[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 161 (Wednesday, November 13, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H7036-H7040]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            SANCTIONING IRAN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2013, the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann) is 
recognized for the remainder of the hour as the designee of the 
majority leader.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity and the 
privilege to be able to be here in the well of the greatest 
deliberative body on Earth, the United States House of Representatives, 
to talk about what I believe is one of the most crucial issues facing 
the national security not only of the United States but for freedom-
seeking people all across the world.
  You know, I had a tremendous privilege. This last week, seven Members 
of Congress--Democrat, Republican, and myself--were privileged to be on 
a trip that was life-changing in many ways. We had the privilege of 
going to Israel. We met with leaders of Israel. We met with the people 
of Israel, and we talked about issues of national security.
  Israel is a Nation that has been literally under attack since the 
time of its founding of the modern Jewish State in May of 1948. Very 
wisely, the United States President at the time--a Democrat, Harry 
Truman--gave Israel what she needed more than anything else: to be able 
to show the world that she could be an independent, sovereign power. It 
was this: President Harry Truman recognized Israel as a sovereign, 
independent nation. That told the world that the United States of 
America would have Israel's back because we recognized her right to 
exist, unlike Israel's current neighbors--many of whom, particularly in 
Hamas and the Palestinian Authority--to this day continue to deny 
Israel's right to exist and Israel's right to defend herself. As is 
often said, Israel lives in a very tough neighborhood. We had the 
privilege to find out more about the concerns and the issues that face 
our greatest ally in the world that we have, and that is the Jewish 
State of Israel.
  While we were there, Mr. Speaker, our delegation was able to quite 
literally witness world history as it happened. Secretary of State John 
Kerry decided to add Jerusalem to his itinerary in addition to Cairo. 
He went to Jerusalem because he was in the process of speaking about 
the Palestinian-Israeli talks for a so-called two-State solution, but 
something even more important that week was at stake, and it was this: 
a meeting in Geneva, Switzerland. It was a meeting of the nations that 
talked about whether or not the economic sanctions that have worked so 
well to prohibit Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons--the question was, 
Will those sanctions now be lifted?
  As we went through the course of our time in Israel last Thursday, we 
were about to have our scheduled meeting with Prime Minister Binyamin 
Netanyahu. The meeting had been rearranged, and rightly so; because 
Secretary of State Kerry was in town, the prime minister adjusted his 
schedule. We, Members of Congress, adjusted our schedule so that the 
Prime Minister could meet with Secretary Kerry according to his 
timetable. That was the right thing to do.
  When we filed into the office that we usually meet the Prime Minister 
in late Thursday afternoon, it was very

[[Page H7037]]

evident when we sat down that something was clearly amiss. The first 
remark from the Prime Minister was, had we heard the news? We looked at 
each other, we looked at the Prime Minister, and we said, What news 
would that be? We had been in meetings all day long. We had no idea 
what he was talking about. Just prior to our meeting with Prime 
Minister Netanyahu, he had been briefed on the events in Geneva, 
Switzerland. Israel was not there. They were not present at the P5+1 
meetings.
  The news wasn't good. It wasn't good at all. As a matter of fact, the 
Prime Minister said to us, Iran is getting the deal of the century. I 
assure you, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister had the attention of the 
seven Members of Congress--Democrat and Republican--sitting around that 
table.
  He went on to say some very firm words. This is a poster that was 
created by Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois. He said this to us: This is a 
very, very--and he said it a third time--very bad deal. It is not only 
a bad deal for Israel because, as he told us, you know, we are only the 
little Satan, according to Iran. You, the United States, are the big 
Satan in Iran's eyes. In other words, if you think this is bad for us 
in Israel, imagine what this will be for the United States.

