[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 130 (Thursday, September 10, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H5874-H5875]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         IRAN NUCLEAR AGREEMENT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, well, I will look the camera in the eye and 
say why I am supporting this agreement. I think there is only one 
common thing that is agreed upon here in the House and in the Senate: 
that we don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons.
  If the U.S. were to walk away from this deal and say we want to go 
back to the table, they will be sitting in an empty room, and the only 
people at the table will be U.S. representatives. There will not be any 
other nations from Europe, Russia, or China; and Iran won't be at the 
table either.
  This is a deal that is not perfect. Sure, it is far from perfect. 
They say: Well, Iran could become a nuclear threshold state again in 10 
or 12 years because of the way this agreement is written. If we walk 
away today, they are a nuclear threshold state; and they will build a 
bomb, and they will have it within 3 or 4 months. Then what?
  Well, we do have options, of course. They are being recommended by 
Dick Cheney, John Bolton, and Benjamin Netanyahu, all who were 
cheerleaders for the Iraq war and who were oh so wrong about the 
greatest foreign policy mistake in the history of the United States of 
America. But they learned nothing from that, and they think yet another 
war in the Mideast is a better solution than this.
  Now what does Iran give up? Two-thirds of its centrifuges. They are 
allowed to keep the oldest, most primitive centrifuges. Ninety-seven 
percent of its enriched uranium stockpile will be gone. Their mine 
sites will be monitored 24/7. Their mill sites for uranium will be 
monitored 24/7. There will be an intrusive inspection regime. They have 
to fill in the core of the nearly finished Iraq reactor--which can take 
them on

[[Page H5875]]

the plutonium path to a bomb--with concrete and convert that to 
peaceful use.
  Natanz, underneath the mountain that some would have us bomb--
unfortunately, it is underneath the mountain--that will become a 
medical facility monitored 24/7. No. That is Fordow, excuse me, not 
Natanz. Yet we hear the drumbeat for war over here. They don't want to 
say they want to have a war, but that is the ultimate conclusion.
  If you don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons, this is the best deal 
we can get, and we amazingly got this deal with the support of Russia, 
China, and four nations in Europe.
  Now, they are already flooding into Iran in anticipation of this deal 
going forward. They have no intention of going back to the table. The 
Chinese want the oil. Russians want to sell them weapons. The planes 
have been totally full coming out of Europe with high-level corporate 
executives wanting to go into Iran and do business.
  No. This is the only alternative before the United States Congress 
and the only one that can prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon in 
the short term. Yes, 12, 15 years down the road, we may have to deal 
with this again. Yet again, 12 or 15 years from now, under this regime, 
perhaps Iran will have changed. We will see.
  So I am proud of this vote, and I think it is the best path. I am 
also incredibly proud of my vote against popular opinion and such 
sagacious people as Dick Cheney, John Bolton, and Benjamin Netanyahu 
about invading Iraq, which has turned the Middle East into an 
unbelievable mess that will not be undone in my lifetime. ISIS is 
basically a product of the Iraq war, an invasion by the U.S.
  So let's not create even worse problems. Let's take this imperfect 
agreement, but let's take it because it prevents Iran from having a 
nuclear weapon and having a weapons race in this incredibly unstable 
part of the world.

                          ____________________