Ron DeSantis

Mr. DeSANTIS

Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, I don't think there is any question that, if you go anywhere in this country, the American people believe that this town, Washington, and this institution in particular need a major overhaul. The Founding Fathers conceived of a system in which individual Americans, individual citizens would stand for election and they would go up as representatives of the people, but they were no better than the people. They didn't live under different rules than the rest of the people. They were not part of a ruling class, but, really, part of a servant culture. That was the idea. Well, we have come a long way. Washington, D.C., is really the bane of the existence for many, many people in our society. It hinders our economy. You have people here who engage in self-dealing. It is not acting consistently with how this system was envisioned. So there are a lot of things I would like to do: I think Congress needs to be forced to live under all the laws they pass and enact for other people. I think you need to get rid of a lot of the perks that Members of Congress get, including pensions for Members of Congress. But I think if there was one thing that, I think, really cries out for reform, it is that we need to have term limits for Members of Congress. I don't think there is any way you are ever going to be able to overhaul this culture unless we do that. There was a time when people would get elected and the Founders didn't think anyone would want to be here that long. You would go, you would serve, then you would go back and live under the laws that you passed and continue your pursuits as a citizen. Well, somewhere along the line, that really changed. Then people come in, and it is almost like that is the main thing that they focus on: just staying here, sometimes in perpetuity. People have served 40, 50 years, and I don't think that that has turned out well for our country. I think if you had term limits, I think you would really open up the process for new blood. I think people would come in here with a reformer spirit, new ideas, and really be part of a reform movement in Washington, D.C. It is often said: Well, gee, term limits. But the American people get their choice. They get to vote in the election. The fact of the matter is, the way that our electoral system works, millions and millions of Americans have no functional choice simply because maybe their district is only going to elect someone from one party. Maybe you have the power of incumbency that just makes it so that challengers are never going to be able to get traction. The whole campaign finance system is orchestrated to benefit incumbents, so we don't really just have where the American people have a choice. I think you have a structured choice, which typically leads to only one outcome. So I am not really somebody that thinks that this is all just that the American people are so happy that people are getting returned here all the time. Another, I think, objection that some people said for term limits is that: Well, gee, if you term-limit people, you have new people in who don't necessarily know how the system works. It is just going to be all the staff that are going to run it or the lobbyists that are going to run it. I have got news for you. That is pretty much what happens already. I mean, a lot of these omnibus bills, those get done by staff behind closed doors. Staff wields a lot of power on these committees. And these are not elected individuals. Many of them work hard. I respect a lot of them, but they are exercising, in many ways, authority that should be exercised by the Members, themselves. So I think that problem is real, but I think it is already here. I think if you had new people coming in, I think a lot of those people would probably want to bring in some of their own staff that would be more reflective of their ideas and principles rather than rely on people that have been here a long time who really become accustomed to a system that is not working very well. I am proud to have cosponsored the bill to enact term limits on Members of the House and Members of the Senate. We do three terms for the House, and two terms for the Senate. So if someone wants to serve in the House then serve in the Senate, they could serve 18 years. That is a long time, and I think you would be able to really do some good things during that period. I think what it does is it really shifts the focus of somebody that comes here, because right now, if you get elected to the House, you are on the low end of the pecking order in terms of seniority. I mean, you almost have to just sit around here for 10, 15, 20 years to be in a position where you could really make a huge difference. I think what that does is that creates a culture in which people want to stay here, and that is kind of the main thing that happens once you get here. I think, if you had term limits, the main thing that people would be thinking about is: Okay. You know you are term-limited. Your time is limited. Let's make the most of that. I think you would see a lot of people really, really perform much better. You would have people who could come in as freshmen and have more of an impact because the system wouldn't be dominated by seniority. There would be less favoritism, less backroom dealing. So I think it is a very, very positive reform. We have been voting on random things here lately. I think it would be great if we could come here and offer some reforms to the system, constitutional reforms, like term limits, like a balanced budget amendment, like an amendment making Congress live under the laws that everybody else does. I think that would be a breath of fresh air for the American people. Here is the thing. We talk about how we have the division and the rancor in our politics, and even in this institution; but if you look, term limits is something that, regardless of party, regardless of ideology, regardless of age, regardless of gender, regardless of race, Americans support in overwhelming numbers. So I think that is an example of where the American people are actually very united for this. But when you have the governing class in Washington, that is where the divisions are, because many people don't want to see those types of reforms here. But there is agreement throughout American society, and so if we want to start having a more unified country, we should be listening to the American people. When they are speaking loudly and consistently over 20, 25 years that term limits is something they want, we should heed that call, and we should be voting on that, and we should enact it, passing it out of the House, passing it out of the Senate, and then sending it to the States for ratification. What a win-win it would be, both for this institution, to show the American people we are listening, and then, obviously, it would be a very positive reform to have enacted. I am really happy that, as new people come in, that they have the reformer's spirit. One of the guys who just got elected this last year--it is pretty clear when people get up here whether they are in it for the right reasons or not, and I think there are probably few people in the whole House who have been more dedicated to reform and making this institution serve the American people rather than rule over the American people. It is a great honor for me to be able to yield to my friend from Iowa (Mr. Blum), the chairman of the House Term Limits Caucus.

Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Iowa. The thing is that you bring up a good point. It is very difficult to get people to want to term-limit themselves. So you and I are on a bill together that tries to be reasonable about it and say: Look, you know, we are willing to compromise to get term limits. You have Members who have been here for 12, 14 years and they are trying to put themselves in a position for a chairmanship, whatever, and they joined under certain rules, they kind of played the game, and they are preparing for maybe this to be the pinnacle of their career. I get why someone in that situation would not want to do it. Our proposal says: Okay. Let's do term limits, but then we will phase it in as new Members come. So that is a kind of a gradual term limit enactment, and within a short while you would have term limits across the board. I mean, that is something that is a reasonable compromise to deal with some of the Members that have misgivings. I think my friend from Iowa points out, I mean, if this were something that were to be done via Article V of the Constitution and submitted through the States around Congress, that would be enacted in a New York minute. I mean, that will sail through every State legislature without question, and you would end up having term limits. So I think there are two different routes to take, but I think knowing that there is a desire for this, I think it would be good for this institution to say: Okay. We hear you. Let's debate it; let's put everyone on record. Then the American people can hold people accountable accordingly. That is really, I think, what is frustrating. It would be one thing if term limits just failed every year, but, really, it gets bottled up every year because people don't want to be on record against term limits. I think that those days need to be over. I ask my friend from Iowa, as you go around your district--you have Republicans, Democrats; you have a very politically diverse district--I mean, is there anybody who is out there saying don't do term limits?

Mr. DeSANTIS. I think that, if we were to approach it and say that we need to do term limits, we have to make sure Congress lives under the same rules, no special treatment under ObamaCare, none of that, let's eliminate the pensions for Congress--and the thing is you brought up people being lobbyists after they are in Congress. If you did term limits, guess what. Then you are going to increase the supply of former Members of Congress. So being a lobbyist wouldn't be as lucrative because there would be a lot more people who are out there. I think actually more people would say: Maybe I will go back to my home State and start working in business there and maybe have to come to terms with some of the laws that I imposed on the private sector and see how that works. So I think it would be good for the performance in office, but I also think, as Members left office, it probably would drive more people to the actual private sector rather than being inside the Beltway because you will just have too many former Members and I don't think the pay will be as lucrative. Right now, I don't know if this is accurate, but I have seen statistics where it is upwards of 80 percent of people who serve in the Congress go on to be lobbyists in Washington. So you understand the system, then you go out and are lobbying to grease the skids in that system. That is not the way I think that we want this system to be operating. So let me ask you this: In terms of getting a vote, what do you think we need to be doing to impress upon other colleagues so that we can start to develop some momentum to try to get a vote on this?

Mr. DeSANTIS. It is interesting with the seniority discussion. I was in the Navy. In the military, your time in service matters for pay purposes and other, but along the line you have to actually promote. You have to earn a promotion. So there will be some people who are commanders, O-5s, who have been in for--I don't know--I guess you could probably get that after 12 or 13 years. And then there are some people who are lieutenant commanders, O-4, who have been in 20 years. Well, if you have been in 20, you have more seniority in the sense that you have been there longer, but the person who achieved the higher rank through merit is superior to you in the military chain of command. I think the problem with the way the congressional system operates is it is purely based on years staying here. Some of the best Members who have ever served here have served for 30, 35 years. So this is not uniform. But I think, if you compared the good that those Members have done with the negatives of all the other folks who have just made this their fiefdom, I think the negatives outweigh the positives. I think that Congressman Blum is right. Ultimately, the American people need to force this issue. Part of it is calling the offices. I review the phone calls every day, too. I think one of the most effective things is in a public forum to just pointblank ask a Member of Congress if they will vote for Salmon's bill or Ron DeSantis' term limit bill and put them on the Record. The more people that are on the Record as for it, it makes it easier for us to then take the case to the leadership and say that we need to do this. I think it would be a breath of fresh air. I think people are so frustrated and so sick of the same old games being played in Washington that, if we started coming out with some of these reforms, leading with term limits, I think people would be reading the newspaper and shaking their heads and saying: Really? These guys are finally getting it. Really, this is something that, if you take the long view when you are doing the right thing like that, then voters will have more confidence in your views on other things. So maybe you are interested in tax reform. Maybe you are interested in welfare reform. Guess what. You are doing term limits. You are doing those things. I bet you a lot of voters would be less cynical about what you are trying to do on a whole range of issues. So I think it would be a win-win both in terms of structural reform, but also potential policy reforms down the line. Let me ask my friend from Iowa: Is there anything else you want to add to the discussion? I really appreciate your time. I think it has been worthwhile. I think we need to keep fighting the good fight.

Mr. DeSANTIS. I appreciate it. In your bill, when you said, hey, balance the budget or else face a pay cut, I signed up on that immediately. I think that is a great idea. We need to have personal skin in the game because what happens is, when you are here in Washington, particularly dealing with spending and debt, it is a lot easier politically for most Members to just put it off on the next generation. These are people that can't vote you out of office. They are not going to call your office and complain about it. So it is usually the path of least resistance to do that. So there is not a lot of immediate skin in the game short of us eventually having a debt crisis. Obviously, we don't want it to come to that. We want to make responsible decisions now. So I applaud you for that. I thought that was a very thoughtful reform. I am happy to be signed up with you. Term limits, as part of a larger government reform package, I think would be a home run. I look forward to working with you on it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeSANTIS

