[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 10]
[SEN]
[Pages 13713-13728]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      HIRE MORE HEROES ACT OF 2015

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of H.J. Res. 61, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 61) amending the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt employees with health coverage 
     under TRICARE or the Veterans Administration from being taken 
     into account for purposes of determining the employers to 
     which the employer mandate applies under the Patient 
     Protection and Affordable Care Act.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                           Amendment No. 2640

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have a substitute amendment at the 
desk that I ask the clerk to report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2640.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike line three and all that follows and insert:
       That Congress does not favor the agreement transmitted by 
     the President to Congress on July 19, 2015, under subsection 
     (a) of section 135 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 
     U.S.C. 2160e) for purposes of prohibiting the taking of any 
     action involving any measure of statutory sanctions relief by 
     the United States pursuant to such agreement under subsection 
     (c)(2)(B) of such section.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 2641 to Amendment No. 2640

  Mr. McCONNELL. I have an amendment at the desk that I ask the clerk 
to report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2641 to amendment No. 2640.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end add the following.
       ``This Act shall take effect 1 day after the date of 
     enactment.''

  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 2642 to Amendment No. 2641

  Mr. McCONNELL. I have a second-degree amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2642 to amendment No. 2641.

  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike ``1 day'' and insert ``2 days''.


                           Amendment No. 2643

  Mr. McCONNELL. I have an amendment to the text proposed to be 
stricken.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2643 to the language proposed to be 
     stricken by amendment No. 2640.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end add the following.
       ``This Act shall take effect 3 days after the date of 
     enactment.''

  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 2644 to Amendment No. 2643

  Mr. McCONNELL. I have a second-degree amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2644 to amendment No. 2643.

  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike ``3'' and insert ``4''.


                Motion to Commit With Amendment No. 2645

  Mr. McCONNELL. I have a motion to commit with instructions at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] moves to commit 
     the joint resolution to the Foreign Relations Committee with 
     instructions to report back forthwith with an amendment 
     numbered 2645.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end add the following.
       ``This Act shall take effect 5 days after the date of 
     enactment.''

  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2646

  Mr. McCONNELL. I have an amendment to the instructions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2646 to the instructions (amendment No. 
     2645) of the motion to commit H.J. Res. 61.

  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike ``5'' and insert ``6''.

  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 2647 to Amendment No. 2646

  Mr. McCONNELL. I have a second-degree amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

[[Page 13714]]

  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2647 to amendment No. 2646.

  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike ``6'' and insert ``7''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendments, with the exception of the McConnell substitute amendment, 
be withdrawn; that no other amendments, points of order, or motions be 
in order to the joint resolution or the McConnell substitute prior to 
the vote on the McConnell substitute; that at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, 
September 10, the Senate proceed to vote on the McConnell substitute 
amendment; that the amendment be subject to a 60-affirmative-vote 
threshold; further, that if the McConnell amendment is agreed to, H.J. 
Res. 61, as amended, be read a third time and passed; that the time 
today until 5 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their 
designees; that following leader remarks on Wednesday, September 9, 
until 6 p.m., the time be equally divided between the two leaders or 
their designees; and that following leader remarks on Thursday, 
September 10, until 5:30 p.m., the time be equally divided between the 
two leaders or their designees.
  Mr. President, that is my unanimous consent request.
  Let me say a brief word, and I will turn it over to my friend the 
Republican leader.
  If the Republicans want more debate time, they can have it, but I 
think 3 days would be adequate. There is a definite time for doing 
this, and I think that is important.
  If anyone thinks this is not a serious issue, I don't know what could 
be a serious issue. Based upon the underlying foundation that has been 
laid by my friend for these many years, this is going to require a 60-
vote threshold. Everyone knows that. This goes back long before this 
dialogue started today on the floor. It has been going on for some 
time, as my friend the assistant Democratic leader, when he has an 
opportunity to address the Senate, will discuss.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on 
Thursday, September 10, at 3 p.m., the substitute amendment to H.J. 
Res. 61 be agreed to, the joint resolution, as amended, be read a third 
time, and the Senate vote on passage of the resolution, as amended.
  Mr. REID. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I also want to propound the following 
request. I ask unanimous consent that if cloture is invoked on the 
substitute amendment to H.J. Res. 61, the amendment be agreed to, the 
joint resolution, as amended, be read a third time, and there be 4 
hours of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their 
designees, and that following the use or yielding back of time, the 
Senate vote on passage of the resolution, as amended.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, for all the 
reasons I have mentioned previously and the fact that I believe the 
Republican leader is way ahead of himself, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The assistant Democratic leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this has been one of the most 
extraordinary measures that has come before the Senate in the time that 
I have served here. It is rare to have an issue of this historic 
moment, of this importance, one that literally raises a question about 
war and peace in the Middle East, and one that has been considered so 
carefully by both sides of the aisle for such a long period of time.
  When I left for the August recess, here in the Senate most of the 
Members on my side of the aisle--the Democratic side--were still 
processing and reviewing the proposed agreement. And, over the course 
of August, these Members announced their public positions on the 
matter.
  As of today, there are 41 of the 46 Democratic Senators who have 
announced they will support the Iran agreement. There are another four 
who are opposed to it, and one who is yet to announce her position. We 
expect that to happen shortly.
  This is a unique matter. I asked my staff and others to research one 
particular aspect of this debate. The aspect I asked them to research 
was a letter sent on March 9 of this year by 47 Republican Senators. 
Forty-seven Republican Senators sent a letter to the leader of the 
Islamic Republic of Iran, the Ayatollah.
  To take you back in history, at that point in time when 47 Republican 
Senators sent that letter, the United States of America was in 
negotiation with Iran to see whether or not we could come to any kind 
of an agreement or understanding when it came to limit Iran's 
development of a nuclear weapon, something that I am sure all of us--
both political parties--want to stop from happening. But in the midst 
of this delicate negotiation that was going on in Switzerland, 47 
Republican Senators, including every Member of the Senate Republican 
leadership, sent a letter to the Ayatollah in Iran. It said:

       It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear 
     negotiations with our government that you may not fully 
     understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to 
     bring to your attention two features of our Constitution--the 
     power to make binding international agreements and the 
     different character of federal offices--which you should 
     seriously consider as negotiations progress.

  Forty-seven Republican Senators wrote to the Ayatollah in the midst 
of these delicate negotiations. It went on to say:

       First, under our Constitution, while the president 
     negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the 
     significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, 
     the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote. A so-called 
     congressional executive agreement requires a majority vote in 
     both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural 
     rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate).

  Forty-seven Republican Senators are advising the Ayatollah in Iran, 
in March, that he should know more about our constitutional form of 
government and understand that it will take Senate approval, which they 
say effectively means a three-fifths vote. They continue:

       Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive 
     agreement.
       Second, [the 47 Republican Senators advised the Ayatollah] 
     the offices of our Constitution have different 
     characteristics. For example, the president may serve only 
     two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited 
     number of 6-year terms. As applied today, for instance, 
     President Obama will leave office in January, 2017, while 
     most of us will remain in office far beyond then--perhaps 
     decades.

  Then the 47 Republicans Senators, in their March letter to the 
Ayatollah of Iran, say:

       What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we 
     will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons 
     program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more 
     than an executive agreement between President Obama and 
     Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an 
     executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future 
     Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any 
     time.
       We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our 
     constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and 
     clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.

  Forty-seven Republican Senators in March of this year, writing to the 
Ayatollah and basically telling him: Don't get your hopes up if you are 
negotiating with the United States, reminding him they will have the 
last word as Members of Congress, and also stipulating that a three-
fifths vote will be required in the U.S. Senate.
  Then they go on to say: Keep in mind we are going to be here a lot 
longer than any President; we may be the last person or the last group 
to make a decision on the future of these agreements. Then they are 
basically reminding them that Presidents come and go, and don't assume 
the next President will even honor an agreement reached by this 
President.

[[Page 13715]]

  Think back 12 years ago. What if 47 Democratic Senators--in the midst 
of our negotiation as to whether or not we should invade Iraq--had sent 
a letter to Saddam Hussein saying: Don't negotiate with President Bush. 
Don't pay any attention to his negotiations. We are the Congress. We 
will have the last word.
  I cannot imagine what the public response would have been, but that 
is exactly what happened here--47 Republican Senators intervening in a 
negotiation process with Iran, basically telling those sitting at the 
table: Don't worry about reaching an agreement with the United States 
of America and this President.
  I know what would have happened if that would have come up when Dick 
Cheney was Vice President of the United States. We would have had 47 
Democrats up on charges of treason.
  Well, in this circumstance, this was not good judgment. I would like 
to stipulate that the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee did 
not sign this letter. I want to make sure that is clear on the floor. 
But the 47 who did have to answer a question: Why? When we are in 
delicate negotiations as the United States of America, and we don't 
have a final agreement, why would 47 Republican Senators want to 
intervene in those negotiations? Why would they want to say to the 
Ayatollah: Don't waste your time negotiating with this President.
  It is troublesome. Many of them had reached a conclusion even before 
the agreement was written that they were going to oppose it. Witness 
this letter.
  But others took time to consider it, to measure it, and to announce 
their position when it came to this matter. I respect them for doing 
that, even if they came to a different conclusion than I did. I know 
what happened on our Democratic side because I was in contact with 
virtually with every Member of our Senate Democratic Caucus during the 
month of August, talking to them about this.
  There is real soul-searching here, real serious consideration. Some 
of them, of course, went to the source, met with our intelligence 
agencies, the State Department, Department of Defense, and came back to 
Washington when we were in recess. One Senator I know sat down for 5 
hours in closed meetings with our intelligence agencies to ask 
questions that were on his mind about this agreement.
  Others, of course, met with their constituents, talked about it, 
found differences of opinion within their own States. They thought 
about it long and hard, prayed over it.
  I talked to them, always wanting to hear where they were, but never 
pushing them because I knew this was serious, and they took it 
seriously. That is where we find ourselves today.
  I salute the Senator from Tennessee. As the chairman of the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee, he and I may disagree on substance, but I 
respect him very much. He is a man of honor and a man of integrity, and 
he brings to this process the kind of attitude toward the Senate as an 
institution which I respect and I will continue to respect.
  I also believe my colleague from Maryland, a close personal friend, 
Senator Cardin--though we see this issue differently--has really 
thought long and hard about it. We have been on the phone together 
many, many times during the course of August. I ruined a lot of his 
vacation trying to figure out where he was and what his process was. He 
took it very seriously. I respect him, although we came out to 
different positions on this matter.
  That is the way it should be, and what the American people expect of 
us now is a debate befitting this great institution of the Senate. They 
expect us to come and conscientiously consider this matter on its 
merits and express our points of view, and virtually every Senator has 
already done that publicly, save one. In the course of this debate, the 
American people can follow it because it is a critical debate. What is 
at issue here is whether Iran will develop a nuclear weapon.
  We believe that they have the capacity now to create as many as 10 
nuclear weapons. We don't want that to happen. It would be disastrous 
for the world--certainly disastrous for the Middle East and Israel--and 
that is why leaders from around the world, 100 different nations, 
support what President Obama is striving to do.
  What the President is trying to do is something I believe should be 
the starting point in every critical foreign-policy decision: Use 
diplomacy, use negotiation, and try to solve our problems in a 
thoughtful, diplomatic way. And if that fails, never rule out other 
possibilities, but start with diplomacy. That is what the President has 
done.
  During the course of this Presidency, he organized nations around the 
world to join us in this effort. If this were just the United States 
versus Iran, we wouldn't be where we are today, but the President 
engaged countries which historically and recently have not been our 
allies.
  Before we left for the August recess, we sat down with the five 
Ambassadors from nations that joined us in the negotiation. I looked 
across the table there to see the Ambassadors from China, from Russia, 
from the United Kingdom, and representatives of the embassies of 
Germany and France. I thought to myself, if you are a student of 
history, this is an amazing coalition: China, Russia, the United 
Kingdom, Germany, France, and the United States all working together. 
And we brought into the sanctions regime other countries that didn't 
have the same direct involvement in negotiations but were with us. 
South Korea is a good example. Japan, another good example, joined us 
in this effort to put pressure on Iran. President Obama led this 
effort, and he was successful in this effort. The Iranians came to the 
negotiating table because we put the pressure on them--economic 
pressure that brought them to that moment.
  Now we have before us this agreement. Some have said: You can never 
trust Iran no matter what they say. I would just harken back to the 
days of Ronald Reagan, who said of our enemies around the world when it 
came to agreements: ``Trust, but verify.''
  Just recently we had an announcement made by Colin Powell, a man I 
respect very much, in support of this agreement. It was an announcement 
which surprised me in a way. I didn't know if he was going to take a 
position on this matter, but this article states:

