A picture of Representative Ron DeSantis
Ron D.
Republican FL 6

About Rep. Ron
  • Iran

    by Representative Ron DeSantis

    Posted on 2015-04-13

    submit to reddit

    Read More about Iran

    Congressional Record, Volume 161 Issue 52 (Monday, April 13, 2015)

    [Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 52 (Monday, April 13, 2015)]
    [Pages H2139-H2143]
    From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
      The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Stefanik). Under the Speaker's announced 
    policy of January 6, 2015, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. DeSantis) is 
    recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
      Mr. DeSANTIS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to discuss the situation 
    with Iran.
      President Obama recently said that criticism of the concessions that 
    his administration is making to Iran ``needs to stop.'' Well, I 
    disagree. We in this body have a responsibility to speak the truth and 
    to stop a dangerous deal.
      Take a step back a little bit from some of the recent hullabaloo 
    about whether Iran has the same understanding of the deal as the United 
    States does. It is true, if you listen to the Ayatollah, he basically 
    said the deal basically represents a complete surrender on everything 
    from day one; and the administration, when they put out their fact 
    sheet, what they put out was different.
      Here is, I think, a fundamental problem with this. Even if you take 
    the administration's talking points as the meeting of the minds, even 
    if you assume that that will be written down and memorialized, and even 
    assume that Iran keeps the various components of the deal, the fact of 
    the matter is this: this framework provides international legitimacy 
    for Iran's nuclear infrastructure, and it allows Iran to use advanced 
    centrifuges immediately.
      Now, that was something that just a few years ago was thought to be 
    totally outside the realm of what was acceptable. I think the thought 
    amongst U.S. policymakers going back several administrations as well as 
    other friendly countries was, look, this is a theocratic, jihadist 
    regime in the Middle East that is sitting on centuries' worth of oil 
    and gas. They don't need nuclear power for peaceful purposes, 
    certainly, so why would we allow them to pursue a nuclear program 
    knowing the ideology of the regime, knowing the threats that they have 
    made to Israel and to the United States? Of course they don't get a 
    nuclear program, and yet under this framework, their nuclear 
    infrastructure is legitimized.
      The sanctions relief that we are talking about is worth billions and 
    billions of dollars to Iran. It will give Iran additional lifeblood to 
    foment jihad and to expand its influence in the Middle East and beyond. 
    So just know, I mean, even if you were somehow getting them to 
    dismantle their nuclear program, when you talk about the leading state 
    sponsor of terrorism, any sanctions relief they get is not going to go 
    to benefit the Iranian people. That is going to be plowed into Iran 
    doing dastardly deeds.
      It is interesting, when you talk about the sanctions, and I know the 
    Ayatollah said: Look, the sanctions are gone. As soon as that agreement 
    is signed, they are gone.
      The administration says: Oh, no. We will get rid of the sanctions as 
    Iran complies; and if Iran cheats, we will snap back the sanctions.
      The problem is that is extremely unlikely because what is going to be 
    done, the international sanctions are going to be relaxed and then if, 
    down the road, Iran cheats, the idea that you are going to be able to 
    snap your fingers and get all these other countries onboard to be able 
    to reimpose sanctions is really a fantasy.
      In fact, just today brought news that Russia is resuming sales of the 
    S-300 missile system to Iran. That had been something that they had 
    stopped years ago. That is going to be business for Russia. It is going 
    to be something
    [[Page H2140]]
    that is going to be a huge boon to Iran in terms of protecting its 
    nuclear infrastructure from a potential attack. It is also interesting: 
    Russia is the country that is supposed to store Iran's uranium, yet 
    here they are doing business.
      So I think it is going to be very difficult to snap back 
    international sanctions.
      If you were going to use sanctions in that way, the sanctions that 
    you would want, you would want to come to Congress and say, ``Hey, 
    Congress, you relieve sanctions, they are going to do this; if they 
    don't do it, then you snap back,'' because they know the Congress will 
    reimpose the sanctions. And we are eager to do that, even right now.
