[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 169 (Monday, December 2, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H7378-H7383]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   THE DISTURBING AGREEMENT WITH IRAN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2013, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I think there has been a lot of 
things going on in the world in the last few weeks and a lot here 
domestically, things that have not been going well on the 
administration's agenda. Those have been well documented and are not 
the reason that I rise tonight.
  The purpose for my rising tonight is an issue that seems to want to 
distract from issues at home, and that is a very disturbing development 
with Iran and the administration's agreement that has been announced.

                              {time}  1945

  These are disturbing for many reasons. Tonight we rise, and I rise 
bipartisanly tonight, to talk about this because I want the people of 
Israel and I want the American people who are great friends of Israel 
to be assured that there are plenty of Members of Congress committed to 
this alliance, I am proud to be one of them.
  I also join with my friend from Illinois (Mr. Schneider), and I am 
excited to be a part of this and discuss for what will be a discussion 
of what we believe are the values that we share together.
  I would go ahead and yield for a brief opening here before we get 
started, Mr. Schneider, as we go forward tonight.
  Mr. SCHNEIDER. Thank you. It is an honor to be here with you to join 
you in this discussion. The world has watched anxiously as the P5+1 had 
a series of negotiations that culminated 2 weeks ago in an interim 
agreement.
  As we join here tonight to talk about some of the issues in this 
agreement, what we will be looking for is to ensure that whatever 
happens, Iran is not allowed to achieve nuclear capability, and that 
our allies in the region, including Israel, Saudi Arabia, and others, 
are protected from the prospect of a nuclear Iran.
  I yield back.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I agree, and I appreciate the gentleman so 
much.
  I believe that it is certain in our foreign policy, as much as 
anything, America needs to speak from a position of strength that we 
have; that we should not deny our position of strength and our power to 
enforce what we believe are standards that need to be looked at across 
the world. Tonight I want to bring that attention to the floor of the 
House of Representatives and also to the Nation.
  My dedication to the U.S.-Israel alliance brings me to the floor 
tonight with an urgent message for our President: Don't fall for Iran's 
public relations campaign. In the words of Israeli Prime Minister 
Benjamin Netanyahu during his recent speech before the U.N., newly-
elected Iranian President Hassan ``Rouhani thinks he can have his 
yellowcake and eat it too.''
  President Rouhani is orchestrating an unprecedented charm offensive 
to reduce sanctions on his country. Over the last 5 months--this is 
amazing--his campaign has included tweeting ``Happy Rosh Hashanah'' to 
Jews across the globe celebrating their New Year, condemning the use of 
chemical weapons in Syria after the August 21 attacks, making 
diplomatic overtures to President Obama through personal letters.
  Mr. President, tell Rouhani that mere words won't ultimately improve 
relations between the U.S. and Iran.
  Most recently, two rounds of nuclear negotiations have occurred. A 
truly disturbing deal between the West and Iran materialized, which 
puts Israel in a very difficult position.
  Much like negotiations with North Korea over its nuclear program, the 
U.S. is being duped. The deal allows Iran to maintain its nuclear 
program, while the U.S. sanctions are lifted for 6 months. This deal 
benefits no one but Iran. There are bipartisan measures currently in 
the House and Senate to maintain sanctions and to continue to hold Iran 
accountable for its actions.
  Mr. President, I ask you carefully review President Rouhani's record 
before moving further with more sanctions relief.
  To really understand President Rouhani's intentions, let's look 
beyond his words to his actions.
  On September 19, an op-ed by President Rouhani was published in The 
Washington Post. In the piece, Rouhani spoke against glorifying ``brute 
force'' and in favor of ending ``unhealthy rivalries'' that drive 
nations apart.
  Forty-eight hours later, President Rouhani presided over the Iranian 
military parade showcasing over 30 missiles, all with the capability of 
striking Israel. During his speech, he said, ``In the past 200 years, 
Iran has never attacked another country.''
  It gets better. Of course Iran doesn't have to attack because its 
proxy, Hezbollah, carries out its foreign policy. Hezbollah has 
continuously attacked Israel over the decades, and is instrumental in 
fighting the National Coalition of Syrian Revolution and Opposition 
Forces. The NCSRO is a rebel group which the U.S. recognizes as the 
legitimate representative of the Syrian people.
  Let us not forget Iran's intrusion on U.S. soil. The Iranian hostage 
crisis of 1979 began with an attack on and subsequent occupation of the 
U.S. Embassy. Fifty-two Americans were held hostage for 444 days. The 
attack had the support of Iran's then-leader Ayatollah Khomeini. The 
attack was a clear violation of international diplomatic protocol.
  President Rouhani has made several claims that Iran's nuclear program 
is for peaceful purposes. He says Iran's only desire is to diversify 
its energy production capability.
  Yet, Iran has not only refused to reverse course on enriching uranium 
but has 1,000 new generation centrifuges that enrich uranium faster and 
are more durable than previous versions.
  As we say down in Georgia, a slap on the jaw and a kiss on the cheek 
don't send the same message.
  Recently, freshman members of the Foreign Affairs Committee sent a 
bipartisan letter to President Obama telling him to be vigilant in his 
diplomatic actions with Rouhani.
  Any negotiation with the Iranian regime should only come after Iran 
has stopped enriching uranium and neutralizes the quantity it currently 
possesses. Congress has let its will be known with the passage of the 
Nuclear Iran Prevention Act this summer in the House.
  Congress and the American people do not trust the Iranian regime. The 
White House needs to sign the latest set of sanctions. These sanctions 
go further than previous ones by targeting the profiteering of black 
market goods. Sanctions target regime members who are guilty of human 
rights violations.