       Former Secretary of State Colin Powell expressed support 
     for the [Obama] nuclear agreement with Iran on Sunday, 
     calling the various planks Iranian leaders accepted 
     ``remarkable'' and dismissing critics' concerns over its 
     implementation.
       ``It's a pretty good deal,'' he said on NBC's ``Meet the 
     Press.''
       Critics concerned that the deal will expedite Iran's 
     pursuit of a nuclear weapon, Powell added, are ``forgetting 
     the reality that [Iranian leaders] have been on a 
     superhighway, for the last 10 years, to create a nuclear 
     weapon or a nuclear weapons program with no speed limit.''
       He said the reduction in centrifuges, Iran's uranium 
     stockpile and their agreement to shut down their plutonium 
     reactor were all ``remarkable.''
       ``These are remarkable changes, and so we have stopped this 
     highway race that they were going down--and I think that's 
     very, very important,'' Powell said.
       He also pushed back on skeptics who have expressed worries 
     about the ability of independent inspectors to verify that 
     Iran is following the agreement. Powell said that, ``with 
     respect to the Iranians--don't trust, never trust, and always 
     verify.''
       ``And I think a very vigorous verification regime has been 
     put into place,'' he said.
       ``I say, we have a deal, let's see how they implement the 
     deal. If they don't implement it, bail out. None of our 
     options are gone,'' Powell added.

  I think he hit the nail on the head. General Colin Powell, who served 
our country in the military and as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, then as Secretary of State, brings a perspective to this which 
very few can. He is a man who risked his life on the battlefield, a man 
who knows the true cost of war, but a man who was empowered by another 
Republican President to lead us in diplomatic negotiations. This is the 
kind of clear-eyed approach that we need and want when it comes to an 
issue of this gravity.
  I will have other things to say on this matter, as others will.
  I yield the floor to my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I am going to have more lengthy comments

[[Page 13716]]

to make on this topic a little later, but I did want first of all to 
thank the Senator from Illinois for his comments, and I certainly want 
to thank Senator Cardin--and I will do so more fully in just a moment. 
But I would like to remind the body that, yes, we went through several 
steps along the way to get to where we are today that certainly created 
consternation on both sides of the aisle. There were lots of things 
that occurred. A letter was referred to. There was an address to the 
joint Congress. There have been numbers of things along the way that 
have caused people to concern themselves that maybe this debate would 
end up being something that was partisan and of low level.
  What we have done is that we have actually marshaled ourselves 
through that, and we ended up with the Iran review act in short terms. 
That gives us the opportunity, as the distinguished Senator mentioned, 
to actually review this. We have done that. We have had 12 hearings on 
this topic--extensive hearings--in the Foreign Relations Committee, and 
many other committees have done the same.
  What we ended up putting in place, with 98 votes in the Senate--98 to 
1; we had one Senator who was absent--is a process where all Senators 
could review this, could have the documents at their disposal to go 
through it, to go to classified briefings so they could understand--and 
should understand--fully what this agreement says and then have the 
right to vote.
  Certainly, some things happened along the way that, as I mentioned, 
created some consternation, but as a body, in Senate fashion, in lieu 
of letting that divide us and letting that create a scenario where we 
wouldn't review it and not vote on it, we created a process where we 
would review it and vote on it.
  It is my hope--and I know I have had a very nice conversation with 
the distinguished Senator from Illinois, and certainly multiple 
conversations with the distinguished Senator from Maryland--that over 
the process of this week that is what continues. I know that is what 
all of us want to see happen.
  I do think the American people deserve to know where Senators and 
House Members stand on this serious piece of foreign policy that is 
before us, and I want to thank everyone for their role in getting it 
here.
  As a matter of fact, I will move on, if I could, to what I had 
planned to say. I first want to thank Senator McConnell and Senator 
Reid for allowing this debate to take place this week without having a 
motion to proceed. I couldn't thank Senator Cardin more for being a 
colleague who really works to try to figure out a way for the Senate to 
play its appropriate role in foreign policy. It has been nothing but 
outstanding in dealing with him since he assumed this role, and I want 
to thank him for the way he has conducted himself.
  I would also like to remind people that without the Iran Nuclear 
Agreement Review Act there would be no role for Congress. One of the 
things I think has confused a lot of the American people--and there are 
a lot of people who would prefer this to have been a treaty--is the 
fact that under our form of government, the President is able to decide 
whether he is going to submit an agreement as a treaty or as an 
executive agreement. An executive agreement stays in place during the 
duration of that President's tenure and could be altered by the next 
President. A treaty is binding on future Presidents.
  This President, as we know, decided to go directly to the U.N. 
Security Council and, by the way, lift some congressionally mandated 
sanctions that we all helped put in place that actually brought Iran to 
the table. So with the knowledge of that, Congress stepped in and 
passed this piece of legislation that now gives us the right to review 
what the President has negotiated and to prevent him from lifting those 
congressionally mandated sanctions should we decide we disapprove of 
this deal.
  So this is a place where Congress came together and said: No, we want 
to play a role, even though a role is not contemplated under an 
executive agreement. I know this has been confusing to numbers of 
people, but this was the only vehicle capable of winning a veto-proof 
majority to provide Congress with this chance--a chance for the 
American people to have us, on their behalf, review this agreement and 
then vote.
  As I mentioned, we have had more than a dozen hearings. I have spent 
a great deal of time, as has the ranking member, as have all of our 
committee members--and the Presiding Officer the same--as have so many 
people going through this agreement, and I oppose implementation of 
this deal. I oppose its implementation.
  When the President first stated his goal--his goal of ending Iran's 
nuclear program--that was something that could have achieved tremendous 
bipartisan support in this body. As a matter of fact, onward there were 
discussions of dismantling the program. And as we all know today--and I 
will speak more fully on this tomorrow--rather than ending it, this 
agreement industrializes it. It allows the industrialization of the 
program run by the world's leading state sponsor of terror, and it does 
so with our approval.
  Now, that is a large step from where we began these negotiations. Had 
the President achieved the goal, I think what we would have in this 
body is 100 Senators standing up and supporting what he said he wished 
to do with these negotiations. But we have ended up with something that 
certainly is a far cry from that.
  Instead of having anytime, anywhere inspections, I think everyone 
understands there is a managed inspection process. Certainly, there are 
some issues relative to the IAEA that have given many Members 
tremendous concern.
  The thing that is one of the most troubling aspects of this is that 
through the course of these negotiations, the leverage--where right 
now, basically, the world community has had its boot on a rogue 
nation's throat--in 9 months the leverage shifts from these nations--
our nation being one of those--having them in a position where we might 
negotiate something that ends their program to now, where instead what 
happens is the leverage shifts to Iran. The leverage shifts to Iran.
  They are going to receive, as we know, billions of dollars. Most 
people think the number is around $100 billion. By the way, they have a 
$406 billion gross domestic product. That is the size of their economy. 
We are going to release to them over the next 9 months about $100 
billion--25 percent of their economy in 9 months.
  The President has said, and surely others, that some of this is going 
to be used to sponsor terrorism. We know that. Think about if we had 25 
percent of our GDP given to us over the next 9 months. We have an $18 
trillion GDP--$4 trillion or $5 trillion given to us over the next 9 
months. Certainly, this is going to have an impact on what they are 
able to do.
  What Iran is going to be able to say in 9 months--when we push back 
on violations in the agreement, when we push back on terrorism and we 
push back on human rights violations--is that because most of the 
sanctions will be lifted at that moment, they will have their money, 
and their economy will be growing, well, look, if you push back, we 
think this is unfair. They are already making these statements in Iran: 
We will just resume our nuclear program.
  So instead of our having leverage over them, they are going to have 
leverage over us. They are going to have leverage over us. This is in 
the vacuum of having no Middle Eastern policy. I don't say this to be 
pejorative. We know we have no policy in the Middle East to push back 
against Iran. We know that. So this agreement is going to end up being 
our de facto policy, and everything is going to be measured by this: 
What will Iran do if we push back?
  What if we push back against the fact that they are giving Hamas 
rockets to fire into Israel? What if we push back against what 
Hezbollah is doing in Lebanon and what they are doing in Syria? What if 
we push back against what the IRGC--the arm of the Supreme Leader--is 
doing right now to protect

[[Page 13717]]

