tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN September 10, 2015 12:00am-2:01am EDT
iran, and it brings on us a special obligation of vigilance and vigorous enforcement. it can be made better. it can be improved and strengthened through unilateral action by the united states of america and through consultation and collaboration with our allies, not resuming or reopening the negotiations but acting in collaboration with our allies as well as through actions that we can take in the nation alone and working closely with our ally, our friend, our critical partner in the middle east, the state of israel. the administration set forth a case that the current agreement immediately reduces iran's nuclear program and places it under a series of overlapping safeguards. together, these measures push a
threshold nuclear power back from the brink. the agreement imposes an intrusive inspection and surveillance regime, relying on international certification and verification by the international atomic energy agency. future united states presidents have the authority immediately and through executive order to reimpose our sanctions if iranian actions are inconsistent with our national security. rejecting this agreement is fraught with unacceptable risk. our former negotiation partners and allies have signaled clearly that they are simply not coming back to the table, a point confirmed in my direct conversation and meeting. there is no better deal available now. the president's sanctions will
soon become unenforceable, producing an economic windfall for iran, whether or not the united states accepts this agreement. the united states, instead of iran, would be isolated. and iran's nuclear program would be unconstrained. rejection would fracture our unified efforts with our allies and greatly weaken international pressure on iran and undermine american leadership on this issue and others, especially if economic sanctions are needed in the event of a violation. this agreement has shortcomings, no doubt, and they are serious. i have listened to my colleagues, including chairman corker, whom i deeply respect and others here today enumerate a number of them, and yet i remain convinced that the most constructive and clear-eyed role for congress is to support
specific steps to make implementation and enforcement of this agreement stronger and more effective. in fact, in my view, the day after this agreement is approved and accepted is as important as the agreement itself. the day after and the months after and the years after, because that is when this agreement must be enforced vigorously and strenuously and unyieldingly. i've taken additional time to look beyond this agreement to create a blueprint for diplomatic steps to strengthen it. specifically, i'm working with the ranking member of the senate foreign relations committee, senator ben cardin of maryland to craft new legislation. congress must act to encourage
and enable diplomacy with iran, which is not only possible but critically important. now we must begin the process of addressing those shortfalls and short comes, unwanted impacts and consequences revealed during congressional review of the agreement. number one, countering iranian terror with dollar-for-dollar sanction. to counter iran's role as the leading state sponsor of terrorism, congress must sustain and expand existing sanctions that crack down on terror financing and demand their full enforcement by both the united states and the european union. i will continue, indeed i will increase pressing secretary of state john kerry to take long overdue, aggressive steps to interdict arms to hezbollah, and i will work to block hezbollah's financing and logistical support
from iran, applying tools and techniques available through our banking and financial system. number two, empowering our allies to counter iran and terror proxies. we must renew and reinvigorate our efforts to protect our allies, especially israel, our major strategic partner in the middle east from the threat of iran and its terror proxies. we need a new framework of defense cooperation that takes into account how this agreement will affect the changing threat from iran. congress must work to expand israel's qualitative military edge and bolster intelligence cooperation. the pentagon must establish new joint training exercises that involve our strategic air assets and invite israeli pilots to
train flying long-range bombers. now is the time to aid israel with extra f-35 joint strike fighter squadrons and the tankers they need to cut off any threat to israel, well before it reaches their borders. no equipment should be precluded if needed for israel's self-defense. as a member of the senate armed services committee, i will work to establish such a parallel agreement with israel to cover threats both nuclear and conventional along with an ongoing joint review forum, bringing together the united states, israel and nato members to enhance our deterrent capability. and number three, preventing a nuclear-armed iran. the united states must reaffirm unequivocally that iran will never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon and that all available options will be used to stop it from ever accumulating enough highly
enriched uranium or weapons-grade plutonium to produce one. such a policy is consistent with this agreement. congress must articulate in statute that that policy is unchallengeable and that iranian violations both during this agreement and afterward will be met with strong, unquestionable action. it must be clear that we will defend our vital interests in the persian gulf region and those vital interests included preventing a nuclear-armed iran. it is a fundamental tenet of our foreign policy. as a member of the agreement, the united states is in a stronger position to deter and remedy violations, whether through economic sanctions or military action as a last resort. if the agreement is rejected and
economic sanctions or military action are ever necessary, we would act alone. that's a simple fact about our rejection. if the agreement is accepted, we act with a coalition of allies and partners with the legitimacy and credibility of diplomacy having run its course and with the intelligence produced by inspectioning that will help to guide any military action necessary as a last resort. and there will be popular support at home, which is absolutely necessary for such action. that support is essential because acting without it will make it difficult if not impossible for the president to seek in effect to enforce the very terms of an agreement that this nation has rejected if that
is the result. most importantly, this agreement cannot be based on hope or trust. history belies both in our experience with iran. this deal is not an agreement that i have long sought. it's not the agreement that i would have preferred, but it makes the threat of a nuclear-armed iran less imminent. it requires the united states and the international community to sustain their commitment to verify and enforce its provisions over many years, and i am ready to join in the hard work of preventing a nuclear-armed iran on this difficult diplomatic path. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.
