[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12302-12306]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           BRING JOBS HOME ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture 
vote with respect to the Carnes nomination now occur at 1:45 p.m. 
today, with all other provisions of the previous order remaining in 
effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            The Middle East

  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, it is my understanding later today we 
are going to have an opportunity to approve a resolution that was voted 
out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday that deals with 
the tragic events in the Middle East between Israel and Hamas. I just 
want to

[[Page 12303]]

read part of that resolution, the action part of the resolution, 
because I hope it expresses the views of each Member of the Senate.
  It reaffirms the Senate's support for Israel's right to defend its 
citizens and ensure the survival of the State of Israel. It condemns 
the unprovoked rocket fire at Israel. It calls on Hamas to immediately 
cease all rocket and other attacks against Israel. It calls upon the 
Palestinian Authority of President Abbas to dissolve the unity 
governing arrangement with Hamas and condemn the attacks on Israel.
  We all are very concerned about the tragic consequences of the 
conflict between Israel and Hamas. Our strongest desire is that we can 
end the attacks and the missiles and that we can get Israel and the 
Palestinians to negotiate a peace agreement, a lasting agreement for 
two states living side-by-side, the Jewish State of Israel and a 
Palestinian State.
  But the recent military action taken by the Israel Defense Forces in 
Gaza is a direct response to Hamas's barrage of rockets and mortar 
attacks against civilian targets in Israel. Labeled as a terrorist 
organization, Hamas is directly responsible for the innocent loss of 
life of both Israelis and Palestinians. It is very tragic what Israel 
is doing it is doing so to defend its civilian population from the 
incoming rockets.
  What Hamas is doing is indiscriminately sending missiles into Israel, 
targeting innocent populations. Hamas's actions to extend its reach 
deeper into Israel and its failure to end continuing attacks undermine 
efforts to attain peace and security in the region.
  The Israel Defense Forces began Operation Protective Edge Tuesday, 
July 8, with one goal, one goal in mind; that is, to stop Hamas's 
continued rocket attacks against Israel's civilians. Since the start of 
the operation, there have been over 1,000 rockets that have been 
launched into Israel. Most of those rockets hit targets. Fortunately, 
they were not major population centers because of Iron Dome. I thank 
the policy of this country, the United States, in providing Israel the 
Iron Dome missile defense system, which has been responsible for 
bringing down approximately 200 of the rockets that otherwise would 
have hit population centers in Israel.
  Earlier this week, Egypt proposed an immediate cease-fire, followed 
by a series of meetings in Cairo with high-level delegations from both 
sides. Israel accepted that cease-fire immediately. They said: Fine. 
Let's do it. We want to stop the attacks of rockets into our country. 
We want to have a discussion for peace. They did it immediately. For 6 
hours the IDF suspended operations against Hamas, but during this time 
Hamas fired 50 rockets into Israel. So the Israel Defense Forces were 
ordered to resume attacks against terrorist targets following continued 
inbound rockets and Hamas's official statement that it rejected the 
cease-fire.
  I think what Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on CBS's 
``Face the Nation'' on Sunday sums it up best. I am quoting from the 
Prime Minister: The difference between us is that we are using missiles 
to protect our civilians and they are using their civilians to protect 
their missiles.
  In other words, what Hamas is doing is putting its missile locations 
in population centers, in schools, in hospitals, in mosques, in a 
direct way to use human shields. What a difference. Israel is trying to 
protect its civilian population. Hamas is putting their civilian 
population at great risk.
  Hamas must end its rocket and mortar attacks, recognize Israel's 
right to exist, renounce violence, and honor all past agreements to 
peacefully move toward a two-state solution. That is what we want to 
see. I strongly support Israel's right to defend its citizens against 
threats to its security and existence. Hamas must end. It must be 
marginalized. It cannot be allowed to continue its terrorist 
activities. We must find a way to advance a stable and lasting peace 
between Israel and the Palestinian people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I would like to concur with the comments 
of my friend, the Senator from Maryland, on the tragedy in Israel and 
the Middle East. I also want to say a special thanks to my friend, the 
Senator from Tennessee, for allowing me to jump in line for a moment.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2265

  Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I rise to say that I think it is abhorrent 
and I think most American people would be greatly distressed to know 
that some of their money could be sent to terrorist organizations, that 
some of their money could be sent to Hamas.
  Hamas has now joined a unity government with the Palestinian 
Authority. We give several hundred million dollars a year to the 
Palestinian Authority. I am appalled to think we could be somehow 
indirectly paying for missiles that Hamas is launching on Israel. I 
support the resolution that will shortly come forward condemning 
Hamas's activities.
  I want more teeth in this. I would like to see legislation that says: 
You know what. If Hamas wants to come out of the cold, they want to 
recognize Israel and renounce terror, maybe. But if they are going to 
continue to say, as one of their leaders said recently, that our path 
is resistance and a rifle, our choice is jihad, if Hamas is going to 
continue to laugh and to cheer with glee with the killing of three 
teenage Israeli citizens, one of whom was an American citizen, Hamas 
should not--and we should guarantee that Hamas should not--get any of 
our money. So I will ask for unanimous consent to pass a bill to 
guarantee that Hamas will not receive any of our foreign aid.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be 
discharged from further consideration of S. 2265 and that the Senate 
proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask unanimous consent 
that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider 
be made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I know the Senator from Kentucky tried 
to have this bill heard this week in a business meeting. I know the 
Senator knows I supported that effort to cause this bill to be marked 
up in the Foreign Relations Committee, which is where it should be 
dealt with.
  I thank him for his concern about foreign aid. I think he has brought 
a voice to the Senate which has raised many concerns about how we are 
spending taxpayer money. I thank him for raising some of the issues he 
has brought forth. As it relates to the bill itself, I have spoken to 
officials from Israel. I know one of the goals is to do something that 
complements Israel and helps Israel.
  I know they have some concerns with the way it is constructed and 
actually, in many ways if this bill were to become law, it would create 
a heightened security problem for Israel. So we have had a constructive 
conversation I think on the floor. I would like to talk with the 
Senator a little bit further about some potential changes to the 
legislation. I think that would be more appropriate than passing it by 
unanimous consent. I thank him again for his nature, the way he works 
with all of us. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a 
colloquy with the Senator from Tennessee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                  Iran

  Mr. GRAHAM. I know the Senator is supposed to be chairing a hearing 
here in a moment. But the Senator is the ranking member on Foreign 
Relations. I wish to compliment the Senator from Tennessee and Senator 
Menendez. The Senators have been a very effective team. The subject 
matter is Iran. July 20 will be here shortly.
  I ask Senator Corker, what is his view of where we stand with the 
Iranian nuclear program and what are his concerns?
  Mr. CORKER. First of all, no one has taken a more important role in 
our foreign policy and security issues than

[[Page 12304]]

