Transcripts For CSPAN2 Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20150911 :

in 25 years and god willing there will be no zionist regime in 25 years. the spirit of jihad will keep you worried every moment. somebody who is on the course of change. somebody when he should give $100 billion to, create a path to nuclear bomb in five years and build a ballistic missile in eight years. this the man who has changed course and you have empowered. at least chamberland can say hitler lied. he said say he told me if you give me this i'm done. we know chamberland was a chump and hitler meant what he said when he wrote a tweet yesterday. the one thing you can say about the ayatollah, the crazy religious nazi, is he is honest. he doesn't want you to be confused on what he wants to do to israel. he doesn't want to mistake what this deal means to him. you obviously believe he doesn't mean it. he has to get his numbers up in iran. he needs to say these things but he has to keep the people happy. his people tried to rise up against him in 2009 and our president sat on the sidelines and didn't do a damm thing. the biggest moment of change was in 2009 when young people and women took to the streets demanding a fair election stolen by the ayatollah and his response was to beat them, shoot them, torture them, and put them in jail. this is a guy you are giving $100 billion, a pathway to a bomb, and more weapon do is -- to attack us. at least chamberland lied. has he given us a little leg about real change? during the negotiations he toppled four arab capitals. during the negotiation he supported the huti's in yemen who destroyed the government and we lost the ears and eyes on the ar arabian attacks. they have done anything but be migrant. i cannot believe you don't believe him. i cannot believe you made the biggest miscalculation in history by empowering a religious fanatic with the ability to attack our nation, destroy our friends in israel and keep the middle east on fire for 15 years. what are you thinking over there? all i can say is that the last 9/11 there were 3,000 of us died. if you let this deal go forward before too long the most radical regime on the planet will have the most lethal weapon to mankind and chair that technology can terrorist and it will come here. why do they need this nuclear weapon, folks? they are not going to spend people to space. what are you thinking over there? you are taking the most radical regime on the planet, a theocracy. this is not a democracy. the moderates were shutdown streets begging are you with us or them president obama. president obama is the most more champion of success and evil is flourishing on his watch. president obama said you would have to be crazy to not support this deal. let's walk through whether or not we should follow his advice about radical islam. this is the president who was told to leave troops in iraq and he pulled everybody out because he wanted to get to zero. he turned down every commander's advice because he made a campaign promise. this was the president who was told to establish a no-fly zone and help the free syrian army at a time when it would have mattered because there was an army to help and assad was about to fall. obama said no thanks. this is the president who drew a red line against assad after he backed off and said if you use chemical weapons and cross that line you will pay a price. here is the facts. assad is going to be in power and obama is going to be gone. the last guy standing is going to be assad. this is the man who said don't worry about isil. i killed bin laden. al-qaeda is decimated. at what point in time do you people realize he has no clue about radical islam. this is the guy we are sending in to negotiate with a radical ayatollah? a guy who is a weak defender of freedom in the eyes of the world and a poor advisary of evil? if that is not enough, the iranians are rubbing this in john kerry and barack obama's face by tweeting this out hours before the deal. no matter what you say on the floor about israel, nothing has changed in his mind about israel. when you claim israel is safe, he is telling you, no, they are not. but you are not listening because you don't thing he really means it. i can tell you right now you better be right. how about this idea? when it comes to the ayatollah assume the worse not the best. to our friends in russia, john kerry said one of the big benefits of this deal is it will bring russia in and iran will be better partner in the middle east and we will have a major breakthrough for iran to begin to help with problems like syria. well, here is russia's response before you vote: they are sending russian troops, maybe fighter planes, into syria to prop up assad before you vote. taking everything john kerry said about what would happen if you do this deal and rubbing it in his face. tell me how you fix syria with assad in power? what the russians are doing is assuring he will stay in power now longer. and the longer he stays in power the more refuges of war we will have to deal with it and the more hell on earth will occur in syria. the syrian people want to destroy isil and want assad gone because he has destroyed their families. secretary kerry, how well is this working with this new engagement of iran in russia? things are changing. look at the tweet yesterday. what are you going to tell the american people this means? interpret the ayatollah. he has to say these things? he doesn't get elected. he doesn't have to worry about the next election. he says these things because he believes is. he is a religious fanatic compelled to destroy everything in his religion he doesn't agree. to destroy the one and only jewish state and attack democracies like ours and you are giving him more to do that with. this is overtime a death sentence to israel if it is not changed. if i had a $100 billion to negotiate with for god sake could i get four people out of jail? i could get people out of jail here with a $100 billion. who is negotiating with iran? this idea we will step aside their bad behavior for a nuclear program was the biggest miscalculation. to suggest we don't need to look at iran as a whole unit and ignore the fact they have four hostages, are the largest state sponsor of terrorism, they destabilized the region, driven our friend out of yemen, supporting hezbollah who is the mortal enemy. what do you think you will do with the $100 billion? do you think they will build roads and bridges? the best indication of the next 15 years is the last 35. giving them access to more weap weapons and a $100 billion is a huge mistake because you are damning the middle east and giving the largest state sponsor of terrorism more weapons and money to attack us and you could not get four people out of jail? the iranians -- the only reason they are not dancing in iran is because the ayatollah doesn't believe in dancing. i have friends over there who i respect and admire, i have no idea what you are thinking here. i have no idea why you don't believe the ayatollah doesn't mean what he says. if they will shoot their own kids in the street to keep power what do you think they will do to ours? the only reason 3,000 people died in 9/11 is they could not get the weapon for three million. i have never been more disappointed in the body than today. you will not let us have a vote or a debate. and please stop saying this deal makes israel safer. that is cruel. and your response to this deal is to give them more weapons because you know they are not safer. i find it a bit odd that in response to this deal we are selling the arabs every kind of weapon known to man and promising israel every weapon we have. if you really thought this was such a good deal why arm everybody who is in the cross hairs of the ayatollah? they will look back and say president obama was a weak opponent of evil and a poor champion of freedom. they will look and say that the united states senate refused to debate the most consequential foreign policy agreement in modern times and people in israel will wonder where did america go. did it every cross your mind that everybody in israel who is in power and running the government today objects to this? >> your time has expired. senator corker thank you for trying to have the debate we need for my democratic friends. you owned this. you owned every i, t and bullet. it is going to be holy hell. >> mr. president? >> senator from wyoming. >> thank you, mr. president. i am proud of my colleague from south carolina for the remarkable speech he gave to the senate about the concerns of this president's nuclear deal with iran. that is what the senate is debating now. a deal that president obama negotiated with iran and whether that deal should stand or fall. but this agreement affects american foreign policy into the middle east and beyond for this generation as well as the next. it will is effect our relationship with our allies and enemies. other americans are wondering if america will accept a flawed agreement that gives iran almost everything it has asked for. or will we as the united states of america stand strong against outlaw nations with nuclear ambitions and dreams. as senators prepare to vote on this legislation we should ask if this agreement does enough to stop iran's nuclear weapon program. does it do enough to protect the security of the american people and our friends around the world? mr. president, i believe the answer is no. it would be irresponsible to support such a weak, such a naive, and such a dangerous deal. the original goal of ending iran's nuclear weapon programs was a good one. i wish the president had stuck with that goal. i wish the president had done a better job of negotiating with the iranians. he did not. during the negotiations this administration was far too willing to make concessions. concessions that put our own national security at risk. we were in a very strong position during these negotiations from the start and the obama administration squandered the advantage. the president wanted to badly strike a deal with iran and that is the problem because president obama has shown once again that if you want a deal bad enough you will end up with a bad deal. the president fell in love with this deal even though it is deeply flawed. and deeply flawed is a description that our democrat colleagues continue to make about this deal. the president cannot see the flews that our colleagues on the senate floor can see because i believe the president is blinded by being in love with the deal. the agreement that president obama has negotiated will leg - legetimize iran as a nuclear state. this is inexcusable. it is not the deal the president should have signed. it is not