                              {time}  1800

  And so, Mr. Speaker, I would like to focus just a little bit on the 
chart that Senator Kirk put together because I think it talks and 
speaks very eloquently of why the P5+1 deal was very, very bad and why 
the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, was rightly concerned 
about not only the national security of the Jewish State of Israel, but 
the national security interests of the people of the United States and 
of freedom-loving people around the world.
  Let's look at this very important document that was put together by 
Senator Kirk. Iran's deal of the century: what is it that Iran would 
get?
  What is remarkable, Mr. Speaker, is what Iran would get in this deal. 
They would get, in cash, $3 billion. As a matter of fact, some of the 
literature that I have read since Thursday when we were with the Prime 
Minister has said that upwards of $50 billion would be freed and 
available to Iran; but, at minimum, they would have access to $3 
billion in cash.
  Remember, this is an actor, the state of Iran, which was found 
illegally creating nuclear material for their stated purpose of 
creating a nuclear weapon to use to wipe out not only Israel, but the 
United States of America off the face of the map.
  If there is anything that history has taught us, Mr. Speaker, it is 
this: it is that when a madman speaks, freedom-loving nations should 
listen.
  The leader in Iran is called the supreme leader. He is not called 
that for no reason. It isn't the president of the country who is truly 
the throne in Iran. It is the religious leader named Khomeini. The 
presidents come and go, but Khomeini, the supreme leader, remains the 
same.
  His announced intentions are completely clear. Iran seeks to be the 
hegemon. In other words, Iran seeks to be the dominant power in not 
only the Middle East region, but they also have evidence of dabbling in 
the far East in China, in the Philippines, and in South America. They 
intend to have their fingers in places all over the world because they 
intend to dominate. They intend to dominate with the shia religion. 
They intend to dominate through the use of nuclear weaponry through the 
most vile form of violence that there is in the world in order to 
achieve their objectives.
  So, again, let's look at what Iran would have gotten had the nation 
of France not intervened and put a stop to this disastrous effort and 
agreement that would have had the potential of changing the course of 
human history.
  Again, here is what Iran would get. They would get $3 billion in 
cash, at minimum. Some report upwards of $50 billion in cash. They 
would get $9.6 billion in gold reserves for the Iran regime; over $5 
billion in petrochemicals for the nation; $1.3 billion in automobiles. 
Iran is heavily engaged in the production of automobiles and this would 
have given them that revenue. Also, enriched uranium for one bomb.
  Why in world would P5+1, the nations that met in Geneva, Switzerland, 
allow Iran to have enriched uranium for one bomb, when they have 
already stated their intention if they have that bomb?
  We also know that Iran has plans to be involved in having 
intercontinental ballistic missiles. In other words, they not only want 
a bomb, Mr. Speaker, but they want a delivery system. And they need a 
delivery system that goes just so far to be able to get to Israel, but 
they seek a delivery system, Mr. Speaker, that could take their bombs 
to United States targets as well. United States targets here in the 
homeland, but United States targets as well overseas.
  And it just doesn't end with Iran, Mr. Speaker. If Iran gains a 
nuclear weapon, what the world must know is that the weapon will not 
simply remain within the boundaries and in the hands of a nuclear Iran. 
Oh, that it would be, that would be bad enough.
  What we do know is that Saudi Arabia has already had to make plans to 
defend herself. She already has a preorder into a nuclear Pakistan, 
foreign order for a nuclear weapon, because Saudi Arabia knows they 
will be a target from a nuclear Iran if Iran obtains that weapon. So, 
therefore, we will see another nation--Saudi Arabia--that will have to 
have a nuclear weapon.
  But it won't stop with Saudi Arabia, Mr. Speaker. We know that each 
will be seeking a nuclear weapon.
  Let's not forget that prior to July 4, 2013, the violent terrorist 
organization known as the Muslim Brotherhood was the legitimate 
government of the state of Egypt. Imagine the violent terrorist 
organization known as the Muslim Brotherhood with a nuclear weapon. 
Also, imagine Turkey with a nuclear weapon.
  Imagine then that we are no longer talking nation-states. What we 
could be talking about very well with Iran having a nuclear weapon 
would be some of its umbrella protectorates, i.e., Hezbollah. The 
terrorist organization primarily located in Lebanon, just north of 
Israel's border, also would, in all likelihood, have access to a 
nuclear weapon or have one located on Israel's northern border.
  Syria could also have a nuclear weapon; and from there we could be 
talking about, Mr. Speaker, al Qaeda having a nuclear weapon, with 
miniaturization. Perhaps the al-Nusra Front, perhaps Boko Haram or any 
of the other myriad terrorist organizations that there are around the 
world.
  You see, Mr. Speaker, the entire paradigm of the world's structure 
could change quite literally. And for what? What is it that we would 
have gotten out of this very bad deal that the United States was about 
to enter into? It makes no sense.
  We would have gotten zero centrifuges dismantled.
  What is a centrifuge? That is what is used by Iran to enrich uranium; 
the fissile material that is required to create a nuclear bomb. We 
would have gotten zero dismantled. Iran would have continued to 
maintain control and ownership of their centrifuges. Let's face it and 
let's not kid ourselves: if those centrifuges would have continued to 
run and spun enriched uranium, we would have gotten zero ounces of 
uranium shipped out of Iran.
  That is the whole ball game, Mr. Speaker.
  The estimate today, as we stand here, is that Iran already has 
enriched uranium to the tune of 9 to 10 tons--well over the amount 
needed to have a nuclear bomb.
  You see, that must be the first condition, not the last and not one 
that is off the table. That is the first condition to lift any 
sanction. We must first make sure that all of the enriched uranium 
leaves the nation of Iran because, again, we know their stated 
intention. That must go.
  We also get out of this deal zero facilities closed. We know there 
are multiple facilities against and in violation of U.N. resolution 
after U.N. resolution after U.N. resolution. Iran has continued to be 
one of the biggest violators of U.N. resolutions that there is in the 
world today. One nuclear facility after another, including a plutonium 
facility, a heavy-water reactor in Iraq--that doesn't have to close.
  Why would we do this? Why would we allow them to continue the means 
of production for nuclear weapons when we get nothing in return? They 
get $3 billion. Some say $50 billion. We get nothing in return. Are we 
mad?