[[Page H7379]]

  Congress is sending the message that not only do we highly discourage 
the development of nuclear weapons by the regime but detest how select 
citizens are subject to torture and restrictions on speech and 
political persecution. It is amazing what is going on right now.

  The President needs to realize that the Middle East is not a 
chessboard, and we shouldn't play games with Iran. This is a time to 
stand up and be decisive. We must stand with Israel and other rational 
actors in the region and not capitulate on the development of a nuclear 
Iran.
  With that, I want to yield to my friend as we share back and forth 
tonight on different aspects as we go forward.
  Mr. SCHNEIDER. Thank you. I want to again thank Representative 
Collins for holding this important conversation tonight to talk about 
the dangers and long-term implications of a nuclear deal with Iran.
  I think it is both timely and necessary that Congress continue this 
conversation and push hard to convince the Senate that further action 
is required to help prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
  Personally, I remain most skeptical that the Iranian regime has the 
ability or willingness to live up to the tenets and the terms of the 
Geneva agreement reached with the P5+1.
  We have worked diligently over the years, over a decade, to maintain 
a robust sanctions regime that brought Iran to the negotiating table, 
but it was not to come to the table that the sanctions were put in 
place. These sanctions were put in place to ensure or achieve the end 
of Iran's nuclear program; to ensure that Iran is not a nuclear-capable 
country.
  In July, as was mentioned, this body passed, by a vote of 400-20, the 
most sweeping sanctions to date in order to address the ongoing threat 
of a nuclear Iran. That legislation must be taken up in the Senate to 
hold Iran accountable, to ensure that Iran fully understands the 
implications of not completing a deal in 6 months that will eliminate 
its nuclear threat.
  However, there are several points about the deal reached with Iran 
that are particularly worrisome. First, this interim agreement cannot 
be allowed to become the permanent agreement. The so-called joint plan 
of action is fraught with dangers, including allowing Iran to continue 
enrichment at the 5 percent level; allowing Iran to continue 
construction at the Iraq plutonium reactor, which has no purpose other 
than for military uses; allowing the ongoing enhancement of Iran's 
technical capabilities.
  This agreement does not address Iran's ongoing program, its long-term 
activities. It doesn't require Iran to fully disclose all of its 
activities. This agreement does not address any covert sites which are 
not yet discovered or disclosed by Iran.
  This deal, as I said, is fraught with dangers, and our purpose in 
Congress and the United States and with our allies must be to try to 
navigate the joint plan of action to a permanent agreement that will 
ultimately freeze Iran's activities, roll them back, and require Iran 
to dismantle Natanz, Fordow, Arak and other facilities and, ultimately, 
and most importantly, permanently block and permanently close any path 
Iran has to a nuclear capability.
  That includes no enrichment, no plutonium reactor, full transparency, 
full disclosure, unlimited and unfettered inspections.
  With that, I will yield back to Mr. Collins.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I appreciate my colleague. You know, you 
brought up a great point there, and I want to continue to go into the 
history here because I don't want individuals who may be watching 
tonight or watching this later to simply look at this in a vacuum as 
saying that we are just disagreeing with the policy, and there was a 
diplomatic outreach that was given and we are not giving it an 
opportunity.
  I think, from where I am from and I know you are as well, the past is 
prologue to what happens now, and I think what we have got to 
understand is the regime has not inherently changed. The regime in Iran 
still has just core issues with the West and especially with Israel.
  I think you hit it perfectly and, before I continue, you brought it 
up again. The idea of these negotiations were not to find a placated 
middle. The desire is to find an end to the Iranian nuclear regime 
because we just don't trust them, and I think that's the inherent 
problem.
  Let's look at it here from a perspective. President Rouhani was 
recently afforded a great opportunity to show a stark contrast between 
himself and the former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Mr. 
Rouhani was asked whether he believed the Holocaust was a myth. Rouhani 
answered: I am not a historian, I am a politician.
  Netanyahu responded: It doesn't take a historian to recognize the 
existence of the Holocaust; it just requires being a human being.
  Rouhani is captive to the religious zealots in his country and the 
policies of the Supreme Ruler Ayatollah Khomeini. Rouhani is so 
beholden to the regime's ideology that when the White House offered the 
opportunity for the newly-elected Iranian President to shake hands with 
our President, Rouhani's staff declined because of the fear of how it 
would be perceived in Iran.
  Now, think about that a second. If a handshake can be turned into 
political gangrene for the Iranian President, how can we believe that 
any of Iran's diplomatic overtures will result in any real change?
  I don't want the U.S. to go down the same path with Iran that it did 
with North Korea. In 2005, it was then seen as a landmark deal. North 
Korea agreed to abandon its nuclear weapons program in return for 
economic security and energy benefits. Twelve months later North Korea 
tested its first nuclear weapon.
  Let's not forget the immortal precept: Fool me once; let's not be 
fooled twice.
  I would like to take time to highlight a few points from Prime 
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech before the U.N. This speech 
occurred nearly a week after Rouhani spoke before the international 
body.
  But before doing so, I want to yield back to my friend from Illinois 
as well, and just as we continue this conversation, again, history 
matters and what has gone on in the past, I believe, is very crucial 
into understanding why many of us on the Hill, bipartisanly, do not 
trust the Iranian regime.