Mr. DeSANTIS. I thank my colleague from Virginia for organizing this fitting tribute to somebody who really, really did make a difference. Very few people who serve not only in the judiciary, but really at any level of government, leave the lasting mark that Antonin Scalia did. He will join the likes of John Marshall, Joseph Story, and Robert Jackson as one of the all-time greats in American law. I think of all the great things you can say about him. He was sharp, he was witty, and he wrote brilliantly. I think the reason why he is a titan of modern American law is because he insisted on discharging the judicial duty in a way that strengthened our overall constitutional order. He insisted on textualism when you are interpreting statutes. He had an originalist outlook when you are talking about the constitutional interpretation. Those frames of reference really vindicated the separation of powers. The judicial power under Article III is to decide cases and controversy. So you have cases before you that you have got to decide. It is not to go out and be a roving superlegislature. It is not to impose your philosophy on society. You decide cases. So, once judges free their decisionmaking from the objective meaning of the law in the Constitution, they are taking away power belonging to the American people that should be exercised through their Representatives. Justice Scalia always understood that. He was always insistent that judges have an objective standard when they are discharging their duty. When you talk about textualism, you read the statute for what it says. You don't correct the statute. You don't amend the statute. You don't find subjective views of some random legislature who happened to say something in a committee hearing. You actually apply the words as written. That is the judicial task. When you do that, you are basically vindicating the power of the Congress and of the people's elected Representatives, because they are the ones that wrote the law. If the courts depart from that, then they are departing from what the elected Representatives did. I am sure he saw countless statutes that were asinine as a matter of policy, but he said: That is not my job to correct that. So he is absolutely vindicating the separation of powers in the constitutional order. The same thing with constitutional interpretation. Before Justice Scalia took the bench, this was a freewheeling thing. Judges would say: Society matures and it is up to us to, effectively, update the meaning of the Constitution. That means you have five lawyers--unelected, unaccountable--that serve as an effective roving constitutional convention that can change the Constitution based on one case that happens to come in front of them. That was something that Justice Scalia thought was totally outside the bounds of the proper judicial role. He says the Constitution has a fixed, enduring meaning, and it is our job as judges to ascertain that meaning and apply it to the cases and controversies before us. So, if you look at a figure that has had more impact on how we think about the law and the Constitution over the last 50 years, you are not going to find one that surpasses Justice Antonin Scalia. He was a great American in every respect. He fought the good fight. He finished the race. He kept the faith. What a good guy. What a life.

Mr. DeSANTIS

Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment.

Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Chairman, we are here today discussing how to meet the country's important infrastructure needs, and I think what my amendment does is offer a vision for a different approach in the future. I think it is an approach that is more accountable to taxpayers, and I think it rests on governments closer to the people making more of our transportation decisions. I don't think anyone is going to sit here and claim that the transit and highway system as it is done up here in Washington is being done well. It is chronically underfunded. We are using all kinds of budget gimmicks in this bill. We are doing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve again to, quote, unquote, pay for this. Somehow you are taking oil at $50 a barrel and you are projecting it to be sold for $85 a barrel. So we know we have been through this a lot here. I think part of the problem is, if you look at our infrastructure needs, most of them are intrastate, not necessarily interstate. And while the interstate system is very important and it needs to be maintained, expanded where appropriate, most of the needs that we have in a State like Florida can be done at the county level or at the State level. I would note, Mr. Chairman, that since we have had the highway trust fund since 1956, Florida has paid a lot in taxes, and we received about 88 cents on the dollar back. So I am trying to figure out why we would want to perpetuate a system that is not fiscally sustainable and that puts more power in Washington. Think about it. Most of your needs are done countywide, citywide, and statewide, and yet people in a State like Florida will pay their gas taxes. That will be shipped up to Washington; people will fight over it, politicians, lobbyists, and interest groups; and then the money that comes back is 88 cents on the dollar. I would like to send the gas tax to Washington that is going to fund the actual interstate system, but then leave a portion of the gas tax for State legislatures to spend or for people in local governments to spend. I think you would be able to do it cheaper. I think it would be more accountable to the taxpayers, and I think it would be better for motorists and people who are using our transportation system. So all this does, Mr. Chairman, it is not binding. I wish we could have done something binding, but there are different budget rules. What it does is lay out a vision that we can do this in a way that rests on decisions being made closer to the American people rather than putting everything in Washington, D.C. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Chairman, we would love for these interstate issues to be done at the Federal level. That is what the Federal Government is here for, and that is the way it should be. But when you are talking about purely local issues, there is not a reason to send the money up to Washington and then beg back for pennies on the dollar. That is not an efficient way to do it. Yes, I think that we do have a responsibility to have an efficient interstate system, but we also need to understand that Washington shouldn't be dictating what local communities do. And, yes, in a State like Florida where we have a lot of this is intrastate, let's empower the States and let's empower the local communities. Just imagine if they were able to have a portion of that gas tax go directly to them. I think you would see great decisions made. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DeSANTIS

Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, Ronald Reagan once said the closest thing to eternal life on Earth is a government bureau. How rare is it that we actually reduce government around here? Yet here we are debating resurrecting a defunct agency that has already gone out to pasture. Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle are central planners. They believe in the type of politicized economy for which the Ex-Im Bank has become a poster child. So they are actually being consistent in their position. What I can't understand is how Members who preach limited government are willing to turn over the floor of the House to the minority party for the purpose of rechartering a bank whose authority has lapsed. If we simply did nothing, we would have less government. Taxpayers would face less exposure. There would be less corruption. And the economy would be less politicized. So, by all means, vote how you want. Please, if you support resurrecting this agency, just spare us all the notion that you are actually here to reduce the size and scope of government.

