[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 129 (Wednesday, September 9, 2015)]
[House]
[Page H5853]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IRAN
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for 5 minutes.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, our vote on the nuclear agreement with
Iran will be the most important decision I have made in Congress since
voting against the disastrous Iraq war.
I am under no illusions that the clerics and military that run Iran
are friends of the United States. To the contrary, they are engaged in
activities that are opposed to the United States interests and those of
many of our friends and allies.
This agreement does not resolve all our differences, change Iranian
behaviors, or provide greater freedom for its people. What it does do
is give the world 15 years of security to prevent Iran from developing
nuclear weapons.
It also demonstrates our ability to work with our international
partners--France, Great Britain, Germany, especially Russia and China--
to bring Iran to the negotiating table, to force them to make important
concessions, and to retain the ability to re-impose crippling sanctions
if they violate the agreement.
It has a strong mechanism for surveillance and snapping back
sanctions to give us confidence that it is strongly in the Iranians'
interest to comply.
Fifteen years is not forever. But taking the current nuclear breakout
time of less than 15 weeks for Iran to a minimum of a year and having
assurance for 15 years is a remarkable achievement.
The alternative is not ``a better deal.'' There is no evidence that
there is something beyond this agreement that the Iranians would agree
with or, most critically, that has the support of the other five
countries that made this agreement possible in the first place.
The alternative is for the United States to lose the support of our
allies so that Iran gets access to its money anyway, the partnership
dissolves, and this important moment is lost.
The United States still retains the ability to walk away from the
deal if it is rejected or violated by Iran. This puts us in a much
stronger position to re-impose sanctions with more leverage going
forward.
In the final analysis, the United States or Israel, for that matter,
can always resort to military force. But it is far better, however, to
make this agreement work, to monitor and enforce it, and build on this
unique international partnership.
Our work will not be done in the Middle East with Iran, even if this
agreement is adopted and Iran abides by it. We still must be prepared
to confront Iran where they are involved with aggressive action against
other countries, especially our allies.
We must be prepared to support our friends in the Middle East, like
Israel and Saudi Arabia. We must be prepared to make the diplomatic
efforts and demonstrate commitment and resolve wherever it is
necessary.
Those who would resort to force in the first instance will always
retain that option.
We risk little trying to make diplomacy with rigorous inspections
work and to strengthen the partnership with countries that made this
agreement possible, to redouble our ongoing efforts to stabilize this
deeply troubled Middle East region.
The agreement doesn't solve our problems, but it simplifies one of
the greatest threats to the Middle East, not just Iranian nuclear
weapons, but a potential nuclear arms race with potentially
catastrophic results.
I am comfortable being in agreement with some of the most
distinguished leaders of past American administrations, both Republican
and Democratic, who have agreed, notwithstanding their reservations and
cautions, that the acceptance of this agreement is the best path
forward for the United States and world peace.
It is sad that, for the very first time, a critical American foreign
policy decision has become so partisan in Congress. But the weight of
evidence is for the agreement to be adopted, and we should do so.
____________________