Nuclear Negotiations with Iran

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, who was chairwoman when I was on the Foreign Affairs Committee. She has stepped up and always been a voice, especially in this area. I also want to thank Mr. Curbelo and also Mr. Davis.

For a moment, I want to just stop here, and let's put some things in perspective. It has been said over and over--but we are going to talk about this--a bad deal is worse than no deal. I am going to say it again. A bad deal is worse than no deal.

A deal the U.S. and the rest of the international community can accept should be one in which Iran is no longer a nuclear threat. At what point did we forget this, Mr. President? At what point did we lay down and decide that a nuclear Iran, if it is 20 years from now, is better than what a nuclear Iran is now? Mr. President, you have got to listen to what you are saying.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu explained to President Obama that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action ``threatens the survival of the State of Israel.'' It threatens the survival of the State of Israel.

I believe that Congress should not be party to any agreement that fails to protect the vital interest of Israel and other allies in the region. That is why I voted ``no'' on the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act.

I am not in disagreement with Congress providing oversight of a final comprehensive deal, but a horrible deal isn't something Congress should even have to consider.

I have previously stated and will say again that I have always made the security of our strongest ally in the Middle East a priority and will not support any deal that allows Iran the opportunity to develop a nuclear weapon.

Though a final deal has not been yet announced, we know, based off the details of the JCPOA announced in April, of the potential for a bad deal. Under the framework announced in April, Iran will be able to maintain over 6,000 centrifuges they possess. Of the 6,000 centrifuges, 5,000 of those will continue to enrich uranium.

Five thousand, what part of not having a nuclear Iran are we kidding ourselves here with?

And then his wonderful snap back provisions. I am one of those that said we shouldn't have a snap back. They should have never gone away in the process.

Why are we talking about snap back provisions when this body has clearly spoken that the sanctions should stay and, if anything, they should get tighter? But we are now talking about snap back provisions. What a world we live in.

If they don't fulfill their commitment, sanctions will magically snap back. When I read that, it just amazes me, Mr. Speaker, that if they don't keep their commitments--why do we believe they are going to keep any commitments?

This is just an amazing thought to me. It took several years of U.S. pressuring for our European allies before they started seriously enforcing the U.N. Security Council sanctions currently in place.

While a U.S. President can unilaterally reinstitute sanctions that were previously waived, the European Union has to receive support from all 28 members for reimposition of former sanctions. Think about that. That is something we ought to talk about.

A similar scenario could be observed at the U.N. Security Council. A unanimous vote by all 15 U.S. Security Council members in the affirmative would be needed for sanctions to be put back in place.

How many of us in this room tonight, and how many of you who may be thinking about this, actually believe that will actually happen? Do you believe that would? I don't.

China and Russia, both permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, have the most to gain from having unfettered access to Iranian markets. It has been widely reported that Russia is moving forward with the selling of S-300s, the antiaircraft weapon, to Iran. Such a weapon system makes the potential for Israeli or American airstrikes against Iranian nukes just that much more difficult to carry out.

Russia, whose own economy is hurting as a result of the sanctions, is looking to diversify its investments in other economies that show strong potential for growth. China is always looking for new sources of energy, and with the elimination of international sanctions, Iran will have the ability to sell more oil on the international market.

Then there is the issue of possible military dimensions. To receive an accurate picture of Iran's nuclear capabilities, it is imperative to know how close they got to developing or have gotten to developing a nuclear weapon. It is only after we can determine if Iran ever developed a nuclear warhead or triggering mechanism that the international community can actually know Iran's breakout time. Iran's PMDs must be made known to the international community prior--prior--to any permanent sanction relief being instituted.

You know, this pending bad deal makes the region and the greater national community worse off.

What I have heard in this Chamber tonight is very disturbing. What I have heard from leaders in this administration is even more disturbing. They have willingly determined, in my mind, to throw Israel under the bus and, I believe, maybe for a peace prize.

Mr. Kerry, maybe you didn't make a mark in the Senate. Mr. Kerry, maybe you didn't make a mark as Secretary of State. Maybe you are looking for a peace prize. Your peace prize should be come home now and walk away from a bad deal. If you want to be recognized in the world for standing up for what is right, then walk away from a bad deal.

No one wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon. They are not capable of handling one. They are the biggest suppliers to terrorism around the world. And yet we are talking about talking to a country that says just recently, just in the last 2 days, their leader has said it is now time for us to spout hatred at the Zionists.

And we are negotiating with them?

They don't want to say Israel has even a right to exist, and we are sitting at the table with them? We want to let 5,000 centrifuges keep spinning and keep spinning and keep spinning and keep spinning, and we are going to negotiate with them?

You do not negotiate with unstable people, Mr. Speaker. You negotiate with people who want to live in the bonds of a civil society, in a civil world, and Iran's leadership is not that person.

We are fooling ourselves. This administration has become just completely tunnel-visioned toward legacy. When you have a domestic agenda that has been as terrible as this administration, I don't blame you for looking overseas. But your domestic agenda is no comparison to the failure of a foreign policy, when world leaders ask what is America's role because they don't even know.

Tonight I hope the crescendo of voices in this Chamber reaches across the ocean to Vienna. The last words I would like Secretary Kerry to hear before he sits down with the Iranians are ``a bad deal is worse than no deal.''

``Death to America,'' not shouted on the streets here in Washington, not shouted on the streets in New York City or San Francisco or Atlanta. It was shouted in the Parliament of Iran just recently, when they said we are not going to allow inspections. And we are sitting down to negotiate with them?

``Death to America''? And we are sitting down negotiating with them as if they are reasonable people?

Have we lost our focus? Have we lost our vision of being the shining light to the world for freedom and hope, and decided that it is much better off, maybe for our political world, or maybe our personal achievements, to sit down with a government that says Israel should not even have the right to exist, and if we could, we would annihilate them tomorrow?

We are going to continue funding those who have lobbed bombs on innocent men and women in Israel and who will sit down at a negotiating table and say: We are not going to allow you to inspect wherever you want; we are going to keep what we want to keep.

And, by the way, even the administration's own belief is we are going to keep 5,000 spinning, centrifuges spinning, 5,000 spinning.

You know what? Some have said time is Iran's friend. I agree. As long as they can keep our Secretary of State at that table, those centrifuges spin. As long as they keep us tied up debating this in this administration, the centrifuges spin. As long as we keep doing this, the centrifuges spin.

It is time to put sanctions back in place because they are spinning. It is time to tighten the screws on Iran because those centrifuges are spinning. It is time for us not to let up because the centrifuges are spinning.

And I do not want to see a world in which my children grow up and the people in Israel grow up knowing that Iran has a bomb when they are ready to take them out in a certain notice.

Tonight is important. Tonight is important.

Mr. President, I pray that you listen. I don't think you will.

Mr. Secretary, maybe you are looking for a peace prize. How about winning a prize in the hearts of the freedom-loving people all across the world and walking away from a bad deal?

Source