Assad? They are the shock force to keep Assad in power right now.
  We know that right now in prisons in Syria people are being tortured. 
We saw it firsthand. The ranking member and I went over to see what was 
happening at the Holocaust Memorial Museum presentation where Caesar, 
someone working for the Assad regime, took photographs. We know as we 
stand here in these comfortable settings in the Chamber of the Senate, 
people are being tortured, their genitals are being removed, and Iran 
is supporting that. We know that--the fact that they are going to have 
some resources to do more of that, to do the same thing with the 
Houthis in Yemen, to support terrorists and people who are trying to 
disrupt the Government of Bahrain.
  Look, the leverage shifts to them. All they can say--what they are 
going to be able to say--if we push back against those activities is 
this: Well, look, we think you are being unfair. We are just going to 
resume our program.
  I don't understand. This is beyond me. I have had no one explain it 
to me. I know the Senator from Illinois had the diplomats from the 
other countries come in. I have no idea why in this last meeting in 
Geneva we agreed to lift the conventional weapons ban after 5 years. 
What did that have to do with the nuclear file? And then we lifted the 
ballistic missile technology embargo in 8 years? What was that about? 
Then, as we know, with some really weird language that is in the 
agreement, we immediately lifted the ban on ballistic missile testing.
  I think everyone here knows--the people sitting in the audience, 
people watching--that Iran has no practical need whatsoever for this 
program--none. Let me say that one more time. Here is a country with 
19,000 centrifuges--10,000 of them operating. They have an underground 
facility at Fordow. They have a facility at Arak that produces 
plutonium. They have all kinds of research and development.
  And by the way, this agreement approves further research and 
development of their centrifuges. As a matter of fact, it paves the way 
for them and also times it out perfectly for them to be in a position 
to be at zero breakout time, which is exactly what the President said 
they would be at, in 13 years. They can just agree to this agreement, 
and they can just continue to implement this agreement and be in that 
position. But they have no practical need--none.
  Some people have said: Well, if they really want to pursue the 
technology of medical isotopes, maybe--maybe--they could use 500 
centrifuges. Think about this. We have a country with one nuclear 
reactor, a country that could buy the enriched uranium to provide the 
energy for that cheaply on the market. Instead, they have put their 
entire society through grinding sanctions that have harmed families. 
They have been doing that for years for something they have no 
practical need for. There is only one need, and we all know that, which 
is to be in the position to be a nuclear-armed country.
  So let me say one more time that every Senator here supported this 
process except for one. The American people deserve to know where their 
elected officials stand on this consequential agreement. I hope people 
on both sides will cause this to be a sober debate. I know it will be 
impassioned, and people will certainly be speaking strongly about the 
pros and cons of this agreement.
  I do hope at the end of the day--while I was gone--I digress--there 
were discussions about filibustering the right to vote on this Iran 
agreement. I read about it in some magazines here, that instead of this 
being about people expressing themselves relative to a policy they felt 
was important to the country, apparently all of a sudden it became 
about something else.
  I would just say to my colleagues, I don't know how we can be in a 
place where we have said to our constituents that we want to review and 
vote on this agreement and then, over some revisionist statement or 
thought, come up with a process that says: No, we are going to 
filibuster it; we really don't want people to vote.
  It is my hope that over the course of the next several days cooler 
heads will prevail and that we of course will have, I believe, a very 
sober debate. I think my friends on the other side of the aisle have 
seen what the leader just did to try to ensure that we keep the debate 
about approval or disapproval--in this case, disapproval--of this 
particular deal, and I hope that very soon we will all be able to 
express ourselves with a vote on the deal itself, whether we believe it 
is in our Nation's interest. I do not. Some do. Let's have a debate in 
a sober way.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CORKER. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I say to the chairman of the Foreign 
Relations Committee how much I appreciate his good work, together with 
the ranking member Senator Cardin, whom he alluded to earlier, but the 
Senator from Tennessee just said something which I think every American 
should find troubling, and that is perhaps the single-most important 
national security issue facing the country since the authorization for 
use of force in Iraq in 2002; that there might be a partisan filibuster 
of our ability even to have that up-or-down vote on the resolution of 
disapproval.
  I ask the Senator from Tennessee, is he aware of reports that the 
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini has said the Iranian Parliament will 
have the final word on this deal in Iran?
  I wonder how the Senator would characterize a partisan filibuster in 
the U.S. Senate, preventing such an up-or-down vote in the Senate, 
while the Iranian Parliament would have the ability for that up-or-down 
vote in that institution.
  Mr. CORKER. I did read those reports. I said to my friend from 
Illinois earlier: Look, there has been so much that has occurred from 
the very beginning that has caused people on each side to, in some 
cases, raise the partisan flag or think that this is a debate which 
could devolve into something that was of that orientation. What we have 
done, as the Senator mentioned, is we have risen above that, and we 
passed something that allows us to debate and to vote.
  I read with interest what the Supreme Leader has said. I think he is 
hedging his bets, and no doubt he is going to take it to their 
Parliament and allow them to vote and debate. I hope that here, the 
citizens of our country will be shown that same respect and expect that 
their Senators and their House Members will have the opportunity to 
vote on the actual policy which has been negotiated and agreed to by 
these various countries. I hope that will be the case and, yes, I was 
very aware of that.
  With that, without objection, I wish to yield the floor to my great 
friend, the ranking member on the Foreign Relations Committee. 
Together, we have marched through some incredible hearings. I think all 
of us have studied this dutifully. That could not have occurred without 
his incredible cooperation and that of his staff. I thank him for his 
leadership. I thank him for his willingness to seek a place where the 
Senate can deal with this in the appropriate way.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, let me first thank my friend Senator 
Corker for his leadership but, more importantly, thank him on behalf of 
the Senate for standing up for what I think is the appropriate role of 
the United States Senate in reviewing a major foreign policy issue.
  I have had the opportunity to serve with four different chairmen in 
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee since I have been in the Senate: 
Senator Corker, Senator Menendez, Secretary Kerry, and Vice President 
Biden. All four fought for the Senate having the appropriate role in 
establishing foreign policy.
  We are a country that believes our system of democracy serves our 
country the best; that is, with separation of branches of government. 
We don't have a parliamentary system. We have an independent Congress--
a Congress that

[[Page 13718]]

is expected to provide independence in its reviews of the laws of our 
country and the policies of our Chief Executive, and that is exactly 
what we are doing in this debate.
  I thank Senator Corker for his extraordinary leadership of our 
committee. I know I speak for both Democrats and Republicans in saying 
that we support the independence of the Senate in reviewing our work.
  Senator Durbin--I listened to his comments. Senator Durbin is a dear 
friend of mine. The two of us have fought together on human rights 
issues around the globe. We have fought for civil liberties in the 
United States. We have worked together on so many important issues, 
including in the Middle East. I deeply respect his views.
  There are Members on both sides who have reached different 
conclusions, but we are all committed to making sure Iran does not 
become a nuclear weapons state, and we honestly believe our view is the 
best way for that to be accomplished. I don't challenge any other 
Member's decision, and I certainly don't question their resolve against 
Iran becoming a nuclear weapons state or their support for our regional 
allies. I think each has demonstrated that throughout their career. 
Some of us have come to different conclusions.
  I strongly believe we must prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear 
weapons state. It is a game-changer in the region. We have already 
heard from my colleagues that Iran is one of the principal purveyors of 
terrorism in that region. It would accelerate an arms race that already 
has too many arms in its region. It would make it so much more 
difficult to confront Iranian policy if they possess a nuclear weapon. 
President Obama is right to say we will not let that happen and that 
all options are on the table to make sure that doesn't happen, and 
Congress is right to say we support all options being on the table to 
make sure Iran does not become a nuclear weapons state. That is a goal 
we all have.
  In this independent review, some of us believe the best way to 
accomplish that is to move forward with the agreement negotiated by the 
Obama administration. Others believe that is not the case.
  I wish to second what Senator Corker said about the Iran Nuclear 
Agreement Review Act. I was proud to be part of putting that bill 
together and gaining broad support in the Congress and the support of 
the administration. I think it put us in a much stronger position in 
negotiating in Vienna. I think the fact that we had set up the right 
way for a congressional review--that it was going to be a transparent 
review, a critical review--put our negotiators in the strongest 
possible positions in Vienna. I also think it provided the right type 
of review, so that after the agreement was reached, information would 
be made available to us, we would have an open process, the American 
people would learn more about it, and we would be in a better position 
to make our own judgment. It was clear in the review act that no action 
is required. We can't pass resolutions of approval or disapproval.
  I wish to mention one thing, though, that I disagree with Senator 
Corker, but maybe in the end we will come together on this issue. I 
wasn't part of the original negotiations on the review act. I came into 
it and was able to resolve the differences between the White House and 
the Congress and many Members of Congress, but it was clear, in talking 
to the architects of this legislation, that they always anticipated 
there would be a 60-vote threshold for the passage of this resolution 
in the Senate.
  I agree with Senator Corker that we shouldn't have to use filibusters 
and we shouldn't have to have procedural votes; that we should have a 
vote on the merits. I thought Senator Reid's suggestion was the right 
way to go. I hope we can find a way that we can avoid the procedural 
battles and be able to take up this issue and let every Member vote 
their conscience as to whether to support or disapprove of the 
resolution.
  I told the people of Maryland after the review--let me say how this 
review went. We had 2\1/2\ weeks of review before the recess, and 
Senator Corker worked our committee unmercifully as far as what we did. 
We had hearings, we had briefings, we had classified briefings, we had 
Member meetings, and to the credit of the Members of the committee, all 
19 showed up. These meetings went on for about 4 hours each. So we were 
back-to-back-to-back in our briefings and in trying to understand what 
was in the agreement for the 2\1/2\ weeks we were here.
  I then went back to Maryland, as I am sure my colleagues went back to 
their States, and had a chance for the first time to meet with 
Marylanders and to talk with Marylanders, to express and talk with them 
and get their views, and to evaluate whether I thought it was best to 
go forward. It was a close call, but I decided I could not support the 
agreement.
  I just wish to share why I cannot support the agreement--and Senator 
Corker mentioned this: It places Iran, after a time period, in the 
position of enrichment of uranium that is dangerously close to being 
able to break out to a nuclear weapon in compliance with the agreement. 
Being legal, they can get to that point. At that point, they have 
already gotten sanctions relief, so they are in a much better financial 
position to be able to withstand any pressures that could be put on 
Iran. We know they want to become a nuclear weapons state. They have 
tried in the past. We know that. That has pretty well been documented. 
We have no reason to believe they are going to change their intentions. 
So if they want to become a nuclear weapons state and they make the 
calculation that we really don't have a sanctioned way to stop them--
because at that point their economic strength is strong enough and 
sanctions take too long to really bite and take effect--it would not be 
an effective deterrent to erase the breakout.
  Here is the key point of concern to me--and I acknowledge to all my 
colleagues that I don't know what is going to happen in the future. 
This is a close call, but I think there is a higher risk of potential 
military operation if we go forward with this agreement because we 
don't have effective sanctions once they have been removed. That 
concerns me because I don't think a military option is a good option. I 
don't believe it will eliminate the threat, and it has a lot of 
collateral issues involved with the military operation.
  I acknowledge that if we do not go forward with this agreement, there 
is a risk. There is no question about it. There is high risk in either 
direction. But if we were to reject the agreement, what would happen? 
Well, no one can tell for sure. No one can tell for sure. There is a 
risk factor.
  In my conversations with our European allies, they certainly want us 
to approve this agreement--don't get me wrong--but they know they have 
to work with the United States. They know Europe and the United States 
need to be in this together, and for their companies to be able to get 
full access to Iran, they have to work with the United States on a 
sanctions regime. They understand that.
  Iran also understands that if we reject this agreement and they were 
to rush out to try to develop a nuclear weapon, it would ignite unity 
in the international community of action against Iran. They know that. 
They have to make that calculation. Iran also wants sanctions relief 
from the United States.
  I can't predict the future, but I believe all parties will want a 
diplomatic solution. I understand that is not going to be easy, and 
maybe we will have to mix it up a little bit and put some other issues 
on the table. We have a lot of issues with Iran. We know about their 
terrorism, their interference in the region, et cetera. It may give us 
that opportunity. My point is, no one can predict the future. I came to 
that conclusion, and I understand others came to different conclusions.
  There are other concerns I have with the agreement, including the 24-
day delay. That doesn't concern me on known sites. It concerns me on 
undeclared sites and whether that will be adequate based on our 
intelligence information.

[[Page 13719]]

