In the coming days, the House of Representatives and Senate will debate and consider a resolution to disapprove of the administration’s Iran deal. And while we have known from the beginning that stopping a potential bad deal with Iran would be a heavy lift, many felt it was important for members of Congress – on behalf of those they represent — to carefully review and vote on any final agreement.
That’s why I authored the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, which passed the Senate overwhelmingly 98 to 1 and the House 400 to 25.
This legislation took power back from the president; without it, he could have implemented the deal immediately.
Under our form of government, the president is able to decide whether he will submit such agreements as a treaty or an executive agreement. Treaties are binding on future administrations, whereas executive agreements can be altered by the next president. President Obama made clear from the beginning of the negotiations that he had no intention to submit this agreement to the Senate as a treaty and planned to implement it solely through U.N. Security Council actions with a “non-binding political agreement,” which does not require Senate approval.
That is why it was critical that Congress passed my legislation to give the American people a voice on this issue that will affect future generations.
Rather than end Iran’s ability to produce a nuclear weapon, this deal legitimizes and industrializes their nuclear program over time.
Instead of holding the line on the once promised “anytime, anywhere” inspections, negotiators agreed to a managed inspections process that will require international inspectors to wait 24 days for access to a suspicious site.
Unfortunately, after only nine months, before the next president is sworn into office, the leverage shifts from us to Iran when all major sanctions are relieved. They will get access to roughly $100 billion in overseas assets within a few months, some of which will fund terrorism and instability. At that point, if the United States pushes back against violations of the agreement — or terrorism in the region or human rights violations — Iran can simply threaten to ramp up their nuclear weapons program.
Additionally, for some unknown reason, the administration thought it was sensible to remove the conventional weapons ban in five years, the ballistic missile technology embargo in eight years, and immediately lift the ban on ballistic missile testing.
All the while, Iran will be able to continue research and development, strengthen its military capabilities, have a far more rapidly growing economy, and once the major restrictions sunset in 10 to 15 years, as the president has publicly said, Iran’s breakout time will be reduced to almost zero by simply complying with the agreement.
This agreement paves the path for the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism to industrialize their nuclear program with a U.S. stamp of approval, which is why I oppose implementation of this deal.
While opposition to the agreement is bipartisan – with some of the leading Democrats on foreign policy issues, including Senators Ben Cardin, Chuck Schumer, Bob Menendez, and Congressman Eliot Engel, announcing they will vote against the deal — it appears the administration has secured support from enough Democrats to sustain a likely veto of the resolution of disapproval.
Nonetheless, the American people deserve to know where their elected leaders stand on this consequential agreement. U.S. Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) may be reached via his website’s contact page at http://www.corker.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/emailme.
