[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14213-14216]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      NUCLEAR AGREEMENT WITH IRAN

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, back in May, Congress passed and the 
President signed legislation guaranteeing Congress the chance to take 
an up-or-down vote on any nuclear deal with Iran. It was widely debated 
here in the Senate and in the House of Representatives. Votes were 
held, and in the Senate, 98 Senators on both sides of the aisle agreed 
that we should pass legislation requiring that Congress have a voice--
and through Congress the American people have a voice--in something 
that is so important to America's national security interests.
  Yet here we are 4 months later, and the same Democrats who voted for 
that at the time and joined Republicans--98 Senators voted for the 
American people to have their voice heard on this-- these same 
Democrats have now chosen to stifle the voices of the American people 
by refusing to allow an up-or-down vote on the President's nuclear 
agreement. Twice now, when we attempted to move to a final vote on the 
deal, only four Democrats broke ranks with their colleagues and stood 
up to the President. That is a deeply disappointing result, especially 
given the stakes on this agreement.
  I would have to say that in some ways I suppose if you are trying to 
protect your President from having to make a decision about whether to 
sign or veto this legislation--maybe they were pushed into that 
position by the administration--but the fact is, this is something that 
was voted on in the Senate, in the House of Representatives, 
overwhelmingly supported, and sent to the President. The President of 
the United States reluctantly signed it into law, but the understanding 
was from that point forward that when this was actually brought to the 
floor of the Senate, there would be an open debate and there would be a 
vote. All that I think is simply expected by the American people is an 
opportunity to be heard from, in the form of an up-or-down vote, 
through their representatives in the Senate.
  I would think that even if Democrats in the Senate object to the vote 
that we would have on a resolution of disapproval and want to support 
the President's position, that they would allow it to be voted on and 
let it go to the President. If the President is so proud of this deal--
and clearly he is--why would he not then want the opportunity to veto a 
resolution of disapproval coming from Congress on this?
  I think, clearly, Democrats in the Senate are doing their best to try 
and protect the President from having to make that decision, 
notwithstanding the President's assertions that this is a wonderful 
deal for our country, a wonderful deal for our allies. Of course, the 
facts tell an entirely different story. A nuclear-armed Iran is a 
direct threat to the security of the United States and our allies in 
the Middle East, and the American people deserved that chance to have 
their voices heard.
  I wish to take just a moment to read some of the statements that have 
been made by Iran's Supreme Leader over the past few weeks. This is 
directly from the Twitter feed of the Ayatollah Khamenei. Speaking to 
Israel, he said: ``You will not see the next 25 years.'' That is the 
Supreme Leader of Iran speaking to Israel. He adds: ``God willing,'' 
there will be nothing of the ``Zionist regime'' in the next 25 years. 
Again, this is coming directly from the Twitter feed of the Iranian 
Supreme Leader.
  Of the United States, he says something he has said before: ``U.S. is 
the Great Satan.'' That is exactly as I said coming directly from the 
Supreme

[[Page 14214]]

Leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei, in Iran.
  So I challenge my colleagues in the Senate to reflect on those 
statements. Think about them. Not only do they demonstrate Iran's 
hostility toward the United States and Israel, but they demonstrate 
another key point when it comes to this agreement; that is, Iran is 
playing the long game.
  President Obama and Secretary Kerry may be thinking in terms of the 
next few months, may be thinking about their own legacy, but the 
Iranian regime is thinking in terms of years and decades. While this 
deal may slow down Iran in the near term, in the long term it 
legitimizes Iran's nuclear enrichment and drastically shortens its 
breakout period for a bomb.
  Under this agreement, in 10 years, Iran will transition from its 
current IR-1 centrifuges--which is about, they say, 1960s technology--
to the large-scale production of IR-2m centrifuges, which are four or 
five times faster than what Iran has today. In addition, this deal 
gives Iran the option of building still more advanced IR-6 and IR-8 
centrifuges down the road, which are 15 times faster at enriching 
uranium. In other words, without once violating this agreement in a 
decade, Iran will have reduced its breakout period for a bomb from a 
few months to a few weeks. This agreement also allows Iran to keep its 
fortified nuclear facilities, and it gives Iran access to conventional 
weapons and ballistic missiles capable of delivering a warhead far 
beyond Iran's borders.
  Plus, under this agreement, Iran will have full access to 
international markets and the materials and technical components it 
needs to build a bomb, material that right now it can only access 
through black-market channels. Iran is playing the long game, and in 
the long term this is a very good deal for Iran.
  Let's be clear about Iran's intentions regarding its nuclear program. 