      You are not going to snap back international sanctions. So I think 
    Iran understands that, and I think they know that once those sanctions 
    are removed, that is going to be a continual lifeblood to them and they 
    will be able to cheat on the agreement if they think that is what is in 
    their best interest.
      I think one of the troubling aspects of this deal, of this framework, 
    is that the President himself, you know, a year and a half ago, laid 
    down some red lines. He said we know certain things need to be trued in 
    agreement. Iran does not need to have an underground, fortified 
    facility like at Fordo. He said they don't need a heavy water reactor 
    like they have at Arak, and he said they don't need any type of 
    advanced centrifuges if they are going to have a peaceful program.
      But if you look under the announced framework, even if what the 
    administration says is true, Fordo lives on. They say it is going to be 
    a nuclear research facility. I am not sure why you need to have a 
    nuclear research facility fortified underground to prevent an airstrike 
    if you are just doing peaceful research.
      Arak will still be there as a heavy water reactor, and of course Iran 
    will have thousands of centrifuges. These are centrifuges that are not 
    necessary to have a peaceful program.
      So those are red lines that were laid down and that have been 
      The military sites, is there going to be any unfettered access to 
    Iran's military sites? I think the answer seems to be absolutely not. 
    Certainly what Iran has said, that is totally out of the question from 
    their perspective, but it is not even clear under the administration's 
    framework whether those military sites will be sites that inspectors 
    can access.
      And we know that in the past, in 2002, the only reason we were able 
    to figure out that they were doing nuclear work at one of their 
    military sites is because Iranian opposition forces, or folks who were 
    opposed to the regime, filled us in. But that was not something that 
    any inspectors had access to.
      I think another really significant flaw in the deal is that, let's 
    just say Iran looks at it and says: Well, if we cheat, maybe they will 
    reimpose sanctions. We think it is unlikely, but we don't want to kind 
    of take that risk. They have an incentive, if they want the bomb, to 
    keep the deal because, after a 10- to 13-year period, everything is 
    going to be gone.
      So if they keep the deal, given the amount of nuclear infrastructure 
    they are allowed to keep, they are going to be able to build a bomb at 
    the end of that 10-or 13-year period, and that is totally outside the 
    realm of what is ever thought to be acceptable.
      Here you have a country that is very patient. They have a very, very 
    serious ideology that they are hell-bent on pursuing. And if they have 
    to wait 10 or 13 years before they are able to acquire a bomb, they may 
    make that calculation: Hey, we will just keep the deal, and we are 
    going to be home free.
      I think the longer that that happens, I think you are going to be in 
    a situation where that may make a lot of sense for them, and I think 
    the international community will be much less inclined to want to do 
    anything at the end of that 10- or 13-year period.
      It is interesting to me, just looking at how this has unfolded. When 
    the Ayatollah goes out and says: Death to America; we are not going to 
    make any concessions--all this--the President is asked by the press, 
    well, the Ayatollah is out there saying that. And he says: Well, look, 
    he has his hard-liners he has to pacify. We are not really worried 
    about that. That is just for domestic political consumption.
      It is interesting because when Prime Minister Netanyahu was in a 
    political campaign and he made a comment about the infeasibility of a 
    two-state solution, given the situation in the Middle East, the 
    administration really hung that on him. And they said: Oh, he said it. 
    We are going to have to reevaluate our posture at the United Nations. 
    We may go international to try to impose some type of two-state 
    settlement on that situation. And there, they were absolutely not 
    willing to cut Prime Minister Netanyahu any slack.
      So they cut the Ayatollah of Iran, a guy that has a lot of American 
    blood on his hands, more slack than they will cut the Prime Minister of 
    Israel. That, to me, is just extremely frustrating.
      I think that when you hear people who will defend the framework, they 
    will say, ``Either you support this framework or you want a major 
    war,'' and I think that that is a straw man, but I think that it is a 
    straw man just simply more than the fact that a lot of people think 
    that there are things we could do to get a better deal.
