[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 109 (Tuesday, July 14, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H5153-H5159]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IMMINENT THREATS TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 2015, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
General Leave
Mrs. ELLMERS of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the topic of
this Special Order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Mrs. ELLMERS of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise today to stand
with my fellow members of the Republican Women's Policy Committee to
discuss an issue of concern that is on the minds of every American,
especially moms. The topic of concern to so many today is our national
security and the need to maintain a strong military presence.
[[Page H5154]]
Madam Speaker, we currently face many threats abroad, including the
terrorist group ISIS and the newly crafted nuclear agreement with Iran.
As threats continue to grow overseas, so should our response. We need
for our Commander in Chief to lay out a plan of success. We cannot
stand idly by while the Islamic State continues to grow. This barbaric
group is an imminent threat to the United States and our allies all
over the world.
Yet another national security concern facing us today is Iran, the
world's largest state sponsor of terrorism. Just last night, Iran and
the other world powers reached a so-called nuclear deal. I remain
deeply skeptical of this so-called deal. Furthermore, Iran has
threatened our greatest ally, Israel. Prime Minister Netanyahu has
already called this deal ``a historic mistake.''
The President promised us that he would walk away from a bad deal,
but instead he has forsaken his promises, neglected our allies, and
disregarded the concerns of the American people. Because of the many
freedoms we enjoy here in the United States, we will always have a
target on our backs. This is precisely why we must maintain a robust
military presence.
At home in North Carolina, I have the privilege of representing the
Nation's largest Army installation, Fort Bragg. Despite the mounting
threats abroad, the Army began its reduction of 40,000 troops last
week. This included a loss of 842 soldiers at Fort Bragg. I firmly
believe that any troop reduction is not in the best interests of the
national security we have.
However, in light of this troop reduction, I did receive a piece of
positive news regarding a decision by the Air Force. The Air Force has
decided to stop pursuing their destructive proposal which is to close
the 440th Airlift Wing. Our military is one of the best and the
brightest. These men and women are the most well trained and well
equipped in the world. We are blessed to live in a country that stands
for justice and embodies freedom and exemplifies liberty.
Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri.
Mrs. WAGNER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for having this
Special Order. It is wonderful to join my female colleagues here on the
House floor to talk about this very important issue.
Madam Speaker, I come to the floor today to sound the alarm about the
mistake of historic proportions agreed to by the Obama administration
last night in Vienna. In his haste and desire to reach an agreement at
any cost, the President has agreed to far-reaching concessions in
nearly every area that was supposed to prevent Iran from acquiring a
nuclear weapon. In contravention of his stated goal, the deal agreed to
by the President last night affords Iran legitimacy for a partial
nuclear program now and for a full and unfettered program after 15
years.
Madam Speaker, let me repeat myself for the sake of clarity. Under
this deal, Iran will be able to develop a nuclear program with
absolutely no restrictions less than 15 years from now. Under this
deal, Iran will be allowed to continue to operate more than 6,000
centrifuges and will hold on to nearly 300 kilograms of enriched
uranium.
Iran will also receive hundreds of billions of dollars in sanctions
relief and regain the access to conventional arms and missiles that it
has been denied for nearly a decade. Iran will be free to transfer
these weapons to Hezbollah, the Syrian Government, and Yemeni rebels,
who all threaten our ally Israel and further inflame the region already
in crisis. Iran will be free to use the weapons and money provided by
this agreement to fuel its terrorist aspirations around the region and
the world.
This is a completely unacceptable outcome for the United States,
Israel, our allies, and the Middle East.
Wagering the peace and security of the United States, Israel, and the
world on a small chance that a hateful and deceitful regime will
suddenly change its entire comportment is not only wrong, it is foolish
and it is dangerous. Iran's decades-long record of state-sponsored
terrorism will not change simply because this deal has been signed.
Just this past Friday--this past Friday, Madam Speaker--in Tehran,
Iranian mullahs led people in chants of ``death to America.'' Yet, less
than 72 hours later, the President is signing a deal with those
fanatics, a deal that will eventually pave the way for Iran to obtain a
nuclear weapon.
As Prime Minister Netanyahu told us in this Congress, in this very
Chamber this year, ``a bad deal is worse than no deal.'' Madam Speaker,
this is a bad deal.
The President expects Congress to stand idly by and do nothing while
he trades the security of the U.S. and its allies for a legacy-
burnishing accomplishment. He expects us to sit on the sidelines while
the administration offers one concession after another to the Iranians
and agrees on a deal that would endanger the stability of the entire
Middle East and jeopardize U.S. national security. That must not
happen.
