Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, we were told over and over again: if you like your health insurance plan, you can keep it. We all found out that that wasn't true. I will never forget on the day that ObamaCare passed--I was here in this Chamber--we were promised by the President of the United States that, not only would the taxpayers of this country not be forced to pay for other people's abortions, but that abortion would not be a part of ObamaCare. We know today that isn't true. Abortion is a part of ObamaCare.

What is worse is that no matter how anyone feels about that issue there is pretty strong agreement that no one should be forced to violate one's conscience and pay for other people's abortions and be forced to do that, but that is the way it is. H.R. 7 makes President Obama's promise stand up and ring true, and it is this: that no taxpayer-funded money ever goes to pay for someone else's abortion.

Couldn't we unite on this principle? This is important.

Thank you so much to my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) who has long been the fearless leader of the issue of standing for the sacred right to life.

One thing that we know in 41 years is that there has been a profound change in the United States. We can't lose 56 million innocent American lives and not be changed. Just to put it in context, 56 million means the entire population of my State of Minnesota more than 10 times over. That is how many of our fellow brothers and sisters have been lost through the carnage of abortion. That is the unborn.

The other cost is the loss to 56 million American women, women who have had ongoing precious innocent human life literally pulled from their bodies.

I am a woman. One thing that God has done, the Creator of all life, He privileged women to be the receptacles and the bearers of the next generation. I have been privileged to bear five beautiful children, to be a foster mother to an additional 23 children. I have been a mother 28 times over. Is there any greater privilege?

I weep and I mourn for women who have been lied to, women who were forced into undergoing this very violent procedure that, for many people, altered their lives forever. They can't deal with the guilt. They have turned to maybe drugs or alcohol to deal with the guilt.

The good news is, a holy forgiving God makes a way out. He forgives, and He provides a way of opportunity for them.

So 56 million unborn children, 56 million women, also 56 million fathers, 56 million who their child is the one that was unborn. I think we can do better.

Ideas have consequences. When we embrace the idea that human life isn't sacred, that it is expendable, this is the result. I know that we can do better. We will do better, and I thank God that with the March for Life that is coming up next week, that we will stand together saying that there is a future, and there is a hope.

I yield back to Representative Smith.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As always, it is a privilege to be able to come to the great well of the House of Representatives, the greatest deliberative body in the history of the world, to be here and have an opportunity to bring a voice to the table and to speak to the American people as well as my constituents in the Sixth District of Minnesota.

I want to join my colleagues in wishing a happy New Year to all the people in the United States. We look forward to a wonderful year in 2014. There are so many things that are good that we can look forward to this year, so many things that this body can get done, that we can agree on.

We can agree on our veterans, standing for them, thanking them, first of all, that tonight, as we are here in this Chamber, we have men and women

across the globe who are laying their lives on the line for us. Our prayers are with you, and our prayers are with your families.

So, Mr. Speaker, I know that I speak for you and for all of our colleagues, that we want to let our troops know, there is nothing more important than the work that you do to secure our liberty and our freedom. We are for you, and we will be standing here for you this year, as we have in the past.

We also stand together in recognition that the first and greatest obligation of all of us, as Members of Congress in this Chamber, is to secure the safety and security of the American people, the welfare of the American people, Mr. Speaker. We do that here domestically, but our obligation is to make sure that our national security is held safe here in the homeland but also our vital American national security interests across the globe.

To that end, several of my colleagues and myself took a fact-finding trip in December. After we had concluded our work in December, we went into the Middle East. We took a very extensive journey. This was no pleasure trip in any way. This was a working mission. We went first into Amsterdam. While we were there, we met an individual who has one of the most extensive collections of communist penetration throughout the world. It was interesting, as we dialogued with him about communist infiltration, what that has meant over the course of history, particularly over the last century, and what that means for Americans today.

From there, we journeyed into Cairo, Egypt. While we were there, we spoke with leaders of Egypt. There has been a tremendous change that has occurred, and we know that literally in just over a week's time, people in Egypt will have an opportunity to go to the ballot box and vote in a referendum on a brand-new Constitution.

A very brief recent history of Egypt is that there was an overthrow in Egypt of the Mubarak presidency, which had been stable for some 30- plus years. The people of Egypt spoke. They were very unhappy with their government. There was a referendum that had occurred, and during that time, the Muslim Brotherhood came to power through the president, President Morsi. The Muslim Brotherhood, through the Freedom and Justice Party, established a new regime.

So repulsed were the people of Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood and their tactics during the course of just something over a year that the people of Egypt took to the streets, some 33 million people in what some people say was the largest human demonstration ever in the history of the world because the people of Egypt were outraged at the atrocities and the extremism of the Muslim Brotherhood as they were displayed across Egypt.

Really, so much of this so-called Arab Spring has been the persecution of Christians, religious minorities, and women, particularly in the Middle East region. Nowhere has this been felt more than in Egypt, and the people rose up.

You see, in the Egyptian Constitution, which was put together by the Muslim Brotherhood, there was no avenue for the people to remove the Muslim Brotherhood president, President Morsi. There was no impeachment process like we have in the United States. The only option available to the people was to go into the streets and demonstrate and seek the removal of the Muslim Brotherhood president. That is what the people effectuated.

In that time, there is now an interim president. His name is President Mansour. I met with him numerous times in Cairo. We have had very good conversations with interim President Mansour. He told me in Egypt, together with my colleagues, that he would not be seeking reelection. We also met with General el-Sisi, the head of the military in Egypt, trying to maintain order in that country.

We heard some very good news, and, Mr. Speaker, among the news that we heard while we were in Egypt was this: Egypt enjoys the most favorable relationship with the Jewish State of Israel that they have had in over 35 years. The Obama administration asked Egypt to work harder in the Sinai. That is the border, Mr. Speaker, between Egypt and Israel.

The Obama administration asked the Egyptian Government to work to clear out al Qaeda and to try to secure that border. You see, Mr. Speaker, the Muslim Brotherhood, instead, had been placing more attacks through using al Qaeda and al Qaeda elements in various flavors. When you think of the old phrase of Baskin-Robbins and its 28 flavors of ice cream, there are multiple flavors, if you will, Mr. Speaker, of al Qaeda. There is the Al-Nusra Front. There is Jemaah Islamiyah. There is one organization after another, but they share the same ideology.

Much of this ideology makes its way through an organization called the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Muslim Brotherhood was actively facilitating attacks on Israel through tunnels ruled by Hamas, which is essentially another affiliate, a franchise of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Gaza region. So whether it was weapons, whether it was attacks, whether it was fighters, Israel had its hands full in the Sinai border.

Now the good news is that General el-Sisi, interim President Mansour in Egypt took to heart the request from the Obama administration and, for their own survival, worked to take apart the al Qaeda network and the strength that there was of jihadist-based fighters on the Sinai, and they have been incredibly successful.

I am pleased to report to you tonight, Mr. Speaker, that what we heard from the leadership in Egypt was that over 70 percent of the jihadist activity on the Sinai has been silenced, deconstructed, taken apart. That means that Israel has had a better time, a more peaceful time on its border, but also, this has helped the Egyptian Government as well.

The Nile River in Egypt is kind of a dividing point. You have western Egypt. You have eastern Egypt, eastern Egypt being the more violent, where it has been essentially a ``wild west,'' if you will, in the Sinai. It has been very difficult for securing peace in the Middle East, very difficult for Israel, but we have to thank the current interim government, under the leadership of President Mansour and under the guidance of General el-Sisi in the Sinai region. That is the good news. Of all of the turmoil and all of the chaos that there is today in the Middle East, this is our bright and shining spot.

The United States, in my opinion, needs to do everything that we can to encourage and foster peace in this region. As I believe that my colleagues, whether it is on the Democrat side, on the Republican side, whether it is in the House, whether it is in the Senate, this is something that we agree upon. We want to see peace in the Middle East, peace in the largest Arab country in the Middle East, which would be Egypt, but also peace in the Jewish State of Israel, and this is the place to forge that peace.

The good news is to hear that on this very sensitive border, we are seeing the Egyptians working together to make sure that there can be peace to fight a common enemy, and that would be al Qaeda and the radical elements in this regime. That is good news.

We went from Cairo, Egypt, where we heard very good news from General el-Sisi, very good news from Amr Moussa, who is heading the Committee of 50 which is writing the new Constitution that the people of Egypt will be voting on in the referendum on January 14 and January 15. I believe the people of Egypt will see the wisdom in this new Constitution which, by the way, Mr. Speaker, does have a provision for impeachment so that the people in Egypt in the future will have an opportunity to be able to change their President and their country. They also guarantee the freedom of belief in Egypt, and they have a dedication to rebuilding the houses of worship that were destroyed by the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Muslim Brotherhood destroyed shops, homes, and places of worship of Coptic Christians in Egypt. The government is committed to rebuilding the Christian houses of worship in Egypt. This is a wonderful advancement for peace and for tolerance in that region of the world, and one that I think we should encourage and get behind.