Mr. DeSANTIS

Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, in 2012, when the President was running for reelection, he said: Look, with Iran, it is very simple. We will remove the sanctions when they dismantle and give up their nuclear program. That was a promise he made to the American people, but this deal doesn't even come close to that. Iran is allowed to maintain a vast, vast nuclear infrastructure. Two years ago in this House, we passed more robust sanctions, which would have further tightened the screws on the Iranian regime. I think, at that time, Iran desperately wanted to get out of the sanctions. If you had asked Iran what they wanted, they would have, obviously, wanted the sanctions relief because they needed the money--the regime needed it to solidify themselves in power--but they also would have wanted to keep their nuclear program. Then, of course, they would have wanted to continue to fund terrorism. This agreement basically gives Iran everything it wants, so I join my colleagues who have urged that we resoundingly reject this agreement. I want to point out something that, I think, is very personal to a lot of veterans. If you look right here, this is an up-armored Humvee in Iraq in, probably, the 2007-2008 time period. It has been ripped to shreds by an EFP device--an explosively formed penetrator. This is something wherein the explosion will cause these pieces of metal to go 3,000 meters per second. It will ravage the individuals who are in the Humvee, and it will even go through the armor. These devices caused the deaths of hundreds of our servicemembers, and they wounded many, many more. Why do I bring that up? Because this was perpetrated by this man, Qasem Soleimani, who is the head of the Quds Force--Iran's Revolutionary Guard terrorist outfit. He was orchestrating those attacks on American servicemembers. That is enough, right? We are doing a deal with a country that has a lot of American blood on its hands. It is even worse than that. This deal relieves the international sanctions on Qasem Soleimani and the Quds Force. It empowers the very people who harmed our servicemembers in Iraq. I think that that is an insult to the memories of the people who lost their lives on our behalf and an insult to their families. For that reason, in addition to all of the other great ones that have been mentioned, we need to resoundingly reject this deal.

Mr. DeSANTIS

Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, I hope that every Member of this body reads the joint comprehensive plan of action that the Obama administration has agreed to with Iran. Because, if they do, I think you will see overwhelming majority vote to repudiate it. You have heard about some of the massive influx of cash for Iran. You have heard about their ability to keep their nuclear infrastructure, all these hugely problematic provisions. Interestingly, we talk about if Iran violates the deal, we can snap back economic sanctions. In fact, Iran can snap back in a nuclear direction. Here is what the agreement says: Iran has stated that, if sanctions are reinstated, in whole or in part, Iran will treat that as grounds to cease performing its commitment under this JCPOA, in whole or in part. That means, if Iran cheats and we go to penalize them, Iran is reserving the right to simply go back to producing nuclear weapons. We have been told that no deal is better than a bad deal. Mr. Speaker, this is a bad deal.

Mr. DeSANTIS

Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss one aspect of this Iran deal which I think is a fatal flaw, in addition to other fatal flaws-- but this one, I think, in particular--and that is the issue of inspections. Now, the crucial part of any type of deal dealing with nuclear disarmament involves inspections. You have got to inspect to make sure that they are not--that, in this case, Iran is not--building a nuclear weapon. Now, the best way to have done that would be to insist that the sanctions remain in place until Iran affirmatively dismantles their program, and then you have inspectors go in to verify that the program has been dismantled; and then as long as the program is, in fact, dismantled and they don't have a nuclear infrastructure, then the sanctions are relieved. The minute that they are caught trying to rebuild, then the sanctions go back on. But that is not what this deal is at all. What this deal is is a huge, huge influx of cash, hundreds of billions of dollars up front to the Iranian regime, which will be used, no doubt, much of that money, to fund terrorism and to expand Iran's influence throughout the Middle East. And we are affirmatively recognizing Iran's nuclear program. They are not required to dismantle their infrastructure, so they get to keep that. So a huge influx of cash, and they keep the nuclear program. You are not going to sell me once you go down that road, because I don't think they have a right to any nuclear material. But other people will say, well, as long as we can inspect, then maybe it is going to be okay. And here, in this deal, we don't even have legitimate inspections. Now, the administration has drawn a lot of red lines with this Iran deal. One of them was, of course we are going to have anywhere, anytime inspections, and they said that repeatedly. Just a couple of months ago, in April, Ben Rhodes, Deputy National Security Adviser, said the deal would include anytime, anywhere inspections. Energy Secretary Moniz said of course you have to have anytime, anywhere inspections. And then guess what? The deal comes out. Rhodes is asked on TV, what about anytime, anywhere? I thought that was part of the deal. He said we never sought anywhere, anytime inspections. So the administration is recognizing the reality that this deal does not include anywhere, anytime inspections. What it does have is a convoluted bureaucratic process that, if we or the IAEA or the U.N. suspect that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon in, say, one of their military sites, you actually have to petition to be able to inspect it. Iran gets to weigh in on whether they want to. There is a convoluted bureaucratic appeals process. Basically, Iran can drag it out for 24 days, and that is even assuming you get a positive resolution, which, by the way, is going to require the assent of Russia and China, and they may not even be willing to give approval. So even if you get that, that is 3-plus weeks where Iran will have the ability to conceal any of the offending conduct that they were suspected of. So the bottom line is a 24-day delay makes the inspections regime utterly useless. So this is a country that has sponsored terrorism consistently for decades. They have lied to the United Nations for decades. Then we are in a situation where somehow they should be able to block access to their potential weapon sites? The bottom line is Iran should not be able to interfere with any inspections for any reason at any time. Unless you have that, this is not going to be something that has any chance of success. And guess what. Not only are the inspections not valid, but you are lifting the arms embargo over a couple of years, and you are relieving sanctions on the Quds Force and Qasem Soleimani. These are designated terrorists. Our country has viewed them as a designated terrorist organization. So the bottom line is, on its own terms, this deal will not succeed. It is a dangerous mistake. Congress has the ability over these next 60 days to scrutinize it, to debate it, and, ultimately, God willing, to stop it.

Mr. DeSANTIS

Mr. DeSANTIS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 2722.

