Providing For Consideration Of H. Res. 411, Finding That The President Has Not Complied With Section 2 Of The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act Of 2015; Providing For Consideration Of H.r. 3461, Approval Of Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action; And Providing For Consideration Of H.r. 3460, Suspension Of Authority To Waive, Suspend, Reduce, Provide Relief From, Or Otherwise Limit The Application Of Sanctions Pursuant To An Agreement Related To The Nuclear Program Of Iran

Floor Speech

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Iran nuclear agreement and in strong opposition to this convoluted rule and process.

Today, the House should have already completed several hours of debate on the Iran deal. Instead, we have before us a convoluted process with three measures that won't go anywhere in the Senate and will never reach the President's desk.

The fact is that the President has the votes to move this historic agreement forward. We should be having a serious debate and moving toward a vote in a timely fashion.

Instead, House Republicans have cooked up a series of votes to needlessly drag this process out and appeal to their extremist base.

We all know how serious the Iran nuclear agreement is for the security of the Middle East, the United States, and the world.

After reading and listening to many diverse views, I believe it is the strongest available option to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and prevent yet another war.

These negotiations were never meant to solve all of the problems that we have with Iran. Their purpose was clear from the beginning: to shut down the pathways available to Iran to develop and produce a nuclear bomb, period.

Quite simply, is it better to have an Iran capable of producing a nuclear weapon by early next year or is it better to shut down that capability for the next 10 to 15 years and even longer?

And let me be clear. The agreement is set up to ensure that Iran remains a nuclear weapon-free state with mechanisms for inspections and verifications that remain permanently in place.

Now I know that some hoped that a ``better deal'' might somehow be renegotiated if we just keep increasing sanctions and threaten--or even use--military force against Iran.

But we already know that 10 years of sanctions and military threats only gave us a significant increase in Iran's nuclear capacity and that the number of centrifuges needed to produce weapons-grade enriched uranium also increased.

Only when serious negotiations began 2 years ago did we see Iran's program stopped and then rolled back. The final agreement degrades even further Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon, blocks all pathways for Iran to acquire the materials needed to develop a bomb, and imposes the most comprehensive inspections regime of any nuclear arms control agreement to date.

In return, Iran will receive sanctions relief that is phased in over the next decade, dependent on Iran's compliance.

Do I trust Iran? Certainly not. Iran doesn't trust us either. But, again, that is the whole point of negotiations: for nations that don't trust one another to sit down and to hammer out a deal that all parties can live with and abide by.

Nelson Mandela is credited with saying, ``The best weapon is to sit down and talk.'' This means compromise, for all parties to get something out of the final agreement.

For Iran, that is sanctions relief. For the world, that means an Iran without a nuclear weapon. It is not based on trust. It is based on tough inspections and verification.

Mr. Speaker, this is not an accord between just the U.S. and Iran. Six of the world's major powers--Russia, China, France, Germany, the U.K., and the U.S.--hammered out this deal with Iran.

If the U.S. walks away now, we will never be able to put the pieces back together or get these nations to take a risk with us again. Without this agreement, Iran could simply return to developing a nuclear weapon.

After 2 years of arduous negotiations, why would the U.S. insult the very nations whose cooperation and commitment we need to ensure Iran's compliance?

Why would we undermine our international standing as a good-faith negotiating partner not just on this agreement, but on every other negotiation we are engaged in now and in the future?

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the IAEA inquiry into Iran's past nuclear activities is a side deal. It is its own separate bilateral agreement. It neither affects nor delays the P5+1 agreement's rigorous inspections and verification process or Iran's obligation to significantly degrade and dismantle its nuclear infrastructure before getting any sanctions relief.

But, quite frankly, the U.S. long ago reached its own conclusions about Iran's nuclear activities. We believe that, if left unchecked, Iran would soon acquire enough weapons-grade plutonium and highly enriched uranium to make a nuclear bomb.

It is why we approved U.S. nuclear-related sanctions and supported similar international sanctions, and it is why the White House began serious multilateral negotiations with Iran to cut off every pathway Iran might have to make a nuclear weapon. And we were successful. We were successful.

Mr. Speaker, my support for the comprehensive agreement is not something I give reluctantly or grudgingly. I am proud to support this deal and to cast my vote in support of the resolution of approval.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in opposing this rule, in supporting the resolution approving this historic agreement, and in rejecting both the Roskam and the Pompeo bills that seek to delay its implementation.

This is a good deal. It deserves our support.

Source