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. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I commend him for his extraordinary leadership as the ranking member on the Intelligence Committee, which has served us so well.

His leadership has served us so well in this debate today and in our deliberations leading up to this debate. It has served us well in the ongoing as we use intelligence to protect the American people. So I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

I did not go to the well as usual for the leader, but I wanted to be here because I have some materials that I want to share with you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I think today and tomorrow, the next 24 hours, is a very, very special time in the Congress of the United States. Members will be called upon to make a decision that affects our oath of office, to protect and support the Constitution and, of course, the American people.

This is a moment that we are prepared for. That is what I have this binder here for, to say I commend my colleagues because they have spent thousands of hours reviewing the agreement, reviewing the annexes and the classified materials, speaking with experts, gaining information, acquiring validation from outside sources other than the administration and the agreement itself, conversations with each other, conversations with their constituents, all to have, again, a sense of humility that we all don't know everything about this subject.

And we have to get our assurances from those whose judgment we respect, as well as to support this agreement on the merits. It is a very fine agreement.

I will take a moment just to talk about my own credentials because I see that people are doing that in their statements. I read with interest Senator Menendez' statement where he talks about his service in the Senate, and I will talk about mine in the House.

For over 20 years, I have served as a member of the Intelligence Committee both as a member of the committee, as the top Democrat on the committee, and as the Speaker and leader ex officio over the years, longer than anyone in the history of the Congress.

I went to the Intelligence Committee because I had a major concern which sprang from my district, which was a very big interest there in stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Plowshares, an organization dedicated to that purpose, was founded there. They saluted President Reagan and the actions that he took when he was President. And they are very actively supporting this agreement now.

But I mentioned my credentials because I brought that experience to make a judgment on the agreement after it was negotiated.

Of course we were briefed, as members of the committee and members of the leadership, on the ongoing as to the progress that was being made in negotiations.

Again, having been briefed all along the way, I still was pleasantly pleased to see what the final product was. What the President negotiated was remarkable. It was remarkable in several respects.

One was that the P5, the permanent members of the Security Council, plus one--that would be Germany--the P5 nations negotiated this agreement with Iran: China, Russia, France, the U.K., the United States.

This is quite remarkable, that all of those countries could come to agreement. And an important part of that leadership was the leadership of President Obama to have that engagement sustained over a couple-year period.

Now, President Bush took us a bit down this path, and that is referenced in an op-ed that was put forth by Brent Scowcroft.

When he supported this legislation, he says that ``The deal ensures that this will be the case for at least 15 years and likely longer.''

But he talks about the fact that this has been a goal, as what Ronald Reagan did with the Soviet Union arms control and what President Nixon did with China. It was a negotiation.

And he talked about the fact that this particular agreement was one that was worked on under the presidency of President Bush. Actually, he places it in time.

So let me read his comment:

``Congress again faces a momentous decision regarding U.S. policy toward the Middle East. The forthcoming vote on the nuclear deal between the P5+1 and Iran (known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA) will show the world whether the United States has the will and sense of responsibility to help stabilize the Middle East, or whether it will contribute to further turmoil, including the possible spread of nuclear weapons. Strong words perhaps, but clear language is helpful in the cacophony of today's media.

``In my view, the JCPOA''--as it is known--``meets the key objective, shared by recent administrations of both parties, that Iran limit itself to a strictly civilian nuclear program with unprecedented verification and monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency and the U.N. Security Council.''

He goes on for a couple of pages.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. PELOSI. I also want to quote another Republican--Brent Scowcroft served in the administration of President George Herbert Walker Bush--Senator John Warner joined Senator Carl Levin. These are two chairmen of the Senate Armed Services Committee--one a Democrat, but before him, a Republican, John Warner. They talk about they support this. They say:

The deal on the table is a strong agreement on many counts, and it leaves in place the robust deterrence and credibility of a military option. We urge our former colleagues not to take any action which would undermine the deterrent value of a coalition that participates in and could support the use of a military option. The failure of the United States to join the agreement would have that effect.

Mr. Speaker, I submit Carl Levin and John Warner's statement for the Record.

Why Hawks Should Also Back the Iran Deal

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. PELOSI. Again, I refer to the statements of my colleagues. They are thoughtful; they are serious, and they are courageous in support of the agreement.

I would like to thank President Obama and the entire administration for being available as Members sought clarification to respond to their concerns. I want to thank the President, Secretary Kerry, Secretary Moniz, Secretary Lew, and so many others for their leadership and availability to us in a bipartisan way in our Democratic Caucus.

For years, Iran's rapidly accelerating enrichment capability and burgeoning nuclear stockpile has represented one of the greatest threats to peace and security anywhere in the world. We all stipulate to that. That is why we need an agreement.

That is why I am so pleased that we have so many statements of validation from people. The experts say:

This agreement is one of the greatest diplomatic achievements of the 21st century.

It is no wonder that such a diverse and extraordinary constellation of experts have made their voices heard in support of this--again, I use the word--``extraordinary'' accord.

On the steps of the Capitol the other day with our veterans and with our Gold Star moms who have lost their sons, we heard the words of diplomats and soldiers, generals and admirals and diplomats by the score--Democrats, Republicans, and nonpartisan.

We heard from our most distinguished nuclear physicists; we heard from those scientists, and we heard from people of faith. I would like to quote some of them. More than 100 Democratic and Republican former diplomats and ambassadors wrote:

In our judgment, the JCPOA deserves congressional support and the opportunity to show that it can work. We firmly believe that the most effective way to protect U.S. national security and that of our allies and friends is to ensure that tough-minded diplomacy has a chance to succeed before considering other more risky alternatives.

That is the diplomats.

The generals and admirals wrote:

There is no better option to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon. If the Iranians cheat, our advanced technology, intelligence, and the inspections will reveal it, and U.S. military options remain on the table. And if the deal is rejected by America, the Iranians could have a nuclear weapon within a year. The choice is that stark.

Twenty-nine of our Nation's most prominent nuclear scientists and engineers wrote:

We consider that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action the United States and its partners negotiated with Iran will advance the cause of peace and security in the Middle East and can serve as a guidepost for future nonproliferation agreements.

I quote ``and can serve as a guidepost for future nonproliferation agreements.''

This is an innovative agreement, with much more stringent constraints than any previously negotiated nonproliferation framework.

They went on to say more.

Mr. Speaker, 440 rabbis urged Congress to endorse the statement, writing:

The Obama administration has successfully brought together the major international powers to confront Iran over its nuclear ambitions. The broad international sanctions move Iran to enter this historic agreement.

They urge support.

Mr. Speaker, 4,100 Catholic nuns wrote to Congress stating:

As women of faith, followers of the one who said, ``Blessed are the peacemakers,'' we urge that you risk on the side of peace and vote to approve the Iran nuclear deal.

Treasury Secretary Jack Lew warned of the hazards of rejecting the agreement, reminding us that foreign governments will not continue to make costly sacrifices at our demand. I say this in response to something that my distinguished colleague from California said:

Indeed, they would be more likely to blame us for walking away from a credible solution to one of the world's greatest security threats and would continue to reengage with Iran.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source