[[Page H7038]]

  Thank God for the French. Thank God for the French foreign minister, 
who said this was a sucker's deal. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu 
said this is a very, very bad deal and said it is the deal of the 
century. Why would we continue to reward bad behavior and a bad actor? 
Why would we allow no delay on the plutonium reactor? Why would there 
be no stop in missile testing?
  Let's face it, what do they want the missiles for? Who is attacking 
Iran right now? And yet we would allow them to continue to test 
missiles and the delivery system for a nuclear weapon?
  No stop in terrorism. Who is the exporter of terrorism? It is Iran. 
Who exports terrorism to Lebanon? It is Iran, through Hezbollah. Who 
exports terrorism in Syria, where Bashar al-Assad has killed over 
100,000 of his people? It is Iran. Imagine Iran with a nuclear weapon 
and the terror that would be exported once they have that nuclear 
weapon and no stop in the human rights abuses.
  All of this they get. They get a plutonium reactor, 3,000 new 
centrifuges, the enriched uranium for a bomb.
  While we were over in Israel this last week, we had heard from the 
Prime Minister that there are well over 18,000 centrifuges running 
today. The first level of purity that is reached in uranium is 3.5 
percent. The second level that is reached is 20 percent. From there it 
is a hop and a skip literally only weeks to get to 90 percent purity, 
which is what is required for a nuclear bomb. We are virtually sitting 
on the edge of a nuclear Iran, with no wiggle room left.
  Finally, we are beginning to see the beginning of the economic 
sanctions coming to work, just when they are coming to bear, just when 
Iran is about to buckle at the knee, come to the table, and actually 
agree to something over here on this side of the scorecard. You see, 
Mr. Speaker, it is a big goose egg on this side of the scorecard--what 
the freedom-loving people of the world seek, what the American people 
seek, what the Jewish people of the State of Israel seek. We get zero 
on this scorecard while the Iranian nuclear program is allowed to 
continue at pace, moving forward toward the ultimate goal of the 
nuclear weapon and the means of delivery. And all the while working on 
miniaturization so that the nuclear warhead can deliver its deadly, 
lethal target to the most vulnerable people in the world.
  And wouldn't it be horrible and wouldn't it be sick if a city here in 
the United States would be a recipient of one of those nuclear 
warheads? Why? Because in the midst of foolishness, the P5+1 thought it 
would be a good idea to let the Iranians continue their nuclear 
program.
  May it never be.
  There was an article that was just published. It was published by 
someone that I have great admiration for in The Wall Street Journal--a 
very smart guy by the name of Bret Stephens. Bret had a column that 
came out. He talked about, again, this last weekend and the fact that 
the world dodged a bullet, just barely--not because of the Obama 
administration's efforts, I am sorry to say, and not because of the 
efforts of the United Kingdom, I am sorry to say, but because of the 
French. And we have them to thank.

