Curt Clawson

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Gohmert for yielding to me.

Already a grave and growing existential threat to Israel, a nuclear armed Iran would be a colossal, horrific game changer. It would launch a nuclear arms race in what is already the world's most dangerous neighborhood. We all know that this must not be allowed to happen.

The Islamic Republic of Iran's nuclear ambitions are made more dire when considering that they are the world's most dangerous state supporter of Islamic extremist terrorism, with a destabilizing presence in Lebanon, in Syria, and in Iraq. And Iran's financial and military support for the Houthi rebels in Yemen has led to the collapse of the Hadi government.

Thus, Iran today exerts major influence, not just in rebel territories, but in four Middle East capitals--Beirut, Baghdad, Damascus and Sana'a.

The crisis in Yemen threatens to launch yet another civil war in the region, and this severely handcuffs U.S. counterterrorism operations against AQAP. Islamists in Iran and elsewhere repeatedly threaten to slaughter all standing in their way--with their ultimate targets being Israel and the United States--us, their great Satan. They must never be allowed nuclear weapons capabilities. Does anyone really doubt whether they would use these capabilities someday? Well, there must be some reason why Iran is developing ICBMs.

Last week, Iran's Channel 2 broadcast satellite imagery showing recently constructed missile-related sites. Those sites included a launch pad capable of firing an ICBM, and on that launch pad was a never-seen-before missile measuring 27 meters in length. While we negotiate, the Iran story gets worse.

We have been extending deadlines and softening sanctions on Iran, while they fail to meet their end of the bargain.

It is bizarre to me that we are debating with the Iranians the numbers of their centrifuges but leaving off the table their support for terrorism, their ICBMs, and their continued human rights violations.

Is it the right thing to do to sit across the table, remain silent about the costs we and our allies have paid and are paying because of their financial and military support of our enemies? Does this make sense? Shouldn't we insist on adding to the agenda Iran's destabilizing actions in the region and also their ICBM program that puts us all at risk?

Merely delaying some of the potential horror for a decade or so is not a good option in my view. A bad deal where we declare victory by kicking this can down the road is far worse than no deal at all.

Iran now threatens to end nuclear talks if Congress increases sanctions against their regime. I say we must never yield to threats from Iran or any other nation.

We must stand strong, continue sanctions, and even strengthen them until Iran gets the message. I believe that strengthening sanctions will get us a better deal. Leverage produces a better deal.

We must remain unwavering in our support for Israel. We must listen carefully to the concerns of Prime Minister Netanyahu on this subject. I hope we unite with our Arab partners and do all that is possible to prevent Iran from going nuclear.

We must lead the civilized world in this crucial mission. I think this is our destiny.

We urge President Obama to join with Congress in this resolve.

I thank the chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I am here in support of H. Res. 754, and I wholeheartedly support this resolution, and I commend Chairman Royce for his important work and leadership on this issue.

Any successful negotiation must be based on mutual trust and respect. Trusting and respecting the Iranian regime as an equal member of the world's community of nuclear power producers would be a tragic mistake, in my view. Iran has not earned our trust or Israel's trust or the world's trust. For 35 years, Iran has done anything but earn our trust.

It is time for Iran to free Christian pastor Saeed Abedini. Iran's horrific human rights violations, their state sponsorship of terrorism, their public condemnations of our own country, and their repeated denials of Israel's right to exist spell potential disaster here, I am afraid. Let's not trust the untrustworthy.

This dilemma reminds me of a scorpion and the frog fable that my friend from Arkansas, Tom Cotton, recently used. A frog is about to cross a river when he is asked for a ride by a scorpion. Now, the frog knew that scorpions are poisonous and untrustworthy. He knew that, if the scorpion stung him on the way across the river, they would both drown.

When the frog asked for assurance from the scorpion, the scorpion replied, ``Of course, I won't sting you. If I do, we will both drown.'' Halfway across the river, of course, the scorpion struck, and as they were both headed for their demise, the frog asked, ``Why did you sting me?'' The scorpion responded, ``Because it is my nature.''

Even though the frog knew that the safe way to go was to say ``no'' to the scorpion, he caved in, dismissed better judgment, and the result was tragic.

Let us not repeat the mistake of the frog. We cannot give Iran a free ride across the Rubicon to nuclear weapons. We must not hand the keys of nuclear proliferation to a scorpionlike regime that cannot be trusted.

