[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 112 (Thursday, July 17, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4595-S4598]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BRING JOBS HOME ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Order of Procedure
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture
vote with respect to the Carnes nomination now occur at 1:45 p.m.
today, with all other provisions of the previous order remaining in
effect.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Middle East
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, it is my understanding later today we
are going to have an opportunity to approve a resolution that was voted
out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday that deals with
the tragic events in the Middle East between Israel and Hamas. I just
want to read part of that resolution, the action part of the
resolution, because I hope it expresses the views of each Member of the
Senate.
It reaffirms the Senate's support for Israel's right to defend its
citizens and ensure the survival of the State of Israel. It condemns
the unprovoked rocket fire at Israel. It calls on Hamas to immediately
cease all rocket and other attacks against Israel. It calls upon the
Palestinian Authority of President Abbas to dissolve the unity
governing arrangement with Hamas and condemn the attacks on Israel.
We all are very concerned about the tragic consequences of the
conflict between Israel and Hamas. Our strongest desire is that we can
end the attacks and the missiles and that we can get Israel and the
Palestinians to negotiate a peace agreement, a lasting agreement for
two states living side-by-side, the Jewish State of Israel and a
Palestinian State.
But the recent military action taken by the Israel Defense Forces in
Gaza is a direct response to Hamas's barrage of rockets and mortar
attacks against civilian targets in Israel. Labeled as a terrorist
organization, Hamas is directly responsible for the innocent loss of
life of both Israelis and Palestinians. It is very tragic what Israel
is doing it is doing so to defend its civilian population from the
incoming rockets.
What Hamas is doing is indiscriminately sending missiles into Israel,
targeting innocent populations. Hamas's actions to extend its reach
deeper into Israel and its failure to end continuing attacks undermine
efforts to attain peace and security in the region.
The Israel Defense Forces began Operation Protective Edge Tuesday,
July 8, with one goal, one goal in mind; that is, to stop Hamas's
continued rocket attacks against Israel's civilians. Since the start of
the operation, there have been over 1,000 rockets that have been
launched into Israel. Most of those rockets hit targets. Fortunately,
they were not major population centers because of Iron Dome. I thank
the policy of this country, the United States, in providing Israel the
Iron Dome missile defense system, which has been responsible for
bringing down approximately 200 of the rockets that otherwise would
have hit population centers in Israel.
Earlier this week, Egypt proposed an immediate cease-fire, followed
by a series of meetings in Cairo with high-level delegations from both
sides. Israel accepted that cease-fire immediately. They said: Fine.
Let's do it. We want to stop the attacks of rockets into our country.
We want to have a discussion for peace. They did it immediately. For 6
hours the IDF suspended operations against Hamas, but during this time
Hamas fired 50 rockets into Israel. So the Israel Defense Forces were
ordered to resume attacks against terrorist targets following continued
inbound rockets and Hamas's official statement that it rejected the
cease-fire.
I think what Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on CBS's
``Face the Nation'' on Sunday sums it up best. I am quoting from the
Prime Minister: The difference between us is that we are using missiles
to protect our civilians and they are using their civilians to protect
their missiles.
In other words, what Hamas is doing is putting its missile locations
in population centers, in schools, in hospitals, in mosques, in a
direct way to use human shields. What a difference. Israel is trying to
protect its civilian population. Hamas is putting their civilian
population at great risk.
Hamas must end its rocket and mortar attacks, recognize Israel's
right to exist, renounce violence, and honor all past agreements to
peacefully move toward a two-state solution. That is what we want to
see. I strongly support Israel's right to defend its citizens against
threats to its security and existence. Hamas must end. It must be
marginalized. It cannot be allowed to continue its terrorist
activities. We must find a way to advance a stable and lasting peace
between Israel and the Palestinian people.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I would like to concur with the comments
of my friend, the Senator from Maryland, on the tragedy in Israel and
the Middle East. I also want to say a special thanks to my friend, the
Senator from Tennessee, for allowing me to jump in line for a moment.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2265
Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I rise to say that I think it is abhorrent
and I think most American people would be greatly distressed to know
that some of their money could be sent to terrorist organizations, that
some of their money could be sent to Hamas.
