[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 128 (Tuesday, September 8, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6438-S6441]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NUCLEAR AGREEMENT WITH IRAN
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I gave a speech this morning at Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace, and it is, I think, directly how I
feel about this. I am glad it got some coverage this morning.
I ask unanimous consent that the full remarks of the speech I made
this morning at 10 o'clock be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Senator Harry Reid: Remarks on Iran Nuclear Agreement, Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace, Washington, D.C.
When the Senate is gaveled into session a few hours from
now, a debate that has ignited passions from Tehran to Tel
Aviv, from Beijing to Berlin, and from coast to coast across
the United States will take center stage in the world's
greatest deliberative body.
The question at hand is no small matter: Is the agreement
between Iran and the international community, led by the
United States, the best pathway to peace and security for
America, Israel and our partners and interests?
I believe the answer is yes. And today I am gratified to
say to my fellow Americans, our negotiating partners, and our
allies around the world: this agreement will stand. America
will uphold its commitment and we will seize this opportunity
to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
While the formal debate begins this afternoon, the private
negotiations that brought us to this point have been going on
for years--and the public's review of the agreement has gone
on for months.
During that long period, President Obama and Secretary
Kerry were clear in their goals: above all, that the United
States will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon.
The United States also would not sign any agreement that
takes Iran at its word or relies on trust Iran has not
earned.
And at the most difficult crossroads of this time-consuming
and technical negotiation, President Obama and Secretary
Kerry made clear that the hard choices belonged to Iran.
Now it's our turn. Now the United States has a choice to
make: We can enforce an agreement that forces Iran to walk
away from any nuclear-weapons program, or we can walk away
from that agreement and assume responsibility for the
consequences.
We can take the strongest step ever toward blocking Iran
from getting a nuclear bomb, or we can block this agreement
and all but ensure Iran will have the fissile material it
would need to make a bomb in a matter of months. But we
cannot have it both ways.
Make no mistake: blocking the bomb and blocking this
agreement are two distinct choices that lead to very
different futures.
I've spent a lot of time talking, listening, and thinking
about the various elements of this agreement, and so have my
colleagues. I've heard from nuclear scientists, the
intelligence community and our military leaders.
I've listened to diplomats and experts.
I've been briefed by Secretary Kerry and Undersecretary
Sherman, by Secretaries Lew and Moniz--the brilliant nuclear
physicist who knows more than almost anyone of the reality of
this threat, the science behind the agreement and the
agreement itself.
I've heard ardent supporters and passionate opponents. I've
talked with Nevadans from all walks of life. I've spoken with
Israel's leaders, including Prime Minister Netanyahu and
Ambassador Dermer. And I've read the text of this agreement
carefully.
In all my years, I cannot think of another debate with so
much expertise, passions and good faith on both sides.
It is clear to me and to the overwhelming majority of my
caucus that this agreement gives us the best chance to avoid
one of the worst threats in today's world--a nuclear-armed
Iran. In fact, I believe this agreement is not just our best
chance to avert what we fear most--I fear it is our last best
chance to do so.
Before I explain why, let me first acknowledge some of the
people who helped us get to this historic moment.
I mentioned President Obama and his Cabinet Secretaries,
who achieved a remarkable diplomatic breakthrough.
I also want to acknowledge my colleagues, led by Senator
Menendez, who helped set the stage for those negotiations by
rallying the Senate and the world behind sanctions that
brought Iran to the negotiating table.
I also acknowledge Senators Cardin and Corker for their
leadership. The legislation they wrote created the process to
review the agreement in the Congress.
I support this agreement--and the United States Senate will
support President Obama's veto of any effort to undermine
it--for two simple reasons:
First, this agreement will do a tremendous amount of good.
And second, blocking this agreement would lead to a
tremendous amount of bad outcomes.
The bottom line is that enforcing this agreement can
prevent the things we most dread--but undermining it would
permit those very same dreadful consequences.
And those consequences are, in fact, unacceptable.
We all recognize the threat Iran poses to Israel, with
powerful weapons and hateful words, with anti-Semitic smears
and pledges of the Jewish state's destruction. No one can
underestimate this menace. And no one should dismiss how much
more dangerous Iran would be in this regard if it were armed
with a nuclear bomb.
We also recognize the threat of the Iranian Revolutionary
Guard Corps--the threat from Iran's support for Hezbollah and
Assad--of Iran's brazen human rights violations toward its
own people and the Americans it holds as political prisoners
and those who have disappeared. We recognize the danger Iran
poses
[[Page S6439]]
to our allies, our interests, and our own troops and
diplomats serving in the Middle East.