the deal the president could have signed. it is not the deal that president obama promised he would sign. president obama once said iran didn't need advanced centrifuges to have a limited peaceful nuclear program. under this administration, this administration did negotiate iran will not eliminate a single centrifuge, they will continue to research more advance centrifuges and even start building them. so how did it happen? how did this happen? because the day the agreement was announced the president of iran bragged about how he had gotten the obama administration to surrender on this point. that is the language i am hearing around the state of wyoming and certainly the language we are hearing from iran. the president surrendered. in the beginning the president said the iran would only need a 100 centrifuges, then 4,000, and then eventually 6,000. when it mattered the most the obama administration wanted a deal so badly they were willing to con seed on point after point. this proves if you want a deal bad enough you will get a bad deal and that is what we have here today. same thing happened with ballistic missiles. martin dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff of the united states military, told the senate armed services committee quote under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities. under no circumstances. defense secretary ash carter testified at the same hearing. this hearing was six days before the final deal was announced by the president. secretary of defense said we want them to continue to be isolated as a military and limited in terms of the kind of equipment and material they are able to get. six days before the final deal was announced what happened? what does the president surrender on? the president of the united states surrender on? this agreement iran will have access to ballistic missile technology in as rit little as eight years even though the chairman of the joint staff said under no circumstances. that is when russia and other countries will be able to sell this deadly technology to iran and i believe iran will use it. now this was a last minute demand that iran made. it should have been easy for president obama to reject it. but he did not. he surrendered. the president was so desperate to get a deal he gave in. it is always the same story with the obama administration. if you want a deal bad enough you will get a bad deal and they have. when the obama administration is negotiating with countries who need a deal more than we do the president of the united states surre surrenders. this administration has no red lines when the comes to negotiating. they will give away anything to get a deal. there have been too many concessions for anyone to be comfortable with this agreement, too many red flags, president obama cannot see the defects that are obvious in this plan. he refuses to see what is so clear to the american people. after this agreement, iran will be a nuclear threshold state and a military and industrial power. they will have the money to support terrorist around the world and more money than it has had in the past. it will have the freedom to pursue its nuclear ambition. even some democrats who have said they support the deal are doing so with great reservations. they say they know it is not a good deal but they say it is the only option we have got. well, that is not a good enough reason to accept all of the risk and all of the concessions that the obama administration allowed to this agreement. the president says the choice is the iran nuclear deal or war. he has said it time and time again. it is fear mongering. it is not true. there is an alternative. the chairman of the joint chief of staffs said no. general dempsey was asked about it at a hearing at the senate armed service committee. this or war and the general said i can tell you we have a range of options and i always present them. i present them to the president. we have a range of options. it is not a choice between this deal or war. it is a choice between accepting a bad deal or rejecting it. if the only deal is take it or leave it we must leave it. the obama administration doesn't want us to have a vote in the senate. the obama administration knows it signed a bad deal and wants the whole thing to disappear from the front pages before it causes them anymore embarrassment. so instead of having a full and honest debate on the floor of the senate, the president and the democratic leader are trying to hide behind a filibuster. that is not how the senate should handle the deal. every member of the senate should be willing to cast a vote up or down on this deal. we should stand up and represent the people of our state in this nation and cast our votes. the obama administration has made its arguments and it has failed to make its case. the president has not shown america will be better off with this deal. and i believe we would be better without it. we have heard the administration's excuses, we have heard all of the ways the final deal fell short of their promises. we should vote to disapprove the iran deal. the president should drop his veto threat. the president should send the people back to the the negotiating table because this deal poses too great of a threat to the national security joke to do anything else. >> mr. president? >> the senator from arizona. >> as we continue the debate on one of the most important foreign policy matters this body has addressed in some time i would be remised if i didn't mention how honored i am to be part of it. it is not unusual to debate over matters like spending bill to authorize federal agencies, nominati nominations or other business we attend to around here, but it is own on occasion this body has the opportunity to weigh in on the more pressing foreign policy matters. when it does, the legislation it considers often has lasting consequences of the united states and the rest of the world. take for example, the taiwan relations act passed by both chambers in 1979 in response to normalization of relations between the u.s. and china. this piece of legislation remains the cornerstone of the u.s.-taiwan relationship to this day. likewise this body has considered a number of arms limitations treaties over the decades between the united states and russia. the strategic arms reduction treaty was approved by this body in 1992 by a vote of 93-6 and start 2 was approved in 1996 by a vote of 87-4. most recently the new star treaty was approved with russia in 2010 by a vote of 71-26. these bills address subject matter that was highly controversial and i am sure there was a fair mount of disagreement between democrats and republicans and the congress and the white house. senate delibilation ended with a bipartisan vote to set u.s. foreign policy in place for years, even decades, and signaled american was speaking to the rest of the world with one voice. i deeply regret the jcpoa will not build on this history. unfortunately the administration elected to negotiate this deal has an executive agreement rather than a treaty. it doesn't mean they would not need to negotiate knowing they would need the accord of 67 senators. the senate could not offer reservations, underings and declarations that can accompany treaties and clarify the interp interpretation of the agreement. there are troubling aspects to the agreement that could have been improved had the senate had the opportunity to consider the treaty. for the example, the text says anything in an ex-2 would promp iran to stop the agreement. it includes the sanctions such as those on iran's central bank. these had have a profound affect on iran's economy. in hearings and briefings, i asked whether the united states could reimpose the powerful sanctions down the line for non-nuclear behavior by the iranian government to penalize iran for regional activities or committing acts of terrorism. this regime as we know has made achieving regional issues since becoming to power. we were told they would be available in the future but unfortunately that doesn't square with the text of the agreement. the question raises a further question of how this agreement might bind the hands of future congre congresses and administrations. the jcpoa has been adopted by the united nations, it will never be the supreme law of the land in the united states because it is not a treaty agreed to by 67 senators. it insulates it from political wins over the lifespan of the treaty and the jcpoa doesn't benefits from that. and if a future congress or president wishes to reimpose sanctions against iran or take action that causes them to accuse us of violating the jcpoa. a future congress or president could be put in the position of preserving an agreement that neither had a hand in negotiating or taking action that would result in iran walking away from it's nuclear obligati obligations. the kurd administration expressed uncertaintto push back to iran's interpretations. if there is uncertainty to push back now there will be more to push back on iran's regional behavior once the deal is in place. this gives iran more leverage than it currently has moving forward and it could have disastrous consequences for the middle east. these are issues that could have been addressed in a positive manner by the senate if the agreement was submitted as a treaty. when it was announced i said i would take every opportunity to learn about it, attended every hearing held by the senate foreign relation committee and i commend chairman corker and ranking member cardin for holding these hearings, i attended every classified briefing, every other briefings and had discussions with experts and administration officials. after these discussions, hearings, and briefings i believe that it as a much closer call on this agreement than most want to admit. there are positive aspects on the nuclear side. unfortunately i think this deal suffers from significant shortcomings. hoping that iran's nuclear ambitions might change after a 15 year sabbatical might be a bet worth taking. believing that iran's regional behavior will change tomorrow while giving up tools to modify such behavior is not a bet worth taking. it is for these reasons i oppose the jcpoa. i do hope that we can make up for this partisan vote by working together and with the president to pass a regional framework agreement that will assure our allies in the region but solidify this agreement throughout the duration of the jcpoa. the united states is strongest when we speak with one voice on foreign policy matters. and with that, mr. president, let me turn to another issue very briefly since i would not have time otherwise today. yesterday we were able to pass on a bipartisan bases, unanimously, a