       The talks unexpectedly fell apart at the last minute when 
     the French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius publicly objected 
     to what he called a sucker's deal, meaning the United States 
     was prepared to begin lifting sanctions on Iran in exchange 
     for tentative Iranian promises that they would slow their 
     multiple nuclear programs.

  Now, this is very important that I read this, Mr. Speaker, because 
Bret Stephens goes on to say in his article:

       Not stop their nuclear program, not suspend their nuclear 
     program, mind you, much less dismantle them, but merely 
     reduce their pace from run to jog when they're on mile 23 of 
     their nuclear marathon.

  He said:

       It says a lot about the administration that they so wanted 
     a deal that they would have been prepared to take this one.

  And what this deal would have meant, quite simply, Mr. Speaker, is 
that we would have seen an Iran with a nuclear bomb very soon, and the 
means to deliver it and put the world on edge.
  May it never be. Thank God for the French.
  That is what happens when the line between politics is a game of 
perception and policy as the pursuit of national objectives dissolves.
  I think this was a very important weekend. And it is important to 
know that this isn't over. You see, what happened is that there was a 
delay. A delay, I suppose, for what? To buy the vote of the French, to 
take their arm and twist it behind their back?

                              {time}  1815

  Because now the pressure is on France and the P5+1. The pressure is 
on France. Seven days from today, Mr. Speaker, there will be another 
meeting. Our Secretary of State, John Kerry, who insists that this deal 
and that he and the United States aren't blind and aren't stupid with 
this deal--he insisted this on ``Meet the Press'' last Sunday. He is 
stating that he believes that there will be a deal with Iran and that 
there will be one quickly.
  My question would be, Mr. Speaker, to the Secretary of State or to 
anyone in the Obama administration who is in the process of working on 
this deal with a nuclear Iran: Is this what the deal is that you are 
intending to strike? We get zero, and Iran gets the ability to develop 
a nuclear bomb. What is the deal? What is in that?
  I think we need to ask the lead negotiator, whose name is Wendy 
Sherman. She is President Obama's lead negotiator, chief nuclear 
negotiator, in this very crucial negotiation which has the potential to 
change the course of history.
  In 1988, Wendy Sherman was a social worker. She worked on the Dukakis 
campaign. She worked at the Democratic National Committee. This is the 
person who is striking this deal right now on a nuclear Iran. She also 
was the CEO of the Fannie Mae Foundation. It was a charity that was 
shut down 10 years later for what The Washington Post called ``using a 
tax-exempt contribution to advance corporate interests.''
  From there, Wendy Sherman went to the State Department. There she 
served as the point person in nuclear negotiations with North Korea. 
She met with Kim Jong Il, himself. She found him witty and humorous, a 
conceptual thinker, a quick problem-solver, smart, engaged, 
knowledgeable, self-confident. She called him a ``regular guy.'' She 
was found working for her former boss at the Albright Stonebridge Group 
before she went to the No. 3 spot at the State Department. From there, 
the arc of her career has gone to her now being in charge of this 
effort of giving away the ability to Iran to be able to continue on a 
pace to develop a nuclear bomb.
  Again, may it never be.
  When we were in Israel on Friday evening, we found out, Mr. Speaker, 
that the Obama administration had gone much further in this effort than 
even we had thought, because the story came out in the Daily Beast in 
an article by Eli Lake. He said that in this very bad deal with a 
nuclear Iran that once the current President was elected in June, 
Rouhani, that the Obama administration began then to already ease the 
sanctions on Iran. It is something that I think none of us could even 
begin to imagine. Even without consulting Congress, the Treasury 
Department issued notices in June that they would no longer be checking 
on those who are violating the sanctions' deals.
  In other words, there wouldn't be the type of sanctions going out and 
the type of punishments, if you will, for bad actors who were doing 
trades with Iran. In other words, beginning past June, according to the 
article that came out on Friday, the Obama administration was already 
evening out the scorecard. In other words, they were already giving 
bonuses to Iran.
  Why?
  Because Rouhani was seen as a ``moderate,'' someone the Obama 
administration could work with. Even in September, President Obama, 
himself, wanted to be able to meet and talk and discuss without any 
precondition at all with the leader of Iran.
  You see, there is a read that happened among the leadership in Iran. 
They looked at the United States. They tested our pulse. They tested 
the pulse of the Obama administration, and they saw that they could get 
what Benjamin Netanyahu called a very, very, very bad deal for freedom-
loving people across the world. As a matter of fact, the leadership in 
Iran saw something

