[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11080-11086]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     NUCLEAR NEGOTIATIONS WITH IRAN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2015, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.


                             General Leave

  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous materials on the topic of our Special 
Order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all of my 
colleagues who are here tonight at this late hour to talk about the 
weak negotiations that are taking place in Vienna on the nuclear deal 
with Iran.
  We have a number of distinguished speakers tonight who will address 
this looming topic that is of great urgency.
  Let me begin by yielding to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Trusting that Iran, the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, 
has suddenly had a change of heart in its decades-long quest to obtain 
a nuclear weapon is just simply naive at best.
  Legislation that was signed into law in May would allow Congress to 
review and vote on any deal that the administration makes with Iran. 
Those I represent believe Congress should have the final say on any 
deal, and I couldn't agree more.
  America's national security, as well as global security, will be 
jeopardized if the administration gets this wrong. We must ensure it 
doesn't. The stakes are simply too high.
  If Iran is actually serious about reengaging with the global 
community, they cannot continue to hold American citizens as political 
prisoners or harass and provoke U.S. Navy ships in international 
waters.
  Iran should stop provoking direct military confrontation, immediately 
release all detained U.S. citizens, and provide any information it 
possesses regarding any U.S. citizens that have disappeared within its 
borders.
  The fact that the Iranian regime won't even do these basic actions 
indicates to me that counting on them to honor commitments they make 
around a negotiating table can't be taken seriously.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. Johnson for his comments. I 
think he highlighted the basic problems that we have in dealing with a 
rogue regime like Iran that cannot be trusted, that has not been 
dealing with us in a straight manner. I thank the gentleman very much 
for his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Rodney Davis) to address this threat as well.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my 
concerns over the potential deal regarding Iran's nuclear program, and 
I stand here thanking my colleague from the great State of Florida for 
putting this Special Order together on such a very important and timely 
issue.
  I want to read a quote:

       They will freeze and then dismantle their nuclear program. 
     Our other allies will be better protected. The entire world 
     will be safer as we slow the spread of nuclear weapons. The 
     United States and international inspectors will carefully 
     monitor them to make sure it keeps its commitments.

  Sound familiar, Mr. Speaker? That is what President Clinton told the 
American people about the North Korean nuclear deal in 1994. Today, 
North Korea has anywhere from 10 to 20 nuclear weapons in their 
arsenal, and that number is expected to grow to 50 in the next 5 years.
  Now, we are hearing this same type of posturing from this 
administration about the Iran negotiations. The United States seems 
destined to repeat history, unwilling to hold their ground, and 
granting Iran extension after extension and concession after 
concession.
  As a strong supporter of increasing sanctions against Iran, which 
brought Iran to the negotiating table in the first place, it is common 
sense that additional sanctions could even put more pressure on them 
when they are already hurting from the low price of their most prized 
commodity, oil.
  Nobody believes Iran when they say their nuclear infrastructure is in 
place for peaceful purposes. If that were the case, they would have no 
need to enrich uranium past 3.5 percent. Iran has a record filled with 
lies, deceit, sponsored terrorism, human rights violations, and the 
list goes on and on.
  Just as North Korea couldn't be trusted two decades ago, neither 
should Iran today. Mr. Speaker, a nuclear Iran is not only a grave 
danger to American interests, but to Israel--our strongest ally in the 
Middle East--and our many allies throughout the world.
  Of course, the world would be a much safer place if Iran were to 
neutralize their nuclear production facilities, if they would allow 
inspections at anytime, if they would disclose all military 
implications of their nuclear program, or if Iran were to demonstrate a 
better record on human rights.

                              {time}  2045

  Unfortunately, these are just what-ifs that have failed to happen 
today and I am afraid will never happen under this proposed deal.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a bad deal.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Davis, I quite agree with you.
  The more we know about this deal, Mr. Speaker, the more we know it is 
a weak, dangerous, bad deal.
  Thank you, Mr. Davis, for sharing your insight with us.
  I yield to Mr. Lance of New Jersey, who has long been speaking about 
the dangers of a nuclear Iran.
  Mr. LANCE. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the distinguished gentlewoman 
from Florida for her magnificent service regarding the foreign policy 
of this country and her continued expertise that is of benefit to the 
entire Nation.
  In the coming days, the American people and those of us in Congress 
will be able to scrutinize an anticipated agreement between Iran and 
the P5+1 countries and Iran's nuclear weapons program.
  Congress will debate and consider the administration's proposal, and 
I will be looking to ensure that any agreement achieves the paramount 
goal that Iran will never get nuclear weapons.
  A nuclear Iran would fundamentally change the international dynamic 
and put the United States and our allies, including Israel, in extreme 
peril. The balance of power in the world would slip away from those who 
have given blood and treasure in the fight for freedom and justice, 
while rewarding the perpetrators of some of the most heinous crimes 
against humanity.
  The principle of peace through deterrence would be compromised and 
the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty would be a footnote in history as 
rival and regional powers race to acquire their own nuclear weapons. A 
nuclear arms race will be yet another element of unpredictability in 
the world's most volatile region.
  I do not oppose any agreement; I oppose a bad agreement. Sanctions 
brought Iran to the table, and sanctions will keep Iran there. Any deal 
that needlessly surrenders that valuable leverage in the name of taking 
Iran's word is a bad agreement. There is simply not the trust that 
state sponsors of terror will suddenly and uncharacteristically prove 
to be honest.
  As Ronald Reagan famously said, ``Trust, but verify.'' That was true 
then; it is as true now as then. It is certainly true regarding Iran.
  A successful nuclear agreement must include tangible Iranian 
concessions. Steps to dismantle its nuclear infrastructure, a 
commitment to a robust inspections regime, and a cease to its dubious 
terror-related activities must be included in any agreement.
  The entire world will be watching, not only the 315 million people of 
this country, but certainly the people in the Middle East, which is 
extremely dangerous.
  This matter of great consequence will have far-reaching 
ramifications, and certainly, I hope that the President, the Secretary 
of State, and the