bipartisan bill to help put veterans back to work as custom and border protection officers at understaffed u.s. points of entry. jeh johnson confirmed the agency has not filled 1200 of the 2,000 officer positions created by congress in 2014 to improve security and reduce trade stifling and commercial traffic at the post. secretary johnson attributed the short falls to delay associated with applicant background information. we were able to pass a bill to force the military to work with the department of defense and the department of homeland security to work together with this legislation. now they will do so and hopefully it will improve the condition of trade and the backlogs we have at the border. i applaud my colleagues for mocking this happen. co sponsors john mccain, bloomenthal, and diane feinstein and others thank you for passing this. with that, madam president, i yield back. >> senator durbin is allowing this as long as we will give back time at a later moment. if we could just maybe three minutes so that we -- okay. >> senator corker thank you, and senator durbin, thank you. >> senator from montana. >> the deal by the obama administration sets iran on the course to reach a nuclear weapon. iran has ten years to kill the co coffers with tens of billions. as the world's leader of state sponsored terrorism it will only be a matter of time before iran achieves its ultimate goal and that is achieving a nuclear weapon. this deal will not prevent iran from achieving a nuclear weapon and the american people deserve a better deal. this deal provides a 24-delay delay before iran is forced to comply with inspections at nuclear bases. this is long ways from anywhere, anytime, the american people promise. can you imagine with the epa or the fda came knock on a business owner's door in montana and said you cannot come and inspect now but come back in 24 days. that is what we have setup with the iranian government through this deal. through this deal the american people are being asked to ender into a binding trust agreement with the world's leading state sponsor of terror. in fact, just yesterday i looked at my twitter feed, and the supreme leader of iran, he is called the supreme leader for a reason, the ayatollah said and i quote i say to you the israelis will not see the coming 25 years. and god willing there will not be something named a zionist regime in the next 25 years and went on to reiterate calling america the great sadist. this is who the united states is making this bad nuclear deal with. it is not a mistake to push for tougher sanctions. the american people deserve a better option. two nights ago i had a town hall meeting calling into a hundred thousand montana households and by 3-1 montana residents oppose the deal. as i close, let me say this, i step back and it looks like 58 united states senators are opposed to this deal and 42 supporting it. those 58 who oppose it are bipartisan. the house numbers are similar in ratios. so the point is this. there is bipartisan opposition to this deal. both democrats and republicans joining together. the only support is partisan. it is a mistake to not push for a better deal that can be supported by more than just one segment of one political party. i yield back. >> the democratic leader harry reid of nevada this morning offered to the republican side the following: we will bring this critically important historic measure before the united states senate for an up or down vote, a clean up or down vote at a margin of 60 votes. 60 votes is the margin used for every, and i might add controversial measure, before the senate. what we are asking for is not out of line. the republican side supported the notion of the 60 vote margin until they didn't have 60 votes. now they are calling for some other approach. here is what we face. this afternoon at 3:45 we will have a roll call vote on the procedural question of whether we end the debate on one aspect of this issue. it is a cloture vote and we will see how it turns out. but we have made a good faith offer twice to the republicans to finish this important debate and to bring this to a 60-vote close. every single member of the senate on both sides of the aisle announced publically in advance where they stand on the hue. no one is trying to avoid this tough and challenging vote. everyone is faced with squaring. senator mcconnell on the republican side objects and we will face a procedural vote at 3:45. what is troubling is we are in disarray in congress now. this statue bringing us before the united states senate, resolution of disapproval on the iran agreement, passed the senate with a vote of 98-1. a strong bipartisan agreement. this is how we would approach it. and this is what senator mcconnell is working off of. the basic statue that brings us together. but look what is happening across the rotunda. the house of representatives descended when they were supposed to move forward to the same vote we were facing they fell apart. there was a republican caucus and it was in disarray. now they are proposing not the underlining statute we are considering but three brand new different approaches to this. this is no way to run a congress. the t is no way to address a serious, foreign policy issue, one of the more serious issues of our time. my colleagues are here to speak and i am going to yield the floor to them. i have spoken from time to time but i will say this. und understand what we trying to achieve. we are not putting a seal of approval on irain -- iran and their conduct. instead we are saying we have one goal to stop iran from developing a nuclear weapon. that is the goal. i believe this agreement comes as close to achieving that as we can hope for at this moment. i wish it were stronger and better. but in the course of negotiation we don't always get everything we want. think of what happened here. we met in switzerland at the table with five other nations. china, russia, the united kingdom, germany, france and the european union joined the united states in this effort to negotiate this groemeagreement walked away all nations saying this is good agreement and should move forward. in addition to that we have had support from the security council of the united nations, over a hundred countries endorsed this, and yet it has been rejected by the republicans in the house and senate of congress. the first evidence of their rejection was on march 9th of this year with 47 republican senators sending a leder to the supreme leader in iran, the ayatollah, saying to him don't waste your time negotiating with the united states of america. madam president, that has never happened in the history of the united states. never. i asked historians to check it. never have members of congress sent a letter in the midst of negotiations don't pay any attention to our president, don't pay any attention to our nation. 47 made it clear even before the agreement was reached they were rejecting it. that doesn't show good faith. or show trying to be objective and honest. here we stand with the first procedural vote this afternoon. we want to achieve two things with this vote and agreement. number one, stop iran from developing a nuclear weapon and we do it by shutting down the production facilities and sending in scores of international inspectors who will be roaming through iran during the entire pendency of this agreement looking for violations that could trigger the sanctions being returned and secondally our goal is to bring peace and stability as best as we can when it comes to the nuclear issue in the middle east and in support of our friend and ally in israel. i think the president's good faith effort reaches that goal. i support this and i will be voting on the procedural side this afternoon to support the president's deal with iran. i yield the floor. >> thank you. and my dear friend and colleague -- >> senator from new york. >> thank you, madam president. >> my dear friend and colleague disagree but i very much respect the way he has conducted himself throughout this entire debate. now, madam president, every several years or so a legislatu legislature is called upon to make a vote with the stakes being high and both sides feeling strongly about their views. such is the case with iran deal. it demands reason and serious debates. over the years i have learned the best way to tweet big decisions is to study the issue carefully, hear the full explanation of those against, and without regard to pressure, politics or party make a decision based on the merits. that is what i did with the iran deal. i carefully studied the jcpoa and read and reread the agreement, questioned opponents and those who were supporting it, after deep study and soul searching i announced i would oppose the agreement and vote yes on the motion of disapproval. i want to give tremendous credit for president obama on this issue. the president, secretary kerry and his team spent years pushing iran to come to an agreement and years before assembling the international sanctions regime that brought iran to the table in the first place. it was the president's far sightedness that led our nation to accelate the development of the massive ordinancordinance. regardless of how one feels about the agreement, all fair minded americans should acknowledge the president's strong achievements in combatting and containing iran. i also have a great deal of respect for the careful thought and deliberation my colleagues went through before making their final decisions. while i came to a different conclusion then many in my own caucus i recognize for them that this is a vote of conscious just as it is for me. mr. president i wish to recount my reasoning on the floor before a vote is taken. i examine this deal in three parts. nuclear restrictions on iran in the first ten years, nuclear restrictions on iran after ten years, and non nuclear components and consequences of the deal. in each case, i didn't ask what is the ideal agreement. we are not in that world. i asked if we are better off with the agreement we had before or without. in the first ten years there are serious weaknesses in the agreement. first, inspections are not anywhere/anytime and the 24 day delay of undeclared sites is troublin troubling. it is true the declared sites can be monitored any time. but if iran is going to cheat it will be at a non-designated spot. the united states cannot demand inspections unilaterally. he require the majority of the commission and assuming china and russia and iran would not require it would require the european members of the p 5-plus one. once the europeans become entangled in relations with iran they may not want to rock the vote by voting to allow