      But put that aside. A bad deal makes war more likely because what you 
    are going to see are countries in the Middle East react to Iran 
    building a bomb. They are going to react to Iran's designs for the 
    region. We see Iran; they are the leading patron of Hezbollah in 
    Lebanon, Assad in Syria, the Hamas terrorists in the Gaza Strip, the 
    Houthis in Yemen, and, of course, the Shiite militias in Baghdad and in 
    other parts of Shiite Iraq.
      People see that--the Sunni regimes see that, and they are going to 
    respond--and you will end up with a potentially catastrophic arms race 
    in the most volatile region in the world.
      The final point I would just make, and I have some of my colleagues 
    here. We wanted to get some folks here who had served the country in 
    uniform, served in the Iraq or Afghanistan campaigns.
                                  {time}  2045
      The reason is because I think that anyone who has served in those 
    conflicts knows that, at least I can say for Iraq, probably the number 
    one source of deaths for U.S. servicemembers in Iraq came at the hands 
    of Iranian-backed groups. Maybe not the most. It was probably pretty 
    close, certainly hundreds of deaths, maybe as many as 1,500 deaths for 
    groups that would explode these huge EFP bombs that would maim and kill 
    indiscriminately. They were never really held to account for that. That 
    brought a lot of anguish to a lot of American families who don't have 
    their loved ones coming home as a result of that despicable regime.
      So, Madam Speaker, this is not a regime that wants to be a good 
    neighbor. They don't want to be part of a peaceful international order. 
    It is a regime dedicated to the ideology of jihad. They have proven 
    time and time again that they are interested and that they are willing 
    to kill Americans with impunity.
      With that, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin), a 
    friend of mine and a veteran who in just a short time has really, 
    really been powerful in speaking the truth about this deal and about 
    the failures of American policy vis-a-vis close allies of ours such as 
      Mr. ZELDIN. Thank you, Mr. DeSantis. Thank you for your leadership on 
    this critically important issue. I also appreciate your pointing out 
    the hypocrisy of the Obama administration having nothing to say as the 
    Ayatollah, the people of Iran, and the leadership of the Iranian 
    Government talk about death to America, and this President does 
    nothing, excusing it--it is okay because of the hard-liners in Iran. 
    Yet he will be critical of the Israeli Prime Minister, who is speaking 
    of the lack of viability of a two-state solution. I really appreciate 
    your leadership on all of these issues and pointing out the very 
    hypocritical position.
      Madam Speaker, I am here today to articulate some of my concerns with 
    the current status of the Iran nuke talks. Just recently, the President 
    announced a framework agreement with Iran. At that time he released a 
    fact sheet. That fact sheet, within 24 hours, saw the Iranian Foreign 
    Minister going on his Twitter feed disputing that fact sheet and 
    calling it just spin. Both sides, the Obama administration and the 
    Iranian Government, are both spinning in different directions for their 
    own domestic politics what isn't even in agreement.
    [[Page H2141]]
      An agreement requires a meeting of the minds. When you announce an 
    agreement and both sides are disputing what the terms of that agreement 
    are, there is no agreement. I don't know if anyone believes that the 
    negotiators purposely left off a signature block on that fact sheet.
      Let's talk about what is not included: Iran's state sponsorship of 
    terrorism, Iran blowing up mock USS warships, talking about the need to 
    erase Israel from the map, Iran's development of ICBMs, and 
    overthrowing foreign governments. These aren't even part of the 
    negotiations. Nothing is being reported to the American people about 
    how individuals who are U.S. citizens are being wrongfully held in 
    captivity by the Iranian Government. This President's tactics with 
    these negotiations, regardless of who the next President of the United 
    States will be, these tactics are cutting off the leverage of that next 
    President who may be emboldened in ways that this President isn't to 
    tackle those challenges of the ways Iran sponsors terrorism throughout 
    the Middle East and around the globe.
      These talks are on pace to trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle 
    East. Iran is not negotiating in good faith, and they smell American 
    weakness, not American strength.