As the 60-day review process mandated by the Iran Nuclear Agreement
Review Act begins, Congress must unequivocally reject this agreement by
voting for a resolution of disapproval. We will not stand idly by while
the American people's security is traded for some empty promises. A
nuclear-armed Iran would start a new arms race in the Middle East and
pose an interoperable threat to the national security of the United
States and our allies--especially Israel.
Madam Speaker, as Prime Minister Netanyahu said in this very Chamber,
again: ``Standing up to Iran is not easy; standing up to dark and
murderous regimes never is.'' But for the sake of our children and our
children's children, we must face down this threat now before it is too
late.
{time} 1615
I urge my colleagues to review this agreement with an eye towards
history, towards the past, towards the present, and towards the future
of a region critical to America's national interests.
Iran has a record of deception and hostility towards American
interest. No amount of wishful thinking will change their core
tendencies. Congress must use this opportunity to stand up for what is
right.
The United States must not capitulate in the face of persistent evil.
We must stand together, united against the threat of a nuclear Iran in
order to guarantee a free and peaceful tomorrow.
Mrs. ELLMERS of North Carolina. I now yield to the gentlewoman from
Indiana (Mrs. Brooks).
Mrs. BROOKS of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my dear
friend, the gentlewoman from North Carolina, for organizing this
session today.
Last week, when she organized this Special Order, I don't think you
were really entirely aware how timely the topic would be today. I am so
pleased that you did organize this, so thank you.
Now, many of us are still reviewing the text, having just received
the 150 pages, that make up this deal with Iran; but from what I have
heard thus far, it leaves me highly skeptical that the accord that was
reached does not advance our interests in the region and signifies a
retreat from the world stage.
Let me first say that, even if we take the President at his word, the
words that I heard this morning--and we assume for a second that this
deal cuts off ``every pathway to a nuclear weapon''--there are still
significant ramifications for granting $150 billion in sanctions relief
to a country whose unofficial motto, that we just heard from the
gentlewoman of Missouri, has become ``death to America.''
As Israeli Ambassador Dermer told some of my constituents just last
night at a Christians United for Israel speech, a $150 billion infusion
of cash into Iran's coffers is like a trillion dollars flowing into the
United States Treasury; and that money will go toward funding the
Ayatollah's terror machines, ranging from Assad's regime in Syria,
Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, Hamas, the Islamic jihad in
Gaza, and the many other of Iran's terror proxies throughout the
region.
This is compounded by the fact that the deal will lift the
conventional arms embargo in Iran in no more than 5 years and the
embargo on missile sales to Iran in no more than 8 years. What the deal
appears to do is give the Iranian regime $150 billion in sanctions
relief, while simultaneously allowing
[[Page H5155]]
them to buy more conventional weapons, weapons that we know have been
used in the past to actually kill American soldiers.
Now, this isn't to mention the unintended consequence that
effectively shreds our foreign policy playbook that has guided the U.S.
on the world stage for decades. This is a historic mistake--not only
what Prime Minister Netanyahu has said is a historic mistake for the
world, but it will allow Iran to continue to pursue its aggression and
terror in the region. As the Congresswoman from Missouri said, it will
start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.
Just today, former CIA Director, General Hayden, testified that not
only do we need to understand that our nuclear focus does not make
other realities go away, even if we had a successful conclusion to
these nuclear negotiations, issues will remain.
I just want to close by reminding what our issues will Iran include.
We know and believe they are the largest state supporter sponsor of
terrorism. They hold American hostages without a fair trial. They
support Palestinian terrorism, and they destabilize Iraq where we have
invested so much treasure and lives. Hayden concluded the issue is not
just Iran's nuclear problem; the issue is Iran itself.
Madam Speaker, no deal is clearly a better outcome than a bad deal;
and I, too, am extremely concerned the Obama administration has
negotiated a bad deal. I assure you that my colleagues and I will leave
no detail of the final negotiated terms unexplored as this decision
comes with consequences that will reverberate for generations moving
forward.
The world cannot afford a nuclear Iran and thus cannot afford a deal
with unacceptable terms.
Mrs. ELLMERS of North Carolina. I yield to the gentlewoman from
Indiana (Mrs. Walorski).
Mrs. WALORSKI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North
Carolina and also my colleague from Indiana.
Madam Speaker, I rise to express my deepest concern that the
President of the United States is signing an agreement with a leading
state sponsor of terrorism, Iran. This administration has collectively
created a pathway for Iran to create a nuclear bomb.
This agreement endangers the lives of Americans by providing billions
of dollars in sanctions relief for Iran to continue killing Americans.
