[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 114 (Tuesday, July 21, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5191-S5194]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NUCLEAR AGREEMENT WITH IRAN
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, when President Obama came to office, he
looked out at the threats across America, and there were four hard-
target threats: Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran. The situation in
Iran was particularly worrisome because there was a recurrent belief
that Iran was developing nuclear weapons. I have heard critics ask:
Well, what difference would it make? How foolish would it be for Iran
to launch a nuclear weapon against anyone? Every nuclear weapon that is
launched has a return address, and that country will pay dearly for a
reckless decision such as that. But the fear the President had and we
shared was that if Iran developed a nuclear weapon in the Middle East,
it would trigger an arms race, and many other countries in that
volatile region of the world would then seek to develop their own
nuclear weapons and the potential conflagration was incredible.
There was also a concern that one of the first targets of Iran would
be our close ally and friend, the nation of Israel. It is easy to reach
that conclusion when you read and hear the rhetoric of the rightwing in
Iran, which will not even recognize Israel's right to exist. President
Obama set out to do something about it.
It was clear from our experience in Iraq and Afghanistan that sending
in American troops was something that had to be thought about long and
hard. We have the best military in the world, but let's face it, what
we faced in Iraq with roadside bombs maimed and killed so many American
soldiers that we realized this new world of asymmetric military
confrontation didn't guarantee that the best military in the world
would have an easy time of it.
We ended up with almost 5,000 casualties in Iraq and nearly 3,000 now
in Afghanistan, and Afghanistan turned out to be the longest war in
U.S. history. This President and the American people were reluctant to
face another military confrontation.
This President made a decision. I have talked to him about it. He
decided every leader from every country who came in to see him would be
asked to join in an effort to impose sanctions on Iran to bring them to
the negotiating table over the issue of their nuclear capability.
The President put together an incredible coalition because we learned
long ago unilateral sanctions are not worth much, but if you can bring
many nations around the world into a common purpose of putting the
pressure on a country, it can have a positive impact.
The coalition the President put together was amazing; witness the
negotiations themselves where China and Russia were sitting at the same
side of the table as the United States and the European Union--England
and France--and many other countries joined us in imposing these
economic sanctions when they had little to gain and a lot to lose when
it came to the oil resources of Iran. The President's determination to
put the sanctions on Iran was for the purpose of bringing them to the
negotiating table. That diplomatic gathering would literally have been
the first meeting in 35 years between Iran and the United States,
representing that period of time when our relationship with Iran had
reached its lowest possible point. At this point, the goal of the
negotiation was very clear: stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
How real was the threat that they were developing such a weapon? If
you go back in time and read the quotes from the Prime Minister of
Israel Benjamin Netanyahu, for years--more than 10 years--he has been
warning that the Iranians were close to developing a nuclear weapon. It
was a matter of weeks, months, a year at the
[[Page S5192]]
most by most of his estimates. Of course, Israel, more concerned than
most about the nuclear threat, warned the world of what would happen if
Iran developed a nuclear weapon.
Last week, after lengthy negotiations, the President announced with
Iran and the others who sat at the table--P5+1, as they are known in
shorthand--that they had reached an agreement with Iran.
It was interesting to watch the reaction of Members of Congress.
There were some Members of Congress who condemned that agreement before
it was even released to the public. You see, 47 Members of the other
side in the Senate had sent a letter to the Ayatollah in Iran during
the course of negotiations, before any agreement was reached, warning
him and his nation not to negotiate with this President of the United
States.
That was unprecedented. That had never happened before in American
history--when a political party reached out to a sworn enemy of the
United States and gave them advice not to speak to our leader. That
letter went on to say that even though you think you reached an
agreement between Iran and the United States, don't be misled;
ultimately, Congress would have the last word on that agreement.
It was no surprise in that environment that so many Senators and
Congressmen from the other side of the aisle instantaneously condemned
this agreement. Some of us decided to take a little time and perhaps
reflect on it, read it, and reach out to people who were involved in
it.