      The Obama administration believes that the only option is to cut a 
    deal just to cut a deal. This President should instead, with strength 
    and courage as the leader of the free world, be bringing the Iranians 
    to their knees. That is what strength looks like. If you want to change 
    sanctions, strengthen them. Don't weaken them.
      Madam Speaker, in 2009, the Iranians were emboldened, contesting what 
    was supposed to be a democratic election that was widely viewed as 
    being full of corruption. Where was President Obama in 2009 when this 
    opportunity presented itself for the Iranian people while oil was $100 
    a barrel? Our President could have exercised leadership then, and we 
    would not even be here today. The President says that the only option 
    is to cut this deal just to cut a deal.
      I don't buy that there aren't other options to pursue. As I talk to 
    colleagues, really, on both sides of the aisle, sharing concern with 
    the direction of these nuke talks, there is resolve and commitment to 
    find a third strategy. If that time comes, where the President of the 
    United States believes he must threaten the use of dropping a bomb, he 
    must be prepared to do it and threaten to drop 20 more. If that time in 
    the future comes where this President or the next has to then drop 
    another bomb, threaten to drop 50 more. Our enemies do not respect 
    weakness; they only respect strength.
      But today as we stand here in this stage of these Iran nuke talks, I 
    stand with my colleagues who know that there is a third option that 
    this President is not telling the American people about for his own 
    domestic politics.
      I challenge our President with strength to bring the Iranian 
    Government to their knees. You are the leader of the free world. Act 
    like it.
      Mr. DeSANTIS. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from New York. I think 
    those are great points. We are going to have some good debates here in 
    the Congress. I don't think that having done this deal--I guess it was 
    the day after April Fools'. We thought it was going to be April Fools', 
    and now this being the first night back, we are just beginning.
      At this time, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), 
    another veteran and another friend of mine.
      Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman from Florida 
      Madam Speaker, this is an important debate, and I know with the many 
    decisions that you have in Florida and other things going on, what 
    amazes me is, as was just stated, that I am not sure what the 
    President's goal is here. The reason I believe, that most of us 
    believe, that Iran even decided to negotiate was the fact that 
    sanctions worked, that they were struggling under those sanctions, that 
    they were having to deal with the reality that the world did not want 
    them to have nuclear capability.
      I am telling you, at this point, what is disturbing to me is, I am 
    tired of this administration, this President, trying to earn accolades 
    of the world on the back of Israel. They cannot continue to do that. 
    Israel is the one that is suffering here. Israel will be the one that 
    is at the point of, the tip of the spear. And for those who have 
    served, we know that.
      We know that Iran, as my friend from Florida stated earlier, Iran was 
    behind and is behind most of the terrorism in the world many times in 
    the world today. But yet this administration turns a blind eye because 
    they believe that under the cloak of diplomacy that Iran will come to 
    the table. It was not that Iran came to the table under the cloak of 
    diplomacy. Iran came to the table because they were suffering because 
    sanctions were working.
      So, last week, the President gave an interview discussing the Joint 
    Comprehensive Plan of Action, the deal struck by Iran and the P5+1 
    nations over Iran's nuclear program. More than a few things the 
    President said during the course of the interview raised some red flags 
    for me and should raise some uneasiness among the American people.
      The first item of concern is the inability on the part of the 
    administration to get a concession from Iran to cease its uranium 
    enrichment program. The very thing that most of us in Congress have 
    said is they need to cease this idea. They need to cease their pursuit 
    of a nuclear program. We didn't get concessions.
      The President said during the interview that in 13 to 15 years Iran 
    will have the ability to develop the necessary fissile material to 
    develop a nuclear weapon, and there will be little to nothing the 
    international community can do to stop Iran. I am sorry, Mr. President, 
    you will be out of office, and you will not be able to utter anything 
    but regret at that statement because in 10 to 15 years, if they have 
    that capability, then the rest of the world has to deal with it. Where 
    will you be, Mr. President? A private citizen, not in a chance when you 
    could actually do something. Stand up while you can.
