Congressional Record, Volume 160 Issue 141 (Tuesday, November 18, 2014)

[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 141 (Tuesday, November 18, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H8064-H8067]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

IRAN AND THE JOINT PLAN OF ACTION

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rice of South Carolina). Under the
Speaker's announced policy of January 3, 2013, the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Lamborn) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of
the majority leader.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with some other colleagues to
talk about the important issue of Iran.
As you may know, on November 24, a mere 6 days from now, the Joint
Plan of Action expires. And what that means is that the United States
and the other P5+1--and that means the permanent members of the
Security Council plus another country, six countries--have been
negotiating, with the U.S. taking the lead, with Iran to come to some
kind of agreement if perhaps Iran would stop its mad quest to develop
weapons of mass destruction.
Many of us are concerned, Mr. Speaker, here in Congress that we may
not end up with a very good negotiated settlement. Now, the President
has said that it is better to have no deal than to have a bad deal, and
Secretary of State John Kerry has said the same thing, and that is
exactly what we want to see happen.
I am joined tonight by several colleagues who will be talking about
this important issue. So I would like to just move right now and yield
to a good friend and colleague, a member of the Armed Services
Committee, Jackie Walorski of Indiana.
Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Speaker, with a comprehensive nuclear agreement
deadline less than a week away, the need to stop Iran from obtaining a
nuclear weapon has never been greater. With its thousands of gas
centrifuges, Iran now has the capability to enrich uranium to a grade
suitable for use in nuclear reactors or to a higher grade suitable for
use in nuclear warheads.
Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism and continues with
heinous human rights abuses, oppressing freedom of speech, religion,
and press, and more. Additionally, Iran continues to oppose our
national security interests

[[Page H8065]]

and those of our key allies while oppressing their own people.
There is no question that a nuclear-armed Iran would dramatically
change the balance of power in the Middle East and threaten freedom and
peace for the rest of the world. It could also encourage other Middle
Eastern nations to develop nuclear weapons on their own, further
reducing our influence in that critical region of the world.
For us to be able to trust Iran, along with the rest of the
international community, Iran must change their behavior. A real
possibility exists that a deadline extension provides them with an
opportunity to build a nuclear bomb. In light of this, the only real
solution is to force Iran to make serious concessions and robust
sanctions.
We must be especially careful about any decisions to lift or ease
sanctions. Once lifted, sanctions cannot easily be restored. The risk
of a miscalculation or a misstep in the weeks and months ahead is very
real and grave, and the threat of nuclear war is catastrophic. If there
is to be any hope of reaching a peaceful deal, and if Iran wants
prosperity and success for its people, it must cooperate with the IAEA,
stop its pursuit of a nuclear weapon, stop its sponsorship of
terrorism, and stop its human rights abuses.
Mr. LAMBORN. I would like to ask the gentlelady, you mentioned an
important point. You talked about what would happen if Iran did, God
forbid, achieve the ability to have a nuclear bomb.
What would other countries in the region do? What are some of the
countries you feel would be compelled to have their own version of a
nuclear weapon?

