[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 109 (Tuesday, July 14, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5021-S5022]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      NUCLEAR AGREEMENT WITH IRAN

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, I asked the Obama 
administration to step back from the Iran negotiations, press pause, 
and reexamine the point of having the talks in the first place. That 
would have been the most rational and reasonable approach for the White 
House to take, especially considering that its own allies in the Senate 
were using phrases such as ``deeply worrying'' to describe the 
direction of the talks.
  But instead of taking the time to reexamine basic objectives with its 
partners and agree on the nonnegotiable elements of any deal--things 
such as anytime, anywhere inspections, complete disclosure of previous 
military-related nuclear research, and phased relief of sanctions tied 
to Iranian compliance--the White House acquiesced instead to artificial 
deadline after artificial deadline and opportunity after opportunity 
for Iran to press for additional concessions along the way.
  The result is the comprehensive nuclear agreement announced today. 
Given what we do know so far, it appears that Republicans and Democrats 
were right to be deeply worried about the direction of these talks.
  It seems Americans in both parties were right to fear that a deal 
inked by the White House would further the flawed elements of April's 
interim agreement, that it would aim at the best deal acceptable to 
Iran rather than one that might actually end Iran's nuclear program. 
Remember, ending Iran's nuclear program was supposed to be the point of 
these talks in the first place. What is already clear about this 
agreement is that it will not achieve or even come close to achieving 
that original purpose.
  Instead, the Iranians appear to have prevailed in this negotiation, 
maintaining thousands of centrifuges, enriching their threshold nuclear 
capability instead of ending it, reaping a multibillion-dollar windfall 
to spend freely on terrorism, dividing our Western allies and 
negotiating partners, some of whom will undoubtedly sell arms to Iran, 
and gaining legitimacy before the world.
  This was an entirely predictable result--in fact, the most 
predictable result given the administration's stance. As noted back in 
2012, here is what I said: ``The only way the Iranian regime can be 
expected to negotiate to preserve its own survival rather than to 
simply delay as a means of pursuing nuclear weapons is if the 
administration imposes the strictest sanctions while at the same time 
enforcing a firm, declaratory policy that reflects a commitment to the 
use of force.''
  But, no, the administration never did that. Instead, it relied upon 
train-and-equip programs instead of forward presence, emphasized 
special operations forces in economy of force efforts, pursued a 
drawdown from Iraq and Afghanistan based on timelines, not battlefield 
conditions, and executed a drawdown of our conventional and nuclear 
forces and a withdrawal of those forces by both attrition and 
redeployment. Through actions such as these and by eschewing any 
declaratory policy toward Iran, the President made clear to the world, 
contrary to his rhetoric, that all options were not on the table. All 
options were simply not on the table. Knowing this, the Iranians never 
feared for their survival--of course, the survival of their regime 
being their No. 1 goal. And so we have the deal we have today.
  It appears we have lost the chance to dismantle Iran's nuclear 
program and that will now become a challenge for the next President to 
confront, regardless of political party. But the Senate has yet to 
receive the final text of the agreement. We will not come to a final 
judgment until we do. The country deserves a thorough and fair review 
right here in the Senate, and that is just what we intend to pursue.
  Committees will be holding hearings, witnesses will be coming to 
testify, and then Congress will approve or disapprove the deal in 
accordance with the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act.
  The test of the agreement should be this. Will it leave our country 
and our allies safer? Will this agreement leave our country and our 
allies safer?
  There are several things we will be looking at in particular as we 
weigh

[[Page S5022]]

whether it will, and here are a few of them: Will the agreement allow 
for anytime, anywhere inspections of military installations and 
research and development facilities?
  Will the agreement compel the Iranians to disclose the possible 
military dimensions of their nuclear program?
  Will the agreement make any real impact on Iran's ability to continue 
researching and developing advanced centrifuges?
  Will the agreement's sanctions relief be tied to Iran's strict 
adherence to the terms of the deal, and will we have any real way to 
verify its compliance?
  These parameters will also help us determine just how successful the 
Iranians have been in extracting concessions from the White House. So 
we will be examining them very closely.
  I will remind colleagues of the deadly seriousness of the issue at 
hand. This should not be about some political legacy project. This is 
not some game either.
  It is certainly not the time for more tired, obviously untrue talking 
points about the choice here between a bad deal and war. No serious 
person would believe that is true. Even the people saying these things 
have to know they are not true, and they probably know that the very 
opposite is, in fact, more likely. So the country doesn't have time to 
waste on more White House messaging exercises when the seriousness of 
the moment calls for intellectually honest debate. The choices made 
today are sure to affect our country for years--probably decades--to 
come.
  The future we leave to our children is at issue as well. The Senate 
should engage in serious consideration of what faces us in the years 
ahead. I invite every Democrat and every Republican to join us in that 
critical conversation. Our country deserves no less. What we must 
decide now is whether this is really the right time to be reducing 
pressure on the world's leading state sponsor of terror and for what in 
return. We already know what the Quds Force is capable of under the 
sanctions regime. What will Iran's support of terrorism look like with 
the additional funding obtained from sanctions relief?
  Let's not forget that Iran is pursuing a full-spectrum campaign to 
expand its sphere of influence and undermine American security and 
standing in the region. Iran's continued support of terrorism and its 
determination to expand ballistic missile and conventional military 
capabilities should be gravely concerning to each of us. They certainly 
are to me. They pose significant challenges to our country and 
President Obama's successor.
  This comes on top of the many other threats that challenge our 
country today and into the future from groups such as the Taliban, Al 
Qaeda, and ISIL to increasingly aggressive regimes in Moscow and 
Beijing. A bad deal won't make any of those threats go away. Pretending 
otherwise isn't going to make us safer. A bad deal will only ensure 
that Iran has more funding to threaten us with renewed vigor. It will 
only ensure that Iran expands its stockpile of missiles and that it 
strengthens terrorist proxies such as Hezbollah, the Houthi insurgents 
in Yemen, and the Assad regime in Syria.
  In fact, here is a Reuters headline from this morning. Listen to 
this: ``Syria's Assad sees more Iranian support after nuclear deal.'' 
That is the reaction from the Syrian regime. ``Syria's Assad sees more 
Iranian support after the nuclear deal.''
  Look, the White House needs to know that the Congress elected by the 
people is prepared to do anything it can to make America safer. We want 
to work collaboratively with the President to advance that goal, but if 
we have to work against a bad agreement to do so--a flawed deal that 
threatens our country and our allies--I assure you, we will.

                          ____________________