  I am concerned about the possible military dimension that there isn't 
any consequence, as I see it, in the agreement if there is not an 
accurate account of what happened in the past. I wish it was more 
clear. I don't think the arms embargo relief should have been in this 
agreement.
  I must say, I am concerned with the language in the agreement that 
talks about the United States and Iran with mutual respect and 
normalization. I don't know how we can have mutual respect for a 
country that actively foments regional instability and advocates 
Israel's destruction, kills innocents, and shouts ``Death to 
Americans,'' so I came to the conclusion that I couldn't support the 
agreement.
  Others came to opposite views. Each of us did what we thought was 
best, and I respect that this is a vote of conscience. I do want to 
point out one comment that was made a little bit earlier by my 
colleague about the Iraq war. I voted against the Iraq war. It was not 
a hard vote for me because, quite frankly, I didn't see the 
intelligence information that would have justified the authorization 
for use of military force. But it was a controversial vote.
  In my congressional district, it was an extremely unpopular vote, and 
the reactions were not too much different than the reactions we are 
getting today in regards to this particular agreement with Iran. I 
voted against that, along with a lot of my colleagues.
  When that vote was over and it was a done deal and we pursued our 
military operations in Iraq, I joined with all my colleagues and the 
administration to give us the best possible chance for America to 
succeed because that is our responsibility. That is our system. Our 
system is independent review. But when the review is over, it is time 
for us to come together.
  So, yes, I have been talking to my Republican colleagues. I have been 
talking to my colleagues who are voting for the agreement and those who 
are voting against it as to how we can work together in a responsible 
manner when this debate is over so the United States can be in the 
strongest possible position, working with the administration, to 
prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapon state. Working together, I 
think we can help the administration have a stronger position, knowing 
the independence of Congress.
  The administration has said and we can underscore that all options 
are on the table to make sure Iran will not become a nuclear weapon 
power. The administration has said and we can underscore that there is 
a need for a regional security strategy so that our partners know of 
our commitment to the region against whatever happens with Iran. The 
administration has suggested and we can reinforce that our closest ally 
in the region, Israel, will have the security it needs as a partner 
with the United States. The administration has stated and we can 
reinforce that we will be active and pursue terrorism by Iran if they 
increase their terrorism or attempt terrorism against the United 
States. We can speak to that. We can make sure that we are better 
informed and that we have the information we need to see whether Iran 
is using their sanctions relief so that we can act timely with the 
administration to protect U.S. interests.
  I think we can speak with a strong voice when this debate is over, 
and I hope that during the next 2 weeks the debate that takes place on 
the floor of the Senate and the House of Representatives reflects the 
best tradition of the Congress in our independent review and our firm 
commitment to work on behalf of America. We must stand firm in our 
determination to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. We must 
agree to counter Iranian support for terrorism and confront Iranian 
violations of ballistic missile protocols and international human 
rights obligations. Congress and the administration cannot dwell on 
past disagreements. Together we must find a functional bipartisan 
approach to Iran. I stand ready to work with my colleagues and the 
administration to achieve such a result.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Maryland 
for his comments and his tremendous leadership on this issue. I note 
that Senator Collins is here to speak. It is my understanding that she 
will speak for approximately 30 minutes. Senator Cornyn may be down 
shortly thereafter to speak and then Senator Kaine.
  I know some people referred to the fact that it is only those who 
wanted to go to war with Iraq who are supporting this. But not only did 
the ranking member not support going to war with Iraq, neither did 
Senator Menendez from New Jersey, who, again, opposes this agreement. 
That type of characterization certainly is not the way that this is. 
The two most knowledgeable Democrats in the Senate on this issue by far 
both oppose it.
  With that, I yield the floor to the distinguished Senator from Maine, 
who represents a beautiful State. We thank her for her contributions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I want to thank the chairman of the 
Foreign Relations Committee for his leadership on this issue, for 
briefing us, for arranging for briefings, and for his very thorough 
analysis. I also want to commend the Senator from Maryland for his vote 
of conviction, for doing what he believed was correct, for showing the 
courage to cast a vote of true conscience. I was honored to be here on 
the Senate floor to listen to his comments today.
  President Obama's agreement with the Iranian Government with respect 
to its nuclear program is one of the most important foreign policy 
decisions ever to face the Senate. The vote that we shall cast will not 
be an easy one. The security of our Nation and the stability of the 
Middle East, as well as America's leadership in the world, are affected 
by this agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or 
the JCPOA.
  Thus, I have devoted countless hours to studying the agreement and 
its annexes, attending Intelligence Committee sessions and other 
classified briefings, questioning Secretary of State John Kerry, 
Secretary of Energy Ernie Moniz, and our intelligence officials, 
including the top manager for Iran, talking with our negotiators and 
with ambassadors, and discussing the agreement with experts with 
divergent views to ensure that my decision is as well informed as 
possible.
  Let me begin by making clear that I supported the administration's 
undertaking these negotiations with Iran. Indeed, I was heartened when 
President Obama initially said in October of 2012 that ``our goal is to 
get Iran to recognize it needs to give up its nuclear program and abide 
by the U.N. resolutions that have been in place.'' He went on
to say: ``The deal we'll accept is, they end their nuclear program. 
It's very straightforward.''
  I was optimistic that the administration would produce an agreement 
that would accomplish the goals the President laid out. Along with six 
of my Republican colleagues, I did not sign a letter to the leaders of 
the Iranian Government sent in the midst of the negotiations because I 
wanted to give the administration every opportunity to complete an 
agreement that would have accomplished the goals the President himself 
originally set forth as the purpose of these negotiations.
  I have long believed that a verifiable diplomatic agreement with Iran 
that dismantled its nuclear infrastructure and blocked its pathways to 
the development of a nuclear weapon would be a major achievement--an 
accomplishment that would make the world a safer place. Regrettably, 
that does not describe the agreement that the administration 
negotiated. The agreement is fundamentally flawed because it leaves 
Iran as capable of building a nuclear weapon at the expiration of the 
agreement as it is today. Indeed, at that time, Iran will be a more 
dangerous and stronger nuclear threshold state--exactly the opposite of 
what these negotiations should have produced.
  Mark Dubowitz, a noted expert on sanctions, testified before the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee: ``Even if

[[Page 13720]]

Iran doesn't violate the JCPOA . . . it will have patient pathways to 
nuclear weapons, an ICBM program, access to heavy weaponry, an economy 
immunized against sanctions pressure, and a more powerful regional 
position . . .''
  Under the agreement, not a single one of Iran's 19,000 centrifuges, 
used to enrich uranium to produce the fissile material for a nuclear 
bomb, will be destroyed. Not a single one. Iran will be able to 
continue its research and development on advanced centrifuges able to 
enrich uranium more rapidly and more effectively. Not only will Iran 
retain its nuclear capability, but it will also be a far richer nation 
and one that has more conventional weapons and military technology than 
it possesses today.
  The lifting of sanctions will give Iran's leaders access ultimately 
to more than $100 billion in the form of frozen assets and overseas 
accounts. Iran also will once again be able to sell its abundant oil in 
global markets.
  The administration has repeatedly argued that Iranian leaders will 
invest those billions of dollars into their own country to improve the 
lives of their citizens. The record strongly suggests otherwise.
  Iran today is the world's foremost exporter of terrorism, pouring 
billions of dollars into terrorist groups throughout the region and 
into funding the murderous Assad regime in Syria. If Iran is financing, 
arming, and equipping terrorist groups in Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, Syria, 
and Yemen when its own economy is in shambles and its citizens are 
suffering, why would anyone believe that it would invest the proceeds 
of sanctions relief only in its own economy?
  I do expect that Iran's leaders will invest in a few high-profile 
projects to help their own citizens. But given their history, it is 
inevitable that billions more will be used to finance terrorism and 
strengthens Iran's power and proxies throughout the Middle East.
  It is deeply troubling that the administration secured no concessions 
at all from Iran, designated by our government--by the Director of 
National Intelligence--as the number one state sponsor of terrorism, to 
cease its support of terrorist groups. Whether it is Hezbollah in 
Lebanon, the Shiite militias in Iraq or the Houthis in Yemen, Iran's 
proxies are terrorizing innocent civilians, forcing families to flee 
their homes, and causing death and destruction. And incredibly, the 
JCPOA will end the embargoes on selling Iran intercontinental ballistic 
missile technology and conventional weapons, which the Russians, among 
others, are very eager to sell them.
  Think about that for a moment. Why would Iran want to buy 
intercontinental ballistic missile technology? It already has the 
deeply troubling capacity to launch missile strikes at Israel, which it 
has pledged to wipe off the face of the Earth. ICBM technology poses a 
direct threat to our Nation from a nation whose leaders continue to 
chant ``Death to America.''
  We should also remember that the Iranian Quds forces were the source 
of the most lethal improvised explosive devices that were responsible 
for the deaths of hundreds of our servicemembers in Iraq.
  Why would we ever agree to lift the embargo on the sales of 
conventional weapons that could endanger our forces in the region?
  Let me now turn to the issue of the enforcement of the agreement by 
posing the obvious question: Will Iran abide by the agreement and the 
corresponding U.N. Security Council resolution or will it cheat? 
Despite being a signatory to the U.N. Charter, Iran has repeatedly 
violated or ignored the United Nations Security Council resolutions 
aimed at curbing its nuclear program.
  In 2006, the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution prohibiting 
Iran from enriching uranium. What happened? Iran cheated. It has 
literally thousands of centrifuges spinning to enrich uranium. Multiple 
U.N. Security Council resolutions require Iran to cooperate fully with 
the International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA, and to come clean on 
what is known as the possible military dimensions of its nuclear 
activities to understand how far Iran has progressed toward developing 
a nuclear device and to have a verified baseline to evaluate future 
nuclear-related activities. What happened?
  Iran cheated. Not only did it never report to international arms 
control experts about the experiments at its military installation at 
Parchin, where Iran is suspected of developing detonators for nuclear 
devices, but also Iran sanitized buildings at Parchin in a manner that 
the IAEA has described as likely to have undermined the agency's 
ability to conduct effective verification. Remarkably, according to 
public reporting, Iran has continued these sanitation activities while 
Congress was holding hearings on the agreement this summer.
  In 2010, the U.N. Security Council adopted another resolution 
requiring Iran to cease any activities related to ballistic missile 
activities capable of delivering nuclear weapons. What happened?
  Iran cheated. It launched ballistic missiles in July 2012. Given this 
history, there is no question in my mind that Iran will try to cheat on 
the new agreement and exploit any loophole in the text or in the 
implementing Security Council resolution that was, by the way, as the 
chairman has pointed out, adopted before Congress even had a chance to 
vote on the agreement. Given Iran's history of noncompliance, one would 
think an ironclad inspection process would be put in place. Sadly, that 
is far from the reality of this agreement.
  Let me make four points about how Iran can stymie inspections. First, 
throughout the term of the agreement, Iran has the authority to delay 
inspections of undeclared sites. Those are the sites where inspectors 
from the IAEA believe that suspicious activities are occurring. 
Inexplicably the JCPOA establishes up to a 24-day delay between when 
the agency requests access to a site and when access is granted. The 
former Deputy Director General for Safeguards at the IAEA notes that 24 
days is sufficient time for Iran to sanitize suspected facilities and 
points out that past concealment activities carried out by Iran in 2003 
left no traces to be detected. This is a long way from the anytime, 
anywhere inspections that should have been part of this agreement given 
Iran's sorry history.
  Second, no American or Canadian experts will be allowed to be part of 
the IAEA inspection team unless these countries reestablish official 
diplomatic relations with Iran. I recognize that the IAEA has many 
highly qualified experts, but the exclusion of some of the most highly 
skilled and experienced experts in the world does not inspire 
confidence.
  Third, and most outrageous, according to press reports, the Iranians 
themselves will be responsible for the photographs and environmental 
sampling at Parchin, a large military installation where nuclear work 
is suspected to have been conducted and may still be underway. IAEA 
weapons inspectors will be denied physical access to Parchin. Note that 
I said ``according to press reports.'' That is because the actual 
agreement between the IAEA and Iran is secret and has been withheld 
from Congress.
  As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I have been briefed on the 
agreement, but like every other Member of Congress, I have been denied 
access to the actual document despite how significant this issue is. 
The actual text matters because of Iran's repeated efforts to exploit 
loopholes and particularly in light of press reports on what is in that 
document.
  Fourth, Iran is not required to ratify the Additional Protocol before 
sanctions relief is granted, if ever. The Additional Protocol allows 
the IAEA permanent inspection access to declared and suspected nuclear 
sites in a country in order to detect covert nuclear activities. 
Ratification of the protocol would make the AP permanently and legally 
binding in Iran.
  Mr. President, 126 countries, including our country, have already 
ratified the Additional Protocol. Yet the agreement negotiated by the 
administration only requires Iran to ``seek ratification'' of the 
Additional Protocol 8 years from now--in the 8th year of the