From there, my colleagues and I, in a delegation which was led by Representative Steve King of Iowa--also in attendance was Representative Louie Gohmert of Texas and also Representative Robert Pittenger of North Carolina--from there, we went on to Beirut,

Lebanon, which has been a hotbed of violence because Iran has seen an avenue of advancement. Working through the terrorist organization Hezbollah, Iran has been bringing increased terror between Sunni and Shia in southern Lebanon.

We flew into the airport at Beirut. The airport at Beirut is controlled by Hezbollah. There, we met with the ambassador. We met with leaders of political parties. It is devastating to hear what they have to say about the increased violence.

A suicide bomber wearing a vest detonated that vest during our time when we were there. Obviously we weren't anywhere nearby. We weren't in any form of danger, but a vest was detonated. Four people were killed. Also, a soldier had shot into Israel and had killed an Israeli soldier during the time that we were there. There has been a very, very strong, increase in violence. Violence occurred prior to our entry. Violence continues to occur, and there are now new reports, Mr. Speaker, of Iran bringing even more dangerous, larger deadly weapons into that area, again, bringing to the fore the increase in fighting between Sunni and Shia.

That is the kind of pressure that the Jewish State of Israel is looking at on its northern border, without even contemplating what is happening in Syria.

Syria, Mr. Speaker, has completely fallen apart. It is in complete chaos now, with Assad having estimated to have killed over 200,000 of his own people. Now the so-called moderates who were being backed, led by General Idris--General Idris has now, reportedly, left Syria, and the extremist elements, including al Qaeda, of the Islamist jihadist regime are now fighting against Assad.

So we have two very bad options in Syria today, and very recently, these Islamist jihadist fighters took over a weapons cache of very dangerous weapons, and they now have control of those weapons.

Where do we go from here in Syria? It is a very, very difficult question.

We have such utter chaos that Lebanon now is the recipient of the greatest number of Syrian refugees on a daily basis. So we have the tension of Palestinian refugees who have gone into Lebanon. We have Iran, which has its presence through Hezbollah, the terrorist organization, very agitated. Some estimates are that as many as 100,000 missiles are located in people's homes, in schools, in nurseries, in nursing homes, embedded in civilian areas right on Israel's northern border. There is an utter and complete breakdown and chaos in Syria.

Then you have all of the tension in Iraq, with increasing battles going on, again, between Sunni and Shia in Iraq. Iraq at one point had been fairly close to being secured by an American presence. It is has now utterly fallen apart.

There continue to be attacks by the Taliban. A new report just came in that the Taliban, presumably, is responsible for six Americans who were killed in December. We have Karzai, the head of Afghanistan, who is not willing to agree to final settlement terms in Afghanistan to have aid and U.S. presence, despite the fact that the United States supplies something like 95 percent of the economy in Afghanistan. This is the thanks we are getting out of Afghanistan.

We have that kind of tension and pressure together with numerous prisons where the worst of the worst Islamist thug al Qaeda-flavored jihadists have been let out of prisons and are going into Syria. From Syria, who knows where, again, adding to the pressure on Israel. At the same time, we have what, in my mind, was the very dangerous P5+1 agreement dealing with Iran and dealing with trying to prevent or at least stop or at least freeze in place Iran's nuclear program, which all of the world knows will be meant to give Iran a nuclear weapon and the missile delivery systems capable of delivering those weapons against Israel, against Western Europe, and against the United States.

This is the greatest threat that the world faces today: a nuclear Iran. And even while we are here in this Chamber tonight, Mr. Speaker, many people think that the 6-month freeze is on tonight, that when President Obama went to the microphone--it was about a little after 10 o'clock at night on a Saturday night--to announce with vigor that we had concluded this agreement with Iran and we will now have a 6-month freeze, that 6-month period hasn't even started yet. No one knows when that 6-month period of a so-called freeze will even start.

So, Mr. Speaker, what I'm saying, quite frankly, is that as we are standing in this Chamber tonight, Iran continues to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. They are enriching it to 20 percent. That is not a small amount. It may sound small. That is a huge leap towards weapons grade uranium. They continue to install centrifuges. They have new- generation centrifuges that can spin to enrich uranium six times faster than the current generation.

Iran hasn't given up one ounce of its storage of enriched uranium. They haven't stopped their research and development on their delivery systems of their missiles. They haven't stopped research and development on the warheads that would go on the tips of missiles to deliver a nuclear bomb. They haven't stopped the production on the facility of plutonium at Arak. That continues going on. Nothing has stopped.

In fact, the only thing we have heard from Iran is from the Iranian leadership. The Parliament has said, why don't we start enriching to 60 percent? You see, weapons grade is 80 percent. Why don't we up it even further? That is what the Parliament is saying today after the agreement was signed. The mullahs, the religious leaders that effectively control Iran, are saying that this agreement means nothing to them. As a matter of fact, the leader of Iran said that they won't change one iota of their nuclear program. You see, it is very interesting. I think that when madmen speak, the world should listen, and Iran is acting in a way that is indicative of the madman of all time.

Currently, Iran's plan is to have domination across the world by the use of nuclear weapons to wipe millions of innocent people off the map, beginning with the Jewish State of Israel. You see, about 80 percent of the people that live in Israel travel to the greater Tel Aviv area for their employment. It doesn't take much imagination to see how easy it would be for Iran to send multiple nuclear missiles and virtually wipe out the Jewish State of Israel.

But let us never think as Iran calls Israel the Little Satan, Iran calls the United States the Great Satan--and we should never delude ourselves to think that this is a Middle East-only problem. It isn't, Mr. Speaker. I wish I could say it was. This is a problem the world must deal with.

During the course of our travels in December for the week that we were in the Middle East, we were very disturbed by what we heard from various leaders. As a matter of fact, there was one leader that we met with in Lebanon during our time there in that very dangerous area--it was so dangerous, as a matter of fact, that this leader about a year earlier had been shot. There were three snipers--he pointed over a wall. They had to build a wall around his house. He is now confined to his house, in the compound around his house. It is too dangerous for him to even leave. There were three snipers about a mile away that took a shot at him while he was in his backyard. He almost lost his life, and now he is confined to his backyard.

This is what he had to say to us, Mr. Speaker, when they were there. He told us that, unfortunately, in the last 2 to 3 years, there has been virtually no U.S. leadership in the Middle East. That is reminiscent of what we heard the former leader, Lech Walesa, of Poland tell the world, that the United States is no longer the political leader nor the moral leader of the world, that we have effectively walked off the world stage and that the world needs the leadership of the United States. We heard that repeated by this leader in Lebanon.

He also told us that the opinion of the United States has gone down dramatically in the Middle East. He said he has a brother who is in the United States, and it has been a shock for his brother, a very intelligent individual in the United States, a shock to see how the United States has failed to respond to the rise of Islamic jihadist activity in the Middle East and how it is negatively impacting United States national security. He said there is no

strategy; there is no outlook. It seems to be that the United States just acts day to day--no strategy.

Shouldn't our strategy be the security and safety of the American people? Shouldn't our strategy--shouldn't our aim be securing American vital interests in the Middle East, standing with the best ally we have in the world, the Jewish State of Israel? And yet the Middle East doesn't have any idea what our strategy is because they are telling us it looks like it is ad hoc, day to day. He said, I'm telling you this as a friend. He said that prior there were no Russians in the Middle East, no Russian influence and presence. He said that now the Russians have strengthened and have a very strong presence in the Middle East. He said it has been very frustrating in the last 2 or 3 years.

He said the Arabians have long been our friends, friends of the United States. But the Saudi Arabians, he said, no longer seem to trust the United States. He said the P5+1 agreement has made Iran stronger than ever before. And he told us that Iran is Hezbollah, and so he is facing things from Hezbollah every day. He said that there is more money available for Hezbollah because we have decreased, we have essentially lifted sanctions on Iran. All this has done is free up money so more money can go to the terrorist organization Hezbollah in Lebanon, and that is being used to hurt Israel, as well.

Well, whether it is Syria, whether it is Iraq, whether it is Bahrain, whether it is Saudi Arabia, all of these countries are wondering what in the world the United States is doing. Because what they are saying to us is that things are much worse on the ground in the Middle East. As the Iranians have only turned their burner off temporarily, they can turn it back on again. I quote from him, This makes Iran stronger than ever, stronger in the Middle East.

That is what we heard, Mr. Speaker, on the ground from leaders in Lebanon that Iran has been strengthened through this failed P5+1 agreement.