[[Page 11081]]

administration will heed the bipartisan concerns that exist here in 
Congress.
  The President reluctantly signed the legislation that reached his 
desk. That was an expression of the will of the American people through 
elected Representatives here and in the other House of Congress, 
overwhelming in its nature; and certainly, I hope that the President 
and Secretary of State and the administration will recognize that the 
American people are deeply concerned about what appears to be the 
parameters of an agreement.
  There is still time to reach a better agreement. Let me repeat, no 
agreement is superior to a bad agreement, as Prime Minister Netanyahu 
stated in this Chamber this spring.
  I hope that Iran will come meaningfully to the table. I hope that 
Iran will cease its terrorist activities across the globe. I hope Iran 
will recognize that, if it were to achieve nuclear weapons, it would be 
the beginning of a situation with unintended consequences for the 
Middle East, the most dangerous part of the world; terrible 
consequences for our friend and ally, a country that believes in 
democracy, Israel; terrible consequences for other Arab nations, 
including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and places beyond that; and that we want 
to live in peace with the Iranian people.
  The Iranian people are a great people, a talented people, a well-
educated people; and certainly, I hope that the people of Iran 
recognize that it is not in their best interest that their leaders 
develop nuclear weapons.
  Again, I commend with every breath I take the superb work of the 
gentlewoman from Florida. I am pleased to be able to join with her and 
with others this evening to caution that we must ensure a strong 
agreement and, if that is not possible, then no agreement at all.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Lance. May it be so; from 
your words to God's ears, may we get this strong deal that can truly be 
verified.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Curbelo), my 
colleague, a man with whom I have had the honor of talking about this 
issue, the danger that a nuclear Iran imposes for the stability of the 
world, not just for Israel, not just for the neighborhood, and not just 
for the United States.
  Thank you, Mr. Curbelo, for your leadership on this issue.
  Mr. CURBELO of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my 
colleague for her steadfast leadership on this issue, but really on all 
issues having to do with foreign relations in this Chamber for so many 
years. She has set the example and a very high bar for all of us who 
serve in this Chamber.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to start by reiterating just how serious the 
security threat Iran is to the United States and to our allies.
  As my colleagues have expressed here, Iran can never attain nuclear 
capabilities. Any deal reached must ensure that the Iranian regime 
completely abandons its nuclear ambitions and dismantles its nuclear 
infrastructure.
  It is absolutely critical that the Obama administration be unyielding 
when dealing with Iran. Additional concessions are simply not an 
option. A weak deal that gives the regime an opening to obtain nuclear 
weapons down the road is not good for the United States or its allies, 
especially Israel. It isn't good for the entire world.
  Even while nuclear negotiations between the P5+1 and Iran took place, 
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei openly supported the destruction of 
Israel and supported Hamas' attacks against Israel from Gaza. He also 
boasted Iranian technology was being used by Hamas to attack Israel and 
openly called for all Palestinians in the West Bank to join Hamas in 
Gaza in an armed rebellion against Israel, promising to arm those who 
participated.
  We cannot continue to view Iran's nuclear program as existing in a 
vacuum. It would be irresponsible to ignore the regime's continued 
support for terrorism, its pursuit of ballistic missiles, and its 
failure to comply with the International Atomic Energy Agency.
  Moving forward, several things must be present in an acceptable deal, 
including a robust inspection regime and the resolution of issues of 
past and present concern. Only then could a deal even begin to be 
considered as acceptable.
  Snapback sanctions relief could be difficult to implement and is not 
in the best interests of the United States. We must protect the 
sanctions infrastructure that this body put in place rather than rely 
on reactive tactics if the Iranian regime does not comply with the 
terms of the agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, when it comes to an agreement with Iran, we need to ask 
ourselves: Does this agreement prevent Iran from achieving nuclear 
capabilities and keep the United States and its allies safe? Anything 
other than that is totally unacceptable.
  The central question here, Mr. Speaker, is: What kind of a world do 
we want to live in? What kind of a world do we want for our children, 
for our grandchildren, for our families?
  A world in which the most radical terrorist regime acquires nuclear 
weapons--whether it is in 2 years, in 5 years, in 10 years, or in 15 
years--is totally unacceptable. This is a government that, again, has 
pledged to annihilate the only democracy in the Middle East, our best 
ally in the world, the country that stands with us no matter what, our 
friends in Israel.
  Some in this administration have unjustly criticized Prime Minister 
Netanyahu. For what? It is for simply wanting his country to survive 
and his people to live in peace and security.
  This is the same government that when the Ayatollah sent their 
representative--then Mr. Ahmadinejad--to Cuba in 2007, he pledged that, 
together with Cuba's dictators and the rest of their rogue allies 
throughout the world, they would bring the United States to its knees. 
I know my colleague recalls that.
  What kind of a world do we want to live in? It is still not too late 
to walk away from this table and to tell the mullahs that they will 
never acquire nuclear weapons as long as the United States is the 
greatest superpower in the world and a beacon for democracy, for peace, 
and for opportunity for all people.
  I, once again, thank my colleague for this special opportunity to 
highlight an issue that is of vital importance for the entire Nation 
and for the entire world.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Curbelo, you certainly have been a leader in 
this fight.
  It is interesting that you should bring up the dangerous clown, 
Khamenei, because he has been replaced by an equally murderous, 
sadistic thug, Rouhani; but now, the international community likes to 
call him the ``moderate'' leader, where they have had more executions 
in Iran under the so-called moderate then ever.
  The ``Death to America,'' ``Death to Israel'' chants continue, just 
as they continued during Ahmadinejad's time. Whether it is Ahmadinejad, 
whether it is a moderate Rouhani, it is a Supreme Leader who calls the 
shots.
  Nothing in Iran, sadly, has changed. They are calling for the 
destruction of our ally, and they are calling for destruction of this 
great country.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen, who was chairwoman when I was on the Foreign Affairs 
Committee. She has stepped up and always been a voice, especially in 
this area. I also want to thank Mr. Curbelo and also Mr. Davis.
  For a moment, I want to just stop here, and let's put some things in 
perspective. It has been said over and over--but we are going to talk 
about this--a bad deal is worse than no deal. I am going to say it 
again. A bad deal is worse than no deal.
  A deal the U.S. and the rest of the international community can 
accept should be one in which Iran is no longer a nuclear threat. At 
what point did we forget this, Mr. President? At what point did we lay 
down and decide that a nuclear Iran, if it is 20 years from now, is 
better than what a nuclear Iran is now? Mr. President, you