  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. SCHNEIDER. Thank you. I think it is critical to emphasize the 
bipartisan aspect of the support in Congress for a strong sanctioned 
regime, and the security and protection of our allies, in particular, 
Israel.
  As my colleague mentioned, in October, I, with Luke Messer, authored 
a letter to the President calling on him to push forward with 
sanctions. There were 78 members of the freshman class who signed on to 
that letter, Republican and Democrat, shoulder to shoulder, standing 
together, saying we must be strong.
  Again, the interim agreement cannot move to anything near what is a 
permanent agreement. More importantly, it cannot lead to the collapse 
of the sanctions regime. We have worked too hard and come too far to 
let that happen.
  In my opinion, I think we need to ensure that the architecture of the 
sanctions are reinforced, are broadened, are deepened and hardened, so 
that 6 months from now, if Iran fails to live to up to its commitment 
and the consequences are sufficiently severe, Iran understands that the 
likelihood of further action, all actions on the table, including a 
credible military threat, remain, so that ultimately Iran understands 
this is the moment, this is the time to abandon their nuclear 
aspirations.
  This is why the sanctions are put in place. This is why it is 
critical for the Senate to pass the bill we passed in July and make 
sure Iran understands that not adhering to the agreement, not 
abandoning its nuclear program, will have dire consequences in 6 
months. With that, I yield back.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman. Again, it is a 
matter of now. This has been going on for a while. This has not built 
up over the last couple of weeks that we discovered this problem. This 
has been a problem with Iran for, you know, going on years now that 
they have been building this program and really bunkering this program 
now, which I think your call for

[[Page H7380]]

transparency really highlights the need that--it is amazing now that 
all of a sudden they want to be open, but, yet, they only want to be 
open in a way that they control. But they do want the money.

                              {time}  2000

  I mean, I think it goes back to--we can sort of go back here to a 
quote from an American film, ``Show me the money.'' When you show me 
the money, you show me Iran's intentions at this point. Because they 
want the money that has been held up by the sanctions. Why? Because the 
sanctions have worked. This administration needs to understand: the 
sanctions have worked. They have worked in a way that we have not seen 
before. It is not time to abandon those.
  But as I mentioned just a few minutes ago, I wanted to take some time 
to highlight a few points from Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's 
speech. And if you haven't had a chance to hear it--I know my colleague 
has--many times, we can talk about problems but we don't offer 
solutions. And I think what he did is to not only highlight the 
problems with this administration and Iran, but also to engage in 
solutions as well. So I want to look at it for just a moment.
  Netanyahu started his speech discussing the rich history that the 
Jewish and Persian nations share. For those who remember--in my case, 
from Sunday school class--over 2,000 years ago, the Babylonian Empire 
released the captive Jews to develop a homeland of their own. This 
historic friendship lasted until a radical regime came into power in 
Iran in 1979.
  Netanyahu quickly pointed out how unlikely it is that Rouhani is 
truly a moderate. Rouhani was one of six candidates selected by the 
regime to run for office. That is six out of 700 candidates who desired 
to run. I think there is a little bit of picking going on here.
  Rouhani led the Iranian version of the CIA and the NSA. During his 
time leading Iran's Supreme National Security Council, 85 people were 
murdered at a Jewish community center in Argentina by Iranian henchmen. 
Iran has its fingerprints on the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi 
Arabia that killed 19 American soldiers. Rouhani was the chief nuclear 
negotiator between 2003 and 2005.
  This ``moderate'' Iranian developed a strategy encouraging diplomatic 
engagement but never changed its approach to increasing its nuclear 
proliferation abilities. Netanyahu cites a book Rouhani wrote in 2011 
in which he wrote:

       While we were talking to the Europeans in Tehran, we were 
     installing equipment in Isfahan.

  Isn't that a telling thought right there?
  Rouhani touts his negotiation skills by saying:

       By creating a calm environment, we were able to complete 
     the work in Isfahan.

  Isfahan is a facility where the uranium ore called yellowcake is 
converted into an enrichable form. Since 2002, Iran has built two 
secret facilities to further its nuclear ambitions. Several years 
later, it was caught building a uranium enrichment station underground.
  If Iran is only seeking peaceful nuclear energy, why is it building 
structures in a clandestine way? Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the obvious 
answer there is clear.
  Netanyahu also asked why Iran is trying to develop intercontinental 
ballistic missiles if not to further its nuclear ambitions. ICBMs are 
purposefully designed to be transportation vehicles for a nuclear 
weapon. As Netanyahu pointed out:

       You don't build ICBMs to carry TNT thousands of miles away.