ms. ayotte: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. ms. ayotte: thank you, mr. president. i come to the floor today -- i believe this is probably the most important foreign policy issue that certainly i have worked on in my time in the united states senate, and it is one of great consequence to our nation and also to oural ice, and i don't come to this decision lightly, but there are many reasons why i would urge this body to disapprove the agreement that has been entered into between the obama administration and the iranian government in the p-5 plus 1 plus nations. first of all, we need to understand the country that we are dealing with. just today iran has said the
iranian supreme leader ayatollah khamenei has said i am saying to israel that they won't live to see the end of these 25 years. with allah's help, there will be no such thing as a zionist regime in 25 years. of course, this is not the first time that we have heard this from the supreme leader or the leaders of iran. even now we're in this position even after having entered this agreement and having had the president go to the u.n. to seek approval of this agreement prior to coming to the congress, but we know that while this agreement was being negotiated, you had the iranian foreign minister smiling for the cameras and negotiating the agreement while the president of iran was actually at rallies in iran where they were shouting down with america, death to israel. iran itself has a history that is important for us to
understand. that history is a history of noncompliance. iran has time and time again failed to comply with u.n. resolutions and failed to meet its obligations. iran has violated u.n. security council resolutions. iran has violated the nuclear nonproliferation treaty in the past. iran has consistently been unresponsive to the international atomic energy agency in the past, the iaea, and iran has failed to answer questions about its past nuclear weapons activities. if there is no covert undeclared nuclear facility in iran today, oli hynenen, a former iaea deputy director has said it would be the first time in 20 years. so one of the important issues that i believe for any of us in reviewing this agreement is what is the inspection regime that will be put in place to asure not only that we're doing a full inspection at the declared
facilities of iran but also the undeclared facilities. and the reality is that under this agreement, the process for seeking inspection by the iaea for undeclared facilities is a process that only a lawyer could love. and i happen to be one. because if you look at the language of the actual agreement, you will see that if the iaea, in paragraph 75, has concerns regarding undeclared nuclear materials or activities or activities inconsistent with the jcpoa or locations that have not been declared under the comprehensive safeguards agreement, the iaea first has to provide iran with the basis for such concerns and request clarification. so that's the first step. then if iran's explanations do not resolve the iaea's concerns, the agency may request access to such locations for the sole
reason to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and tifs -- and activities. and the iaea also has to provide iran the reasons for access in writing and make available all relevant information. and then iran may come back and propose alternatives, alternative means for resolving the iaea's concerns that enable the iaea to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear materials or activities. and so if those alternatives aren't accepted from iran, then if the two sides are unable to reach satisfactory agreement to verify the absence of an undeclared nuclear facility, then at that point, in fact, there's a process that goes into place and that process has been described on this senate floor can take up to 24 days. but we need to understand there's a whole litigation process that occurs even before
those days. and this can be a much longer process. and then how does this get resolved? this gets resolved essentially by a committee process. so then we have a committee resolve all of this. and that's why i say this is a lawyer's dream in terms of an inspection regime here. and this committee, if you look at paragraph 78 of the agreement , the members of the joint commission by consensus, or by vote of five or more of its eight members, would advise on the necessary means to resolve the iaea's concerns. this process, if you add up all the days, is a lengthy process. and again, it's certainly so far away from the "any time, anywhere inspection regime." and we have to understand that iran has a history of using every means possible to delay inspection, especially to areas
that have been undeclared or that they are trying to hide their nuclear facilities. that's why i describe it as an inspection regime that only a lawyer could love. because this will allow iran to litigate access to their undeclared sites and we already know that they have a history of doing that. one of the issues that i have taken a keen interest in since i've been in the senate is iran's missile program. and we heard all along from the administration that they were not going to address iran's support of terrorism, that they were going to keep that issue separate, that they were going to keep issues of iran's support for terrorism around the world. we've heard about that in this debate today. their support for groups like hezbollah, hamas, their support for the taliban, their support
for terrorism around the world, yet at the last minute in this agreement, the administration conceded two incredibly important points. number one, allowing iran to have the resolutions lifted on having arms -- arms sales and transactions within five years and then within eight years allowing the u.n. resolutions on missiles or icbm's. and as our own secretary of defense has described, the significance, of course, in icbm is the "i," which means intercontinental, meaning missiles that can hit the united states of america. and yet that was lifted at the last minute. and that was lifted over the objections, over the recommendations of our highest military officer, which is the
chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, chairman martin dempsey. and, in fact, this has been a focus of mine in the senate because i have been concerned that we have heard from, in the armed services committee, from many of our top defense and intelligence officials that the preferred method for iran to deliver a nuclear weapon to the united states of america would be, in fact, an icbm. and that this certainly represents a threat to america and to our allies. in fact, i was so concerned about this that last summer i wrote the president of the united states and 26 senators joined me in the letter that i wrote to the president, and in that letter i expressed to the president the belief that the iranian deal should, in fact, address iran's i.c.e. -- iran's
icbm missile program. and the reason that i wrote and led this effort is because we had been hearing for years before the senate armed services committee, from people like the director of national intelligence, james clapper, wh testified before the committee in february of 2014, that we judge that iran would choose a ballistic missile as its preferred method of delivery of nuclear weapons. we also heard repeatedly that, in fact, in 2013, we also heard from director clapper that the iranians are developing two systems that could have intercontinental capability as early as 2015. and here we are in 2015. some have estimated that it may take a few more years. regardless, according to public sevment from -- public testimony from our intelligence committee, iran could have icbm capability in the next few years. and here we have, in conjunction
with this agreement, our blessing because we agreed that the u.n. resolution against their missile program that said, no, iran, you cannot have i.c.e. capability -- you cannot have icbm capability, now it's okay, it will be legitimate for them to have icbm capability. why do you need icbm capability if you don't have any interest in delivering the most destructive weapons to the world to countries on the other side of the world, including our own? so this issue, of course, as i said, was against the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff advice. in fact, when i heard public reports about the fact that there were reports bubbling up about the agreement before it was signed that iran was pressuring, with support from other countries like russia, to lift the arms embargo, to lift the missile embargo.
and so i was so worried about it that a week before the agreement, i asked chairman dempsey in the armed services committee on july 7, i asked him about the reports that these resolutions may be lifted on arms and missiles. and he told me, under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on iran relative to ballistic missile capability and arms trafficking. and that's exactly what happened in this agreement. and, in fact, the chairman came back to our committee after the agreement was signed to testify about the agreement and i asked him again about including this in the agreement, and he told me it was against his military advice to lift the arms resolution and to lift the missile resolution. so as i look about -- look at the grave concerns we should have for our national security, this is one of the top concerns.
an insufficient inspection regime, legitimizing their ability to have icbm capability, allowing them in five years to legitimately have more arms when we already know they're supplying arms and cash around the world to their terrorist proxies. this agreement, of course, gives them, within a nine-month period , we know billions of dollars more cash to support terrorism. one of the things i've heard on the floor today is -- from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that are supporting this agreement, is that somehow this leaves on the table all of the tools that we need to deal with iran's support for terrorism, which, of course, destabilizes the region. except the problem is that nobody's told the iranians this point because they have a very different viewpoint on this agreement. in fact, iran has taken the position that if any of the
sanctions are reimposed, that they can walk away from the agreement. if you look at paragraph 26 of this agreement, i would argue that the language in the agreement actually allows them to make that argument, unfortunately. tehran has specifically stated that it will treat the imposition of any sanctions that are similar to those that are in place before this deal, as a reason to walk away. so why is this important? it's important because we know they support terrorism around the world. my colleagues have said, this is is -- we have to deal with their support for terrorism and we still have the tools in our toolbox to issue tough sanctions to deal with our terrorism, even while being part of this agreement. the problem is, is that the language doesn't necessarily bear that out in the agreement.
