[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15885-15888]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   IRAN AND THE JOINT PLAN OF ACTION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rice of South Carolina). Under the 
Speaker's announced policy of January 3, 2013, the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Lamborn) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of 
the majority leader.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with some other colleagues to 
talk about the important issue of Iran.
  As you may know, on November 24, a mere 6 days from now, the Joint 
Plan of Action expires. And what that means is that the United States 
and the other P5+1--and that means the permanent members of the 
Security Council plus another country, six countries--have been 
negotiating, with the U.S. taking the lead, with Iran to come to some 
kind of agreement if perhaps Iran would stop its mad quest to develop 
weapons of mass destruction.
  Many of us are concerned, Mr. Speaker, here in Congress that we may 
not end up with a very good negotiated settlement. Now, the President 
has said that it is better to have no deal than to have a bad deal, and 
Secretary of State John Kerry has said the same thing, and that is 
exactly what we want to see happen.
  I am joined tonight by several colleagues who will be talking about 
this important issue. So I would like to just move right now and yield 
to a good friend and colleague, a member of the Armed Services 
Committee, Jackie Walorski of Indiana.
  Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Speaker, with a comprehensive nuclear agreement 
deadline less than a week away, the need to stop Iran from obtaining a 
nuclear weapon has never been greater. With its thousands of gas 
centrifuges, Iran now has the capability to enrich uranium to a grade 
suitable for use in nuclear reactors or to a higher grade suitable for 
use in nuclear warheads.
  Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism and continues with 
heinous human rights abuses, oppressing freedom of speech, religion, 
and press, and more. Additionally, Iran continues to oppose our 
national security interests and those of our key allies while 
oppressing their own people.
  There is no question that a nuclear-armed Iran would dramatically 
change the balance of power in the Middle East and threaten freedom and 
peace for the rest of the world. It could also encourage other Middle 
Eastern nations to develop nuclear weapons on their own, further 
reducing our influence in that critical region of the world.
  For us to be able to trust Iran, along with the rest of the 
international community, Iran must change their behavior. A real 
possibility exists that a deadline extension provides them with an 
opportunity to build a nuclear bomb. In light of this, the only real 
solution is to force Iran to make serious concessions and robust 
sanctions.

[[Page 15886]]

  We must be especially careful about any decisions to lift or ease 
sanctions. Once lifted, sanctions cannot easily be restored. The risk 
of a miscalculation or a misstep in the weeks and months ahead is very 
real and grave, and the threat of nuclear war is catastrophic. If there 
is to be any hope of reaching a peaceful deal, and if Iran wants 
prosperity and success for its people, it must cooperate with the IAEA, 
stop its pursuit of a nuclear weapon, stop its sponsorship of 
terrorism, and stop its human rights abuses.
  Mr. LAMBORN. I would like to ask the gentlelady, you mentioned an 
important point. You talked about what would happen if Iran did, God 
forbid, achieve the ability to have a nuclear bomb.
  What would other countries in the region do? What are some of the 
countries you feel would be compelled to have their own version of a 
nuclear weapon?

                              {time}  1815

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

[[Page 15887]]

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

                              {time}  1830

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

[[Page 15888]]

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

                          ____________________