inspections. additionally the snapback provisions seem cumbersome and difficult to use. the united states could cause snapback of all sanctions there will be instances where it is important to snap back some of the sanctions. it could be difficult to obtain because the u.s. would require cooperation of other nations. if the u.s. insist on snapback of all provisions which it can do unilateral, the europeans, russians and chinese might feel it is too severe punishment and not comply. those arguing for the agreement say it is better to have an imperfect deal than nothing. it is indeed better to have inspections and snapback than nothing. but for this part of the agreement, the weaknesses with both of those prophecy makes the argument less desirable. we must argue how it would restrict iran in ten years. if their true intent is to get a nuclear weapon under this agreement it must exercise patience. after ten years it be close to achieve that. they would be stronger. and unlike its current unsanctioned pursuit it would be codified in an agreement signed by the united states and other nations. finally we must consider the non-nuclear elements of the agreement. this aspect of the deal gives me the most pause. they are supporting military or terrorist actions in syria and iraq and iran would receive $50 billion in the future and undoubtedly use some of that money to create more trouble in the middle east and perhaps beyond. they could pursue an icbm once the sanction is lifted and in eight years have capability because of the ban on the ballistic missiles lifted. restrictions should have been place limiting how iran could use its new resources. using the were -- proponents -- it seems to me with the nuclear agreements within ten years we might be slightly better off with it. however when it comes to nuclear aspects after ten years, and non nuclear aspects, we would be better off without it. ultimately in my view, whether one opposes or supports the resolution of disproval, depends on how one things iran will behave under this agreement, whether contact with the west and a decrease in political oppression will soften the regime. or if the current regime is seeing this as relief from sanctions while obtaining their desire for nuclear arms. madam president, mr. president, no one has a crystal ball, no one can tell with certainty which way iran will go. it is true. iran has a large number of people who want their government to decrease the isolation from the world and focus on economic advancement at home. but this desire has been evident for 35 years and yet iranian leaders have held a tight and undiminished group on iran with little threat. who is to say that this sane dictatorship will not prevail for another 10-20-30 years. to me, the very real risk that iran will not moderate and will instead use the agreement to pursue its nefarious goals is too grate so therefore i will vote to disapprove. not because i think war is a available option or challenge the path to diplomacy. it is because it is far too likely iran will not change and it will be able to achieve its goal of eliminating sanctions wile retaining nuclear and non-nuclear power. strengthen and enforce the secondary sanctions on other nations and pursue the path to diplomacy once more difficult as it may be. for all of these reasons i believe the vote to disapprove is the right one. i yield the floor. >> madam president? i yield 20 minutes to the senator from delaware. >> senator from delaware. >> thank the democratic whip for yielding time to me. i want to thank him for this extraordinary leadership of him on this issue and tell him how proud i am and of my other colleagues whether we come together on this issue or another position. i want to take a different approach to the serious matter that is before us today. this is to say in the first week of the recess i did something i suspect a number of my colleagues did. i actually read a lot of materials that relate to the groement. after putting it down, my mind wandered back to another time and place. another time and place where there was an intense effort to end years of hostility and his mistrust in the middle east. i led a trade delegation in 1999 with business leaders, government leaders and citizens mostly from delaware, many jewish and we went to israel in the summer of 1999 looking to extend cultural relationships between delaware and israel. the united states department state officials before departing on our mission i came looking for an opportunity to encourage israeli and palestinian leaders to seize the day and negotiate the two-state solution that seemed just out of reach. those opportunities came sooner than i ever expected and after landing we were whisked off to a sprawling outdoor fourth of july celebration hosted by the ambassador to israel. the soon to be prime minister of the country and benjamin netanyahu were at the party. the widow and daughter of the late leaders, former party labor member, and an assembly of who is who in israel. i spoke with the new prime minister in his office and the second conversation focused on negotiations to true to reach a land for peace deal once and for all with the palestinians. ironically a few days later a delegation was invited to join arafat and i sat with him and shared the new prime minister's desire to complete the work done by the formal prime minister before his assassination. he set aside years of conflict and distrust to find common ground for the israelis that would provide better security for israel and better relationships with neighbors in return for palestinian statehood. the converivation seemed to go well. back in the states i shared as much with the clinton administration. over the course of the next year, arafat was proposed with the best land for peace proposal the palestinians would ever receive. in the end they turned it down. it was said later arafat could not take yes for an answer. another transforming opportunity is presenting itself to america with the british, french, germans, russians, and the chinese as well as the people of iran. we have the hope of them developing nuclear weapon put on the shelf for years and maybe forever. young iranians have a chance to end the sanction that coalition we lead has imposed on iran for years. the iranians have an opportunity to lose their status as a puryea in the world. i have had countless meetings with people from delaware and beyond the borders who fall on both sides. some opposed to any deal with iran and others believe we must have a deal in order to avoid having a war. i support this agreement only after considering all points of reviews and taking in dozens of briefings from experts on iran and nuclear proliferation. two years of negotiations presented an agreement that israel prime minister benjamin netanyahu denounced before the sink ink was dry. i met with ambassadors of the five nations who were our negotiating partners. to a person they argue persuasively i thought this was a deal we should not reject. they urge us to learn from arafat's mistake and this time take yes for an answer. they are not the only ones who believe we should support this deal. dozens of former israeli national security and military officials including retired israeli navy admiral ame elon. the person in charge of the navy in the last decade. he is a retired captain spending 23 years in the nation. i was interested in what he had to say in my state. the iran deal is the best alternative from israeli's point of view given the other alternatives available. -- israel's --dozens -- actuallf former israeli military leaders and intelligence leader whose agree with him. not all, but a lot. and we should listen to their voice. i have listened to him. those who think there are dangerous people in iran who want this deal so they can exploit it i remind them that the revolutionary guard is vehemently opposed it-to-this deal. a lot of people in delaware think that, well, the revolutionary guard, the hard-liners in iran, well, they're for t as it turns out, they're not, quite the opposite. here is a photograph of major general mohammed ally jafari, commander of iran's revolutionary guards. he said, "we'll never accept it." that's not exactly a voice of endorsement for this agreement. i think this is all the more reason that we should vigorouslien force this agreement -- vigorously enforce this agreement to make for years to come in order to ensure that the iranians comply with every element required of them by this deal. this deal blocks four pathways to a bomb. let me mention what they are. the iranian facility in in a tan blocked, the uranium facility at for dough blocked, weapons-grade proulx to enium blocked, covert ions.x to enium blocked, covert >> forward attempts to make aely bomb, lie. intrusion, sanction release only after the economic sanctions. the united states, we don't need their concurrence we can do it alone. they currently haveb. 10000 kilograms of rich and rainy them. enriche it puts them two or three months away from a nuclear bomb. without without a deal it stays that way. without a deal, it staysra that way. with the o deal, iran must cut e number of centrifuges, and whatr we end up with are the most elementary centrifuges.he that blocks their pathway to ale bomb keeping at least one year away to 15 years maybe longer. r if at the end of the day, the agreement is implemented and th. provisions are not followed, wem will note it.ated, s we'll notify our own n intelligence and of the roots on tran eight israelis as well. the same month, the samerdght sanctions that brought them to the table two years ago. us. twenty-five years ago the united states impose sanctions against iraq that weree unilateral. then we began ratcheting over time. it was was clearly ay o nuisance to iranur.negotig they did not alone bring aroundd to the table. they sustain multilaterald, i sanctions joint and byne negotiating partners around thet world succeeded in bringing iran to the table to talk. we could convince the iran'six were cheating.t ain. any of the six of us could pull the trigger and reimpose the sanctions. if the u.s. rejects thiss. agreement we lose the ability tl know the iranians are pursuing ehe development of a nuclear weapons capability, we will loose the support of the rest oo the world on reimpose inbers sanctions. when a future horri government in iran wants tofytr. pursue a nuclear a nuclear program. i don't know a,bout you, that makes no sense to me. it also makes no sense start negotiating partner. almost every american who was alive a 911, which we will commemorate tomorrow remembers the horrifying images. to to make matters worse we had to endure people celebrating the death of