the Senator from South Carolina. I thank him for that. I know on my 
last trip to Afghanistan, he was there serving his Reserve duty. I 
thank the Senator for the many contributions to all of these debates. I 
want to say that I think, similar to many in this body, when the 
initial agreement was put forth and it had a 6-month extension on it, 
there was a lot of concern. What I am concerned about, and the Senator 
from South Carolina I think may share some of this, is that what we are 
going to end up with are a series of rolling interim agreements.
  What we have is Iran doing everything they can to evade sanctions 
that have been put in place. We have countries that see the opportunity 
possibly for Iran to come out from under being a rogue state. I am 
worried we are putting ourselves in a situation where we are losing all 
of the leverage Congress, working with the administration, but Congress 
led on in putting these sanctions in place.
  We are coming up on July 20. I was very disappointed that, in essence 
in March, the administration agreed to the fact that Iran would be able 
to have centrifuges to enrich uranium. It was something that, to me, at 
the beginning of a negotiation, to give one of the biggest things one 
can possibly give to a country such as Iran on the front end, put us in 
a very bad position.
  But here is my concern: It is July 17. This agreement ends on July 
20. I believe we are losing the leverage that all of us worked so hard 
to put in place. I am worried the coalition we have is dissipating. It 
feels to me as though Iran is rope-a-doping us on this agreement.
  What I hope is going to happen--I know the Senator and I are going to 
be in a briefing later today. I hope the administration is going to 
share with us, very clearly, what the gaps are between where they are 
and where Iran is.
  It is my hope that gap is going to be very narrow. I do not think 
that is going to be the case. My sense is the administration is going 
to ask for an extension over the next few days. That concerns me. Here 
is what I hope Congress will do: I hope Congress somehow will have the 
ability, through the majority leader's efforts and all of us on the 
floor, to weigh in on any final agreement that is put in place. I think 
that is very important. I know the Senator tried to produce legislation 
to make that happen. I have done the same thing.
  Secondly, I hope the administration will agree there will be no more 
extensions, period. I am pretty sure they are going to be asking for 
one. It is unfortunate. When you put in place an agreement on the front 
end that you have that ability, it then creates the essence that it 
does not create the focus, if you will, that is necessary to bring this 
to a conclusion.
  Again, what I hope will happen is that Congress will have a final say 
on any removal of sanctions--any removal of sanctions. But my hope is 
that before any type of sanctions relief takes place, Congress will 
have the opportunity to weigh in. I had a long conversation yesterday 
with our lead negotiator. I shared these same concerns, that I just 
feel the moment slipping away from us. I think all of us want to see a 
diplomatic solution. I do not think there is anybody on this floor that 
wants to see anything less than a great result diplomatically.
  But I think many of us are concerned we are losing our leverage, time 
is slipping away, the coalition is dissipating. Some of the parties, as 
the Senator knows, have differing interests now. We have had some 
conflicts arise over the course of time where we are at significant 
odds with some of our partners in these negotiations.
  With Russia we have the issue in Ukraine and Crimea. With China we 
have issues in the South and East China Sea. So all of this is making 
me very concerned about our ability to reach a diplomatic solution, 
even though I want more than anything--on this issue, more than 
anything, I want us to have a solid diplomatic solution that allows us 
to go forward and know that Iran does not have the ability to break out 
and become a nuclear threat to the region, to the world, and certainly 
create instability.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his leadership. We 
are working together. We hope to make this bipartisan. If there is an 
agreement reached with the Iranians--and I agree, I hope there will be, 
that Congress can have a say about that agreement.
  President Obama felt as though he needed to come to Congress to get 
approval to enter into Syria. The Senator led the effort to pass the 
resolution in the Foreign Relations Committee, the Senator and Senator 
Menendez working together. The Senator from Tennessee delivered 
Republican votes to try to help the President. He drew a red line and 
nothing happened.
  So if he believes he needs input from the Congress about going to 
Syria, I hope the President will understand that the Congress wants 
input when it comes to the Iranian nuclear program. As a matter of 
fact, I hope we will demand it, because of all the decisions President 
Obama will make in his two terms as President, on the foreign policy 
front this is the most consequential.
  Why do I say this? The Iranian regime with a nuclear capability is a 
nightmare for the world.
  Does Senator Corker agree with me, based on his travels in the 
region, that if we allowed the Iranians to have a robust enrichment 
capability--and what am I talking about is taking uranium and enriching 
it to the point where they can use it for commercial fuel to run a 
nuclear power reactor. The problem with enrichment is you can go beyond 
making commercial grade fuel. You can actually use that process to make 
a bomb. Without enrichment capability you can't make the bomb.
  So they are demanding the right to enrich and it was given away in 
March. It was a huge mistake.
  If you made a list of countries you would not trust to enrich 
uranium--based on their behavior and disruptive nature--I would put 
Iran on the top of the list. My fear is that we are about to do with 
the Iranians what we did with the North Koreans--that you have a deal 
on paper that gives them an enrichment capability to be contained by 
U.N. inspection. And in North Korea the rest is history.
  When it comes to the Iranians, I am not going to turn our fate over, 
as a nation, to a bunch of U.N. inspectors trying to contain their 
uranium enrichment program. I know Israel will not.
  But this is the ripple effect. Does the Senator agree with me that 
any right to enrich we give to the Shia Persians in Iran, the Sunni 
Arabs are going to insist on an equivalent right?
  Mr. CORKER. The Senator is exactly right. I was in the region this 
year, and there is tremendous concern about, obviously, Iran breaking 
out in this regard. Candidly, there are many conversations about ways 
for them to compensate for that because they obviously want a counter 
to Iran's being a nuclear-armed country.
  As you know, with some of the proliferation that takes place, there 
are ways of buying those capabilities without even developing them 
yourself. So, yes, that is a major concern.
  Our friend, Senator Menendez, on the other side of the aisle--with 
whom you work so closely--I certainly don't want to speak for him, but 
I use a frame of reference that he has used on so many occasions; that 
is, it is one thing to dismantle their ability to enrich and produce a 
nuclear weapon and it is a whole different thing to just mothball.
  What I fear is that we are creating a situation where, again, we have 
these countries that come together, we have the sanctions that are in 
place, and we let those sanctions dissipate. Then all of a sudden--and 
I think the Senator knows already--the economy in Iran is picking up 
and inflation has dropped if you allow those to dissipate.
  It took a lot of effort to put these sanctions in place. Again, there 
are a lot of differing interests today that didn't exist when these 
were put in place. Then all of a sudden we have a situation where they 
break out again because they have those capabilities. They have 
mothballed; they have not been dismantled. Not to speak of the

