[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 115 (Wednesday, July 22, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5447-S5448]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      NUCLEAR AGREEMENT WITH IRAN

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, throughout the history of the Republic, 
certain decisive moments have fundamentally altered the national 
security of the United States. For good or for ill, these moments have 
defined eras of time and changed the course of history. These landmarks 
include President Roosevelt's decision to turn the United States into 
an arsenal of democracy to defeat fascism; President Truman's adoption 
of a strategy to confront communism and rebuild Europe; President 
Nixon's initiative to open up relations with China; and President 
Reagan's policies that led to the fall of the Soviet Union.
  Other such moments reflect serious errors in judgment, mistakes that 
continue to echo today. One recent example is President Obama's 
decision to remove U.S. forces from Iraq prematurely. This shortsighted 
move squandered the gains of the surge and plunged Iraq into chaos, 
leading to the rise of the Islamic State. Another especially 
instructive example is in the Clinton administration's fumbled attempt 
to block North Korea's development of nuclear weapons. Back then, I 
came out strongly against the Agreed Framework with North Korea. Sure 
enough, that naive diplomatic effort created barely a speed bump, as 
the fanatical North Korean regime raced ahead in building a nuclear 
arsenal.

  President Obama's nuclear deal was clearly one such landmark moment 
in American foreign policy, but the question remains: Is it a crowning 
achievement of American diplomacy or is it a grave mistake that we will 
all come to regret dearly? I think we have to find out.
  Since the President's announcement of the agreement, I have 
endeavored to examine it carefully and thoroughly, and I look forward 
to the review process led by the chairman of the Foreign Relations 
Committee, who has promised a full and fair scrutiny of this particular 
deal.
  Nevertheless, my initial review has raised serious questions about 
whether this agreement forecloses Iran's path to a nuclear weapon. If 
left unanswered, these concerns lead me to believe that this agreement 
could end up being a catastrophic mistake.
  Time and again, the Obama administration has promised that this 
agreement will add stability to the region. However, the details lead 
me to believe that the deal will, in fact, seriously destabilize the 
region.
  If the deal is implemented, $150 billion in Iranian assets that are 
currently frozen in the world's financial institutions will be once 
again made available to the regime, which is a prime benefactor of 
terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. These terrorist groups 
continually threaten one of our closest allies, and of course that is 
Israel.
  The fact that much of this money will be used to promote 
international terrorism is not even disputed by the Obama 
administration. Just this past weekend, President Obama's National 
Security Advisor, Susan Rice, stated: ``We should expect that some 
portion of that money would go to the Iranian military and could be 
potentially used for the kinds of bad behavior that we've seen in the 
region up until now.''
  While I am troubled that the administration now uses a term such as 
``bad behavior'' to describe international terrorism, Ms. Rice is 
undoubtedly right about where this money will go.
  Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute points out what 
happened when the European Union previously opened trade with Iran as 
an incentive for Tehran to moderate its behavior. Iran's response was 
to take ``that hard currency windfall and put it disproportionately 
into its covert nuclear and ballistic missile program.''
  As such, by implementing this agreement, the United States will 
permit the financing of international terrorism not only against 
Americans but also against our closest allies, including Israel. But 
funding terrorism is just for starters. This agreement also removes the 
conventional arms embargo against Iran after 5 years. Reportedly, the 
Russians were particularly intent upon this clause. They stand to 
benefit if the Iranians spend some of their $150 billion windfall to 
buy Russian arms. In fact, Russia has already committed to sell them 
its highly sophisticated S-300 surface-to-air missile system. This 
highly capable weapon system could protect Iran's nuclear sites if the 
regime violates the agreement. Moreover, this agreement also lifts the 
ballistic missile embargo against Iran after 8 years. This is an 
incredibly troubling development.
  My examination of the deal also brings into question whether the 
administration achieved our primary objective: preventing Iran from 
producing enough fissile material to build a nuclear weapon. For years 
Iranians have stockpiled advanced centrifuges to produce this material. 
Yet this deal does not force them to part with this critical equipment. 
In fact, after 8 years under this agreement, the Iranians will be able 
to begin building and stockpiling more than 200 advanced centrifuges a 
year.
  Moreover, the means to deploy a nuclear device were not fully 
addressed by this deal. The agreement mentions that Iran will not 
pursue activities that could contribute to the design and development 
of a nuclear explosive device, but it fails to detail most of the 
specific tools, equipment, materials, and components that are necessary 
to manufacture and fabricate a nuclear explosive device.
  This is not a done deal. Eleven weeks ago, 98 Senators voted for the 
Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. While far from perfect, this 
bipartisan legislation gave Congress a vital say in whether this Iran 
deal goes forward. Let us not waste this opportunity. Those who served 
before us did not shirk their responsibility to weigh in on the serious 
foreign policy decisions of their day.
  I urge all of my colleagues in this great body to stand with me in 
examining this agreement with great caution about its implications for 
the security of the United States and our allies in the region.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page S5448]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is in morning business.
  Mr. BROWN. I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent to be joined in 
a colloquy with Senator Merkley of Oregon and Senator Coons of 
Delaware.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________