So what do we do? We can't do a bad deal. We can't walk away, but we also can't trust Iran. What must Iran do to gain our trust? Treat its people right. Treat its neighbors right. Treat Israel right, with dignity and respect. I think we have many rivers to cross before we get to that state.

As we work on this Iranian nuclear dilemma, which will take years, we need to see concrete progress toward the civil liberties that have been mentioned today. They must stop the crimes against humanity exposed in Chairman Royce's resolution.

To gain our trust, Iran must acknowledge the right of Israel to exist.

I thank the chairman.

Mr. Speaker, in the 1930s, the world trusted a scorpion, thinking that we had achieved peace in our time, and millions paid the price for that mistake with their lives. Let's not stand here someday and admit that we messed up because we trusted an Iranian scorpion.

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by commending the Congressman from Nebraska. Having invested across borders in many different countries around the world, I believe that good-paying American jobs come mostly from competitiveness.

In order for our companies to be competitive and produce good-paying American jobs, we need competitive energy prices. Therefore, I support this bill and think that it can produce lots of great jobs in America. I, for one, drive an automobile made by Americans in America.

Yesterday, I voted ``no'' on the proposal to train and arm Syrian rebels. I did so because I am convinced that we and our allies need to come together and unite behind a much broader and very long-term plan with the goal of ending militant Islamism across the globe once and for all. In my opinion, anything less, such as reacting crisis by crisis, like playing Whac-A-Mole, is doomed to failure.

To begin, we must accept the realities of the challenges we face and the generational nature of the threat. We can easily agree that ISIS today is the most visible and immediate threat of militant Islamic extremism. It is a clear and present danger to the Middle East region and, yes, beyond. We can all agree, ISIS must be eliminated. But moving forward, it would be a mistake and, I think, a missed opportunity to focus solely on ISIS. ISIS is only one part of a widespread metastasizing cancer of hatred, intolerance, and violence.

We are facing a cancer of militant Islamism, with cells under various names in dozens of countries. In planning the elimination of ISIS, we, with a coalition of the willing, must do so, recognizing it as part of an overall global disease. Success requires a broad, diverse, and longstanding international coalition committed to defeating the cancer of militant Islamism once and for all.

Now America is uniquely qualified to provide the leadership, including the airpower and mission command structure; but this time, the funding, military equipment, and ground forces must be provided by others.

Too many times in the past, the United States has borne an extremely disproportionate part of these burdens. This time it must be understood that U.S. forces are not going to be the combat boots on the ground, nor will the American taxpayer be paying the bill.

It is time for our allies, especially the Arab and Muslim nations, those most significantly and most immediately threatened, to step up. They need to provide the resources, especially the ground forces that are needed in this conflict. And coalition plans and action plans going forward must be guided by an overarching strategic vision of a world someday, somehow free of militant Islamism. That must be our cause.

Success will begin but not end with the containment, isolation, and, over time, elimination of ISIS and other militant cells, wherever and whenever they arise.

One by one, Islamic militant organizations must be eradicated around the world. They must be eliminated from the Middle East, from the Near East, sub-Saharan and north Africa, and south Asia. Any additional cancer cells or seeds of cancer in Europe, the U.S., or elsewhere must be also be eliminated.

The coalition must also follow the money and take actions to halt all financing for militant jihadists from banks, oil revenues, and states sponsoring terrorism. The coalition must be united long term behind a goal of a world where today's oppression, intolerance, violence, brainwashing, and genocide give way to liberty, religious and ethnic tolerance, and opportunity for all, regardless of one's sex, faith, or ethnicity.

The coalition must also address the root causes of the cancer, something we have been avoiding up until now, something that presents an additional challenge of monumental proportions. This means correcting conditions that become recruitment tools for jihadist organizations.

Impoverished areas, especially those with disadvantaged Muslim populations, must evolve to where they can provide information, education, skills training, and economic opportunities for their young people to counter environmental conditions that are so ripe for radicalization by radical jihadists.

These challenges are huge, even generational. Handouts are not the answer, in my view. The coalition must address these issues with the nations involved and with moderate Muslim leaders, providing assistance wherever possible. Ultimately, the battle for the hearts and minds must be won by voices of moderation and opportunity in rejection of extremist voices who offer only hatred and bloodshed.