[[Page 12305]]

fact that we don't know what is going on in Parchin--we don't know what 
may happen with the Arak facility.
  Again, I hope the administration will be very clear about the gaps 
that exist today. My sense is they are going to extend and, again, I 
have grave concerns about what that is going to mean relative to 
getting to a good end.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Along those lines, Senator Menendez has been one of the 
leading voices in the Senate and in the Nation about having a cautious 
eye toward Iran.
  They have an enrichment capability. Over the last decade it has grown 
moderately.
  This idea of moderate voices in Iran--the President of Iran was 
elected as a moderate. I don't believe that dichotomy really exists. 
This whole game of good cop/bad cop is going on in front of our eyes--
in this case good president/bad ayatollah.
  The ayatollah, the Supreme Leader of Iran, weighed in a few days ago 
talking about centrifuges 10 times greater than they have today. I am 
sure what he is trying to do is become the bad guy. When he puts out 
the number 190,000 and you wind up with 15 or 20, it is like a good 
deal.
  I can promise you one centrifuge in the hands of the Iranians is a 
risk. Thousands of centrifuges in the hands of Iranians is stupid. We 
would be crazy to let that happen.
  If they want a nuclear power program for peaceful purposes, sign me 
up.
  As a matter of fact, as far as any deal, I would put in the deal the 
ability for the international community--Russia, the United States, and 
China working together or separately--to build a powerplant inside of 
Iran to give them nuclear power as long as we control the fuel cycle.
  Fifteen nations have nuclear power programs that do not enrich. 
Canada and Mexico have nuclear power programs, but they don't enrich 
uranium.
  As a matter of fact, we are telling our friends in South Korea: Don't 
begin to enrich. We are telling our friends in the United Arab 
Emirates: You can have nuclear power, but don't enrich.
  I would find it incredible for us to tell allies that we trust them 
not to enrich because it could set off unintended consequences, but we 
are agreeing to let one of the enemies of mankind have that capability 
because they are demanding it.
  I hope and I pray a deal can come about that will neuter the nuclear 
ambitions of the Iranians and give them what they claim to want--a 
peaceful nuclear power program. But I don't believe that is what they 
want. I don't think they would be doing all the things they have been 
doing--lying, cheating, and building plants under a mountain--if all 
they wanted was a peaceful nuclear power program.
  As a matter of fact, our intelligence community tells us the program 
they have today has been put to military use. They denied that, but we 
can't get to the bottom of it.
  What is the Senator's view about the likelihood of the Iranians lying 
about the fact that they have tried to militarize their program?
  Mr. CORKER. I think, based on past behavior, that would be one's 
expectation. Again, we know there are facilities that are operating, 
and we haven't been able to get into those facilities.
  When you look at the facts, one of the things that is not even being 
addressed is the whole delivery system--their ability to deliver the 
weaponry. None of this discussion thus far, to my knowledge, has 
anything to do with their developing capabilities to actually deliver a 
nuclear weapon.
  What I am concerned about--the Senator focused on the centrifuges and 
it is the central issue--no question. I think the Senator has wisely 
pointed out how the Supreme Leader has tried to move the goalpost so 
far down the field that just getting to the 30- or 40-yard line looks 
good to us. But we also did the same on the front end of the deal by 
acknowledging in the preamble or the four-page agreement that 
enrichment certainly could occur.
  But here is what is happening, I fear. On every other single 
portion--not just the centrifuge--the goal posts are being moved. In 
other words, the things that we thought were going to take place on the 
front end--whether it was the Arak facility and what was going to occur 
there or what was going to happen in other pieces of the deal--all of 
that adds up to very important elements or a final deal. I am afraid 
what is happening is the goalpost is moving on all of those as time 
goes on.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I couldn't agree more. As a matter of fact, dismantling 
has become something new. They have a big stockpile of highly enriched 
uranium. We are talking about diluting it, but the U.N. resolution 
called for its removal, so this deal is to the left of the U.N. 
resolution. As a matter of fact, this whole agreement is getting to the 
left of what the United Nations has been.
  What about this scenario? It is one thing to have fissile material in 
the hands of the ayatollah and they could make a bomb, but they still 
have a lot of highly enriched uranium still inside of Iran. What is the 
possibility of a dirty bomb, where they turn that highly enriched 
uranium over to a terrorist organization and it makes its way here 
without their fingerprints being on it?
  Mr. CORKER. One of the ways that Iran has destabilized the region has 
been through proxies that it funds.
  Let's face it. Until they became involved in Syria--as the Senator 
has talked about on the floor--through their proxy, Hezbollah, actually 
the moderate in the opposition was gaining ground. So their utilization 
of terrorist groups to achieve their end, obviously, is their normal 
mode of operation.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, continue.
  Mr. CORKER. So when you think about the possibilities of their being 
able to create, as the Senator mentioned, a dirty bomb--which would 
create tremendous terror wherever it might have been implemented--that 
is something I think is frightening--more than frightening.
  It would be something that would be not quite as destabilizing as, 
obviously, having a full-blown nuclear weapon, but something that would 
be very damaging to world security.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I know we are going to have a vote in a second, but we 
will end our thoughts.
  The reason 3,000 Americans were killed on 9/11 and not 3 million is 
that the terrorist groups that wish us harm could not find capabilities 
beyond the airplanes. They are trying. They are trying to get weapons 
of mass destruction, chemical weapons, highly enriched uranium, fissile 
material.
  My fear is that if a regime such as Iran is given the capability to 
enrich, it will become a North Korea where they break out.
  I will not turn the fate of the United States over, with my vote, to 
a bunch of U.N. inspectors--where the only hope of a breakout is a 
bunch of U.N. inspectors.
  The whole real goal for me is to have a capability that is very 
small, face-saving in nature, that can't lead to a breakout. Don't have 
something robust that can lead to a breakout and expect the U.N. to 
protect us because they can't. They didn't do it in North Korea.
  At the end of the day I think the decision we are going to make as a 
nation--through our President--hopefully with direction and input, will 
be the biggest decision we have made as a nation on the foreign policy 
front in decades, because, if we get this wrong, if we allow the 
Iranian ayatollah to achieve a new nuclear capability, every Sunni Arab 
is going to want like capability, and we are on the road to Armageddon.
  Look at the Middle East and ask yourselves: Is this a good place to 
give people nuclear capability? Would they use it?
  Hamas is firing every rocket in its inventory, and they could care 
less where it lands; they hate Israel that much.
  The Sunni Arabs feel more threatened by the Shia Persians than they 
do by the Israelis.
  It is commonly believed that Israelis have a nuclear capability. Not 
one Sunni nation has tried to procure a weapon of their own to counter 
that presumed capability. Every Sunni Arab state has told me, you, and 
everybody else who will listen, that if the Shia Persians get a 
capability they are going to match that capability because they see 
that threat as existential.