  The Prime Minister is clearly troubled in light of the U.S.' history 
with North Korea.

       Just like North Korea before it, Iran professes to 
     seemingly peaceful intentions. It talks the talk of 
     nonproliferation while seeking to ease sanctions and buy more 
     time for its nuclear program.

  He understands that America has been at a similar negotiating table 
and blinked. Instead of offering mere rhetoric or hollow gestures, as 
the Iranian President has done, Netanyahu offers a solution. He lays 
out steps the Iranian regime can make to show a willingness to 
negotiate and possibly have sanctions lifted.
  Netanyahu proposes four steps for Iran, some that we need to look at 
as well:
  Number one, ending all uranium enrichment;
  Number two, removing its inventory of enriched uranium, similar to 
Syria's handing over of its chemical weapons;
  Number three, dismantling its infrastructure for nuclear breakout 
capability; and
  Number four, stopping all work at the heavy water reactor in Iraq 
aimed at the production of plutonium.
  These steps would cease Iran's nuclear weapons program and eliminate 
its ability to conduct a nuclear strike.
  Netanyahu does not just leave the ball, though, in Iran's court, but 
asks the international community for assistance to ensure Iran's 
compliance. He laid out a three-point strategy:
  First, keep up the sanctions. If Iran advances its nuclear weapons 
program during negotiations, strengthen the sanctions. That is sort of 
the way it works. I know, you know, when I need something and I get out 
of line, you get pulled back in. You don't get more freedom just by 
saying you are going to do something more. I know your children and my 
children, alike, in dealing with that, as you look ahead, there are 
more restrictions if you don't do something right. That is a great 
first step;
  Second, don't agree to a partial deal. A partial deal would lift 
sanctions that have taken years to put in place in exchange for 
cosmetic concessions that will take only weeks for Iran to reverse;
  Third, lift the sanctions only when Iran fully dismantles its nuclear 
program.
  Netanyahu concludes his speech in a somewhat conciliatory tone. He 
said:

       I am prepared to make a historic compromise for genuine and 
     enduring peace, but I will never compromise on the security 
     of my people and of my country, the one and only Jewish 
     State.

  Considering Israel's hostile neighbors, I understand the Prime 
Minister's vigilant tone. The U.S. has strongly supported Israel's 
resolve in the past, and I hope this administration will not relent. 
Israel has the most to lose if Iran gets a bomb, and that is something 
we can't ever forget.

  With that, I yield back to my friend.
  Mr. SCHNEIDER. Thank you again.
  And you hit on a crucial point. For Israel, a nuclear Iran is an 
existential threat. It is life and death at the front lines. But also 
as you touched on, Israel has no greater a friend than the United 
States, and that relationship is a strategic relationship for both 
parties. We have no better ally. Israel is the only stable democratic 
country in the region. Israel is reliable. Israel is our friend, and we 
will always remember that.
  I think it is also important to understand the breadth and scope of 
the Iranian program. You touched on that Iran is seeking to control the 
nuclear fuel cycle, from mining to yellowcake to enrichment to, 
ultimately, weapons grade. And that is a program that has spread 
throughout the country, from Isfahan to Natanz and Fordow and, 
ultimately, in the weaponization area at Parchin.
  The second piece is weaponization. It is one thing to control the 
fuel cycle; it is another thing to turn that into a nuclear weapon. 
Iran is working aggressively to do that, and this deal does not address 
their weaponization programs.
  And finally, once you control the fuel cycle, once you are able to 
have a weapon, it is delivery. And Iran, with their intercontinental 
ballistic missiles, ICBMs, is working to develop a capability to 
deliver such a weapon of mass destruction not just in this region but 
throughout the world.
  Iran, for Israel, is an existential threat. But Iran, for the region, 
and Iran, for the world, is as extreme a threat as it is for Israel. We 
must prevent a nuclear Iran not just because Israel is our ally, but 
because a nuclear Iran is a threat to the whole region--a threat to 
nuclear destabilization, a nuclear arms race among other countries in 
the region--and that is what we are focused on. That is why it is so 
critical at this moment, as Iran is months away from the capability of 
having a nuclear weapon, we focus aggressively on closing the 
pathways--freezing, reversing, dismantling, and, ultimately, 
permanently blocking any pathway Iran has for a nuclear weapon.