{time} 1815

Mrs. WALORSKI. I appreciate the question from my friend from
Colorado. I think that as we have served together in many of the
committees, especially the Armed Services Committee, and we have looked
at the map of that area, knowing that if the door is open to Iran,
every single other country in the Middle East that does not have a
nuclear weapon will aspire to do so. And let's not forget that in the
middle of all of this chaos that is being created by Iran, and
unlimited ways that cannot be verified of what they are doing because
there is no cooperation whatsoever, let's not forget that our one and
only ally that is sitting over there in the Middle East, they just had
another terrorist episode of rabbis and American citizens killed.
Worshipping in a synagogue is their first target. We know from all of
the work that we have done in the committee during this Congress that
the United States of America is their target as well.
So I thank the gentleman for yielding, and for the question.
Mr. LAMBORN. I appreciate that, and I think we would agree that of
the other countries in the region almost without a doubt Saudi Arabia
would want its own bomb.
Mrs. WALORSKI. For sure.
Mr. LAMBORN. Egypt would want its own bomb. Turkey would want its own
bomb. And others. Others would aspire, but they would have the money
and possibly the technology to actually achieve that, or buy it from
another country.
Mrs. WALORSKI. True. And let's not forget, given the culture right
now in the Middle East and given what we are looking at right now with
all of the other instability, with ISIL, with questions from this
administration, with a strength-through-peace policy a long grasp away,
and let's not forget that we have heard time and time again over just
the few years that I have been in Congress, from our friends and our
allies who no longer trust us--and we know that our enemies no longer
fear us--that if we open that door to a nuclear Iran, we will never get
back the threat of a nuclear bomb. I appreciate the question.
Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to invite another Member to speak. Ron
DeSantis represents part of the State of Florida, and I am privileged
to call him a colleague and a friend. I now yield to Mr. DeSantis.
Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, Iran is a totalitarian Islamic state, a
state that has been at war with our country since the Iranian
revolution in 1979. They chant ``death to America'' and consider the
United States to be the Great Satan. And they have acted on their anti-
American beliefs throughout the years.
The revolution was founded, and Iran proceeded to hold more than 50
American Embassy personnel hostage for over 400 days, and they
commandeered our embassy, which is itself an act of war. Iran sponsored
the massacre of 241 U.S. Marines at the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut
in 1983 through their proxy Hezbollah. Iran supported the bombing of
the Khobar Towers in 1996 which killed 19 United States Air Force
personnel and wounded 372 more. During combat operations in Iraq, from
particularly 2006 through 2008, Iranian-backed terror groups killed
hundreds of U.S. servicemembers, often via deadly EFP attacks.
Iran is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, and they have
been so for an awful long time. And yet, and this is very troubling to
myself and certainly to many of my colleagues, the President of the
United States recently saw fit to write a secret letter to the
Ayatollah Khamenei to stress U.S.-Iran ``shared interest'' in battling
the Islamic State. The idea that defeating a terrorist group requires
enlisting the support of the leading state sponsor of terrorism is a
complete nonstarter. It is naive, and it is also dangerous.
Now, in exchange for Iran's support supposedly against fighting ISIS
fighters, will the President in exchange make concessions regarding
Iran's nuclear program? Will he green-light a right for Iran to enrich
uranium for ``peaceful purposes''?
I fear we are heading toward a potentially catastrophic outcome if we
pursue this course of action. One, we know that Iran cannot be trusted
to have any capabilities that could lead to nuclear weapons. They will
not honor their agreements. We cannot even verify all of the facilities
that they have, and consistently we have never been able to do that.
So I think Iran will likely only strike a deal in which they can
cheat and in which they will develop a nuclear weapon. And, of course,
that would be a disaster not only for the region but for the world.
The other possibility alongside that, if you are looking to Iran to
help fight terrorism, which is incredible, even if you are successful
at defeating ISIS by helping Iran, Iran is going to fill that vacuum.
You are going to see a Shia Crescent from the Iran-Afghanistan border
to the Mediterranean Sea. Iraq will be an Iranian puppet state. I know
they had a lot of influence even before ISIS arrived on the scene, but
this will dramatically increase their influence. And, of course, they
have reliable proxies in Lebanon, Hezbollah, and they are one of the
leading supporters of Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
So we need to fight the Islamic State, don't get me wrong, but our
policies should seek to weaken the Sunni extremism that is represented
by the Islamic State and ISIS fighters, and we also want to weaken Iran
and make Iran less powerful throughout the region. I think the Congress
here, we can't allow the President to give away the store in a deal
that he says he is not even willing to submit to the Congress for
approval.
Now we know that Harry Reid will not allow a vote on increased
sanctions against Iran. That means one of the first orders of business
of the new Congress in January, a Congress in which Reid will be
demoted to minority leader, will be to consider and vote on enacting
tough new sanctions against the Iranian regime. I think the flaw in
this whole process has been as the sanctions started to bite, the
administration relaxed the sanctions, gave the Iranian regime a
lifeline, and we have been kind of playing this song and dance ever
since then.
I think me and many of my colleagues here believe that would have
been the time to increase sanctions, make them tougher because
ultimately Iran is going to respond to strength and to firmness. So
this is no time to stand idly by. We in Congress cannot allow a bad
deal to take root that clears the way for Iran to develop nuclear
weapons. And let's just be clear: we do not share any interests with
Iran's terror state. They are an enemy of our country, and they should
be treated as such.

[[Page H8066]]