Hamas has now joined a unity government with the Palestinian
Authority. We give several hundred million dollars a year to the
Palestinian Authority. I am appalled to think we could be somehow
indirectly paying for missiles that Hamas is launching on Israel. I
support the resolution that will shortly come forward condemning
Hamas's activities.
I want more teeth in this. I would like to see legislation that says:
You know what. If Hamas wants to come out of the cold, they want to
recognize Israel and renounce terror, maybe. But if they are going to
continue to say, as one of their leaders said recently, that our path
is resistance and a rifle, our choice is jihad, if Hamas is going to
continue to laugh and to cheer with glee with the killing of three
teenage Israeli citizens, one of whom was an American citizen, Hamas
should not--and we should guarantee that Hamas should not--get any of
our money. So I will ask for unanimous consent to pass a bill to
guarantee that Hamas will not receive any of our foreign aid.
I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be
discharged from further consideration of S. 2265 and that the Senate
proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask unanimous consent
that the bill be read a third time and passed,
[[Page S4596]]
the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I know the Senator from Kentucky tried
to have this bill heard this week in a business meeting. I know the
Senator knows I supported that effort to cause this bill to be marked
up in the Foreign Relations Committee, which is where it should be
dealt with.
I thank him for his concern about foreign aid. I think he has brought
a voice to the Senate which has raised many concerns about how we are
spending taxpayer money. I thank him for raising some of the issues he
has brought forth. As it relates to the bill itself, I have spoken to
officials from Israel. I know one of the goals is to do something that
complements Israel and helps Israel.
I know they have some concerns with the way it is constructed and
actually, in many ways if this bill were to become law, it would create
a heightened security problem for Israel. So we have had a constructive
conversation I think on the floor. I would like to talk with the
Senator a little bit further about some potential changes to the
legislation. I think that would be more appropriate than passing it by
unanimous consent. I thank him again for his nature, the way he works
with all of us. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a
colloquy with the Senator from Tennessee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Iran
Mr. GRAHAM. I know the Senator is supposed to be chairing a hearing
here in a moment. But the Senator is the ranking member on Foreign
Relations. I wish to compliment the Senator from Tennessee and Senator
Menendez. The Senators have been a very effective team. The subject
matter is Iran. July 20 will be here shortly.
I ask Senator Corker, what is his view of where we stand with the
Iranian nuclear program and what are his concerns?
Mr. CORKER. First of all, no one has taken a more important role in
our foreign policy and security issues than the Senator from South
Carolina. I thank him for that. I know on my last trip to Afghanistan,
he was there serving his Reserve duty. I thank the Senator for the many
contributions to all of these debates. I want to say that I think,
similar to many in this body, when the initial agreement was put forth
and it had a 6-month extension on it, there was a lot of concern. What
I am concerned about, and the Senator from South Carolina I think may
share some of this, is that what we are going to end up with are a
series of rolling interim agreements.
What we have is Iran doing everything they can to evade sanctions
that have been put in place. We have countries that see the opportunity
possibly for Iran to come out from under being a rogue state. I am
worried we are putting ourselves in a situation where we are losing all
of the leverage Congress, working with the administration, but Congress
led on in putting these sanctions in place.
We are coming up on July 20. I was very disappointed that, in essence
in March, the administration agreed to the fact that Iran would be able
to have centrifuges to enrich uranium. It was something that, to me, at
the beginning of a negotiation, to give one of the biggest things one
can possibly give to a country such as Iran on the front end, put us in
a very bad position.
But here is my concern: It is July 17. This agreement ends on July
20. I believe we are losing the leverage that all of us worked so hard
to put in place. I am worried the coalition we have is dissipating. It
feels to me as though Iran is rope-a-doping us on this agreement.
What I hope is going to happen--I know the Senator and I are going to
be in a briefing later today. I hope the administration is going to
share with us, very clearly, what the gaps are between where they are
and where Iran is.
It is my hope that gap is going to be very narrow. I do not think
that is going to be the case. My sense is the administration is going
to ask for an extension over the next few days. That concerns me. Here
is what I hope Congress will do: I hope Congress somehow will have the
ability, through the majority leader's efforts and all of us on the
floor, to weigh in on any final agreement that is put in place. I think
that is very important. I know the Senator tried to produce legislation
to make that happen. I have done the same thing.