[[Page H7381]]

  With that, I yield back to my friend from Georgia.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I thank the gentleman.
  One of the things that amazes me in what you just said is that we are 
so close and are getting closer every day for their capability to be, 
for the lack of a better term, perfected. They have been working at it. 
They have been hiding. They have been doing those things. And now to 
come at this last moment and get ready to give an infusion of cash, 
which is what they are going to be getting, to the tune of billions of 
dollars and to continue to allow the enrichment process is just really 
disturbing here.
  I am not seeing, as I said earlier, the end game except that, from my 
perspective, there was the old philosophy. There was the old foreign 
policy of one of my party's heroes, one that I believe served this 
country well, and it was Ronald Reagan when he said that the foreign 
policy was, if we win, you lose. And I think, at this point, what is 
concerning me is that in this deal, if we lose, they win, and rest of 
the world is put in jeopardy.
  And you made a great statement. Not only is Iran an existential 
threat to Israel, but as I often hear, well, why do we worry about 
Iran? That is another country. Why do we need to get involved? Because 
it is a direct and immediate threat to the U.S. as well.
  We have troops within missile range. We have troops that are in 
international waters that could be literally affected by the military 
force in Iran, and I think those are issues that we have got to address 
as we move forward.
  It is not something that we can just put in this little corner. Iran, 
in some ways, is much different than North Korea, with their assets and 
with their capabilities, and we can't deny where they are in the world. 
And I think that is the concern that I have with this administration. 
That is why we are here tonight talking about this. And I want to 
discuss some more about this, but I will yield back to my friend.
  Mr. SCHNEIDER. Thank you.
  As you said, the question, why do we care about Iran? It is actually 
a question I don't hear that often in my district because I think a lot 
of the people in my community understand that, when someone makes a 
threat to annihilate another country, you listen to the threat.
  When we were in Israel--37 Democratic Members traveled to Israel in 
August, followed by a comparable sized group of Republican Members. On 
our trip, we had a chance to hear from a former chief of intelligence, 
Amos Yadlin. And he made the statement that the only existential threat 
to Israel is the marriage of ideology of destruction with nuclear 
capability. We face that threat now. That is why we are here having 
this conversation. That is why, over the last decade, we have worked 
diligently to create the architecture of the sanctions regime that did, 
indeed, bring Iran to the negotiating table.
  This joint interim agreement keeps the sanctions regime in place. But 
over the next 6 months, it is our responsibility--the United States, 
the United States Congress, our allies--to make sure that that 
sanctions regime not only stays in place, but stays robust and becomes 
stronger so that, again, Iran understands the challenges.
  I have said many times that history is going to judge us with one 
question on Iran: Did we prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon? 
This moment in history faces us at this moment in time. This agreement 
must not be allowed to be permanent. The United States and our allies 
must ensure that Iran does not further move down the path to nuclear 
capability.
  Iran is estimated to be months--at most, a year--away from a nuclear 
weapon. The next 6 months, if we are going to enforce this agreement, 
must make sure that Iran doesn't get any closer--not one moment, not 1 
month, not 1 inch. This agreement has to be put in place in such a way 
that we can guarantee Iran is not moving forward.

  What do some of those actions require from us? What I hope to do in 
the Foreign Affairs Committee and together with my Republican 
colleagues is to try to create a specific understanding of the 
timetables for implementation. The joint agreement doesn't lay that 
out. I want to know: What are the milestones? What are the expectations 
and deliverables that Iran must arrive at at each milestone? What is 
the proof we are going to require of Iran to demonstrate that they have 
achieved the specifications of the agreement at the specified time? And 
most importantly, what are the consequences if Iran doesn't achieve its 
milestones, if Iran uses its agreement to even start or try to delay?
  We need to make sure we stay vigilant and we stay diligent to ensure 
that Iran can't move forward on its aspirations for a nuclear weapon.
  With that, I yield back to my colleague.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. You are exactly correct in how we move 
forward. Again, when you just put aspirational goals out there, you are 
going to get aspirational results sometimes, and that means nothing. 
And I think that is really where I see this agreement right now.
  But I want to take, again--I believe that not only do you have a 
``what'' and the reasons, but there is also sort of the ``why'' factor. 
And I have talked about that a lot from both sides of the aisle. Many 
times, we might not talk about the ``why'' a lot.
  But I want to talk just for a moment about some of things that we are 
doing as well, about Israel and our relationship just from a ``why'' 
perspective, why this matters so much and the history that we have, for 
some who may be listening.
  The U.S. and Israeli relationship really goes back to after World War 
II, and it had become apparent to the international community that the 
Jews needed a homeland of their own. In 1948, President Harry Truman 
recognized the State of Israel.
  During the cold war, Israel was a key ally in stopping the spread of 
communism in the Arab world. The U.S. and Israel had a joint strategic 
interest in defeating aggressors in the Middle East seeking to 
influence their neighbors and disrupt the status quo, especially if 
they had Moscow's backing.
  President John F. Kennedy told Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir:

       The United States has a special relationship with Israel in 
     the Middle East, really comparable only to what it has with 
     Britain over a wide range of world affairs.

  Since that bonding experience, the U.S. and Israel have approached 
their strategy to the region as a team, as a team. Of the five major 
Arab-Israeli military conflicts that have occurred over the decades, 
the one that highlights the U.S.-Israeli union the most is the Yom 
Kippur War. In this conflict, Israel was fighting the usual suspects--
Egypt to the southeast along the Sinai Peninsula and Syria to the north 
along the Golan Heights.
  This joint Arab initiative garnered the military support of Jordan 
and Iraq, while Egyptians received military hardware from the Soviet 
Union. Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack on October 6,1973, 
which was Israel's most holy day, Yom Kippur, the day of atonement.
  The war inflicted heavy initial losses on Israel's army and air 
force, and by October 8, Israel's military prowess was in serious 
jeopardy. A quick call was made to Washington. The operation to 
resupply Israel began, code name Operation Nickel Grass.