and in a july 20 letter, iran told the u.n. security council that it would reconsider its commitments under the jcpoa if the effects of the termination of the security council, european union, united nations sanctions or restrictive measures that carried out with the imposition of new sanctions with a nature and scope identical or similar to those that were in place prior to the implementation date, irrespective of whether such new sanctions are introduced on nuclear related or other grounds, unless the issues are remedied within a short time. so in other words, iran is taking the viewpoint under the language of this agreement that if we reimpose any of the sanctions that are lifted as part of this agreement, which, by the way, these are the toughest sanctions, right? these are the tools in our toolbox. even if they commit acts of
terrorism, that they can walk away from this agreement. so let's put this all together. iran within nine months gets more cash for this agreement. they get to keep their infrastructure for their nuclear program because they get to keep their centrifuges. they're now in a position where people are all doing business with them because we know that many countries around the world, they want to be able to do business with iran. so infusion of cash and relationships there. and they're continuing to support terrorism they commit through their proxies, another -- a major terrorist event that triggers something that we want to do here, we want to take tough sanctions against them because they've supported a terrorist attack against us or our allies, and yet they're going to take the position that we can't reimpose any of their
sanctions no matter what they do because the language of the agreement in paragraph 26, they're interpreting it that way. and so if you're iran right now, this is a pretty good deal for you. you can get the cash. you can get the legitimization, people are doing business with you again, you can continue to support terrorism and our hands apparently, in their view, are tied on sanctions. and so this is, in my view, when i hear from those that are supporting the agreement that somehow we still have all the tools in our toolbox to deal with terrorism, it seems to me that if you look at the language of this agreement and how the iranians are supporting it, we have tied our hands and we will be in a weaker position to deal with their support for terrorism around the world no matter how egregious their behavior is. and this is a real issue when i think about our national security, when you have the
largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world and they will now have legitimate access to developing their icbm program with the lifting of sanctions in the u.n., the legitimate purchasing of arms. and we know that there are people like -- countries like russia that are lining up to sell these arms to them. and then we're going to weaken our ability to impose terrorism-related sanctions in the future. mr. president, this agreement, if i see where we stand today, i heard many of my colleagues also talking earlier about the 6 60-vote threshold in the united states senate. when we voted on the iran nuclear review act, we voted on it i believe 98-1. so you would think that at that point, we wouldn't be worried at all about actually getting to the debate on the -- on the
actual bill. so i would hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle when they voted for the nuclear review act that we that would have a substantive vote when there was a 98-1 vote and the american people deserve nothing less than a substantive vote on the merits of this agreement as provided for by the iran nuclear review act. i know many of my colleagues are here to speak, but i want to raise one final issue that we've heard about on this floor, and that is actually being able to see the full text of this agreement. now, we all know that when you have an agreement especially when you have a country that has a history of cheating that language matters. we know that because the iranians are already taking all kinds of different positions on what the language means in this agreement to their benefit. and yet we have not been given access to the two-sided
agreements between the iaea and iran, yet what we know -- and, by the way, that's in direct violation of the express language of the iran nuclear review act which says congress should have access to side agreements. but what we do know about the side agreements that have been reported in the press is truly disturbing. and that is that one that the side agreements themselves, information has been leaked that indicates that tehran could declare some areas as suspected nuclear sites including the military complex off limits for the inspectors and could self- inspect there. could you imagine allowing a country with a history of cheating the ability to self-inspect or collect their own samples in terms of how inspections would be done, and
yet we're saying that this is -- those that are supporting the agreement say this is a robust inspection method. i would ask -- i would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are supporting this agreement, does it not trouble you that you've not been given access to the side agreements given what has been leaked about them, is that pertain to the actual inspection process at important sites like parchin. i would hope that my colleagues would review every word of the process with something so important to our national security, and that in and of itself i would say is a reason to be highly skeptical of this agreement, along with the other issues that i have raised. finally, we have a long history
in this body of debating important international agreements, including agreements that deal with they fundamental -- very fundamental >> >> we have a long history of debating in a bipartisan manner and to work in a bipartisan manner to improve agreements but yet here we are left in a position where a majority of the united states said it come on a bipartisan basis, has said he has serious reservations about this agreement and
have declared they will vote against this agreement but yet the administration is continuing to push forward to get this done to make sure this agreement is fully implemented without reaching out in a bipartisan fashion to insurer to be sure it is so important for national security that should say something about the merits of this agreement. it is deeply flawed in my belief does not protect our national security and in the long run will undermine our security by giving iran more cash and legitimization in terms to keep being infrastructure in to hurt
the ability to place further sanctions which they have a history of doing so mr. president i hope as we continue this debate we will disapprove this agreement that i do believe does not protect our national security. >> i tend a spate blood dash speak at greater lake tomorrow but i am pleased to have the opportunity for a colloquy if no my colleagues are waiting to speak but i want to commend senator corker together with his work we have a bipartisan agreement supported by some of the most knowledgeable foreign policy experts on the democrat side than the republican side.
had he not been able to make that arrangement it would be it doesn't -- a done deal with iran. i think my colleagues have been amazed at the difference between what we were told it did and did not do as we pored over word by word that is relevant to the decision. so to take some heat to not do more he saved us in the american people and that is
what the debate is all about. with this significant and almost mind boggling we would have to get the right so here i am surely after the delivery to see what we have here in rhode we're dealing with. and going to various items as with the majority leader but it is the ambiguity that exists throughout this agreement and in particular with the annex window there are too secret agreements we
in the sense of the said it is to be determined at a later date but this language is not a mistake. people that negotiated on our benefit had a lifetime of negotiating engagement i assume many were attorneys and lawyers who have to understand what it is to end up with confusion to purposely placate the iranians.
