“It’s important for Congress and the American people to have their say on any final deal. It is just as important that the oversight we provide be meaningful – and that Congress state clearly that we will not tolerate Iran’s support of terrorism.”

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) delivered the following remarks on the Senate floor about the bipartisan Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. Barrasso also talked about an amendment he introduced to the bill to require the president to certify that Iran is not directly supporting acts of terrorism against our country or against an American citizen anywhere in the world.

Excerpts of his remarks:

“I come to the floor today to speak about the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. I think that this is a very important debate—very consequential.

“A nuclear Iran is a global threat to everyone, everywhere.

“The world deserves our best effort at stopping Iran’s illicit nuclear program.

“Now that doesn’t mean that we need to yield to Iran on important points just to win vague promises that they will give up their dreams of a nuclear weapon, I realize that.

“President Obama says that he understands it would be better to have no deal, than to have a bad deal. And I agree with the president.

“This legislation is about making sure that any agreement the administration reaches with Iran is truly a good deal.

“President Obama made it clear that he didn’t want this bill.

“He fought tooth and nail to make sure this legislation would not succeed. He even threatened to veto it.

“The president wanted members of his administration to do all the negotiating in private – and he wanted to decide for himself what’s best.

“Well, that’s not how things this important to our nation are supposed to work. When the stakes are high, the American people deserve a say.

“The vice president knows that. Back in 2008, Joe Biden was the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I served under him.

“He said, ‘I have often stated that no foreign policy can be sustained without the informed consent of the American people.’

“Well, that informed consent includes allowing Congress to review important foreign policy decisions – like any agreement over Iran’s nuclear program.

“Now, I have my concerns about the parts of this deal that have been made public so far.

“I am also concerned about some of the confusion that there seems to be between the White House and the Iranians.

“There is a clear disagreement about the lifting of economic sanctions against Iran.

“Iran has said that a final deal must remove all of the economic sanctions on day number one.

“The administration has said that sanctions will be lifted in phases – and only if Iran complies with different steps along the way.

“So if a final deal is ever reached, it’s going to be very important that we, the American people, have a very clear airing of all of the terms—and an understanding of what really is in the deal.

“We need to make sure everyone agrees on what the deal actually says.

“I believe Iran is simply not trustworthy – and we cannot afford to take chances with something this important.

“Any agreement must be enforceable, any agreement it must be verifiable, and any agreement must be accountable.

“The president has now accepted that he needs to come to Congress – and to get the support of the American people, before he goes to the United Nations.

“Under the bill, the president must certify a few things every 90 days.

“He has to certify that Iran is fully implementing the agreement. He has to certify that Iran has not committed a material breach. And he needs to certify that Iran has not engaged in any covert action to advance its own nuclear weapons program.

“The president has to confirm to Congress that Iran is playing by the rules.

“Now, if the president cannot do that, the bill creates an expedited process for Congress to take action.

“Now, the way this bill was originally written – by Republicans and Democrats together – the bill also said something that many Americans believe is vitally important.

“It said that the president must certify that Iran was not directly supporting, or carrying out, an act of terrorism against the United States – or against an American citizen anywhere in the world.

“To me, this was a very important part of the original bipartisan bill, a bill which had bipartisan support and bipartisan sponsorship.

“During the negotiations in the committee, this consequential part of the original bill was removed.

“Congressional sanctions, I think, have been devastating to Iran’s economy. It’s what brought Iran to the negotiating table in the first place.

“Once the sanctions are lifted, Iran will have a lot of money that it didn’t have before.

“Now, I don’t believe that Iran is going to use that money to build schools or hospitals or roads, or to improve the lives of the people in their country.

“Iran is going to have access to tens of billions, if not over a hundred billion dollars that it can use to finance groups like Hamas, and Hezbollah.

“Will there be any meaningful part of the final deal that guarantees that they don’t use that money to support terrorists?

“Congress and the American people need to know if Iran is directly supporting acts of terrorism against our country and our people.

“The Iranian nuclear issue is absolutely intertwined, in my opinion, with terrorism – the two cannot be separated.

“So during the process of negotiating this bill, this was the only certification requirement that was left out.

“All the other parts stayed in – and the critical part about making sure Iran wasn’t supporting terrorism against our country came out.

“The president didn’t want it there. Why wouldn’t the president want to tell the American people about the terrorist threats facing our country, and our citizens?

“If Iran is supporting terrorist attacks on Americans, then why would we trust them to keep their word on the nuclear program?

“So I have proposed an amendment that would restore the terrorism certification that was in the original bipartisan bill. That’s all.

“I think it’s very important that the American people hear from the president on this important point.

“Now, I understand that some senators don’t like the idea of the president having to certify something like this.

“Some people have said that this requirement would ‘compromise the ability of the United States to continue its negotiations.’

“Well, I disagree.

“My amendment simply says that if Iran is supporting acts of terrorism against our nation and our people, then Congress will have a more streamlined process to address it. It’s all very simple.

“That same process applies to all the other things that the president has to certify.

“Would those other things compromise our ability to negotiate?

“This amendment would not get rid of the rest of our agreement on Iran’s nuclear program. It would just allow a clear picture of who we’re dealing with.

“It would make it easier for Congress to act.

“It doesn’t make it automatic – Congress still has to decide what to do. It just makes it easier.

“That’s what my amendment does.

“This is not the only thing that I would like to change in the bill. I hope we can have other amendments as well.

“It’s important for Congress and the American people to have their say on any final deal.

“It is just as important that the oversight we provide be meaningful – and that Congress state clearly that we will not tolerate Iran’s support of terrorism.

“If our negotiators reach a final agreement with Iran, I will be giving it very close scrutiny – in the Foreign Relations Committee, and here on the floor of the United States Senate.

“This is a consequential piece of legislation. It is an important bill, and there are ways we can make it even stronger.

“My amendment is a start.”

###