[[Page 11082]]

have got to listen to what you are saying.
  Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu explained to President Obama that 
the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action ``threatens the survival of the 
State of Israel.'' It threatens the survival of the State of Israel.
  I believe that Congress should not be party to any agreement that 
fails to protect the vital interest of Israel and other allies in the 
region. That is why I voted ``no'' on the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review 
Act.
  I am not in disagreement with Congress providing oversight of a final 
comprehensive deal, but a horrible deal isn't something Congress should 
even have to consider.
  I have previously stated and will say again that I have always made 
the security of our strongest ally in the Middle East a priority and 
will not support any deal that allows Iran the opportunity to develop a 
nuclear weapon.
  Though a final deal has not been yet announced, we know, based off 
the details of the JCPOA announced in April, of the potential for a bad 
deal. Under the framework announced in April, Iran will be able to 
maintain over 6,000 centrifuges they possess. Of the 6,000 centrifuges, 
5,000 of those will continue to enrich uranium.

                              {time}  2100

  Five thousand, what part of not having a nuclear Iran are we kidding 
ourselves here with?
  And then his wonderful snap back provisions. I am one of those that 
said we shouldn't have a snap back. They should have never gone away in 
the process.
  Why are we talking about snap back provisions when this body has 
clearly spoken that the sanctions should stay and, if anything, they 
should get tighter? But we are now talking about snap back provisions. 
What a world we live in.
  If they don't fulfill their commitment, sanctions will magically snap 
back. When I read that, it just amazes me, Mr. Speaker, that if they 
don't keep their commitments--why do we believe they are going to keep 
any commitments?
  This is just an amazing thought to me. It took several years of U.S. 
pressuring for our European allies before they started seriously 
enforcing the U.N. Security Council sanctions currently in place.
  While a U.S. President can unilaterally reinstitute sanctions that 
were previously waived, the European Union has to receive support from 
all 28 members for reimposition of former sanctions. Think about that. 
That is something we ought to talk about.
  A similar scenario could be observed at the U.N. Security Council. A 
unanimous vote by all 15 U.S. Security Council members in the 
affirmative would be needed for sanctions to be put back in place.
  How many of us in this room tonight, and how many of you who may be 
thinking about this, actually believe that will actually happen? Do you 
believe that would? I don't.
  China and Russia, both permanent members of the U.N. Security 
Council, have the most to gain from having unfettered access to Iranian 
markets. It has been widely reported that Russia is moving forward with 
the selling of S-300s, the antiaircraft weapon, to Iran. Such a weapon 
system makes the potential for Israeli or American airstrikes against 
Iranian nukes just that much more difficult to carry out.
  Russia, whose own economy is hurting as a result of the sanctions, is 
looking to diversify its investments in other economies that show 
strong potential for growth. China is always looking for new sources of 
energy, and with the elimination of international sanctions, Iran will 
have the ability to sell more oil on the international market.
  Then there is the issue of possible military dimensions. To receive 
an accurate picture of Iran's nuclear capabilities, it is imperative to 
know how close they got to developing or have gotten to developing a 
nuclear weapon. It is only after we can determine if Iran ever 
developed a nuclear warhead or triggering mechanism that the 
international community can actually know Iran's breakout time. Iran's 
PMDs must be made known to the international community prior--prior--to 
any permanent sanction relief being instituted.
  You know, this pending bad deal makes the region and the greater 
national community worse off.
  What I have heard in this Chamber tonight is very disturbing. What I 
have heard from leaders in this administration is even more disturbing. 
They have willingly determined, in my mind, to throw Israel under the 
bus and, I believe, maybe for a peace prize.
  Mr. Kerry, maybe you didn't make a mark in the Senate. Mr. Kerry, 
maybe you didn't make a mark as Secretary of State. Maybe you are 
looking for a peace prize. Your peace prize should be come home now and 
walk away from a bad deal. If you want to be recognized in the world 
for standing up for what is right, then walk away from a bad deal.
  No one wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon. They are not capable of 
handling one. They are the biggest suppliers to terrorism around the 
world. And yet we are talking about talking to a country that says just 
recently, just in the last 2 days, their leader has said it is now time 
for us to spout hatred at the Zionists.
  And we are negotiating with them?
  They don't want to say Israel has even a right to exist, and we are 
sitting at the table with them? We want to let 5,000 centrifuges keep 
spinning and keep spinning and keep spinning and keep spinning, and we 
are going to negotiate with them?
  You do not negotiate with unstable people, Mr. Speaker. You negotiate 
with people who want to live in the bonds of a civil society, in a 
civil world, and Iran's leadership is not that person.
  We are fooling ourselves. This administration has become just 
completely tunnel-visioned toward legacy. When you have a domestic 
agenda that has been as terrible as this administration, I don't blame 
you for looking overseas. But your domestic agenda is no comparison to 
the failure of a foreign policy, when world leaders ask what is 
America's role because they don't even know.
  Tonight I hope the crescendo of voices in this Chamber reaches across 
the ocean to Vienna. The last words I would like Secretary Kerry to 
hear before he sits down with the Iranians are ``a bad deal is worse 
than no deal.''
  ``Death to America,'' not shouted on the streets here in Washington, 
not shouted on the streets in New York City or San Francisco or 
Atlanta. It was shouted in the Parliament of Iran just recently, when 
they said we are not going to allow inspections. And we are sitting 
down to negotiate with them?
  ``Death to America''? And we are sitting down negotiating with them 
as if they are reasonable people?
  Have we lost our focus? Have we lost our vision of being the shining 
light to the world for freedom and hope, and decided that it is much 
better off, maybe for our political world, or maybe our personal 
achievements, to sit down with a government that says Israel should not 
even have the right to exist, and if we could, we would annihilate them 
tomorrow?
  We are going to continue funding those who have lobbed bombs on 
innocent men and women in Israel and who will sit down at a negotiating 
table and say: We are not going to allow you to inspect wherever you 
want; we are going to keep what we want to keep.
  And, by the way, even the administration's own belief is we are going 
to keep 5,000 spinning, centrifuges spinning, 5,000 spinning.
  You know what? Some have said time is Iran's friend. I agree. As long 
as they can keep our Secretary of State at that table, those 
centrifuges spin. As long as they keep us tied up debating this in this 
administration, the centrifuges spin. As long as we keep doing this, 
the centrifuges spin.
  It is time to put sanctions back in place because they are spinning. 
It is time to tighten the screws on Iran because those centrifuges are 
spinning. It is time for us not to let up because the centrifuges are 
spinning.
  And I do not want to see a world in which my children grow up and the