                              {time}  2015

  By the end of Nickel Grass, the U.S. had shipped 22,395 tons of 
material to Israel. Israel received between 34 to 40 fighter bombers, 
46 attack airplanes, 12 C-130 cargo planes, 8 helicopters, 200 tanks, 
and tons more of missiles and artillery pieces. It was one of the 
largest airlifts in U.S. history. The total cost of the military 
hardware delivered is estimated to be $4.14 billion.
  The airlift was a major shift in U.S.-Israeli relations. It brought 
about a greater U.S. involvement in Middle East affairs. After the Yom 
Kippur War, the United States quadrupled its foreign aid to Israel and 
replaced France as Israel's largest arms supplier. The doctrine of 
maintaining Israel's ``qualitative military edge'' over its Arab 
neighbors is said to have originated from this war.
  This is where you and I, my colleague, stepped in.
  I find this commonsense doctrine very important and aim to strengthen 
it with the legislation that we introduce, the Israel QME Enhancement 
Act. My bill requires the President to

[[Page H7382]]

report to Congress every 2 years the status of military sales to Middle 
Eastern countries other than Israel. H.R. 1992 ensures Congress is able 
to maintain its oversight of weapon sales in the region.
  Furthermore, the legislation expands the scope of QME to bring to 
attention cyber and asymmetric warfare, something QME doesn't currently 
cover. During the Yom Kippur War, Israel was in need of conventional 
weapons. In the 21st century, war is being increasingly fought in 
cyberspace. Large conventional armies are less likely to mobilize, and 
countries are under siege from foreign terrorists, as we saw in Kenya.
  Israel has stood out as the only country in the Middle East that 
promotes democratic, free market principles. Much like the U.S., Israel 
has an independent judicial system that protects the rights of 
individuals. Israel is governed by the rule of law and safeguards the 
freedoms of speech, press, and religion. As the U.S. has attempted to 
encourage Arab nations to espouse the tenets of a transparent society, 
they need to look no further than their democratic neighbor.
  I want to pause right there and again yield to my friend as we 
continue this conversation and move forward on why this matters and 
bringing up these ideas of a relationship that is deeply rooted in 
history and of mutual sharing, and not one seemingly behind the back of 
the other.
  Mr. SCHNEIDER. You talk about the relationship. As you noted, Harry 
S. Truman was the first to recognize the new state of Israel in 1948, 
after the British left the mandate. Immediately upon its declaration of 
independence, Israel was attacked by five nations. Throughout its 
history, Israel has faced hostility from its neighbors throughout the 
region.
  Since 1973, the Yom Kippur War, as a 12-year-old boy I remember 
vividly coming out of synagogue that day, sitting in the back seat of 
my parents' car, listening to the radio, and not knowing if Israel was 
going to survive. It was an existential threat.
  The United States and Israel have had an unbreakable relationship 
that continues to be to this very day an unbreakable, critically 
important relationship. Right now, the relationship between the United 
States and Israel has never been better across a whole variety of 
aspects: sharing of intelligence and sharing of military expertise. The 
United States has helped and jointly developed with Israel David's 
Sling, the Arrow system, and most recently helped fund the Iron Dome, 
which proved to be a game-changer in Israel's war in Gaza exactly a 
year ago this month. In that war, you will recall, rockets rained down 
on southern Israel from Gaza. Yet the Iron Dome system was able to 
intercept virtually all of those rockets, allowing Israel to avoid 
having to invade Gaza by land, achieving its goals and saving countless 
lives on both sides of the border. It is the U.S.-Israel relationship 
that allows the development of such systems as Iron Dome and others.
  I am also proud that we were able to work together--and I thank you 
for your support--for the Israel Qualitative Military Edge Enhancement 
Act. What used to take 4 years of review, at a time when changes in 
military capabilities are accelerating at an unprecedented pace, this 
act reduces to 2 years.
  As you said, what used to be focused on strictly conventional 
weaponry, we understand that the current conflicts are taking place as 
much in cyberspace as airspace and ground. It is critical that Israel 
maintain its critical advantage, its qualitative military edge, in all 
aspects of that.
  I was particularly proud that the Foreign Affairs Committee 
unanimously voted that bill to come to the floor, and I hope we will 
take it up here shortly as well.
  The relationship between the United States and Israel is far more 
than military and security. We share values. We share understanding in 
science, developments of new medical technologies, medicines, and 
developments in agriculture.
  The relationship between the United States and Israel is so strong 
because we share so much, and we understand that even on the security 
level, as much as Israel relies on the United States, the United States 
has benefited from Israel's security measures as well.
  One must think no further than the Iraq war and go back to 1981, when 
Israel, against world condemnation, attacked the nuclear reactor at 
Osirak. One can only think what would have happened when the United 
States had its own conflict with Iraq in 1991, or 2003, if Iraq had had 
nuclear weapons.
  The U.S.-Israel relationship is critical. It has been that way for 
the 65 years of Israel's existence. It has been incredibly important 
since 1973. We wouldn't have the Camp David Accords of 1979 and the 
peace between Israel and Egypt if not for the U.S. engagement. We 
wouldn't have the peace between Israel and Jordan if not for the work 
of the U.S. administrations.
  It is critical that as we stand here fighting so hard for America's 
security, fighting so hard to prevent a nuclear Iran, that we 
understand that the mutual relationship between United States and 
Israel is a critical component of all of that.

