[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 42 (Thursday, March 12, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1479-S1481]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         NEGOTIATIONS WITH IRAN

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, first of all, I wish to make reference to 
the famous letter by Senator Cotton to the Iranians conveying to them 
the realities of the U.S. Constitution and the situation as it will 
prevail, hopefully, and that is that the Congress of the United States 
must ratify any agreement between the United States and Iran. Anybody 
who says we shouldn't ignores history and ignores the impact of this 
treaty.
  I signed that letter, and I believe it is a direct result of the 
President's statement that he would veto any role the U.S. Congress 
should play in the ratification or nonratification of a pending 
agreement. That is what triggered the letter from Senator Cotton, and 
that is why I stand by it.
  Seventy-one percent of Americans believe negotiation with Tehran will 
not make a difference in preventing Iran from producing nuclear 
weapons, and 71 percent of the American people are right.
  Now I wish to speak with my friend from South Carolina about the 
situation in Iraq today--specifically, the role Iran is playing and, 
even more specifically, the combat that is taking place around the city 
of Tikrit.
  Tikrit is the hometown of Saddam Hussein. Tikrit is a Sunni 
stronghold. Tikrit is now under attack--the ISIS people who are 
occupying it--by Shia militia, including, specifically, the Badr 
brigades, and they are led and trained by Iranians. An individual named 
Soleimani, who is the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, is now 
the most visible leader. Soleimani is the same guy who sent copper-
tipped IEDs into Iraq which killed hundreds of American soldiers and 
marines. We now are somehow accommodating the individual who is 
responsible for the deaths of brave young Americans. That is not only 
unbelievable, it is totally unacceptable.
  The question is, When these Shia militias get into Tikrit, how are 
they going to behave? There are well-documented human rights abuses by 
these Shia militias. Again, these are the same Badr brigades that we 
fought against in the Battle of Sadr City during the surge. And now the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff said in January: ``As long as the 
Iraqi government remains committed to inclusivity of all the various 
groups inside the country, then I think Iranian influence will be 
positive.'' I am not making that up.
  There is an AP story today that I wish to quote from entitled 
``Little progress in key plank of Obama anti-IS struggle.''

       Instead of reaching out for Sunnis, the Iraqi government 
     has bolstered its already close ties to Iran and to Iranian-
     backed Shiite militias that have been credibly accused of 
     massacring Sunnis, U.S. officials acknowledge. The Iraqi 
     military's reliance on Shiite militias this week to retake 
     Tikrit, a Sunni stronghold, has complicated the prospects of 
     political reconciliation, experts say.
       Human Rights Watch said in a March 4 report that it has 
     documented ``numerous'' atrocities against Sunni civilians by 
     the Shiite militias  . . .
       ``They see it as a Persian invasion of the Sunni 
     heartland,'' said John Maguire, a former CIA case officer 
     with long Middle East experience who travels frequently to 
     Iraq.

  I am interested in the reaction of my friend from South Carolina to 
this:

       After meeting with Abadi, Dempsey--

  That is our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--

     told reporters he was given firm assurances that the Shiite-
     led government is committed to reconciling with the Sunnis. 
     Asked in an interview whether he considered those assurances 
     credible Dempsey said, ``They seemed credible today.''
       Dempsey noted that during his helicopter flight over 
     Baghdad, he saw worrisome signs of Iranian influence. He 
     spotted a ``plethora of flags'' at checkpoints and elsewhere 
     in the capital, ``only one of which happens to be the Iraqi 
     flag,'' he said, alluding to the banners of Iranian-backed 
     Shiite militias.