[[Page 11083]]

people in Israel grow up knowing that Iran has a bomb when they are 
ready to take them out in a certain notice.
  Tonight is important. Tonight is important.
  Mr. President, I pray that you listen. I don't think you will.
  Mr. Secretary, maybe you are looking for a peace prize. How about 
winning a prize in the hearts of the freedom-loving people all across 
the world and walking away from a bad deal?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Collins. I think you laid 
it out in a thoughtful manner. No deal is better than a bad deal.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin).
  Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for her 
leadership on this important issue, your leadership with America's 
foreign policy. I know that my constituents all the way up in New York 
are more secure and free due to your work through the years here in the 
Halls of Congress. I thank you for your leadership.
  This past weekend we celebrated the Fourth of July, 239 years since 
America declared its independence. What makes America great is what we 
stand for: freedom and liberty.
  And then there is Iran, the world's largest state sponsor of terror, 
a nation overthrowing foreign governments, unjustly imprisoning United 
States citizens, including a United States Marine.
  Iran blows up mock U.S. warships, develops ICBMs. They pledge to wipe 
Israel off the map. And in their streets, in their halls, they are 
chanting, ``Death to America.''
  And none of what I just described is even part of the negotiations. 
Think about that.
  The President says the only alternative to whatever deal he presents 
us with is war. I reject that. The deal the President is finalizing may 
actually pave the path to more instability in the Middle East and a 
nuclear arms race triggered in the region.
  Will the agreement be accurately translated between both languages?
  If the President presents Americans with a version in English and the 
Iranians are interpreting any different terms refuting our 
interpretation of that agreement in English, then there is no 
agreement. There is no meeting of the minds.
  Will Iran continue spinning centrifuges, enriching uranium and 
maintaining any of their nuclear infrastructure?
  Will weapons inspectors have unfettered access to Iran's nuclear 
infrastructure? Honestly, I doubt it.
  I believe that we are propping up the wrong regime in Iran.
  Six years ago, the Green Revolution, millions of Iranians took to the 
streets protesting after an undemocratic election. The economy in Iran 
was doing better at that time than it is today. Oil, twice the value as 
today.
  The President said that what was going on in Iran was none of our 
business, and look where we are today.
  I unapologetically love my country, and I am proud to be an American. 
As elected officials who took an oath to protect and defend our 
Constitution, we have a responsibility to protect our country.
  We must fight on behalf of our great Nation, which generations before 
us have fought and sacrificed so much to protect. And that is how we 
celebrate another 239 years of American exceptionalism.
  The President, when sitting down at the negotiating table, inherits 
the goodwill of generations, centuries of men and women who have come 
before them that sacrificed so much to make America the greatest Nation 
in the world. When someone says they want to run to be President of the 
United States, with that, you inherit all of that goodwill, all of that 
American exceptionalism.
  And when sitting at the table, you have no business trying to 
equalize yourself with the person you are negotiating with. That isn't 
your goodwill to expend.
  It is important for American greatness to grow. And I am concerned 
that we are on pace to enter into a bad deal with Iran.
  Here, with the leadership of colleagues like the gentlewoman from 
Florida, who I am very grateful for putting together this Special Order 
tonight, and other colleagues, like the gentleman from Florida, who 
will be speaking right after me, there is so much passion amongst my 
colleagues for wanting to do the right thing to protect our Nation, 
understanding that it is a fundamental basic that the United States 
strengthens our relationships with our allies and treats our enemies 
for exactly who they are.
  I used the analogy a couple of weeks ago of playing Texas Hold'em, 
and the President inherits pocket aces every time he sits down at the 
table. The Iranians may inherit the 7-2 off suit, the worst hand that 
you could possibly have in poker.
  The President, for whatever reason, as a negotiating style, will 
offer to switch hands. We saw it in Cuba, where dozens of good-faith 
concessions were made asking for nothing in return. Why is that?
  For one, the President isn't a very good negotiator. He still has a 
year and a half left on his second term in office, and I want him to 
strengthen his hand. He has it. He inherits it. That is what comes with 
being the President of the United States. That is what he signed up 
for.
  And what did we sign up for here in the Halls of Congress? To hold 
this President's feet to the fire if he chooses to sign a bad deal with 
Iran.
  I thank, again, the gentlewoman from Florida for her leadership. I am 
looking forward to hearing Mr. Yoho and his passionate words to follow.
  And I would encourage the President and Secretary Kerry, the leaders 
of the Obama administration, to do the right thing. Take a walk, 
strengthen your hand, and don't sell out America's goodwill.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague from Florida, Dr. Yoho.

                              {time}  2115

  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my very dear colleague from 
Florida for bringing this very important topic to light. This is 
something the American people need to weigh in on; and this is 
something, as you heard the passion tonight, the people talking about 
how this is not a good deal. This is not a good deal for anybody but 
Iran.
  I would like to do a chronological anthology of Iran's nuclear 
weapons program. If you go back 30 years ago, they were working on 
gaining the technology and the material to develop nuclear weapons.
  John Bolton, in his book ``Surrender is Not an Option,'' talked about 
the cat-and-mouse game that Iran had played over the last 30 years of 
saying, No, we are not developing nuclear weapons; and they wouldn't 
allow the inspectors in.
  The U.N. had resolutions and sanctions, and eventually, the IAEA 
inspectors--the International Atomic Energy Agency--was allowed to come 
in. They caught Iran redhanded, developing nuclear weapons.
  They apologized. They said: I am sorry. You are right. We were bad. 
We are not going to do it again.
  Then it started over again and then over again and over again. For 30 
years, we have been playing the cat-and-mouse game. It hasn't gone 
away. Their mission is to get nuclear weapons.
  When I look at George Bush, when he put sanctions in the 2000s on 
Iran to say enough is enough, the sanctions were in place, and they 
started. To President Obama's credit, he tightened them up, and it put 
more pressure on Iran, and then it brought them to the negotiation 
table.
  When you negotiate on a deal--any deal--there should be mutual 
benefits to both sides. At the end of this, you will see there is no 
benefit to America, to the Middle East, and to world peace because, 
when those negotiations started, as my colleague from New York (Mr. 
Zeldin) brought up, there was no negotiation to release our four 
American hostages.
  If you think that the sanctions were bad enough to put Iran in this 
great