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I thank the gentleman.
  You have hit on it, and that is going back to this partnership. I 
think that is the best way to describe it. The partnership between U.S. 
and Israel, in so many ways, the values that we share and that you 
spoke of and the many things that have come about out of our 
relationship over the years not only benefit each country but the world 
around.
  Most recently, Israel has been instrumental in assisting the U.S. in 
the global war on terrorism. Since 9/11, U.S. and Israel have formed a 
strategic partnership to face a new and challenging world. The two 
nations are currently partners ranging from terrorism, proliferation, 
spread of radical Islamic ideology, narcotics, counterfeiting, weapons 
smuggling, and cyberwarfare.
  There is cooperation on a wide range of intelligence-sharing programs 
that monitor terrorist and nation-state activities in the Middle East. 
Since 9/11, the U.S. and Israel have strengthened their homeland 
security partnership. The two nations have worked collectively on 
aviation, border and port, and mall and cybersecurity. This information 
and intelligence-sharing improves the security of both nations.
  Israel has even provided tactical assistance in protecting U.S. 
troops as they fight terrorist organizations. Currently carried in any 
soldier's first aid kit is the ``Israeli bandage,'' which acts as an 
immediate cauterizing agent upon contact. As someone who served in Iraq 
and in part of our Air Force and has worked with our Army and others, 
this is something that I have seen save lives. It is, again, a bonding 
between our two countries.
  The Israelis developed the Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System used by 
the U.S. Air Force and Navy and several aircraft. It allows pilots to 
aim sensors and weapons wherever the pilot is looking.
  An Israeli manufacturer specializing in add-armor has provided 
protection for U.S. Army vehicles currently being used in Afghanistan. 
The armor combats against rocket-propelled grenade attacks.
  Several U.S. tactical ballistic missile systems use subcomponents 
developed and tested in Israel. These subcomponents are used in Patriot 
missiles. Another Israeli innovation saving American soldiers' lives is 
a radio frequency device that detects IEDs. As someone who saw the 
horror of an IED and the result thereof, that is something that I hold 
in great esteem.
  You have already mentioned the Arrow antiballistic missile, David's 
Sling, and the Iron Dome. All of these have paid off. Our two 
militaries come together in missile defense training, including the 
biannual Juniper Cobra exercise in which they integrate tactics to 
counter the growing threat of ballistic missiles and long-range 
rockets. During 2012, this drill was combined with ``Austere 
Challenge,'' the largest joint bilateral exercise ever conducted 
between two allied forces.
  But our relationship is not just linked by defense and security 
operations. We are also engaged in cooperative efforts concerning 
energy, which is often not talked about. This is why this is so 
important to me, and important, I believe, to the world. It is not just 
a one-sided relationship; it is a partnership that we both can benefit 
from.
  Both countries realize the hazards of being too dependent on oil. In 
2008, a

[[Page H7383]]

cooperative agreement was signed between the two countries to produce 
alternative energy sources. This agreement brought together the U.S. 
Department of Energy and Israel's Ministry of Energy and Water 
Resources.
  The joint venture has generated $20 million in private sector 
investment in such areas as smart grid management, solar technology, 
and alternative fuels. The investment in this joint program has yielded 
greater revenue than the congressional investment of $6.3 million. 
Israel has matched Congress' appropriations dollar-for-dollar. It is 
truly an equal partnership.
  BrightSource Energy, a company that operates in the U.S. and Israel, 
is constructing the largest solar thermal energy project using 
technology developed in Israel. When the solar plant in California's 
Mojave Desert is operational, it will produce enough electricity to 
power 140,000 American homes.
  Recently, a large natural gas field was discovered off Israel's 
shore. Noble Energy, a Houston-based energy company, has partnered with 
Israel's energy companies to develop its offshore fields. These 
opportunities strengthen the existing bond and create a less oil-
dependent U.S. and world.
  The U.S.-Israeli economic partnership is one of the most unique for 
the U.S. Our first free trade agreement was with the nation of Israel 
in 1985. In the past quarter of a century, U.S.-Israel trade has grown 
by 500 percent and exceeds $78 million daily. More Israeli companies 
are trading on the NASDAQ than any company outside the United States 
and China.
  U.S. firms such as Intel, Microsoft, Google, and Apple select Israel 
as one of their top destinations for international research and 
development. The free market environment in Israel is such that it 
attracts businesses seeing potential to invest and grow.
  Even Berkshire Hathaway invests in Israel. When asked about why 
Warren Buffet invests in Israel, he answered that the economic spirit 
of both the U.S. and Israel is what makes it a no-nonsense investment.
  Investment isn't one-sided. Between 2000 and 2009, Israeli companies 
have invested more than $50 billion in the U.S. Israel is one of the 
biggest providers of investment in the United States. More than 15 U.S. 
States maintain offices in Israel.
  Also, not just economics, not just military, but humanitarian aid as 
well. Assistance was provided by Israel to victims of Hurricanes 
Katrina and Sandy, as well as to the refugees in Rwanda. Israel 
established field hospitals there, and several doctors and nurses were 
sent with medical supplies and vaccinations. Israeli humanitarian 
groups provided water desalination equipment in Sudan. In all, Israel 
provided $7 million in humanitarian aid.