I would say to my friend from Colorado that I appreciate you
organizing this tonight. I know that we voted long ago to hold Iran
accountable here in the House, and it hasn't gone anywhere in the
Senate. It almost seems as if it has kind of fallen off the radar
screen a little bit here in the Congress. It is important to get this
back on the front burner. I think that under no circumstances can we
just sit here and allow the President to strike a deal which gives Iran
too many concessions, and then have him just go around Congress and
Congress not have any say in it at all.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman what
would happen over in the Senate if Harry Reid were to allow for a vote
on, let's say, the Menendez-Kirk language on tougher sanctions if Iran
leaves the negotiating table?
Mr. DeSANTIS. Well, I think that not only would it pass the Senate--
and we already know in the House it is a clear veto-proof majority
here--I believe we would see a veto-proof majority. And not just the
bare 67 for that, I think you would see over 70 Senators vote for that.
And that is why it is important for us to make our voice heard
because look, the President is the President. He has certain foreign
policy prerogatives, but he is way out of step with the American people
and with the Congress on this issue. And I think this has gone on long
enough. I think we need to make our voice heard.
Mr. LAMBORN. It is interesting, it was tough sanctions that brought
Iran to the negotiating table in the first place. Now the
administration had to be drug kicking and screaming to have tougher
sanctions that Congress initiated and pushed for. They ultimately
relented and enforced those, and I approve of that. But it was not
their initiative. It was Congress's initiative.
Today, as you just said, Ron, Congress is pushing once again, and the
administration for some reason is digging in its heels, and yet tougher
sanctions is what brought Iran to the table. If Iran is serious about
having a deal, what is wrong with saying if it falls apart we will
reimpose tougher sanctions, but if you do do an acceptable deal,
nothing happens along those lines?
Mr. DeSANTIS. Well, part of the problem I see is they have delayed
these deadlines. I think on November 20, they may delay it further. To
me, that may just be a ruse for Iran to be buying time because
ultimately time will be on their side. If they are getting relief from
the sanctions, they can then pursue their objectives as they see them.
I think it is important that we not allow this to just keep going on.
If there is no deal to be had, then let's act and let's hold Iran
accountable immediately.
Mr. LAMBORN. Well, I appreciate your comments and thank you for
saying that. Also, let me ask you one further question. You talked
about Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism and you touched on the fact
that they contributed to the death of some of our finest young men and
women in this country who died in Iraq. Can you elaborate on that?
Mr. DeSANTIS. Yes, absolutely. I think a lot of people know there
were a lot of tough years in Iraq, particularly after the overthrow of
Saddam Hussein. You had a massive insurgency. That initial insurgency
in 2004 in places like Fallujah that reared again in 2005, 2006, and
2007 and was finally defeated by the surge was primarily a Sunni
insurgency, and so that is what a lot of Americans think about when
they think about what is going on in Iraq. And no doubt, that was huge
fighting. We lost very good men and women in that. Eventually we were
able to defeat AQI, I might add, in 2007-2008.
In the Baghdad area and some of the parts of southern Iraq where it
is overwhelmingly Shia, the groups that would rise up against the
United States would be the Shiite militia groups, which are backed and
funded by the Iranian regime. In fact, Iran's Quds force of the
Revolutionary Guard Corps, that is a designated terrorist organization.
Quds force was involved in Iraq. They were known for doing--and we know
about the IED attacks, roadside bombs, those were very serious. They
did EFP attacks, which are explosively formed penetrators, and kind of
the scuttle you would hear in Iraq was that no one wants to get hit by
an IED, obviously, but a lot of people could survive that. If you got
hit by an EFP, it would blow everything to smithereens. So these were
deadly attacks, and you are talking about hundreds and hundreds of U.S.
servicemembers, and it was Iran who was funding that, orchestrating
that.
And even now today in Iraq, you have Quds forces in Baghdad. Some of
these Shiite militias that are fighting ISIS are backed by Iran. I
remember Prime Minister Netanyahu made this point several months ago,
and he knows the region obviously as well as anybody because he has got
to. When you see these Iranian-backed terror groups, and then you see
Sunni terror groups like those represented by ISIS, you don't want to
pick a side there; you want both of them to eventually fail.
So that strategy in order to make that succeed is going to be
different than the President writing a letter to the Ayatollah asking
to ally against ISIS. We have no interest with Iran. The idea that we
are going to align with them, align with them for what? You fight one
terrorist group to reward a state sponsor of terror? That just doesn't
make sense, and I think it is dangerous when coupled with what is going
on with the nuclear negotiations. There is really potential to have
some serious policy miscalculations here that will be detrimental to
our national security and to our allies' national security.
Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you so much for your remarks. You have helped
enlighten everybody on how important it is that we not have a bad deal
with Iran. The President has said that no deal is better than a bad
deal, and yet I am afraid that is what we are tiptoeing to. And in 6
days, if we don't have a deal, I have no doubt that there will be a
request for an extension of time. But I haven't seen up to now, and
there are only 6 days left, that this joint plan of action has
materialized, has produced any kind of solid deal, and that is very
troubling.
Representative DeSantis made a good point about Iran as a state
sponsor of terrorism, in fact, the leading worldwide state sponsor of
terrorism. That is very troubling. For that reason Congress in the past
and the Security Council have said, Iran, you must stop your state
sponsor of terrorism. Both the Security Council of the United Nations
and Congress have said that you need to stop your ballistic missile
program.