[[Page 11084]]

economic tragedy or pressure that was just crippling Iran and they 
couldn't do anything and they came to the table to release the 
sanctions so that they could move on, but during that time period--this 
is what the American people need to know--during that time period, Iran 
was extending their arm and their reach into the Western Hemisphere 
through Bolivia, through Venezuela; and they were funding their 
terrorist arm, Hezbollah, that caused two terrorist attacks in 
Argentina in the nineties that was responsible for over 100 deaths and 
over 300 injured people--Iran was doing this at the time when the 
sanctions were on them, and they were supposed to be under this great 
economic stress--but they were doing that because they were funneling 
money through Venezuela and getting money for fuel plus armaments that 
they were selling. During this time, when we think our sanctions are 
working, Iran is working against us.
  I have been here in the House for 2\1/2\ years, and I sit on the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs. During those 2\1/2\ years, we have had 
experts come in, over and over again, telling us about the threat of 
Iran creating new clear weapons.
  Over and over again, they said that Iran would have enough nuclear-
enriched material to have enough material within 6 months to a year to 
have five to six atomic bombs. That was over 2 years ago, so one could 
only reasonably expect that Iran has enough material for five to six 
nuclear bombs.
  This was backed up by Henry Kissinger and George Shultz in The Wall 
Street Journal editorial about 3 months ago, that they claim that Iran 
was about 2\1/2\ months to 3 months from having nuclear material.
  Then we moved down to the negotiation. The negotiation was started--
if people will go back and research the news--from the administration, 
from John Kerry. He said negotiations have started and that the whole 
purpose was Iran cannot and will not be permitted to have a nuclear 
weapon. Now, we are just going to delay them for 10 years.
  As my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Collins) brought up, the snapback, 
if they break any part of this deal, there is going to be snapback. I 
mean, you have got to be from another planet to think that that is 
going to happen because we are going to rely on China and Russia to 
say: Yes, we are with you.
  Russia has already sold $800 million worth of antimissile defense 
systems. In addition, during this period, when Iran had all these tough 
sanctions blocking their economy, Iran has been developing an ICBM 
program.
  An ICBM program stands for an intercontinental ballistic missile 
system. That is not for their neighbors. That is for Europe. That is 
for the United States. It is for people way outside of Iran. They have 
done this with the economic sanctions.
  In addition, there is evidence that they have detonated a trigger 
device for a nuclear weapon. They have gone through expensive 
remediation, covering up the site, covering up the soil, paving it, and 
not allowing our inspectors to go in there and inspect that--the IAEA 
inspectors that we are supposed to depend on to prove that what they 
are doing is for peaceful purposes.
  Then I look at what Iran has done over the years, when we have been 
in the Middle East, with our brave young men and women in the Middle 
East, fighting for security for this country and for the neighbors in 
the Middle East. Seventy percent of the wounds to our soldiers have 
come from IEDs. Ninety percent of those IEDs were created by Iran.
  Then, as we talked about in this nuclear negotiation, Iran has got to 
be limited to the amount of centrifuges for their peaceful nuclear 
program.
  Now, get this, for a peaceful nuclear program, you need tens of 
thousands of centrifuges to produce nuclear material to run nuclear 
reactors; yet, in this deal, we are only limiting them to 5,000 
centrifuges. You only need a few thousand centrifuges to create nuclear 
weapons. It just doesn't match up.
  As we talked about, in a negotiation, there should be a mutual 
benefit. I see no benefit for America.
