the Arab nations themselves will also enrich. Even 
if they don't have a nuclear weapon capability, they are all right at 
the point where they could break out to that capability, and that is 
just as dangerous for the world.
  The amendment we have makes it clear that we are going to protect the 
United States of America and protect our allies and the world. It has 
to be clear. It should prevent Iran from that enrichment capability. 
This agreement should stop their capability at the Arak facility to 
produce plutonium. Our agreement should absolutely make sure we are 
given access to their military facilities so we can stop them from 
their programs where they are working on weaponization of nuclear 
materials.
  I serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee. The Director of 
National Intelligence and others have told us that by 2015 Iran could 
have ICBM capability. Can you imagine if they were to continue with 
this nuclear program and have ICBM capability? This is a true risk to 
the world.
  An agreement is only meaningful if it is an agreement we can rely on, 
that is open, transparent, verifiable, and absolutely stops them from 
having a nuclear program that could be a threat to the world. We need 
to make sure they stop enrichment and put a stop on the Arak plutonium 
reactor and weaponization program. We need full and open access.
  We should be addressing Iran's acts of terrorism throughout the 
world. One of the grave dangers I worry about is that if Iran has a 
nuclear weapon, they may not use it, but they may pass it on to the 
terrorist groups that Iran is associated with, and that is a grave 
danger not only to our ally Israel but also to the United States of 
America.
  One of the reasons I believe the sanctions legislation that is 
pending is so important is because some of the statements that have 
been made recently by the regime in Tehran are very troubling and 
harken back to their prior behavior of we talk, they enrich. We have to 
question how serious they are about a verifiable, transparent, and real 
agreement to stop their nuclear weapons program.
  For example, on February 18--in talks between Iran and the P5+1 that 
were held in Vienna--Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the 
talks ``will not lead anywhere.'' In advance of the talks, President 
Ruhani, whom Prime Minister Netanyahu has described as a wolf in 
sheep's clothing--and I would agree with him on that--has stated that 
peaceful atomic research would be pursued forever.
  Iran's Foreign Minister recently clashed with a lead U.S. negotiator, 
Wendy Sherman, over the Arak and Fordow facilities. Sherman stated that 
Iran had no need for either facility. Make no mistake, if Iran is 
serious about giving up its nuclear weapons capability--or the pursuit 
of that capability--then she is absolutely right; there is no need for 
the Arak facility that allows them to produce plutonium. There is no 
need for these underground facilities such as Fordow, where they are 
trying to hide their program from the rest of the world.
  The Foreign Minister of Iran, in reaction to her comments, described 
her statement as ``worthless'' and reinforced Iran's position that 
their ability to produce atomic energy at the plutonium reactor at Arak 
is not negotiable.
  This is deeply troubling, and it is one of the reasons we need to 
send a clear message here and now. They came to the table because of 
sanctions. The sanctions were having a deteriorating effect on their 
economy. Yet recently we have seen--and this has been my fear--the 
sanctions regime unraveling. They are actually using this negotiation 
with the administration to further unravel those sanctions in order to 
get what they want without an insurance policy to ensure that we will 
get what we want, and that is what this sanction legislation does.
  One of the issues that came up in February, a French trade 
delegation--representing 116 French companies--

[[Page S1141]]

traveled to Tehran. I recently met with one of the Arab nation's 
Foreign Ministers, and he told me that the hotel rooms in Tehran are 
filled with business men and women looking to line up to do business 
with Tehran.
  This is a real issue that the sanctions regime is starting to 
unravel, and the legislation we have pending with 59 cosponsors is an 
insurance policy to say: If you are not serious about this agreement, 
we will impose further sanctions to make sure we do everything we can 
to stop you from having nuclear weapons capability.
  This is a critical moment in the history of this country. This is a 
critical moment for the safety of the world. We want to stop Iran from 
using diplomatic means as a way to have nuclear weapons capability 
because of the risk it presents to the world.
  We cannot be naive. We have to understand the prior behavior of Iran 
because the prior behavior of Iran will allow us to go in with our eyes 
wide open rather than just taking their assurances that they are 
serious about a nuclear weapons agreement that will stop them from 
having this capability.
  As we stand on the floor, I ask the majority leader to allow a vote 
on this legislation so we can send a clear message to Iran and the rest 
of the world that they should not think they should do further business 
with Iran unless Iran is serious about giving up its nuclear weapons 
program through a transparent, verifiable agreement that will ensure 
they cannot threaten the State of Israel and the rest of the world with 
a nuclear weapon. I ask the majority leader to allow a vote on this 
important legislation.
  There are so few pieces of legislation that come through the Senate 
which actually have 59 cosponsors. This is one of them. It certainly 
has strong bipartisan support.
  I don't buy the argument that if we were to pass this legislation, 
somehow Iran would walk away from the negotiations. If Iran walks away 
from the negotiations because we pass prospective legislation as an 
insurance policy to make sure they are serious about a real, verifiable 
agreement that stops their nuclear weapons program, then, frankly, we 
know they have been playing us. Because the reality is, if they are 
serious, they should not care if we put an insurance policy out there. 
If they are serious, they will follow through and will do what the 
interim agreement requires and will agree to a final agreement that 
stops their nuclear weapons program in a transparent, verifiable way 
once and for all.
  On the other hand, if they are just going to walk away with a threat 
of prospective sanctions, how serious can they be? We will still have 
the sanctions in place that will continue to put pressure on them to 
say the United States of America and our allies will not accept a 
nuclear-armed Iran because of the threat it presents to us.
  We cannot allow the largest state sponsor--and most serious state 
sponsor--of terrorism around the world to have this capability. We 
cannot allow a race in the Middle East--a Sunni-Shia race--to see who 
can have a nuclear weapon first because of the danger it presents to 
the world.
  Finally, we cannot allow Iran to continue to threaten our friend and 
ally, the State of Israel. I understand and appreciate that when Iran 
and its leaders have made statements they want to annihilate Israel 
from the face of the Earth, our friends in Israel take that very 
seriously. They have vowed never again. We stand with them not only for 
their friendship but also for the safety of the world.
  We have legislation pending on the floor that gives us an opportunity 
to make it clear what the United States of America stands for and that 
we will not accept a nuclear-armed Iran. They must be serious or there 
will be consequences in terms of economic sanctions.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________