[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.

                          ____________________