Iran is not simply interested in pursuing a nuclear enrichment program 
for its civilian energy needs. Iran is interested in building a bomb. 
Make no mistake about it, if Iran were only interested in producing 
electricity, it wouldn't need a nuclear enrichment program.
  Look at other countries that use nuclear power to produce 
electricity. Sweden, for example, currently has 10 functioning nuclear 
powerplants, but it does not have a domestic nuclear enrichment 
program. Finland has four nuclear powerplants, but it does not conduct 
its own nuclear enrichment. Ukraine, which voluntarily gave up its 
post-Soviet nuclear arsenal in the 1990s, has 15 nuclear powerplants. 
It does not conduct its own nuclear enrichment. Mexico, Bulgaria, the 
Czech Republic, Spain, Switzerland, and South Africa--all these 
countries have nuclear powerplants, but none of these countries 
conducts its own nuclear enrichment and none of these countries needs 
to conduct its own enrichment because the fuel can easily be obtained 
in the world market, where there is actually a surplus of enriched 
uranium. No one worries that these countries are on the verge of 
building a bomb because their intentions are clear. They are only 
interested in the electricity they can obtain from nuclear power, and 
for this they don't need to enrich their own uranium.
  Another striking example can be seen on the Korean Peninsula. South 
Korea, a thriving democracy, has 23 operating nuclear powerplants. Yet 
it does not have a commercial enrichment program or even a spent fuel 
reprocessing facility. North Korea, on the other hand, chose to pursue 
an undisclosed illicit nuclear enrichment program, and North Korea has 
produced a nuclear bomb.
  Based on Iran's behavior, is Iran trying to be more like South Korea, 
with its multitude of powerplants and no enrichment capabilities, or 
North Korea, which fails to provide its population with electricity but 
still built a nuclear bomb. If Iran wants a peaceful, civilian, nuclear 
energy program, it does not need to be enriching uranium.
  Plain and simple, the only reason Iran needs a nuclear enrichment 
program is if it is interested in developing a nuclear weapon. If Iran 
wanted to silence all of its critics, if it wanted to prove that it is 
operating in good faith, it could halt its nuclear enrichment facility 
at Fordow and halt its domestic enrichment program altogether.
  If President Obama had reached a deal that would accomplish this, the 
Senate would not have sought a vote upon a resolution of disapproval. 
Instead, Republicans and Democrats alike would have been supporting the 
agreement praising the success of the negotiations, but that is not 
what happened. Instead, the President agreed to a deal that validates 
Iran's enrichment program, allows it to maintain its nuclear 
facilities, and explicitly permits Iran to continue researching and 
manufacturing advanced centrifuges. In other words, in a few short 
years, this deal gives Iran everything it would need for the speedy 
development of a nuclear weapon.
  If Iran genuinely wants a peaceful nuclear energy program, it can put 
everyone's concerns to rest and dismantle its uranium enrichment 
structure. Short of that, Iran is telegraphing to the world that it 
wants a nuclear bomb.
  Mr. President, I wish to shift gears for just a moment and address an 
assertion that Secretary Kerry has made numerous times throughout this 
debate.
  As we all know, one of the major points of contention surrounding 
this deal is the side agreements between Iran and the International 
Atomic Energy Agency, or the IAEA, that remain a secret. The nuclear 
deal grants inspections at Iran's known nuclear sites, but the details 
of these inspections are being kept secret between the IAEA and Iran. 
Secretary Kerry has asserted that keeping these side agreements secret 
is standard practice for the IAEA, but is that really the case? Are 
private agreements between Iran and host countries the norm?
  I wanted to find out. So last week I sat down with the former Deputy 
Director of the IAEA, Olli Heinonen, and discussed the policies and 
procedures of the IAEA with him at length. Mr. Heinonen is an expert on 
this topic, having served with the IAEA for 27 years and personally 
inspected, I might add, sites in Iran in the past. He was able to tell 
me that keeping side agreements a secret is not standard for the IAEA. 
It is an exception that has periodically been used to protect 
proprietary information for commercial reasons.
  Let me repeat that. In contrast to what Secretary Kerry is claiming, 
refusing to disclose these side agreements is not the IAEA's normal 
procedure; it is an exception. When commercially sensitive information 
is not at risk, the IAEA's practice is to make the details of the 
agreements public.
  So then why is the IAEA keeping its side agreements with Iran a 
secret? So far as we know, no proprietary concerns exist, which leads 
to the inevitable conclusion that these agreements have been kept a 
secret because they outline a weak inspections regime that would be 
unlikely to stand up to scrutiny, and the limited information that has 
been leaked so far backs up this conclusion. According to leaked 
documents made available to the Associated Press, the side agreements 
with the IAEA allow Iran to collect its own samples, with cameras 
recording the process. Iran will then deliver these samples to the IAEA 
to be tested for radioactive material.