The lack of adequate safeguards and controls in this plan that
literally allows Iran to choose if and when they agree to verification
is deeply troubling, and it should be to every American, especially
when we start by lifting sanctions without any verification.
Also, let's not forget that by lifting the weapons embargo, Iran will
increase their stockpile of missiles, ICBMs, directly from Russia--able
to strike this homeland and other more advanced weapons that will lead
to an arms race in the Middle East.
Once again, the President is bypassing the American people by
threatening a veto of any legislation that comes from here that would
curb his agreement.
The President of the United States continues to reject the will of
the American people. As this unrest continues, the United States has to
maintain our rich partnership with our allies, including Israel,
sitting directly in line with Iran.
I just want to say to my colleagues here, very quickly, let's not
forget that it was just a couple of months ago that Prime Minister
Netanyahu of Israel stood in this very place right here. It was an
unbelievable moment for this country.
He traveled all the way here to tell this body and to tell the
American people how bad of a deal and how dangerous this agreement is.
If you weren't here, I can tell you there was electricity in this
place. People were moved, and America heard for the first time what a
danger this was not only to us and our homeland, but the existential
threat to the nation of Israel. They were moved, and the next morning,
our Nation was not the same.
I just appreciate so much my colleague from North Carolina for
allowing us to talk about this tonight. See, the American people know
that this is not just a bad deal; this is not just a danger to our
Nation. This is the complete unravelling of the Middle East as we know
it today, and we are going to do everything we can--I can tell you I
will do everything I can--to make sure that this bad deal goes away and
we do what we are called upon when we raised our right hand to take
these positions, which is to protect this Nation from attack.
Mrs. ELLMERS of North Carolina. I yield to the gentlewoman from Utah
(Mrs. Love).
Mrs. LOVE. Madam Speaker, when it comes to the deal with Iran, I want
to express how incredibly serious this is. That is because the stakes
have never been higher.
Are we willing to continue to gamble with America's future and
American lives?
Iran is a snake in the grass. Its leaders have made it very clear
that they want to implement sharia law, not freedom. Iran does not
value human life the way we do. They have actually shown that they are
willing to support terrorists. They have shown that they are willing to
hurt their own women and children.
On the other hand, we have a President of the United States of
America that said he will veto any efforts to stop this bad deal. That
shows he has no interest in listening to the American people.
How can we claim we are fighting terror when we are giving the
leading state sponsors of terrorism a break to the tune of billions of
dollars? At this rate, we will all but build the nuclear weapons for
them in 15 years.
Now that a deal with Iran is in place, here is what is most
concerning: They will turn around and build a nuclear weapon anyway,
funded by the profits made from the lack of sanctions.
This is not a joke. This is not a game. Iran has a history of
noncompliance. A great indicator of what is going to happen in the
future is what has happened in the past. How do we know they will never
change? How do we know they will change? We don't. Chances are, they
won't change.
Ronald Reagan was an advocate of peace through strength. He said that
the world would experience peace when the United States was a beacon of
strength.
I ask you all to stand strong with the United States against Iran and
against any administration that would like to silence us, the American
people.
Mrs. ELLMERS of North Carolina. I yield to the gentlewoman from the
great State of Alabama (Mrs. Roby).
Mrs. ROBY. Madam Chair, I thank my friend from North Carolina.
This is a great opportunity today for all of us ladies to be down
here on the floor together, having a little conversation about what we
recognize and can see matters to the majority of Americans, and that is
the safety of this country and our national defense, our ability to
defend against enemies. To my friend from North Carolina, there are a
lot of those out there right now.
As we watch the lack of leadership in this administration, we have
seen these enemies raise their heads, and it is by no mistake because
they will seek to fill a void, and that is exactly what is happening
around the world.
All of our colleagues that have talked earlier in this hour about the
bad, bad deal with Iran, this comes at a time not only where we are
seeing the atrocities of ISIS and other groups around the world, but
also at a time when we have cut our military not through the muscle,
but into the bone.
All of us here, we all have military interests in some respect
throughout our districts. I know you have a large military presence in
your district and others here joining us today, our colleagues; so
everyone here has not felt the pain of what these cuts look like.
To my colleagues, if we don't do something about this sequester here,
when it goes into full implementation--we are already cutting combat
aviation brigades. We will have to cut even more.
Of course, I represent Fort Rucker, where we train these folks at the
Army Aviation Center of Excellence, so, certainly, these realities are
not lost on me; and I know you represent Fort Bragg and others here.
The gentlewoman from Tennessee has a large military presence.