Secondly, I hope the administration will agree there will be no more
extensions, period. I am pretty sure they are going to be asking for
one. It is unfortunate. When you put in place an agreement on the front
end that you have that ability, it then creates the essence that it
does not create the focus, if you will, that is necessary to bring this
to a conclusion.
Again, what I hope will happen is that Congress will have a final say
on any removal of sanctions--any removal of sanctions. But my hope is
that before any type of sanctions relief takes place, Congress will
have the opportunity to weigh in. I had a long conversation yesterday
with our lead negotiator. I shared these same concerns, that I just
feel the moment slipping away from us. I think all of us want to see a
diplomatic solution. I do not think there is anybody on this floor that
wants to see anything less than a great result diplomatically.
But I think many of us are concerned we are losing our leverage, time
is slipping away, the coalition is dissipating. Some of the parties, as
the Senator knows, have differing interests now. We have had some
conflicts arise over the course of time where we are at significant
odds with some of our partners in these negotiations.
With Russia we have the issue in Ukraine and Crimea. With China we
have issues in the South and East China Sea. So all of this is making
me very concerned about our ability to reach a diplomatic solution,
even though I want more than anything--on this issue, more than
anything, I want us to have a solid diplomatic solution that allows us
to go forward and know that Iran does not have the ability to break out
and become a nuclear threat to the region, to the world, and certainly
create instability.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his leadership. We
are working together. We hope to make this bipartisan. If there is an
agreement reached with the Iranians--and I agree, I hope there will be,
that Congress can have a say about that agreement.
President Obama felt as though he needed to come to Congress to get
approval to enter into Syria. The Senator led the effort to pass the
resolution in the Foreign Relations Committee, the Senator and Senator
Menendez working together. The Senator from Tennessee delivered
Republican votes to try to help the President. He drew a red line and
nothing happened.
So if he believes he needs input from the Congress about going to
Syria, I hope the President will understand that the Congress wants
input when it comes to the Iranian nuclear program. As a matter of
fact, I hope we will demand it, because of all the decisions President
Obama will make in his two terms as President, on the foreign policy
front this is the most consequential.
Why do I say this? The Iranian regime with a nuclear capability is a
nightmare for the world.
Does Senator Corker agree with me, based on his travels in the
region, that if we allowed the Iranians to have a robust enrichment
capability--and what am I talking about is taking uranium and enriching
it to the point where they can use it for commercial fuel to run a
nuclear power reactor. The problem with enrichment is you can go beyond
making commercial grade fuel. You can actually use that process to make
a bomb. Without enrichment capability you can't make the bomb.
So they are demanding the right to enrich and it was given away in
March. It was a huge mistake.
If you made a list of countries you would not trust to enrich
uranium--based on their behavior and disruptive nature--I would put
Iran on the top of the list. My fear is that we are about to do with
the Iranians what we did with the North Koreans--that you have a deal
on paper that gives them an enrichment capability to be contained by
[[Page S4597]]
U.N. inspection. And in North Korea the rest is history.
When it comes to the Iranians, I am not going to turn our fate over,
as a nation, to a bunch of U.N. inspectors trying to contain their
uranium enrichment program. I know Israel will not.
But this is the ripple effect. Does the Senator agree with me that
any right to enrich we give to the Shia Persians in Iran, the Sunni
Arabs are going to insist on an equivalent right?
Mr. CORKER. The Senator is exactly right. I was in the region this
year, and there is tremendous concern about, obviously, Iran breaking
out in this regard. Candidly, there are many conversations about ways
for them to compensate for that because they obviously want a counter
to Iran's being a nuclear-armed country.
As you know, with some of the proliferation that takes place, there
are ways of buying those capabilities without even developing them
yourself. So, yes, that is a major concern.
Our friend, Senator Menendez, on the other side of the aisle--with
whom you work so closely--I certainly don't want to speak for him, but
I use a frame of reference that he has used on so many occasions; that
is, it is one thing to dismantle their ability to enrich and produce a
nuclear weapon and it is a whole different thing to just mothball.
What I fear is that we are creating a situation where, again, we have
these countries that come together, we have the sanctions that are in
place, and we let those sanctions dissipate. Then all of a sudden--and
I think the Senator knows already--the economy in Iran is picking up
and inflation has dropped if you allow those to dissipate.