as a racially determined by consensus to be concluded to imply those additional commitments are there against current commitments that it occurs more frequently than it should sue any lawyer representing a client leasing a car or apartment entry into a business contract basically says i wanted our to put seven big u.s. and vague language to be determined as appropriate by consensus if something goes wrong i have an excuse to opt out.
that is what i iran was trying to do. if we come up with the breach and is easy for iran to say it is about consensus. you see it wrong. in then gives the option to withdraw from the agreement. and now having $100 billion in now with contracts around the world with the sanctions lifted. were to return around to say wait for you didn't
understand zero we were trying to say to you. this puts us in a tenuous position. i would pick up milk on the way home i intended to do that. but i intended to do that and i played golf and it was a good intention that is fine in a relationship of any other kind as those are meaningless things but when you talking agreement that binds the united states on the basis of the negotiating adversary using these words it can put you into trouble. i don't think anybody has
talked about that yet. i will be talking about my position how i came to the decision not to support this and i will be doing that tomorrow but misses a poorly written agreement that we are not even yet aware of to give them back out and won that point in time comes with that three month breakout to have nuclear weapon capability to say we have our money, we have done the research with the assistance of u.s. scientists and members of the negotiating team we're in great position to go forward and we will and we will use the language to opt out of the agreement so just one more reason why each of
us should try to understand to weigh this is to make a judgment if we have signed on to a bad deal. i want to yield to my colleagues. >> average just want to recap the day when i heard the debate to process some of that with the colleagues agree with us and what does it say? there seems to be two different opinions provide assured i am hearing and
that it doesn't seem to stop them in the process. and to stop them from acquiring a nuclear weapon. to back up for slow down the process of inspection. with a key aspect that they need of the technological research from the facility. is released almost immediately of this agreement that is shocking to people in my state they assume it slows down the research capability but it doesn't it paves the path to give them permission to
continue research. even towards highly enriched uranium. people have been surprised at that. because they hear they should not be allowed to have uranium they should not be allowed that was the conversation five years ago but now it is how much can day gingrich and what does that look like? that this will decrease us energy if your company had 20 computers built 1995 and were told they could replace those with three computers of the share could you take the deal? i bet you would that is the deal we're giving to rand. with the oldest interviewers were originally built there
will have to get rid of two-thirds but they could still keep 5,000. with 1,000 of the newest technologies to keep going. they have time and money and ballistic missile research and highly enriched uranium to continue their work with defensive capabilities and allowed to stockpile weapons and his agreement with surface to air defense capabilities so you tell me does it have a need to complete a nuclear weapon under this deal?
time, many, advance centrifuges the advanced weaponry in the facility. but what we can discuss which truly appreciate up our this side deals. many others have done the same but they are stunned with what it says what we cannot get is a side deal. we will not trust iran but verify literally with the side agreement people keep hearing what is the side agreement? the main agreement gives broad parameters for instance it says we will have inspection that's great how will that be done that is in the side agreement so
we agree when we ask that question we're told we cannot read that document it is a separate agreement with early i cannot verify how we will verify. i am told trusted verify but i cannot verify how we will verify that seems absurd it is hard to imagine anyone would say i would sign off on something i have never read or seen in fact, the people of the administration said they have never read or cbs the year being asked to sign off to give the authorization that we would support that? i have a problem with that. it is one of many reasons i cannot support this deal. i have heard over and over again by individuals that do that this is a deal in front of us it will look bad if we don't agree to it by problem isn't looking bad but a
nuclear arms iran at the end of the day it is not about saving face but protecting the united states interests the united states citizen and those friends in the gulf. it is not about saving face for the president i have heard it is too hard to get the coalition back together may i remind you the reason we have this coalition is the crippling sanctions you cannot do business with america and diarrhea and. that is the deal if we continue the sanctions it isn't about getting the band back together but leaving the sanctions emplace if you want to do business with united states you have to agree not to do business with every and it is about getting back together leave them in place and finished negotiating. i have heard it is this or this but quite frankly i think it takes is closer to a conventional war because it allows the read to almost
immediately start stockpiling conventional weapons. how does a conventional arms race tickets for their from the war? and then we say no. when iran is screaming death to america to say is a of terrible deal i ever wrote the times today to suffer diplomacy in the future by added to your return might have heard that i smile and
think are you kidding me? what tv we will side of with tougher diplomacy in the future. with what leverage? this is our leverage the sanctions are though leverage. and get softer from here. iran is still the same august 1 dash single largest sponsor of terror they've made notes stage in their actions if they sign on to this agreement it is built on hope not facts and tressed i hope they get a diplomatic solution you cannot base an agreement on hope of you cannot verify or see the documents with no change of behavior we should do seem -- assume so let's
push back not allow the centrifuge choose day emplace. so let's get that fully baked with the diplomatic solution but to hold hope that this works out in the days ahead. i yield back. >> the senator from georgia. >> i rise to speak about a troubled time in my life and in this body i didn't think this moment would arrive but tonight a few short months ago we told the american
people that we could work together to unanimously passed a bill to give the body, the u.s. congress the right that has been denied us even after a unanimous bill came out after the committee and 98 senators voted we said here without the ability to tell the people back home i find that terribly troubling in fact, i'm embarrassed for:the people back home that there is bipartisan opposition with good democrats in their deep conscience oppose the
president. but there is not bipartisan support only one group in bin this body supports the deal with iran. i applaud the ranking member of the foreign relations committee and senator corker without this deal and without a vote we would not be sitting here tonight we would already be implementing this deal. if we would check told the american people to have the constitutional balance with the legislative branch that it calls for. we gave up. for every member of this body that will vote for the deal to answer the people back home how does it make the world safer for their
children and their children's children? we have seen a lot of deals manage you try to evaluate so let's look at this from that perspective first of all, iran gets a windfall and here we are the first thing we will do is give them a windfall between $6,150,000,000,000 with nobody administration own admission last year's $6 billion went to other parts of the world from iran supported our own military this puts the of windfall into perspective with the
administration announced the deal to said the representative to moscow. does it take much imagination to is because we give them a windfall? in fact, we are encouraging bad behavior but the third thing this is my biggest problem is that we gave the ability read off the bat to stop iran from in reaching this is the fundamental problem breakout is to read three years not to retrieve months as a matter of fact this deal after 13 years allows iran to have a breakout period that is basically zero. after 58 years all bets are
off to provide a pathway that i find that troubling unlike those that have our peaceful but allowed to its rich to allow the bad actor to be stepped up like argentina and i find that troubling they get access in just five short years but is important because of their support of terrorism to give them access to a nuclear weapons capability through technology available only through the arms market. number for. after eight short years to get access to intercontinental ballistic missile technology. why does the power generation and 11th-hour
does this administration give them a the right to have ballistic missile technology? they have a missile with a 1200 my old range that is israel a and eastern europe if they have access to ballistic missile technology deal the intent to have a missile armed with a nuclear warhead to washington d.c. and points beyond. iran gets access not only do they get to keep everything the 5,000 active but i agree that they have antiques right now.