thousands americans.ert among those images, was atehr remarkable difference it took place in all places of iran. there that night thousands iranians did a candlelight vigil in solidarity. with the united states most americans have no idea that ever happen. dozens year later in new york city i met with an iranian leader, he was an ambassador to the un but sometimes they have an ambassador to the un in new york city. the university of denver as well, he spoke better english than i do. he knew more about america than most americans. later on we came back to washington d.c. and i said, why do come down to washington? he said i wanted to get to know you and have a dialogue. set the bush administration mauled by me, or well let me leave new york city. they wouldn't relax the travel ban. so i said to him, it was the president of iran sent that holocaust was a figment of the imagination. i said how do you get along with your president, his response was, not good. he doesn't trust me, i'm not to be here much longer. he was right. next time i reach out to him, he was gone. seemingly without a trace, i find out years later he had been recalled to iran returned to private life, largely staying out of sight. the second and final term most people never heard of him. he never had a chance to get elected or run. , he did get to run but he won more votes than the other five candidates per combined. in the end, and later on the question was what kind what he put together to surround himself as the leader of iran. when he did, we are watching to see who would be the minister of this or that, he submitted the names of the parliament, his submission for the minister was my friend. you could have knocked me over with a feather. i never saw it, coming. the past few years to the man i have known for a half dozen your s'mores. the negotiating team has been led superbly by secretary of state john kerry. by his side, has been a wet less well-known energy secretary. he played a key role on this dedicated team. he has never sought elective office, he was a leader at the professor of physics and he testified one day at a field hearing and later i came back and he i said what was it like. and i i said he was a genius. by guy, he is. he leads a bunch of national labs where people have of all kinds of information. as it turns out, they were were hardest to help us in this negotiation. as it turned out, ironically, among the students and mit was that young iranian. later he returned to his country and would become the doctor's counterpart in negotiation with the us-led team. as it turns out his advisor at mit was one of his closest friends. so a bond or connection was created, shared trust that went back to one person at a former graduate person who trusted anonymously. it it didn't take long for the secretary to make an impression, shortly after he joined the team earlier this year and gave the iranians some members described as a tutorial on all things nuclear. making it clear that they have more than met their match. adding him to our team was genius. not only bringing him there but the national labs as well. he has bolstered the credibility is much as anybody of the agreement, and the confidence of us in it. much has been made whether we can trust the iranians to do it they have committed to do. john kerry and other members of the team have make clear the agreement and partners of other nations is not based on trust. it is not based on trust it is based on mistrust. when you realize the future iranian regime may want to launch another program. to attempt to do that the key questions are these. will we know it? what, are the quote consequences of iran severe enough to deter them from going forward with it? i am convinced the answer is yes. today iran has much more than the hard-line revolutionary guard whose influence begun to rain, iran today is a nation of 78 million people. the average age is 25. most of them were not alive in 1975 during the iranian revolution. they do not remember the brutal shaw when the regime fell. a new generation of iranians are ready to take yes for an answer. i think we should too. it is a good deal for america and our allies, and that that includes israel, one of our closest allies. it beats the likely alternative that it could be war with iran, hands-down. a year and half ago in new york, senator was visiting with me. we had the opportunity to talk about the negotiation and i said, you and iran have a choice. you can have a strong, vibrant economy for your country again, or you can have a nuclear weapons program. you cannot have both. you cannot have both. we are not going to accept a nuclear weapons program. we have the ability to know if they cheat. if they cheat we have the ability to put back in the economic sanctions, if that doesn't do the job we have other alternatives at our disposal. nothing is off the table. sometimes we talk about voting our fears, avoid or voting our hopes, i am prepared to vote our hopes. thank you. >> senator from illinois. >> i would like to thank my friends from delaware, that was a very thoughtful presentation. as you alluded to he is made a personal commitment to this beyond most members of the senate. i thank him for his insight and friendship. i now yield the floored ten minutes to senator from michigan. >> senator from michigan. >> madam president, earlier this week i announced that i will reluctantly support the jott comprehensive plan of action and oppose the resolution of disapproval despite some very serious reservations. i do not reach this easily or quickly. although there are many positive aspects of the steel, this agreement has flaws that i believe need to be addressed in the months and years ahead. the congressional review. has served a very useful purpose. my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have raised very important points about the steel. we are briefed by experts, and negotiators. i commend senators cardin and to establish this review and affirming congress's role role in shaping our nation's foreign policy. after the debate is over it is my hope the senate will forge bipartisan consensus and act with the unity of purpose. we we must work together and take action against iran. if they fail to live up to their obligations under the agreement, we must look work on legislation and efforts to combat iran sponsorship of terrorist activities, arms smuggling and other ambitions. we need to look no further than the humanitarian crisis emanating from syria to see the havoc, and chaos that iran is wreaking on an already troubled region. we need to provide oversight to work together to extend the proliferation of nuclear material especially from nuclear states and iran in particular. nearly 20 countries produce safe nuclear power without domestic enrichment. america's long-standing policy is that nuclear non- proliferation treaty does not provide the right to enrich uranium. while the short-term it helps increase and enrich their stockpile, i'm concerned in the long term other nations will view this agreement as a precedent that will lead to increased proliferation of nuclear enrichment and potential for other nations to emerge as threshold nuclear states. a few years ago, the united states signed and ratified a one, two, two, three agreement. it would help them build nuclear power capabilities well ask explicitly preventing them from enriching uranium on their soil. the united states must take a leadership role in setting a threshold of acceptable levels of uranium for safety production of nuclear energy. as more nations like to meet growing energy needs a comprehensive policy to ensure only safe levels of uranium enrichment with strong international safeguards is critical to global security. no nation faces a more severe threat than iran's nuclear ambitions than the state of israel. for decades, the iranian regime has made it their mandate to eliminate the jewish state. we must be must be united in ensuring that this never happens. we must always be ready to act to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and smuggling arms to proxies in the region. as the middle east falls deeper into chaos our allies with israel, the nation that share so many of our values, has never been more important. america must reaffirm our long-standing commitment to israel's security by renewing our memorandum of understanding, providing israel with upgraded defense capabilities to submit its qualitative oteri edge in the region and bolstering in the region to deter against iran. the jcp oa is not the end of our multilateral avenue it's against iran and it its efforts. america must work with its allies to initiate multilateral sanctions against iran for its terrorist activities, especially funding of has billye and hamas. we have to set clear understanding that will not initiate the snap back to full sanctions. we must continue working in a coordinated fashion to ensure unity of purpose against iran's nuclear ambition, terrorist activities and efforts to destabilize the region. we must continue pressing for the release of all u.s. hostages currently imprisoned in iran, congress must address these issues. in 2009 congress debated whether to pursue sanctions or diplomacy with iran first. with military force always been the last resort but a necessary, final deterrent. i is proud to cosponsor the past sanctions in 2009 and help pass additional sanctions in the year sense. as a new member of the senate i joined a group of bipartisan senators ready to pass additional sanctions against iran as they continue to drag out negotiations. iran needed to know the patients of the united states was not limited. the jcp a was complex compromises. let's let's be clear, either rejecting or accepting the steel comes with a set of distinct risks. those who oppose the steel have been accused of supporting war over diplomacy. those who support the steel have likewise pretrade as supporting containment. foreign policy is really so simple. it is certainly not so simple in this case. as leaders of this great nation, we all went to our citizens and men and women in uniform to never let ourselves become so fractured by partisan politics on issues of such importance of national security. i look for to working with senators on both sides of the aisle to protect the interest of our allies in the safety and security of this great nation, to ensure the united states of america mains both united in our goals and indivisible in our purpose. i yield the floor. >> senator for illinois. >> i yield to the senator from maine. >> senator from maine. >> i would like to ask unanimous consent that jonathan greener, a military fellow in my office be granted for privileges for