I guess the conversation that I want to have with you guys today on
behalf of our constituents is: What are we going to do about it? We
have got to
[[Page H5156]]
figure this out because, if we don't, it is going to be irresponsible
as it relates to our readiness and our ability to defend this Nation.
We owe it to our military families, our men and women that wear the
uniform, to ensure that they have everything that they need every time
we send them into harm's way. This is really a dangerous time in our
country, and certainly, it is not lost to everyone here as it relates
to Iran and the bad deal that was negotiated there.
We have got to be willing to do our part as it relates to that deal.
Here in this legislative body, we have to be willing to use the tools
that we have and stand up against it and use the courage that we all
have in our hearts to fight against this, knowing that it is going to
not just have a huge impact on our security here at home, but our very
important allies in the Middle East.
I just got back from a codel in the spring where we went to Saudi
Arabia, Iraq, and Israel. Our allies over there are looking at us right
now, going: What? What?
Anyway, I share my frustration with you, and I know you share it with
me as well. We need to give the Army what they need. We need to give
our military what they need and know that we are having the appropriate
impact in the parts of the world that are under so much pressure right
now as it relates to this plan.
I hope we can continue this dialogue. I appreciate all of you coming
to the floor and letting me be a part of this.
I am very concerned. This is what literally keeps all of us up at
night, worrying about the future of our country and our safety not just
here at home, but for all the men and women that are serving our
country abroad.
Again, I hope that we collectively can put our heads together and
figure out a way to end this sequester, particularly as it relates to
defense, once and for all.
Mrs. ELLMERS of North Carolina. I yield to the gentlewoman from
Tennessee (Mrs. Black).
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, it is an honor to be here and to be a part
of today's Republican Women's Policy Committee on this Special Order on
national security, and I want to thank the gentlewoman from North
Carolina for bringing us together on this very important topic.
I rise today to specifically address the President's attempts to
strike a deal with both Iran and Cuba.
First, Iran--after four missed deadlines, President Obama announced a
deal this morning with Iran, the world's largest state sponsor of
terrorism and a nation whose Ayatollah famously called the United
States ``the Great Satan.''
{time} 1630
It was a deal praised by the likes of Syria and Russia and condemned
by our allies, such as Israel. What is more, under the agreement,
international inspectors must ask Iran's permission before reviewing
its nuclear sites, by the way, after which, Iran has 2 weeks to decide
whether to even grant it. All told, Iran would have 24 days to drag out
this process and conceal signs of noncompliance.
Instead of peace through strength, this agreement amounts to unrest
through appeasement. Under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act,
Congress does have the power to vote down a bad deal that threatens our
national security. I believe this is a bad deal, and I intend to use
what we can to show the President we do not support this deal.
Unfortunately, the President's efforts to cozy up to rogue nations
doesn't end there. President Obama is attempting to normalize relations
with Cuba. Here again, the President is clearly more interested in
striking a deal--any deal--rather than knowing the details of the deal.
Consider this: Cuba was listed as a state sponsor of terrorism until
the end of May, and now the President wants to open up an embassy on
the shores of Havana. So can you tell me what has changed?
Just last week I led nearly 20 of my colleagues in sending a letter
to the President, citing a report from the Department of Homeland
Security which found more than 21,000 Cuban nationals with felony
convictions living within our borders.
These individuals are rated by our Department of Homeland Security as
a threat level 1, meaning that they are the worst of the worst. They
have no legal status as they have been given orders to be removed, but
they are roaming our streets because Cuba will not take back its
criminals.
Madam Speaker, if the President insists on opening the door to
negotiations with tyrants like Raul Castro, the very least he could do
is to force this nation to follow the law on this simple matter and
take back these criminals into his own country. Listen, when it comes
to Iran and Cuba, the President must put national security and the
well-being of the United States before his political legacy.
Again, I thank my colleague and friend from North Carolina for this
Special Order today in order to bring these very important issues to
the American people.
Mrs. ELLMERS of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield to the
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for
pulling us together.
Madam Speaker, when you talk about issues that are women's issues,
right now national security is at the top of the heap.
As we have talked about soccer moms and Walmart moms and all of these
other iterations and descriptions during the years, right now we are
looking at a category of security moms because the issue of security is
what mothers are talking about.
I appreciate so much the gentlewoman from North Carolina's
leadership, and we have two other colleagues who have yet to join us--
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen from Florida and Mrs. Lummis from Wyoming--to talk
about this issue.
Coast to coast, this is what people are talking about, and they sit
in disbelief at what this administration is doing.
Whether it is Iran or whether it is other foreign policy, our friends
and allies look at us, as the gentlewoman from Alabama said, and they
ask: ``What are you doing? Where have you been? What are you
thinking?'' As we would say in Nashville, ``They have got a thinking
problem.''