there is only one reason for that. and to have a nuclear weapon number six to delay inspectors is only important because we allow them to gingrich. but to allow them to dictate i have never seen a deal with that is allowed honest to goodness. it is unconscionable yes secret deals are important but the fact that we are allowing them with no u.s. participation with the iaea to actually take samples under the protocol of inspection. in business i would never sign the deal where every document was not expose. between the iaea and the
countries they are expecting. this is different it is a public deal in dealing with a broken tree i cannot understand how we would approve a deal to explain to their constituents now what makes sense for the safety of their children and grandchildren when we don't know. i would argue what i hear the number one goal from this administration is the legacy for this bill president. that is the only real benefit that i can see. i promise to be a good actor. really? that is what we get? just a day to say israel will not exist in 25 years.
and you will change their behavior. why do we believe a word of a nation that is a revolutionary pariah since 1979? have we forgotten that 52 united states american citizens over 444 days, were held hostage in tehran. members of the embassy. these of the same regime and clerics in the same mentality that created that situation, we just entered into the most devastating form policy agreement in my lifetime with a history of the united states. more than this nuclear deal with iran. it will continue its bad
behavior. the sponsorship continues the human rights violations they continue to back their regime in syria that is the source of the devastating humanitarian crisis that is just now coming to light. we sat in jordan and listen to the plea of those people over there and you see the devastating impact. than that foreign policy requirement and it is a manifestation of a bigger failure devastating to the future security of our kids.
they have a national holiday called death to america day in one of the hostages earlier this year was moved from the second worst prison to the worst and guess what day he was moved on? death to america day that is insulting. mr. president, i have a little different look what a country needs to have a nuclear weapon i'm an engineer so i will be very careful but quickly to a country needs three things for stall first 80 fissile material there is a pathway to get their legally. they don't violate the agreement they will get there in a short period of time. second half to have the device for a warhead in five years they have access to the military arms kennedy and have the delivery
mechanism ended eight years they have access to intercontinental ballistic missile technology so if they want to break out they will have the technology to bring a missile warhead on our heads in the chamber. the breakout period is really too were three years not to three months. the president is claiming we could not get the deal not giving them the right to a rich. i do understand that this broad as to the table in the first place and he gave us a false choice and i am insulted by this. so are the people back home that it is this deal even the democrats today are telling us how flawed it is cited hear one person to telesco grade the deal was basically a her this is the best we can get given a try we could not be any worse off than 10 years i would argue yes we can and yes we
will be worse off it is absolutely possible to have a better deal. we donee p5 + 1 if we have the determination to make our own sanctions stick. this economy is big enough to come back to the table to you get the deal that would protect our kids and grandkids. they give up enriching capability to be accepted into the fraternity of countries that are good actors with proliferation nuclear technology. this not only allows them to enrich but gives their program the blessing of the international community with technical assistance for the enrichment program and i just don't understand that i swear i don't understand how in good conscience of could
stand in front of the american people to say this is of a good deal. even secretary of state said basically this is as good as we will get the only alternative is war and i am insulted by that. second set aside for a warhead we talked about the community allows them to do that we don't know if they have better not. iran would need many things but one thing they need is access to capital and global markets for their economy. remember one thing. why do they need this in the first place? why is this even being negotiated? the goal was to never allow them to become a nuclear weapon states but yet we see nothing but a pathway to allow them to do that legally. i just don't understand how the administration and a few democrats say this is a good
deal we need to vote for it to preclude them from ever becoming a nuclear weapon state. in 1994 in fact, we signed the save me deal with north korea and clinton told the american people if we voted on that deal it would guarantee we would never have day nuclear weapon on the peninsula of crimea and how did that workout? today we are facing a similar situation that is just as predictable we can see this all but guarantees a nuclear iran i could not support this in good conscience it is one of the worst deals i have seen in my lifetime i embarrassed we sit here in front of the american people and a half to discuss this. it is so bad and threatening to our children and our children's children read have got to stand up to fight this through to get a of vote to defeat this site or urge my colleagues to
oppose this deal. i yield my time. >> the majority leader is sent a cloture vote amendment. >> cloture motion we the undersigned senators with rule 22 year but moved to bring to a close senate amendment 2640. >> by a basket the reading of the names to be dispensed with also. >> weed eaters when senators in accordance with the provision of rule 22 do hereby move to bring to a close of the joint resolution of the internal revenue code of 1986 and so forth. >> the information this good
right then on friday but i am optimistic can get consent by tomorrow afternoon. i yield the floor. >> the senator from arkansas >> i appreciate the senator from georgia remarks i certainly associate myself with them this is vital despite the original objections to congressional oversight, the american people deserve a say in the critical national security matter that i know which is being negotiated behind closed doors. the bill accomplish that now the senate democrats are talking about taking that away to filibuster this debate. how we went from passing his bill just a few months ago to rate potential filibuster
is baffling to the american people our constituents want this debate they have a number of concerns about this bill and we hear their voice and her here to represent them not to protect the president from the difficult veto. these discussions began the president claimed we could diplomatically dismantle the nuclear program but the final agreement suggests this is far from the case is apparent the president and his negotiating partners are eager to give into every demand made by the world's largest eight sponsor of terror with the goalpost remove to dismantling the nuclear weapons programs to hoping that we can contain that the deal that has been orchestrated that for
starters under the deal iran is not required to destroy a single centrifuge. not one well over 1,000 will remain in place at one of the most infamous nuclear sites. this is not an ordinary facility but a fortified underground military bunker built into the side of the mountain constructed in secret and has served only one purpose to produce highly enriched uranium when the talks began the president was adamant this must be closed as a final agreement over the course of the negotiations he caved and they can maintain the capacity to continue their activities. the president claims verification will ensure the compliance with the verification appears to be
exactly where it said deal lacks any punch there is nothing that but says confidently say we know what is truly going:at any of the nuclear sites in iran know anytime anywhere inspections and even worse international inspectors will be the ones handling the inspections at the complex. of the iranians themselves think this is acceptable to anyone is astonishing there is absolutely no reason in the regime's history to believe the inspectors will be honest with is going on. lack of verification is far from the only troubling aspect of this agreement the regime believes the agreement gives them full permit relief from sanctions lifting sanctions will provide iran with
$100 billion of previously frozen assets that the administration has admitted in part will go to the iranian military with terrorist options it was hard enough to get the international community to commit to sanctions end of first place with a reprieve we will never be able to reestablish a day not live up to the agreement which is a strong possibility given the regime actions in the past. the international arms embargo with ballistic missile research will also be lifted over the next eight years there have access to modern weaponry it does not bode well to put social security and the allies agree risk we're talking about the world's leading state sponsor of terror in what we're giving up as a result the arms
embargo, sanctions, ongoing enrichment makes the world the were dangerous place. we have a responsibility to ensure that iran never achieves its goal to become a nuclear power. surely there will follow. a nuclear rand to be devastating for barakat and the allies. is the saving from the prospects of nuclear war i can confidently say that i fear this news as in the wrong direction and for that reason i oppose the deal and intend to support the resolution. >>.