No one is blind to the threat Iran poses. But again, no one
should forget that Iran would become a threat of an entirely
different magnitude if it ever were to have a nuclear weapon.
I cannot think of a single challenge in the region that
wouldn't get worse in that nightmare scenario.
That is why our goal, first and foremost, must be to keep
Iran from getting its hands on one.
We have no illusions about the Iranian regime--which is
exactly why when we are presented with the best way to stop
its nuclear ambitions, we must not let that chance slip
through our fingers. We must support and enforce the
agreement we have reached.
The agreement that Congress now assumes the responsibility
to review does a better job than any other proposal of
reducing Iran's chance to get a bomb.
When our negotiators came to the table, they did so with
Andrew Carnegie's advice in mind. The man who gave his name
and fortune to this institution once said that ``our duty is
with what is practicable now--with the next step possible in
our day and generation.''
In our day, we know it is not practical to bomb away
knowledge of how to build a nuclear weapon or erase that
knowledge with sanctions. So our negotiators said, even
though we cannot take away the recipe to build a bomb, we can
take away both the ingredients and the use of equipment to
cook one. That's what we're doing--but only if the United
States upholds and enforces this agreement.
The good news is this agreement does more than take away
Iran's ability to build a bomb--it gives us the ability to
watch its every move.
Through strict limits and intrusive inspections, this
agreement takes away Iran's highly enriched material, and
takes away Iran's ability to make more of it.
This agreement takes away Iran's ability to build any
facilities or fissile material secretly and with impunity.
The agreement Iran signed forbids it from pursuing,
building, or having a nuclear weapon ever. There is no
expiration date on that commitment--and it is not grounded in
any way in trust.
This isn't a peace treaty with Iran or a gift out of the
goodness of our hearts. If we trusted Iran, we wouldn't need
the video cameras and inspectors and seals and all manner of
technology to make sure Iran complies.
We're not asking Iran to promise us anything and taking it
at its word--we are demanding Iran prove to us it is
complying with every last letter of this agreement.
Before it gets sanctions relief, Iran has to take specific
actions. And if it doesn't happen, as some fear, sanctions
will be imposed on Iran.
We have done everything possible to make sure that if Iran
cheats, we'll know, we'll know quickly, and we'll act
immediately and with the international community behind us.
That makes us safer. That makes Israel safer. That makes
the world safer. That's what nuclear experts around the world
know, what diplomats know, and what the overwhelming majority
of my caucus knows. That is why this agreement will stand.
And to make sure this agreement succeeds, Congress must
provide the oversight to ensure monitoring and enforce
verification. At the same time, Congress must continue to
hold the line against Iranian arms trafficking, its funding
of terrorism, and demanding the return of Americans who have
been taken as political prisoners and those who disappeared--
priorities that were never meant to be part of this
negotiation but must never be forgotten.
This agreement offers a number of different ways to cut off
Iran's pathways to a bomb. There is, on the other hand, one
surefire way to open Iran's path to destruction--and that is
to reject this agreement.
As I mentioned, the second reason I support this agreement
is because of what happens if we walk away from it. That
would leave Iran with no limitations on any nuclear weapons
program and leave the United States with no leverage to do
anything about it.
If we walk away from the agreement we helped secure, think
about what happens the very next day: Iran gets to keep as
many centrifuges as it wants, and build as many more as it
would like. Iran gets to build its stockpile of the kind of
uranium and plutonium you'd need to build a bomb. Iran gets
to test more advanced technologies that bring it closer to a
bomb--and to do so as quickly as it wants. And when those
weapons are ready, Iran gets to point them at Israel--or
worse, launch them and make good on its threat to wipe Israel
off the map.
Iran also gets to kick out the inspectors and hide all of
this from the world.
Forget worries about 15 years or 20 years from now. All of
this is what would happen tomorrow.
If we walk away from this agreement, the international
sanctions regime also falls apart, meaning the tool Congress
imposed to bring Iran to the table disappears from our
arsenal.
Sanctions don't work if it's our idea alone--the world has
to be on the same page. Here's why: America doesn't do
business with Iran. We haven't for decades. But other
countries made their own economic sacrifices in the name of
pressuring Iran--and now they want to buy Iran's oil and
trade with it.
So as much as we'd like for the sanctions that brought Iran
to the table to also bring Iran to its knees, it's only with
international cooperation that sanctions actually do
anything. Like it or not, we need our partners in this
effort. And our partners have told us in no uncertain terms
that if the United States walks away, we'll walk away alone.
