[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12103-12104]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      NUCLEAR AGREEMENT WITH IRAN

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have said that the Senate intends to 
thoroughly review the White House's deal with Iran and then take a vote 
on it under the terms of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. This is 
a review process which allows us to determine whether the 
administration complied with the law and delivered the complete 
agreement, and it is a review process which continues today.
  We will have an all-Senators briefing later this afternoon to get a 
more detailed analysis of the agreement. It will be a time for Senators 
to ask questions and get a stronger sense of whether this deal can be 
verified. I know many are eager to do so. Senators from both sides of 
the aisle have questions for the Obama administration. Then, tomorrow, 
Secretaries Kerry, Lew, and Moniz will come to the Senate to testify 
before the Foreign Relations Committee. I know they are expecting a lot 
of serious, thoughtful questions, including from Members of their own 
party--and they should because the onus is on any administration to 
explain why a deal such as this is a good one for our country.
  It is always the administration, not Congress, that carries the 
burden of proof in a debate of this nature, and it seems the 
administration today has a long way to go with Democrats and 
Republicans alike. For instance, many Members in both parties--
including Democratic leadership in Congress--warned the administration 
not to have the U.N. vote on this agreement before the American people 
and the Congress they elected had a chance to weigh in first. There was 
no reason to seek U.N. approval first, but the administration ignored 
Democrats, ignored Republicans, and did so anyway. Why? Why did they do 
that? They need to explain.
  Is this deal really about keeping America, the region, and the world 
safer, or is it simply a compendium of whatever Iran will allow--an 
agreement struck to take a difficult strategic threat off the table but 
one that might actually empower the Iranian regime and make war more 
likely? They need to explain this, too, because Iranian leaders, 
including the Foreign Minister, have hailed this deal as a victory over 
America. The Iranian Foreign Minister says this is a great victory over 
America. The Supreme Leader even boasted that ``our policies toward the 
arrogant US government will not change.'' That is the Supreme Leader of 
Iran--``Our policies toward the arrogant US government will not 
change''--and he said that to chants of ``Death to America'' from the 
crowd below. Even Secretary Kerry was taken aback by the response from 
Iran.
  We know this isn't about playing to some electorate in Iran because 
the Islamic Republic isn't truly a republic, and the unelected Supreme 
Leader has no electorate to report to. So we need to move beyond the 
rhetoric--including that the choice here is between a bad deal and war, 
which no serious person truly believes--and get to real answers 
instead. Our committees will be holding hearings that will begin to 
shine a light on this agreement, and they will aim toward getting the 
American people more of the answers they deserve.

[[Page 12104]]

Tomorrow's hearing will be important, but it is not the end of the 
process, it is just the beginning. We will have more hearings. We will 
interview more witnesses. We will continue endeavoring to answer the 
question of whether this deal will enhance or harm our national 
security. And then we will take a vote on it on behalf of the American 
people.

                          ____________________