Finding That the President Has Not Complied With Section 2 of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. In 2002, the President of the United States and this Congress voted to address the perceived threat of a mushroom cloud coming from Iraq by going to war, a war that unleashed massive violence in the Mideast and threatens the world even today.

The Obama administration, faced with the actual threat of a nuclear weaponized Iran, has chosen, instead, the path of diplomacy, the path of peace, and I am proud to support this historic agreement.

As the President said: ``This deal demonstrates that American diplomacy can bring about real and meaningful change--change that makes our country, and the world, safer and more secure.''

Voices inside and outside the Congress are calling for a rejection of this historic agreement, among them the same neocons who stampeded the United States into war with Iraq. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now. Iran is now 2 to 3 months from being able to produce a nuclear weapon, and yet the critics have offered no credible alternative to a deal that blocks all the paths to a nuclear weapon.

Now, we know this deal is not perfect. Iran is a bad actor. The President and all of us would have much preferred a deal that prohibits Iran from enriching any uranium forever and maintains sanctions until Iran changes its behavior and becomes a responsible member of the world community. But that deal didn't happen--because it never could have happened.

This deal greatly improves the outlook for peace by blocking all of Iran's paths to a nuclear weapon, and this is carefully spelled out in the agreement itself, often in very technical language: Iran's stockpiles of rich uranium will be reduced from enough for 10 bombs to less than 1; the number of Iran's installed centrifuges is reduced by over two-thirds; and far from trusting Iran, the deal demands the most robust, intrusive inspections regime ever in an international agreement.

We heard yesterday, many of us, from the ambassadors from five of our allies in the P5+1. These ambassadors said if the United States walks away, the deal collapses. Iran would be without any constraints to move ahead with its nuclear weapons program. All paths would be open. There would be no inspections whatsoever, no insight into Iran's activities. The ability of the United States to build meaningful international coalitions would be eroded for the foreseeable future.

I view this upcoming vote on Iran as one of the most important of my career, and, my colleagues, I would say that is true for everyone. It is one of the most important of my life. For me, the choice is clear: diplomacy over war.

Colleagues, let's remember, nothing is off the table. But why wouldn't we choose peace and give peace a chance?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source