[[Page 13721]]

agreement--and to comply with its terms until then. If Iran's past 
behavior is any guide, Iran may never ratify the Additional Protocol 
and thus be subject to its permanent, legally binding inspection 
regime.
  To prevent Iran from cheating, the administration has repeatedly 
pointed to the prospect of an immediate snapback of sanctions as the 
teeth of the agreement. I will be surprised if they work as advertised. 
First, the rhetoric on the snapback of sanctions is inconsistent. On 
the one hand, the administration says the United States can 
unilaterally cause the international sanctions to be reimposed. At the 
same time, the administration repeatedly warns us that the sanctions 
regime is falling apart. Which is it?
  Second, Iran has already made explicit in the text of the agreement 
that the imposition of any sanctions will be treated as grounds to 
restart its nuclear program. Included in the JCPOA is this clear 
statement: ``Iran has stated that if sanctions are reinstated in whole 
or in part, Iran will treat that as grounds to cease performing its 
commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part.'' In effect, Iran has 
given advance notice that if the United States or any of its partners 
insist on reimposing sanctions, Iran can simply walk away from the 
deal. Given their investment in the deal, I am very skeptical that any 
of the P5+1 countries will be willing to take that action.
  After the United Nations Security Council endorsed this agreement on 
July 20, the Iranians actually released a statement saying they may 
reconsider its commitments if new sanctions impair the business and 
trade resulting from the lifting of nuclear sanctions, ``irrespective 
of whether such new sanctions are introduced on nuclear-related or 
other grounds.''
  Let's think about the implications of that for a moment. The Iranians 
are saying a sanction is a sanction is a sanction, and Iran appears 
ready to resume its nuclear activities if any sanctions are reimposed, 
even if the purpose is nonnuclear, even if the purpose is to halt 
Iran's financing of terrorists groups.
  That means, if the United States reimposes a sanction in response to 
the Iranians continuing to finance, train, arm, and equip terrorist 
groups all over the world, Iran, the foremost exporter of terrorism, 
according to our own Director of National Intelligence, can just walk 
away from the agreement we are being asked to approve.
  Third, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, 
the agreement states that sanctions would not be applied ``with 
retroactive effect to contracts signed between any party and Iran or 
Iranian entities prior to the date of application.'' This 
grandfathering clause will create an immediate rush of businesses to 
lock in long-term business contracts with Iran. Iranian Foreign 
Minister Zarif assured Iranian lawmakers that the swarming of business 
for reinvesting their money is the biggest barrier to the reimposition 
of sanctions, and he is right.
  The State Department insists that each case will be worked on an 
individual basis, but there is no guarantee that any case, much less 
every case, will be resolved in the short time period necessary.
  There are alternatives to the deeply flawed agreement reached in 
Vienna. While I recognize that it would be difficult, the fact is, the 
administration could renegotiate a better deal. As Orde Kittrie, the 
former lead State Department attorney for nuclear issues, recently 
noted in the Wall Street Journal, the Senate has required changes to 
more than 200 treaties that were ultimately ratified after 
congressional concerns were addressed.
  This is not unusual. For example, the 1997 resolution of ratification 
regarding the multilateral Chemical Weapons Convention included 28 
conditions inserted by the Senate. The treaty was ultimately ratified 
and currently is in force in 191 participating nations, including Iran 
and the United States. Similarly, the Senate insisted that the 
Threshold Test Ban Treaty with the Soviet Union have additional 
provisions strengthening compliance measures before it was ratified.
  Of course, one of the problems with this agreement is that it is not 
in the form of a treaty, which precludes the Senate from inserting 
reservations, understandings, or declarations. But that does not mean 
this agreement cannot be renegotiated, and there are so many precedents 
for side agreements or renegotiations of treaties themselves--more than 
200 times.
  Another alternative to this agreement would be to further wield our 
unilateral financial and economic power against those conducting 
business with key Iranian entities. Juan Zarate, the first Assistant 
Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes, 
testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

       We can't argue in the same breath that ``snapback'' 
     sanctions as constructed offer a real Sword of Damocles to be 
     wielded over the heads of the Iranians for years while 
     arguing that there is no way now for the United States to 
     maintain the crippling financial and economic isolation which 
     helped bring the Iranians to the table.

  Every country and every business would have to choose whether to do 
business with a nuclear Iran or with the United States. I am confident 
that most countries and most businesses would make the right choice.
  Despite these options, the administration negotiated a pact in which 
its redlines were abandoned, compromised, or diluted, while the 
Iranians held firm to their core principles.
  The Iranians have secured the following if this agreement moves 
forward: broad sanctions relief, a U.N.-blessed domestic uranium 
enrichment capability, international acceptance of Iran as a nuclear 
threshold state, international acceptance of its indigenous ballistic 
missile program, the lifting of the arms and the ICBM embargoes, repeal 
of all previous U.N. Security Council resolutions, and removal of the 
Iranian nuclear issue from the U.N. Security Council agenda.
  Accordingly, I shall cast my vote for the motion of disapproval. I 
believe Iran will bide its time, perfect its R&D on advanced 
centrifuges, secure an ICBM capability, and build a nuclear weapon as 
the JCPOA is phased out.
  It is time for Congress to reject the JCPOA and for the 
administration to negotiate a new agreement, as has been done so many 
times in the past when the Senate raised serious concerns. The stakes 
are simply too high and the risks too great for us to do otherwise.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority whip.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in 
morning business for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Remembering Lieutenant Joe Gliniewicz

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there are many brokenhearted people today 
in the small town of Fox Lake, IL. They are mourning the loss of 
Lieutenant Charles Joseph Gliniewicz. His friends and family called him 
Joe. At work they called him GI Joe. That all-American nickname was an 
admiring tribute to Lieutenant Gliniewicz's nearly 30 years of service 
to the U.S. Army, the Army Reserves, and to his appearance and 
demeanor.
  At age 52, Lieutenant Gliniewicz was fit and strong. He stood ramrod 
straight. He wore his hair high and tight like a drill sergeant. But 
the physical characteristic people mention most about Lieutenant 
Gliniewicz was his smile.
  Everyone knew GI Joe in Fox Lake, IL. He served on the town's police 
force for 32 years. He was supposed to retire at the end of last month, 
but he stayed on just 1 more month to ensure the smooth transition of a 
volunteer youth program to which he devoted thousands of hours over 
nearly 30 years.
  A week ago today, September 1--the day that would have been 
Lieutenant Gliniewicz's first day of retirement--he was shot and killed 
in the line of duty. It was 8 o'clock in the morning. Lieutenant 
Gliniewicz was driving down a road lined with open fields and 
abandoned-looking businesses when he spotted three men who raised 
suspicion. He radioed the police dispatcher that he was going to pursue 
them on foot. The dispatcher asked if he needed help. Lieutenant 
Gliniewicz said: Sure, send them. When backup officers arrived 3

[[Page 13722]]

minutes later, they couldn't find him. A few minutes later, they found 
Lieutenant Gliniewicz 50 yards from his patrol car. He had been fatally 
shot.
  Law enforcement agencies are still searching for the three men 
responsible. They have only a very sketchy description: three men, two 
White, one Black.
  In the days that followed the murder, hundreds of law enforcement 
officers poured into Fox Lake in Lake County. They were joined by 
members of just about every major law enforcement agency, all people 
can think of, including the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 
Explosives, the FBI, and even the Secret Service. Dozens of officers 
suffered heat exhaustion as they searched the woods and swamps. They 
are still searching today for his killers. We all want to see them 
brought to justice swiftly.
  Lieutenant Gliniewicz was married for 26\1/2\ years to his wife 
Melodie. They call her Mel for short. They were parents of four sons 
ranging in age from early twenties to their teens. One of his sons 
serves in the U.S. Army.
  The day after Lieutenant Gliniewicz's murder, hundreds of local folks 
turned out for a rally in Fox Lake to show their love for him and his 
family. It would just break your heart to see pictures of Melodie 
Gliniewicz and her four now fatherless sons smiling through their 
anguish, trying to support each other and their grieving neighbors.
  Folks in Fox Lake said that Joe Gliniewicz loved his town and he was 
always the first to volunteer at whatever local administration needed 
help with an event. One resident told the local newspaper:

       Everyone in town knew who he was. Whether you were on a 
     first-name basis or knew his rank, you knew he was a great 
     guy.

  This resident added:

       Just being involved in his community, he took pride in it. 
     This is where he lived, and it's what he fought to protect. 
     He took great pride in making the town of Fox Lake the place 
     it is.

  Lieutenant Gliniewicz was a volunteer with the Special Olympics and a 
lot of other groups. The organization he was closest to was the Fox 
Lake Police Department Explorers, a group who mentors young people who 
want
to aspire to law enforcement. Joe Gliniewicz established Fox Lake's 
Explorer Post No. 300 nearly 30 years ago. Over the years, he has seen 
hundreds of explorers in training get into law enforcement and the 
military. His death is felt so deeply by these young people, by 
Lieutenant Gliniewicz's family, friends, and neighbors, and by his 
brothers and sisters in blue not only in Fox Lake but throughout 
Illinois and across America.
  Lieutenant Gliniewicz was the first on-duty officer fatally shot in 
Lake County, IL, since 1980 and the third law enforcement fatality in 
Illinois this year, according to the Law Enforcement Officers Memorial 
Fund. According to the Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, 
firearms-related deaths of law enforcement officers in the United 
States are down 24 percent this year compared to the same period last 
year, January 1 to September 8. There were 34 last year and 26 this 
year. While that downward trend is good news, even one police officer 
killed in the line of duty is way too many.
  In Fox Lake and in towns across America, countless families have 
replaced the lightbulbs on their front porches with blue lightbulbs to 
show their support for their local police.
  Yesterday, on Labor Day, there was a memorial service at the high 
school for Lieutenant Gliniewicz. They packed it with law enforcement 
officials from all over--not just Lake County, IL, but the Midwest and 
across the Nation. It was an 18-mile funeral parade or funeral caravan 
that went off to the cemetery afterward--18 miles long--and it was 
filled with admirers and friends and people standing on the roads with 
homemade signs.
  Lieutenant Gliniewicz really made a difference in people's lives. It 
is sad to lose him. When we reflect on the great contribution he made 
to his community, to his county, to my State of Illinois, and to our 
Nation, it is with heartfelt gratitude that we say to his family: We 
are by your side.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as have all of our colleagues, I have been 
traveling around my State over the last few weeks listening to my 
constituents and trying to understand what their concerns are. I have 
to tell my colleagues that Washington is not in high repute. People 
sense the country is heading in the wrong direction. They have 
entrusted us with the way to navigate that, and they feel as though we 
have not succeeded in getting our country back on the right track. I 
know that when it comes to security issues--and of all the issues the 
Federal Government deals with, national security is the only one we 
can't delegate to someone else. It is our No. 1 responsibility as a 
Federal Government. State government can't do it. Local government 
can't do it. We can't do it for ourselves, so we depend on the Federal 
Government to make sure our Nation is safe and secure, which is a 
precondition for all of the other liberties and privileges we enjoy.
  As part of the roundtables and visits I had, I took part in one in 
Houston, TX, where we addressed a wide variety of issues, but the No. 1 
issue that came up was the Iranian nuclear deal. There is no issue more 
compelling or concerning to this particular group of folks or my 
constituents back home than the President's deal with Iran because 
people recognize that Iran is a state sponsor of international 
terrorism, and what this does is it paves the way to them getting 
bigger and more lethal weapons.
  They are also very concerned, as they should be, that this deal 
requires us to trust an adversary who has done nothing to earn it. I 
know the President has said there is no trust involved, but in the 
absence of trust, one would at least think there would be adequate 
verification mechanisms.
  Of course, I know Secretary Moniz has disavowed his earlier comments 
about anytime, anywhere inspections, and we then learned that there is 
this convoluted process of 24 days' notice and some arbitration before 
the IAEA will gain access to some sites and then, as the Associated 
Press reported, the sidebar deals, which, if these reports in the 
public domain are accurate, would basically require Iran to inspect 
itself.
  The reason people are so anxious and concerned about this is there is 
no doubt about that. Their concerns are well taken, but I think of all 
the things that concern my constituents and the people I talked to 
during August about this deal, it is Iran's long history of supporting 
terrorism, including attacks on the United States and our allies.
  It is no exaggeration to say the Iranian regime has American blood on 
its hands, and it has had for many years. Former Secretary of State and 
National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice put it well when she said: 
Iran has been the country that has, in many ways, been kind of a 
central banker for terrorism. It is Iran that has been conducting these 
proxy wars against Israel, the United States, and our allies since the 
regime came into power as a result of the revolution in 1979.
  Even President Obama and his National Security Advisor Susan Rice 
admitted earlier this summer that the Iranian Government could use the 
$100 billion in cash they are going to get as a result of sanctions 
relief to help fund terrorist attacks, to help fund these terrorist 
groups.
  Here is what the President said. I guess he has resigned himself to 
it. He said: ``The truth is that Iran has always found a way to fund 
these efforts.'' Well, that does not make me feel any more at ease, nor 
should it make any of our allies feel any more at ease about Iran and 
its intentions and what it will do with these funds that will be 
relieved from sanctions. That does not even address the million barrels 
of oil a day which now Iran will be able to ply to markets all around 
the world and the revenue they will be able to generate from that.
  The President may believe that there is nothing we can do about Iran 
funneling money to terrorist groups that

