[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 8]
[House]
[Page 10318]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         NUCLEAR DEAL WITH IRAN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Mooney) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MOONEY of West Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the single greatest threat 
to the national security of the United States is Iran's drive for 
nuclear weapons. The result of the negotiations being conducted by 
President Obama and our Western allies will shape the long-term 
security and stability of the United States for years to come.
  Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terror, a stronghold for 
terrorists whose very mission is to spread oppression. Iranian leaders 
have called for the complete annihilation of Israel, calling Israel a 
``barbaric, wolflike, and infanticidal regime.'' Iranian leaders have 
said that the United States of America has ``no place among the 
nations.''
  By its own declaration, Iran is not looking for a peaceful path of 
coexistence. There can be nothing more dangerous for America or our 
allies than a nuclear-armed Iran. That is why a bad deal with Iran, one 
that leaves the door open for Iranian nuclear weapons, must be avoided 
at all costs.
  In order to alleviate these concerns, the President and his national 
security team have said over and over that a bad deal is worse than no 
deal at all; but will that sentiment actually stop this administration 
from entering into a bad deal with Iran? What I have seen so far, 
through the framework agreement released in April, raises serious 
concerns.
  Under this framework agreement, not a single Iranian nuclear 
centrifuge will be dismantled. No nuclear facilities will be shut down. 
While some of Iran's nuclear infrastructure will be temporarily 
warehoused, most of Iran's nuclear infrastructure will remain 
completely intact. All of these factors point to a flawed understanding 
of a ``good deal'' by President Obama; yet this is the deal we may well 
be given.
  Twenty years ago, the United States was negotiating with another 
country on nuclear weapons development. During these talks with the 
Soviet Union and Gorbachev in the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan used 
the proverb ``trust, but verify'' throughout those discussions.
  I do not see this administration using that same tactic. In fact, it 
seems to me that in regards to Iran, the Obama administration is 
operating on the principle of ``trust and don't verify.''
  As things stand, these ongoing nuclear negotiations are placing far 
too much faith in a country that has proven itself both deceptive and 
unpredictable.
  Mr. President, a good deal must contain the following five points: 
first, a deal that requires anytime, anywhere inspections; second, a 
deal that would only lift sanctions when Iran demonstrates compliance 
with its obligations; third, a deal must require Iran to provide a 
complete report of its past nuclear activities; fourth, a deal must 
require Iran to dismantle its nuclear weapons infrastructure; and, last 
but not least, a good deal must not allow Iran to become a nuclear 
state ever.
  Without these conditions in place, the United States will, without a 
doubt, be prioritizing a bad deal over no deal at all.

                          ____________________