  If that is true, there is reason to be deeply concerned because a 
process such as that would give Iran the opportunity to hide its 
nuclear activities from the IAEA. It is like having the fox guard the 
hen house.
  One of the agreements made by Secretary Kerry when the discussion of 
the 24-day waiting period for inspections of undisclosed sites came up 
was that traces of radioactive material could not be hidden in 24 days. 
That was the Secretary's argument. Samples taken from surfaces, where 
activities involving radioactive materials have taken place, will still 
have radioactive traces after the materials themselves are taken away. 
That has been the argument that has been made by Secretary Kerry. The 
Secretary is right about that. Traces of radioactive material do 
remain, but what the Secretary

[[Page 14215]]

doesn't mention is that those traces can be hidden. If tabletops, 
floors or walls are painted over with certain materials--not just once 
but several times--samples taken from their surfaces will not reveal 
radioactive material, and that makes allowing Iran to take its own 
samples very dangerous, even if cameras are present.
  If inspections are intrusive enough--meaning actual human IAEA 
inspectors are walking through a facility looking not only for illicit 
activity but for signs of someone trying to cover up such activity--it 
is pretty easy to identify newly painted surfaces and to know that 
something is amiss. That is the difference between actual inspections 
by the IAEA and having Iran collect samples and having cameras cover 
it.
  If, as reports suggest, the IAEA has agreed to allow monitoring by 
camera instead of sending inspectors into the facilities, it will be 
very difficult for the IAEA to pick up on efforts to hide illicit 
activities, such as repainting surfaces. If the IAEA's secret side 
deals allow Iran to conduct its own inspections, then it is no wonder 
Iran wants to keep such deals a secret.
  Given the possibility that these secret side deals significantly 
weaken the inspections regime authorized by this agreement, it is 
imperative that the contents of these deals be made public. In 
addition, if these agreements are not made known, the IAEA will be 
setting a dangerous precedent that could undermine its credibility 
moving forward. If Iran gets off the hook on inspections and the IAEA 
allows this, what happens next time there is a rogue regime pursuing an 
illicit nuclear program? Well, I will tell you what is going to happen. 
That nation will ask for the same inspections deal Iran got.
  If the White House is serious on any level about preventing future 
nuclear proliferation, it needs to consider very carefully what it is 
doing right now because right now the White House is establishing a 
precedent that if a country is belligerent enough and hostile enough 
and pursues a nuclear program in violation of international agreements, 
eventually the international community will validate that country's 
nuclear program and possibly even allow the country to conduct its own 
inspections. That is an incredibly dangerous precedent to set.
  I understand that Senators have different ideological foundations 
from which we form our views and that sometimes political pressures 
come into play when Senators are looking at legislation, but it is very 
unfortunate that so many of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle chose to ignore the text of this agreement and cast their vote on 
ideological grounds.
  The truth is that this agreement will provide a hostile nation which 
has an expressed hatred of the United States and Israel with a clear 
path to a nuclear bomb, and I am deeply disappointed that Senate 
Democrats could not even allow a vote on a deal of this magnitude--a 
deal that will shape the situation in the Middle East for years to 
come.
  As we move forward, Republicans will do everything we can to protect 
our country and our allies from the worst consequences of this 
agreement, starting with Leader McConnell's amendment to require a show 
of good faith from Tehran before congressional sanctions are lifted. I 
hope Democrats will join us. They still have that chance. I really do 
hope they will. This is that important. It is important to America's 
national security interests. It is important to our allies in that 
region of the world.
  This agreement is a bad agreement. It needs to be rejected. At a 
minimum, it needs to at least be voted on by the people's elected 
representatives of this country--something 98 Senators agreed to do 
just 4 months ago, and now all of a sudden, because the President 
evidently doesn't want to have to deal with a decision about whether to 
veto this resolution of disapproval, Democrats have dug in here in the 
Senate and are preventing the very thing 98 of us as Senators voted to 
allow to happen just 4 months ago. That is wrong. The American people 
deserve better.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise to address this issue the Senator 
from South Dakota has been speaking on as well. I am extremely 
disappointed and frustrated, as the Senator from South Dakota is and 
many of us are, that 42 of our Democratic colleagues would choose to 
block the Senate from even being able to consider and have an up-or-
down vote on whether we should proceed with this incredibly important, 
in my view, extremely dangerous deal with Iran despite the fact, as has 
been observed, that 98 Senators voted to create this very mechanism--a 
mechanism by which we could consider whether Congress wanted to pass a 
resolution of disapproval to prevent this dangerous deal from going 
forward. Nevertheless, they subsequently voted not to allow the 
Senate--and it is mystifying. We know what the outcome would be. We 
know there is a bipartisan majority in the Senate that opposes the 
deal, as there is a bipartisan majority in the House that opposes the 
deal, as there is a bipartisan majority across America that opposes the 
deal. But somehow we have to I guess pretend that is not the case and 
avoid a vote that would clearly manifest that bipartisan majority here 
in the Senate.
