[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 8]
[House]
[Page 11107]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       IRAN NUCLEAR NEGOTIATIONS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, we are quickly approaching one of the 
most important deadlines in the recent history of the national security 
of the United States, the often postponed end of negotiations to halt 
Iran's nuclear weapons program.
  I support the goal of stopping Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions 
forever, and I have grave fears that the United States is headed down a 
very dangerous path of concession and surrender to a terrorist regime 
that has had American blood on its hands since 1979, military and 
civilian.
  Each and every day, we read new reports that Iranian leaders are 
systematically ``moving the goalposts'' on these important 
negotiations.
  Let me cite just a few examples. First, any prudent agreement would 
allow ``no notice'' inspections of suspected--not just declared--
Iranian nuclear weapon sites; yet the Iranian parliament has passed 
legislation banning inspections of their military installations.
  Senior Iranian officials have also taken it further, declaring: ``Not 
only will we not grant foreigners the permission to inspect our 
military sites, we will not even give them permission to think about 
such a subject.''
  This attitude would make any agreement totally unverifiable.
  Secondly, any worthwhile agreement would phase in sanctions relief as 
the regime proves, over time, that it is complying with all provisions; 
yet President Rouhani has declared: ``We will not sign any deal unless 
sanctions are lifted on the same day.''
  Why would we allow Iran to boost its staggering economy by providing 
an immediate capital infusion with which to support their relentless 
military, intelligence, and political efforts across the globe?
  President Obama's explanations have been nothing short of baffling. 
He told National Public Radio: ``How, if at all, can you prevent Iran 
from using its new wealth over the next several years to support Bashar 
al-Assad of Syria, to support Hezbollah, adventures in Yemen, or 
elsewhere? I mean, there's been no lessening of their support of 
Hezbollah or Assad during the course of the last 4 or 5 years, at a 
time when their economy has been doing terribly.''
  Well, that is the point, Mr. President. The United States should not 
throw up its hands and actually allow the Iranian economy to be 
stimulated so they have even more money to solidify their place as the 
world's leading state sponsor of terrorism.
  Immediate sanctions relief will only provide more resources for them 
to use their elite Quds Force and their proxy militias in Iraq; 
dominate that country; and advance their goals in Syria, Yemen, and 
elsewhere.
  Of course, they will have more motivation to do so. The tentative 
agreement announced in April and everything we have heard and read 
since then seems to reinforce the lesson this administration is willing 
to give away much more in return for nothing in the way of changing 
their behavior. Once again, we must never forget that Iran has had 
American blood on its hands since 1979.
  Iran has cheated before and is likely to cheat again; yet the 
administration makes concession after concession to Tehran, even as 
Iran spreads violence in Yemen, Syria, Iraq; threatens the safety of 
our troops in the Middle East; and develops new ICBMs that will put 
America in its ``crosshairs.''
  My colleagues, Iran's nuclear weapons quest must be blocked 
indefinitely, including the verifiable dismantlement of its weapons 
infrastructure. They cannot be allowed to remain a ``threshold nuclear 
weapons state,'' only to join the ``nuclear club'' the moment the 
agreement lapses.
  From where I stand and from what we know today, we must oppose this 
agreement. In fact, no deal is better than a bad deal.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).


                    Enhancement of Unity in America

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey for his kindness.
  Might I rise, really, to follow up to ask America to be unified and 
to be able to have a debate on the floor of the House on a resolution 
that I offered, H. Res. 342. To the gentleman from New Jersey, it says 
``the enhancement of unity in America.''
  What it speaks to is for this body to go on the record for saying 
that divisive emblems and symbols--swastikas or a rebel flag, a 
fighting flag--does not even represent the flag that most people think 
it is--the Confederate flag, this is the rebel flag--to put all those 
away; to be able to educate our children about the excitement of how 
diverse we are; to be reminded of the history of Reconstruction--
African Americans who are Senators and Congresspersons; to look at 
schools who now carry names of people who really might be considered 
treasonists; to be able to stand on the floor today or next week, as 
those in South Carolina did, in a civil way, so that our children will 
know that these symbols that divide are not history; and to be able to 
stand together and support the diversity of America.
  That is what I stand for, and I stand with Houston, who is 
reconsidering many school names at this time.

                          ____________________