From Lebanon, Mr. Speaker, we went down to Tripoli, Libya, to get some answers on Benghazi and get some answers on what the P5+1 agreement will mean in Libya. Well, we spoke with the Prime Minister in Libya; we spoke with leaders of the Justice Department and the foreign minister, as well. I asked them specifically about Benghazi. I asked them why was our FBI prevented from going into Libya--specifically to Benghazi--to conduct an investigation for 4 or 5 weeks after the terrible tragedy on September 11? And the response that we received was that this was a great insult to Libya when this attack occurred and that this was an attack against Libya and the Libyan people.

Now, this compound that was attacked in Benghazi is considered sovereign American soil. When Chris Stevens, our Ambassador, was killed and the three other Americans--brave Americans--were killed, this was an attack on America, on our compound, on our Ambassador and on our American soldiers. This was an attack against us--not on Libya--against us. There was absolutely no reason why the Libyan Government prevented our FBI from coming in on our sovereign territory and conducting an investigation.

Journalists were inside. We know that CNN picked up the Ambassador's diaries and walked out with the Ambassador's diaries. Other sensitive information was on the ground and people came in and walked away with it. But the FBI couldn't get in? This is the only Ambassador in 30 years to be killed, and we couldn't get in to find out what in the world happened, ask people and figure out what is going on? It has been over a year. We still don't know who, what, where, when, how, why, and how much were we prevented from knowing, because we were kept out of that country by over 4 and 5 weeks. It was wrong. And I told that to the leadership in Libya when we were there. It was wrong. That needs to be rectified. We demand and we expect full cooperation in getting to the bottom of Benghazi. That must be done, and that is a bipartisan issue. That is not a partisan issue.

Well, from Libya, we traveled up to Israel where we met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the defense secretary. We were extremely grateful for the time we had there. Again, there is no question, the Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, told us, that it was the worst day in 10 years when the P5+1 agreement was struck--the worst day in 10 years. No one will be more negatively impacted by a nuclear Iran than the Jewish State of Israel.

Wouldn't you think it would be wise for the United States and for the great nations of the world to listen to the concerns of the land that is on the slaughtering block when they say, wait a minute, this is the worst thing we could do, the P5+1 agreement, because this will not prevent, this will not stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb? That was confirmed on this most recent trip when we were with the Prime Minister. He is very concerned about that.

He is also very concerned about the International Criminal Court, as well, and the fact that Israel will soon be drawn into the Criminal Court. There could be actions taking the United States in. We want to be under U.S. law. And we need to maintain the United States as a sovereign Nation and our American people subject only to United States sovereign law. We don't want the American people subject to some international court. The American people must now and for always only be subject to the American courts because only here will we be allowed to enjoy the protections under the Constitution that we have today. That will not happen under the International Criminal Court.

From Israel, we traveled and went on up to Vienna where we met with the International Atomic Energy Agency. This agency is tasked with overseeing the P5+1 agreement with Iran. We appreciated our time in Vienna; we appreciated being able to speak with those who were present to talk about the process, what they will do. But I will tell you, on behalf of my colleagues, we didn't leave with a sense that we could have complete trust in knowing that the IAEA, while they will perform their jobs, that they will be able to completely appreciate when and if Iran decides to move into the creation of a nuclear weapon. That is something that we can't get wrong. Where do we go if that is wrong?

Mr. Speaker, if I could ask how much time remains.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 59 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, January 10, 2014, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, on November 20, 2013, during rollcall 593 on H. Res. 420--Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1900) to provide for the timely consideration of all licenses, permits, and approvals required under Federal law with respect to the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of any natural gas pipeline projects, and for other purposes, the vote was incorrectly recorded as ``no.'' I intended to vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I want to say thank you to my colleague, Peter Roskam. We came in together when we won our election in 2006. It has been a privilege to serve with Mr. Roskam, who is not only the head and cochair of the Israel Caucus but who is also a strong defender of a strong United States national security posture--one that has helped to lead the world into safety for decades and one that we continue to maintain for the benefit of the American people.

You see, this is a very interesting time that we are in. We have virtually watched the hinge of history turn just in the events of these last several weeks.

Why do I say that? I say that because the Obama administration and the negotiators of the Obama administration have entered into a deal that could effectively guarantee that Iran will obtain the certainty of a nuclear weapon. Now, I know that it is the stated intention of the Obama administration that just the opposite of that will happen, but there is a big difference between theory and intention and the outcome of the result.

Today, we listened to members from the Obama administration and members of the negotiating team from the Obama administration, and they seem quite convinced in the theory of stopping Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. The theory goes something like this. It says we believe that Iran has the capacity to continue to enrich uranium and do it for a peaceful purpose. They believe that it is possible to verify that Iran would do that.

But what about the reality? What is the reality of what the supreme leader of Iran has said their intentions are with this program? Just prior to the signing of the agreement, the supreme leader was not vague; he was quite clear. He gave a speech on press TV. He wanted the world to know what his intentions were. He gave a speech in front of tens of thousands of paramilitary troops in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. He said that ``it will be Iran's position that we will not change our nuclear program one iota.'' So apparently, according to the supreme leader, the program that Iran has originally envisioned it will go on. ``It will go on at the same pace that it was going on before without any change.''

Once the agreement was struck, there was a real question, and the question was this: Will Iran maintain the indigenous inherent ``right'' to enrich uranium? You see, that is the whole ball game, Mr. Speaker: Will Iran have the right to enrich uranium?

What do you need to build a nuclear weapon? You need fuel for that weapon, whether it is plutonium or whether it is uranium. Iran wants to make sure that they achieve the goal, so they are engaging both in developing plutonium and uranium. They have a heavy water reactor, the Iraq facility, and the Iraq facility is under construction. We have a 6-month interim agreement where we are supposed to get to a final negotiation. The plutonium facility is not built yet, but it is under construction.

One of those items is building a road to the reactor. That road continues to be built. There is no effort to stop that from being done. There is virtually no way for us to be able to stop mobile components from being built elsewhere and eventually brought into the heavy water reactor for the plutonium site. That is an issue. That is a big issue, and the other one being enrichment.

We know today that Iran has something like 19,000 centrifuges. A minimum 10,000 of those centrifuges are spinning, so much so that the estimate is they have somewhere between 9 and 10 tons of enriched uranium.

If we were serious about stopping Iran from creating a nuclear weapon, there are several simple things we would do. We would make sure that Iran would shut down the heavy water plutonium reactor and we would make sure that Iran would dismantle, take a sledgehammer to the centrifuges. Gone. That hasn't happened. Not to one. The centrifuges remain. So if you have centrifuges enriching, if you have enriched uranium, if you are continuing to enrich, I would say you have got a program.

This is very interesting because we just concluded a negotiation. From my experience as a former Federal tax litigation attorney--I did a lot of negotiating--usually when two sides are negotiating, they do it for a reason, and the reason is because they want to be better off, both parties, they want to be better off based upon the agreement that they negotiated. It seems to me something happened along the way during this negotiation. It makes me wonder if the Obama administration negotiators forgot which side they were negotiating for.

Why do I say that? I say that because take a look at what Iran got out of the deal. And I want to give full attribution to Illinois Senator Mark Kirk, who created this terrific graphic. This is what Senator Kirk let's us know about the agreement.

What we are getting out of the deal are zero centrifuges dismantled. These are the machines that create the fuel for a nuclear weapon. Not one will be dismantled out of 19,000. Zero uranium of the 9 to 10 tons will be shipped out of Iran. So the material remains in Iran. The ability to continue to create more material remains in Iran. It looks like a pretty good get for Iran.

Zero nuclear facilities are closed. We know that there is even more than we thought originally. There is Natanz, there is Fordo, Parchin, and the plutonium reactor at Iraq, let alone other covert programs we are not aware of. There is also no delay on the plutonium reactor. In fact, the supreme leader in Iran made it abundantly clear. They said, we read the agreement to say that we are not going to stop any construction on the plutonium Iraq reactor. I would say that is a violation of the agreement right there.

What has been the reaction of the Obama administration? What has been the reaction of the negotiators? Do they have egg on their faces? Do they look a little foolish from this agreement that they struck? We haven't heard anything from the current negotiators.

There is also no stop in the missile testing. So if Iran has a nuclear weapon, if they have the fuel for a nuclear weapon, and if they have the capability to deliver that weapon through missile testing, I would say they have got something. There is also no stopping terrorism from Iran and there is no stopping human rights abuses.

Many Americans aren't aware that there are Americans who are being held hostage today in Iran. When Ronald Reagan dealt with the Soviet Union to try to end the Cold War, Ronald Reagan handed the Soviets a list of dissidents that he wanted freed in order for him to begin these talks with the Soviet Union. He sent a signal to the Soviet Union. It said, in America we believe every American life counts. That sent a very strong message.