Our enemies look at us and say: ``Asleep at the wheel. This is our
opportunity.'' That is exactly what Iran is doing, and they are looking
at what we are doing to our military.
I thank the gentlewoman from Alabama for talking about her love for
Fort Rucker and the men and women there. I know the gentlewoman
probably sits down with those in her district at Fort Rucker, like I do
with the families, with the leadership team, with the men and women in
uniform at Fort Campbell, which is located in my district.
They are terribly concerned. They have a mission to fulfill, and it
is despicable that this administration will continue to try to cut and
cut and cut our military, cut the numbers, don't give them raises,
don't give them all the tools and training, don't give them the Flying
Hours Program that they need for redeployment.
Guess what, Madam Speaker. Every bit of that affects the
effectiveness of our men and women in uniform.
The gentlewoman from Alabama will expand on the point of the cuts
that are taking place at Fort Rucker and what that means to her
constituents.
Mrs. ROBY. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman and just her
shared concern here that we have for our men and women in uniform, for
Army aviators, and for their families as well.
If the sequester goes into full effect not only when we are cutting
from 12 CABs now--combat aviation brigades--to 10, there is a potential
that we could have to go to 9.
What that means directly for Rucker is that we will decrease our
student load, the number of Army aviation pilots that we are training.
What that means for our country is that we are no longer ready.
I mean, you could make the argument that that, in fact, is the case
now. They are going to do everything we ask them to do with what they
have. We know that about the United States military, the best in the
world. Yet, we are spreading them more and more thin.
[[Page H5157]]
We are fighting an enemy overseas right now. Whether you want to call
it ``war'' or not, it is happening, and our men and women are in harm's
way. There are boots on the ground, and if these cuts move forward,
they are going to suffer more.
I appreciate the gentlewoman for drawing attention to Rucker, and I
know that she feels as passionately as I about the military.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. I do, indeed.
The gentlewoman makes a point that is so very important, the
readiness and the ability to fight 21st-century warfare on a lot of
different fronts.
Madam Speaker, my colleagues and I will say part of that is naming
and knowing your enemy, radical Islamist extremists. That is the enemy,
and that is one of the reasons that this deal that the President
announced this morning is so terribly disturbing to us.
His advisors had said that no deal is better than a bad deal. Guess
what. What we saw from the President this morning is a pretty bad deal.
Here is what Iran gets to keep in this deal: 5,060 centrifuges. It
includes an 8-year limitation on uranium enrichment. Think about that,
an 8-year limitation.
So, then, are we setting a time certain that Iran can move forward?
This is something that our constituents and the American people need to
know about.
Then you look at the other components of this, the IAEA's not having
the ability to just move forward and inspect anytime anywhere, but
having to give that 2-week notice. That is something, again, of
tremendous concern.
The President has threatened to veto any legislation that impedes the
nuclear deal. My hope is that Congress is going to stand up and say
``no'' to the President in this deal and that we will say ``yes'' to
increasing the security of this Nation.
Mrs. ELLMERS of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield to the
gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).
Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North
Carolina for sponsoring this Special Order, which allows the women of
the Republican Conference to talk about an issue that is affecting all
Americans, men and women.
Benjamin Netanyahu is calling this deal a historic mistake. Historic.
Think about Israel and history. And when you have its prime minister
calling this a historic mistake, we should be paying attention.
Madam Speaker, there is a very real and present danger of nuclear
proliferation because of this deal; so it is critical that America not
let her military preparedness for deterrence deteriorate. It will have
exactly the opposite effect of that which the administration intends.
Consequently, we need all three legs of the nuclear triad--land, air,
and water--for a strong defense and deterrence against attack. With a
triad of bombers, submarines, and ICBMs, missiles are the most
affordable, and they are on alert, protecting America and deterring her
enemies 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
We should be talking with Poland, with the Czech Republic, and we
should make sure that they have an adequate missile defense. We are
going to have to start talking to Saudi Arabia.
If Israel and Saudi Arabia are already today talking about the
consequences of a deal with Iran, what does that tell you? It tells you
just what the gentlewoman from Alabama was telling us a few minutes ago
when they visited there, which is that security in Saudi Arabia--
homeland security--is an enormous issue.
It is because there are always terrorists coming into Saudi Arabia,
trying to get at Mecca and Medina, trying to do something that will
cause a conflagration around the world, that will incite religious
battles.
When they have one of their most feared adversaries now being in a
position after 8 years and having now the money because of the lifting
of the sanctions to go ahead with a nuclear program, what do you think
they are going to do? What are the Saudis going to do? It is critical
that we maintain for world peace and the deterrence of nuclear war our
own ability to respond and to deter.