      We learned through this interview that the goal of the current 
    framework isn't to end Iran's ability to reach the capacity to build a 
    nuclear weapon but only to suspend their ability for a short time. In 
    the framework the administration presented to the world, Iran's 
    restriction on producing enough highly enriched uranium to build a bomb 
    will only persist for 10 years. After 10 years, what sanctions will 
    still be in place to bring Iran back to the negotiating table?
      The framework also doesn't sit well with our allies in the region. 
    They have understandable concerns over the U.S. getting cozy with an 
    Iranian regime that is becoming more influential.
      Apparently, the President feels that the U.S.-Israel relationship is 
    a casual matter. When asked, Should Iran recognize Israel's right to 
    exist? the President responded with a smile. I am sorry. As one who sat 
    in this Chamber just a few weeks ago and heard from Benjamin Netanyahu 
    about the importance of this problem right now with Iran, I am not one 
    who responds with a smile when it becomes on Israel's independence and 
    right to exist.
      Until Iran acknowledges that, then nothing should be on the table. 
    Israel should exist. It is our most important ally, and we should stand 
    with them. For the President not to realize that is a tragedy among 
    American life. Iran has declared that Israel should be wiped off the 
    face of the Earth, and the President feels it is appropriate to smile 
    about this? Excuse me. Why is he smiling about a country that wants to 
    wipe off our most important ally?
      Israel is in the most precarious position when it comes to Iran 
    developing a nuclear device. Iran has the ability to target Israel 
    through the use of a ballistic missile or on the ground or by one of 
    its proxies, such as Hezbollah. The relationship between U.S. and 
    Israel has to be so close as to not allow a crack to form. The current 
    P5+1 framework deal is causing fissures in what has always been an 
    ironclad relationship.
      You see, I will continue to criticize a deal that puts Israel at risk 
    and will fight to maintain Israel's qualitative military edge in the 
    region. The JCPA shows why it is necessary for Congress to be involved 
    in this process. It is the role of Congress to ensure, alongside the 
    executive branch, that our national security and the safety of our 
    allies are maintained.
    [[Page H2142]]
      Madam Speaker, unless this administration realizes that there are 
    some countries that, unfortunately, through their own actions, choose 
    to say we want to be outside the norm of relations, when they choose to 
    say Israel should not exist, when they choose to continue to fund 
    terrorism around the world, then they should not be allowed a 
    prestigious seat at the table to get to dictate terms. That is wrong. 
    Until this administration realizes it, shame on this administration. If 
    they continue to want to win public accolades for their diplomatic 
    action, then, unfortunately, this administration is doing so on the 
    back of Israel. I, for one, and I know many others here, will not stand 
    for that.
      Mr. President, this is not a place to try and win points on the back 
    of our strongest ally. Listen to what the Prime Minister said. And when 
    you listen, then you will understand that this is a bad deal. It is 
    time to walk away.
      Mr. DeSANTIS. I thank my friend from Georgia for that.
      Madam Speaker, it is true. This was a very simple request that was 
    asked of the President: Did you talk to the Ayatollah's people? Did you 
    talk to the Iranian negotiators about just recognizing Israel's right 
    to exist as a Jewish state? So this way, this whole idea of ``death to 
    Israel, death to America'' shows that Iran is serious about having 
    peace, and the President dismissed that out of hand. He said, Look, you 
    are not going to change the nature of a regime by asking them to 
    recognize the right of Israel to exist.
      The problem, though, with that explanation is that the whole real 
    underpinning of this deal, I think, rests on the assumption that Iran's 
    regime might change because when you are sunsetting it in 10 or 13 
    years, if the regime hasn't changed by then, well, guess what? You are 
    at a nuclear Iran at that point. So I think that they assume that there 
    is going to be some change over the next decade. Otherwise, that sunset 
    provision makes even less sense than it does already.
      I also just know one more thing. Who is cheering this deal? The head 
    of Hezbollah, the Lebanese terrorist group. This was a group that Iran 
    started funding shortly after the Iranian revolution in 1979. They were 
    responsible for killing over 240 U.S. marines at the marine barracks in 
    Beirut, Lebanon, in 1983, and they have been instrumental in launching 
    attacks against Israel ever since.
