[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 11847-11848]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      NUCLEAR AGREEMENT WITH IRAN

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, former President Jimmy Carter was recently 
asked about President Obama's successes on the world stage. He said in 
response:

       I think they've been minimal. . . . [O]n the world stage, 
     just to be as objective about it as I can, I can't think of 
     many nations in the world where we have a better relationship 
     now than we did when he took over.

  He went on to say:

       If you look at Russia, if you look at England, if you look 
     at China, if you look at Egypt and so forth--I'm not saying 
     it's his fault--but we have not improved our relationship 
     with individual countries and I would say that the United 
     States influence and prestige and respect in the world is 
     probably lower now than it was six or seven years ago.

  That is former President Jimmy Carter describing current President 
Obama's foreign policies. Unfortunately, that is an accurate assessment 
of President Obama's rocky history on foreign policy.
  Last week's deal with Iran does not look likely to improve the 
President's record of minimal success on the world stage. Last week the 
administration announced that the United States--along with five other 
nations--had reached an agreement with Iran that the administration 
claims will prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. The contents 
of the agreement, however, were met with skepticism and concern from a 
number of quarters.
  Former Senator and Democratic Presidential candidate Jim Webb said 
that the deal sends a signal that ``we, the United States, are 
accepting the eventuality that they will acquire a nuclear weapon.''
  The senior Senator from New Jersey said, ``The bottom line is: The 
deal doesn't end Iran's nuclear program--it preserves it.''
  The Washington Post noted that Tehran ``fought for, and won, some 
troubling compromises'' on inspections, especially considering Iran's 
record of violations. The Post also pointed out what many Republicans 
have noted--that ``Mr. Obama settled for terms far short of those he 
originally aimed for.''
  Israel, the only functioning democracy in the Middle East, called 
this deal a ``historic mistake,'' and neighboring countries like Saudi 
Arabia expressed concern that this agreement may actually increase the 
threat Iran poses to their security.
  Then, of course, there was Iran's reaction. Iran's President hailed 
the agreement, while Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei 
praised negotiators.
  Lest anyone think this marked a softening of Iran's attitude toward 
the United States, however, Khamenei emphasized that ``our policy 
toward the arrogant U.S. government won't change at all.'' Echoing the 
chants coming from the people, he stated, ``You heard `Death to 
Israel,' `Death to the U.S.' . . . we ask Almighty God to accept these 
prayers by the people of Iran.''
  These are not the words of a reliable partner. These are the words of 
the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism.
  There is good reason to be concerned about this agreement. This deal 
not only fails to provide reassurance that Iran will not acquire a 
nuclear weapon, it may actually enhance Iran's chances of acquiring a 
bomb.
  For starters, this deal fails to include any adequate method of 
verifying that Iran is complying with the agreement. Time and time 
again, Iran has made it clear that it cannot be trusted to comply with 
any deal. Iran has a history of building nuclear facilities in secret. 
The enrichment facility at Fordow, which will remain in place as part 
of this agreement, is just one example of an enrichment facility that 
was originally hidden from the outside world. The fact that Iran cannot 
be relied on to follow the outlines of an agreement means that 
verification--specifically, ``anytime, anywhere'' inspections of 
suspicious sites--is an essential part of any credible deal. But the 
final deal that emerged doesn't come close to ensuring anytime, 
anywhere inspections. It does provide for 24/7 inspections of Iran's 
currently known nuclear sites, but it forces inspectors to request 
access to any other site they deem suspicious. Iran can refuse 
requests, and appealing those refusals could take close to a month, 
leaving the Iranians plenty of time to hide evidence of suspicious 
activity.
  Forcing Iran to dismantle its nuclear infrastructure and halt uranium 
enrichment would have provided some assurance that Iran's quest for a 
bomb had been halted. But the nuclear agreement the administration 
helped reach doesn't require Iran to dismantle any of its nuclear 
infrastructure. The agreement does require Iran to take