Mr. DeSANTIS

Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, Congress, at this juncture, has one overriding task, and that is to stop President Obama's capitulation to Iran. Make no mistake, this is less a deal than it is a list of concessions to the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. And there is a reason why you see smiles on the ayatollahs in Tehran and Javad Zarif in Vienna. Congress should stop this deal because it gives billions of dollars to the Iranian regime, which Iran will use to foment jihad and terrorism throughout the Middle East. Congress should stop this deal because it validates Iran's entire nuclear infrastructure--no dismantling, not even Iran's underground nuclear bunker at Fordo, which has no rational peaceful purpose. Indeed, Iran is crossing all of President Obama's red lines. President Obama had said you could not have Fordo, he said you could not have a plutonium reactor in Iraq. He said you could not have advanced centrifuges because there is no peaceful purpose for any of those, and yet this final deal validates each and every one of those pieces of Iran's nuclear arsenal. Congress should stop this deal because it removes sanctions from Iran's Quds force and its commander, Qasem Soleimani, who are responsible for killing hundreds of American soldiers in Iraq. And indeed, when I served in Iraq, Iran was responsible for killing more Americans than even al Qaeda in Iraq. Why reward those with American blood on their hands by lifting sanctions on them? Congress needs to stop this deal because it stabs our allies in the back, most notably, our trusted ally Israel. Iran threatens to wipe Israel off the map and refers to Israel as a one-bomb country. Congress needs to stop this deal because the inspections are not snap inspections. Indeed, the inspections depend on Iran allowing the inspections, and there is an entire bureaucracy set up so that even if you end up getting approval, Iran will have the ability to remove their offending conduct and conceal it before the inspectors see it. The bottom line is that this deal does not dismantle Iran's nuclear infrastructure. The deal empowers Iran. It makes the world less safe by paving Iran's path to the bomb. It is a time for choosing in this House. Congress must act swiftly and decisively and reject this capitulation. This deal cannot stand.

Mr. DeSANTIS

Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from North Carolina. I am happy to cosponsor this amendment. I think of this amendment in terms of Common Core because we have had a lot of controversy over Common Core. A lot of parents are upset about it, and they say: Look, this was the Federal Government getting involved in education, and people support it. Congress said: Wait a minute. The Federal Government never mandated Common Core. That never happened. And, you know, that is true. But what did happen was the Federal Government had a huge amount of money under President Obama's race to the top, and they said: Hey, States--and this is during the recession and States needed the money-- here is some money, but you have got to do what we want you to do. And so they conditioned that funding and really coerced a lot of States into adopting something like Common Core. And so I think what the A-PLUS does is it says: Okay. The Federal Government has gotten involved in K-12 education. I don't think it has been very successful from the very beginning, but if you are going to be providing money, at least give the State the ability to take that money and use it as they see fit to try and innovate and to try to do things that will improve the academic performance of their kids. But don't condition the funding on following specific formulas that Washington knows best. I think this really empowers States. I think this is something that will empower local communities and, I think, ultimately will be better off as a matter of K-12 education. So I thank my friend from North Carolina for offering it.

Mr. DeSANTIS

Mr. DeSANTIS. I thank my friend from North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, if you are a taxpayer and if you become subjected to an IRS audit, you have got to prove and justify what you have submitted to the IRS. If you tell the IRS, ``I don't really have those documents. They were destroyed, and there is nothing I can do. Let's just move along,'' I don't think most IRS agents are going to accept that, and I think the taxpayer would likely find himself in hot water. I think it is really unacceptable that the IRS seems to think it could operate under a totally different standard than the standard that it imposes on American taxpayers. We have been going through this now since 2013 with Lois Lerner and the targeting scandal in our trying to get more information. Last year, before Congress, John Koskinen, the IRS Commissioner, said: We are going to produce Lois Lerner's emails. We will produce all of them. We have nothing to hide. A couple of months later, he said: Actually, most of Lois Lerner's emails were destroyed because, you see, they are held on these backup tapes, and we recycle the backup tapes. We destroy the tapes, so there is just nothing we can do here. We are just going to move along, and we are not going to participate in any meaningful way with your investigation. Most Americans didn't accept that, and it really was not worth the paper it was printed on in terms of an excuse. It was, obviously, much different than what the IRS would impose on a taxpayer, but it was even more than that. It was more than just a weak excuse; it was false. Once Koskinen said that the emails were destroyed--guess what?--the Inspector General for Tax Administration in the Treasury Department did basic due diligence and said: Do you know what? I am going to check to see whether Koskinen is telling the truth. What did the IG do? He drove out to West Virginia where they have the warehouse of all of the backup tapes. What did they find? The Lois Lerner emails on the backup tapes. They were there the whole time. Now, they have pulled thousands and thousands of Lois Lerner emails. These are emails that are, in many cases, different than the emails that the IRS begrudgingly produced to Congress and to the American people. This is a major, major issue. Of course, there is the targeting, but then there are the lengths that the IRS has gone to stymie Congress' investigation. Just this week in Federal court, they are fighting Judicial Watch. They don't want to turn over even these new emails that the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration provided to the IRS. They are saying: We can't turn them over to you now in the course of the litigation. We are not going to turn them over to Congress because we need to check to see whether there are any duplicates from the emails that we have already turned over. Really? Who cares? Give us the emails. Give the American people the truth. What they are trying to do is to stonewall and drag this out as long as they can, hoping that the American people will forget about it. Then, basically, they get away scot-free, with nobody in their organization being held accountable. I think it is a test of this institution here in the Congress about whether somebody like Commissioner Koskinen is going to be held to account for misleading Congress, for providing false information to Congress. The fact of the matter is, if an American taxpayer were hauled in front of a Federal grand jury or a Federal court and if he gave testimony like that, that was not true, he would face consequences. You can bet your bottom dollar. I think the IRS is kind of the grossest example that we have in Washington of really a fundamental problem with how our government operates, which is that the people who work and operate in and around Washington, D.C.--6 of the 10 wealthiest counties in our country are now suburbs of Washington, D.C. We are not producing shale here. We don't have technology--nothing--in Washington. It is all because of the power and growth of government, so people inside the beltway are not held accountable. You have people at the IRS, and you have people at the EPA, and you have people in all of these different agencies. Essentially, they are allowed to operate under a lower standard of conduct than what an American taxpayer or a citizen would be allowed or permitted to do by the government. That is unacceptable. I think that this IRS issue is as important a government accountability issue as we are facing in this Congress. I think it is a test for the House as to whether we are going to be serious about this and hold these IRS officials accountable. I am glad my friend from North Carolina had the time here today. I think it was very productive to listen to some of the other Members. I just want the American people to know that I am committed to getting to the bottom of this and to holding these people accountable not only for the targeting, but for obstructing the investigation when it has been obstructed over and over again.

