[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3625-3628]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            UKRAINE AND IRAN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bentivolio). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 3, 2013, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Engel) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority 
leader.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I think this is a good time to reflect on a 
couple of things. One is certainly Iran. The other is certainly 
Ukraine.
  I think that the American people obviously have a very important 
stake in what is going on in both countries. In Ukraine, in Kiev, we 
see people marching for freedom, demanding the kinds of freedoms that 
we, in the United States, are used to, the freedoms that we hold so 
dear in our country; and we saw the people initially being countered by 
brutal police attacks on them.
  But you know, Mr. Speaker, the right prevailed, and the people in the 
streets won, and they clearly said that they don't want to have Russian 
domination; but, instead, they want to look toward the West, rather 
than look East.
  The European Union has been negotiating with Ukraine for some time, 
and their president, now deposed, said that he would rather work with 
Russia into the Russian Customs Union, which is sort of, in my opinion, 
a rekindling of the old Soviet Union. That angered many people in 
Ukraine, and they took to the streets.
  I hope that the European Union continues to make overtures to 
Ukraine. I think now is a very, very critical moment, in that the 
United States has a role to play with our European allies, to try to 
tell the people of Ukraine that we would like them to look Westward and 
that, in looking Westward, there will be opportunities for their 
country.
  I am concerned that if there are too many stringent rules and 
regulations put up before a country can affiliate with the EU--and at 
the same time, Putin is saying here are these billions and billions of 
dollars, which makes it seem like it is a lot easier to go with Putin.
  This is one of those rare visceral moments where I think action by 
the United States and our allies in the European Union will make the 
difference for generations to come; and I would hope that we would deal 
with Ukraine in a benevolent manner, so that they would be able to say: 
yes, we want to look Westward, and it is going to help our economy, it 
is going to help our people.
  There are serious problems in Ukraine. Their economy is in shambles. 
And, of course, there has been a total lack of freedom and democracy, 
and the people of Ukraine demand no less.
  I think that Secretary Kerry was absolutely right and the President 
was absolutely right in telling Russian President Putin that he had 
better think twice before he considers any kind of military 
intervention in Ukraine.
  That is not something that can be or should be tolerated, and Russia 
must understand that it cannot be business as usual, that if they make 
any military moves into Ukraine, it is going to cost them a great deal 
in their relationships with the United States and with our European 
allies in the European Union.
  It can't be business as usual--which leads me to Iran. We are in very 
delicate negotiations with Iran right now. The one thing that everybody 
in the P5+1 agrees on is that, at the end of the day, Iran must not be 
allowed to have a nuclear weapon.
  I have been very critical of the Iranian regime through the years and 
continue to be so. What irks me especially is that, while they are 
negotiating with us, they are continuing to wreak havoc in all 
different parts of the world. Iran remains the leading supporter of 
terrorism throughout the world.
  In fact, if we look just next door into Syria--and we know the Syrian 
civil war is a real mess. We have jihadists pouring into that country, 
even more so than they poured into Iraq at the height of the Iraq war. 
We have all kinds of foreign fighters.
  Assad was on the verge of being kicked out of power by his own 
people. He was losing the civil war. We had the Free Syrian Army, who 
are the people who really are for democracy in Syria, and Assad was 
losing that war.
  Then what happened, Mr. Speaker, Iran unleashed its proxy--its 
terrorist proxy--Hezbollah into Syria; and Hezbollah entered the war in 
Syria on the side of Assad; and that turned the war, unfortunately, to 
Assad's favor.
  So now, we are in a position where Assad doesn't want to negotiate, 
doesn't want to sue for peace, certainly doesn't want to negotiate his 
own exit from power in Syria, which we all thought was imminent just a 
few months ago; and he feels he has the upper hand because his ally, 
Iran, has changed the course of the war in there by unleashing their 
proxy, Hezbollah, a terrorist group, to fight on the side of Assad.
  So Assad has essentially become an Iranian puppet in his own country, 
and that is Iran continuing to do all kinds of mischief while they are 
negotiating with us, ostensibly, so that they would not be allowed to 
have a nuclear weapon at the end of the day.
  We know that the Israelis have taken matters into their own hands, 
and when they see weapons are being transferred to Hezbollah, they will 
do what they need to do to protect their own security.
  So I think--the way Putin must understand that he cannot have it both 
ways, I think that the Iranians need to