Madam Chairman, I thank you for this Special Order, and I thank you
for your diligent work in this regard.
Mrs. ELLMERS of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield to the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend and
colleague and chair of the Republican Women's Policy Committee,
Congresswoman Renee Ellmers, for leading the charge on this Special
Order so that we can discuss issues of national security.
As we have heard, Madam Speaker, and will continue to hear tonight,
there is no shortage of national security threats that are facing us
today. That is not what should scare us.
What should scare us is that the Obama administration has no
strategy, no plan in place, to address some of the most serious threats
that are out there.
Perhaps the most pressing issue currently facing U.S. national
security, the security of our friend and ally, really--the Democratic
Jewish State of Israel--and, indeed, global security is a nuclear-armed
Iran.
{time} 1645
If we want to discuss national security threats, we can spend all day
discussing the ones the administration just set into motion when it and
the rest of the P5+1 nations announced this nuclear agreement with
Iran.
Let's set aside for a moment, Madam Speaker, the fact that the
administration just guaranteed that Iran will become a nuclear
threshold state as a result of this deal, and we can all set our timers
on when that first Iranian bomb will be produced thanks to this weak
and dangerous deal.
Let's focus on the fact that the administration just guaranteed that
the Iranian regime's billions of dollars that it is going to have to
fill its coffers to underwrite its support for terror aimed at the U.S.
and aimed at our interests around the world and especially our ally the
democratic Jewish State of Israel.
Remember, this is the same regime that was responsible for building
and providing the vast majority of roadside bombs that killed and
injured thousands of our brave men and women who served valiantly in
Iraq. It is the same regime that has propped up the murderous Assad
regime in Syria, that supports the Shiite militias, all of which
contributed greatly to the rise of the Sunni terror group ISIL, which
has now become one of the greatest threats to U.S. national security as
well.
This regime is responsible for the bombing of the U.S. Marine
barracks and the U.S. Embassy bombings in Beirut and continues to
support Hezbollah and Hamas as the terror groups that target Israel.
If this terrifying scenario wasn't bad enough, Madam Speaker, the
Obama administration has included in this sweetheart of a deal for the
Iranian regime lifting all U.N. Security Council resolutions, including
the arms embargo, and that won't even last the duration of the deal,
but it will be only in 5 years.
Madam Speaker, what has Iran done to deserve a lifting of the arms
embargo, the lifting of sanctions against its ballistic missile
program, its support for terror? Iran, in fact, continues to stoke
sectarian violence, foments instability in the Middle East, flexing its
muscles with the arms and military equipment that it already has.
Now, we are prepared to lift the arms embargo on that murderous
regime, lift the restrictions in place on its ballistic missile
program, the most expansive program out of any country in the region.
What kind of message did we just send to our partners in the region
who fear Iran's hegemonic ambitions? We just allowed their most feared
enemy to become a nuclear state, to have access to have even more money
to support its illicit activities, and to bolster its conventional
weapons and ballistic missile program.
Talk about threats to our national security, Madam Speaker--wow. This
nuclear deal that the Obama administration announced this morning just
guaranteed an all-out conventional and nuclear arms race that very well
could lead to what the President claimed he was trying to avoid, a war.
Whether it is Iran or whether it is Cuba, as Mrs. Black of Tennessee
pointed out, President Obama is going legacy shopping. I fear that
Israel will
[[Page H5158]]
be next on Obama's legacy shopping list. I worry that President Obama
will force Israel to accept a bad peace deal with the Palestinians.
Madam Speaker, let's shut down Obama's legacy store. We just can't
afford it. I would like to thank Mrs. Ellmers for her leadership on
this national security threat.
Mrs. ELLMERS of North Carolina. I now yield to the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Stefanik).
Ms. STEFANIK. Madam Speaker, just this past Monday the Iraqi
Government declared that it was beginning a major military operation to
retake western Anbar province from ISIS. This area of operation,
including major cities of Ramadi and Fallujah, is the same region which
ISIS seized this past May.
Following this announcement, American-led coalition airstrikes
permeated Anbar province. I fervently support U.S. and coalition
military targeted airstrikes which continue to attack the Islamic State
within Syria and Iraq. Along with airstrikes, U.S. troops serve as a
part of an advise and assist role in Iraq and continue to do so in
Afghanistan.
Since September 11, 2001, the Army's 10th Mountain Division has been
the most actively deployed division to Iraq and Afghanistan, and I am
honored to represent the 10th Mountain Division, a light infantry
division comprised of competent, resilient, and skilled warriors.