[[Page 13723]]

seek to attack us and our allies, but we cannot afford to just shrug 
our shoulders with indifference. That seems to be what the President's 
reaction is: Well, Iran has always done it and they will do it with 
this money. But he acts as if there is nothing he nor we can or should 
do about it. Iran's history of bankrolling terrorist activity deserves 
our attention and should be the focus of this deal, and it should be a 
major consideration as we proceed to assess the merits of this nuclear 
arrangement and vote on a resolution of disapproval.
  I wish to pause a minute just to tell the chairman of the Foreign 
Relations Committee, not just because he is sitting next to me but 
because it is true, that I admire and appreciate his leadership through 
this very convoluted maze we have had to proceed down until we have 
gotten to this point. But how ironic would it be that after the 
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, working with the ranking 
member and getting a vote of Congress and a signature of the President 
allowing a resolution of disapproval--how ironic would it be if a 
partisan filibuster blocks an up-or-down vote on that resolution of 
disapproval. It is just shocking to me, but that is what the minority 
leader, Senator Reid, and indeed the President of the United States 
himself apparently are talking about--blocking a vote on the resolution 
of disapproval that they cooperated in crafting and that bears the 
President's signature, that process by which that is to play out.
  But, again, that is another reason people get so disgusted with what 
they see in Washington--because they feel there is no accountability. 
People get away with whatever they can. There is no right and wrong 
anymore. There are no rules that apply to everyone evenly and 
evenhandedly. There is no--in the words above the Supreme Court of the 
United States--there is no ``equal justice under the law.'' It does not 
seem to apply.
  Well, just digressing a moment and talking again about this 
threatened partisan filibuster of the resolution of disapproval--and 
again I hope and pray our colleagues across the aisle, the 41 who have 
said they will vote against the resolution of disapproval, I hope they 
will reconsider if they are even thinking about a partisan filibuster 
of the resolution itself and not even getting to the resolution of 
disapproval.
  They have every right to vote according to their conscience and as 
they believe they should vote on the resolution of disapproval, but the 
idea of blocking a vote by a filibuster--it just strikes me as reckless 
and irresponsible, especially in light of this: I mentioned this to the 
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee a few moments ago, but I 
will come back to it because I find it so shocking.
  A few days ago in the Wall Street Journal, there was a discussion or 
actually a report from the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the 
Supreme Leader of Iran, who declared Thursday--it said in this story of 
September 3--that the Iranian Parliament would have the final word on 
the deal. It says the Parliament speaker delivered a similar message to 
reporters in New York later in the day, saying he supports the deal 
which would lift crippling economic sanctions on Iran in return for 
curbs on the country's nuclear activities. The speaker of the Iranian 
Parliament said the agreement needs to be discussed and it needs to be 
approved by the Iranian Parliament. There will be heated discussions 
and debates.
  I would hate the fact, if it was to occur--and I hope it does not--
that the Iranian Parliament would have a more open, accountable, and 
democratic process than the Senate. I hope we do not head down the road 
of a partisan filibuster, no matter how this resolution turns out. It 
would be a mistake, it would be a self-inflicted wound to the Senate 
and to the respect which we would like to garner from the American 
people.
  They would see this as business as usual, and I think it would add to 
their disgust. I hope Members, as they return to Washington today and 
as we begin to debate this deal, I hope they will recall--and let me, 
just in a brief few minutes, refresh some of their collective live 
memories about Iran's long history of terrorism against the United 
States and our allies. I actually had a chance last week when I was in 
Dallas, TX, to discuss this matter with a gentleman named Rick Kupke in 
Dallas, TX. He actually lives in Arlington, TX, right between Fort 
Worth and Dallas.
  But Rick was a former U.S. Foreign Service officer. He has learned 
firsthand how the Iranian regime targets and attacks Americans because 
he was the last American captured in 1979 at the U.S. Embassy in Iran 
during the Iranian hostage crisis. He was one of dozens of Americans 
held in captivity for 444 days under the constant threat of death. But 
many will also remember two other terrorist bombings that occurred in 
1983 that targeted American citizens. One blew up the U.S. Embassy in 
Beirut and the other blew up the U.S. Marine barracks at Beirut 
International Airport. Combined, these bombings killed more than 250 
American citizens, including 8 Texans, 7 of them marines and another a 
soldier.
  It is well known and documented that these attacks were perpetrated 
by the terrorist group Hezbollah under the direction of the Iranian 
regime. That is how the Iranian regime does its dirty work. It does it 
through proxies, not directly but through proxies like Hezbollah.
  Iran, while it has denied any involvement in these attacks, does not 
shy away from celebrating these bombings that have killed hundreds of 
Americans. In 2004, a little more than 20 years after the bombings, the 
Iranian Government erected a monument--a monument in its capital to 
commemorate the ``martyrs'' who carried out those attacks.
  Later in 1985, Hezbollah, together with another terrorist group, 
hijacked a Trans World Airlines flight, holding hostages and beating 
its passengers for 2 weeks. More than half of those passengers were 
American citizens, including a group of six U.S. Navy sailors, one of 
whom was murdered.
  In 1996, a bombing on a housing complex in Saudi Arabia was linked to 
Iranian officials that resulted in the death of 19 U.S. servicemembers, 
wounding more than 500.
  More recently, the Defense Department has acknowledged that during 
Operation Iraqi Freedom, at least 500 Americans died at the hands of 
Shiite militias who were equipped by Iran with different types of 
lethal weapons. It became well known that the explosively formed 
penetrators, which melted the armor used to shield Americans and our 
allies in Iraq, were produced by the Iranian Government, and the Quds 
Force trained people to use those against Americans and our allies.
  Then, right here in our Nation's Capital just 4 years ago, Iranian 
officials were implicated in a plot to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador 
to the United States. That plot reportedly included plans to bomb the 
Israeli Embassy in Washington as well. That is a staggering list of 
aggressions against the United States and our allies, both at home and 
abroad since the Iranian regime came to power in 1979.
  I don't have the time right now to discuss the Iranian fingerprints 
on the havoc being wreaked in the Middle East, from Yemen to Syria, to 
Iraq. In all the major hotspots of the world, Iranian fingerprints are 
all over these activities. Of course, Iran has long sponsored militant 
groups on Israel's borders, which have attacked Israel with rockets, 
hundreds of rockets and terrorism.
  In southern Lebanon, Iran funds and supplies Hezbollah, which 
threatens Israel's northern border, against which Israel went to war in 
2006. In Gaza, on Israel's southwestern border, Iran has long sponsored 
Hamas. Particularly as Iranian-Hamas relations have frayed in recent 
years, Iran has sponsored the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
  Suffice it to say that over the years, Iran has sown chaos across the 
Middle East, attacking the United States and our allies, while publicly 
celebrating the death of Americans in Tehran. So with this regime's 
long history of aggression against the United States and its allies, I 
find it troubling that the President characterizes any thoughtful 
questioning of the merits of this deal as akin to warmongering. That is 
what

[[Page 13724]]

the President has said: If you don't like this deal, the alternative is 
war. To which I would say: Wrong, Mr. President. The alternative to 
this deal is a better deal.
  According to the President's twisted logic, those who are skeptical 
of this same Iran, which I have described has time and time again 
demonstrated its aggression against the United States and which has 
articulated its principle opposition to this deal--the President would 
characterize the critics of this deal as the real belligerents 
encouraging war. In fact, he went so far as to say that Republican 
opponents of this deal--he has not said this yet about the opponents of 
this deal who are members of his political party, but he has about 
Republicans, that those who share the concerns are ``making common 
cause'' with Iranian hardliners who chant ``Death to America.''
  Well, this debate and this vote are simply too important for it to 
degenerate into partisanship. I know this is something the Senator from 
Tennessee feels very strongly about. He has tried to elevate the debate 
and to work in a bipartisan way to bring us to this vote on a 
resolution this week.
  I hope we don't follow the President down this low road of partisan 
rhetoric, which actually only serves to distract us from examining the 
deal and identifying the true character of the regime that we are 
somehow making common cause with and hoping against hope that they 
won't continue at some point to break out and pursue those nuclear 
weapons.
  This is not like the Soviet Union. This is not Ronald Reagan 
negotiating with the Soviet Union. This is a theocratic regime that is 
led by an Islamic extremist who has American and other allied blood on 
his hands and makes no bones about it.
  So this debate needs to help the American people find the answer to 
this crucial question. I think it boils down to this: Will this deal 
make America and our allies safer? I think that ultimately is the 
question.
  As we prepare to vote on this resolution of disapproval, I hope that 
we will have a civil, enthusiastic, and spirited debate, as the speaker 
of the Iranian Parliament said they will have in their body, and we 
will be able to openly and honestly discuss different points of view. 
That is the Senate is supposed to be--a place where that can happen and 
where it should happen. The American people deserve that kind of 
debate, not a partisan filibuster that cuts off the debate prematurely 
and tries to hide accountability for the ultimate outcome on the 
resolution of disapproval.
  I look forward to that spirited debate, and I hope any thought that 
any of our colleagues might have had about engaging in a partisan 
filibuster of this important resolution will fade quickly from their 
minds.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.


                Remembering Alison Parker and Adam Ward

  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise today for a sad occasion, and that 
is to remember the lives of two Virginians, Alison Parker and Adam 
Ward, the journalists who were gunned down on live TV in Roanoke, VA, 
just a couple of weeks ago, as they covered a local news story.
  There was a third victim in that shooting, Vicki Gardner, the 
president of the local chamber of commerce at Smith Mountain Lake, who 
is recovering. She was released from the hospital today, but she still 
has a long recovery ahead of her.
  We saw during the summer a set of these tragedies in Roanoke, VA, my 
wife's hometown, in Charleston, SC, in Lafayette, LA, and in 
Chattanooga, TN. My friend, the Senator from Tennessee, is on the 
floor.
  In Virginia, the shooting in Roanoke, which was carried out on live 
television, was horrific in itself, but it also was horrific because it 
brought up a lot of bad memories. The Roanoke community is within about 
25 miles from Virginia Tech, where the horrible shooting happened in 
2007 that killed 32 people and wounded dozens of others.
  I spoke on the Senate floor in April on the eighth anniversary of 
that shooting. I talked, as is my habit to do in April, about the lives 
of those who lost their lives but also about some who survived and what 
they are doing today. I am saddened to be here because it is just 
another example of a horrible shooting in my Commonwealth. It is also 
sad because we really haven't made any progress in this body since I 
came to it in terms of trying to address this issue.
  There is a lot of work to be done--legislative and otherwise--to try 
to address the growing litany of these horrific crimes, which deeply 
scar our own psyche and, frankly, I think, portray a picture of who we 
are as a nation to the rest of the world that is not accurate about who 
we are. I am going to introduce a bill that I think can help us address 
it. It is not the end-all solution because there isn't a single 
solution. But I am going to talk a little bit about Alison and Adam, 
and then I wish to talk about the bill.
  Alison and Adam worked on a show on WDBJ, the ``Mornin'' program. 
They were sort of hometown heroes. Not only were they popular because 
they worked for the station, they were both from the hometown. Roanoke 
is where my wife grew up. I am very, very familiar with the wonderful 
Roanoke community. They both interned at WDBJ when they were in 
college. They were passionate members of this journalistic profession, 
and they were just starting on these great careers.
  Alison Parker grew up in Martinsville, which is just up the road from 
Roanoke, about a 45-minute drive. She played the trumpet and French 
horn in high school. She graduated from James Madison University. When 
she was at James Madison, she interned at WDBJ. They loved her work, 
and they gave her a recommendation.
  Her first job was not there at WDBJ, but it was in North Carolina. 
But as soon as she could move from North Carolina back to Virginia, 
that is what she did. She came back to her hometown station. She 
covered all kinds of news and human interest stories, including a 
recent piece on child abuse that was a very powerful one. Her 
colleagues describe her as ``proactive'' and ``wise beyond her years.'' 
She met her boyfriend, whom she was planning to marry, while working at 
WDBJ.
  Adam Ward went to Salem High School. Salem is the city that adjoins 
Roanoke. He graduated in 2007 and played football on two State 
championship football teams. Teachers there describe him as 
``vivacious,'' ``kind,'' ``giving,'' ``respectful,'' and ``genuine.'' 
He had passion for Virginia Tech, the local college. He started to go 
to Tech football games with his dad when he was 3 years old. He 
interned also at WDBJ when he was a communications student at Tech.
  His colleagues remembered him as somebody willing to get the image 
that reporters need. We all know in this line of work the guys behind 
the camera are so important to it. They make the on-camera talent 
shine, and that was the way Adam was. He loved to play tricks on the 
on-camera talent, kind of tweak them and make them not get above their 
station in life, but he was a wonderful guy.
  He found love at the station too. He had become engaged to a producer 
at the station who sadly was watching in the station the day that the 
footage of him being killed was shown, which shocked the world.
  I really feel for these families. I know we all do. You couldn't have 
watched that without having a feeling, even if you were a thousand 
miles away from the Ward and Parker families.
  I remember having said to the Virginia Tech families this: It would 
be presumptuous of me, and so I am not going to say I know what you 
have lost, because I don't know what you have lost. But when you hear 
about these people, I do feel like I have a sense of what the world 
lost, I have a sense of what the community lost. I don't know what the 
parents and the siblings lost, but you kind of have a sense when you 
hear about these people from those at WDBJ, the Roanoke community, the 
community of journalists. You kind of have a sense of what we lost as a 
society when they were killed.
  I should just say a word. Since 2002, Vicki Gardner has worked at the 
Smith Mountain Lake Regional Chamber of

