Hire More Heroes Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I wish to thank the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee for his work to get us to this point, the countless hearings he has held, the briefings that we have had to fully understand the fine details and to scrutinize every aspect of the agreement that is now before us. I also wish to thank the ranking member and the Senator from New Jersey for their tireless efforts on the committee when it comes to the process that is before us.

Make no mistake. There is not a single Member in this body, in the Senate or House of Representatives, or the American public who would complain about the President's initial goals--the goals he laid out as recently as October of 2012, as he began negotiations with Iran.

I quote the President:

Our goal is to get Iran to recognize it needs to give up its nuclear program and abide by the U.N. resolutions that have been in place. ..... But the deal we'll accept is--they end their nuclear program. It's very straightforward.

But the deal we got from the administration is anything but the straightforward ending of a nuclear program. I have listened very carefully to the hearings we have held. I have listened to the classified briefings. I have studied the language of the text--language that says things such as this: ``Requests for access pursuant to provisions of this JCPOA will be made in good faith, with due observance of the sovereign rights of Iran, and kept to the minimum necessary to effectively implement the verification responsibilities under this JCPOA.''

Senator Collins from Maine a couple of days ago said it very well: ``Not only will Iran retain its nuclear capability, but also it will be a far richer nation and one that has more conventional weapons and military technology than it possesses today.''

This doesn't end the nuclear program as the President stated was his goals. It continues it. It paves a patient pathway to an industrialized nuclear complex in Iran. With the blessings of the world community, a flourishing economy, a lifting of the conventional arms embargo, a lifting of the ballistic missile embargo--and that is a good deal for us?

Over the last several days, I have heard colleague after colleague who are supporting this deal come to the floor to say things such as: This deal is flawed. It is not the best. It needs improvement. Since when did a bad option in the Senate become the only option in the Senate? Since when did second, third, fourth, fifth best for this country become the best for this country?

Several months ago I had the opportunity--as have many colleagues--to visit with Prime Minister Netanyahu to talk about the dance of porcupines created by entering this deal--the nuclear tripwire that will be set up because this does not end Iran's nuclear program. Through this deal, we have given up the golden nuggets of leverage that we had with Iran--our leverage of sanctions that were beginning to work. In fact, in the briefings that we have all attended, analysts have said that our sanctions are eroding support for the regime daily, hurting their economy, devaluing their currency, and bringing them to the table. Yet the deal that we have allows continued uranium enrichment, repeal of U.N. resolutions, and removal of the Iran nuclear issue from their agenda. That is the benefit of the bargain that the United States is about to enter into.

We heard talk over the past several days about status quo versus hypothetical. Here is the status quo that we will be entering into: a status quo that in 5 years allows conventional arms to resume in Iran, a status quo that will allow ballistic missiles to resume in 8 years and advanced centrifuge research to continue.

As the chairman of the committee stated yesterday, talking about how one IRH centrifuge could replace vast numbers of the current centrifuges they have today, they will be allowed to keep apparently all for radioisotope purposes.

Why do they need ballistic missiles and conventional arms for radiation treatment? We have desanctioned and delisted numerous individuals, people who were the fathers of the Iranian nuclear program, the A.Q. Khan of Iran, delisted, desanctioned under this deal.

Conglomerates of companies like IKO are delisted and desanctioned under this deal. These are a group of companies that were sanctioned in 2003 not because of nuclear arms-related issues but because of their threat to the world financial system. That conglomerate is now desanctioned under the terms of the deal. Sure, the United States gets to sanction them on our own, but as we heard today, yesterday, and the day before, the sanctions the United States has apparently aren't enough, and that is why we have to enter into this deal. Yet we have, as Juan Zarate said, the Sword of Damocles holding over Iran's head with the snapback provisions that apparently are good enough when we do them on our own.

One of the things that hasn't been talked about very much over the past several weeks is a letter that Secretary Kerry sent to every Senator on September 2. I think that was around the same day that enough votes were achieved to block or sustain the President's filibuster.

In the first paragraph of this letter that every Senator received, there are two sentences that I want to make sure everybody here recognizes.

We share the concern expressed by many in Congress regarding Iran's continued support for terrorist and proxy groups throughout the region, its propping up of the Asad regime in Syria, its efforts to undermine the stability of its regional neighbors, and the threat it poses to Israel.

In the very next sentence, Secretary Kerry goes on to say:

We have no illusion that this behavior will change following implementation of the JCPOA.

We have no illusion that Iran's behavior will change. That is the status quo.

The letter goes on to detail what we are going to do once this deal is entered into:

Additional U.S.-GCC working groups are focused on counterterrorism, military preparedness ..... and the goal of building political support for multilateral U.S.-GCC ballistic missile defense (BMD) cooperation.

So we are going to enter into some deals to fight ballistic missiles that this deal allows in 8 years.

The letter goes on to say that we will push back against Iran's arms transfers. Conventional arms embargoes will be lifted in 5 years. The letter then goes on to say that we will work on Iran's Missile Technology Control Regime guidelines about the transfer of sensitive systems, such as ballistic missile technology, and yet this deal allows ballistic missiles in 8 years.

The letter goes on to say:

U.S. support for Israel and our Gulf partners has never been a partisan issue, and we believe these proposals would receive wide bipartisan support.

This is a partisan deal with bipartisan opposition, and I will submit that the only element of bipartisanship on the Senate floor today is the opposition.

I urge my colleagues to vote to invoke cloture. The American people deserve to know where the United States Senate stands and deserves to know where their Members of the Senate stand with the United States.

I yield back my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source