[[Page 11848]]

some of its centrifuges offline, but they do not have to be removed or 
dismantled--simply put into storage.
  The agreement also explicitly allows Iran to continue enriching 
uranium. While it prohibits Iran from enriching uranium to the level 
required for a nuclear weapon, the restriction is of limited value 
considering that Iran retains the equipment and production capacity it 
would need to build a bomb.
  I haven't even mentioned other areas of concern with this agreement.
  In exchange for Iran's agreeing to--supposedly--stop its effort to 
acquire a nuclear weapon, billions of dollars in Iranian assets will be 
unfrozen and the sanctions that have crippled the Iranian economy will 
be lifted. Right now, despite its struggling economy, Iran manages to 
provide funding and other support to Syria's oppressive government, to 
Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in the Gaza Strip, to Houthi rebels in 
Yemen, and to militias in Iraq. It is not hard to imagine what it will 
do with the billions of dollars it will gain access to under this 
agreement.
  The deal negotiators reached with Iran will also expand Iranian 
access to conventional weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles, 
which are generally used as a vehicle for the delivery of nuclear 
weapons. While the deal does temporarily extend restrictions on the 
import of these weapons, it does so for just 5 years in the case of 
conventional weapons and for just 8 years in the case of ballistic 
missiles. That means that in as few as 8 years, Iran will be able to 
purchase a ballistic missile capable of delivering a nuclear warhead.
  Obviously, there is a lot to be concerned about when it comes to this 
deal, and after the agreement was released last week, both Democrats 
and Republicans expressed the desire to examine those provisions and 
hear from members of the administration. So what did the President do? 
He declared that the agreement was a triumph of diplomacy and took 
immediate action to send the bill to the United Nations for a vote. 
That is right. The President didn't wait to hear from Members of 
Congress or the American people; he just went ahead and asked the 
United Nations for its approval. In other words, the President 
unilaterally committed the United States to supporting the deal without 
knowing whether the United States Congress or the American people are 
in favor of the agreement. This is especially disappointing considering 
that just 2\1/2\ months ago, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate 
voted overwhelmingly to require that the President submit full details 
of any nuclear agreement to Congress before it could be agreed to. The 
President signed this legislation--the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review 
Act--into law on May 22, but apparently he feels free to ignore the 
spirit, if not the letter, of the act.
  When word emerged that the President was going to send a resolution 
directly to the U.N. without waiting for the American people or 
Congress to weigh in, both Democrats and Republicans asked the 
President to hold off. Democrats who requested that the President wait 
to submit the agreement included the leading Democrat on the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee, who characterized the White House's 
decision as ``somewhat presumptuous,'' and the Democratic whip in the 
House of Representatives, who said, ``I believe that waiting to go to 
the United Nations until such time as Congress has acted would be 
consistent with the intent and substance of the Nuclear Agreement 
Review Act.''
  Circumventing elected Members of Congress to gain the U.N.'s approval 
before Congress has had a chance to review the agreement suggests that 
the President has a higher regard for the United Nation's opinion than 
for the opinion of the American people.
  President Obama is apparently betting on the chance that in 10 years' 
time, Iran's views toward the rest of the world will have changed and 
will no longer be seeking death to Israel and America or furthering 
terrorism in the Middle East. It is a nice notion, but nothing in 
Iran's history of terrorism, violence, and deceit suggests it is a 
scenario that is likely to come to pass. And if it doesn't happen, as a 
result of this agreement, Iran will be in a much better position to 
develop a nuclear weapon than it is today, as even the supporters of 
this deal acknowledge, not to mention that Iran will be in a position 
to purchase the missiles necessary to deliver nuclear weapons to 
locations in the Middle East and beyond.
  During negotiations on this deal, it became obvious that the 
President was determined to make reaching an agreement with Iran his 
legacy. It is possible that he will get his wish, but it may not be the 
legacy he wanted.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business 
for 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________