  Again, talking to the experts in Foreign Affairs, I asked them this 
question: With our negotiation with Iran, where we have given into 
everything and we have got nothing--keep in mind, we are supposedly the 
lone superpower of the world--when you go into a negotiation like this 
and you are operating from a level of weakness and not strength, how 
does that affect us around the world community?
  The experts told me that it has weakened America's standing in the 
world. It has weakened our negotiation power in the world. It has 
weakened and threatened our security in the Western Hemisphere.
  I agree with Mr. Collins. I hope the President is listening, but I am 
sure he is not; I hope Mr. Kerry is listening, but I am sure he is not, 
but I hope this message gets to them--that, if they are going to 
negotiate for America, they should negotiate from a point of strength, 
a point for what is right, not just for our country, but for the Middle 
East and for the rest of the world because, if America is not strong 
and if we do not stand strong, there is not a secure world.
  I thank my colleague from Florida for bringing this up because this 
is a debate the American people need to hear. I hope they put pressure 
on the people in charge of this and bring this negotiation--as they 
have said over and over again, a bad deal they will not stand for--this 
is a bad deal, and this is something they need to walk away from.
  We, in the House of Representatives, need to block this in any way 
that we can. I will not, I shall not, and I cannot support this because 
what I see is we are trying to prevent that which we can't, instead of 
preparing for that which will be.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank you, Dr. Yoho, and I think you laid out the 
chronology of the long timetable of the deceit that Iran has been 
dealing with in terms of their nuclear program.
  I thank all of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, who joined tonight's 
Special Order to discuss Iran's nuclear negotiations that are going on 
in Vienna as we speak. After missing deadline after deadline and 
allowing for extension after extension, we are now hearing that these 
negotiations may be open-ended.
  It is our job in Congress to conduct proper oversight on any proposed 
deal and to reject any deal that is not in the best interests of our 
national security or the security and stability of the entire region.
  As current law stipulates, if a deal is submitted for congressional 
review before tomorrow, then Congress only has a 30-day review period. 
However, if this deal is submitted after tomorrow, we will have 60 days 
to review the terms of the agreement.
  Why should the administration fear an additional 30 days of review? 
If this deal is so good, as the administration keeps telling us, then 
it should be strong enough to stand up to congressional review and 
congressional scrutiny; but the administration knows just how weak this 
deal will be.
  Mr. Speaker, let's review, as my colleagues have done, how far back 
we have slid from conditions that we placed on Iran when we started and 
how much the P5+1 countries have caved through its concessions to this 
rogue and dangerous regime.
  Let's start with this: there are six United Nations Security Council 
resolutions against Iran and its nuclear program. Each one of those 
resolutions puts restrictions on Iran and calls for a complete stop on 
uranium enrichment, a complete stop.
  The Supreme Leader argued that it had a right to enrich under the 
nonproliferation treaty, the NPT, to which it is a signatory, but of 
course, all of these alleged rights should have been forfeited once it 
was discovered that Iran had been in violation of the nonproliferation 
treaty and other international obligations for decades because it has 
been operating a covert nuclear program; yet the P5+1 countries 
inexplicably ceded the so-called right to Iran.
  In fact, in 2009, the President clearly stated: ``Iran must comply 
with U.N. Security Council resolutions and make clear it is willing to 
meet its responsibilities as a member of the community of nations.''