                                  {time}  2100
      Here is what the head of Hezbollah said:
           As a result of this deal, Iran will become richer and 
         wealthier and will also become more influential.
      He said:
           This will reinforce the position of Iran's allies. A 
         stronger and wealthier Iran in the coming phase will be able 
         to stand by its allies and especially the Palestinian 
         resistance more than at any other time in history.
      Hezbollah sees a stronger Iran as a result of this deal. They see 
    more support for terrorist groups such as Hamas and the Gaza Strip, and 
    I think the logical inference is they see more attacks against Israel 
    as a result of this deal. That is very, very troubling.
      I would like to take this time now to yield to the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania, Scott Perry, another good friend of mine, a veteran from 
    Pennsylvania, and a really strong voice on national security.
      Mr. PERRY. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the efforts of my good friend 
    from Florida to bring this issue to the floor and start the discussion.
      Of course, when we hear from the administration that, somehow, 
    because we are having the discussion because, somehow, we dare to 
    question that we are on the wrong side of history, that we are 
    unpatriotic, and literally, in many cases, the administration is trying 
    to equate those in this Chamber, in this body, who would have a 
    discussion and would call into question some of the tenets of this 
    framework and then this agreement--which we didn't know much about--
    that we are tantamount to the same thing as the hardliners in Iran, the 
    hardliners that had horrific human rights violations over the course of 
    the last 50 years, as far as America is concerned, and literally do 
    unspeakable things. That is breathtaking to me.
      The problem is, among other things, that we are skeptical because our 
    negotiating partner in this, Iran, is not trustworthy, simply not 
    trustworthy. Just picture yourself and your own family, if you were 
    negotiating an infraction within your own family, and while you were 
    discussing the infraction, that member of your family was doing the 
    exact same thing that you were discussing about the cheating. That is 
    exactly what happened, Madam Speaker.
      During the discussion, during this negotiation, we found an 
    undisclosed site in Iran, and we don't know how many more there are. It 
    was undisclosed. They said, Oh, well, yeah, sorry about that; you can 
    take a look now, I suppose.
      But how many more are there? Why would we trust someone like that? 
    Why would we trust someone, knowing the track record over the last 35 
    or 40 years of this country, of this nation?
      I think Americans need to know where the negotiation started on both 
    sides--what were Iran's requirements, what were the United States' 
    requirements--because we hear this is a good deal. We understand from 
    the administration that it is a good deal, but we want to know it is a 
    good deal with our own eyes.
      We want to see it. We want to think about it. We want to internalize 
    it. We want to have an opportunity to ruminate on it and sleep on it 
    and look at our children and think about our grandchildren in the world 
    they are going to live in and think about whether this is a good deal. 
    We are told: No, it is a good deal, take my word for it.
      We don't know where negotiations started and ended for the most part, 
    but some things, we do know. We do know that 2 years ago--heck, a year 
    ago, enriching uranium for Iran was unforgivable, it was not allowed 
    not only by the United States, but by the community of nations, by the 
    United Nations.
      Now, just with this framework, we have legitimized not hundreds of 
    centrifuges, but tens of thousands of centrifuges. Meanwhile, countries 
    around the globe, across the globe, have peaceful nuclear programs and 
    don't have any centrifuges.
      That makes one wonder--not a nuclear scientist, not a physicist, 
    don't work at a reactor down at your local power plant--but if that is 
    true, why did they need them? Why would we have agreed to that? We are 
    right to be skeptical.
      Iran practices strategic delay. At this point, Rouhani, the guy that 
    wrote this book, who lauded himself for duping the West in other 
    negotiations, is at the top of the heap right now.
      You wonder why people in this body--forget people in this body. What 
    about the vast majority of Americans that are skeptical? This is their 
    voice. We are not necessarily only speaking for ourselves.