Mr. DeSANTIS

Mr. DeSANTIS. I thank my friend from Pennsylvania. I was listening intently to our colleague from New York talk about the President needing to get up on the top of the mound and throw a perfect strike here with this deal. I have seen the President throw a baseball, and Lord help us if that is what we need to stop this, because I think we are in a major, major pickle here, and it has been the result of bad policies from the beginning. Almost 2 years ago, in 2013, this House voted to increase sanctions on Iran. And we did that with over 400 votes, on a bipartisan basis. And that was really the obvious thing to do at the time because the leadership of Iran, the mullahs, were chafing under the sanctions regime that was in place. And the way to deal with a country like Iran, with a leadership that is dedicated to militant Islam, is when they are starting to chafe, you turn the screws harder. We did that thing. We did the right thing. In the Senate, Harry Reid would not bring that up for a vote. The President decided that rather than that route, he would simply provide unilateral sanctions relief to Iran, saying: This is a gesture of good faith. Now we want you to reciprocate with your nuclear program. Basically, from that time forward, Iran has said: Go fly a kite. We are not giving up anything. So the agreement we seem to be on the verge of submitting to the Congress allows Iran to keep their entire nuclear infrastructure. The underground bunker at Fordow is fortified for a missile attack. Why do you need to fortify a nuclear facility against a missile attack if it is for peaceful purposes? So they get to keep that. They have a heavy water reactor in Iraq that they get to keep. That is used to produce plutonium. They don't need it for peaceful purposes. They have advanced centrifuges that they are allowed to keep. Again, no use for those for peaceful purposes. So Iran is basically in a situation where, if you turn back the clock almost 2 years, when this House voted those sanctions with over 400 votes, if you asked Iran and the Iranian leadership what they most wanted, they probably said: Well, look, we want to keep our nuclear infrastructure, but we want to get rid of these sanctions. And guess what? That looks to be what is going to happen. And that is going to be a very, very dangerous and bad deal. I do think it is worth pointing out as much as we can the nature of this regime. They are not only fomenting problems in the Middle East, they are not only dedicated to the destruction of Israel, they are dedicated to the destruction of the United States. The most deadly attack on U.S. marines since Iwo Jima was in 1983 at the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, when Hezbollah, which was supported by Iran, bombed and killed 220 U.S. marines, another 21 personnel. That is a major amount of American blood on their hands. In Iraq, in 2006, 2007, and 2008, they were responsible for killing hundreds of our servicemembers through the Shiite militias that were operating as their proxy forces, and may have killed as many as 1,500. So, again, that is major, major American blood on their hands. This is a regime that has never, since 1979, showed any evidence of changing or deviating from their ideology-rooted and militant Islam. They are a danger not only to the region, but to the world. We have seen now for some time, since this President has taken office, Iran has steadily increased its influence and power in the region. They are the number one actor in Iraq, by far. They are now battling for Yemen with the Houthis. They are the number one patron of Hamas on the Gaza Strip. They are the number one patron of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and they are the number one patron of Assad in Syria. And so this is a massive Shiite crescent throughout the Middle East. And guess what? When Sunni Arabs see our administration bending over backwards to cut deals with Iran, they see the Shiite-backed militias that are backed by Iran and Iraq--the ones fighting ISIS--that makes the average Sunni Arab say: You know what? I am much more likely to want to join ISIS than have to live under Shiite oppression. So the President's policy, I think, has been bad for expanding Iran's influence, but I think it also has the effect of driving more Sunni Arabs into the hands of ISIS, and so it is lose-lose policy. I thank my friend from Pennsylvania for having this discussion. I hope that this bad deal doesn't happen, but if it does, we need to have robust debate in the House. We need to pick apart the deal piece by piece and show how this is not something that is good for security in the world. We can see that already before the deal has even been agreed to because you see an arms race in the Middle East with the Sunni Arab states that has been underway now for some time. That is a direct result of the bad policies that this administration has engaged in vis- a-vis Iran. So the regime in Iran is an enemy of the country. We need to recognize that. And we need to make sure that we scrutinize any deal that comes to this Congress that allows Iran to maintain a nuclear capacity and that it is voted down resoundingly.