Sanctions have isolated Iran and brought us to this moment.
But if we squander it and turn our backs on our international
partners, it is we--the United States--who will be isolated.
And worse, we would surrender our leverage to negotiate in
the future.
Put it all together, and what does it mean if America
blocks this agreement instead of blocking Iran's pathways to
a bomb? It means Iran gets more money and more impunity to
develop a nuclear weapon. It means we get far less scrutiny
and far less security. It means we'll have put ourselves at a
disadvantage at the very moment we let Iran become more
dangerous.
Of course we still have the military option. President
Obama has been crystal clear about that. But military strikes
cannot solve this problem nearly as effectively as the
solution before us today. Clearly, a military option could
also come with significant costs and risks for both Israel
and the United States. After all, that's why diplomacy is our
first resort and the military option is our last.
This is why I believe blocking the agreement would actually
achieve the opposite of what opponents intend. Instead of
being tougher on Iran, voting against this agreement is a
vote against a smart international sanctions regime, against
inspections, against any international requirement that Iran
backs off its nuclear program in any way. Blocking this
agreement pushes the Iranians closer to a bomb rather than
pushing it farther away.
General Brent Scowcroft's national-security expertise
served four Republican presidents. As he said, we would be
sowing further turmoil in the Middle East rather than seizing
a chance and a responsibility to stabilize it. That would be
a tragedy of our own making--one we cannot allow.
I respect greatly the concerns I've heard about what this
agreement means for Israel. I believe this agreement makes
Israel safer, and in no small part that is why I support it.
Over my decades in the Senate, my support for the safety
and security of the Israeli people has been at the core of my
views on the Middle East and the national security of the
United States. From the Bonds for Israel dinners I attended
50 years ago, to the history of my own wife's family, my
support for the State of Israel and the Jewish people has
been personal and unimpeachable. And I have not been afraid
to disagree with the President of the United States when it
comes to Israel, whether on settlements or when the
Administration opposed Congress passing specific sanctions.
We must build on our firm commitment to make sure Israel
can defend itself. It will take more money and military
support, but we must provide the one true democracy in the
region and the one and only Jewish state in the world with
the resources it needs.
The United States must also maintain its staunch support of
Israel, including by using our veto in the United Nations for
resolutions that isolate Israel unfairly or make it less
secure.
I have read closely the letter that Secretary Kerry sent to
the Senate on September 2. That letter lays out a number of
important steps that the United States would take to support
Israel's security.
One of those steps is protecting Israel's Qualitative
Military Edge. Another is negotiating a new ten-year
Memorandum of Understanding on military assistance. And yet
another step is continuing to work with Israel on joint
efforts to deal with shared threats, as well as confronting
both conventional and asymmetric threats.
I've also closely reviewed the legislation that Senator
Cardin is proposing, which will provide additional security
assistance and assurances to Israel.
After looking at the letter and the legislation, I plan
work with the White House and with both Democrats and
Republicans to guarantee that the United States is doing
everything possible to protect the safety and security of
Israel.
And as the Administration has promised, we'll continue
funding the missile-defense system that has already saved so
many Israeli civilian lives. We'll also grow our strategic
relationship even stronger, collaborating to detect and
destroy tunnels used to terrorize Israeli civilians.
Now, after all the good this agreement will do in blocking
Iran's pathways to a bomb--after all the dangers rejecting it
will do by letting Iran grow more dangerous while our clout
and credibility slip down the drain--after all the assurances
that our commitment to Israel's security is stronger than
ever--after all that, some still say they want a better deal.
But there is no such thing. There is no more plausible
alternative. There is no better deal.
Opponents of this agreement, who I respect, talk often
about how very real the Iranian threat is to Israel and the
region--and it absolutely is. But for all the talk about what
is real, the idea that we can somehow get a better deal is
imaginary.
Diplomats, scientists and our international counterparts
tell us it is fantasy. The agreement before us is the result
of many years of hard work. We live in the real world--and in
[[Page S6440]]
the real world, this really is the best option to keep Iran
from a nuclear bomb.
Let me say a brief word about the details of getting this
done.
The Senate, of course, has an important oversight role to
play. When we voted nearly unanimously for the Iran Review
Act, we voted to give the Senate that role. We voted to
consider three possible outcomes: no action at all, a
resolution of approval, or a resolution of disapproval. It is
absurd to argue--as some are doing now--that by voting for a
process with three possible and very different outcomes,
senators somehow obligated themselves to vote to advance a
specific outcome. They did no such thing.