  Can we get real, I ask my friend from South Carolina, as to what is 
taking place?
  The Iranians are now in Sana'a, they are in Baghdad, they are in 
Beirut, they are in Damascus, and they are on the move. Meanwhile, this 
administration, this President, and this Secretary of State pursue the 
mirage of a nuclear agreement that will somehow change the entire 
equation.
  I would also be interested in the views of the Senator from South 
Carolina of what the Saudis are doing, which is accommodating in their 
own way and possibly making plans to acquire their own nuclear weapons 
along with other nations in the Middle East.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, just to sum it up, our foreign policy is 
in a free-for-all. It is incompetent at its core.
  No one can feel good about Shia-led groups going into Tikrit with 
Iranian command and control. If we know anything about Iraq, the hope 
for Iraq is for the Sunnis, the Shias, and the Kurds to accommodate 
each other's interests and to work together. So when we see a Shia-led 
effort against, as the Senator from Arizona said, the Sunni stronghold, 
with an Iranian commander on the ground who was responsible for killing 
Americans, and we think that is a good day for us, that is nuts. That 
is a bad day for America.
  Let's talk a little bit about the Iranian nuclear negotiations. I did 
not sign Senator Cotton's letter until the President threatened to veto 
congressional legislation to make sure that we would have a say about 
relieving the sanctions we created. When President Obama told the 
Congress--a bipartisan

[[Page S1480]]