the remainder of this congress and debate today. >> without objection. >> madam president, i want to talk about this arrangement an agreement with iran and cover several points in what i think are important realities that have not been emphasized in this case. first i want to address the issue of the 60 vote margin. first, i think it should be on the record the minority leader offered to the majority leader a unanimous consent agreement there be no filibuster on the motion to perceive and there'd be a 60 vote threshold required for final passage of the bill. as i understand that offer was rejected. that means the only alternative is to go the technical rule of the filibuster in order to require a 60 vote margin. it is absolutely clear from the legislative record that everyone involved in that discussion, including the senator from tennessee understood that a 60 vote margin would be required in the passage of this legislation. there is no question about it, their quotes in the record, everyone understood, everyone understood that from the beginning of the consideration of the bill. finally every major issue that has come before has required 60 votes. whether it was immigration, background checks, extension of on employment benefits, or minimum wage. all wage. all of those required 60 vote threshold. that has been the standard in this body. we can debate whether that should or should not be the standard, but it is, it has been, and this is not a time to decide that we are going to arbitrarily abandon that. i must say, i am amazed that people discuss this as if it is some kind of new imposition of a rule. it reminds me of casablanca, i am shocked to understand that there might be a 60 vote requirement on this piece of legislation. that has been the standard for this body for certainly as long as i have been here and for some time longer. we can discuss whether that should be the standard, but that is what it is and no one should be surprised that that is the way we are perceiving here today. okay let's talk about the agreement. five quick realities. number one, iran is a nuclear threshold state today. there is a lot of argument, i sat through the debate yesterday afternoon about what happens in 2030, what happens in 15 years, would iran be legitimized nuclear threshold state. they are are a nuclear threshold state today. the risk to the world is imminent. it is not in 15 years, it is today and that is why this agreement is so important. a sickly it freezes and rolls back iran's nuclear capabilities for at least the next 15 years and probably longer. number two, iran is a rogue nation. it promotes terrorism around the world. it is a state sponsor sponsor of terrorism, everybody knows that. under this agreement as it pointed out, because of the nature of the negotiations which was rollback the nuclear program in exchange for relief from the sanctions, they will indeed receive relief from the sanctions. that will give them additional funds for their economy and possibly for various purposes. i would submit, that, that the only thing worse than a rogue i run is a rogue i run with nuclear weapons. that is is the essence of this deal. it prevents their opportunity to gain nuclear weapons. it rolls back what they are ready have. i should point out, they became a nuclear threshold state during the imposition of very sanctions regimes. so it is clear that sanctions in and of themselves, are not going to prevent their achievement of becoming a nuclear weapon state. number three, this is a multilateral agreement. all the discussion around here ask like it is the united states and iran, obama and ayatollah. it involves the world's major powers. it and falls great britain, france, germany, france, russia. if we walk away from this deal, we are doing so alone. we had an extraordinary meeting before the recess with ambassadors from the p5 plus one countries. they made it clear, if they had accepted this agreement and that if we rejected it their willingness to go back to the table, reimpose the sanctions, reinforce the sanctions. i believe one of the abbasid or use the term far-fetched. it is not going to happen. the sanctions sanctions are going to e road starting now no matter what we do in this congress. i can't find out anyway a week in sanctions. i don't see how weak her sections resist bridging will bring iran back to the table to give us a better deal. number four, this agreement is flawed. it is not it is not the agreement that i would prefer. there are elements of it that i think could be improved. i wish the 15 years were 20 or 30 years. i wish the 24 days was 12 days was 12 days, or eight days, or one day. but this is the agreement that is before us and the analysis could not be strictly of the agreement itself and within its four corners, but compared to what? that is really the basic question here. not is this a good deal or a bad deal, the question is how does this deal, no matter the flaws compare with the alternatives that are out there? all of the drama, all of the argument, all of the speeches and rallies that we have heard, no one has yet come up with a credible alternative. i have not yet heard a credible alternative. the only thing i hear is, we will reimpose sanctions and bring them back to the table and get a better deal. it's going to be very hard to reimpose those sanctions without the support of our international partners. now, if we enter into the deal and iran cheats, then we can bring the international partners back with us. but to do so, try to think we could do so now is just unrealistic. i wish there was a better alternative. i also wish i could play tight and for the new england patriots, but it is not going to happen. it is simply is simply not realistic. there is no credible alternatives. finally, we have to talk about what happens after the deal. congress has a responsibility, the administration has a responsibility, we cannot trust iran. everyone knows that, nobody argues that. there has been discussion about the iaea, i serve on the intelligence committee, it is not just the iaea that is watching this agreement it is the world intelligence community. we have significant capability to know if they are cheating, over and and above, and in addition to anything the iaeafiy to know if they are cheating, over and and above, and in addition to anything the iaea brings to the table. this is not trust, this is a verification verification based upon the iaea's experience but also upon the considerable intelligent of the united states and other countries supporting us in this effort. finally, there are risks. i understand that. there are risks on both sides. there are severe risther c, this not an easy call. it is one of the hardest decisions i have had to make. if you analyze the alternatives and weigh the rillys, i believe the risk of nt going forward with this agreement are significantly greater then the risk of giving diplomacy a chance. going forward with this agreement which can be but verified if there is cheating, it can be cwhicght and punished. if the agreement doesn't work we have the same options that we have today. icult decision. it is one that has weighed on this body and this country. but i think this is a tremendous opportunity for us to avoid a nuclear armed iran and secure at least that part of a peaceful middle east and more securpresim illinois. mr. durbin: meet me thank my colleague from maine for his presentation. i'd like to ask how much time is remaining. the presiding officer: seven minutes. mr. durbin: i am going to yield to the senator from ohio. i hope seven minutes is adequate. if not, i will ask unanimous consent to extend that and offer time to the other side, whatever is necessary. let me yield to my colleague from ohio. mr. brown: i thank you. madam president, i thank the assistant democratic leader. i rise in support of the international agreement designed to prevent iran to get a nuclear weapon. no one in this body trusts iran. nobody disputes that iran is a leading state sponsor of terrorism. it denies israel's right to exist, it destabilizes the middle east and violates the human right of its people. that's why we need to prevent a nuclear-armed iran, which would nuclear-armed iran, which would would pose an exponentially greater danger in the security of the united states to our long-time important ally israel and to the entire world. this agreement is the only viable option. senator kaine said no one has answered the question well but the hundreds of calls i have made and the dozens and dozens of briefings and discussions i have had with people on both sides of the agreement and israeli officials to american security people to activists and citizens on both sides of this nobody has answered the question well what do we do if we -- if this is a great visit -- this agreement was killed when i 6 congress? i am proud about my democratic caucus has done in researching and examining and questioning this deal. no knee-jerk reaction on our side were people all went the same way almost immediately when the agreement came out. people on the democratic side of the aisle listen to experts. they listen to stakeholders. he came to thoughtful informed decisions. i made my decision after serious studies of a agreement content after listening to ohioans on all sides of this after consulting with nuclear experts like energy secretary and nobel prize-winning physicist secretary moniz. briefings from the present of the energy secretary from treasury secretary lew and secretary of state kerry and of ministers and officials. i consulted u.s. intelligence officials outside of arms control experts met with over an hour with israel's ambassador to the united states. i met with all five of the ambassadors of the p5+1 countries. those who have been longtime allies of us from france england and germany, those who are allies from time to time from china and from russia. allies on this issue is not a number of others. everyone of them individually collectively warned that the united states, the united states which would be isolated internationally if congress rejects this agreement. my colleagues, many of my colleagues talk about iran's sponsorship of terrorism and human rights abuses in his pursuit of ballistic missiles. these are legitimate concerns that they are not the focus of this agreement. of course the want to solve those issues. sanctions will remain in place but that was not the focus of this nuclear agreement. let's be clear when i hear pundits say that iran 15 years now would be a threshold nuclear state maybe they will maybe they want. that certainly debatable and it's not debatable that iran is the nuclear threshold state. they are two to three months