In the case of the Obama administration negotiators, they didn't even bring it up. They didn't demand that one American be released before we talk. Now, this is interesting because the Obama administration put a lot of pressure on Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel. He said, You, Mr. Prime Minister, have to agree to release over 100 murderous thugs, including murderers who murdered an American, before the Palestinians will come to the table to negotiate with you on the Israel-Palestinian conflict. That was our President who put pressure under the prime minister--you have got to release thugs in order to negotiate. We would put that kind of pressure on Israel and we wouldn't put that kind of pressure on Iran?

You see, that is why, Mr. Speaker, I ask the question: Did the negotiators forget which Nation they were negotiating for? Because it looks to me like the score is pretty clear: United States zero, Iran made out on the deal.

The sad thing about that final score--and let's hope it is not the final score--is that, again, the hinge of history turns. If you have an Iran with a nuclear weapon, it won't be just Iran. You will explode proliferation. Saudi Arabia will have a nuclear weapon. Egypt will have a nuclear weapon. We will have a nuclear weapon most likely in Lebanon. And then at that point, what will happen with terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, al Qaeda, the al-Nusra Front, and on and on from there? The world changes. The hinge of history turns.

That is why this isn't political. That is why it is bipartisan here tonight. It is why Mr. Roskam has taken this very important courageous step of holding this time when Members of Congress can weigh in, because we aren't about bashing the Obama administration. That is not why we are here. We are here because we believe in national security-- America's national security, Israel's national security--and peace across the world. That is Pax Americana. America doing everything that we can to be forward of keeping the peace in the world.

This action nearly guarantees war and a threat of a nuclear strike. We can prevent that. But the final deal that comes out in these final P5+1 negotiations must be very simple: close down the plutonium reactor, zero right to enrich for Iran, and zero processing. If you do that, then we will have a deal.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity and the privilege to be able to be here in the well of the greatest deliberative body on Earth, the United States House of Representatives, to talk about what I believe is one of the most crucial issues facing the national security not only of the United States but for freedom- seeking people all across the world.

You know, I had a tremendous privilege. This last week, seven Members of Congress--Democrat, Republican, and myself--were privileged to be on a trip that was life-changing in many ways. We had the privilege of going to Israel. We met with leaders of Israel. We met with the people of Israel, and we talked about issues of national security.

Israel is a Nation that has been literally under attack since the time of its founding of the modern Jewish State in May of 1948. Very wisely, the United States President at the time--a Democrat, Harry Truman--gave Israel what she needed more than anything else: to be able to show the world that she could be an independent, sovereign power. It was this: President Harry Truman recognized Israel as a sovereign, independent nation. That told the world that the United States of America would have Israel's back because we recognized her right to exist, unlike Israel's current neighbors--many of whom, particularly in Hamas and the Palestinian Authority--to this day continue to deny Israel's right to exist and Israel's right to defend herself. As is often said, Israel lives in a very tough neighborhood. We had the privilege to find out more about the concerns and the issues that face our greatest ally in the world that we have, and that is the Jewish State of Israel.

While we were there, Mr. Speaker, our delegation was able to quite literally witness world history as it happened. Secretary of State John Kerry decided to add Jerusalem to his itinerary in addition to Cairo. He went to Jerusalem because he was in the process of speaking about the Palestinian-Israeli talks for a so-called two-State solution, but something even more important that week was at stake, and it was this: a meeting in Geneva, Switzerland. It was a meeting of the nations that talked about whether or not the economic sanctions that have worked so well to prohibit Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons--the question was, Will those sanctions now be lifted?

As we went through the course of our time in Israel last Thursday, we were about to have our scheduled meeting with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. The meeting had been rearranged, and rightly so; because Secretary of State Kerry was in town, the prime minister adjusted his schedule. We, Members of Congress, adjusted our schedule so that the Prime Minister could meet with Secretary Kerry according to his timetable. That was the right thing to do.

When we filed into the office that we usually meet the Prime Minister in late Thursday afternoon, it was very

evident when we sat down that something was clearly amiss. The first remark from the Prime Minister was, had we heard the news? We looked at each other, we looked at the Prime Minister, and we said, What news would that be? We had been in meetings all day long. We had no idea what he was talking about. Just prior to our meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu, he had been briefed on the events in Geneva, Switzerland. Israel was not there. They were not present at the P5+1 meetings.

The news wasn't good. It wasn't good at all. As a matter of fact, the Prime Minister said to us, Iran is getting the deal of the century. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister had the attention of the seven Members of Congress--Democrat and Republican--sitting around that table.

He went on to say some very firm words. This is a poster that was created by Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois. He said this to us: This is a very, very--and he said it a third time--very bad deal. It is not only a bad deal for Israel because, as he told us, you know, we are only the little Satan, according to Iran. You, the United States, are the big Satan in Iran's eyes. In other words, if you think this is bad for us in Israel, imagine what this will be for the United States.

And so, Mr. Speaker, I would like to focus just a little bit on the chart that Senator Kirk put together because I think it talks and speaks very eloquently of why the P5+1 deal was very, very bad and why the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, was rightly concerned about not only the national security of the Jewish State of Israel, but the national security interests of the people of the United States and of freedom-loving people around the world.

Let's look at this very important document that was put together by Senator Kirk. Iran's deal of the century: what is it that Iran would get?

What is remarkable, Mr. Speaker, is what Iran would get in this deal. They would get, in cash, $3 billion. As a matter of fact, some of the literature that I have read since Thursday when we were with the Prime Minister has said that upwards of $50 billion would be freed and available to Iran; but, at minimum, they would have access to $3 billion in cash.

Remember, this is an actor, the state of Iran, which was found illegally creating nuclear material for their stated purpose of creating a nuclear weapon to use to wipe out not only Israel, but the United States of America off the face of the map.

If there is anything that history has taught us, Mr. Speaker, it is this: it is that when a madman speaks, freedom-loving nations should listen.

The leader in Iran is called the supreme leader. He is not called that for no reason. It isn't the president of the country who is truly the throne in Iran. It is the religious leader named Khomeini. The presidents come and go, but Khomeini, the supreme leader, remains the same.

His announced intentions are completely clear. Iran seeks to be the hegemon. In other words, Iran seeks to be the dominant power in not only the Middle East region, but they also have evidence of dabbling in the far East in China, in the Philippines, and in South America. They intend to have their fingers in places all over the world because they intend to dominate. They intend to dominate with the shia religion. They intend to dominate through the use of nuclear weaponry through the most vile form of violence that there is in the world in order to achieve their objectives.

So, again, let's look at what Iran would have gotten had the nation of France not intervened and put a stop to this disastrous effort and agreement that would have had the potential of changing the course of human history.

Again, here is what Iran would get. They would get $3 billion in cash, at minimum. Some report upwards of $50 billion in cash. They would get $9.6 billion in gold reserves for the Iran regime; over $5 billion in petrochemicals for the nation; $1.3 billion in automobiles. Iran is heavily engaged in the production of automobiles and this would have given them that revenue. Also, enriched uranium for one bomb.

Why in world would P5+1, the nations that met in Geneva, Switzerland, allow Iran to have enriched uranium for one bomb, when they have already stated their intention if they have that bomb?

We also know that Iran has plans to be involved in having intercontinental ballistic missiles. In other words, they not only want a bomb, Mr. Speaker, but they want a delivery system. And they need a delivery system that goes just so far to be able to get to Israel, but they seek a delivery system, Mr. Speaker, that could take their bombs to United States targets as well. United States targets here in the homeland, but United States targets as well overseas.

And it just doesn't end with Iran, Mr. Speaker. If Iran gains a nuclear weapon, what the world must know is that the weapon will not simply remain within the boundaries and in the hands of a nuclear Iran. Oh, that it would be, that would be bad enough.

What we do know is that Saudi Arabia has already had to make plans to defend herself. She already has a preorder into a nuclear Pakistan, foreign order for a nuclear weapon, because Saudi Arabia knows they will be a target from a nuclear Iran if Iran obtains that weapon. So, therefore, we will see another nation--Saudi Arabia--that will have to have a nuclear weapon.

But it won't stop with Saudi Arabia, Mr. Speaker. We know that each will be seeking a nuclear weapon.

Let's not forget that prior to July 4, 2013, the violent terrorist organization known as the Muslim Brotherhood was the legitimate government of the state of Egypt. Imagine the violent terrorist organization known as the Muslim Brotherhood with a nuclear weapon. Also, imagine Turkey with a nuclear weapon.