group was being formed to make sure that Congress would have a say 
about relieving the sanctions that were created--that ``I will veto 
your efforts to have a say,'' then all bets were off at that point for 
me.
  So I want the Iranians to know, in case they are listening, the Obama 
administration, the P5+1, the U.N., cannot relieve congressional 
sanctions without our approval. I don't know what kind of system they 
have in Iran; I am pretty well sure it is not Democratic.
  To President Obama: When you indicated that the letter that was 
written--the open letter to the Ayatollahs about Congress's insistence 
that we have a say about sanctions we are creating--you said: You have 
empowered the hard-liners.
  All I can say is that if the President of the United States believes 
there is a hard line and moderate split in Iran, I want to look at the 
deal now more than ever. Please name the moderate elements who are in 
the Government in Iran. And if these people are moderate, God forbid 
the hard-liners ever get in charge. The idea that there is a split is 
ridiculous. The President of Iran, the Foreign Minister of Iran are 
playing the oldest game in the Mideast. The moderates were gunned down 
in 2009. I can show my colleagues a moderate who was a young lady who 
was killed in the streets. Every moderate voice was crushed by force of 
arms, and our President in 2009 sat on the sidelines because he didn't 
want to disrupt his chance to reach an agreement with the Ayatollahs.
  Mr. President: You scare me when you say you believe there is a 
moderate element in charge of Iran. Look what they are doing as you 
negotiate regarding their nuclear ambitions. They have taken down a 
pro-American government in Yemen that allowed us a platform to watch 
and attack Al Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula, the terrorist 
organization responsible for the terrorist attack. The Houthis, an 
Iranian-backed group within Yemen, was able to take down the government 
that we were working with in providing us counterterrorism platforms. 
The Iranians are supporting Assad, who has killed 220,000 of his own 
people, and the instability from Assad's brutality is putting the King 
of Jordan and everyone else at risk. Over 1 million Syrians have left 
Syria to go to Lebanon and Jordan. That is not a moderate regime. 
Moderate regimes do not support insurgencies that, through the force of 
arm, take down elected governments. Hezbollah is not a moderate voice 
in Lebanon. They are supported by the Iranians. They have had a record 
of attacking Israel and killing us for decades. So Iran's support of 
Hezbollah, of the Houthis, and of Assad--that is not what moderate 
people do. Now, in Iraq itself, the Shia militia who are roaming around 
Iraq are committing war crimes as I speak.
  So you are completely disconnected from the behavior of the people 
you are negotiating with, and you don't understand the Iranians at all. 
You are dangerously in denial or delusional about the threats we face 
and whom we are dealing with.
  So I am glad we wrote the letter to bring some certainty to the 
process. If the President of the United States negotiates a deal with 
Iran and that deal includes lifting the congressional sanctions and he 
does it without our input, he will change a balance of power that has 
existed for hundreds of years in this country.
  We created congressional sanctions by a 100-0 vote over your 
objection. We are not going to let you tell us we have no voice in 
lifting the sanctions we created. We are not going to let the United 
Nations lift sanctions we created.
  The Iranians need to understand the following: If there is a deal 
between the P5+1 and they are telling you congressional sanctions will 
be lifted by signing the deal, that is not accurate. They won't be 
lifted unless we agree. I would vote to lift sanctions if I thought we 
had a good deal. I would vote against a bad deal because a bad deal 
will start a new arms race in the Middle East.
  I will sum this up. I have never been more worried than I am today 
with what is happening in the Middle East. You have people in our 
military celebrate Iranian ground activity in Iraq that will expand 
sectarian conflict. When the Iranians are marching on Tikrit, that is 
not a sign that Iraq is coming together. To anybody on the American 
side who believes that is a good idea, what movie have been you been 
watching?
  To the President of the United States: We are going to insist to have 
a say about sanctions we created before you can negotiate their relief. 
I am sorry you may not like that. You may find this inconvenient, but 
we have a say, too.
  The bill we are talking about only deals with the sanctions we 
created. So I hope my Democratic colleagues who are so disappointed 
will understand why we, at least on this side, are pretty offended at 
the idea that the President can negotiate away sanctions we created 
without an input. You should be equally worried. The Israelis and the 
Arabs have told us one thing: Iran is the most destabilizing force in 
the Middle East. This President and this administration negotiate a 
nuclear deal without saying a word about the havoc Iran is creating on 
the ground.
  If I were President, I would tell the Iranians we are not going to 
talk to you anymore about your nuclear ambitions until you stop 
destabilizing the region and invading your neighbors. We are not going 
to talk to you about your nuclear ambitions until you stop building 
ICBMs that can threaten us, until you stop sponsoring terrorist 
organizations. But not only has the President remained silent about 
Iran's wreaking havoc throughout the region, he is negotiating a deal--
at least from what I have been able to find out about it--that is a 
North Korea in the making, and he wants us to be silent.
  To my Democratic colleagues and the President, we are not going to be 
silenced. We are going have a say. We are going to have a vote. I hope 
in a bipartisan fashion, we will vote a good deal in and a bad deal 
down. Under the construct, you have to get 60 votes to disapprove the 
deal, so Republicans alone cannot kill it.
  If it is a good deal, we will know it. It will be a deal that gives 
the Iranians what they say they want, a peaceful nuclear power program. 
A bad deal is a deal that will allow them to have a nuclear weapon one 
day. The only thing between a nuclear weapon, us, and Israel is the 
United Nations. Forget that. That is what we had in North Korea.
  Mr. McCAIN. Could I ask my friend if he recalls the recent testimony 
by Henry Kissinger, probably the most highly regarded individual in 
America today? He voiced his concern. His fundamental problem was that, 
as he put it, we have gone from negotiations to rid Iran from ever 
having the capability of developing nuclear weapons to delaying it. So 
that on its face--and again, I want to remind my friend from South 
Carolina that he and I and our beloved friend, former Member of this 
body, Joe Lieberman, made visit after visit to Baghdad and to Iraq. We 
probably were everywhere in that country on many occasions. And how 
well we remember the fight the surge brought on to bring stability to 
Iraq. It did bring stability. You remember the battle of Sadr City. Who 
was it that our forces, our young men and women, were fighting against, 
the Badr Brigades? Guess who is fighting in Tikrit today. The Badr 
Brigades.
  The Senator and I have been to Walter Reed and many other places like 
that and have seen our wounded. Wounded by what? By IEDs, the copper-
tipped IEDs that Soleimani made sure came into Iraq, that would 
penetrate armor and wreak havoc and wounded so many and killed so many 
young Americans.
  It is now Soleimani who is visibly leading the fight in Tikrit. 
Strangely enough, our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff saw so many 
flags--guess what--with the banners of the Iranian-backed Shia 
militias.
  I would ask my friend, isn't this in some ways a Greek tragedy? Isn't 
this in some ways a situation where we sacrifice so much? And thanks to 
the inspired, fantastic leadership of General Petraeus and Colonel 
McFarland and all of those individuals who fought so well and led so 
well, we had it won, it was stabilized. And now because of the 
President's decision not to leave a residual force, we are seeing 
capitals in the Middle East--whether it be Sana'a, Baghdad, Beirut, or 
Damascus--we are now seeing an overwhelming Iranian presence that is 
dedicated, among other things, to the extinction of the State of 
Israel.