away from being able to produce that in being able to produce fissile material for a nuclear weapon. beginning today when congress allows this agreement to move forward to block iran's pop -- installed centrifuges by two-thirds for 10 years cutting its stockpiles enriched uranium by 98% for 15 years, reconfiguring its plutonium reactor to render it inoperable. for the first time the deal requires 24/7 access. the united nations inspectors will say of the 120 countries inspections they have done this is the most comprehensive than the most intrusive to the deal provides time certain access to suspicious sites in iran. it you present a permanent prohibition on iran acquiring a nuclear weapon. it provides a permanent ban on nuclear weapons research and a permanent inspection regime for their nuclear program. if iran violates the deal united states has extraordinary power to snap back on u.s. and international sanctions without fear of veto by other nations. the president made clear 10 or 15 or 20 years from now iran tries to build a bomb this agreement ensures united states will have better tools to target it. americans fundamentally don't want another war in the middle east. american strongly preferred a diplomatic solution with which disagreement is all about that ensures that iran cannot obtain an air weapon. the beginning of my remarks madam president i spoke about the serious way with great gravitas that democrat after democrat after democratic senator the serious way we pursuit coming to a decision on this. let me contrast for a moment this, one of the most significant national security issues congress will face in a generation. i have been in the house and senate for 20 years now. this will be one of the two most important decisions i have made on foreign policy. the first was my move against the war in iraq really was clearly the right of an overwhelming public support for it. the president we know the information we were presented with was exactly right in the end. even though huge support in congress a lot of public support for going to war with iraq. i thought about that a lot and i made a decision and i thought the iraq war would be disastrous for our country and that's decision clearly was right. it wasn't so partisan that and although we had a president that pushed this and the vice president that pushed us into that war at this agreement should not be subject to the reflective partisan attacks it's in recent months. a few months ago 47 of my republican colleagues send a letter signaling their opposition. not just that they sent a letter to the ayatollah to our leader of the enemy iran suggesting it wasn't quite on the up-and-up because the president of the united states. they signed a letter that was teaching the ayatollah, imagine madam president if democrats in the senate in the 1980s had written a letter to secretary gorbachev saying don't -- with ronald reagan. i asked for two minutes additional time. >> is there objection? >> we start off with 47 republicans writing to the ayatollah saying fundamentally don't negotiate with president obama. we have seen madam president that a single one of my colleagues is in support of this agreement even a secretary powell supported and even though former senator lugar who is as respected as anyone in this country as a former republican senator, it's not just this but the first day the agreement came out on talk radio i say read the agreement and read the bill. the first disagreement came out, 19 republicans came out in opposition to this agreement. there's no way they could have read it. i know how complicated this agreement is. i assume everyone of my democratic colleagues focused difficult persistent ways have studied this issue and then i see what happened on the other side of the aisle when timothy krause said one of them flies off the telephone wires they all fly off the telephone wire. i was just so disappointed and senator corker one of the people that didn't sign the letter and one of them have thought about this issue but what i saw in the contracts the way we looked at was pretty disturbing. my time is running out. this agreement will matter for her country. it's clearly in our national interest. i think there is no good answer offered in what happens if we walk away and that's why the congress that i asked my senators to vote no on the next about coming in front of us. >> the senate rejected the resolution by a vote of 58-42. for democrats charles schumer of new york joe manchin of west virginia robert menendez of new jersey and ben cardin of maryland voted with republicans. in a statement president obama said i'm heartened that so many senators judge this deal on the merits and gratified by the strong support of lawmakers and citizens alike. >> madam president i want to thank my colleague senator corker for his diligence efforts consuming hundreds if not thousands of hours under the senate foreign relation committee in helping us guide through this important process this very difficult process. this is an issue that rises above partisan politics. this is something that each of us as a senator has to weigh carefully. i've spent i don't know how many hours and how much time reading through, parsing through trying to analyze and understand this agreement and everything connected with it. i would like to now stay to my colleagues perhaps with an appeal that they at least, at the very least set aside the deal is done in you lost and we are not going to allow a vote of this matter. this is one of the most historic consequential measures that anyone in this chamber will ever be confronted with. i know for me it is the most because of the historic consequences that may occur if we don't get this right. it's important that we debate this and have ample time to go through every bit of this and we have each member of this weigh carefully what we hear from each other and what we come to understand on the basis of our own personal examination. i hope that will be the case and to deny us the opportunity and other other yes be yes and there no been over for the public i think would be a tragic mistake. i would like to just go back and talk about my history with all this. when i returned from my ambassadorship to germany and had to deal with this is one of many different issues because even back then there was great concern among both the united states and the german government over the iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons capabilities. i engaged in a number of discussions and diplomatic efforts in working with our allied country germany on this issue. when i do come back i suppose it is because of my engagement there are was asked by the bipartisan policy committee that has just been formed to chair a task force on this very issue. iranians pursued, the iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons. i obviously want this to be bipartisan so i recruited my fellow senate colleague chuck krop then retired senator from virginia and together we cochaired that in later we were joined by retired four-star general and deputy supreme allied commander chuck wall. we put together a who's who of experts on the middle east, experts on nuclear capabilities. we had renowned experts from across the spectrum come and present to us and all of that resulted in three major reports tied with meeting the challenge u.s. policy towards iranian nuclear development. the second one meeting the challenge. time is running out. the third, meeting the challenge when time runs out. there's a treasure trove of information here about how iran has violated u.n. treaty resolutions, violated the proliferation treaty agreement. we have talked about the consequences of all this and made recommendations to the administration. whatever administration i would be. as it turns out these recommendations went to their public administration under president george w. bush and to the obama administration under our current president. clearly we had outlined in the interest of time i won't be able to go back through all of this but let me just state a couple of the conclusions here relative to all this. absent necessary leverage we believe it unlikely the supreme leader khamenei will reciprocate president obama's consolatory gestures in a meaningful way. we talked about a first of all we enforced diplomacy to its ultimate but we recognize diplomacy has its limits. we consider not coming to an agreement for decades and we have been trying with diplomatic efforts in iran and they were succeeding so then we talked about the necessity of having sanctions and ever ratcheting sanctions to bring iran to the table. included in that was the threat that the use of force if all else fails. none of us on the committee were warmongers. we want to do everything possible to prevent conflict in this in solving this problem. so we laid out a long framework and perhaps if this continues into next week i will be able to go through some of the framework but the key here on this is stated here somewhere. the key to this, i will just state it by going through. the key to all of this was that you had to have a combination of tough diplomacy which we have had year seven we will continue that. backed up by ever ratcheting sanctions to show iran that there is a price to pay for not coming to agreement and then backed up ultimately by the threat of force if we couldn't secure and it emits which would reach the goal and the goal is to prevent iran from having nuclear weapon capability knowing that the stabilization of would take place in the middle east and the historic impact of this would have been the consequences this would have if we allow that to happen. now let me move on to what i believe our major problems with this deal. we know iran's misbehavior comments violation of six u.n. treaties comments violation of the nonproliferation treaty, its support for terrorism. it is a bad actor, perhaps the world's worst bad actor. engaging in weaponization that that -- we are dealing with a rogue nation here and i don't know how my colleagues react to this but when they cut a deal with the united states and they are cheering in the streets of tehran and the supreme leader comes out yesterday and basically says well don't worry israel won't year round in the next 25 years, they will be wiped off the map. and also the death to the united states. this is the party that we just negotiated an agreement with. if we negotiate an agreement that achieves our goals i would say good for us. i mean finally the sanchez worked. we came up with a good agreement but as i have read through this document and parsed over every word and try to keep take it remaining and talk to -- i served on the