[[Page H7039]]

else. They saw that they could get a sucker's deal--in the words of the 
French diplomat and negotiator--but that is not what the American 
people want, Mr. Speaker.
  They want to know that when they tuck their children in bed at night 
that the world will be secure for them and that they won't have to 
worry about a nuclear weapon coming within the borders of the United 
States of America or of any nation. No one wants to see a nuclear 
nightmare, but the Obama administration needs to recognize that, in 
order to alleviate the burden of a nuclear nightmare, we must never, 
ever, ever allow Iran to have a nuclear bomb and the means to deliver 
that bomb.
  You see, when we were in Israel, Mr. Speaker, we were told by some of 
the leadership in Israel that there are 25 nations that have the 
civilian capability of having nuclear power but that only five nations 
enrich uranium in order to have the fissile material. When you have a 
responsibility, you have to act responsibly, and those nations have 
acted responsibly with the fissile material. The argument from Iran is 
quite different. Iran says they have an indigenous right to enrich 
uranium, that all nations do.
  All nations don't have the right when they have spoken irresponsibly, 
when they have acted in violation of U.N. resolution after U.N. 
resolution, when they have said ``no'' to International Atomic Energy 
Commission inspectors coming to Iran to check on what Iran is doing in 
regards to uranium enrichment, in regards to nuclear reactors or to the 
plutonium heavy-water reactor. The door is slammed in the faces of the 
inspectors. When they ask to come in, they are told ``maybe some other 
time.'' Think of that with your teenager. You want to go in and check 
on your teenager's room, and your teenager says, ``Maybe not this time, 
Mom. How about you try me tomorrow?'' Does that raise a few suspicions 
in your mind? Usually, it does. In the case of the security of the 
people of the world, that should definitely raise our concerns.
  So why would we give the benefit of the doubt to a nation that has 
thumbed its nose at the United Nations Security Council? that has 
thumbed its nose at the International Atomic Energy Commission 
inspectors? Why would we give them the benefit of the doubt? Why would 
the Obama administration give them the benefit of the doubt?
  When Wendy Sherman has negotiated what is arguably one of the biggest 
failures in North Korea, with North Korea's obtaining nuclear weaponry 
and missile capability, that is absolute failure--failure for the world 
and failure for this negotiator. Now the same negotiator is trying to 
strike this deal where it looks, to me, like Iran is getting it all--it 
is a clean sweep--and the freedom-loving people of the world are 
getting a goose egg. This is a very bad deal.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is time to pull Wendy Sherman back and off of 
this project. This isn't working. I think the United States should pull 
back and not be a part of the P5+1. I think we need to take a big step 
backwards and take a deep breath and do a thorough review of the 
history of Iran and of Iran's violations.
  This is bipartisan, Mr. Speaker. This is not Republicans beating up 
on the Obama administration. There are numerous Democrats, including 
Senator Menendez on the Senate side, including many of my colleagues on 
the Democrat side of the aisle. They are pro-Israel. They are pro-
American national security. They don't want to see a nuclear Iran any 
more than Republicans do. This is not a partisan issue, Mr. Speaker. 
This is completely bipartisan. In fact, I believe, if we were to put a 
resolution on the floor of this House that were to call on the Obama 
administration to say ``no'' to this very, very, very bad deal--to a 
sucker's deal in the words of the French diplomat--I believe that we 
would see a very strong bipartisan agreement.