[[Page S1481]]

  Mr. GRAHAM. All I can say is to the soldiers and to the military 
personnel who participated in the Iraq fight, you did your job. 
President Bush made mistakes. To his credit, he adjusted. He made a lot 
of mistakes upfront, but he did adjust because the surge did work.
  President Obama was dealt a pretty good hand when it came to Iraq. 
Things were better on the security front. Economic and political 
progress was well noted. His decision not to leave a residual force 
behind has come back to haunt us, Iraq, and the entire region. It was 
his decision. We tried to blame the Iraqis. That is just rewriting the 
history. When he decided to turn down the entire recommendation of his 
national security team--the national security team's entire 
recommendation--about doing a no-fly zone and helping the Free Syrian 
Army 3 years ago, everything Senator McCain said about that decision 
has come true. Radical Islamists filled in that vacuum.
  What you see in the Middle East is as a result of bad policy choices, 
but what you see today is the beginning of the worst decision, which 
would be a bad deal with Iran in dealing Congress out.
  To the American people, here is one thing I promise you. We and the 
Congress in a bipartisan fashion will make sure that any deal, if there 
is one, negotiating with the Iranians, will come to this body to be 
openly debated so you will know what is in it, and every Member of this 
Senate is going to take a vote as to whether it is good enough to lift 
congressional sanctions that we created.
  I promise we are not going to allow the most historic decision any 
President will make any time soon to go without checks and balances. It 
will come to this body. We will have a vote. I promise you this: If 
this administration believes there is a hard-line moderate split 
between those who govern Iran, it should scare you because it scares 
me. Given what Senator McCain has described, do you really believe 
there is a moderate element in Iran?
  I hope we can reach a diplomatic conclusion to the Iranian nuclear 
ambitions. They have been lying about their nuclear program for 20 
years. I would like to see a good deal, but I will insist on voting on 
a deal that leads to congressional sanctions.
  To the Germans, our friends in Germany, the Foreign Minister of 
Germany said the letter empowered the Iranians. With all due respect to 
our German allies, that is the most ridiculous statement I think I have 
ever heard. Requiring a deal between the Iranians and involving 
congressional sanctions to come back to the Congress should not 
embolden anybody. I don't know if the deal you are negotiating goes to 
the Parliament--the Bundestag in Germany--but we do things a certain 
way. The efforts of the French and the Germans to discipline Putin, how 
well has that turned out? We have a group of nations trying to deal 
with the most thuggish regime in the world acting like the Keystone 
Kops, in my view.
  Mr. McCAIN. Could I remind the Senator that it is the same German 
Foreign Minister who criticized us and sat by and watched the 
dismemberment of a European nation for the first time in 70 years; the 
same Foreign Minister who keeps threatening Vladimir Putin if he keeps 
this up, and Vladimir Putin continues his aggression and will continue 
his aggression as well.
  I can't give up the floor without mentioning, again, my sorrow at the 
passage of and murder of my friend, Boris Nemstov. The recent arrests 
by Vladimir Putin's crack law enforcement team is reminiscent--they 
rounded up some Chechens--of everybody's favorite film ``Casablanca'' 
where at the end, Claude Raine says, ``Round up the usual suspects.'' 
We have seen a scene from that movie again as the Russians have rounded 
up the usual suspects. Under this regime in Russia, we will never know 
who the murderers are of Boris Nemstov; and that, my friends, is a 
tragedy.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________