senate arms intelligence community and earlier he served on the arms committee. i was hoping to read through this document. i spent almost the entire week and carefully reading this hoping we have achieved at least some of this is not the most important goal that we had. to my dismay we ended up not achieving any of those goals. the goals were to prevent iran from having nuclear weapons capabilities that could rake out and we'd to his destabilization of the middle east. but we have come up with is an agreement that puts them on a path to do exactly that, justified now now by a this agreement justified by the security council of the u.n.. they said there were two major things that need to be talked about before we talk about some of the specifics. the false claim that we must choose between accepting this failed agreement or war and the second is the agreement prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability. this is the sales pitch from the white house. this is the sales pitch being made to the american people and neither of these is true. it has to be a desperate administration that has chosen to force this agreement on us by arguing that it's a choice between this deal and war. i'm disgusted by the administration's failed strategy for this agreement and those who are led down the path of belief that the only option here is war and therefore no matter what we gave away this deal is better than the alternative. the false choice is among the most infamous cynical and blatantly false information the obama administration has used to restore an important debate. he out to be -- they have to be ashamed of themselves for using this tactic trait in fact the false argument a far more valid argument one that this makes future war far more likely not less because i live banning the tool of economic sanctions and giving away a strong principled negotiating position the administration's desperate tactics reducing our options when iran does go nuclear as we have with them on the path to do. president obama and secretary kerry have repeatedly said over the past year that no deal is better than a bad deal. they never argued that any deal is better than no deal yet that is what they ended up with conceding. we have the strength of six of the most powerful countries in the world. united states great britain france germany china and russia sitting on one side of the negotiating table. on the other side of the negotiating table is iran crippled by sanctions oil falling into the range of $40 a barrel which cost them them more to extract it and sell it than they could get back. they were desperate to achieve some kind of relief from the sanctions. we had the negotiating leverage. we gave away that leverage in these negotiations, desperate to conclude any deal what so ever so we could avoid making some difficult decisions down the line in terms of what we have said that we must do. four presidents including this president, to pray democrats into republicans. we gave that away just to get the method table. we took off the use of anti-force and any leverage for additional sanctions are continuing sanctions and ordered to just get to the table. not as a negotiating to get what we needed but just to get to the table. the administration is accepted in my opinion a deeply flawed deal and then set it in motion with u.n. security council resolution the next day well before congress can even respond to it. thank goodness senator corker senator cardin were able to convince their colleagues on a 98-1 vote to give congress the right to have a say in this issue. had that not happened the president by not declaring this as a treaty and declaring it as an executive agreement the president would have locked this thing and before we had the chance to read it before the american people even had a chance to know what it was except for what the president told them it was or the secretary of state told him that it was. so thanks to these two men these two leaders one republican and one of democrats who have encouraged to stand up to this president and saying no the american people deserve to have a say and boy what a say this. maybe i'm talking to the wrong people come i don't know but the more they learn about this agreement that more they say are you crazy? he gave up that? or what? wanted or what? what to beget back? i want to go over some of that and try to move through this because i know time is of the essence here. but this idea that war is the only alternative in the sales pitch that i've heard so many of my colleagues and others who support the deal say. you know, i am for this because this prevents iran from having a nuke where bomb. it's just the opposite. it gives iran the pathway to have a nuclear bomb. this has a sunset clause that releases all the sanctions and there's a sunset clause that says after 15 years they can do whatever they want to do. you can't reimpose sanctions. what kind of a deal is back? the false narrative that this will not allow that agreement says we have to help iran achieve nuclear research, nuclear research that can help them move toward it. i looked at the amex and said shirley i am reading this wrong. we are committed to help them and other nations say israel wants to take action against us because they think they will be extinguished from the face of the earth as the iranians have told them it's going to happen want to take action we actually are required to try to convince the israelis not to do that. we side with the iranians. you can't write the script. this is beyond comprehensive and and -- comprehensions of those two false narratives are we ought to have reason to say wait a minute that's not move forward with this deal. surely we can find a way to negotiate a better deal for us. now our bipartisan policy committee or want to read from this because we looked into this very question and this was the conclusion. even if iran were to honor all of its obligations and fully complied with all the restrictions in the agreement j. tpo way the deal would not prevent a nuclear iran indefinitely prayed starting in your 13 iran will be able to break out enough fissile material for nuclear weapons in about 10 weeks, down from one year. a mere 16 iran would obtain nuclear weapons capability in less than three weeks. that was the conclusion, not of republicans. that was the conclusion of the bipartisan nonpartisan group of experts chaired by a republican and former senator at the time of the democratic former senator at the time. and what we have said actually has come true. a sunset clause should by itself be enough to persuade hopefully a majority of us to reject this deal. just as i make. you know president bush in 2001 had presented to the american people this same deal with iran and secured the votes to pass this deal, today iran would be having breakout, unrestricted rake out assisted by the agreement and we are going to call that it diplomatic victory? 15 years is going to go by very fast. they will have rake case is earlier than that and they can easily if you read the agreement easily declare that we have reached the agreement and therefore they are going forward they will have well over $100 billion to use to achieve that effort. they will have sanctions relief, total sanctions relief. they will be able to export all of the oil that they want and iran wins. now, there are some particular problems with this and they are listed by people on the right charles krauthammer on the left who are least in the middle david brooks is "new york times" not exact weight a republican and david her ex not necessarily a far right-winger basically saying every single major goal that we had going into this agreement has been given away in a desperate attempt to achieve any agreement so that we don't have to deal with this -- what we have to deal with can be pushed down. so on that basis i went through the agreement and looked at some of these areas and i would like to identify for the record shows that we have the leverage to achieve the stated goal by the administration and by others negotiating to achieve on every one of them, everyone. first verification inspections. most people understand that any time anywhere means any time anywhere. actually now it means well, it minimum 24 days if iran agrees with us initially that we should go through this convoluted process which iran helps make the decisions by giving tom brady and the patriots the right to determine whether or not the fault walls were deflated. now i am from indiana and am probably biased in that statement. on the other hand to simplify it for the people if you have an adversary that you don't trust and you want to have the ability to find out whether or not what they say or do you is true you don't say go ahead and check it yourself and tell me what you think and we will take that for an answer. .. notice and the secretary -- secretary kerry when asked at one of our meetings here, basically said no, i think i've got the quote here, we never pursued such a goal. and indeed we never heard of it. i, along with every one of us here was relieved when the administration announced, i don't know if i was secretary kerry were obvious of the team of supporters, announced inspections any time, anywhere. we said, oh, okay, at least we have that. now we learned no american can be part of the inspection team, and we learned that in the u.n. independent agency that will do the inspections and now we've learned that there are off-limits to military and form er weapons manufacturing and research facility that we're not even allowed to inspect. so anywhere, any time has become a farce. and how can you possibly -- that in and of itself would be reason not to vote for this agreement. how do you go home and explain to people any time, anywhere, is a scrubbed version of 24 days

Related Keywords

Montana , United States , Nevada , Delaware , China , Syria , Russia , Washington , District Of Columbia , West Virginia , Arizona , South Carolina , Wyoming , Tehran , Iran , Casablanca , Grand Casablanca , Morocco , Switzerland , New York , Germany , Illinois , Indiana , Virginia , Taiwan , Michigan , Denver , Colorado , United Kingdom , Maine , Iraq , Tennessee , New Jersey , Israel , Town Hall , Maryland , Ohio , Yemen , France , Americans , America , Chinese , Russian , Germans , Iranians , Iranian , Israelis , British , German , Syrian , Israeli , Palestinian , Russians , American , Timothy Krause , Ronald Reagan , Robert Menendez , Joe Manchin , Tom Brady , Harry Reid , John Kerry , Barack Obama , Charles Schumer , Martin Dempsey , Jeh Johnson , George W Bush , Charles Krauthammer , Benjamin Netanyahu , Diane Feinstein , Ben Cardin , John Mccain ,