  Why?
  Because, as a body--Democrat, Republican--we are truly, not just in 
word but in deed, pro-Israel. We are first pro-United States, first pro 
our national security interests. That is totally bipartisan.
  I am privileged to sit on the House Intelligence Committee. We deal 
with the classified secrets of the Nation. I compliment my colleague 
Dutch Ruppersberger as much as I compliment my colleague Mike Rogers, 
the chair of the committee, because they have made a decision that, 
when it comes to America's national security, the partisanship gets 
checked outside the door. We are completely bipartisan when we go on 
that committee, as it should be.
  So, when it comes to making sure that a rogue--perhaps even an evil--
regime does not have access to a nuclear weapon, that is probably the 
most bipartisan move that could ever come out of this body, and I 
believe that it will because I trust my Democrat colleagues to also 
believe and understand that a nuclear Iran is a very, very bad idea. I 
believe the Senate will see it the same way. I think we will see, 
again, agreement on both sides of the aisle because this is about 
America. This is about our national security. It is about the security 
interests and the future of the world. It is about the national 
security interests of our friend, the Jewish State of Israel. It is 
about her survival. It is about making sure that violent terrorist 
organizations never, ever, ever, ever, ever have access to nuclear 
fissile material and the means and capability of creating a nuclear 
bomb and delivering it on innocent people anywhere across the world.
  We want a peaceful world, and we will not have a peaceful world if 
madmen have a nuclear weapon. It is a bipartisan issue--it is a peace 
issue--and it is an issue, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that should capture 
our attention.
  Might I ask how many minutes I have remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to again refer to one of my 
colleagues who has also eloquently written on this subject, and I would 
like to give her credit as well. She is a former Member of this body 
but a wonderful Member with whom I had the privilege of traveling to 
the Middle East. She was defeated in her last election, but she served 
this body very well. She is a Democrat colleague. I have great respect 
for her. She and I traveled to Israel. We traveled to Pakistan. We 
traveled to Kuwait. Her name is Shelley Berkley, and she is from 
Nevada. I would like to read a few of the words from former 
Representative Shelley Berkley.
  She said that the deal that is in the works with Iran is far worse 
than anyone could have possibly imagined. She said that the details are 
still emerging on this deal that was nearly put together over the 
weekend in Geneva, and she said:

       By all accounts and despite all denials, the United States 
     is actively pursuing a catastrophic agreement with Iran. It 
     is one that would facilitate the nuclearization of one of the 
     most extreme, violent, and anti-American tyrannies on Earth, 
     with consequences that will be regretted for generations.

  You see, Shelley Berkley of Nevada gets it. She understands that this 
isn't a short-term action. She understood that if Iran obtains a 
nuclear weapon that this will change the course of history for 
generations, and it is one that would be near impossible to roll back 
because, again, of the idea of proliferation. It wouldn't be just Iran 
who has it, as if that isn't bad enough; it would be rogue terrorist 
organizations across the globe.
  Former Representative Shelley Berkley writes:

       The centerpiece of the deal from the West's perspective is 
     Iran's agreement to convert its stockpiles of 20 percent 
     enriched uranium to fuel for civilian use and to halt further 
     enrichment to 20 percent for 6 months.