In New York's north country, we understand what fighting for our
Nation's liberties and freedoms truly means; and come this winter,
during the holidays, when we are at home with our loved ones, these
brave soldiers from the 10th Mountain Division will be serving our
Nation in highly kinetic combat zones.
When I speak against ISIS, their barbaric tactics, and the
instability they create around the world, I am speaking for my
constituents, the brave servicemen and -women who are overseas right
now, fighting to protect our national security.
I speak for their loved ones, the military families who are back in
the north country at Fort Drum, worrying about their safety, and
looking forward to the day they arrive back home.
This is why I am extremely frustrated when cuts to our defense budget
continue. Sequestration is a real threat to our national security.
Sequestration was proposed by this administration, signed into law by
this President, and passed by a previous Congress.
As ISIS remains a major source of terrorism and instability
throughout the Middle East, here, in Congress, we must discuss real
solutions related to stabilizing the region, continued threats to our
own national security, the readiness for our Armed Forces, and the
tools they need to keep our country safe.
The National Defense Authorization Act provides our Nation's Armed
Forces with the resources they need to defend our national security
against ISIS, and soon, this imperative piece of legislation will be on
its way to the President for his signature.
A veto could threaten the safety of our Nation's servicemembers and
our country's defense. Our national security is gravely at risk, as
long as ISIS remains intact and our troops are tasked with doing more
with less.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting our Armed Forces in
fighting against defense sequestration, and I implore this President to
sign the National Defense Authorization Act.
Mrs. ELLMERS of North Carolina. I would like to say how much I
appreciate receiving General Townsend to the XVIII Airborne Corps as
commanding general from the 10th Mountain Division.
I know that you appreciate him as much as I do.
Ms. STEFANIK. Absolutely.
Mrs. ELLMERS of North Carolina. I now yield to the gentlewoman from
Arizona (Ms. McSally).
Ms. McSALLY. Madam Chair, I appreciate you organizing this so that
the women in our Conference can speak about something that is vitally
important to our communities.
Everywhere I go in my district, my constituents are concerned about
the security of our Nation and making sure that our men and women in
uniform have everything they need in order to defend America.
Having served 26 years in uniform myself and representing a district
of 85,000 veterans and two military bases, right now, we have over 750
of them deployed overseas in the fight against ISIS and also to work
with our allies to deter Russian aggression.
People are deeply concerned about what appears to be--and not just
appears to be--a failed defense strategy and foreign policy out of this
administration. I can tell you, as I look around the world--and I have
been doing national security for 30 years--we are in a more dangerous
world than I have ever seen in my lifetime. I have got the experience
of six combat deployments and a couple master's degrees.
Taking a look at this, we don't have enough time in an hour to go
around the world with the threats that are emanating. The one that is
obviously taking up the news today is the bad deal related to Iran and
their march towards a nuclear capability.
I am going to read the whole thing tonight and tomorrow and make sure
that we see all the details, but it seems like, on its surface, the
goalposts have been moved; and the deal that has been negotiated is one
where, myopically, this administration wanted to get a deal, really at
all costs.
That cost is quite high to our national security, to the security of
our friends and our allies, with significant destabilization in the
Middle East, while we have Iran, which is the greatest state sponsor of
terror, continuing to destabilize and fight proxy wars in the region
and continuing to threaten Americans.
They have blood on their hands of American soldiers in Iraq and in
Lebanon and other places. They are continuing to threaten Israel,
destabilizing the region, and propping up nonstate actors in their
proxy wars; and none of that is changing.
Now, we basically are legitimizing that and not addressing any of
these other issues while potentially lifting the arms embargo. This is
potentially a very reckless direction that we are going in. My
constituents have been talking to me even today about the concerns and
just the myopic focus of this administration on this particular bad
deal.
If we take a larger view of the Middle East, there appears to be an
absolutely incoherent strategy in the larger Middle East. While we have
Qasem Soleimani, the general responsible for the Quds Force,
responsible for all these terrorist activities that I mentioned,
actually commanding the ground forces in Iraq to take back Tikrit,
while we are providing the air power and sort of pretending that we are
not operating in the same space for the same objectives, then we see
what Iran is doing to continue to destabilize both in Yemen, in their
support to Hamas and Hezbollah.
All of this is just absolutely incoherent. If you were to try to ask
somebody what are we trying to do in the Middle East relative to Iran,
which is the hegemon in the room, as a state sponsor of terror, I don't
think anybody could really answer that. I don't think this President
can answer this. There is deep concern about this lack of coherency.