Mr. DeSANTIS

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

Mr. DeSANTIS

Mr. DeSANTIS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to discuss the situation with Iran. President Obama recently said that criticism of the concessions that his administration is making to Iran ``needs to stop.'' Well, I disagree. We in this body have a responsibility to speak the truth and to stop a dangerous deal. Take a step back a little bit from some of the recent hullabaloo about whether Iran has the same understanding of the deal as the United States does. It is true, if you listen to the Ayatollah, he basically said the deal basically represents a complete surrender on everything from day one; and the administration, when they put out their fact sheet, what they put out was different. Here is, I think, a fundamental problem with this. Even if you take the administration's talking points as the meeting of the minds, even if you assume that that will be written down and memorialized, and even assume that Iran keeps the various components of the deal, the fact of the matter is this: this framework provides international legitimacy for Iran's nuclear infrastructure, and it allows Iran to use advanced centrifuges immediately. Now, that was something that just a few years ago was thought to be totally outside the realm of what was acceptable. I think the thought amongst U.S. policymakers going back several administrations as well as other friendly countries was, look, this is a theocratic, jihadist regime in the Middle East that is sitting on centuries' worth of oil and gas. They don't need nuclear power for peaceful purposes, certainly, so why would we allow them to pursue a nuclear program knowing the ideology of the regime, knowing the threats that they have made to Israel and to the United States? Of course they don't get a nuclear program, and yet under this framework, their nuclear infrastructure is legitimized. The sanctions relief that we are talking about is worth billions and billions of dollars to Iran. It will give Iran additional lifeblood to foment jihad and to expand its influence in the Middle East and beyond. So just know, I mean, even if you were somehow getting them to dismantle their nuclear program, when you talk about the leading state sponsor of terrorism, any sanctions relief they get is not going to go to benefit the Iranian people. That is going to be plowed into Iran doing dastardly deeds. It is interesting, when you talk about the sanctions, and I know the Ayatollah said: Look, the sanctions are gone. As soon as that agreement is signed, they are gone. The administration says: Oh, no. We will get rid of the sanctions as Iran complies; and if Iran cheats, we will snap back the sanctions. The problem is that is extremely unlikely because what is going to be done, the international sanctions are going to be relaxed and then if, down the road, Iran cheats, the idea that you are going to be able to snap your fingers and get all these other countries onboard to be able to reimpose sanctions is really a fantasy. In fact, just today brought news that Russia is resuming sales of the S-300 missile system to Iran. That had been something that they had stopped years ago. That is going to be business for Russia. It is going to be something that is going to be a huge boon to Iran in terms of protecting its nuclear infrastructure from a potential attack. It is also interesting: Russia is the country that is supposed to store Iran's uranium, yet here they are doing business. So I think it is going to be very difficult to snap back international sanctions. If you were going to use sanctions in that way, the sanctions that you would want, you would want to come to Congress and say, ``Hey, Congress, you relieve sanctions, they are going to do this; if they don't do it, then you snap back,'' because they know the Congress will reimpose the sanctions. And we are eager to do that, even right now. You are not going to snap back international sanctions. So I think Iran understands that, and I think they know that once those sanctions are removed, that is going to be a continual lifeblood to them and they will be able to cheat on the agreement if they think that is what is in their best interest. I think one of the troubling aspects of this deal, of this framework, is that the President himself, you know, a year and a half ago, laid down some red lines. He said we know certain things need to be trued in agreement. Iran does not need to have an underground, fortified facility like at Fordo. He said they don't need a heavy water reactor like they have at Arak, and he said they don't need any type of advanced centrifuges if they are going to have a peaceful program. But if you look under the announced framework, even if what the administration says is true, Fordo lives on. They say it is going to be a nuclear research facility. I am not sure why you need to have a nuclear research facility fortified underground to prevent an airstrike if you are just doing peaceful research. Arak will still be there as a heavy water reactor, and of course Iran will have thousands of centrifuges. These are centrifuges that are not necessary to have a peaceful program. So those are red lines that were laid down and that have been crossed. The military sites, is there going to be any unfettered access to Iran's military sites? I think the answer seems to be absolutely not. Certainly what Iran has said, that is totally out of the question from their perspective, but it is not even clear under the administration's framework whether those military sites will be sites that inspectors can access. And we know that in the past, in 2002, the only reason we were able to figure out that they were doing nuclear work at one of their military sites is because Iranian opposition forces, or folks who were opposed to the regime, filled us in. But that was not something that any inspectors had access to. I think another really significant flaw in the deal is that, let's just say Iran looks at it and says: Well, if we cheat, maybe they will reimpose sanctions. We think it is unlikely, but we don't want to kind of take that risk. They have an incentive, if they want the bomb, to keep the deal because, after a 10- to 13-year period, everything is going to be gone. So if they keep the deal, given the amount of nuclear infrastructure they are allowed to keep, they are going to be able to build a bomb at the end of that 10-or 13-year period, and that is totally outside the realm of what is ever thought to be acceptable. Here you have a country that is very patient. They have a very, very serious ideology that they are hell-bent on pursuing. And if they have to wait 10 or 13 years before they are able to acquire a bomb, they may make that calculation: Hey, we will just keep the deal, and we are going to be home free. I think the longer that that happens, I think you are going to be in a situation where that may make a lot of sense for them, and I think the international community will be much less inclined to want to do anything at the end of that 10- or 13-year period. It is interesting to me, just looking at how this has unfolded. When the Ayatollah goes out and says: Death to America; we are not going to make any concessions--all this--the President is asked by the press, well, the Ayatollah is out there saying that. And he says: Well, look, he has his hard-liners he has to pacify. We are not really worried about that. That is just for domestic political consumption. It is interesting because when Prime Minister Netanyahu was in a political campaign and he made a comment about the infeasibility of a two-state solution, given the situation in the Middle East, the administration really hung that on him. And they said: Oh, he said it. We are going to have to reevaluate our posture at the United Nations. We may go international to try to impose some type of two-state settlement on that situation. And there, they were absolutely not willing to cut Prime Minister Netanyahu any slack. So they cut the Ayatollah of Iran, a guy that has a lot of American blood on his hands, more slack than they will cut the Prime Minister of Israel. That, to me, is just extremely frustrating. I think that when you hear people who will defend the framework, they will say, ``Either you support this framework or you want a major war,'' and I think that that is a straw man, but I think that it is a straw man just simply more than the fact that a lot of people think that there are things we could do to get a better deal. But put that aside. A bad deal makes war more likely because what you are going to see are countries in the Middle East react to Iran building a bomb. They are going to react to Iran's designs for the region. We see Iran; they are the leading patron of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Assad in Syria, the Hamas terrorists in the Gaza Strip, the Houthis in Yemen, and, of course, the Shiite militias in Baghdad and in other parts of Shiite Iraq. People see that--the Sunni regimes see that, and they are going to respond--and you will end up with a potentially catastrophic arms race in the most volatile region in the world. The final point I would just make, and I have some of my colleagues here. We wanted to get some folks here who had served the country in uniform, served in the Iraq or Afghanistan campaigns. The reason is because I think that anyone who has served in those conflicts knows that, at least I can say for Iraq, probably the number one source of deaths for U.S. servicemembers in Iraq came at the hands of Iranian-backed groups. Maybe not the most. It was probably pretty close, certainly hundreds of deaths, maybe as many as 1,500 deaths for groups that would explode these huge EFP bombs that would maim and kill indiscriminately. They were never really held to account for that. That brought a lot of anguish to a lot of American families who don't have their loved ones coming home as a result of that despicable regime. So, Madam Speaker, this is not a regime that wants to be a good neighbor. They don't want to be part of a peaceful international order. It is a regime dedicated to the ideology of jihad. They have proven time and time again that they are interested and that they are willing to kill Americans with impunity. With that, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin), a friend of mine and a veteran who in just a short time has really, really been powerful in speaking the truth about this deal and about the failures of American policy vis-a-vis close allies of ours such as Israel.