[[Page 13725]]

Commerce. It is a major tourism area in Virginia, a State park. It is a 
feature that was created by a hydroelectric dam, and they were 
celebrating its 35th anniversary. She was deeply involved in the 
planning.
  Again, she was badly wounded. She has described maneuvering around to 
try to duck bullets as she was shot in her back. She has had a couple 
of operations, but, thank God, she has been released to go home today, 
and we are thinking about her too.
  I said the shooting opened a lot of old wounds in Virginia, and 
especially in this community, sadly, because Virginia Tech is so close. 
When I spoke on the floor in April, I talked about two of these young 
people, Colin Goddard and Lily Habtu, who survived that shooting. Just 
think of the effect upon their lives 8 years later, as they deal with 
injuries that continue to be a challenge, and they deal with the 
horrible memories of that day. That was probably one of the most 
scarring events in modern history in Virginia. Everybody knows where 
they were, and everybody knew somebody connected to it.
  We have revisited the cycle of shock, then anger, then calls for 
change, then wondering what the right changes were, and sympathy for 
the families. But we haven't really changed, and I would just humbly 
submit that I think there are things that we can do--reasonable things 
we can do that will bring some accountability. It will not eliminate 
these instances. It is beyond our power to eliminate evil. We cannot do 
that. We have to be humble about it. But in every area we work on, we 
can work in this body with the thought that we can do things that will 
make situations better and that will promote incremental improvements.


                  Responsible Transfer of Firearms Act

  Mr. President, I wish to speak about a bill that I am going to 
introduce called the Responsible Transfer of Firearms Act. As we all 
know, current Federal law prohibits nine categories of people from 
getting weapons. Probably the most known are convicted felons, people 
who have been adjudicated mentally ill and dangerous, and people who 
are under domestic violence prevention orders.
  This is a bipartisan Federal law. Categories have been added over 
time in a bipartisan way by the House and the Senate. As far as I know, 
there is bipartisan support for this provision because you never see 
bills introduced to eliminate these categories of what I will call 
prohibited persons. These are people whom many in Congress--bicamerally 
and bipartisanly--have determined should not possess weapons.
  Now, the problem is a whole lot of those people do get weapons 
because folks either give or sell them to them.
  What is the current law with respect to giving or selling a weapon to 
somebody who is prohibited?
  The current law basically is kind of a no-responsibility law. You are 
criminally liable if you give or sell a weapon to somebody who is in 
those nine prohibited categories, but you are only criminally liable if 
you knew or should have known that they were prohibited. I practiced 
law for a while. That makes prosecution virtually impossible, because 
somebody will give somebody a weapon or sell it to them and then they 
will say: Well, I didn't know he was a felon. I didn't know he had been 
adjudicated mentally ill or dangerous.
  There is no obligation on behalf of the seller. Now, we have put 
obligations on sellers all the time--affirmative duties and 
obligations--but in this area, we don't put an obligation on the part 
of a seller other than a registered and licensed gun dealer, who must 
go through a background check. We don't put any kind of obligation on 
anybody to do even minimal, reasonable steps to make sure that somebody 
is lawfully able to possess a weapon.
  So what the Responsible Transfer of Firearms Act would do is it would 
revise the current formula. The current formula does have a liability 
for sellers but only under an elevated standard that really is almost 
impossible to meet. We would amend the Federal code, not to change the 
nine categories--those are the same--not to change the punishments for 
selling or transferring to them--that would stay the same--but we 
adjust the responsibility. It is a responsibility and accountability 
act.
  So if you are putting a weapon in somebody's hands, either selling it 
or transferring it, you have to take ``reasonable steps'' to determine 
that the recipient is not prohibited from having that weapon. 
``Reasonable steps'' is included in the statute--just those words. We 
don't say: You can only do that by showing one of the following five 
things. You can take any reasonable steps you think are necessary, but 
you have to take reasonable steps.
  That is what this change in law would do. If you cannot show 
satisfaction to a court that you have taken reasonable steps, then you 
will be liable for putting the weapon into somebody's hands whom the 
Federal Government has said is not able to possess such a weapon.
  This shift from the current framework would promote accountability 
and responsibility. Why should we let a seller just casually put a 
firearm into the hands of somebody who is prohibited by law from having 
it? Why should we do that? Why shouldn't there be some minimal 
accountability for a seller who is putting a weapon in the hands of 
somebody who has been determined not able to possess a weapon?
  We put burdens on sellers. This is not a precise analogy, but if you 
go in and try to buy beer in a place, you are going to get carded. Why 
is that? Well, because we have put an affirmative burden on the sale of 
alcohol so that the seller has to make some effort to determine that 
the recipient is not prohibited from having it. We do the same thing 
with tobacco. There are other laws that put burdens on sellers as well, 
and this a minimal one--take reasonable steps.
  To me the lives of some of these people who have been gunned down in 
those horrible crimes are just worth it. Let's just take reasonable 
steps. The reasonable steps won't solve all the cases, but it will help 
keep weapons out of the hands of those whom we have determined, in this 
body, shouldn't have them.
  I close and just say this: Of course, we have to be humble enough to 
acknowledge there is no one solution to the epidemic of gun violence 
nor is there a complete solution to it. There is nothing that we can do 
that will eliminate the possibility that we could wake up tomorrow and 
see the same thing on TV. Human beings will do evil things. That is not 
going to change. That is not going to be eliminated by what we do here.
  But what we do as legislators in legislation is basically believe--
and if we didn't believe this, we wouldn't be in this body--that as we 
legislate, we can improve situations. We cannot eliminate the 
possibility, but we can improve it. We can make it less likely that one 
of these prohibited individuals will get a weapon in their hands and 
use it against others.
  So I just conclude where I started.
  Alison and Adam were wonderful people. This is a community that is 
still really grieving. What compounds grief in my experience--not as a 
legislator but as a person--what compounds and deepens grief is a sense 
of hopelessness. Wow, this horrible thing happened. We have had this 
horrible loss, and there is nothing we can do about it. That tends to 
turn grief into despair and depression.
  Sadly, I was Governor when the shooting at Virginia Tech took place, 
and I had to deal with 32 families and more who had been injured, and 
the broader community was hurting so much. When you have gone through 
an experience--and we see this in our own personal life because 
everybody has had grief in their own personal lives. If you go through 
an experience where there is a lot of grief and loss and you feel that 
it is pointless or there is nothing you can do to improve it or 
transform it into something better or improve it so that maybe somebody 
else won't have to suffer through the same experience, that tends to 
take grief and turn it into something even more damaging--despair and 
hopelessness. I think one of the things we are called to do as 
legislators in situations where there is grief is to show there is some 
hope we can improve, because I

[[Page 13726]]

believe we can improve. I have seen too many instances legislatively 
and in the lives of people that we can improve and we can get better, 
and as a nation we need to get better on this issue. This bill won't do 
it all, but I think it will be a sensible way to get better and to show 
those who are suffering and maybe even despairing under this epidemic 
of gun violence that we are not just going to accept it and sink deeper 
into despair and grief, but grab on to it and try to make improvements.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Ayotte). The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the Iran nuclear 
deal. We are here today because several months ago Senators Corker and 
Cardin, the respective chair and ranking member of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee worked out an agreement to allow us to have this 
debate voted on here in the Senate, and there were 98 votes in support 
of allowing a vote on the Iranian nuclear agreement. In fact, it went 
to the President's desk, and the President then signed it into law. 
That set in place a process, which is where we end up today.
  I certainly hope our colleagues who voted for this allow us to have 
that debate. It is an important debate. It has serious consequences for 
America's national security interests, and it certainly is something 
that shouldn't be minimized in any way. The American people need to 
have their voices heard in this discussion, which will take place if we 
are allowed to get on that resolution here in the U.S. Senate.
  So I would hope that our colleagues on the other side--there was some 
discussion I read reporting of statements made by the President or by 
members of his administration, statements made by some of our 
colleagues here that perhaps they might block us from even proceeding 
to this resolution. I think that would be a big mistake. It would be a 
tragic outcome with respect to something that is this important to 
America's national security. It certainly is something which the 
American people deserve and have a right to have their voices heard.
  So I am looking forward to this discussion. I hope throughout the 
course of the next few days we will have a chance to air this out 
because it is clear that one of the greatest threats to our national 
security is the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran and a nuclear arms 
race in the Middle East.
  Unfortunately, President Obama's Iran nuclear deal, which is really a 
nuclear concessions deal, increases rather than decreases that 
possibility.
  There are numerous reasons to be concerned about a nuclear-armed 
Iran. Iran is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. That is 
well documented. It has been talked about a lot. Iran actively supports 
Hezbollah and Hamas, both of which pose an immediate threat to our ally 
Israel.
  Iran incites regional instability, supporting the Houthis in Yemen 
and the Assad regime in Syria. Iran continues to commit human rights 
abuses against its own people, and Iran has a history of taking extreme 
measures to hide its nuclear enrichment program from the international 
community.
  In response to Iran's nuclear activities 9 years ago, in 2006, the 
U.N. and the United States began to impose sanctions on Iran's nuclear 
enrichment program. These sanctions were dramatically increased in 
2010. The sanctions targeted Iranian businesses and financial 
institutions as well as members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps or 
IRGC, who were responsible for killing hundreds of Americans and froze 
Iranian assets that would have been used by Iran to support terrorism 
throughout the region. This had a tremendous impact, effectively 
bringing Iran to its knees.
  Thanks to the pressures the sanctions exerted on Iran's economy, 
Iran's leadership was under immense pressure to negotiate with the 
United States and its allies. In 2013 Iran agreed to engage in talks 
regarding its nuclear program. However, soon after Iran agreed to come 
to the negotiating table, the Obama administration inexplicably began 
making concession after concession, with Iran giving up very little in 
return. The result--a weak deal that is highly unlikely to stop Iran 
from becoming a nuclear power.
  We have already heard from many of my colleagues why this agreement 
is a bad deal. Once this deal goes into effect, right off the bat Iran 
will have access to roughly $140 billion, which even President Obama 
and Secretary Kerry acknowledge would be partly used to finance 
terrorism. The deal will also increase access to conventional weapons, 
allowing Iran to defend its nuclear infrastructure from military 
strike. By lifting the ban on ballistic missiles, Iran will be able to 
purchase a delivery system capable of carrying a nuclear warhead well 
beyond the confines of the Middle East. The deal will also allow Iran 
to continue its research and development into advanced centrifuges, 
permitting Iran to modernize its enrichment infrastructure and reducing 
the breakout period for a nuclear weapon to a few weeks instead of 
months.
  The outcome of this agreement will be a more prosperous, better 
armed, more dangerous Iran, exerting its regional influence and 
continuing to sponsor terror. All of that will be achieved without Iran 
violating the terms of the agreement.
  However, if Iran does decide to cheat, this deal will make that more 
possible. To begin with, for suspicious sites not currently on the list 
of Iran's nuclear facilities, Iran gets 24 days' notice before 
inspections can take place. Even more concerning, however, is the 
information leaked recently that the secret International Atomic Energy 
Agency agreement with Iran will allow Iran to provide its own soil 
samples to inspectors from enrichment sites such as the facility at 
Parchin. Think about that. The regime which has broken these agreements 
in the past and cheated in the past--again, well documented--will be 
able to furnish its own soil inspections.
  Unfortunately, instead of acknowledging this when it was raised in 
committee, Secretary Kerry took on the role of apologist for Iran, 
defending the deal by saying that private agreements with the IAEA are 
the norm. However, if the leaked information regarding soil samples is 
correct, this calls into question the entire credibility of the 
inspections regime. For this reason and many others, I strongly oppose 
President Obama's nuclear arms concession agreement with Iran, and I 
urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same.
  By rejecting this agreement, we can negotiate a better deal--one that 
will actually stop Iran's nuclear program and prevent Iran from getting 
a nuclear bomb. It is unfortunate that when we have the majority of the 
American people clearly opposing this deal that the President is not 
only willing to veto their opposition but to call doing so a victory.
  I would like to expand a little bit of detail on some of the national 
security concerns with this nuclear agreement with Iran.
  Since the Iran agreement was first announced in July, the Obama 
administration has repeatedly stated that we should at least give this 
deal a try, arguing that if Iran breaks its side of the agreement and 
pursues a nuclear weapon, we will have the same military options down 
the road that we have today. However, that is not true. We will not 
have the same options in the future that we have today. Right now, if a 
situation arose where Iran entered a breakout period and was pursuing a 
nuclear weapon, the United States or our allies in the region could 
conduct a targeted air strike on Iran's enrichment facilities.
  For example, if we knew that Iran was using its nuclear enrichment 
facility at Fordow to enrich weapons-grade uranium, we could utilize 
our air superiority with bunker-buster bombs. Obviously, we would 
prefer to avoid a military strike, but if needed, we have that option, 
and Iran knows this.
  However, under this agreement, in 10 years' time, Iran will have 
faster, far more efficient centrifuges that can operate in 
significantly smaller facilities that can be placed deeper underground

