[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.
____________________