[[Page 3626]]

understand that as well. Iran must not be allowed to have a nuclear 
weapon. They are a theocracy, and I think that we all believe that 
their having nuclear weapons would cause a proliferation of nuclear 
weapons all throughout the area, the Middle East.
  Certainly, if Iran were to have a nuclear weapon--and that must not 
happen--Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, so many 
other countries would feel the need as well to get nuclear weapons; and 
we would start a chain of events that--who knows how it would end? So I 
believe that we have to be very, very crystal-clear.
  I hope that these negotiations of the P5+1 with Iran bear fruit, but 
I think Iran must understand that we are not backing off, we are not 
going back, that nothing short of their not being able to produce a 
nuclear weapon is acceptable; and Iran must dismantle its nuclear 
weapons program.
  That is not something that just the United States wants. That is 
something that the negotiations are really and truly all about.
  I have said before that it troubles me that, while we are negotiating 
with Iran, Iran continues to enrich uranium. It would seem to me that 
if Iran had good intentions, it would at least understand that if the 
purpose of the negotiations is that, at the end of it, Iran would not 
be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, then it didn't seem so great for 
me to say to Iran, while we are negotiating, while we are talking, and 
while we are talking about you not having a nuclear weapon, you need to 
stop enriching while the talks are going on.
  Now, Iran refused to do that because they wanted a loosening even 
further of sanctions if they were to stop enriching, and to me, it 
shows a malevolent intent on the part of Iran.
  So I just think that, in our negotiations, we have to be resolute, 
and we have to be clear that, at the end of the day, Iran must not be 
allowed to have a nuclear weapon. At the end of the day, Iran must 
dismantle its program, and at the end of the day, we have to make sure 
that there is no light between us in terms of the P5+1 and that we are 
all demanding the same thing from Iran.
  I think that we are united on this. I believe that everyone 
understands that, for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, it is totally and 
absolutely unacceptable.
  The United States has many interests in the Middle East; and I think 
it is very important that we work closely together with our partners--
Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, United Arab Emirates, and others 
who also believe very strongly that Iran must never be allowed to have 
a nuclear weapon.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important, as these negotiations are 
going on, that we set these parameters and that Iran must understand 
that it is unacceptable for them to have a nuclear weapon.
  We may have negotiations. They may have a new president. He may be a 
little softer than the previous president; but let's remember, he was 
allowed to run in the Iranian elections, and that means that, as 
moderate as some people would like to believe he might be, six hard-
liners were allowed to run.
  He may be the most moderate of all the hard-liners, but he is hardly 
a moderate. All the moderates were disallowed to run for office, and 
the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei clearly calls the shots.
  So everything is very delicate, and we hope and pray that these 
negotiations work well. I support the negotiations. I support the 
administration. But the bottom line, again, is that Iran must never be 
allowed to have a nuclear weapon.
  I see that our minority whip is here, and I would like to invite him 
to join me.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from New York, the ranking 
member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, for his taking the time here 
to discuss two critical problems that confront us, first of all, the 
crisis that is ongoing in Ukraine and the negotiations that are 
currently underway with Iran.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today, mindful of the words of President Kennedy, 
who urged us never to negotiate out of fear, but never to fear to 
negotiate. While rooted deeply in the cold war's tense climate, where 
nuclear war loomed over us all like a Sword of Damocles, his admonition 
is as relevant today as it was then.
  Today, we face a starkly different world, a world in which the chief 
threat to democracy, freedom, and prosperity is not a rival state 
superpower, but a complex and dangerous nexus of terrorism, 
instability, and autocracy.