[[Page 13727]]

with increased levels of fortification, making a military strike much 
more complex.
  Right now Iran is using IR-1 centrifuges, which are basically 1960s 
technology; but under this agreement, starting around year 8, Iran can 
begin testing IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges. In fact, as stated in page 10 
of Annex 1, after the agreement has been in place for 8\1/2\ years, 
Iran can construct up to 30 IR-6 centrifuges and 30 IR-8 centrifuges. 
Why is this so significant? IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges are far more 
advanced and estimated to be up to 15 times more efficient than the IR-
1 centrifuges that they are using today. By increasing the efficiency 
of the enrichment process, Iran can significantly reduce the breakout 
period that is necessary to create a bomb.
  On page 17 of Annex 1 of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, 
under the section titled ``Centrifuge Manufacturing,'' the agreement 
states that at the end of year 8:

       Iran will commence manufacturing of IR-6 and IR-8 
     centrifuges without rotors through year 10 at a rate of up to 
     200 centrifuges per year for each type.

  The administration has repeatedly asserted that even if we destroyed 
Iran's enrichment facilities with an air strike, we can't turn back 
time and erase Iran's nuclear enrichment know-how.
  While that may be true, we absolutely can and should prevent Iran 
from increasing its nuclear expertise, but this deal doesn't do that. 
Instead, it ensures Iran's knowledge will increase by solidifying its 
ability to develop more advanced centrifuges. Because these IR-6 and 
IR-8 centrifuges are so much more efficient in speeding up the uranium 
enrichment process, they will make it far easier for Iran to conceal 
and protect its nuclear program.
  Referring once again to the facility at Fordow, when Fordow was first 
constructed, it was built to contain 3,000 IR-1 centrifuges, which 
meant that the facility had to be significant in size. IR-8 
centrifuges, however, are estimated to be 15 times more efficient than 
the IR-1 centrifuges used at Fordow, which means that by using IR-8 
centrifuges, Iran could replicate the enrichment capability of a 
facility like Fordow with a building containing not 3,000 centrifuges, 
but only 200 centrifuges. Such a facility can be the size of a house. 
By reducing the size of the facilities by this magnitude, Iran could 
build many Fordows in multiple locations, hiding them more easily and 
putting them deeper underground. Such facilities could be built within 
existing mines, making them extremely difficult to find.
  As mentioned before, this agreement guarantees Iran will have the 
manufacturing capacity it needs to build these advanced centrifuges. 
Even within the parameters of this agreement, Iran could manufacture 
200 IR-6 centrifuges and 200 IR-8 centrifuges per year starting around 
year 8. Since Iran would already have the manufacturing capacity for 
building IR-8 centrifuges, it would merely need to ramp up the 
production beyond the terms of the agreement and in a short period of 
time it could have operating enrichment facilities in multiple 
locations throughout the country. By the time these violations had been 
discovered and conformed, the advanced centrifuges would likely be in 
place, and Iran would have likely enough enriched uranium for a bomb.
  But there is much more to it than that. Currently, according to 
publicly available sources, Iran's air defense capabilities consist of 
domestically produced, short-range surface-to-air missiles and Russian 
made, longer range SA-2 and SA-5 surface-to-air missiles, as well as a 
few Chinese CSA-1s. These systems are vulnerable to electronic 
countermeasures and pose very little threat to American or even Israeli 
aircraft.
  However, that is not where Iran's air defenses will be in 10 years. 
Under this agreement, the ban on conventional weapons sales to Iran 
will be lifted after 5 years. Russia has already agreed to sell Iran 
four batteries of S-300 vehicle-launched surface-to-air missiles. 
Depending upon the sophistication of these S-300 missile systems, they 
may be able to engage aircraft up to 200 miles away.
  As we saw last month with Iran unveiling its new solid-fuel missiles, 
Iran's domestic military infrastructure will not remain static. Over 
the next decade, as Iran acquires more and more increasingly advanced 
weapons systems, its area denial capability will make airstrikes even 
more difficult. Will a future American President, therefore, have the 
same military options that we have today, as President Obama and 
Secretary Kerry claim? The answer is no.
  We will still have military options available to us, but the calculus 
for carrying out a targeted airstrike will be much different down the 
road. Therefore, it is not realistic for President Obama to claim that 
future Presidents will have the same military options against Iran we 
have today. And the more the realistic possibility of a military strike 
decreases, the more likely Iran will be to violate the terms of the 
agreement and go after a bomb.
  In 10 years' time, under this agreement, our best hope for Iran not 
attaining a nuclear weapon will be the Iranian Government voluntarily 
deciding it doesn't want one. That is not something I am willing to 
bank on.
  Madam President, I also want to speak for a moment about Iran's 
support for terrorism and the idea put forward by President Obama that 
Iran will spend most of the soon-to-be-acquired economic wealth on its 
own economy. Even if we assume Iran's military spending remains what it 
is today as a percentage of Iran's budget, what would that mean going 
forward?
  Well, there are many estimates on how much Iran spends on its 
military. Some experts put the figure at around $10 billion per year, 
while others estimate the figure to be closer to $15 billion or even 
higher. In addition, of the amount spent on Iran's military, about 65 
percent is spent on Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps--the IRGC.
  In the first year of this agreement, between unfrozen assets and 
increased revenue from oil sales, Iran is expected to see an initial 
influx of around $140 billion. Now, using conservative numbers, if 
Iran's military spending stayed the same in this coming year as a 
percentage of GDP, it would increase to almost $15 billion, with $9.5 
billion going to the IRGC.
  One of the main national security concerns we have regarding the IRGC 
is that Iran uses it to support terrorist organizations. Iran is the 
main supporter of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, both of which 
have provoked conflicts with Israel in recent years.
  In addition, Iran's support of instability in the region is well 
known, with the Iranian Government providing funding to the Houthis in 
Yemen and military assistance to Assad in Syria. Many of our own 
casualties in Iraq were the result of Iranian-made bombs provided to 
insurgents by the Iranian Quds Force.
  Last summer, the missiles being launched at Israel out of Gaza were 
primarily imported from Iran. It is no wonder Israel has been so 
opposed to this deal.
  Even the Iron Dome system, which proved so successful during the last 
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, can be overwhelmed if enough missiles are 
fired at once. And now Iran, a country bent on Israel's destruction, is 
going to see a huge increase in military spending.
  Even the Quds Force commander, Qassem Suleimani, the man responsible 
for supplying Iraqi insurgents with bombs that killed U.S. soldiers, 
will see United Nations and European Union sanctions lifted as a result 
of this deal.
  President Obama keeps arguing that the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran 
far outweighs the short-term impact of Iran's increased support for 
terrorism. As we have discussed, I don't think this agreement prevents 
Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. But even if my colleagues disagree 
with me on that point, are we really willing to trade the lives of our 
allies in the short term to try to achieve this goal? That is not a 
risk I am willing to take.
  In urging my colleagues to vote against this deal, I would also like 
to

[[Page 13728]]

speak for just a moment about what would happen if Congress is able to 
stop this deal?
  The President keeps saying a ``no'' vote on this deal will lead to 
war. Well, that is unrealistic and a clear attempt by the President to 
garner support for the agreement by stoking people's fears.
  Iran is very aware of its own military limitations, and it knows what 
the outcome of such a war would be. For Iran, in the short term, a much 
more realistic response would be for it to try to keep its side of the 
agreement in an attempt to gain United Nations and EU sanctions relief. 
However, despite this attempt, the United States could double down on 
the U.N. sanctions that were in place prior to the December framework 
and threaten to use secondary sanctions against foreign businesses who 
wish to do business with Iran.
  Given the size of the U.S. economy compared to Iran, this is a 
powerful deterrent. Since Iran's economy is already hurting, 
maintaining sanctions would provide more leverage for the P5+1 to get a 
better deal.
  However, another plausible outcome following congressional rejection 
of the deal would be for Iran to try to capitalize on congressional 
disapproval by seeking to divide Russia and China from the West to 
undermine the multilateral sanctions regime. Iran could try to achieve 
this by implementing certain commitments from the agreement but not 
others.
  But even if China and Russia wish to do business with Iran, they both 
still have an incentive to try to achieve the original goal of the 
negotiations. It is not in China's interest for a nuclear-armed Iran to 
cause greater instability with global energy prices, and Russia doesn't 
want an Islamist regime in its backyard, which is prone to regional 
conflicts, acquiring nuclear weapons capabilities.
  These scenarios I am describing have already been echoed by a chorus 
of experts who have pointed out the flaws in this agreement and offered 
alternatives. The vote this week is not--is not--a choice between 
supporting a bad deal or going to war. The vote this week is an 
opportunity to reject a bad deal in order to achieve a better outcome.
  That is what we ought to be doing, and I hope we get the chance to 
get on this resolution and that we have the chance to get a full debate 
here in the Senate where the people's voices can be heard. I hope when 
it is all said and done, Members here in the Senate will come to the 
same conclusion I and many of my colleagues have, which is that this is 
a bad deal for our country, it is a bad deal for our allies in the 
region, and there is a much better outcome that can be achieved if the 
Senate will reject this bad deal and get us back to negotiations where 
we can achieve a better outcome.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________