I took last week to read the 100-plus pages of this agreement and to
talk further to our Nation's top experts, including the Secretary of
Energy Ernest Moniz, Secretary of State John Kerry, and others, about
this agreement, hoping I could come to understand exactly what was
being offered by way of stopping Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
I am under no illusions about the Iranian regime. Its support for
terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas is well documented, its
abysmal human rights record is well known, and its brutal suppression
of its own people during the 2009 election in Iran is well documented.
Iran also continues to hold a number of Americans on outrageous
charges, including Amir Hekmati, Saeed Abedini, and the Washington Post
reporter Jason Rezaian.
I joined a few years ago, in 2007, with Republican Senator Gordon
Smith in introducing the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act--key components
of which became the basis for a strict petroleum sanctions regime that
helped bring Iran to the negotiating table.
I voted for all the key sanctions bills against Iran, and I have
tried to be a consistent voice for increasing military assistance to
Israel. When I chaired the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I was
proud to double the Iron Dome funding request of Israel for their own
defense of their nation.
The agreement before us is a comprehensive solution to the nuclear
weapons issue with Iran. Without a nuclear weapon to embolden Iran, the
agreement allows the United States and its allies to better deter
Iran's destabilizing actions.
Let's take a reflective moment and look at the history--recent
history--in the United States. Strong leaders and nations such as the
United States meet and talk to their enemies and negotiate when it is
in their national interest.
It was John Kennedy who said: ``We should never negotiate out of
fear, but we should never fear to negotiate.''
These kinds of negotiations aren't an example of weakness but in most
cases are an example of strength, and sometimes the benefits aren't
obvious immediately; they are realized over time. It is simply common
sense. It has been the practice of this Nation, America, for
generations, regardless of who is President, to meet and try to
negotiate for a more peaceful world. Throughout our history, American
leaders have successfully and aggressively used diplomacy, Presidents
of both political parties.
In 1962, the Cuban Missile Crisis. We faced the prospect of a nuclear
war, a standoff with the nation, where we knew and they knew they had
the capacity to detonate a nuclear weapon in the United States. Few
realize how close we came to a nuclear confrontation.
There were many hawks in Washington during President John Kennedy's
administration who said let's take them on. Some even suggested a full
invasion of Cuba, but John Kennedy wisely pursued a careful balance of
strength and diplomacy, using a blockade and negotiations to bring us
back from the brink.
Few people knew the Kennedy administration was secretly negotiating
with the Soviets while the Cuban Missile Crisis was unfolding, and
ultimately President Kennedy agreed to remove American nuclear-armed
Jupiter missiles from Turkey and Italy as part of an agreement that
Soviet Premier Khrushchev remove Soviet nuclear missiles from Cuba.
Are we going to say now in reflection that John Kennedy should never
have negotiated during this crisis because the Soviets were out to
destabilize the world and to spread communism?
Let's not forget when John Kennedy entered into this negotiation, the
Soviet Union had not only placed nuclear missiles in Cuba--they were in
the process of placing them--but it was occupying Eastern Europe and
trying to spread communism around the world. The bloody Korean war,
where my two brothers served in the U.S. Navy, was a war in which the
Soviets helped the North Koreans against the United States. Yet we sat
down and negotiated with the Soviet Union.
Fast forward a few years. In 1972, then-President Nixon traveled to
Communist Red China to begin establishing normalized relations. China
wasn't a friend of the United States. It was a key supporter of the
North Vietnamese, who were ruthlessly fighting and killing U.S. forces
in Vietnam at that same time.
In fact, during Nixon's visit with then-Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai,
China was sending more weapons to the North Vietnamese. This was
happening even while Nixon was asking China to end its support for the
North Vietnamese.
China's regime was also fomenting Communist revolutionary movements
in Asia, including Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand--all against the
U.S. interests.
Domestically, in China, Chinese leader Mao Zedong had persecuted
millions of his own people as part of the brutal Cultural Revolution. I
recognize, as President Nixon did then, that it is hard to enter into
negotiations with a regime as nefarious as China, and just as with Iran
today, many conservatives denounced Republican President Nixon for
doing so. However, as China's sphere of influence grew and relations
between the United States and the Soviet Union deteriorated, many in
both parties--including President Nixon--recognized it was time to
change.
