Ileana Ros-Lehtinen

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Edward J. Hudak, Jr., on being sworn in this past Friday, October 16, as the chief of police for the Coral Gables Police Department. Chief Hudak has a long record of service to south Florida, having worked for 26 years for the city of Coral Gables and its police department, helping residents and visitors alike in ``The City Beautiful,'' a city which I am so humbled and honored to represent. As I am, Chief Hudak is a proud University of Miami Hurricane. Chief Hudak earned his undergraduate and master's degree from the U, having more recently graduated from the FBI's National Law Enforcement Executive Academy. Coral Gables is indeed fortunate to have such a hardworking and relentless civil servant take the lead at its police department. Congratulations, Chief Hudak, on being named the top cop of ``The City Beautiful,'' the city of Coral Gables.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, last month in Venezuela, the president of the national association of opposition mayors issued a message to the international community--including here in the United States, obviously--stating many of the obstacles being faced leading up to Venezuela's legislative elections, which are scheduled to take place on December 6. According to their statement, Venezuelan regime employees are obligated and harassed to attend public events to demonstrate support for pro-regime candidates. Socialist Party militants are dispatched to intimidate voters under the guise of assistance. And the Maduro regime is using military forces to keep citizens from voluntarily auditing electoral precincts, as it is stated by law. As the Maduro regime continues to refuse allowing international monitors, the United States must be even more vigilant of the threat of the fraud before and during election day in Venezuela. We should also be ready to sanction any regime official who perpetuates human rights violations because of this electoral process.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, on October 10, Taiwan's 104th National Day will be celebrated, marking the anniversary of the Republic of China's founding. For many years, Taiwan has been a strong ally of the United States, one which shares our interests and values, including an enduring commitment to democracy and the freedom of expression. Approximately one hundred miles from communist China, Taiwan is a beacon of freedom in the Pacific, serving as an inspiration for the world's oppressed and as a model for future democratic transitions. As we celebrate Taiwan's 104th National Day, we must also think about how we can strengthen the U.S.-Taiwan alliance. Taiwan is increasingly under pressure from an aggressive China that is attempting to assert its dominance in the Pacific and it is crucial that the United States provides the kind of assistance--politically, militarily, and economically--that will allow Taiwan to resist any type of Chinese coercion. China's military buildup, construction of artificial islands, and territorial claims, has greatly escalated tensions in the Asia- Pacific and the risk of conflict with Taiwan. Taiwan's recent successful efforts to reduce tensions in the Asia-Pacific can be used as a model to find further peaceful solutions in maritime Asia. In order to assist Taiwan, the United States should ensure its meaningful participation in international organizations and entities that it has expressed an interest in participating, including at the United Nations. The United States should also help Taiwan upgrade its air force and its navy, including assisting in the procurement of diesel-electric submarines, so that Taiwan has the capacity to deter Chinese aggression and act as a force for peace and stability in the region. The United States should also be economically assisting Taiwan, our 10th largest trading partner, in order to help it resist China's economic pressure. By strengthening U.S.-Taiwan trade ties, we can give Taiwan the economic and political flexibility it needs to diversify, reduce its reliance on China, and resist Chinese intimidation. Taiwan is a vibrant democratic partner and ally that the United States cannot afford to neglect. We must remember that not only is the Taiwan Relations Act the law of the land in the United States but, together with President Reagan's Six Assurances, forms the cornerstone of U.S.-Taiwan relations. As Taiwanese all around the world celebrate Taiwan's National Day, we here in the United States stand with our ally, ready to ensure we are supporting her and its people to the best of our ability. Happy Double Tenth Day.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, this October marks the 10th annual National Bullying Prevention Month, and with it comes an opportunity to bring visibility to an issue that negatively impacts thousands of students in our schools and communities every day. Instead of being a safe haven for learning and growth, some classrooms can become places of torment, of despair, of exclusion, for those suffering the emotional and physical repercussions of bullying. With the advances of the Internet and social media, bullies have found a medium to further perpetuate their abusive ways. As a member of the Congressional Anti-Bullying Caucus, I am reaching across the aisle and working with my colleagues to shed light on the realities of bullying and the dire consequences that it can have both online and offline. While October may be designated as National Bullying Prevention Month, our work, Mr. Speaker, must not stop when the calendar turns. Together we can establish bullying-free schools so that our children can grow to be successful and thriving members of our society.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the tragically short life of Ramiro ``Toti'' Mendez and to honor the dedication of the Toti Mendez Cardiopulmonary Diagnostic Suite at Florida International University, my alma mater, in Miami. Toti was an accomplished 20-year-old FIU student baseball player who passed away, sadly, on April 2, 2000, as a result of an undetected heart problem. Florida International University will celebrate the dedication of this important health resource on Monday, October 19. Parents of student athletes may now find the peace of mind that their sons or daughters are clear of any underlying heart issues before they ever hit the field. Through the Toti Mendez Cardiopulmonary Diagnostic Suite, Toti's legacy will continue to live on at FIU in support of other student athletes throughout south Florida, indeed, throughout our great State. I congratulate Toti's mom and the entire family for helping keep his legacy alive and for saving so many student athletes' lives.