>> mr. president as we come together to debate president obama is agreement on iran i believe it is one of the most consequential national security decisions we've ever faced. of the things that you troubled them the things that keep us up at night at this nuclear agreement is one of the things that keeps me up that night as the mother, grandmother and as a soldier. having from the war and the uniform over 20 years and having deployed to the region, i can tell you protecting and defending this country is something that i take very seriously. and very personally.
i hope to our president would approach with a deal that reflected the high ground our nation has stood on against iran for decades. unfortunately, now that i have seen the available details i believe the threat -- the president has not the girl she did a good deal with iran the agreement before us fails to dismantle the nuclear program and does not and the support of terrorism. the president has squandered his opportunity to enhance our national security and the security of our israeli and arab allies by failing to live up to his own goal of ending the iran capability to build a nuclear weapon. the administration is asking the american people to
except a deal which will, at best phrase of iran's nuclear program for eight years. and that is if they actually live up to there and of the board in one of the major failures of this deal is a lack of any time any where inspections to show that they do. in april the president's own secretary of energy, a nuclear physicist that the president often refers to as a leading authority on nuclear programs said '' we expect to have anywhere anytime access''. when referring to what our country aid needed to ensure that iran was abiding by a nuclear agreement. how can we ever be certain of compliance if iran
decides to cheat and we have so weak inspection regime as part of this steel? i would argue that we can. another part of this debate that has been very troubling to me is that it tells the american people that there are only two options. the agreement or war. during one of his major speeches he actually mentioned the word war 50 times in the attempt to hammer the false choice home. despite the misinformation campaign to pressure the american people, our military and leaders and officials clearly denied our
choice is to support the deal or go to war with iran. in in testimony before the armed services committee chairman of the joint chiefs of staff dempsey disagreed with the president's assessment that the american people face a choice to support the agreement or going to war with iran. later that same week the president picked to lead the united states navy to say war is not the only alternative and we need to use the full set of capabilities that the jane fault -- the joint force and navy can deliver for that in the military contribution is just a subset of full government approach with our allies in the region. it is not just leaders within the military saying this.
general hated former director of this teeeight -- cj and n s.a. said there is no necessity to go to war if we don't sign the agreement. there are actions in-between before the two extremes. president of the council on foreign relations said i would echo that during the same hearing. a former undersecretary of defense and ambassador to turkey said i agree i don't think those are the only alternatives. ambassador burns a former top negotiator on the nuclear program and former undersecretary of state for political affairs said i don't believe that war is inevitable. to misrepresent the facts
and our country's options i challenge supporters of this agreement to explain to the american people why they are supporting a flawed and bad deal today when we should be protecting our citizens' interest with their security first. i will also note that this administration was willing to leave the negotiating table without securing an end without the support of terrorism. they are the world's leading sponsor of terror and fear giving them a free pass in this deal to continue those efforts. in addition to the billions of dollars of sanctions relief bellies iran ploy used to double down, the president also would create to lift the u.n. arms
embargo. as a veteran of kuwait and iraq in support of operation iraqi freedom, i am beside myself as are many other americans whose serve regarding the president's support for sanctions relief for one terrorist in particular, though leader of the elite covert force. the general is directly responsible for the death of several hundred americans and wounding thousands more during the iraq war. we lost many americans killed in action and any more wounded by the iraqi militia that were supported
or controlled by the general. in 2010 ambassador jeffrey him and set up to one-quarter of the american casualties in some of the more horrific incidents of americans that were kidnapped can be traced without a doubt to these iranian groups. one attack was an improvised explosive device known as the explosively formed a projectile. these were provided by iran exclusively to take control and to go against americans they will tell you these types of by edie's supported
by the shia militia are some of the more deadly types from any insurgency group including al qaeda and iraq while the share the concern about iran's targeting of americans during the iraq war, we seldom hear from americans to have firsthand experience to find these shechem militia. the rigidly from waterloo iowa deployed to the first cavalry division on the 15 month deployment during the surge he described to was the impact the effort had on him and his platoon to say
the threat of a the efp was quite real and understanding the pipeline from iran into iraq the abundance of the munitions and of lethality on u.s. forces, the sense of peril never loved our psyche. while i was never field -- fearful to lose a limb i knew i would follow certain death one that i would welcome 10 months into the 15 month deployment. ''. the sanctions lifted is an embarrassment for this administration and in the words of some veterans, a slap in the face. and then there is a retired
service member that while on patrol he lost his leg and combat after his vehicle was hit with the eire neonate efp. he told us, we come home blown up and try to put our lives back together only to hear that our country is going to be lifting sanctions that will free up billions for iran to kill more innocents. we may not be at war with them but they are at war with us. i'm a wounded veteran and spend a great deal of time helping others like me and i can assure you this directly affects us it is a slap in the face to our veterans of
all those that have served''. to the current service members who have sacrificed i urge the president of my colleagues to consider their true intent not to underestimate failing to enhance the capability to destabilize the middle east common thread in america and security and the security of our allies in the region and around the globe. mr. president, in closing the decision we make on this agreement will have lasting results for our nation, led the world and future generations of americans. i urge all of my colleagues to reject the president's bad deal with the security of the american people, our allies and the global
community. thank you mr. president. i yield back. >> the senator from north carolina. >> mr. president, we are here to date to engage in an honest and open debate about the nuclear bereavement is administration has brokered with iran and at this point i will commend chairman corker the way he and his committee have handled a very difficult process that has not been coordinated with the administration. where their consideration was for congress to be cut out and i think he has done a wonderful job to insert the senate where it should be with this agreement and i