Imagine then that we are no longer talking nation-states. What we could be talking about very well with Iran having a nuclear weapon would be some of its umbrella protectorates, i.e., Hezbollah. The terrorist organization primarily located in Lebanon, just north of Israel's border, also would, in all likelihood, have access to a nuclear weapon or have one located on Israel's northern border.

Syria could also have a nuclear weapon; and from there we could be talking about, Mr. Speaker, al Qaeda having a nuclear weapon, with miniaturization. Perhaps the al-Nusra Front, perhaps Boko Haram or any of the other myriad terrorist organizations that there are around the world.

You see, Mr. Speaker, the entire paradigm of the world's structure could change quite literally. And for what? What is it that we would have gotten out of this very bad deal that the United States was about to enter into? It makes no sense.

We would have gotten zero centrifuges dismantled.

What is a centrifuge? That is what is used by Iran to enrich uranium; the fissile material that is required to create a nuclear bomb. We would have gotten zero dismantled. Iran would have continued to maintain control and ownership of their centrifuges. Let's face it and let's not kid ourselves: if those centrifuges would have continued to run and spun enriched uranium, we would have gotten zero ounces of uranium shipped out of Iran.

That is the whole ball game, Mr. Speaker.

The estimate today, as we stand here, is that Iran already has enriched uranium to the tune of 9 to 10 tons--well over the amount needed to have a nuclear bomb.

You see, that must be the first condition, not the last and not one that is off the table. That is the first condition to lift any sanction. We must first make sure that all of the enriched uranium leaves the nation of Iran because, again, we know their stated intention. That must go.

We also get out of this deal zero facilities closed. We know there are multiple facilities against and in violation of U.N. resolution after U.N. resolution after U.N. resolution. Iran has continued to be one of the biggest violators of U.N. resolutions that there is in the world today. One nuclear facility after another, including a plutonium facility, a heavy-water reactor in Iraq--that doesn't have to close.

Why would we do this? Why would we allow them to continue the means of production for nuclear weapons when we get nothing in return? They get $3 billion. Some say $50 billion. We get nothing in return. Are we mad?

Thank God for the French. Thank God for the French foreign minister, who said this was a sucker's deal. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said this is a very, very bad deal and said it is the deal of the century. Why would we continue to reward bad behavior and a bad actor? Why would we allow no delay on the plutonium reactor? Why would there be no stop in missile testing?

Let's face it, what do they want the missiles for? Who is attacking Iran right now? And yet we would allow them to continue to test missiles and the delivery system for a nuclear weapon?

No stop in terrorism. Who is the exporter of terrorism? It is Iran. Who exports terrorism to Lebanon? It is Iran, through Hezbollah. Who exports terrorism in Syria, where Bashar al-Assad has killed over 100,000 of his people? It is Iran. Imagine Iran with a nuclear weapon and the terror that would be exported once they have that nuclear weapon and no stop in the human rights abuses.

All of this they get. They get a plutonium reactor, 3,000 new centrifuges, the enriched uranium for a bomb.

While we were over in Israel this last week, we had heard from the Prime Minister that there are well over 18,000 centrifuges running today. The first level of purity that is reached in uranium is 3.5 percent. The second level that is reached is 20 percent. From there it is a hop and a skip literally only weeks to get to 90 percent purity, which is what is required for a nuclear bomb. We are virtually sitting on the edge of a nuclear Iran, with no wiggle room left.

Finally, we are beginning to see the beginning of the economic sanctions coming to work, just when they are coming to bear, just when Iran is about to buckle at the knee, come to the table, and actually agree to something over here on this side of the scorecard. You see, Mr. Speaker, it is a big goose egg on this side of the scorecard--what the freedom-loving people of the world seek, what the American people seek, what the Jewish people of the State of Israel seek. We get zero on this scorecard while the Iranian nuclear program is allowed to continue at pace, moving forward toward the ultimate goal of the nuclear weapon and the means of delivery. And all the while working on miniaturization so that the nuclear warhead can deliver its deadly, lethal target to the most vulnerable people in the world.

And wouldn't it be horrible and wouldn't it be sick if a city here in the United States would be a recipient of one of those nuclear warheads? Why? Because in the midst of foolishness, the P5+1 thought it would be a good idea to let the Iranians continue their nuclear program.

May it never be.

There was an article that was just published. It was published by someone that I have great admiration for in The Wall Street Journal--a very smart guy by the name of Bret Stephens. Bret had a column that came out. He talked about, again, this last weekend and the fact that the world dodged a bullet, just barely--not because of the Obama administration's efforts, I am sorry to say, and not because of the efforts of the United Kingdom, I am sorry to say, but because of the French. And we have them to thank.

The talks unexpectedly fell apart at the last minute when

the French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius publicly objected

to what he called a sucker's deal, meaning the United States

was prepared to begin lifting sanctions on Iran in exchange

for tentative Iranian promises that they would slow their

multiple nuclear programs.

Now, this is very important that I read this, Mr. Speaker, because Bret Stephens goes on to say in his article:

Not stop their nuclear program, not suspend their nuclear

program, mind you, much less dismantle them, but merely

reduce their pace from run to jog when they're on mile 23 of

their nuclear marathon.

He said:

It says a lot about the administration that they so wanted

a deal that they would have been prepared to take this one.

And what this deal would have meant, quite simply, Mr. Speaker, is that we would have seen an Iran with a nuclear bomb very soon, and the means to deliver it and put the world on edge.

May it never be. Thank God for the French.

That is what happens when the line between politics is a game of perception and policy as the pursuit of national objectives dissolves.

I think this was a very important weekend. And it is important to know that this isn't over. You see, what happened is that there was a delay. A delay, I suppose, for what? To buy the vote of the French, to take their arm and twist it behind their back?

Because now the pressure is on France and the P5+1. The pressure is on France. Seven days from today, Mr. Speaker, there will be another meeting. Our Secretary of State, John Kerry, who insists that this deal and that he and the United States aren't blind and aren't stupid with this deal--he insisted this on ``Meet the Press'' last Sunday. He is stating that he believes that there will be a deal with Iran and that there will be one quickly.

My question would be, Mr. Speaker, to the Secretary of State or to anyone in the Obama administration who is in the process of working on this deal with a nuclear Iran: Is this what the deal is that you are intending to strike? We get zero, and Iran gets the ability to develop a nuclear bomb. What is the deal? What is in that?

I think we need to ask the lead negotiator, whose name is Wendy Sherman. She is President Obama's lead negotiator, chief nuclear negotiator, in this very crucial negotiation which has the potential to change the course of history.

In 1988, Wendy Sherman was a social worker. She worked on the Dukakis campaign. She worked at the Democratic National Committee. This is the person who is striking this deal right now on a nuclear Iran. She also was the CEO of the Fannie Mae Foundation. It was a charity that was shut down 10 years later for what The Washington Post called ``using a tax-exempt contribution to advance corporate interests.''

From there, Wendy Sherman went to the State Department. There she served as the point person in nuclear negotiations with North Korea. She met with Kim Jong Il, himself. She found him witty and humorous, a conceptual thinker, a quick problem-solver, smart, engaged, knowledgeable, self-confident. She called him a ``regular guy.'' She was found working for her former boss at the Albright Stonebridge Group before she went to the No. 3 spot at the State Department. From there, the arc of her career has gone to her now being in charge of this effort of giving away the ability to Iran to be able to continue on a pace to develop a nuclear bomb.

Again, may it never be.

When we were in Israel on Friday evening, we found out, Mr. Speaker, that the Obama administration had gone much further in this effort than even we had thought, because the story came out in the Daily Beast in an article by Eli Lake. He said that in this very bad deal with a nuclear Iran that once the current President was elected in June, Rouhani, that the Obama administration began then to already ease the sanctions on Iran. It is something that I think none of us could even begin to imagine. Even without consulting Congress, the Treasury Department issued notices in June that they would no longer be checking on those who are violating the sanctions' deals.

In other words, there wouldn't be the type of sanctions going out and the type of punishments, if you will, for bad actors who were doing trades with Iran. In other words, beginning past June, according to the article that came out on Friday, the Obama administration was already evening out the scorecard. In other words, they were already giving bonuses to Iran.

Why?

Because Rouhani was seen as a ``moderate,'' someone the Obama administration could work with. Even in September, President Obama, himself, wanted to be able to meet and talk and discuss without any precondition at all with the leader of Iran.

You see, there is a read that happened among the leadership in Iran. They looked at the United States. They tested our pulse. They tested the pulse of the Obama administration, and they saw that they could get what Benjamin Netanyahu called a very, very, very bad deal for freedom- loving people across the world. As a matter of fact, the leadership in Iran saw something

else. They saw that they could get a sucker's deal--in the words of the French diplomat and negotiator--but that is not what the American people want, Mr. Speaker.