It took a lot of effort to put these sanctions in place. Again, there
are a lot of differing interests today that didn't exist when these
were put in place. Then all of a sudden we have a situation where they
break out again because they have those capabilities. They have
mothballed; they have not been dismantled. Not to speak of the fact
that we don't know what is going on in Parchin--we don't know what may
happen with the Arak facility.
Again, I hope the administration will be very clear about the gaps
that exist today. My sense is they are going to extend and, again, I
have grave concerns about what that is going to mean relative to
getting to a good end.
Mr. GRAHAM. Along those lines, Senator Menendez has been one of the
leading voices in the Senate and in the Nation about having a cautious
eye toward Iran.
They have an enrichment capability. Over the last decade it has grown
moderately.
This idea of moderate voices in Iran--the President of Iran was
elected as a moderate. I don't believe that dichotomy really exists.
This whole game of good cop/bad cop is going on in front of our eyes--
in this case good president/bad ayatollah.
The ayatollah, the Supreme Leader of Iran, weighed in a few days ago
talking about centrifuges 10 times greater than they have today. I am
sure what he is trying to do is become the bad guy. When he puts out
the number 190,000 and you wind up with 15 or 20, it is like a good
deal.
I can promise you one centrifuge in the hands of the Iranians is a
risk. Thousands of centrifuges in the hands of Iranians is stupid. We
would be crazy to let that happen.
If they want a nuclear power program for peaceful purposes, sign me
up.
As a matter of fact, as far as any deal, I would put in the deal the
ability for the international community--Russia, the United States, and
China working together or separately--to build a powerplant inside of
Iran to give them nuclear power as long as we control the fuel cycle.
Fifteen nations have nuclear power programs that do not enrich.
Canada and Mexico have nuclear power programs, but they don't enrich
uranium.
As a matter of fact, we are telling our friends in South Korea: Don't
begin to enrich. We are telling our friends in the United Arab
Emirates: You can have nuclear power, but don't enrich.
I would find it incredible for us to tell allies that we trust them
not to enrich because it could set off unintended consequences, but we
are agreeing to let one of the enemies of mankind have that capability
because they are demanding it.
I hope and I pray a deal can come about that will neuter the nuclear
ambitions of the Iranians and give them what they claim to want--a
peaceful nuclear power program. But I don't believe that is what they
want. I don't think they would be doing all the things they have been
doing--lying, cheating, and building plants under a mountain--if all
they wanted was a peaceful nuclear power program.
As a matter of fact, our intelligence community tells us the program
they have today has been put to military use. They denied that, but we
can't get to the bottom of it.
What is the Senator's view about the likelihood of the Iranians lying
about the fact that they have tried to militarize their program?
Mr. CORKER. I think, based on past behavior, that would be one's
expectation. Again, we know there are facilities that are operating,
and we haven't been able to get into those facilities.
When you look at the facts, one of the things that is not even being
addressed is the whole delivery system--their ability to deliver the
weaponry. None of this discussion thus far, to my knowledge, has
anything to do with their developing capabilities to actually deliver a
nuclear weapon.
What I am concerned about--the Senator focused on the centrifuges and
it is the central issue--no question. I think the Senator has wisely
pointed out how the Supreme Leader has tried to move the goalpost so
far down the field that just getting to the 30- or 40-yard line looks
good to us. But we also did the same on the front end of the deal by
acknowledging in the preamble or the four-page agreement that
enrichment certainly could occur.
But here is what is happening, I fear. On every other single
portion--not just the centrifuge--the goal posts are being moved. In
other words, the things that we thought were going to take place on the
front end--whether it was the Arak facility and what was going to occur
there or what was going to happen in other pieces of the deal--all of
that adds up to very important elements or a final deal. I am afraid
what is happening is the goalpost is moving on all of those as time
goes on.
Mr. GRAHAM. I couldn't agree more. As a matter of fact, dismantling
has become something new. They have a big stockpile of highly enriched
uranium. We are talking about diluting it, but the U.N. resolution
called for its removal, so this deal is to the left of the U.N.
resolution. As a matter of fact, this whole agreement is getting to the
left of what the United Nations has been.
