Nuclear Agreement with Iran

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, on Monday, the United Nations Security Council voted to accept the agreement that was negotiated over Iran's nuclear program.

I think it is very telling that President Obama decided to take his plan to the United Nations before bringing it to the Congress. I think the President is hoping to force Congress--to bully Congress--to go along with his plan without actually giving it serious debate. Well, we are going to have a serious debate. I believe President Obama and his negotiators failed to get the strong deal they promised, and it remains to be seen whether this deal is good enough.

United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power called me after the deal had been agreed to by the President and by Iran and she told me the greatest weakness of the deal was its complexity. So I have to ask: Why is the President in such a rush? The American people have every right in the world to have their voices heard on this important issue.

I was at home in Wyoming over the weekend and I got an earful about why this deal is so bad and about the risk it poses to our own U.S. national security. Congress also has the right and the responsibility to provide oversight on this plan, and there has been bipartisan skepticism and concern on this floor about this specific deal.

So we need to take a very close look at the agreement over the next 2 months. We are going to listen to our constituents, and we will have hearings to make sure all the facts are clear, starting tomorrow in the Foreign Relations Committee.

While the Senate does its part in evaluating the deal, I think we have to keep in mind two key questions. First, do we believe this is a good deal that will protect the American people, protect our allies far into the future and not just for a few years and, second, what evidence is there that the Iranian regime plans to change its illegitimate and dangerous behavior in any way?

This agreement accepts Iran as a nuclear threshold state on the premise that we can build a better relationship with the country's leaders. How realistic is that? Iran is still holding American hostages. Iran continues to support Bashar Assad in Syria. Iran continues to support Palestinian terrorist groups. Even President Obama admits this behavior is likely to continue under the deal he negotiated. Can we afford to allow this Iranian regime to have the nuclear program it will get at the end of this deal? President Obama wants to put off the answer to this question until after he has left office. Congress needs the answer now.

People on both sides of the aisle have raised many appropriate concerns about this deal. One issue is that before the agreement was announced, Iran had more than 19,000 centrifuges to enrich uranium. After the deal is fully implemented, Iran will still have more than 19,000 centrifuges. Not a single one will be dismantled under this agreement. Some of them may go into storage, some of them may be turned off, but eventually that could be brought back again and turned back on. More than 5,000 of them will continue to spin and to enrich uranium.

Iran can continue to conduct research and development on more advanced centrifuges. It says right in the deal that ``Iran will continue testing'' advanced centrifuges--and it can actually manufacture them for specific purposes. Once the restrictions end, Iran can produce as many of these advanced centrifuges as it wants. They will have already done the work and they will know how to build them and how to use them. President Obama had the leverage--he had the leverage--to push for more on this point. Why didn't he use it?

This bill doesn't dismantle a single centrifuge; it does dismantle the sanctions against Iran. That is another very real concern a lot of people have.

While it will not happen overnight, Iran is likely going to gain access to what will eventually amount to more than $100 billion. This massive injection of resources is ultimately a direct deposit into Iran's terrorism accounts. Why was there nothing in this agreement to stop Iran from using this money in ways that could harm America and our allies?

And there is the extremely important issue of whether this agreement allows us to inspect Iran's nuclear facilities anywhere and anytime. President Obama said that is how we would verify that Iran was living up to its promises. It turns out that the reality is very different from what the White House promised. Now the President says that inspectors will have access ``where necessary, when necessary.'' That is a big difference. Who gets to decide what is necessary?

Under the actual agreement, the International Atomic Energy Agency can request--can request--access to a location in Iran if it is worried. That is not anywhere, any time; that is anywhere, anytime Iran chooses.

Iran can refuse to give access to the site, and it gets 2 weeks to negotiate what inspectors can do. If the two sides can't work it out within 14 days, then the issue gets turned over to a commission of eight countries that are part of the agreement. Then the Commissioners have another 17 days to resolve the issue by a majority vote. After that, Iran gets another 3 days to comply. It is as much as 24 days in total. So we went from anywhere, anytime, 24/7, to 24 days.

A former Deputy Administrator at the National Nuclear Security Administration recently wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal about this very subject. He said 24 days is ``ample time for Iran to hide or destroy evidence.'' Twenty-four days, which is what the President agreed to, is ample time for Iran to hide or destroy evidence.

President Obama says we will be able to tell if Iran is violating the agreement. That is an important difference of opinion, and Congress is going to have to resolve that over the next 2 months.

It is very clear President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry were desperate to get a deal with Iran, even if it was a very bad deal.

Both the President and the Secretary of State are lameducks, and they are looking to build their legacy. Iran knew that, and Iran took advantage of that fact. At the last minute, to make sure they could actually get a deal signed, the President and the Secretary of State agreed to let Russia sell Iran ballistic missile technology. This technology can be used to attack our allies and even to threaten the United States. Why was this even a part of this agreement over Iran's nuclear program? The week before the deal was announced, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told the Senate Armed Services Committee: ``Under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on Iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking.'' So why did it end up as part of the deal? Why did the President, yet again, ignore the advice of his military commanders on this vital national security issue?

At the end of the day, this deal does not take away Iran's pathway to a nuclear weapon. It merely gets Iran to promise that for the next few years it will walk down the path very slowly. President Obama may think this deal is good enough to help his legacy. There are still a lot of questions about whether it is good enough to keep the American people safe and the rest of the world as well.

Our goal all along should have been an agreement that was accountable, enforceable, and verifiable. At this point, I have serious doubts about whether this deal is good enough.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source