[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 21463-21464]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      NUCLEAR AGREEMENT WITH IRAN

  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I know there is a lot going on today: 
the spending bill, the budget. They are very critical to our country. 
There is certainly a lot of focus on that. A lot of people are spending 
a lot of time, myself included, digging into that agreement, but the 
news yesterday on Iran also deserves our attention. Reuters reported 
that Iran, according to the U.N. Security Council panel of experts, 
violated U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929 when it tested a 
ballistic missile capable of delivering a nuclear warhead in October. 
They said it was a violation of a U.N. Security Council resolution. 
They are looking at--and it is probably likely, what you see here--the 
Iranians also launched another ballistic missile in November. That is 
also another likely violation of a U.N. Security Council resolution.
  I made some remarks on the floor a few days ago about Iran and about 
the nuclear deal. I reminded my colleagues that one of the selling 
points by the President and by Secretary Kerry about this deal was they 
were making the case that it was likely to improve Iran's behavior: 
bring them into the community of nations, get them to behave more like 
a normal country and not the world's largest sponsor of terrorism, 
which it currently is.
  Since the signing of the nuclear deal, which we debated on this 
floor, Iran's behavior has only gotten worse. Examples are very 
numerous. Leaders of the country continue to hold rallies, chanting: 
``Death to America,'' ``Death to Israel.'' Iran continues to fund 
Hezbollah--one of its terrorist proxies around the world--hundreds of 
millions of dollars. It violated U.N. Security Council resolutions that 
prevent the Quds Force commander, General Soleimani, from traveling. He 
actually traveled to Russia to meet with Mr. Putin to talk about arms 
trade, in likely a violation of another security council resolution.
  The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff recently said that up to 
2,000 Iranian troops are in Syria helping to keep the Assad regime in 
power, working with the Russians on that.
  Something that we can never forget, probably the worst outrage that 
we have seen, all since the signing of the nuclear agreement a couple 
of months ago, is that in a direct affront to the United States and our 
citizens, Iran is still holding five Americans against their will. They 
took another American hostage since the signing of this agreement. One 
of them is a marine. One of them is a pastor. One of them is a 
Washington Post reporter. They are all fellow American citizens.
  As we prepare for the holidays, when families come together, when 
friends come together, the President and Secretary Kerry should be 
working day and night on the phone, every instrument of American power, 
to try and release these Americans, but that certainly doesn't seem to 
be happening.
  All of this has taken place since the signing of the agreement. All 
of this is proof enough that the Iran nuclear deal certainly didn't 
change Iran's behavior for the better. To the contrary, it is becoming 
increasingly clear that the Obama administration's deal with Iran has 
only emboldened Iran to take more provocative action against the United 
States, our citizens, and our allies.
  Iran's leaders are testing us. It is clear they are testing us right 
now. How we respond to these tests is critical. As noted, Iran's 
missile launches on October 11 clearly violated U.N. Security Council 
Resolution 1921. The one on November 21 likely did as well. What does 
this mean? What does this mean for the current Iran nuclear deal that 
was recently signed? What are the implications on moving forward with 
that deal? What are the implications of this activity on moving forward 
with that deal?
  I believe a strong argument can be made that these actions by Iran 
mean they are already violating the spirit and the intent of the 
nuclear agreement that this body just voted on a few months ago--
already.
  Former Secretary of State and former U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton 
actually predicted this just last week when she stated: They are going 
to violate it. They are going to violate the nuclear agreement, and 
when they do, we need to respond quickly and very harshly.
  That was the former Secretary of State, former Member of this body. I 
think Secretary Clinton was right on this.
  President Obama himself indicated that there is definitely a tie 
between the Iranian nuclear deal from his administration and Iran's use 
of ballistic missile activities. As a matter of fact, the President in 
a press conference clearly stated that the prohibitions on these 
activities were part of the nuclear agreement, when in July of this 
year, after the signing of the agreement, President Obama stated:

       What I said to our negotiators was . . . let's press for a 
     longer extension of the arms embargo and the ballistic 
     missile prohibitions. And we got that. We got five years in 
     which, under this new agreement, arms coming in and out of 
     Iran are prohibited, and we got eight years for the 
     respective ballistic missiles.

