Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions

Floor Speech

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, in order to set the context, I am going to say a few words on the opening, and then enter into a discussion with Senator Graham, Senator Rubio, and Senator McCain. But let me say that all of us--I know certainly myself--want to start by saying I strongly support the negotiations regarding Iran's nuclear program. I also strongly support the President's stated goal that we must prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Congress, in fact, has led the way on this point--Senator Graham, Senator Menendez, and many others, Senator Kirk--by building a broad multilateral sanctions regime that has forced Iran to the negotiating table. That is why today we are introducing the bill, the Iran Nuclear Negotiations Act, with a simple message: Allow Congress to weigh in on behalf of the American people on what is one of the most important national security issues facing our Nation.

We hope the administration reaches a good agreement over the next 4 months that will prevent a nuclear-armed Iran from becoming a reality. But if and when they reach an agreement, let's bring all the details out in the open. Let's examine the agreement in its entirety, and let's determine if it is in our national security interests.

To help ensure that that is the case, Senators Graham, McCain, Rubio, and myself are offering this bill that will do three things: First of all, have a Congressional review. First, it allows Congress to weigh in on any final deal the President reaches with Iran. The bill requires the President to submit any final deal to Congress for review, and then allows Congress to introduce a joint resolution of disapproval should it choose to do so.

Second, it ensures Iran does not cheat on any final agreement. The bill requires the Director of National Intelligence to report on any violation by Iran to Congress. If determined there is credible and accurate evidence that Iran violated the agreement, all sanctions that have been temporarily lifted should be reimposed.

Thirdly, in order to ensure the interim deal does not become the final deal, the bill puts a clock on negotiations. This clock is consistent with the timeline the administration itself has outlined. If the President does not submit a comprehensive final agreement to Congress, all sanctions lifted under the interim agreement would be restored immediately on November 28, 2014, 4 days after the end of the extension period.

Let me be clear: Nothing in this bill talks about imposing new sanctions of any kind. Nothing in this bill would prohibit Congress from seeking further sanctions if it chooses to do so. This bill does not dictate the terms of what a final deal should look like. Rather, it helps to ensure the Iranians do not use the negotiations as a delaying tactic or cover for advancing their program. This bill is all about transparency.

The administration can go out and try to get the best deal possible. They simply have to show Congress and the American people the results, letting the deal fail or succeed on its own merits. This should be an area of broad support and broad bipartisan agreement. Even Secretary Kerry, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that any final deal would have to pass muster with Congress.

I want to stop here. I have some additional comments I might make. I know there are numbers of people here who wish to speak. I want to close with this. This bill represents a constructive, responsible role for Congress to play on this important national security issue to try to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, in the hope that Members on both sides of the aisle will agree, as Secretary Kerry has stated, that any final deal should have to pass muster with Congress and the American people.

I know Senator Graham from South Carolina--no one has played a bigger role in trying to ensure that Iran does not become a nuclear-armed country. With that, I would love to hear his thoughts and his reason for wanting to be a part, with five Senators, in creating this piece of legislation.

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Senator very much.

Senators McCain, Rubio, and Corker on the Foreign Relations Committee, all have I think revived the committee, along with Senator Menendez. The committee is probably the most effective it has been in a very long time. The committee is doing a lot of work in a bipartisan fashion. I hope one day this becomes a bipartisan piece of legislation. But credit to the three of you all for coming up with this idea. I am glad to be part of it.

I wish to hear from Senator Rubio about his view of why this legislation is necessary.

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak for a few moments. I thank both the Senators from Tennessee, South Carolina, and Arizona for allowing me this opportunity to join them in this effort.

For those who are watching at home, I know so many other issues are going on around the world--we see the things going on with regard to Israel over the last few days; certainly the shootdown of that airplane by Ukrainian separatists, being armed by the Russians, is of great concern.

But what should not be lost in all of this is there is another urgent matter before the Nation and the world; that is, the ambitions of a rogue, radical regime in Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon that they will use to hold the world hostage and establish dominance in the region and in their stated goal, to destroy Israel and wipe it off the face of the Earth.