      We are speaking for our constituents and the majority of Americans 
    that say ``hold on'' to the administration. You say it is a good deal, 
    but let's look with our own eyes because of these things, because the 
    negotiators that negotiated the nuclear deal with North Korea that was 
    going to disallow them to have nuclear weapons, they are the same 
    negotiators that we have now in many cases; and, oh, by the way, in 
    case you haven't kept up on current events, North Korea has nuclear 
    weapons. So is it really prudent and proper for us to be skeptical? Is 
    it prudent and proper for us to ask questions?
      The biggest situation here, the biggest part of this is that there 
    can be no mistakes. There is no margin of error with nuclear weapons. 
    If one or two terrorists gets set free from Guantanamo and gets back 
    out on the battlefield, that is regrettable; that is unacceptable, but 
    that is very different than a nuclear blast.
      Unfortunately, for Israel, they are close. We live thousands and 
    thousands of miles away, but Israel is described by their enemies that 
    would have this nuclear weapon as a one-bomb country because that is 
    all it will take and it will all be over for that little country.
      Now, you might wonder: Okay, well, certainly, Israel, that is bad for 
    them, but why should we care so much?
      Yeah, it is Israel, but they are over there, and we are over here, 
    which begets the next question: Why are intercontinental ballistic 
    missiles not included in the negotiation?
      Ask yourself: What is the need for intercontinental ballistic 
    [[Page H2143]]
    Well, I will tell you if you don't know. It is to deliver armament. 
    What would that armament be? Well, that would be a nuclear warhead. You 
    don't need one to get to Israel, folks. You need one of those to get to 
    the United States.
      These folks call Israel the Little Satan. Madam Speaker, you know who 
    the Great Satan is; that is us. If this is so good, if this is so 
    obviously good, why isn't that included in the negotiation, in the 
    agreement, in the framework? Look, we are just foolish Americans, but 
    it seems to make sense to us that that should be there.
      You have got to ask yourself--I have heard the administration say: 
    Well, during the duration of this Presidential term, we can be assured 
    there will be no nuclear weapon in Iran.
      Well, thank goodness for that; but what about the rest of us that are 
    going to plan on living out the fullest part of our lives and our 
    children and our grandchildren that are worried past the next 2 years? 
    Ten to 15 years is a blink of the eye, is a moment in history. That is 
    still too short.
      Never is the right answer. Never is the right answer for people and 
    nations that act like Iran.
      Now, I heard recently that the administration said that they might 
    let Congress express themselves. I thought about that--express 
    themselves. I don't know where that verbiage came from, but it seems to 
    me--I am looking at my rule book here. It is the recipe which we follow 
    to run the country. It says here, under article II, section 2, 
    regarding the President:
           He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of 
         the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the 
         Senators present concur.
      Now, if you wonder what a treaty is, just go and look it up in the 
    dictionary. It is an agreement. I keep hearing about this is a 
    framework for a historic agreement.
      Folks, ladies and gentlemen, citizens, this is an agreement between 
    the citizens of the United States and Iran, and the President is 
    encumbering you when he signs this to everything therein, whether you 
    agree with it or not.
      We understand we have representative government, but that is why the 
    Congress is supposed to be involved. That is why article II, section 2 
    says the Senate must provide advice and consent, so that your wishes 
    are heard, so that your concerns are heard, not so that one guy, one 
    person, makes a decision for the entire country on issues that are so 
      Let's talk about other issues of like importance. There is strong 
    precedent, historical precedent, for congressional review of 
    nonproliferation: three strategic arm reduction treaties, START 
    treaties with Russia; the Nonproliferation Treaty; the Biological 
    Weapons Convention; the Chemical Weapons Convention; the Strategic 
    Offensive Reduction Treaty; the U.S.-India Civilian Nuclear Cooperation 
    Agreement in 2008; and the civilian nuclear energy agreements with 
    Vietnam and Taiwan submitted for congressional review by this President 
    in 2014.
      If it is okay for them, why is this one any different? I would say to 
    you that, recently, we heard that the country is stronger when the 
    Congress and the administration work together. That was in reference to 
    the authorization for the use of military force to confront ISIS.