What about this scenario? It is one thing to have fissile material in
the hands of the ayatollah and they could make a bomb, but they still
have a lot of highly enriched uranium still inside of Iran. What is the
possibility of a dirty bomb, where they turn that highly enriched
uranium over to a terrorist organization and it makes its way here
without their fingerprints being on it?
Mr. CORKER. One of the ways that Iran has destabilized the region has
been through proxies that it funds.
Let's face it. Until they became involved in Syria--as the Senator
has talked about on the floor--through their proxy, Hezbollah, actually
the moderate in the opposition was gaining ground. So their utilization
of terrorist groups to achieve their end, obviously, is their normal
mode of operation.
Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, continue.
Mr. CORKER. So when you think about the possibilities of their being
able to create, as the Senator mentioned, a dirty bomb--which would
create tremendous terror wherever it might have been implemented--that
is something I think is frightening--more than frightening.
It would be something that would be not quite as destabilizing as,
obviously, having a full-blown nuclear weapon, but something that would
be very damaging to world security.
Mr. GRAHAM. I know we are going to have a vote in a second, but we
will end our thoughts.
The reason 3,000 Americans were killed on 9/11 and not 3 million is
that the terrorist groups that wish us harm could not find capabilities
beyond the airplanes. They are trying. They are trying to get weapons
of mass destruction, chemical weapons, highly enriched uranium, fissile
material.
My fear is that if a regime such as Iran is given the capability to
enrich,
[[Page S4598]]
it will become a North Korea where they break out.
I will not turn the fate of the United States over, with my vote, to
a bunch of U.N. inspectors--where the only hope of a breakout is a
bunch of U.N. inspectors.
The whole real goal for me is to have a capability that is very
small, face-saving in nature, that can't lead to a breakout. Don't have
something robust that can lead to a breakout and expect the U.N. to
protect us because they can't. They didn't do it in North Korea.
At the end of the day I think the decision we are going to make as a
nation--through our President--hopefully with direction and input, will
be the biggest decision we have made as a nation on the foreign policy
front in decades, because, if we get this wrong, if we allow the
Iranian ayatollah to achieve a new nuclear capability, every Sunni Arab
is going to want like capability, and we are on the road to Armageddon.
Look at the Middle East and ask yourselves: Is this a good place to
give people nuclear capability? Would they use it?
Hamas is firing every rocket in its inventory, and they could care
less where it lands; they hate Israel that much.
The Sunni Arabs feel more threatened by the Shia Persians than they
do by the Israelis.
It is commonly believed that Israelis have a nuclear capability. Not
one Sunni nation has tried to procure a weapon of their own to counter
that presumed capability. Every Sunni Arab state has told me, you, and
everybody else who will listen, that if the Shia Persians get a
capability they are going to match that capability because they see
that threat as existential.
Israel sees the threat in Iran--with a nuclear capability in Iranian
hands--as existential.
I see it as existential to the United States. We have an opportunity
here for negotiations to end this well. But what I hope we will not do
is, through negotiations, create a scenario where they break out like
the North Koreans.
If I have the choice between a bad deal through negotiations that
will lead to a nuclear Iran over time and military force--as
distasteful as that might be--I am going to pick military force because
we have to stop their ambitions to become a nuclear nation.
If we don't stop them, it would be similar, in my view, to have let
Hitler have the bomb when we could have done something about it.
Mr. CORKER. I thank the Senator again for his tremendous
contributions to this body and every foreign policy debate that we
have.
The President did seek congressional approval on the authorization of
the use of military force in Syria. It was not something he had to do,
but he sought it, and I am pleased that he did.
I was proud to be a part of writing that agreement with our chairman
and other members of the committee to give him the power to do that.
And actually, to be candid, I regret that things took the course they
took, but the President elected to do that.
As the Senator mentioned, a nuclear-armed Iran is a whole different
scale. What I hope will happen is that the President will agree there
will be no more extensions if they ask for one in the next few days,
and I am almost certain that is what is going to happen.
No. 2, I hope you will commit to letting Congress weigh in on the
final decision. I actually think that will be useful for them in the
negotiation. I really do think that having a backstop would be useful
to them, but if the President doesn't agree to that, I hope we, on our
own, will pass legislation which ensures that is the case.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GRAHAM. I concur, and I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5
minutes as if in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________