What has happened here over the last few months, for those who have been following this, is the White House has engaged in negotiations, along with some other countries, with Iran to get them to walk away from this. These negotiations have been ongoing. I have never been very optimistic about it, although we all hope to wake up one day to the news that the Ayatollah and the Supreme Leader in Iran and those who surround him have somehow decided to walk away from this ambition and change their direction.

These negotiations are not going very well. That is why they have now been extended for another 4 months. The administration claims there has been great progress being made, although it is not clear what that progress is toward. For example, Iran's right to enrich, which they do not have one, but this right to enrich uranium has essentially been recognized as part of these negotiations, meaning there will be no guarantee that Iran cannot at some time in the future come back and exploit this agreement to develop nuclear weapons. If they keep the machines, and if they keep the process in place to enrich uranium, if they decide at some point in the future to go from a symbolic nuclear program, or a nascent one, into a full-fledged weapons one, they can do that rather quickly.

That is what they have agreed to do, already allowed them to retain a right to enrich. That, in and of itself, should be reason, in my opinion--perhaps it is not shared by others but in my opinion--to pull the plug on these negotiations. But it is not even clear in this instance that the administration is still insisting that Iran dismantle all of its nuclear-related facilities. In fact, according to some press reports, the Iranians want to keep all of their current centrifuges and the United States is supposedly open to allowing Iran to retain thousands of them. Iran's Supreme Leader even said recently that they need a larger enrichment capability than the one they currently have.

Another thing that has happened as part of this extension is that the P5+1 countries are going to allow Iran to access another $2.8 billion in sanctions relief. Basically what they have done here is they have forced the hand of this extension, and they get even more relief as a result of it.

I am also worried that the administration seems willing to allow Iran to have even more than 4 months to provide simply answers about its past work on nuclear weapons.

If they are not even willing to come clean on what they have done in the past, how can we possibly treat them as a reliable, responsible actor. Beyond that, there seems to be no attention whatsoever paid to the need to address Iran's ballistic missile program, its ICBMs. There is only one reason why you have ICBMs and that is these are long-range rockets capable of one day reaching the United States as they continue to develop them. The only reason they would even have one of those is to put a nuclear warhead on it. Just imagine a world where Iran has nuclear weapons capable of reaching this very city or New York or any part of the continental United States.

It would be all-out chaos. They would now have to be treated very differently, and they would basically be able to act with impunity anywhere in the world. And that reaches my last point. Absent in this whole conversation and in all these negotiations is any discussion about Iran's ongoing sponsorship of terrorism and their ongoing human rights violations, including a pastor--an American, with strong links to this country--being held unjustly in that country.

All of this is to say this is the reason why this bill is so important. Any final agreement on a matter of this consequence should be reviewed by this body, should come before Congress, and Congress should have the ability to provide oversight. The absence of that, I believe, unfortunately, leaves us vulnerable, not only to a terrible deal but to a dangerous one that could potentially endanger the future of our allies and even of our own country.

I am grateful to join these Senators. I don't know who would want to speak next. I know all of my colleagues--I know the Senator from Arizona has spent a tremendous amount of time sounding the alarm on the danger--not just of this deal--that Iran poses in this region.

I would be interested in hearing from the Senator from Arizona on his views about this extension.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Florida and I thank him for his advocacy for freedom and democracy throughout the world. Frankly, I have been incredibly impressed with his knowledge and depth, including in our own hemisphere, which I think he and I would agree has been very much ignored. There are enormous challenges ahead there as well.

I would ask a couple of questions of my friend from Tennessee and my friend from South Carolina.

Isn't it true that in order to have a true nuclear capability you have to have a warhead and you have to have a delivery system, and the Iranians are proceeding apace forward in acquiring those capabilities? Would anybody believe that if they were truly interested in not going to nuclear weapons, they would not be spending time and effort on that capability?

Doesn't that destroy any credibility they might have about a commitment to not continue the development of nuclear weapons?

Mr. GRAHAM. Well, I would say that if there was a group of people in the world to be suspicious of, I would put Iran very close to the top of that list.