Nelson Rockefeller, President Nixon's rival for the Republican
nomination in 1968, called for more contact and communication. It was
former Vice President Hubert Humphrey, a Democrat, who proposed the
building of bridges to the people of mainland China. Then-Senator Ted
Kennedy recognized President Nixon's diplomatic efforts toward China as
a ``magnificent gesture.'' Other Members of the Democratic-controlled
Congress agreed.
There was a time when foreign policy was bipartisan. There was a time
when Democrats would speak up defending a Republican President, even
when the most conservative Members of his own party were condemning
him.
Over time, President Nixon's decision paid dividends in America's
interest. China moderated its foreign policy and established better
relations with our country.
These relations aren't perfect, but we know we made progress and we
are in negotiations. China sat with us on the same side of the table
trying to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
More recently in the late 1980s, President Ronald Reagan began
discussions with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on the possibility of
nuclear arms reductions. It was inconceivable when those talks started
in October of 1986 that they could really negotiate. Who would imagine
that these two countries, the United States and the Soviet Union, with
thousands of nuclear warheads pointed at one another, could actually
sit down and reach an agreement limiting the use of nuclear weapons?
The Cold War was far from over at that time.
[[Page S5193]]
In 1979 Soviet forces invaded Afghanistan and continued to attempt to
spread communism. That led President Carter to halt efforts to
negotiate the SALT II Strategic Arms Limitations Treaty. The list of
Soviet aggression at that moment in time was lengthy. Yet it was
President Ronald Reagan who said he would sit down and negotiate with
the Soviet Union.
I have an excerpt here from the January 17, 1988, New York Times
about the opposition Ronald Reagan faced in negotiating an arms
agreement with the Soviet Union. It may sound familiar to what we are
hearing today about President Obama's efforts in Iran.
Already, right-wing groups . . . have mounted a strong
campaign against the INF treaty. They have mailed out close
to 300,000 letters opposing it. They have circulated 5,000
cassette recordings of Gen. Bernard Rogers, former Supreme
Commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization,
attacking it. And finally, they are preparing to run
newspaper ads this month savaging Reagan as a new Neville
Chamberlain, signing an accord with Hitler and gullibly
predicting ``peace for our time.''
These were conservative Republican critics of President Ronald
Reagan, who was negotiating with the Soviet Union to try to limit the
spread of nuclear weapons and was being likened to Neville Chamberlain.
Does that sound familiar?
In May of 1987, the conservative National Review magazine had a cover
with the title ``Reagan's Suicide Pact.''
President Reagan eventually agreed with then-Secretary of State
Schultz that arms control could and would improve U.S. national
security.
In December of 1987, Reagan and Gorbachev signed the Intermediate-
Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, committing the two superpowers to
eliminate all of their nuclear and conventional ground-launched
ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of 500 to 5,500 kilometers.
This treaty, the Reagan-Gorbachev Soviet Union arms control treaty, was
one of the first to rely on extensive onsite negotiations for
verification.
Do you remember who coined the phrase ``trust but verify''? It was
Ronald Reagan in his negotiations with the Soviet Union. It took 5
months after Ronald Reagan reached this agreement for this Chamber to
vote 93 to 5 in favor of that treaty at a time when the Democrats had a
majority. I could go through the long list of Democratic Senators who
supported President Ronald Reagan in his efforts to try to create a
more peaceful world.
Ultimately, because of that agreement, more than 2,000 short-,
medium-, and intermediate-range missiles were destroyed. Our
relationship with the Soviet Union didn't improve overnight, and we
certainly still have our problems with them today. But going back to
what I said earlier, the Russians sat on the same side of the table as
the United States in this negotiation for this agreement to end the
threat, or at least delay the threat, of nuclear power and nuclear
weapons in Iran.
Imagine if 47 Senators, during the course of Ronald Reagan's
negotiation with Gorbachev, had written in the middle of those
negotiations to Mr. Gorbachev and said: Ignore President Ronald Reagan;
don't negotiate with him because we are not going to accept it here in
Congress. If that had happened, there would have been cries of treason
for sending that kind of letter. It didn't happen. Those were the days
when there was a bipartisan approach to foreign policy in the United
States.