I hope we can avoid the usual and unnecessary procedural
hurdles. Democrats have already agreed to forgo our
opportunity to filibuster, and I've offered Leader McConnell
the chance to go straight to a vote on passage of the
resolution. But of course, as he has noted many times in the
past, everything of importance in the Senate requires 60
votes. So passage will require 60 votes.
There is no precedent in recent history for an issue of
this magnitude getting consideration in the Senate without
having to secure 60 votes. This is not about how any one
leader manages the floor--this is a precedent stretching back
decades.
Finally, of all the many important things at stake here,
American leadership is one of them.
After convening our international partners in common cause,
rallying the world behind tough sanctions, after negotiating
and negotiating and negotiating some more--the way America
acts now will inform the way we are viewed on the world stage
and the credibility with which we can negotiate in the
future.
If America reneges on this agreement, we will lose more
than the compliance of our adversary--we will lose the
confidence of our allies.
America led the negotiations to stop any Iranian nuclear
program, and now it is time for Congress to reaffirm
America's leadership by supporting this agreement. We cannot
and will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Neither the
United States, nor Israel, our Gulf partners, a volatile
Middle East, or anyone in the world can risk that danger. I
believe it is our responsibility to avoid that threat.
Let's heed Andrew Carnegie's reminder of our duty to
respect what is practical and to respond with pragmatic
solutions--solutions like the one before us. As he said,
``When a statesman has in his keeping the position and
interests of his country, it is not with things as they are
to be in the future, but with things as they are in the
present.''
The agreement on the table at present is a good one.
It is our best chance to ensure Iran never builds the worst
weapon on earth. I will do everything in my power to make
sure it is enforced and effective--to make sure, in turn, we
are safer and more secure--in our day and generation, and in
the days and generations to come.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I note that there are a lot of things in
this speech that I think are important, but the one thing certainly
that is so vitally important is that no one has come up with an
alternative. Any alternative is imaginary. It is fantasy land. I speak
about that in my remarks.
Today we face one of the most critical national security issues of
our time: whether to support the Iran agreement which would stop Iran
from getting a nuclear weapon. That is what the agreement is--to stop
Iran from getting nuclear weapons.
From the beginning, Senate Democrats have done everything possible to
move the debate on the Iran agreement forward in the quickest way
possible. We agreed to skip procedural votes and allow the Senate to
begin debate on the resolution itself. And today I am proposing that
the Senate move forward in the most efficient way possible. I am
proposing that after the Senate concludes 3 days of serious debate on
this issue, we then move to a vote on passage of the resolution, of
course with a 60-vote threshold. But Republicans are insisting that the
Senate go through all procedural steps, including cloture, on their own
bill.
As the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, has stated numerous
times--not a few times, not many times, but numerous times--requiring
60 votes on matters of enormous importance is simply ``the way the
Senate operates.''
Here are a few examples of the statements he has made. I could spend
literally all afternoon talking about quotes that are very similar to
what I am about to recite. July 30, 2011, Senator McConnell:
Now, look, we know that on controversial matters in the
Senate, it has for quite some time required 60 votes. So I
would say again to my friend--
That is me--
it is pretty hard to make a credible case that denying a vote
on your own proposal is anything other than a filibuster.
Listen, everybody, that is what Senator McConnell said. Again, just a
few days later:
I wish to make clear to the American people Senate
Republicans are ready to vote on cloture on the Reid proposal
in 30 minutes, in an hour, as soon as we can get our
colleagues over to the floor. We are ready to vote. By
requiring 60 votes, particularly on a matter of this enormous
importance, is not at all unusual. It is the way the Senate
operates.
Again he came back a few months later:
Mr. President, I can only quote my good friend the majority
leader who repeatedly has said, most recently in 2007, that
in the Senate it has always been the case we need 60 votes.
This is my good friend the majority leader when he was the
leader of this majority in March of 2007, and he said it
repeatedly both when he was in the minority as leader of the
minority or leader of the majority, that it requires 60 votes
certainly on measures that are controversial.
He also said a short time later:
So who gets to decide who is wasting time around here? None
of us. None of us have that authority to decide who is
wasting time. But the way you make things happen is you get
60 votes at some point, and you move a matter to conclusion,
and the best way to do that is to have an open amendment
process. That is the way this place used to operate.
So says Senator McConnell.
A few months later:
Madam President, reserving the right to object, what we are
talking about is a perpetual debt ceiling grant, in effect,
to the President. Matters of this level of controversy always
require 60 votes. So I would ask my friend--
That is me--
if he would modify his consent request to set the threshold
for this vote at 60?
