[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14508-14509]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      NUCLEAR AGREEMENT WITH IRAN

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the Democrats have chosen to deny the 
Senate a final vote on the President's deal with Iran. They made their 
choice, but that doesn't mean the discussion is over.
  Today we will have another opportunity to address the lifting of 
congressionally mandated sanctions as called for in the Joint 
Comprehensive Plan of Action. Today we will have an opportunity to vote 
on a question of policy: Should Iran be left with a threshold nuclear 
program, one now recognized by the P5+1, and receive billions of 
dollars in sanctions relief without any linkage whatsoever to other 
aspects of its foreign policy adventurism. That is the question before 
us.
  I will discuss that vote in greater detail in just a moment but first 
a reminder of how we got to this point.
  Here is what we know about the nuclear deal with Iran. It is 
President Obama's deal with Iran, not America's deal with Iran, because 
the President did everything possible to cut the American people out 
and to block their elected representatives from having a say.
  He refused a treaty, because as Secretary Kerry noted quite candidly, 
he wasn't interested in negotiating something an elected Congress could 
support. He then had to be persuaded that resisting legislation to 
allow Congress an up-or-down vote on it--just as he had to be persuaded 
when Congress passed sanctions legislation that helped bring Iran to 
the table in the first place--would be futile. In other words, he 
didn't want the legislation that gave us an opportunity to respond to 
the President's deal with Iran. It had so many supporters, he knew the 
veto would be overridden. Then he finally convinced his party, which 
had voted unanimously for the legislation that gave Congress an 
opportunity to weigh in on the President's deal, to then deny the 
American people the up-or-down congressional vote Democrats had 
promised. Our Democratic friends went to extreme lengths to protect the 
President politically. Because they did, Democrats ensured that this 
would be not just Obama's deal with Iran but the Democratic Party's 
deal with Iran too.
  It is a deal that allows Iran to grow stronger in any number of ways: 
diplomatically, militarily, in terms of trade, and in terms of its 
enrichment program. It is also a deal that achieves hardly any of the 
Obama administration's primary goals. Secretary Kerry once declared 
that an accounting of Iran's military-related nuclear activities ``will 
be part of a final'' deal. ``If there is going to be a deal,'' he 
promised, ``it will be done.'' But it isn't.
  Secretary Moniz once declared that he expected we would have anytime, 
anywhere access to Iranian nuclear facilities. We will not.
  President Obama once declared that ``the deal we'll accept is they 
end their nuclear program--it's very straightforward''--or perhaps not 
quite so straightforward because this deal will not end Iran's nuclear 
program.
  Because the President made clear his desire to secure an agreement at 
any cost, it became easy for the Iranians to exploit concession after 
concession after concession. It became possible for the world's leading 
state sponsor of terrorism to secure a deal that allows it to enrich 
uranium, to maintain thousands of centrifuges, and to become a 
recognized nuclear-threshold state, forever on the edge of developing a 
weapon. Iran was even able to secure a multibillion-dollar cash 
windfall that will allow it to strengthen terrorist groups such as 
Hezbollah and Hamas, along with Assad's bloody regime in Damascus--even 
the President basically admits as much.
  The administration is now so invested in this deal that it is likely 
to veto any additional sanctions passed by Congress, even those against 
terrorism.
  Presidents are able to secure stronger, better, and more durable 
outcomes when they seek constructive cooperation on matters beyond the 
water's edge.
  Republicans stood proudly for more international trade jobs just a 
few months ago. The President agreed with us on the policy. We all 
fought in the same corner as a result. It was disappointing to then 
hear the same President dismiss honest intellectual disagreements on 
the Iran deal as reflexive opposition to him personally. What nonsense.
  The President made a choice to turn this into a partisan campaign 
instead of a serious debate. He tried to cut out the American people 
and Congress at every single opportunity. Because he did, he has left 
his country and his

[[Page 14509]]

party with an Executive deal that has hardly any durability or popular 
backing. Because he handled it this way, he has left his country and 
his party with an Executive deal that has hardly any durability or any 
public support. The American people aren't sold on it. A strong 
bipartisan majority of the House has rejected it. A strong bipartisan 
majority of the Senate rejects it too.
  The deal can and likely will be revisited by the next Commander in 
Chief, but its negative consequences promise to live on regardless and 
far beyond one President's last few months in office.
  Those who follow in the White House and in Congress will have to deal 
with an Iran enriched by billions of dollars to invest in conventional 
weapons upgrades and further support to terrorist groups. Many of us 
will be here in the future, when we have the need to work with the next 
President to decide how best to deal with Iran's ambitions and the 
future of this nuclear program.
  One reason Iran was able to negotiate so successfully was because of 
Russian support for a deal that would be antithetical to America's 
interests. No surprise then that just days after the deal was 
accounted, the commander of Iran's Quds Force reportedly flew to Moscow 
to secure Russian support for their mutual ally in Syria. No surprise 
then that as soon as the President had seemingly succeeded in securing 
the votes for a veto override, we heard that Russia was constructing a 
forward operating base to help prop up Assad. Iran's negotiating 
partner, Russia, will undoubtedly use its presence in Syria to attempt 
to leverage the Western powers to weaken sanctions crafted in response 
to the invasion of Crimea. That, my colleagues, is diplomatic linkage. 
Russia pursued it successfully; the Obama administration did not.
  The administration attempted to negotiate this deal with a singular 
focus on ending Iran's nuclear program. Now we already know it failed 
in that regard, but that myopia also has other consequences as well, 
leading the administration to ignore many issues that should have been 
linked to the negotiations in the first place--everything from Iran's 
support for terrorism to its aggressive behavior across the Middle 
East, to its harassment of shipping vessels in the Persian Gulf--but 
not just those issues. The administration failed to negotiate to ensure 
the release of American citizens being held in Iranian custody. The 
administration failed to negotiate to ensure Iran's recognition of 
Israel's right to exist. But we can do something to link the freedom of 
American citizens being held in Iranian custody and the recognition of 
Israel to sanctions relief--something the administration should have 
done. We can say it has to be corrected before sanctions are lifted and 
billions more flow into Iranian coffers to be used for terrorism. That 
is what today's vote is about.
  When it comes to American citizens being held in Iranian custody, the 
Senate voted unanimously just a few months ago to call for Iranian 
leaders to release our American citizens. One is a journalist in prison 
for spreading ``propaganda against the state.'' Another is a pastor who 
dared to attend a Christian gathering.
  When it comes to Israel, Iran employs invective against Israel at 
every turn. It has already demonstrated both the will and the 
capability to strike out against the West and through proxies and cyber 
attacks at allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia.
  What this deal will not do is alter Iran's behavior. What it will do 
is give Iran an even greater ability to follow through on these 
threats. So we cannot allow Iran to be empowered as a nuclear threshold 
state armed with billions in sanctions relief without at least 
providing some protection--some protection to Israel first, without at 
least demanding the release of Americans who have languished in Iranian 
custody for years first.
  Let's at least agree on that. I understand there is strong division 
in the Senate--a bipartisan majority opposed, partisan minority in 
favor--over the broader Iranian deal. But at the very least, at the 
very least, we should be able to come together over the vote we will 
take today. So I would urge all of my colleagues to vote for it.

                          ____________________