They want to know that when they tuck their children in bed at night that the world will be secure for them and that they won't have to worry about a nuclear weapon coming within the borders of the United States of America or of any nation. No one wants to see a nuclear nightmare, but the Obama administration needs to recognize that, in order to alleviate the burden of a nuclear nightmare, we must never, ever, ever allow Iran to have a nuclear bomb and the means to deliver that bomb.

You see, when we were in Israel, Mr. Speaker, we were told by some of the leadership in Israel that there are 25 nations that have the civilian capability of having nuclear power but that only five nations enrich uranium in order to have the fissile material. When you have a responsibility, you have to act responsibly, and those nations have acted responsibly with the fissile material. The argument from Iran is quite different. Iran says they have an indigenous right to enrich uranium, that all nations do.

All nations don't have the right when they have spoken irresponsibly, when they have acted in violation of U.N. resolution after U.N. resolution, when they have said ``no'' to International Atomic Energy Commission inspectors coming to Iran to check on what Iran is doing in regards to uranium enrichment, in regards to nuclear reactors or to the plutonium heavy-water reactor. The door is slammed in the faces of the inspectors. When they ask to come in, they are told ``maybe some other time.'' Think of that with your teenager. You want to go in and check on your teenager's room, and your teenager says, ``Maybe not this time, Mom. How about you try me tomorrow?'' Does that raise a few suspicions in your mind? Usually, it does. In the case of the security of the people of the world, that should definitely raise our concerns.

So why would we give the benefit of the doubt to a nation that has thumbed its nose at the United Nations Security Council? that has thumbed its nose at the International Atomic Energy Commission inspectors? Why would we give them the benefit of the doubt? Why would the Obama administration give them the benefit of the doubt?

When Wendy Sherman has negotiated what is arguably one of the biggest failures in North Korea, with North Korea's obtaining nuclear weaponry and missile capability, that is absolute failure--failure for the world and failure for this negotiator. Now the same negotiator is trying to strike this deal where it looks, to me, like Iran is getting it all--it is a clean sweep--and the freedom-loving people of the world are getting a goose egg. This is a very bad deal.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is time to pull Wendy Sherman back and off of this project. This isn't working. I think the United States should pull back and not be a part of the P5+1. I think we need to take a big step backwards and take a deep breath and do a thorough review of the history of Iran and of Iran's violations.

This is bipartisan, Mr. Speaker. This is not Republicans beating up on the Obama administration. There are numerous Democrats, including Senator Menendez on the Senate side, including many of my colleagues on the Democrat side of the aisle. They are pro-Israel. They are pro- American national security. They don't want to see a nuclear Iran any more than Republicans do. This is not a partisan issue, Mr. Speaker. This is completely bipartisan. In fact, I believe, if we were to put a resolution on the floor of this House that were to call on the Obama administration to say ``no'' to this very, very, very bad deal--to a sucker's deal in the words of the French diplomat--I believe that we would see a very strong bipartisan agreement.

Why?

Because, as a body--Democrat, Republican--we are truly, not just in word but in deed, pro-Israel. We are first pro-United States, first pro our national security interests. That is totally bipartisan.

I am privileged to sit on the House Intelligence Committee. We deal with the classified secrets of the Nation. I compliment my colleague Dutch Ruppersberger as much as I compliment my colleague Mike Rogers, the chair of the committee, because they have made a decision that, when it comes to America's national security, the partisanship gets checked outside the door. We are completely bipartisan when we go on that committee, as it should be.

So, when it comes to making sure that a rogue--perhaps even an evil-- regime does not have access to a nuclear weapon, that is probably the most bipartisan move that could ever come out of this body, and I believe that it will because I trust my Democrat colleagues to also believe and understand that a nuclear Iran is a very, very bad idea. I believe the Senate will see it the same way. I think we will see, again, agreement on both sides of the aisle because this is about America. This is about our national security. It is about the security interests and the future of the world. It is about the national security interests of our friend, the Jewish State of Israel. It is about her survival. It is about making sure that violent terrorist organizations never, ever, ever, ever, ever have access to nuclear fissile material and the means and capability of creating a nuclear bomb and delivering it on innocent people anywhere across the world.

We want a peaceful world, and we will not have a peaceful world if madmen have a nuclear weapon. It is a bipartisan issue--it is a peace issue--and it is an issue, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that should capture our attention.

Might I ask how many minutes I have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to again refer to one of my colleagues who has also eloquently written on this subject, and I would like to give her credit as well. She is a former Member of this body but a wonderful Member with whom I had the privilege of traveling to the Middle East. She was defeated in her last election, but she served this body very well. She is a Democrat colleague. I have great respect for her. She and I traveled to Israel. We traveled to Pakistan. We traveled to Kuwait. Her name is Shelley Berkley, and she is from Nevada. I would like to read a few of the words from former Representative Shelley Berkley.

She said that the deal that is in the works with Iran is far worse than anyone could have possibly imagined. She said that the details are still emerging on this deal that was nearly put together over the weekend in Geneva, and she said:

By all accounts and despite all denials, the United States

is actively pursuing a catastrophic agreement with Iran. It

is one that would facilitate the nuclearization of one of the

most extreme, violent, and anti-American tyrannies on Earth,

with consequences that will be regretted for generations.

You see, Shelley Berkley of Nevada gets it. She understands that this isn't a short-term action. She understood that if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon that this will change the course of history for generations, and it is one that would be near impossible to roll back because, again, of the idea of proliferation. It wouldn't be just Iran who has it, as if that isn't bad enough; it would be rogue terrorist organizations across the globe.

Former Representative Shelley Berkley writes:

The centerpiece of the deal from the West's perspective is

Iran's agreement to convert its stockpiles of 20 percent

enriched uranium to fuel for civilian use and to halt further

enrichment to 20 percent for 6 months.

Now, it is interesting. We just met this last week with the leader of intelligence in Israel. He told us that part of this very, very, very bad deal would include Iran's not firing up their heavy-water plutonium reactor in Iraq--``Araq,'' some people say. He said the joke on all of that is that this reactor won't even go on line for use until next August, so Iran gives up absolutely nothing in this deal. You see, it is a scam. They don't even have an ability over the next 6 months to fire up this reactor. So Iran's agreeing not to develop any plutonium from that reactor is a zero. It is a goose egg. It is a nonstarter.

These are the negotiators? I know one thing. I wouldn't want them negotiating my salary at my next job. They don't get it. They don't understand what is at stake--or do they? That is how important this is.

``The entire question of 20 percent enriched uranium,'' says former Representative Shelley Berkley, ``is a smoke screen.''

For many years, making a bomb went like this: first you spent a lot of time enriching uranium to 3.5 percent purity. That is difficult, but that is exactly what Iran would be allowed to continue to do. Then you enriched what you had created to 20 percent purity. When you had enough of that--and the centrifuges Iran has now are better and faster and quicker than what they had before, five times faster, as a matter of fact--you would be in a position to easily and quickly convert that material to 90 percent purity that is good enough for a nuclear warhead.

In recent months, Iran has advanced dramatically in both the number of centrifuges--again, nearly 19,000 centrifuges today at its disposal and their efficiency. Today, experts say that in just a few weeks' time Iran could go from 3.5 percent all the way to 90 percent, which is ``bingo,'' bomb-making material for Iran. The whole issue of 20 percent enrichment has become absolutely irrelevant. Instead, the most important questions are how much 3.5 percent enriched uranium they have and whether they are allowed to keep their centrifuges spinning. If the answer to both is yes, they are moving forward on a bomb.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, if we have a deal with Iran, the number one parameter that must be included--and I spoke with both the current intelligence director and the former intelligence director of Israel, and they both said: A nonnegotiable is that Iran has to give up the 9 to 10 tons of enriched uranium that they have on hand. Why wouldn't you? Why wouldn't they be forced to give up the fissile material to make a bomb? It only makes sense.

Number two, they need to give up the ability to make further enriched uranium. Those are the centrifuges. That has to go as well.

The world is saying if you want to have the material, the nuclear material, that you need for a peaceful civilian use of power, if you want, for instance, nuclear reactors, that is fine. The world has no problem with nuclear power for true electricity, or if they want radio isotopes for cancer research, no problem. But that means that the material comes into Iran, and it is used for a civilian purpose, and we have inspectors. That is reasonable.

We have countries like Spain that have civilian-use nuclear reactors. They bring their uranium in, and they don't enrich it themselves, and there are inspectors. The same with Sweden. The same with other countries.

This is fine to have nuclear reactors for electricity. We would back that, but what we will not back, what we must not ever back is the ability for Iran to create a nuclear bomb. That does not change in the current Obama administration effort of the deal that came out and was thankfully put on hold by the French at Geneva at this P5+1.