Today we have a chance and an opportunity with Iran that hasn't
presented itself for more than 30 years--the opportunity to prevent
Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It is not going to solve all the
problems with Iran overnight, but it does solve, I believe, one
critical problem. The agreement retains U.S. freedom of action to
counter Iran in any part of the world.
After all, if Ronald Reagan didn't stop trying to counter Soviet
actions after negotiating an arms treaty with Gorbachev, President
Obama will not and should not stop working to diminish Iran's influence
after this agreement.
I am under no illusions that for some period Iran did pursue a
nuclear bomb. If that had happened, it would have been disastrous. And
I am under no illusions that Iran lied in the past about these efforts.
I know they did. But the agreement reached last week provides
unprecedented safeguards and inspections to prevent Iran from building
nuclear weapons now or in the future.
The United States and its allies are strong enough to enter into this
agreement, not because Iran is suddenly trustworthy or an open
democracy but because it serves our national security interests to do
it.
Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, and
Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman negotiated this agreement with a
single focus: Prevent Iran from getting any closer to obtaining a
nuclear weapon. They achieved that goal, and that is why I am
supporting this effort by the President to bring a more stable and
peaceful situation to the Middle East.
To appreciate the magnitude of their challenge, let's step back and
take stock of Iran's nuclear weapons program as it is today before this
agreement goes in place. Iran currently has enough nuclear material to
make 10 nuclear weapons. It has more than 19,000 centrifuges, many of
which are more advanced and powerful. Immediately prior to the interim
agreement with the P5+1, Iran was enriching its uranium to 20 percent.
The breakout time--the time it would take for Iran to develop a nuclear
weapon--was estimated to be 3 months. It was an incredibly large and
dangerous nuclear capability, growing at a significant rate, and
virtually unconstrained. That is what this President inherited from the
previous administration.
But thanks to this effort, this agreement cuts off every single one
of Iran's potential pathways to a bomb. It shrinks major portions of
their nuclear infrastructure. It eliminates many parts of it. It
extends the breakout time to at least 1 year. Should Iran renege on
this and decide they are going forward with a nuclear weapon, we
believe that under this agreement it will take them at least a year to
achieve it--a year in which we can put pressure and more, if necessary.
The agreement reduces Iran's uranium stockpile by 98 percent, cuts
its number of centrifuges by more than two-thirds, and for the next 15
years, caps its enrichment at 3.67 percent. It prevents Iran's
underground facility at Fordow from being used for uranium enrichment.
Iran is required to change its heavy water reactor at Arak so that it
can no longer produce weapons-grade plutonium. How will we know?
Because we are helping to design and to monitor the fuel in and out of
this facility and verifying it every step of the way.
All of us have deep suspicions about Iran's nuclear ambitions, and we
should. What if they try to build a secret facility? Well, our
negotiating team, led by an extraordinary man, Secretary of Energy
Moniz, designed a verification plan with no exits. Our team thought
long and hard over the last 2 years about how we might be able to stop
cheating. For every potential technique, they embedded a countermeasure
in the text of the agreement.
This weekend Secretary Moniz explained that it would be ``virtually
impossible'' to hide nuclear activities under this agreement. It is the
strongest nuclear verification system ever imposed on a peaceful
nation. Its end result is that Iran will not be able to do anything of
significance without being caught. And going back to Ronald Reagan, our
inspectors will be on the ground.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. This agreement requires the IAEA to have 24/7 access to
all of Iran's declared nuclear facilities. This means in-person
inspectors, remote cameras, tamperproof seals--all of the world's most
sophisticated detection technologies. As one nuclear expert commented
last week, ``If a rat enters a nuclear facility [in Iran], we will know
it.''
Critically, this intrusive monitoring goes all the way into the
nuclear supply chain, from uranium mines to centrifuge production. We
cover it all in this agreement.
It will allow IAEA inspectors to follow every ounce of uranium from
the ground to its final destination, and every piece of nuclear
infrastructure from its creation to its use. If Iran
[[Page S5194]]
tries to divert anything to a covert facility, we will know.