[[Page 11085]]

  That ended up not being true, as the President has caved on that 
commitment. The President has repeatedly stated in the past that Iran 
doesn't need to have a fortified underground facility in Fordo, a heavy 
water reactor in Arak, or some of the other advanced centrifuges that 
they currently possess in order to have a peaceful nuclear program; yet 
where are we now?
  Well, Iran will maintain Fordo and its capacity to produce and store 
heavy water while continuing to not just operate advanced centrifuges, 
Mr. Speaker, but to also test and conduct research and development on 
them as well--how far we have moved those goalposts.
  There is also a serious and dangerous issue of the possible military 
dimensions, PMD, and Iran's past nuclear activity.
  Just 3 weeks ago, Secretary Kerry confirmed what we long suspected, 
that disclosure of past nuclear activity is no longer a must-have for 
this administration in this nuclear deal.
  How would any agreement that doesn't demand that Iran at least come 
clean about the extent of its program going to be a good deal, Mr. 
Speaker? Don't forget that the Supreme Leader has also repeatedly 
stated that Iran's military sites would not be accessible to 
international inspectors.
  Let's not forget one of the most important things here, the ultimate 
gift we have given Iran. This deal will help legitimize this rogue 
regime that will not only allow Iran to be viewed as a responsible 
nation, but it is no longer going to be the pariah state. We are going 
to say it is a trusted member of the international community, and we 
have done that. We have granted that legitimacy with these 
conversations.
  Also, the reports indicate--and I don't hear any words to the 
contrary--that Iran may receive a $50 billion signing bonus, as if this 
is the NFL draft, a signing bonus which it will then use to support 
terror, which it will use to foment instability, which it will use to 
stoke sectarian tensions, which it will use to continue to threaten 
Israel, which it will continue to undermine U.S. national security 
interests.