  This is the President talking about his nuclear agreement.
  To look at another tie between ballistic missiles and the nuclear 
agreement, you need to look at the U.N. Security Council that 
implemented the Iran nuclear deal. That is U.N. Security Council 
Resolution 2231. That is replacing some of the other U.N. security 
council resolutions, and it is the legal framework for the nuclear deal 
that this body debated and approved.

[[Page 21464]]

Here is what U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231 states: ``Iran is 
called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles 
designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons . . . until the 
date eight years after the JCPOA adoption day.''
  Again, plain English of the connection. The U.N. Security Council 
Resolution--that is the international framework for the nuclear deal--
says: no ballistic missile activity by Iran.
  Yet now we know in no uncertain terms because our U.N. Ambassador, 
Ambassador Power, just stated that this launch in October was what that 
U.N. Security Council resolution said Iran couldn't do. She said that 
launch was inherently capable of delivering a nuclear weapon. Those are 
a lot of U.N. Security Council resolutions. That is a lot of activity.
  Where does that leave us with regard to the Iran nuclear deal? It is 
obviously clear that Iran just violated U.N. Security Council 
Resolution 1929. That has already been stated by the panel of experts, 
by Ambassador Power, and the language of the U.N. Security Council 
Resolution 2231--the implementation of the U.N. resolution of the 
Iranian U.N. deal.
  This is what I mean when I say that Iran is already violating the 
spirit and the intent of the Iran nuclear deal. The deal that this body 
debated a couple of months ago is already being violated by the 
Iranians.
  What should we do? Some of us have already taken action. Thirty-five 
Members of this body yesterday sent a letter to the President--written 
by my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Ayotte--and it said 
basically: Mr. President, given these ballistic missile activities, 
given that Iran is violating U.N. Security Council resolutions that 
relate to the nuclear agreement, you should not be lifting sanctions.
  The Obama administration is talking about lifting sanctions as part 
of the nuclear agreement as early as next month--tens of billions of 
dollars to the world's largest terrorist regime--sanctions are going to 
be lifted to allow them to continue their provocative activities 
against the United States, our allies, and our citizens.
  What we are saying, one-third of the Members of this body, is that we 
shouldn't be doing that. The President should heed the advice of 
Senator Ayotte's letter. Additionally, I think a strong argument--and 
people need to look at this issue--that can be made about Iran's recent 
behavior is that we cannot lift these sanctions pursuant to the terms 
of the nuclear deal. The nuclear agreement that was debated in this 
body states that before sanctions are lifted on implementation day, 
Iran must be in accord with U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231, 
which among other things calls upon Iran not to undertake activity 
related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons.
  Do you see how they are related? The nuclear agreement that this body 
agreed to, the implementation plan of the nuclear agreement, paragraph 
34(3) says that Iran has to be in accord with this provision in order 
for sanctions to be lifted.
  Iran is not in accord with this provision. The U.N. has said that. 
Ambassador Power said that. The bottom line is, if Iran is already 
violating this U.N. Security Council resolution, then under paragraph 
34(3) of the implementation plan of the nuclear deal by the Obama 
administration, sanctions shouldn't be lifted.
  Here is how the President put it when he was selling the deal. ``If 
Iran violates this deal, the sanctions we imposed that have helped 
cripple the Iranian economy--the sanctions that helped make this deal 
possible--would snap back into place promptly.''
  I agree that is what we should be doing, but here is the key point. 
The President doesn't need to wait for the sanctions to snap back. He 
can and he should take action now, before it is too late, before 
billions of dollars flood into Iran--the world's largest state sponsor 
of terrorism.
  That is why over one-third of the Members of this body wrote the 
President yesterday. I urge my colleagues--particularly my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle who I know are concerned about these 
issues because I have had discussions with a number of them--that they 
should be writing the President as well. They should be telling the 
President the same thing: Mr. President, Iran is violating the 
agreement; don't lift the sanctions. He can and should act now.
  The President should not lift sanctions against Iran. He needs to go 
back and reread his own nuclear agreement, and he needs to heed the 
advice of his former Secretary of State to ``act quickly and harshly 
against Iran'' when it violates the agreement by not allowing them 
access to tens of billions of dollars. The President needs to do that 
now.
  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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________