This agreement also sets up a dedicated procurement channel. Any
dual-use item Iran wants to purchase from the international community
must go through this channel.
The U.S. and its allies have a veto over such purchases. It makes it
almost impossible for Iran to import anything of benefit to a nuclear
weapons program.
Lastly, Iran must also abide by the Additional Protocol forever. This
allows the IAEA to have access to non-nuclear sites in a timely
fashion, in as little as 2 hours. The agreement also requires any
disputes over access to these non-nuclear sites to be resolved in short
order. If not, Iran would be in violation of its commitments and
sanctions could quickly snap back.
Critics have complained about the time period our nuclear experts
negotiated. But as Secretary Moniz and many others with Ph.D.'s have
pointed out, uranium has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. It doesn't
disappear like invisible ink. It cannot be cleaned up in a matter of
weeks. If Iran cheats, we will know.
President Reagan was correct to negotiate with the Soviets when there
were strategic openings and President Obama is doing the same thing
with the Iranians. The potential benefits of this deal are too
significant, and the costs of not doing so too high, to just walk away.
If we walked away, the international sanctions regime would crumble
and Iran would have few if any restrictions on its program. Imposing
more sanctions or simply bombing Iran today would create an even
greater security risk to the region.
In fact, if we bombed Iran today, it would almost certainly withdraw
from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and kick out inspectors. As
soon as that happens, Iran's nationalistic backlash would almost assure
that the regime would build a nuclear bomb. Over the longer term, if
Iran were to fail or cheat despite its international commitment, we
retain the right to use military force and we would be in a much better
position internationally to do so. And accepting this deal does nothing
to stop the U.S. and allied efforts from countering Iran's behavior
elsewhere in the world. Key sanctions on Iran's support for terrorist
groups will remain in place. Our support for regional allies will
remain strong, if not stronger. And, critically, an Iran determined to
destabilize parts of the Middle East with a nuclear weapon in its
arsenal, will no longer be an option.
No doubt this is why some 60 of the most respected names in foreign
policy, Democrats and Republicans alike, recently wrote in support of
this agreement. Those signing included Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright; Secretary of Defense William Perry; Secretary of the Treasury
Paul O'Neill; National Security Advisors Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent
Scowcroft; Under Secretaries of State Nicholas Burns and Thomas
Pickering; U.S. Ambassadors Ryan Crocker and Stuart Eizenstat; U.S.
Senators Tom Daschle, Carl Levin, George Mitchell, Nancy Landon
Kassebaum, and many others. We should do the same and support this
agreement in the Senate.
I see the Senator from South Dakota is here, and I will wrap up.
Let me conclude. When I sat down to read this agreement--and I don't
know how many of my colleagues have--I was struck on the third page
with this statement in the agreement with Iran: Iran reaffirms that
under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any
nuclear weapon. That is quite a statement. It was our goal at this
negotiation. Do I believe it? Some, but I have my doubts. That is why
we had to have an inspections regime from the Iranian mines right
through the production facilities. That is why we had to dramatically
cut back on their capacity to build weapons-grade fuel, and that is why
this agreement is now--most of the countries believe--moving us in the
right direction in Iran.
There are critics. We heard a lot of them here in the Senate. There
isn't a single critic who has stepped up with a better idea. They said:
Well, let's go back to the sanctions regime. The countries that joined
us in that sanctions regime did it to bring Iran to the negotiating
table, and it worked. They now have an agreement they believe in and we
should believe in too. To think that we are going to renew sanctions or
place unilateral sanctions--that to me is not likely to occur if Iran
lives up to the terms of this agreement.
I will add the other alternative. We know the cost of war. We know it
in human lives, we know it in the casualties that return, and we know
it in the cost to the American people. Given a choice between the
invasion of Iran or working in a diplomatic fashion toward a
negotiation so we can lessen this threat in the world, I think
President Obama made the right choice.
I support this administration's decision to go forward with this
agreement. I will be adding my vote to the many in the Senate in the
hopes that we can see a new day dawning and in the hopes too that like
President Nixon and President Reagan and even like other Presidents
before us who have sat down to negotiate with our enemies, at the end
of the day we will be a safer and stronger nation because of it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
____________________