Mr. DeSANTIS. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from New York. I think those are great points. We are going to have some good debates here in the Congress. I don't think that having done this deal--I guess it was the day after April Fools'. We thought it was going to be April Fools', and now this being the first night back, we are just beginning. At this time, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), another veteran and another friend of mine.

Mr. DeSANTIS. I thank my friend from Georgia for that. Madam Speaker, it is true. This was a very simple request that was asked of the President: Did you talk to the Ayatollah's people? Did you talk to the Iranian negotiators about just recognizing Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state? So this way, this whole idea of ``death to Israel, death to America'' shows that Iran is serious about having peace, and the President dismissed that out of hand. He said, Look, you are not going to change the nature of a regime by asking them to recognize the right of Israel to exist. The problem, though, with that explanation is that the whole real underpinning of this deal, I think, rests on the assumption that Iran's regime might change because when you are sunsetting it in 10 or 13 years, if the regime hasn't changed by then, well, guess what? You are at a nuclear Iran at that point. So I think that they assume that there is going to be some change over the next decade. Otherwise, that sunset provision makes even less sense than it does already. I also just know one more thing. Who is cheering this deal? The head of Hezbollah, the Lebanese terrorist group. This was a group that Iran started funding shortly after the Iranian revolution in 1979. They were responsible for killing over 240 U.S. marines at the marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, in 1983, and they have been instrumental in launching attacks against Israel ever since. Here is what the head of Hezbollah said: As a result of this deal, Iran will become richer and wealthier and will also become more influential. He said: This will reinforce the position of Iran's allies. A stronger and wealthier Iran in the coming phase will be able to stand by its allies and especially the Palestinian resistance more than at any other time in history. Hezbollah sees a stronger Iran as a result of this deal. They see more support for terrorist groups such as Hamas and the Gaza Strip, and I think the logical inference is they see more attacks against Israel as a result of this deal. That is very, very troubling. I would like to take this time now to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Scott Perry, another good friend of mine, a veteran from Pennsylvania, and a really strong voice on national security.

Mr. DeSANTIS. I thank my friend. I think the gentleman from Pennsylvania did a good job of putting this all into a broader perspective in terms of this administration's approach to the world. I think, if you look around the world, there are probably two countries that we have better relations with than when this President took office; and I think, almost uniformly, everywhere else, we are worse off. Cuba, we have much closer relationships now. The President shakes the hand of Raul Castro, a blood-stained hand, a hand that has suppressed thousands and thousands of people, that has killed the sinners, that has caused thousands of people to flee in shark-infested waters to try to reach the shore of Florida; but the President is doing business with him, not helping the Cuban people. You actually see political repression has increased since we have changed policies, but the President seems fine with that. Then Iran, we talk with Iran a lot more than we ever have. The question is: Is that a good thing? I think the answer is a dance-with- the-devil foreign policy has really never been tried before, and I think the chance of it succeeding is almost zero. Part of the problem we see with this framework, I think, is that it is symptomatic of a larger failure to properly address the hostile actors throughout the world. Goodness gracious, we need to look at our allies like Israel, like democracies in Europe, and they need to know that we are going to stand with them. I think we have an approach to the world right now where our allies can't depend on us and our adversaries don't really fear us. I think that is a bad approach, and I think, unfortunately, it is an approach that is going to invite more danger rather than keep us out of trouble. I appreciate all my friends who came and made great comments. The President said recently that the criticism of this deal needs to stop. Mr. President, we are not going to stop. We are going to be here; we are going to make the case on behalf of the American people, and we are going to be urging the Congress to speak loudly and clearly on behalf of American security. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeSANTIS

Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, I hear that we just need to let the courts work their will to defend the Constitution, as if we don't have an independent obligation to do that. We took the oath that we would support it. We didn't say we would be in Congress, pass bills, and let the courts support and defend the Constitution. Here is the problem, though, beyond just that basic insight. If I were representing the Department of Justice in front of the fifth circuit to try to get this injunction overturned, the first sentence in my brief would be that the United States Congress has voted, knowing this program was in existence, to fully fund all operations. Courts, you should step out of this dispute. It is between the political branches, and they have settled it. It is not just waiting for the courts. In fact, the action today, if this bill were to pass, I believe it would actually harm the case in the courts, and I think it makes it more difficult for those States to make the case that what the President did was unconstitutional if the one branch whose powers were invaded decided that they were not going to bite back effectively.