                              {time}  1315

  America has not shied away from the challenges this new reality 
presents. We have taken the fight once against terrorism to al Qaeda 
and its allies wherever they hide, and we have continued to promote 
peace, democracy, and individual freedom. And together with our allies 
in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, we have worked carefully and with 
determination to confront one of the most dangerous threats to global 
security and stability in our day: the prospects of a nuclear-armed 
Iran.
  The extremist regime in Tehran is at the heart of the instability 
that is undermining America's interests across the region. Those 
interests are the safety of our troops stationed in the region, 
regional stability and prosperity, the prevention of an arms race that 
could spiral out of control, ensuring that weapons of mass destruction 
do not end up in terrorists' hands, the protection of trade routes and 
resources that fuel economies across the world, and safeguarding our 
ally, Israel.
  Iran continues to be the leading state sponsor of terrorism directed 
against America and our allies, supporting Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah 
in Lebanon. As Syria's civil war has grown more deadly, Iran remains a 
primary backer of Syria's dictator, Bashar al-Assad, who has gassed his 
own people and continues to target civilians.
  Secretary Kerry said just last week that Iran, along with Russia, has 
actively been working to subvert the negotiations aimed at ending the 
bloodshed in Syria and moving the country toward a peaceful transition 
of power. And Iran's leaders continue to vilify Israel and its people, 
calling for the annihilation of the Jewish state, something Israel, 
America, and the world will never tolerate.
  Let it be absolutely clear, Mr. Speaker: the United States will 
always stand by Israel. And let it be even clearer to Iran and to the 
world: America and its allies will never accept a nuclear-armed Iran. A 
nuclear weapon would give Iran the ability to carry out its threats 
against Israel. It would destabilize the Middle East, and it would put 
American troops and our European allies at risk of catastrophic attack. 
That is why, Mr. Speaker, President Obama and Congress have worked 
together to enact the toughest sanctions regime in history and bring 
our allies together to enforce those sanctions.
  The employment of sanctions to compel Iran's compliance with 
international norms has been a bipartisan goal going back several 
Congresses and several administrations, Republican and Democratic. That 
is because America's policy with regard to Iran, as President Obama has 
forcefully and repeatedly emphasized, is not containment but 
prevention. We have made it clear to Ayatollah Khamenei--and those who 
conspire with him to spread terror and use it as an instrument of 
statecraft--that we will use every necessary asset at our disposal to 
deny Iran a nuclear weapon.
  While the military option remains on the table--as President Obama 
and Secretary Kerry have made it absolutely clear--we now have an 
opportunity to achieve our goals without resorting to the force of 
arms. That is the most desirable alternative. It is our duty and 
obligation to seize that opportunity.
  America is great, Mr. Speaker, not only because of our military 
might, but because of our moral might, our unwavering commitment to the 
power of human freedom and dignity that overcame communism and will 
overcome

[[Page 3627]]

the terror and tyranny facing the world today.
  Kennedy was right, Mr. Speaker. We must never negotiate out of fear. 
And we are not. But neither should we fear to negotiate. And we are. 
And our objective is clear. The Iranian regime did not resume 
negotiations last year because it somehow had a change of heart. Iran 
altered its approach because the sanctions passed by Congress, enforced 
by the administration, and supported by our allies are having a 
profound effect on the Iranian economy, and, of course, because the 
Iranian people, in electing President Rouhani, signaled a desire to 
stop the confrontation with the West, which was undermining their 
economic well-being.
  The Joint Plan of Action that was signed in November of last year is 
a result of those sanctions and that election. But the authors of the 
policies pursued by Iran over the last four decades, the mullahs, 
remain. Iran agreed to the Joint Plan of Action not because it wanted 
to give up its nuclear ambitions, as they have said, but because it 
concluded that its national interests were better served by temporarily 
halting its progress towards a nuclear weapons capability in return for 
sanctions relief.
  But that interim agreement is only a first step. It makes important 
progress, but it does not provide the comprehensive, long-term 
assurance we need that Iran has abandoned and will not again pursue its 
goal of a nuclear weapon. Only a comprehensive, verifiable agreement 
that prevents Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon will meet our and 
our allies' international security objectives.
  Given Iran's history of deception and denial, any agreement must 
include reliable, independent, intrusive, and unfettered verification 
that Iran is abiding by its commitments and that such a verification 
regime remains permanently in place. Mr. Speaker, Ronald Reagan's 
admonition ``to verify'' is doubly essential in light of there being no 
basis ``to trust'' and that the consequences of breach are too 
catastrophic.
  Among the commitments Iran must meet has to be the end of its pursuit 
of nuclear weapons and compliance with U.N. Security Council 
resolutions and cooperation with the International Atomic Energy 
Agency's robust and effective certification activities.
  Mr. Speaker, U.N. Security Resolution 1737 states:

       Iran shall without further delay suspend the following 
     proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities: all enrichment-
     related and reprocessing activities, including research and 
     development, to be verified by the IAEA; and work on all 
     heavy water-related projects, including the construction of a 
     research reactor moderated by heavy water, to be verified by 
     the IAEA.