  If we did have that vote and we passed the resolution of 
disapproval--it has passed the House--it would go to the President, and 
he would veto it. He has made that clear. And those of us who 
disapprove of this deal don't have enough votes to override the 
President's veto. So in the end the President would still get his way.
  But somehow we have to hide from the fact that there is a clear 
bipartisan majority in both Houses of Congress that reflects the wishes 
of the American people about this. That is pretty frustrating and 
pretty surprising and strange, that my Democratic colleagues who say 
they are all for this deal nevertheless are afraid to acknowledge where 
the consensus really is.
  Well, I want to talk a bit about the specifics of the deal, but 
mostly I want to talk about the context of entering into a deal with a 
regime like the Iranian regime. There are a few things we should bear 
in mind when we are entering into negotiations with any other country, 
but first and foremost, let's remember that this isn't an agreement 
with Switzerland; this isn't an agreement with Canada; this is an 
agreement with the regime in Iran.
  The first point I would make about this regime is to remember how 
hostile they have been to the United States. Thirty-six years ago, 
radical Islamists in Tehran overran the U.S. Embassy, stormed the 
compound, and took 52 American hostages and held them for 444 days. And 
I would argue that our relationship with Iran has not improved a whole 
lot since then. They are still holding American hostages today. They 
have killed over 500 American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. They 
regularly call for ``Death to America.'' They call us the Great Satan. 
This is a very hostile regime indeed.
  The second point we should keep in mind is the consistent, 
demonstrated aggressive nature and the regional ambitions of this 
regime. This is, after
all, the world's No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism. They actively 
support Hezbollah. They actively support the Assad regime as he 
massacres his own people. And when the government in Yemen was 
cooperating with the United States--cooperating with us in attacking 
and killing terrorists who were trying to kill Americans--during the 
midst of the negotiations, the Iranian regime decided that was 
unacceptable, so they essentially overthrew the Government in Yemen and 
launched a civil war, which rages to this day. Of course, they continue 
to consistently threaten the very existence of Israel. That has been a 
consistent message from this regime.
  The third point I would make is how fundamentally untrustworthy this 
regime is. They are currently in violation of over 20 international 
agreements; yet we think they are going to comply with this one? It 
escapes me why we think that history isn't going to repeat itself. Even 
during the negotiations, they were caught trying to

[[Page 14216]]

buy nuclear parts. That is a violation of their own commitments. They 
were recently caught again using Hezbollah to supply arms to Assad in 
violation of agreements to which they committed. The bottom line is 
very clear: This regime in Iran cannot be trusted.
  Maybe the fourth point I want to make is the most important in some 
ways. It seems to me, in my experience in business and in life, in 
order to successfully complete a deal of almost any kind, to reach an 
agreement, it starts with a meeting of the minds. It starts with an 
agreement about a desired outcome. That is true in business, in 
multinational organizations, and it is true in negotiations we engage 
in here in Congress. The starting point is agreeing on a fundamental 
objective, and when two parties reach that agreement, then you can 
document it. You can draft the legal documents that then manifest and 
bring that agreement about. In my view--and I think this is a widely 
shared view--the Iranian regime has not decided to abandon their 
pursuit of nuclear weapons, and that makes all the difference in the 
world.
  I will take a contrasting point that I think is worth thinking 
about--the case of Muammar Qadhafi. We can probably all agree that 
Muammar Qadhafi was a very bad guy, probably a human being with no 
redeeming qualities at all. But after the United States went into Iraq 
and when our government presented him with the evidence we had about 
the Libyan weapon of mass destruction program, Muammar Qadhafi came to 
a conclusion. His conclusion was that it was in his interest to abandon 
his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction because he was afraid of 
what we would do to him if he didn't. He didn't become a good guy; he 
made a rational analysis of his situation and decided it was in his 
best interest. His ability to hold on to power would be enhanced if he 
gave up those programs, so he did. We reached an agreement, it was 
documented, and there is every reason to believe that would have 
succeeded because he had decided it was in his interest to make that 
agreement.