  Now, it is interesting. We just met this last week with the leader of 
intelligence in Israel. He told us that part of this very, very, very 
bad deal would include Iran's not firing up their heavy-water plutonium 
reactor in Iraq--``Araq,'' some people say. He said the joke on all of 
that is that this reactor won't even go on line for use until next 
August, so Iran gives up absolutely nothing in this deal. You see, it 
is a scam. They don't even have an ability over the next 6 months to 
fire up this reactor. So Iran's agreeing not to develop any plutonium 
from that reactor is a zero. It is a goose egg. It is a nonstarter.
  These are the negotiators? I know one thing. I wouldn't want them 
negotiating my salary at my next job. They don't get it. They don't 
understand what is at stake--or do they? That is how important this is.

[[Page H7040]]

                              {time}  1830

  ``The entire question of 20 percent enriched uranium,'' says former 
Representative Shelley Berkley, ``is a smoke screen.''
  For many years, making a bomb went like this: first you spent a lot 
of time enriching uranium to 3.5 percent purity. That is difficult, but 
that is exactly what Iran would be allowed to continue to do. Then you 
enriched what you had created to 20 percent purity. When you had enough 
of that--and the centrifuges Iran has now are better and faster and 
quicker than what they had before, five times faster, as a matter of 
fact--you would be in a position to easily and quickly convert that 
material to 90 percent purity that is good enough for a nuclear 
warhead.
  In recent months, Iran has advanced dramatically in both the number 
of centrifuges--again, nearly 19,000 centrifuges today at its disposal 
and their efficiency. Today, experts say that in just a few weeks' time 
Iran could go from 3.5 percent all the way to 90 percent, which is 
``bingo,'' bomb-making material for Iran. The whole issue of 20 percent 
enrichment has become absolutely irrelevant. Instead, the most 
important questions are how much 3.5 percent enriched uranium they have 
and whether they are allowed to keep their centrifuges spinning. If the 
answer to both is yes, they are moving forward on a bomb.
  That is why, Mr. Speaker, if we have a deal with Iran, the number one 
parameter that must be included--and I spoke with both the current 
intelligence director and the former intelligence director of Israel, 
and they both said: A nonnegotiable is that Iran has to give up the 9 
to 10 tons of enriched uranium that they have on hand. Why wouldn't 
you? Why wouldn't they be forced to give up the fissile material to 
make a bomb? It only makes sense.
  Number two, they need to give up the ability to make further enriched 
uranium. Those are the centrifuges. That has to go as well.
  The world is saying if you want to have the material, the nuclear 
material, that you need for a peaceful civilian use of power, if you 
want, for instance, nuclear reactors, that is fine. The world has no 
problem with nuclear power for true electricity, or if they want radio 
isotopes for cancer research, no problem. But that means that the 
material comes into Iran, and it is used for a civilian purpose, and we 
have inspectors. That is reasonable.
  We have countries like Spain that have civilian-use nuclear reactors. 
They bring their uranium in, and they don't enrich it themselves, and 
there are inspectors. The same with Sweden. The same with other 
countries.
  This is fine to have nuclear reactors for electricity. We would back 
that, but what we will not back, what we must not ever back is the 
ability for Iran to create a nuclear bomb. That does not change in the 
current Obama administration effort of the deal that came out and was 
thankfully put on hold by the French at Geneva at this P5+1.
  The new agreement would allow Iran to continue to freely enrich to 
3.5 percent at its Natanz and Fordow facilities. That is beyond all 
comprehension. How can you have a deal if Iran is continuing to enrich 
their uranium at two facilities and to continue building centrifuges 
that can easily and quickly be installed?
  ``At the end of the 6-month period,'' Representative Shelley Berkley 
writes, ``Iran would be even closer to breakout capacity.'' Meaning the 
ability to build a nuclear warhead so quickly that no one could 
mobilize forces in time to stop it.
  In other words, what we would have given Iran last weekend is the 
luxury of time, time to develop a deadly nuclear weapon. It takes time 
for a nation, the United States, Israel, the United Kingdom, Canada, 
any nation, it takes time for a nation to mobilize, to come against a 
bad actor nation, like Iran, in its development of a nuclear weapon.
  Again, that is why this is so important--this chart that was created 
by Senator Mark Kirk. He accurately reported what the score will be for 
the world. We will get nothing, and Iran will get everything; and that 
must not be.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________