The new agreement would allow Iran to continue to freely enrich to 3.5 percent at its Natanz and Fordow facilities. That is beyond all comprehension. How can you have a deal if Iran is continuing to enrich their uranium at two facilities and to continue building centrifuges that can easily and quickly be installed?

``At the end of the 6-month period,'' Representative Shelley Berkley writes, ``Iran would be even closer to breakout capacity.'' Meaning the ability to build a nuclear warhead so quickly that no one could mobilize forces in time to stop it.

In other words, what we would have given Iran last weekend is the luxury of time, time to develop a deadly nuclear weapon. It takes time for a nation, the United States, Israel, the United Kingdom, Canada, any nation, it takes time for a nation to mobilize, to come against a bad actor nation, like Iran, in its development of a nuclear weapon.

Again, that is why this is so important--this chart that was created by Senator Mark Kirk. He accurately reported what the score will be for the world. We will get nothing, and Iran will get everything; and that must not be.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I was not present during roll No. 544, on agreeing to H. Res. 380. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I come to the podium today in recognition of the passing of my predecessor and one of the Members of this body. Joining me at the podium are two members of the Minnesota delegation. Representative Erik Paulsen of Minnesota's Third Congressional District was a longtime friend of former United States House of Representatives Member and Senator, Rod Grams. Also joining me at the podium is United States Representative Rick Nolan of Minnesota's Seventh Congressional District, which was also part of the territory represented by former Representative Rod Grams.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a former Member of both this House and the United States Senate from the State of Minnesota, Representative and Senator Rod Grams. Rod peacefully passed away late Tuesday evening after a lengthy battle with cancer. He was only 65 years old.

Rod Grams was a very humble man of principle. He grew up on a family farm in Crown, in eastern Minnesota, where he received his ``eternal crown.'' It was the same farm that his father grew up on. It is the farm where Rod acquired his diligent, hardworking, Minnesota-grown work ethic.

Rod Grams worked in broadcasting for nearly 25 years in Minnesota. He earned a reputation as a positive communicator who understood how to speak with his fellow Minnesotans. He then built his own business and realized the happiness and challenges of creating jobs and making a go of his American Dream.

Rod lived life to the fullest, and he showed others how to do the same. He successfully navigated the real world, which shaped his views before serving as Minnesota's Sixth Congressional District Representative and then the entire State of Minnesota in the United States Senate.

Rod Grams was dedicated to maintaining personal liberty and doing everything within his power to protect Americans against the constantly growing size and scope of the Federal Government's intrusion into the lives of real Americans that he represented at this great Capitol. With his keen eye and long-term vision, Minnesotans had a dedicated advocate here in the Halls of the United States Congress.

It was an honor for me and my husband, Marcus, to know Rod Grams for decades. He was a leader, an example, but, more importantly, he was my friend. My heart goes out to his wife, Christine, to his four beautiful children, and to the light of his life, his grandchildren.

While Rod Grams will be greatly missed here in this body, we take comfort in the fact that he contributed so much by way of his service to the great State of Minnesota and to our country. We all benefit from Rod Grams's monumental legacy.

Mr. Speaker, I ask now that the House of Representatives observe a moment of silence to honor the incredible life of former United States Senator Rod Grams.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reiterate again that the bodies have agreed on the general numbers that we have to look at to deal with our budget. We need to do it. We need to get it done, and we need to get people back to work here in the United States of America.

The one thing that shocked me, Mr. Speaker, is last Saturday, I went with my colleague Steve King to The Mall because we wanted to open up the World War II Memorial, the Korean Memorial, and the Vietnam Memorial so that our veterans and the American people could visit them.

We were absolutely shocked to find the level of intimidation that was going on. Police dogs were held by park rangers, and mounted police were in front of the barriers in front of these monuments. That's shameful.

What was even more shameful is that there were 90-year-old people in 90-degree weather, and the park system had shut down not only the water fountain but also the bathrooms. We had 10 Honor Flights coming in to visit the World War II Memorial, and in one of the most undignified acts I've ever seen, the Greatest Generation was denied access to a public bathroom in the national park.

That's terrible. We wouldn't do that to anyone. That's why we need to get our act together and get this taken care of.

I want to thank Representative Hartzler for her wonderful leadership this afternoon. We've heard wonderful comments about why we're here and why this is so important.

People all across the United States want us in to get our act together in Congress and with the White House and put this country back in the position we've always been in--the greatest economic and military superpower that the world has ever known. But we can't be that superpower, as Representative Lankford of Oklahoma said, if our Commander in Chief is illegally furloughing employees who are civilians actively supporting our defense initiative when we need them at this critical time in world history.

And I want to bring attention to one particular area and underscore what Representative Lankford said, because this is so extremely important. It was highlighted today by one of our Members, Representative Lee Terry of Nebraska. What he told the Republicans today at the microphone was chilling. A story is written about it today in Breitbart.com by Ben Shapiro.

In the article it says President Obama is illegally furloughing civilian defense employees at STRATCOM. What is STRATCOM? STRATCOM, Madam Speaker, is where thousands of people work to deal with missile defense in the United States. That would include nuclear missile defense.

Madam Speaker, we are being told that upwards of 60 to 70 percent of the civilian employees, which are thousands of individuals, have been illegally furloughed. Their job is to secure the safety of the missile defense system in the United States and the nuclear defense system in this United States.

The most important title of the President of the United States is to be Commander in Chief because the number one duty of our government is national security.

There can be politics played in this town. We get that. You never, ever, ever, ever play politics with missile defense and nuclear defense and the safety and national security of the American people.

Madam Speaker, I call on the President of the United States, before the clock strikes midnight tonight, if nothing else, put these civilian employees back in place at STRATCOM. The American people and the world need to know that our missile defense and nuclear defense system is at 100 percent capability.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is very clear that the President's health care plan is completely unworkable. Not only is it unworkable, it is unfair to nearly everyone in the United States-- businessperson and individual alike.

Hardworking Americans know it because their premiums are skyrocketing and, even worse, they are getting notices in the mail that they are being told that their health insurance is being pulled altogether.

Small businesses know it. They are having to respond by not hiring the people they want to hire--in some cases, even having to fire--or reducing the amount of hours to below 30 hours a week.

People in the President's own party know it. The gentleman that wrote this bill called the bill a nightmare. Even the labor unions that support the President know this. They have called this bill a nightmare, and they've said it is breaking the back on the American Dream, breaking the back on the 40-hour workweek and on health care benefits.

Even the President knows it. He has admitted, despite saying the law is working just as it is supposed to, the President just once again had to have yet one more delay in ObamaCare--in fact, over 19 times.

That is why we are asking, Mr. Speaker, for fairness in a workable health care law.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to be able to stand in the greatest deliberative body in the world and in the well of the House of Representatives. It is especially poignant that we are here today as Members of this body, because we are looking at an historic shift in United States history.

Next week, Mr. Speaker, not one American will escape the new rules and regulatory burden of ObamaCare. We are going to face something that's unprecedented in the history of the country, and we already know what some of those results will be. We have a law that's absolutely unaffordable. Our

President told us that we had to hurry, hurry, hurry--not even take time to read the bill--because we were going to be saving $2,500 per American household if we passed this bill.

Mr. President, we are already told that the average increase is about $3,000 per household--well over a $5,000 difference from what you promised us. It's unaffordable, Mr. President. Now we also know it's completely unworkable. How do we know that? Because, Mr. President, we already know that you have granted 19 different waivers, blockages, repeals of ObamaCare. Even your administration--Mr. Speaker, we would say to the President--has admitted it's completely unworkable.

And it's unfair.

I think this is what galls the American people more than anything. How do we know it's unfair? Take a look at the leader of one of the largest unions in the United States, one of the advocates for the Unaffordable Care Act, as many have called it. James Hoffa, the head of the Teamsters Union, calls ObamaCare a nightmare, and he has begged and pleaded the President of the United States to back off of ObamaCare because he said, in his words, that it is taking away the American Dream--what unions have worked for, to build up a 40-hour workweek. We are now becoming a part-time Nation so that employers today are looking for employees who will work no more than 29-and-a-half hours a week. That's a 25 percent reduction in hours for the average American worker, let alone the multiple tens of thousands of employees who have already been thrown off of their health insurance. That's unfair.

Finally, it's unpopular.

Never has ObamaCare enjoyed any popularity, and the President of the United States promised his side of the aisle, Don't worry. Just pass it.

In other words, build it, and they will come.

The bill was passed, and today--just literally days before this bill goes into effect--it is more unpopular than ever. If we think it's unpopular now, wait until it's fully implemented. As they say, there is nothing more expensive than something that is supposed to be free, and we are going to find out just how expensive that is.

We are going to enjoy for the next hour comments from people within this body as to what they've heard from the folks back home, what real Americans are saying about how this horrific law is going to impact their lives.