  I don't think the Iranian Government has in any way come to the 
conclusion that they have to give up the pursuit of nuclear weapons. 
They have been at it for decades, and the very conditions they insisted 
on in this agreement, in my view, make it clear they have every 
intention of continuing to pursue nuclear weapons.
  To summarize these points, when you are dealing with a country that 
is extremely hostile to the United States and our allies, that is 
aggressively seeking to dominate that region, that has demonstrated by 
its actions that it is completely untrustworthy, and that shows no 
evidence of having actually decided to abandon the pursuit of nuclear 
weapons, given those aspects, the reality we face, it is very difficult 
to complete an acceptable negotiation to ensure that country will be 
nuclear-free. At a minimum, you would need an absolutely bulletproof, 
airtight agreement in order to be successful.
  Instead, what do we have? We have an agreement where we give many 
tens, maybe over $100 billion virtually up front, which Iran will 
certainly use, at least in part, to fund their terrorist activities. 
The agreement allows them to retain an industrial-scale uranium 
enrichment program. You don't need any uranium enrichment to have 
peaceful nuclear energy. There is a very dubious inspection and 
verification process which allows up to 24 days before inspectors can 
get to certain sites. The whole deal is temporary. After Iran gets its 
money, Iran can walk away with the deal with 35 days' notice at any 
time. There is a little process they have to go through that is 30 days 
long, and then they can give 35 days' notice and just walk away. That 
is codified in the agreement. Of course, I think it is extremely 
dangerous for Israel and diminishes the ability of Israel to defend 
itself, and I think it is very likely to lead to nuclear proliferation 
throughout the Middle East.
  Those are plenty of reasons, in my view, to oppose this deal, but 
those are the parts we know about. What is truly amazing, what is 
absolutely shocking to me is that we don't have all the documents. I 
don't know how anyone can support a deal when they know they haven't 
seen some of the important documents that are part of the deal, but we 
know that is the case.
  There are two documents, negotiated apparently between the IAEA--
which is responsible for enforcement of essential parts of this 
agreement--and Iran, that not only has Congress not seen, the 
administration hasn't even seen. Secretary Kerry has not seen them. Our 
negotiators haven't seen them. Nobody has.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have an additional 2 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. TOOMEY. I thank the Chair.
  So it is shocking to me that we would proceed and that people would 
support an agreement when they know there are essential parts of 
enforcement and discovery about the previous military dimensions that 
are unknown to us.
  There is another point I need to make, and I will close with this. We 
had the minority leader, the Democratic leader, who was here last time 
we had this vote saying: This is over. You guys need to accept it, deal 
with it. This deal is going forward, and there is nothing you can do 
about it. It is done.
  I strongly disagree with that. This is not over. We are not finished 
with this. The reason we are not finished with this is because the 
President made a conscious decision. His decision was not to treat this 
as a treaty, not to respect the constitutional requirement to get two-
thirds of the Senate to support this, and had he brought us in early 
on, we might very well have been able to get there. Instead, he decided 
to circumvent the Constitution, the Congress, the United States Senate, 
and the will of the American people. So the result is that if the 
President goes forward with this, which it certainly looks as though he 
will, this deal will not be binding on the United States past this 
administration. That is by virtue of the decision the President made. 
The President could have gone a different way, but he didn't, so the 
deal can be undone by the next President. And with bipartisan 
majorities in both Houses of Congress, that is entirely plausible.
  There is another consideration, and that is that the President will 
be doing so in violation of the law. The law--the Corker-Cardin 
legislation--clearly and unambiguously requires the President to turn 
over all documents to Congress before the 60-day window even begins, 
and only after that is he permitted to lift the sanctions. But the 
President has not given all the documents to Congress. In fact, he 
hasn't even gotten all the documents himself. This is a clear, explicit 
violation of the law we all passed.
  I know the administration says: But it is customary for the IAEA to 
enter into these secret negotiations. As the Senator from South Dakota 
indicated a little while ago, it is not at all clear that it is 
customary, but more importantly, that doesn't matter. The law of the 
United States of America is more important than whatever is customary 
between the IAEA and other parties.
  So I think this is a very dangerous deal. I am very disappointed that 
we don't have a chance to have a clean up-or-down vote on this as we 
should have. But it is important for companies thinking about doing 
business with Iran and countries around the world to realize this is a 
deal between the current administration and Iran and it does not 
necessarily succeed this administration. No. 2, if the President goes 
ahead and lifts sanctions, he will be doing it in violation of the law 
he signed.
  This is not over, and we should not be giving up.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.

                          ____________________