The international intelligence community believes they have tried to militarize their nuclear program in the past. Senator Rubio made a good point. They deny this, but before you go forward, you would want to answer that question: Were they engaged in militarization of what was claimed to be a peaceful nuclear power program?

Second, why would you go through all of this upheaval, build a nuclear powerplant secretly at the bottom of a mountain, if all you wanted to do was have peaceful nuclear power? None of this really adds up. Why do you need an ICBM if all you want to do is produce peaceful nuclear power?

Having said that, suspicion is warranted here. But more than anything else, the final deal that may be reached should come to this body because I would suggest that of all the problems in the world today, this is the top of the list for me.

If they did break out as did North Korea, if a bad deal turned into a dangerous deal just as with North Korea, Sunni Arabs would respond in kind and we are on the road to Armageddon. I cannot think of a much worse scenario for our national security than the ayatollahs with nukes. I cannot think of a much more direct threat to the survival of the State of Israel than ayatollahs in Iran with nukes. I can't believe the Sunni Arabs would allow the Shia Persians to have a nuclear capability unanswered.

Mr. McCAIN. I would ask my friend from Tennessee, was he surprised and shocked that there would be an extension of these negotiations? Was he shocked and surprised that the end date is now after the midterm elections that we have in the United States of America?

Was he shocked that even though there has not been ``sufficient progress,'' there was still more relaxation of the sanctions, which then gives the Iranians billions of dollars worth of a boost to their economy? Was he surprised and shocked that this extension took place?

Mr. CORKER. Obviously, just the way the Senator asks the question--and obviously nobody in this Senate has spent more time on these issues than the Senator from Arizona--and I thank the Senator so much for his leadership on the Armed Services Committee and also on the Foreign Relations Committee and on all of these issues--absolutely not.

When you have a deal that is aimed, that says there is a built-in extension, you know that people aren't going to focus until the very end. So we expected there to be an extension. I was very disappointed, though, to know that we were giving additional sanctions relief.

I am very concerned because of the way this has happened. In March the administration agreed to allow them to enrich uranium, which was a big setback. I mean, we don't allow our best friends. We approved one, two, three agreements. The Senator and I just did one the other day in the committee with Senator Rubio. Senator Risch is also a part of this bill. But with our closest friends and allies we do not approve enrichment.

So here we are really doing something that will undo many of the agreements that we have and certainly have--as Senator Graham of South Carolina mentioned--a tremendous impact on the region. There is no question people in the Arabian Peninsula right across the strait are looking at a country that has been their foe--and looking at potentially their having the capability to enrich uranium. Yes, this agreement started in a very bad place, but I think we all want to see a diplomatic solution. We want this to be successful.

I would add that Rouhani has the Supreme Leader whom he has to go back and talk to. He can always use that. The Supreme Leader, as Senator Graham mentioned, wants 100,000 centrifuges--not the 19,000 centrifuges they have.

I would say to our administration to have us as a backstop--where Congress has to approve this. That would actually be an aid to them as they move down this negotiating path. I look at this as an asset to them, and I look at our fulfilling our responsibilities if this bill becomes law. I thank the Senator for asking.

Mr. McCAIN. Finally, could I ask the Senator from Florida, we judge nations by their behavior, I believe. In fact, we don't view them in a vacuum. For example, the President of the United States said that if Syria crossed the red line in the use of chemical weapons, we would have to respond, and obviously we didn't.

Meanwhile, 170,000 people have been slaughtered--men, women, and children. So isn't it appropriate for us to not look at the Iranians in a very narrow spectrum but to look at overall behavior going all the way back to the bombing of the barracks in Beirut, the USS Cole, and a plot to kill the Saudi Ambassador here? And maybe the worst, most of all, is the Revolutionary Guard that has gone into Syria and the incredible flow of weapons and training on the part of the Iranians which has turned the tide in favor of Bashar al-Assad.

