[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 102 (Wednesday, June 24, 2015)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E966]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           THE NUCLEAR NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE P5+1 AND IRAN

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. ALCEE L. HASTINGS

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 24, 2015

  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the ongoing 
negotiations between the P5+1 and Iran concerning Iran's nuclear 
weapons program. In today's polarized environment there are few areas 
where we can all reach agreement, but certainly Democrats and 
Republicans alike can agree that Iran must not be allowed to develop a 
nuclear weapon. I believe that every single pathway available to Iran 
to obtain a nuclear weapon must be completely blocked.
  I commend the efforts of President Obama and Secretary of State 
Kerry, as well as our partners in the P5+1, as they have worked 
diligently to reach a framework agreement that will halt Iran's ability 
to develop a nuclear weapon. We must ensure that any agreement reached 
has as its aim a framework that allows for unobstructed verification 
and enforceability. Such an agreement is not only in our best interest, 
but also in the best interest of the region at-large. We need such a 
framework because it is no secret that the Iranians have engaged, over 
the years, in deceitful actions that are cause for much concern. This 
reality of course does not mean that we should not engage fully in 
negotiations, but simply, that we must weave this reality into our 
final agreement. Buyers beware, Mr. Speaker.
  It is my belief that as we move closer to a final agreement, we must 
ensure that Iran allows United Nations' inspectors the necessary and 
sufficient access to nuclear sites. This must include military sites. 
Along similar lines, we must be allowed a full accounting of Iran's 
previous efforts at weaponization. In knowing their past progress, we 
will be better able to discern their compliance with the agreement. 
These factors are essential if we are to determine whether Iran is 
meeting its obligations.
  Although these elements are needed, we must also have a strong 
mechanism that allows sanctions to be re-imposed should Iran violate 
the agreement. The political calculus of reimposing sanctions could be 
quite difficult and, therefore, it is not enough that sanctions be able 
to be ``snapped back,'' but we must also ensure that any sanctions in 
place now are lifted gently and deliberately. We cannot lose sight of 
the fact that Iran continues to fund terrorist organizations the world 
over. Any sanctions relief will undoubtedly increase their ability to 
fund such organizations. The final deal must spell out the immediate 
consequences for Iran should it violate the agreement, and sanctions 
must only be reduced when Iran provides unequivocal proof of compliance 
with the negotiated agreement.
  Furthermore, this ought to be clear as day to all involved--any 
agreement must block Iran's path to a nuclear weapon not for a year, 
not for five years, but for decades to come. It concerns me that Iran's 
breakout time will be just a matter of days after twelve or thirteen 
years. It is important to remember that should we need to re-impose 
sanctions that we will certainly need more than a few days to do so. 
Any deal worth signing, therefore, must mandate that Iran demonstrate 
that it has entirely abandoned its desire for nuclear weapons 
capabilities.
  Similarly, a final deal must insist that Iran dismantle its nuclear 
infrastructure. Allowing such infrastructure to remain simply courts 
trouble further down the road. Should Iran's nuclear infrastructure 
remain in place, it will be far too easy for Iran to not only skirt its 
responsibilities under the agreement, but to reinvest in its nuclear 
weapons ambitions quickly and meaningfully.
  Mr. Speaker, I applaud President Obama and Secretary Kerry for 
working diligently to find a diplomatic solution that stops Iran from 
obtaining a nuclear weapon. The United States must certainly continue 
to negotiate from a position of strength. Such a position is clearly 
strengthened when Congress continues to weigh in on what a final 
agreement must entail. At the end of the day, however, I do believe 
that no deal is better than a bad deal. Let us work together to ensure 
that we choose neither ``no deal'' nor ``a bad deal,'' but a strong 
deal that denies the Iranians all paths to a nuclear weapon.

                          ____________________