[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 8]
[House]
[Page 10317]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   NO DEAL IS BETTER THAN A BAD DEAL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Loudermilk). The Chair recognizes the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Holding) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HOLDING. Mr. Speaker, the Obama administration and Tehran are yet 
again running up against another deadline. This one comes next Tuesday 
when the clock expires on reaching a comprehensive nuclear deal.
  Mr. Speaker, if you head over to whitehouse.gov, there is a site 
outlining the current nuclear negotiations. On the front page of this 
Web site, when discussing what a possible deal with Iran should do, it 
states: ``prevent Iran from using the cover of negotiations to continue 
advancing its nuclear program as we seek to negotiate a long-term 
comprehensive solution that addresses all of the international 
community's concerns.''
  Mr. Speaker, what have we seen in reality? It is a possible deal that 
could block international inspectors from having unrestricted access to 
all of Iran's nuclear sites to verify their compliance. Mr. Speaker, 
what could Iran possibly have to hide if their nuclear work is solely 
for peaceful purposes?
  We have also seen a deal that doesn't require Iran to disclose all of 
its previous nuclear work and possible military dimensions. It is a bad 
deal because, if Iran expects the world to trust them and lift 
sanctions, why not come clean?
  I also see a deal that could lift all sanctions once the ink is 
dried, which is a bad deal, because what would this instant relief be 
rewarding? Years of covert work, violations of U.N. resolutions, and 
the export of terror across the globe--no one in good faith could say 
that the deal before the world right now prevents Iran from obtaining a 
pathway to the bomb. If anything, Mr. Speaker, it puts them on a 
pathway to the bomb.
  It has been clear for some time now that this administration has been 
negotiating not with Iran, but with itself. We have seen them 
consistently move the goalpost on what they are willing to accept with 
respect to essential components of a good deal. This ranges from the 
number of centrifuges to inspections to the dismantling of nuclear 
infrastructure.
  The parameters of what this administration is willing to accept has 
moved so many times, I don't believe it would surprise anyone if 
reports emerged before next Tuesday that showed even more concessions 
have been made.
  Mr. Speaker, the administration needs to prevent Iran from having a 
pathway to the bomb. They need to hold good on their word that no deal 
is better than a bad deal.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't see how anyone right now, with the exception of 
Iran, could accept the reported deal as a ``good deal.'' Let's not 
settle for a bad deal; let's not stand for a nuclear Iran.

                          ____________________