  This is the international community, acting through the United 
Nations, speaking, not only ourselves.
  Mr. Speaker, the world has a responsibility to ensure that these 
goals are attained. But let there never be any doubt that should 
diplomacy fail--and all of us hope that will not be the case, but if it 
does--our military is, as Secretary Kerry said last week, ``ready and 
prepared to do what it would have to do.''
  When Iran's leaders issue threats, we ought to remember the lessons 
of the 20th century, when the threats of tyrants and terrorists were 
neither effectively responded to nor heeded. History teaches us that 
the only way to change the behavior of regimes that threaten regional 
or global peace and stability is to stand up to them and hold them 
accountable. That is exactly what the United States and our allies are 
now doing.
  In my view, Iran came to the negotiating table and signed the Joint 
Plan of Action in the hope that it might gain extended sanctions relief 
without having to give up the path to a nuclear weapon fully, 
irrevocably, and verifiably. It is past time that we make it clear to 
the Iranians that the only path to regaining its economic footings is 
to comply fully with the Joint Plan of Action and quickly conclude a 
long-term, comprehensive agreement which assures compliance with U.N. 
Security Council requirements and elimination of a nuclear-arms 
capability. Until that objective, Mr. Speaker, is met, there must be no 
doubt that all relevant sanctions will remain in effect and be fully 
enforced.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend the administration, particularly the 
President, Secretary Kerry, and my dear friend, Assistant Secretary of 
State, Wendy Sherman. I commend them for the steps they have taken to 
enforce these sanctions and penalize those who seek to violate them. It 
ought to be clear to nations and companies around the world that Iran 
is not open for business.
  There must also be no doubt that if Iran violates its current 
commitments or fails to reach an acceptable final agreement, the 
temporary sanctions relief will be canceled, all sanctions will be 
restored, and the Congress will act to put additional sanctions in 
place.
  Iran will either comply with U.N. Security Council and IAEA 
determinations and foreclose any pathway to a nuclear weapon, or it 
will face economic decline and increasingly painful consequences.
  That is not our objective for Iran or for the Iranian people. The 
United States does not seek war. But we will not take any option off 
the table to prevent Iran from acquiring the most dangerous implements 
of war.
  While I remain skeptical, I support the administration's efforts to 
achieve a diplomatic resolution to this threat to our national security 
and to global security.
  Mr. Speaker, these talks are a test--a critical test. But they are 
also an opportunity for Iran, for the P5+1 nations, and for all the 
world to seek a peaceful resolution of this critical situation that 
confronts the international community. Until now, Iran has failed every 
test and has refused to negotiate in good faith, ignoring the will of 
the international community--and I would add, the best interests of the 
Iranian people.
  We must see whether this time the pressure of sanctions means that 
Iran is serious about reaching an agreement to dismantle its nuclear 
infrastructure permanently and with ongoing verification, abandoning 
its sponsorship of international terrorism, respects the rights of its 
citizens, and determines to be a positive participant in the community 
of nations--or, on the other hand, if it continues to follow the path 
of international outlier: fomenting instability and terror in its 
regions and around the world.
  Mr. Speaker, the Iranian people are the inheritors of a great history 
and culture. They have given much to the world, including a long 
tradition of art, culture, and innovations in math and science. They 
are people for whom we rightfully have great respect. But we cannot, 
must not, and will not allow their leaders to continue to put the world 
at risk.
  Mr. Speaker, I support President Obama and his administration's 
effort to resolve this dangerous confrontation through the ongoing 
negotiations. As I have said, we pray for their success. The fruits of 
that success will be sanctions relief for Iran and its people. If it 
continues, however, its path of delay and deception and continues to 
sow unrest and tyrannies throughout the Middle East, Iran will only 
exacerbate its economic isolation.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the administration's conviction that the 
failure to achieve the expressed objectives of the P5+1 is not an 
option. Our finest hours as a country and as a democracy have always 
been when the free and democratic nations of the world came together 
with courage and resolve to protect and preserve international security 
and freedom.

                              {time}  1330

  And our greatest strength has always been our willingness to 
negotiate--in this case with a determination to attain an agreement 
that is fair, but with a conviction that it must assure--it must 
assure--that Iran does not attain a nuclear weapons capability now or 
in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, the time is short. The consequences are profound, and 
success is our only option.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page 3628]]



                          ____________________