I would like to first yield time to the esteemed colleague from the State of North Carolina, the Honorable Virginia Foxx, a leader within this body.

Thank you to Congresswoman Foxx.

Thank you for your leadership in this area.

It's wonderful, I think, to hear from women, and one woman in particular is the gentlelady from Tennessee, Marsha Blackburn, who has let our Conference know absolutely clearly that 80 percent of all health care decisions in this country are made by women, so women, in particular, are impacted by this decision because they are at the front line of understanding how unaffordable the President's new health care plan is, how unfair it's going to be to themselves, to their families, to their parents that they often care for, how unworkable it is, and how they want to see a positive solution.

We are not here just to beat up. We are here to make sure that we have a positive solution for American families, and it is women whom we are very concerned about today.

So, with that, I would like to yield to the gentlelady from Tennessee, Mrs. Marsha Blackburn.

I want to say thank you to the gentlewoman from Tennessee for all her passion and vigor and also for the wonderful piece of legislation because I think it's a good compromise at this point on ObamaCare. And if the truth be told, I think a lot of Democrats secretly hope that the gentlelady's bill passes because they know this is unworkable.

Yes, I will yield to the gentlewoman from Tennessee.

I thank the gentlelady.

That's exactly right. That's why I say that I think if the truth be told, a lot of Democrats are secretly hoping that we can get this 1- year delay. That's the minimum compromise that we're looking at, defunding and delaying for at least 1 year. We want to save the American people from the economic misery that's just around the corner.

I yield to the gentleman from the State of Florida, Florida's Third Congressional District, Mr. Ted Yoho.

I thank the gentleman from Florida.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Scott Garrett. He is another tireless stalwart that, during the time when we were trying to fight, said, This is what's going to happen, is exactly what we're about to see transpire before our face. Mr. Scott Garrett from New Jersey's District Five

made it abundantly clear exactly what was going to happen, in terms of the unpopularity, the unfairness, how unaffordable it's going to be and how unworkable.

I thank the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Scott Garrett. He has given a brilliant case on why ObamaCare enjoys a 57 percent disapproval rate by the American people.

The privacy security breach is one that I think we can't underscore enough. People have been very nervous about disclosures that have come out about our government. They are worried about surveillance. What we would say is, Baby, you ain't seen nothing yet, because we are about to see the largest Federal data hub get underway.

Because what will this contain? Not only every single American's most sensitive, private health information about whether or not you've gone to see a psychiatrist or a counselor or what's happened between you and your doctor--we don't know yet if even chart notes will be a part of this Federal data hub that the doctor writes down about what you told them during the private doctor-patient visit.

We know that somehow this will have to be connected to data that is connected with your employment history--where you've worked, for how long, how much money you make, whether you are full-time, whether you are part-time. This will also somehow have to be connected to your tax returns, your most personal private information that no one is supposed to have access to.

All of that will have to come together, together with your family relationships. If you're married, if you're not married, who it is that's considered a dependent. We have never before seen, in the history of the United States, a conflagration and a centralizing of all of this personal data in one hub.

And how can we, the American people, have any level of assurance that this data will be secured? In my own home State of Minnesota, just in the last several weeks, we had a State Federal employee working in the new ObamaCare health care exchanges hit a button, and just like that, 1,600 Minnesotans' private information, including their Social Security numbers, was sent out in a terrible, flagrant security breach. Not only that, we've found out that the information, when it was sent from the government health insurance site, wasn't even encrypted. It was unsecured. It was on an old-fashioned Excel spreadsheet.

And in my home State of Minnesota, we were, early on, jumping on the bandwagon of supporting ObamaCare. So my State has been fully onboard, working to implement this as one of the earliest States, and this is the lack of security for privacy breaches that we see even in my home State.

That's why we are pleading with the President of the United States: Have mercy. Have feeling for people across America who don't want their security breached, because once it's done, it can't be undone. Once your Social Security number is out there, what do you do? Once people know what your income is, what some of your health

problems have been, what some of your family members' health issues have been, how do you reel that back in? As they say in courtrooms, how do you unring a bell? That's all we are trying to say today, those of us that are on the floor, Republicans. Before it's too late, please, look at these problems that have already happened, Mr. President.

You say you won't negotiate with us? You will negotiate with the President of Iran, who is flagrantly producing a nuclear bomb to use against our ally Israel and against us? You will negotiate with the former head of the KGB and the Soviet Union with the Communist Party, Putin, and you won't negotiate with us?

We are here. It's Friday. It ain't quitting time. We want to talk to you, Mr. President. We are here.

And with that, I yield to the gentleman from the great State of Montana, Steve Daines, who is a fabulous new Member of Congress, who has been working tirelessly on behalf of the citizens of Montana to render to them an affordable, popular, fair health insurance system.

With that, I yield to the gentleman who is the at-large Representative of Montana.

I thank the gentleman from Montana.

We also have Roger Williams from Texas' 25th Congressional District.

I thank the gentleman from Texas' 25th District, Mr. Williams.

We have, also, Mr. Rothfus from Pennsylvania's 12th. Mr. Rothfus, thank you for joining us today.

I thank the gentleman.

We have with us the chairman of the Republican Study Committee, Mr. Steve Scalise, from the great State of Louisiana.

That's a wonderful rendition, and I appreciate the gentleman from Louisiana.

I now yield to Representative LaMalfa from California's First Congressional District.

Thank you, Representative LaMalfa, for all of your hard work on defunding and delaying ObamaCare.

We have next with us Mr. Culberson from Texas' Seventh Congressional District, who has been tireless, especially in the area of keeping government fully funded.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

I am extremely grateful to Representative Culberson. I know his daughter, Caroline, is the most precious part of his life, as our daughter, Caroline, is as well. And as a gentleman from Texas, I know it's his daughter that he's most concerned about with the ill effects of this bill.

I yield now to another great Texan, Randy Weber, from the great State of Texas, from the 22nd District of Texas.

I thank Randy Weber from Texas. Texans have stood up on this issue, and they've been fighting from the very beginning.

But there's also another Member, who's a new Member of Congress, Mr. Kerry Bentivolio. Kerry Bentivolio, from Michigan's 11th District, has diligently worked not only to defund ObamaCare but to delay ObamaCare. He ran on that when he ran for office, and he has fulfilled that promise while he's been a Member of Congress.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan's 11th District, Mr. Kerry Bentivolio.

I thank Mr. Bentivolio.

I yield now to Scott Tipton from Colorado's Third Congressional District, a fabulous Member of Congress.

Thank you, Representative Tipton.

From the Rocky Mountains all the way to the great State of New York, I yield to Mr. Tom Reed, a fabulous Member of Congress from New York's 22nd Congressional District.

Representative Tom Reed has gone to the heart of this problem, which is the lack of fairness in ObamaCare. And speaking to that is Representative Ted Poe of the great State of Texas. After myself, my mother's favorite Member of Congress is Ted Poe, our hero.

I yield to the representative from the great State of Texas (Mr. Poe).

I thank the gentleman from Texas, Judge Ted Poe, because what we are fighting is to make ObamaCare equal for all Americans.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mayer Lumber for reaching their seventy-fifth year of business in the city of Mayer, Minnesota under the ownership of the Maetzold family.

John Maetzold was the first family member to own the company back in 1938. John's son, Austin, acquired it just two years later in 1940 when John passed away. Austin temporarily closed the lumberyard from 1942- 1945 while he served in World War II in the U.S. Navy. Despite difficulties following the war, the lumber company reopened, and has continued to serve the people of Mayer and the surrounding areas since then.

Current owners, Rod and Lois Maetzold, are the third generation of Maetzolds to own Mayer Lumber. Their son, Andy Maetzold, is employed there as well, and intends to continue the family business into its fourth generation.

It is small companies like Mayer Lumber, which provides both jobs and a service for their local community, that are essential to our nation's economy and our quality of life.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in sending congratulations out to the entire Maetzold family and their staff for reaching this milestone along with a heart-felt wish for their future success.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Simeon Toronto of Andover, Minnesota on his election as the 67th president of the American Legion Boys Nation.

At only 17 years old, he has an impressive record. Not only is he the first Minnesotan in more than two decades to be elected president of the American Legion Boys Nation, but he is also captain of his high school's boy's cross country and track teams, president of the student council and an Eagle Scout.

With a giving heart and a focus on serving those around him, Simeon is a shining example of a true Minnesota spirit. Our country would benefit from more young men as dedicated and accomplished as Simeon.

I know I speak for my constituents when I say we are so proud of this young man and look forward to seeing what's to come in his bright future.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that this Body recognize Simeon's tremendous accomplishments and congratulate him as he begins this new journey.