[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 121 (Wednesday, July 29, 2015)]
[House]
[Page H5596]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                            IRAN-NORTH KOREA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for 5 minutes.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, a bad deal is a bad deal under a 
Republican President or a Democratic President. This Iran nuclear deal 
is a bad deal because we have seen this movie before. We know how it 
ends.
  I have repeatedly stated that Iran has been following the North 
Korean playbook on exactly how to extract concessions from the United 
States and the international community while simultaneously continuing 
to improve its nuclear program, expand its infrastructure, and support 
its illicit activities.
  Many analysts have made the same observations, including Alan 
Dershowitz in a Jerusalem Post article last week.
  It is not just how the process unfolded and how the international 
community fell for the tricks of the rogue regimes that are so scary.
  Because, obviously, Iran saw North Korea as having been the victors 
in its battle over its nuclear program; so, naturally, it would want to 
replicate that.
  But it is alarming and striking just how similar the rhetoric is 
between President Clinton's announcement of a nuclear agreement with 
North Korea and President Obama's announcement of a nuclear agreement 
with Iran.
  Let's look at the similarities that Mr. Dershowitz noted between 
President Clinton's remarks in 1994 and President Obama's from earlier 
this month. Then, Mr. Speaker, it will be easy to understand why so 
many of us oppose this nuclear deal.
  In 1994, President Clinton said that the North Korea agreement will 
make the U.S., the Korean Peninsula, and the world safer. Earlier this 
month President Obama said that this deal will bring about change that 
makes the U.S. and the world safer and more secure.
  In 1994, President Clinton assured the world that the North Korea 
deal ``does not rely on trust. Compliance will be certified by the 
International Atomic Energy Agency.''
  Last week President Obama proclaimed, ``This deal is not built on 
trust. It is built on verification.''
  President Clinton predicted--as we now are painfully aware, 
inaccurately--that the North Korea agreement would be ``a crucial step 
toward drawing North Korea into the global community'' and predicted 
the end of the rogue regime's isolation.
  Similarly, last week's statement poses that the Iran deal ``offers an 
opportunity to move in a new direction'' because we have taken a 
different path that ``leads to more integration into the global 
economy, more engagement with the international community, and the 
ability of the Iranian people to prosper and thrive.''
  And, of course, there was the spurious promise to an ally to assuage 
them that we didn't just put their national security in jeopardy.
  First, President Clinton reaffirmed our commitment to protect South 
Korea. Now, President Obama, already knowing that Israel vehemently 
objects to this deal and feels as though this gives Iran--an 
existential threat to its existence and a regime that has promised to 
wipe the Jewish state off of the map--the ultimate weapon to achieve 
its goals, promises to ``continue our unprecedented effort to 
strengthen Israel's security, efforts that go beyond what any American 
administration has done before.''
  Not only are these empty words, Mr. Speaker, but they are 
disingenuous to boot.
  When the North Korea deal was reached, one of the most significant 
flaws was that it failed to dismantle any of North Korea's nuclear 
infrastructure.
  The deal was designed merely to delay the North Korean bomb, not 
prevent it. That is what this nuclear deal with Iran is designed to do.
  We saw what happened with North Korea, and we can be sure that Iran 
plans to follow suit.
  The totality of this deal hinges on a bet by the administration and 
the rest of the P5+1 that the Iranian regime will see the error of its 
ways and wants to be part of the global community and forsake its 
support for terror and other illicit behavior.
  That is a dangerous gamble to make with U.S. national security, and 
it is not a gamble that I or any one of us should be willing to take.
  That is why, Mr. Speaker, we must reject this deal and demand a 
better deal or else reimpose the sanctions and use the only thing, the 
only tactic, that Iran understands--strength--to force it to abandon 
its nuclear ambitions.

                          ____________________