On the recordSeptember 10, 2015
The Iran nuclear agreement should be judged on what is best for our national security and what is more likely to produce peace. I believe that peace has a better chance if we reject this deal, keep sanctions on, and go back to the negotiating table to get a better agreement. This agreement was supposed to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, but, at best, Iran will be a nuclear threshold state in 15 years. By practically guaranteeing and legitimizing this access, there will be a rush by others in the region to gain their own nuclear weapons, creating an enormously dangerous arms race in the most volatile part of the world. The inspections protocols in the agreement are troubling because they give Iran 24 days to delay inspection requests at suspected nuclear sites, a far cry from ``anytime, anywhere.'' And the agreement contains deeply concerning sanctions relief on Iran's acquisition of conventional weapons and ballistic missile technology in 5 and 8 years, respectively. These are just some of my concerns that lead me, after careful consideration, to oppose this agreement. Mr. Speaker, we should and we can do better. I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution.
