Protecting Volunteer Firefighters and Emergency Responders Act- Continued

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, this deal the administration is involved in making with Iran has serious implications not only for America's long-term national security but for really the peace and security of the world.

It is true that at this point in time, nobody knows what is really in the deal. We certainly have been given a framework in terms of what the deal is supposed to be. But what we do know is that even within that framework as has been described to the American public, there are some serious discrepancies in terms of the way this administration has typified that framework of the deal and what the Ayatollah in Iran--how they have described that deal.

For example, according to our President, the sanctions will only be lifted once Iran has complied with major components of the agreement. According to the Ayatollah, those sanctions will be lifted immediately. That is a big discrepancy.

According to this administration, we will have the right to inspect to ensure verification and accountability of any agreement. The Ayatollah disagrees with that. The Ayatollah certainly says there will be no inspections on military sites. If we want to enter into this agreement to prevent Iran from creating a nuclear weapon, surely we should have the right to inspect the military sites.

Another pretty serious discrepancy in terms of the administration's understanding of what this framework is versus the Ayatollah's understanding, what is going to happen with the 10,000 kilograms of enriched uranium? According to this administration, it is going to be shipped out of the country, not available for any kind of nuclear program. According to the Ayatollah, no way; it is going to stay in Iran.

So those are major discrepancies in terms of what this agreement is all about, the types of discrepancies that certainly need to be fully vetted, and the American people need to understand what that is.

There have also been some real deceptions about this agreement. For example, we have heard repeatedly in hearings that this administration will insist that any agreement will ensure that the nuclear program within Iran will be for peaceful purposes.

I have to point out that there is no peaceful purpose for Iran to have nuclear enrichment. If they want peaceful nuclear power, they can certainly do what a number of other countries that have peaceful nuclear power have done: They can purchase that uranium fuel, that nuclear fuel from outside countries. The only reason Iran would subject itself to the sanctions, to the isolation, to the economic harm to its economy and its people, is because it wants nuclear weapons to blackmail the region and the world.

Of course, this administration talks about snapback of sanctions. That is deceptive because once these sanctions are relaxed, once these sanctions are lifted, it will be virtually impossible--once tens of billions, if not hundreds of billions of dollars of investment from the West and from other countries start flowing to Iran, it will be impossible or almost virtually impossible to put those sanctions back in place.

We have had a sanctions regime going back to--U.N. resolutions dating back to 2006. It took years for those sanctions to really take hold, to have the teeth that brought Iran to the bargaining table. Unfortunately, in its negotiations, this administration relaxed those sanctions and basically acknowledged Iran's right to enrich uranium and, in that event, basically lost these negotiations before they ever began.

So there are an awful lot of deceptive typifications about what this deal is and what it won't be and what it will be. The purpose of my amendments is to bring clarity to what the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act would be and what it is not.

I give the chairman and the ranking member of our Senate Foreign Relations Committee a great deal of credit for trying to come up with some sort of deal, some sort of law that will give Congress some kind of role in this incredibly important deal. But this is not Congress's rightful role. This is not what the Framers felt, in article II, section 2 of the Constitution, would be advice and consent. It is far from it.

There are basically three forms of international agreements: There is a treaty, there is a congressional executive agreement, and then there is just an executive agreement. There is really no set criteria of what makes one international agreement a treaty, a congressional executive agreement, or an executive agreement. They are considerations. There is precedent. What, in fact, basically is the final determination is how that particular agreement is ratified or approved by Congress or not approved by Congress.

I believe when we take a look at the considerations in the State Department's own foreign policy manual, consideration No. 1 is ``the extent to which this agreement involves commitments or risks affecting the nation as a whole.'' I would say this agreement with Iran certainly involves risks that affect our entire Nation.

Consideration No. 3 is whether the agreement ``can be given effect without the enactment of subsequent legislation by the Congress.'' The whole point of this particular act is that we have put sanctions in place by passing laws in Congress, and Congress does realize that we have a role in any lifting of those sanctions.

Consideration No. 5 is ``the preference of Congress as to a particular type of agreement.'' Well, there can be some dispute, and that is really at the heart of what my amendments would do, is involve Congress in determining what exactly this deal is. Is it a treaty? Is it a congressional executive agreement? Is it simply an executive agreement that really does not have long-lasting effects?

Now, that is really the point of my first amendment. I believe that this is of such importance, that this deal is so important to the security of this Nation and to world peace that it rises to the level of a treaty. So my amendment simply strikes the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act and replaces it with a simple statement that this Congress deems this agreement with Iran as a treaty.

The other thing my amendment does is it removes the waiver authority this Congress granted this President as relates to those sanctions. That would then require this President, upon completion of the deal with Iran, to come to this Congress--as was contemplated by article II, section 2 of the Constitution--for the advice and consent of this body, so that 67 Senators would have to vote affirmatively that this is a good deal, that basically the American public would be involved in the decision through their elected representatives. We are not being given that opportunity. The American public is not being given that opportunity right now. What is happening right now under this Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act is we have turned advice and consent on its head. We have lowered the threshold to what advice and consent means as relates to this Iran deal.

Hopefully we are going to vote--and it sounds as if we will--on this amendment.

I have a second amendment. In case this one does not succeed, I have a second amendment. If this Congress, this Senate doesn't want to treat this as a treaty, we should at a minimum treat it as a congressional executive agreement. I am willing to lower that threshold under expedited procedures to a simple majority vote of both Houses, 50 percent.

I contemplated and I had actually written an amendment to really detail what this review act really is--a low-threshold congressional executive agreement. And when I say ``low threshold,'' I mean that what is going to happen here if we pass the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act is we will get a vote of disapproval. If 60 Senators agree this is a bad deal for America and they disapprove of it, we can pass that disapproval, and then that goes to the President for signature. He can veto that. Of course, if he vetoes that, it would take two-thirds of this body to override that veto and two-thirds of the House to override that veto. That requires 67 Senators. If we are unable to muster those 67 votes to override the veto of our vote of disapproval on a bad deal between Iran and America, what we, in fact, have done is we have given 34 Senators the ability to approve that bad deal.

When I offered that amendment to the Parliamentarian--that would basically show with real clarity that what this Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act really is, is a very low threshold approval by this body--the Parliamentarian I think very appropriately ruled that amendment out of order, unconstitutional. You can't approve something with just 34 votes in the Congress, in the Senate. I think that is my point.

I appreciate the fact that we will be able to vote on my amendment deeming this deal between America and Iran a treaty so that the American people have the ability to weigh in, to have a say in whether this is important enough to be affirmatively approved--as our Constitution contemplated with an international agreement of this importance--be affirmatively approved by 67 Senators, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source