am here to tell you this deal is not based on absolute value or knowledge of their activities including the nuclear ambitions but it is dangerously based on faith and hope. our national security should not be based on faith and hope. the nation's security is too precious to be based on faith and hope along. faith that we will detect any efforts to achieve and hope that they will not cheat purpose secretary of state john kerry told people'' mecca in june, we know what they did and we have an absolute knowledge of a possible military dimensions of the nuclear program. again, we have an absolute knowledge of the possible military dimensions of the
program. as chairman of the intelligence committee i can tell you, we don't have absolute knowledge of anything. our intelligence is good but it isn't perfect and it is disingenuous for secretary kerry to suggest otherwise. we must accept to us self-evident fact to comply with non-proliferation commitments and when the best tools of faith and hope including our own national security as well as our allies, i respectfully ask our colleagues to consider your vote to think about the following questions. day you know, where every potential nuclear facility is located? do you know, the location activity of every nuclear related laboratory whether in a military facility your university campus? do we know whether i iran
intends to purchase sensitive materials from rogue nation or if we can detect the sale or transfer of the nuclear material? do we know the intentions for what he and his successor are thinking in 10 years? to read know about the past culpability send future intent to the ability to conceal ballistic nuclear activities? have reassumed too much to abide by the agreement? of my secretary carry i don't think we know everything about their past efforts and i do not have faith we know with any degree of certainty this regime's intention says he suggests. the intelligence community does amazing things i am continually impressed with
the dedication and drive and capability of its people. a regulated provide us with insights and assessments on the toughest national-security problems but they never, never claim claim, and i would not believe them if they did, to have absolute knowledge of any issue. intelligence is not perfect secretary carey told the american people and members of the body though part of this agreement relies on trusted is all based on a thorough and extensive transparency and verification measures. but with all due respect the secretary is oversimplifying the of complexity world of treaty compliance and verification. the secretary should come clean and truthfully stated this agreement does not rely on trust it relies on hope
and faith, faith we will detect any efforts to cheat and hope that they will much heat. my colleagues should be mine file -- mindful when casting votes he should be wide open to the uncertainty we as a nation are accepted with this agreement with the iaea and intelligence community are not 100 percent certain and our collective assumptions are wrong and we are koch unaware or surprised at the consequences will be significant. they could be disastrous and without a debt of -- without a doubt it has negotiated their agreement based on faith been orbiting about the program today and hope they will abide by the terms of this agreement. did frustration claims they
will not use the billions of dollars and available to continue efforts to fund terrorist activities rolled wide. from the reset security advisor susan rice said we should expect some of the money that they get under sanctions relief as a result will go to the iranians -- i ran military to encourage that bad behavior we have seen in the region. it ignores the facts and instead hopes it will work out. as the central bank of terrorist the additional income is not likely to be solely dedicated to streamline the postal delivery routes it iran the secretary testified to be committed to certain things
they rely on faith that the intelligence community can detect any trace of nuclear material and any prohibited activity to have hope it will continue to have access that in some cases the his the ability to steer deliver things at the gate of the facility to conduct their own surveillance. anytime anywhere to deliver to the iranians to ask them to do self inspections. if iaea is prevented from gaining necessary access from the clear facilities we would be at a significant disadvantage and that pressure we have obtained over years of efforts cannot
be remade overnight our reliance on the iaea also has to side agreements with iran the members of this body have not yet read. win the president signed the agreement in july the law required to provide to congress and all related materials and that hasn't happened. yet the administration asked that we have faith there will not have a material affect with our ability to assure its compliance per career raises additional questions. do we have absolute certainty we know what those agreements include? to read understand how they may affect iran's activities or willingness to abide by the terms of the agreement?
do we know where every facility is located? the president argued although it may take 24 hours to get access, high school physics will remind us that nuclear material leaves a trace so we will in fact, know there was a violation of the agreement. i don't have absolute certainty this is true and question their willingness to give up a requirement of anywhere and anytime access if they are not hiding anything why wouldn't they offer? to read trust their claims they don't have a covert facility? do we have faith that they do not or are we hoping they do not build one to rehab of some uncertainty on this issue? a former deputy director
stated in 2013 if there is no one declared nuclear installation today it is the first time in 20 years it does not have one old soviet believe this deal is built on a foundation for more unstable than the administration would have us believe. while i realize all parties involved have been trying to spin the narrative to their benefit i cannot believe the deal as tough as they would have us believe would be referred to by the iranian president as the political and technical victory for iran the administration has chosen to treat all of our leverage, that was working for in your term possible delay in the breakout timeline. no doubt we will still have leverage but it is limited perversely given the
president's statements for military action something we have tried to avoid a for many years the administration hopes it will not have to use military action. can you tell you the absolute certainty? can you tell me what he is thinking or what he is thinking in 10 years when they will have a struggling economy nearing the end? weld ltd. restraints remain on activities? to read just unable a regime based on a false choice that we did not fully a understand? one of the chief criticisms is difficult to the strong man approach is to suggest the opponents only one
military action bodleian f the president's own agreement has stripped us of all leverage except military action. the strategic decision to engage iran cannot based on absolute certainty, one of the nuclear program of its intention is it is based on questionable assumptions allowing far too much maneuvering and not even to trust the regime that has the false declarations at the very body commitee levin to entrusted with enforcing to read no without the dow to what is going on in every laboratory in iran? with the university campus
or facility? i applaud the efforts of our negotiators and intelligence community and diplomats but i am sorry to hear say that's there were sent on a fool's errand by the president and provided a false choice and the narrative does not data. i have spent the better part of 15 years as a member of the house and senate intelligence committee to understand the nature and the new ones of intelligence work and i know there are no absolute certainty is in this business it is based not on the absolute knowledge and its intentions as administration would have us believe that based on faith and hope.