{time} 1830

Also the Security Council and Congress have said, ``You need to stop
your nuclear enrichment program.'' Those three elements are not
something that are snatched out of thin air. They have a history. There
is a reason why those three things are so troubling to Congress and to
the Security Council of the United Nations.
For that reason, I offered an amendment during the discussion of the
National Defense Authorization Act on the floor here in the House this
summer saying that those three elements need to be part of a
comprehensive agreement with Iran. The House went along with that,
totally agreed with that.
I want the Senate to act on the NDAA. I hope that they can adopt that
same language because, once again--and I will just repeat--that is
language that has already been agreed to by the House, by the Senate,
by Congress, as well as by the Security Council of the UN.
I want to see, in 6 days, an agreement with Iran where those three
elements are dominant, where we have stopping of their nuclear
enrichment, stopping of their ballistic missile program, and stopping
their state sponsor of terrorism. Anything short of that is going to be
very troubling, Mr. Speaker.
I am concerned that we may have an administration that does not
enforce those three vital elements of a deal, but they need to be part
of a deal.
Our hearts really go out to the families of those who were killed in
that sad and tragic terrorist attack in Jerusalem earlier today. It
just shows that the Middle East is a very troubled place. There are
those who do not want peace, and they will resort to violence and death
and destruction. That is a very sad and tragic thing.
When we look at Iran--and we know that Iran wants to destroy Israel--
and

[[Page H8067]]

yet Israel is only the Little Satan, the United States is the Great
Satan--so when we look at containing Iran, it is not just to protect
Israel--although that is important and vital as far as it goes--but
also Iran is a threat to Europe, to the United States, to the whole
Western World.
Iran has a set of values, at least up until today, where they call
Israel the Little Satan and the U.S. the Great Satan.
Just recently, the President of Iran came out with a plan how he
would go about destroying Israel. This kind of rhetoric is just
unacceptable and tragic. I find it very hard, Mr. Speaker, to trust
Iran with a negotiated agreement that doesn't have those verified
elements, those three vital elements: stopping their nuclear
enrichment, stopping their ballistic missile development, and stopping
the state sponsorship of terrorism.
Mr. Speaker, if we don't have a good agreement in 6 days, I am just
afraid that we need to reimpose the strong sanctions that brought Iran
to the negotiating table in the first place. I know that if the
majority leader of the Senate who will be in office for the next 6
weeks or so--Harry Reid--if he were to allow a vote of the Senate,
there is no doubt they would agree to stronger sanction language.
The Kirk-Menendez language would do just that. The House previously
had passed almost identical language establishing the same doctrine,
that if Iran leaves the negotiating table and does not have an
acceptable deal with the U.S. and the rest of the P5+1, that we will
reimpose tough sanctions.
That obviously was having an effect because that brought them to the
negotiating table. We need to have tough sanctions waiting in the
wings, waiting in reserve, if Iran does not do the right thing.
I don't understand why the administration is fighting and resisting a
vote in the Senate and saying that that will somehow offend or
humiliate or drive away the Iranians. It is what brought them to the
negotiating table in the first place. They understand strength and
force.
Mr. Speaker, there are some people in some countries in this world
that view weakness as provocative and they move in and take advantage
of that. Iran is one of those countries, history has shown.
If we show strength and resolve and decisiveness to them, then they
are more likely to respond in the right way. If we show weakness, then
they are more likely to take advantage of that. I think we show
strength to Iran during this time of negotiation--we have 6 more days
before the deadline--by making a statement that, ``Hey, if you don't
back off, then we are going to reimpose these tough sanctions,
sanctions that have bite to them.'' That is what brought them to the
negotiating table, and it has to be part of what we do going forward.
Mr. Speaker, it is just really important that we show strength to
Iran, and we only have 6 days left. We don't want a bad deal, no deal
is better than a bad deal, but I am very apprehensive. You have heard
from others as well. Up until now, the prognosis hasn't been good. We
haven't heard of breakthroughs or concessions in the negotiations.
Mr. Speaker, with those things in mind, I think that we just need to
urge the administration to show resolve, to show strength, to allow
Congress, especially the Senate which hasn't yet taken a position
because they have been denied the ability to vote, although we have
done it here in the House, to say, ``Iran, you have to come back to the
table and have a serious negotiation where you do agree to stop
enrichment, stop ballistic missile production, and stop state
sponsorship of terrorism, and if you don't do those things, we will
have tougher sanctions come back in force.''
We shouldn't deny the Senate that chance for a vote. We should allow
them to have that vote. We have taken that position here in the House.
It is the right position.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank my colleagues for this time that we
have had. We are going to be watching for the next 6 days. I think that
it is one of the most vital issues that is hanging out there in world
politics today. It affects Israel, but it affects even so much more.
I think the Western World will be totally affected in a negative way
if Iran doesn't come clean and have a concession on nuclear enrichment,
on state sponsorship of terrorism, and on ballistic missiles.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

____________________