[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.

                          ____________________