Executive Compliance with Section 2 of the Iran Nuclear Agreement

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Almost every observer, even the host of candidates seeking the Republican Presidential nomination, recognize that President Bush's invasion of Iraq was a foreign policy disaster for which so many military families are continuing to pay a high price. And American taxpayers will ultimately pay over a trillion dollars for that failure, spurred on by some of the speeches like the one we just heard.

   So we look next door to Baghdad, at Tehran, and we see a despicable government there, just as there was one in Baghdad. We have ample intelligence evidence that that despicable government was pursuing a nuclear weapon program that is unacceptable to us. And we try to learn: Is there a way for America to use its other power, its diplomatic power, to stop that? Because we know our use of military power did not accomplish positive foreign policy objectives by itself in a go-it-alone invasion of Iraq.

   We found an approach that, in fact, had strong bipartisan support--imposing strong economic sanctions on the Iranians. It didn't work so well originally, the first time that I and almost everyone else in this House voted for it, because America couldn't go-it-alone any more than it could be successful in a go-it-alone invasion of Iraq.

   But when we brought the rest of the world along, including some people that have been our adversaries, like Russia and China, to join in this sanctions regime, it finally forced Iran to the table to begin to deal with the critical elements of this nuclear weapon program.

   Step by step, through very hard negotiations, by bringing the rest of the world along to force those economic sanctions on Iran--all of which I supported--they began to move forward on trying to resolve this issue through diplomacy, through acting that way, rather than bombing first and asking questions later, as some of these folks have advocated. At every step in that process, as we approached an interim agreement, we had an ``object first, read later'' approach from those who are pushing this rule.

   The interim agreement was announced. They rejected it that night before they had even read it. It proved that their objections were totally unfounded: We gained more in terms of intelligence; we came to understand better the Iranian program; and we put a stop to it in that interim agreement. Our families are safer today because that agreement was adopted.

   And we come along to about March of this year, and the same folks that are advocating this rule were out here telling us there was one thing this Congress had to do: It had to have the power to disapprove this agreement if it did not feel the final agreement met the objectives.

   That is how we began this week with the resolution of disapproval. But yesterday, they brought their self-styled foreign policy experts to Washington--Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Donald Trump--and they said a resolution of disapproval is not enough.

   So today, Republicans have abandoned the only tool they had to stop this agreement--a resolution of disapproval; that is not even in this resolution--and they are off on a three-pronged approach to satisfy the most extreme views that prefer to use war as the first instrument instead of the last instrument.

   We have a choice in this Congress, and it is the choice of using the strong power of America, with verification, to prevent this program rather than calling on more military families to sacrifice for an unnecessary endeavor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source