When it comes to the fight against ISIS, we are doing these anemic
attacks from the air. Having been a fighter pilot myself and having
been involved in the targeting process--from being a flight lead in an
A-10, all the way up to running the counterterrorism operations in
Africa--I am very familiar with the targeting process.
We are in a situation where ISIS is continuing to gain momentum, to
recruit foreign fighters. Over 20,000 have been recruited, and it looks
like they are taking us on, and they are winning because we are putting
the bar so high on what targets that we can actually strike--legitimate
targets that we are having pilots fly away from--and let continue to
thrive and murder massive numbers of civilians in Iraq and Syria;
gaining a foothold; gaining territory; and, in using social media,
gaining new recruits because it looks like they are winning.
We have an absolute incoherent military strategy in the fight against
ISIS not using our power in the way that it should be used, with all
that it can bring to the fight, in order to achieve our national
security objectives.
We had the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
in
[[Page H5159]]
front of us on the House Armed Services Committee a couple weeks ago,
where they said, related to this strategy, hope is not a strategy, but
it looks like that is exactly what we are relying on. We are hoping
that the Iraqis have an inclusive government, which they have shown
time and time again that they are failing to do.
While Iraq has their national security interests certainly in the
region, we have our own interests in making sure that ISIS does not
gain a strong foothold with resources and the desire to recruit, train,
and inspire individuals to attack Americans and take away our way of
life. This strategy has just been failed coming out of this
administration.
Russia, just another example, the squadron that I commanded is soon
coming back from a deployment to Russia, A-10s over in the region to
help assure and train our allies against the continued aggression that
we are seeing from Russia.
Our incoming potential Chairman of the Joint Chiefs declared last
week in a hearing that he believes Russia is actually the largest
threat that we are potentially dealing with; yet the weakness from this
administration in standing up and leading to defend our national
security interests and reassure our allies is allowing Putin to fill
that vacuum.
The Baltics and the other allies that are in the region, after
basically the Russians were able to invade Ukraine, are wondering who
is next and what is at stake with our NATO partners. This is just
another example.
What China is doing in the South and East China Seas is just one more
example of us not leading and not being able to assure our allies,
showing weakness. Our friends are wondering can they count on us
anymore, and our enemies are no longer afraid of us. This is the
dangerous world we are in.
Some of these factors were going to be happening anyway, but American
leadership can make or break situations, and we can change the course
of international events if we are leading or not leading. This
administration says that they are leading from behind. In the military,
we call that following. There is no such thing as leading from behind.
We need to make sure we have a strong national security strategy,
that we have a capable military. The impact sequestration is having on
our military, I have friends and individuals I know that are still
serving and trying to serve, and they are rearranging deck chairs right
now, trying to deal with the lack of resources and diminishing
capabilities in training and readiness.
That is not a strategy-based budget; that is a budget-based strategy.
I have been very strong in speaking against sequestration. I think we
need to work together in order to make sure we can give the men and
women in the military everything they need to defend America.
The last point I will make--and there are many to make, but we don't
have enough time--is that we have passed the National Defense
Authorization Act for the last 54 years.
{time} 1700
This is an important piece of legislation that gives the troops the
authorization, the pay raises, and everything that they need--combating
sexual assault--all the different things that we have authorized in the
NDAA, and this President is threatening to veto it.
I really hope that those around America who are listening to this
will rise up and call their Members of Congress, call their Senators,
call the White House and tell them that you don't play politics with
our men and women in uniform. This is about national security and
national defense. You need to sign that bill.
We are working through conference right now to hopefully get it done
before we go into recess. This is an important piece of legislation,
and we should not be playing political games with our national
security.
So thank you, Madam Chairman, for organizing this. Thanks for the
opportunity to come down and speak on behalf of our constituents, on
behalf of those in my district right now that are serving overseas, the
men and women in uniform. We owe it to them to make sure that we have a
strong national security, that we have a strong military, we give them
everything they need, and that we provide leadership in the world.
We have got to continue to provide oversight to the failed foreign
policy and defense policy of this administration, and I look forward to
continuing these discussions.
Mrs. ELLMERS of North Carolina. I thank the gentlewoman.
Madam Speaker, on behalf of the members of the Republican Women's
Policy Committee, I would like to end this Special Order today by
thanking our troops and their families. These men and women voluntarily
venture into harm's way to protect our freedoms, ideals, and way of
life.
It is equally as important that we recognize the sacrifices that
military spouses and children make as well. They deserve our unwavering
support for putting the safety and security of our country first.
May God continue to bless this great Nation and our men and women in
uniform.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time to conclude this
Special Order on national security.
____________________