Hire More Heroes Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I rise to urge all of our colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, to strongly oppose the proposed nuclear deal with Iran and to effectively block it for the sake of the country and our national security by supporting the motion of disapproval on the Senate floor.

I have served in the Senate and the House for about 15 years. It has been an enormous honor and a serious responsibility. I have taken it very seriously. When I think through all of that service, all of the votes we have cast, all of the debates we have had, I cannot think of any more serious than the issue we are debating and voting on here, the Iran nuclear deal. Maybe there are a few that rank in a similar way--after 9/11, starting that effort to
root out terrorists and to oppose those who inflicted massive death in our country--but there is none that is more important and more significant because this deal, this issue goes to the fundamental security of America, our future. Are we going to be free from the threat of attack with nuclear weapons by a wildly radical and unstable regime? It does not get more basic, more serious than that.

The first point I want to make is that this is a dead-serious issue because the consequences do involve life or death, massive numbers of lives or deaths. So if there is any debate, any vote that should be completely devoid of partisan political considerations, it is this one. I urge all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to leave the partisanship at the door. This is way more important than that. I would hope that would be obvious.

With that in mind, it is troubling that President Obama has tried to make this a partisan debate. He has actively, obviously sought to inflict partisanship into it, I think simply because that is the way he thinks he can hold enough Democratic votes on his side. I think that is really a shame. I hope everyone proves him wrong in terms of the nature of the debate and vote we have in this important body.

When you look at the agreement, at the specifics of the agreement--I will not go into all of the weeds and all of the issues. I could spend days alone on that. But I do want to focus on two key considerations that are absolutely top in my mind.

The first is the very premise and outcome of the agreement because we have gone from a negotiation that was supposed to be about preventing Iran from ever developing nuclear weapons to a discussion of when they are going to do it. We have gone from if to when. This agreement ensures that they will have the ability to get there even if they live under the full terms of the agreement, and obviously there is a concern, which I will get to in my second point, that they won't. This puts our nuclear nonproliferation policy, including the nonproliferation treaty, which has been the cornerstone of our policy regarding the proliferation of nuclear weapons and particularly in the Middle East for 45 years--this throws it out the window. This puts it on its head.

With this agreement, the United States has agreed that at the end of a timeline, Iran has full authority to enrich uranium, will be completely within its rights to do so with no fear of economic or political repercussions by the major powers, full authority for them to go against 45 years of standing nonproliferation policy. So what started as strong action, including meaningful sanctions that were having an impact to make sure Iran never got nuclear weapons, now concedes that they will get there; it is simply a debate about when. That is at the core of this agreement. That is at the core of the reason we all must say no and pass the motion of disapproval.

If there is any region of the world where we need to maintain this tough nonproliferation policy, it is the Middle East. This agreement obliterates that. Iran won't be the only new nuclear power over time. There will be a race among Middle Eastern countries to develop nuclear weapons because Iran is going to get one. That is inevitable, in my mind.

The second major point I want to make--the second major issue is verification , our ability under the agreement to see that Iran lives by it. First, as I said, even under the agreement, we are conceding their ability to develop nuclear weapons. That is absolutely wrong. But then within the agreement, we also have nothing near the tools and the assurances we need with regard to verification every step of the way.

Iran has proved over and over that they will violate these sorts of agreements, that they will lie. International agencies have caught them in those lies, including the IAEA. That agency and others have noted the difficulty of verification in dealing with Iran. Then we get to this agreement, which makes that difficulty move from significant to monumental.

There are lots of details we could look at, but the single most telling is the detail that is in a side agreement between Iran and the IAEA that we are not allowed to read. We are having this debate. We have to vote on this motion of disapproval. Yet we are not allowed to read this critical side agreement which goes to the heart of the ability of the world to verify compliance.

I brought up this fairly basic issue a few weeks ago when Wendy Sherman, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, testified before our committee on banking and urban affairs. I asked her point-blank: This side agreement between the IAEA and Iran, have you read it?

She answered: Yes.

I will be honest with you, I am not certain if that is true, but she answered yes.

Then I asked her: Am I, as a representative of the people of Louisiana, allowed to read that agreement?

She answered through nonresponses: No.

I asked her: Do you have to vote on this agreement in your responsibility?

No.

But I do; correct, Ms. Sherman?

Yes.

But I don't get to read this critical side agreement with regard to verification that goes to the heart of our ability to make sure Iran is even following these rules, as lax as they are?

Again, through her nonanswer, the answer was clear: No, I don't get to read it. The Presiding Officer does not get to read it. Nobody in the Senate who is voting on this gets to read it. Nobody in the House of Representatives who is voting on this gets to read it. Forget about any slight on the Presiding Officer and me and others personally. It is not about that. We are here to represent the people. I am here to represent the people of Louisiana. I cannot read what we are voting on? That is absolutely ridiculous.

Then, to add insult to injury, come press reports about what we are not allowed to read. Of course, the most significant were the press reports from several weeks ago from the AP saying that this side agreement had an extremely unusual provision with regard to inspections at at least one of Iran's most sensitive military facilities--the biggest concern we have probably in all of Iran. In at least that most sensitive military facility and perhaps others, Iran gets to collect the samples. Iran gets to choose and control those who do. The IAEA, the international community, and America do not and are not allowed on site. That just does not pass, I would say, the laugh test. But it is a very serious matter. That is like someone like Alex Rodriguez collecting his own urine and mailing it in. That does not work at a basic level. Yet that, according to very credible reports, is in this side agreement that, oh, by the way, we are not allowed to read.

For all of these reasons, for our security, for our kids' future, for freedom around the world, for Israel's security, for nonproliferation in the Middle East so that we do not have an explosive Middle Eastern nuclear arms race, we must pass this motion of disapproval.

Again, this goes way beyond politics. This is about our physical security, our kids' and grandkids' future. We must all come together, look at the substance of this, and do the right thing. That certainly involves invoking cloture on this motion so we go to a final vote. I believe that clearly involves passing this motion of disapproval. I urge all of our colleagues to do exactly that.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source