                              {time}  2130

  Mr. Speaker, that is what their signing bonus will do. That is what 
sanctions relief will do. If the United States is willing to overlook 
all of these transgressions, all of these crimes, and negotiate a deal 
with Iran without pressing for changes in its actions, then it will be 
seen as an endorsement of those actions.
  Mr. Speaker, we have every indication that we are not going to get 
what any of us would remotely consider to be even a halfway good deal. 
The requirements for a good deal went out the window when the 
negotiators allowed Iran to maintain its entire nuclear infrastructure 
and continue to enrich uranium.
  It is our obligation, then, to conduct our proper oversight and 
review and reject any nuclear deal that we feel is not in the best 
interests of our U.S. national security. If we do that, we must move 
swiftly to reimpose any sanctions that have been suspended, any 
sanctions that have been waived against the regime, and to ensure that 
all sanctions are fully and vigorously enforced. Then we must move to 
enact additional sanctions on the regime until it meets its 
international obligations and abandons its pursuit of an illicit 
nuclear weapons program. Once upon a time, that was the goal.
  From the very beginning, Mr. Speaker, I have been saying that Iran is 
following the North Korean playbook: offering to negotiate in return 
for concessions but never delivering on anything tangible, only to 
break off when they no longer need what we have been giving them.
  I wrote this op-ed on October 19, 2012, ``Ros-Lehtinen: Obama Still 
Trying to Sweet-Talk Iran Out of Building the Bomb,'' and I was talking 
about the North Korea deal and how that dovetails with the Iranian 
deal. I wrote of the dangers of the Obama administration's naive view 
that if we keep talking, if we keep engaging with this rogue regime, 
then Iran will stop its drive for nuclear capability.
  I stated then, and I believe now, that this is what we are witnessing 
today, Mr. Speaker, that the Iranians will give the impression that a 
deal will be likely only to then pull away, that Iran benefits from 
dragging out the negotiations as long as possible because, as Mr. 
Collins of Georgia said, the centrifuges are still spinning, and they 
want to provide its nuclear program extra time in order to convince the 
world that an agreement is possible, leaving the administration and the 
EU to quietly ease sanctions enough to revive the stagnant Iranian 
economy that had been on the brink of collapse thanks to the sanctions 
that Congress placed on them; because that was the intent and the 
purpose and the objective of the sanctions, not to get them to 
negotiate, but to collapse their economy so that they could not pour 
money into their terrorist activities and their covert nuclear program.
  But what we are seeing now is the administration and other P5+1 
countries will allow the terms of the JPOA and, thus, the easing of 
sanctions to continue to be in place despite having overextended 
several deadlines. Iran never had any intention of coming to a real 
agreement, and we would be foolhardy to believe that it does now, not 
when it is already getting everything it wants. Why should they concede 
anything now?
  Mr. Speaker, the only way that Iran will say yes to a deal is if it 
is so bad and so weak that Iran would be stupid and silly to walk away 
from it. Yet that is precisely what we are looking at right now, Mr. 
Speaker. Either Iran keeps dangling an agreement in front of the P5+1 
and continues to get more sanctions relief, or the P5+1 completely and 
utterly capitulates to Iranian demands.
  So it is incumbent upon us, Mr. Speaker, to reject any deal that we 
view to be weak, any deal that we perceive to be a bad deal, any deal 
that is not in the interests of our U.S. national security interests.
  We must also continue to push back on this false binary notion that 
tells you that it is either this deal--no matter how bad it is--or 
going to war. That has been a fundamental misunderstanding of the 
purpose of the Iranian sanctions themselves. The fact that some believe 
that Iranian sanctions were designed only to get Iran to the 
negotiation table could not be further from the truth. The Iranian 
sanctions were designed to force the region to abandon completely its 
nuclear weapons ambitions, to give up its enrichment, and to dismantle 
its nuclear program.
  I should know, Mr. Speaker, because I am the author of several Iran 
sanctions bills, including the toughest set of sanctions against this 
terrible regime that are currently on the books right now. Sanctions, I 
might remind my colleagues and the American people, that the Obama 
administration fought us every step of the way or until it was clear 
that the administration could not stop our sanctions from becoming law, 
and then they said, Okay, we will accept them. So there is an 
alternative to these misguided talks.
  That is how I am going to conclude my Special Order tonight, Mr. 
Speaker. We must abandon these talks that are just patently a farce. We 
immediately reinstate all sanctions against Iran that have been eased, 
that have been waived, that have been lifted, and that have been 
ignored by the Obama administration and enact even tougher sanctions on 
the regime.
  We were on the brink until Iran received the lifeline that it needed. 
We gave it to them, and now we are the ones dangling on it as Iran's 
economy is being brought back to life because of sanctions relief, and 
the regime has been gaining concession after concession while never 
once making any change that would substantially and significantly set 
back its nuclear ambitions.
  So, Mr. Speaker, in the end, I will conclude with this: Reinstating 
and strengthening these sanctions, coupled with the credible threat 
that all options are on the table, including the military option, could 
act as the deterrent, but only if Iran recognizes that we are in a 
position of strength. That is why it is important that this body

[[Page 11086]]

speak up. That is why it is important that we reject any deal we find 
to be insufficient, but we must also not let billions of dollars flow 
to the Iranian regime. We must start passing legislation that would 
impose tougher sanctions.
  This is a matter of utmost concern to our national security. I urge 
my colleagues to remain engaged on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________