[[Page 12306]]

  Israel sees the threat in Iran--with a nuclear capability in Iranian 
hands--as existential.
  I see it as existential to the United States. We have an opportunity 
here for negotiations to end this well. But what I hope we will not do 
is, through negotiations, create a scenario where they break out like 
the North Koreans.
  If I have the choice between a bad deal through negotiations that 
will lead to a nuclear Iran over time and military force--as 
distasteful as that might be--I am going to pick military force because 
we have to stop their ambitions to become a nuclear nation.
  If we don't stop them, it would be similar, in my view, to have let 
Hitler have the bomb when we could have done something about it.
  Mr. CORKER. I thank the Senator again for his tremendous 
contributions to this body and every foreign policy debate that we 
have.
  The President did seek congressional approval on the authorization of 
the use of military force in Syria. It was not something he had to do, 
but he sought it, and I am pleased that he did.
  I was proud to be a part of writing that agreement with our chairman 
and other members of the committee to give him the power to do that. 
And actually, to be candid, I regret that things took the course they 
took, but the President elected to do that.
  As the Senator mentioned, a nuclear-armed Iran is a whole different 
scale. What I hope will happen is that the President will agree there 
will be no more extensions if they ask for one in the next few days, 
and I am almost certain that is what is going to happen.
  No. 2, I hope you will commit to letting Congress weigh in on the 
final decision. I actually think that will be useful for them in the 
negotiation. I really do think that having a backstop would be useful 
to them, but if the President doesn't agree to that, I hope we, on our 
own, will pass legislation which ensures that is the case.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I concur, and I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 
minutes as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________