  Haiti received a comprehensive hospital team from Israel. Eighteen 
tons of supplies and a medical team were sent to Japan in the aftermath 
of the 2011 earthquake. A friend in the region, Turkey, received a 
total of 50 mobile structures and 80 housing structures to aid the 
victims of its 2011 earthquake.
  When you look at this kind of cooperation, when you look at this kind 
of partnership, it is still hard for me to believe that we are here 
talking tonight about an agreement that has the potential for such 
great harm to not only ourselves, but to such a good ally and a 
partner.
  With that, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. SCHNEIDER. As we wrap up, let me just again express my sincerest 
gratitude for allowing me to participate this evening with you to talk 
about really two critically important issues: our unbreakable, special 
relationship with the free, independent Jewish state of Israel, and our 
necessary commitment to ensure that Iran never, ever is allowed to get 
a nuclear weapon capability. These two things come together at this 
moment in a crucial way.
  I am reminded, as we close, of a famous saying by a rabbi and ancient 
scholar. Because, as you touched on, the United States and Israel share 
more than just a security arrangement. They share more than technology, 
even though a lot of the companies you mentioned--Apple, Intel, and 
Google--have more research dollars invested in Israel than any other 
country outside the United States.
  Both countries, I am proud to say--the United States and Israel--have 
a sense of an obligation to give back to the rest of the world, to lean 
in to make a difference in peoples' lives.
  You have talked about Haiti. One of the stories I have always loved 
is that one of the first relief ships to make it to Haiti was an Israel 
field hospital. There is a story about a woman who was giving birth 
shortly after the earthquake. She named her child Israel in honor of 
the doctors who flew in from Tel Aviv immediately after the 
earthquake--because they understand the need for emergency care and 
emergency times.

                              {time}  2030

  But they were joined there by efforts of our own soldiers, United 
States soldiers, who understood in our own hemisphere and also around 
the world the need to give help, to lend a hand, when people are in 
need. We saw the same thing in the Philippines after the tragic 
typhoon. We saw American ships coming from nearby, and we saw Israelis 
and Americans coming from far away. Those are the types of things that 
unite us.
  As Rabbi Hillel said:

       If I am not for myself, who will be? But if I am only for 
     myself, what am I?

  The third line of his saying, I think, is crucial at this moment as 
we look to Iran:

       If not now, when?

  We need to make sure that the United States, that the P5+1 and that 
our regional allies can come together and guarantee that Iran does not 
become a nuclear-capable country. We need to make sure that the 
regional security is maintained and that the nuclear weapon is 
prevented. That is our role, and that is how history will judge us. 
That is why we are here talking tonight.
  So, again, I thank you from the bottom of my heart. I thank you for 
the work we have done together. It is a privilege to work with you, and 
I look forward to working together on other issues, including this.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I appreciate my friend for being here tonight 
as you have added so much to this debate, but I also appreciate your 
time here in standing up for what we both feel is a very important role 
in the American-Israeli relationship.
  You see, Mr. Speaker, I believe that Israel is an ally well worth 
protecting. We recognize and understand the serious threat posed to 
Israel from nation-states such as Iran as well as from radical Islamic 
terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and al Qaeda. U.S.-Israel 
cooperation helps ensure that Israel will remain a shining example of 
what democratic ideals and a freedom-loving society can achieve.
  I agree with my friend. Iran cannot be allowed to develop nuclear 
weapons. That is not a negotiating point. That is just a fact. When we 
understand that, I will support real solutions, with real triggers, 
with real time lines in order to dismantle a program that has not been 
based on a freedom-loving people just wanting an energy source but one 
that has been based on deception, that has been based on deceit, and 
that has been based on an underlying hatred of the West and especially 
of Israel. We cannot let that happen.
  I pray that this administration and the others that have joined in 
this agreement do not fall victim to a pretty PR campaign. Israel has 
been a beacon of liberty despite the reign of despots all around them. 
Israel has never allowed a threat of attack to shake their recognition 
that the best way to thwart extremist ideals is to stay free. Now is 
the time for America to renew its commitment to Israel.
  God bless this union and the United States.
  I thank the gentleman from Illinois, my friend, for being here and 
for the work that we have done together, and I do look forward to the 
QME bill's coming to this floor, of its passing in the Senate, and of 
seeing the President sign it as a good faith effort to show that his 
commitment is there for Israel as well. I look forward to that day 
being with you as that happens.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________