      Now, ISIS is a regional threat in that portion of the world that 
    might become a growing cancer outside its bounds. I guess it is; but 
    what is more important than nuclear war? If it is good enough for an 
    AUMF with ISIS, why doesn't it apply here?
      Finally, with your indulgence, Madam Speaker, we are told that this 
    is a good deal and we should just trust the administration. With all 
    due respect, I think it is important to review the recent foreign 
    policy issues and the record. I am just going to highlight a couple of 
    events that you might be familiar with.
      The Syrian red line, the red line in Syria for the use of chemical 
    weapons--we drew a red line, and then we watched it violated a dozen 
    times before we said something, and then we backed off. Now, we are 
    actually talking about having discussions and some kind of an agreement 
    with Bashar al-Assad. That didn't work out too well.
      Russia, they are doing whatever they want to in Ukraine. We have 
    convinced the Ukrainians to dismantle their nuclear program, saying 
    that we would be there for them if they were ever attacked, and we are 
    nowhere. I served in Iraq and so did my good friend from Florida, and 
    we think about all the lives and the energy and the hardship lost in 
    Iraq. I think you can hardly call that a success under this current 
      Afghanistan, we were staying. We were going. We were staying. We were 
    going. That was hardly a success in my mind.
      Egypt, a great wellspring of democracy where we chose the wrong side, 
    and the Egyptian people had to choose the correct side. The Iranian 
    green revolution, when they tried to rise up against oppression, and 
    America turned its eyes and turned its face. Libya, where we helped 
    overthrow a dictator, and, now, we have a failed state--and Yemen, the 
    model of success for counterterrorism.
      What about the exchange of Bowe Bergdahl for five terrorists? I mean, 
    I don't mean to be overly and hypercritical, Madam Speaker, but it just 
    seems to me, if future performance is indicated by past performance, we 
    have a right to be skeptical.
      All we are saying is it is right and it is our duty to question and 
    to make sure that this is, indeed, good for the American people.
      If it is good, then the administration should have no problem showing 
    it to us and allowing us to vet it, like so many other historical 
    precedents have. The greatness of it will be obvious to the American 
    people and their Representatives, their Representatives here in this 
    Hall and the Hall across the building.
      With that, I thank the gentleman.
      Mr. DeSANTIS. I thank my friend.
      I think the gentleman from Pennsylvania did a good job of putting 
    this all into a broader perspective in terms of this administration's 
    approach to the world.
      I think, if you look around the world, there are probably two 
    countries that we have better relations with than when this President 
    took office; and I think, almost uniformly, everywhere else, we are 
    worse off.
      Cuba, we have much closer relationships now. The President shakes the 
    hand of Raul Castro, a blood-stained hand, a hand that has suppressed 
    thousands and thousands of people, that has killed the sinners, that 
    has caused thousands of people to flee in shark-infested waters to try 
    to reach the shore of Florida; but the President is doing business with 
    him, not helping the Cuban people. You actually see political 
    repression has increased since we have changed policies, but the 
    President seems fine with that.
      Then Iran, we talk with Iran a lot more than we ever have. The 
    question is: Is that a good thing? I think the answer is a dance-with-
    the-devil foreign policy has really never been tried before, and I 
    think the chance of it succeeding is almost zero.
      Part of the problem we see with this framework, I think, is that it 
    is symptomatic of a larger failure to properly address the hostile 
    actors throughout the world.
      Goodness gracious, we need to look at our allies like Israel, like 
    democracies in Europe, and they need to know that we are going to stand 
    with them. I think we have an approach to the world right now where our 
    allies can't depend on us and our adversaries don't really fear us. I 
    think that is a bad approach, and I think, unfortunately, it is an 
    approach that is going to invite more danger rather than keep us out of 
      I appreciate all my friends who came and made great comments. The 
    President said recently that the criticism of this deal needs to stop.
      Mr. President, we are not going to stop. We are going to be here; we 
    are going to make the case on behalf of the American people, and we are 
    going to be urging the Congress to speak loudly and clearly on behalf 
    of American security.
      Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

  • submit to reddit
  • Register your constituent account to respond

    Constituent Register