We could fill in month by month, but let's go to August 6 of this
year, just a short time ago:
Well, as we all know, it takes 60 votes to do everything
except the budget process. We anticipate having a vote to
proceed to the 20-week Pain-Capable bill sometime before the
end of the year as well.
Recently, the Republican leader told his own Senators and
conservative news outlets that any attempts to defund Planned
Parenthood or repeal ObamaCare would need at least 60 votes. So why is
the Iran agreement any different? It isn't.
Even more perplexing is that some would argue that because the Senate
passed the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, all Senators would then
be obligated to vote for any cloture vote. Voting for the Iran Nuclear
Agreement Review Act was a vote to review the agreement, not a
commitment to vote either for or against it. Voting for the Iran review
act did not commit any Senator to take a particular position on the
Iran agreement. Voting for the Iran review act was simply a vote to
review the Iran agreement, and that is what we have done. It was a vote
for three possible outcomes: a resolution of approval, a resolution of
disapproval, or no action at all. It did not and does not obligate
Senators to advance any one result. The Iran review act clearly
included a 60-vote threshold for either a resolution of approval or
disapproval. That is it. Every Senator knew that. For any Senator to
suggest otherwise is absurd and factually wrong. Incorrect.
No Senator who voted for the Iran review act voted to give up the 60-
vote threshold. In fact, everyone who voted for it actually voted for
the 60-vote threshold. In fact, one Republican Member, the junior
Senator from Arkansas, said the reason he didn't vote for it is because
it required a 60-vote threshold.
If, however, we are forced to have a vote on cloture, it will be
because the Republican leader has rejected Democrats' reasonable and
responsible proposal.
There is not on either side of this aisle a more respected U.S.
Senator than the Senator from Virginia, Tim Kaine. He was coauthor of
the Iran nuclear agreement, referred to properly as the Iran Nuclear
Agreement Review Act. He said this morning:
I was the co-author of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review
Act under which Congress is considering the international
agreement to prohibit Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
The bipartisan bill--to give Congress a deliberate and
constructive review of the final nuclear agreement with
Iran--was drafted so that 60 votes would be required in the
Senate to pass either a motion of approval or a motion of
disapproval.
Let me read this again. One of the people who helped write this bill,
a respected Member of this body, said:
I was the co-author of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review
Act under which Congress
[[Page S6441]]
is considering the international agreement to prohibit Iran
from obtaining nuclear weapons. The bipartisan bill--to give
Congress a deliberate and constructive review of the final
nuclear agreement with Iran--was drafted so that 60 votes
would be required in the Senate to pass either a motion of
approval or a motion of disapproval.
He continued:
We should follow the procedure that was explicitly
discussed and agreed to when we voted on this act, which
passed the Senate 98 to 1.
That is a direct quote from one of the authors of this legislation.
It was never any Senator's intention to forgo the 60-vote threshold.
Republicans are trying to pull a bait-and-switch that is born out of
desperation. They haven't had a good August; let's face it.
Are Republicans stalling on this issue so they don't have to work
with Democrats to keep our government open and funded? There wasn't a
day that went by during the recess that we didn't have some Republican
Senator talk about closing the government. Every time that happened,
the Republican leader would say: Well, we are not going to do that. So
there is a lot of talk among Republican circles about the Republicans
doing everything they can to force votes on things that have nothing to
do with funding this government long term. So are Republicans stalling
on this issue so they don't have to work with Democrats to keep our
government open and funded? Do they want to wait until the last minute
to jam us with something?
Are Republicans stalling on this issue so they don't have to work
with us on a bipartisan cyber security bill? Every day that goes by
without legislation in this body is a day that bad guys are doing bad
things to our businesses and to our country--stealing our names and
addresses, trade secrets, everything they can, is what they are doing.
Perhaps Republicans are stalling on this critical legislation so they
don't have to address our distressed infrastructure, insolvent highway
system, crumbling roads and bridges?
I hope that instead of forcing the Senate to jump through unnecessary
procedural hurdles, the Republicans will join with the Senate Democrats
and agree to vote on final passage.
It takes a lot of nerve for the Republican leader, after the numerous
speeches he has given about the 60-vote threshold on everything
important--is he suggesting this Iran agreement is not important?
Let's hope that instead of forcing the Senate to jump through
unnecessary procedural hurdles--in fact, the Republicans are
filibustering their own resolution. I hope they will join with Senate
Democrats and agree to vote on final passage.
____________________