What about the Iranian missiles, some of which are threatening and raining down on Israel. Shouldn't we understand better? Shouldn't the American people and the world understand better what we are dealing with--a country with leaders who are dedicated to the extinction of everything we stand for and believe in? Therefore, wouldn't that impact our calculations as to their sincerity about a nuclear weapons program?

Mr. RUBIO. I think the Senator from Arizona touches on the exact point.

First, we have to understand Iran is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. No nation on Earth uses terrorism as an active form of tradecraft as they do. They use terrorism the way we use military forces when necessary. They view it as a very active part of their agenda.

The Senator is correct. Virtually every major terrorist organization in the Middle East, absent a couple, they provide extraordinary assistance to. I think the Senator touched on another point: What is their goal? That is important to understand.

What is the Iranians' goal in these negotiations? In my mind those goals are quite clear. In fact, it is shocking to me because I know the administration knows this as well.

The goal of Iran is pretty simple. They want relief from as many sanctions as possible without agreeing to any irreversible concessions on their nuclear program.

Let's go through what they want to achieve. They want to be able to achieve or obtain an internationally recognized right to enrich--check.

They want the capability to enrich, process in the future, and keep that much in place as possible. They have already gotten that--check.

They want to continue to develop their long-range rockets and missile capabilities so that one day they can be in that position where, when we negotiate with them in the future on anything else, they are untouchable because they can launch a nuclear attack against the United States and certainly against our allies. They continue to do that--check.

The Iranians in this whole negotiation view themselves to be in a position of strength. To be quite frank, they believe that our President wants this deal more than they do. They believe he wants this deal more than they do, and that is what puts them in this tremendous position of strength.

The result is that these negotiations are not going to, in my view--I hope that I am wrong. I hope that tomorrow when we open the paper and read: You know what. They have changed their mind. They don't want to do any more terrorism--no more rockets and no nuclear weapons program--and they have become just a normal government in a normal country. Don't hold your hopes out for that because that is not what they have shown in the past. That is not what they are doing now, and they are negotiating from a position of strength because they know the President wants a deal much more than they want or need a deal.

Mr. McCAIN. I would ask again, going full circle with the Senator from South Carolina, wouldn't we actually be helping the administration at the negotiating table to say wait a minute, we have a Congress full of people who have spent a lot of time on this issue, are very skeptical and, one, are going to have to be convinced of this deal?

Wouldn't we actually be strengthening the United States' hand at the bargaining table, in the Senator's view, if it were something of this magnitude that Congress would have to be involved in, as we have been in other major treaties that have been made, some of them much less significant than this agreement?

Mr. GRAHAM. The answer, unequivocally to me would be yes, assuming one thing: that those of us in this body would handle this in a mature fashion, assuming that Republicans would not vote no because this is the Obama deal and Democrats would not be tempted to vote yes because their President did this, a Democratic President.

I have confidence in the body that they would not do that. Let me tell you why. There are a lot of treaties out there that affect our national security. I can't think of an event in my life that is going to affect our national security one way or the other greater than the Iranian nuclear deal that I think is coming.

If a Republican scuttled the deal that was good, you would have a very unique place in history because you would have done a disservice to our country and the world at large.

Is it possible to know that it is a good deal? Yes, because the Israelis would comment on it. The Sunni Arab world would comment on it. If it is truly a deal unlike North Korea, which led to a bad outcome, I think you would have a score of people, including me, that would acknowledge that the President did the world a great service.

If it is a bad deal, if Senator Rubio is right that they want to check the box and get a deal for the sake of getting a deal, I hope my Democratic colleagues would stand and say: This will come back to bite us as a nation.

I have confidence the body can do this because I can't think of anything more serious we will vote on other than going to war.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Tennessee. As the Senator from South Carolina noted, the relationship that exists between the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from New Jersey, I believe, has reinvigorated the Foreign Relations Committee in a very incredible way. What has taken place, thanks to that bipartisanship and hard work, has really been some remarkable results.

Frankly, thanks to the Senator's leadership and under the chairman, we have been able to have a significant impact on the conduct of national security in what I would argue is probably the greatest turmoil in my lifetime.

I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his great work.

Source