i for one will not vote to support a regime that supports terrorism if it disregards the u.n. security council resolutions and is opposed to the very existence of another nation it has led the international community with the sanctions and it now looks as if it will own and do the years of efforts to fill the coffers with badly needed resources. i dunno with absolute certainty where it will lead by understand there are too many unanswered questions. mr. president i urge my colleagues to oppose this deal and i yield the floor.
>> the senator from oklahoma >> mr. president has been a long day. about everything that can be heard and i have come to conclusions that after hearing both sides debate all day long there are six things we are should be looking at and it is say could wrap up but this deal violates for international laws for trees and united nations security council resolutions it rewards and legitimizes and second eight records with $100 billion
but we do know what they do with their money to expand their influence with terrorist organizations and third to be on the brink of a new arms race it is what we have heard for quite some time now we have countries coming forward with their intentions. fourth it fails to do dismantled the infrastructure no one is assad that and it places no restrictions on the ballistic missile program so to keep in mind you have to deliver that is written missile programs come into and it is most important that there is no verification but the fact to
reward san legitimizes they have violated almost every international law from the united nations security council for developing nuclear weapons for political rights that has to do with the freedom of expression and to the international convention as several have mentioned this junior senator what about the hostages? one was an fbi agent and you now holds the record of being held hostage along your than anyone else in history and is still there at this time as a year in
this process. the resolutions on the access to nuclear facility that is violated band-aid show they cannot be trusted as said they consistently fail to provide information or to get the weapons with the world's leading sponsor of terrorist. we talk about the united states does not negotiate with terrorists and tell now. and iran remains a the zero world leading and now
looking at our forces and the everyman to move to u.s. troops the with has blood and i was able to be in the persian gulf but couple weeks ago at the same time the iranian ship was taking weapons to yemen to kill americans and that is why we are negotiating. with tens of thousands of syrians in publicly committed the annihilation for the state of israel to called death of america in
the middle of negotiations? the general made the statement from central command to say represents the most significant threat than the central region to see the policies that threaten strategic interest in goals throw the middle east and as was stated by my good friend before read even susan rice would do almost anything the president ask that we could expect them to put this money to fortified their terrorist friends. the over 100 billion would be used. and the third thing end on
the brink of the armed services committee to say but the impact of this approach is to move from preventing end to put the deal that was supposed to end to nuclear proliferation will trigger it as a nuclear arms race in the middle east. saudi arabia always talks recently about being the first. the fourth thing and i think
that this is driven home and continuing with the richmond technology. and it pretty much i have agreed to. is placing no restrictions on the air rand ballistic missile development we have to keep in mind about the fact they talk about the bomb. there has to be a delivery system before it can be effective. i remember 2007, albert unclassified intelligence reports said by 2015 iran would have a delivery system and here it is and they're not that far off. we know the capability, with a plan on doing and the u.s.
intelligence and to be inherently incapable and tears give up those icbm and the we made an arrangement previously knowing that they would have this capability, we have that we thought this is where it passed to come from bed now it comes from the other direction. >> the first thing the president did. >> give it is nice to have their ground-based interceptor and to but we
will but what of the our friends? absolutely. since now have period under sister and that maybe more important they you have to go back from the city of oklahoma of people asking. if they have all of this time or if said to the finish its say but if they had the a boogie then head hidden and by applying to
the joint commission for the 15 days ben that is 64 days. to be suggested we stop and think about that. is somebody has something but they have 54 days to destroy or hide it they will do with so my people say there just isn't any kind of verification and resolve remember what reagan said trust but verify you were too young to remember the soviet union but that was the major concern at that time. this is the situation and pointed out way back with a joint presentation by a prime minister netanyahu i would just love it if he ran for president of united states he made his statement at that time that no deal is
better than the bad deal on the table and i believe that is true. and i have had an occasion and to publish the op-ed industry journal to hold fast to their sanctions but here is what they don't understand but this would have to be confirmed and verified by this body. it is tough to deal with the states and not the federal death rent and then o'grady on to the sanctions and i
will end with a power station from bill clinton in 1994 he said but he said this is said could deal for the nine states they will freeze then dismantle a but we will monitor north to read it to richard p. keeps the commitment we have. >> bed just today in "the new york times" said in an nohow 81 could take them seriously. the ayatollah said in talking about israel views
said i am telling you you will not be around in 25 years we will annihilate you in that period of time then to talk about united states to understand it warrants criticizing for better relations to we should not allow that to sneak back and. day are the guys we are negotiating with an eye will say it is not a treaty or as a deal but surrender. a yield the floor. >>
>> while debate on the nuclear agreement got under way it hit a roadblock in the u.s. house. what happened to that anticipated och 11 hours of debate? >> originally we were expecting the house to go through this afternoon with three days of debate budget once again leadership found themselves pulled in a different direction because the right flank had different ideas. multiple conservative members of the house freedom caucus were supportive of the initiative from the representative from illinois that would present a vote on
the day rand real talent produced the text of this side deal between iran and international inspectors they have not received the text of this ideal but lawmakers don't have enough information to make an informed decision. >> your story mentions conservative revolt how did the leadership not see disappointment of the conservative side? how did they not anticipate this coming? >> it came out of nowhere. the congressmen is a former member of the leadership team and he lost his race last year to introduce a writ -- resolution yesterday the moment the house came back from its recess to prevent a vote on the radio
and tell the side deals were given to congress but the freedom caucus had their weekly dinner at a popular mexican restaurant last night and they decided we should band together to call attention. >> bellevue'' twitter that it is the first time i can make their resolution so his objection to the agreement getting a voice in how the house will proceed then the three-pronged approach. what will they vote on? to make it has a change of plans.