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, this morning, the United Nations will take yet another action that only serves to further undermine the prospects for peace between Israelis and Palestinians and underscores the lengths to which the United Nations and many of its member states will go in order to wrongly isolate and delegitimize the democratic Jewish State of Israel. By raising the Palestinian flag for the first time ever at the U.N., that body is allowing Palestinians to continue with their scheme to achieve unilateral statehood without having to honor their obligations to reach a peaceful settlement through direct negotiations with Israel. While addressing the U.N. General Assembly this week, President Obama had an opportunity to denounce this latest stunt and press for the United Nations to abandon its course of action and return to the principles of its own diplomatic agreements with regard to resolving the peace process; yet, as usual, the President remained silent. That silence speaks volumes about the administration's policy toward Israel, our closest friend and ally, and it will surely only serve to embolden Abu Mazen. Today, Abu Mazen will address the U.N. General Assembly, and his speech will be nothing more than political theater. In his speech later today, Abu Mazen will surely continue his ploy to achieve unilateral statehood recognition from sympathetic states and U.N. entities that are dominated by anti-Israel bias, like the Human Rights Council. What a misnomer. And, of course, he will blame Israel for not being able to achieve peace, when it is Abu Mazen who repeatedly has rebuffed overtures from Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu to return to the table to discuss a mutually agreeable resolution. Mr. Speaker, we have seen over the past several years--a sight unseemly and unbecoming--the administration publicly admonish and insult our ally Israel and its leaders, applying a false moral equivalency between Israel and the Palestinians; yet when it comes to Abu Mazen's intransigence or Palestinian incitement, the Obama administration remains reserved in its condemnation, if it feigns the appearance of disapproval at all. For peace, Abu Mazen must recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, must renounce the use of violence and put an end to the repeated rocket attacks and acts of terror, and must sit down with Israel to be an earnest partner for peace. Abu Mazen, who is currently in his 10th year of a 5-year term as the leader of the Palestinian Authority, is only interested in self- preservation and self-interest. The onus lies with Abu Mazen and the Palestinian Authority to live up to their obligations and previous diplomatic agreements. If and when it doesn't--for surely, I know that they won't--the U.S. must be ready to cut off financial assistance to the Palestinians. We must see that our assistance is used as leverage to ensure that the Palestinians honor their commitments and negotiate a peaceful two- state solution directly with Israel without any preconditions. We must also veto any attempts by the Palestinians to bring another resolution to the U.N. Security Council to advance their illegal unilateral statehood scheme and must make Abu Mazen pay for the consequences of these destructive actions. The Obama administration will offer platitudes, and the administration officials will say that no other President has done more for Israel's security. But I caution that it isn't what the administration or the President says regarding Israel; it is what they don't say that we should also be paying attention to. That is why the President's silence on Israel and the Palestinians at the U.N. General Assembly this week is all too telling, and that is why it is up to us in Congress to do what we can to support Israel, to support the Jewish state's right to exist and its right to defend herself, and to use the leverage we have. Ladies and gentlemen, nearly $10 billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars, your money, is being sent to the U.N. We must use that leverage at the U.N. to hold those entities accountable and to fight back this fraudulent unilateral statehood scheme and these efforts to delegitimize Israel. We need to make every effort we can to signal to the world that our commitment is an unbreakable bond between the U.S. and the democratic Jewish state and that that bond is unwavering.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, if we didn't already have enough proof that the Palestinian Authority is not an honest partner for peace with Israel, Abu Mazen's speech at the U.N. General Assembly today confirmed it and showed that he is a self-serving autocrat who is more interested in delegitimizing Israel, the Jewish state, than in building up a future Palestinian state. Abu Mazen's message was clear. He intends to scuttle any prospects for peace, pursue Israel at the International Criminal Court, and continue his ploy for achieving unilateral statehood at the U.N. President Obama must immediately suspend all assistance to the Palestinian Authority. If the Palestinians do move to join additional international conventions and organizations, the U.S. law is unambiguous. We must suspend all funding to any of these bodies that accept a nonexistent state of Palestine to its membership. Mr. Speaker, the President has been seeking ways to circumvent and waive these provisions for years, but we must see to it that the President implements the full intent and letter of the law. Suspend all aid now.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we witnessed thugs, tyrants, and dictators from Russia, Iran, and Cuba speak before the General Assembly at the United Nations; and with straight faces, each claimed to be defenders of peace, of international standards, of human rights, principles that Putin, Rouhani, and Castro have made a living out of ignoring and abusing to the detriment of the people who live under their oppressive rule. President Obama had an opportunity to set the tone, to call for reforms at the badly mismanaged United Nations, to challenge the status quo and reestablish America's leadership and credibility. Instead, he used it as an opportunity to pay lip service to American ideals and values and to abdicate America's role as a world leader, a void that is now being filled by our adversaries like Russia, Iran, China, and Syria. The Russians continue their aggressive actions in Ukraine and are now sending military hardware to the murderous Assad regime. Iran has had a record number of hangings since the so-called moderate leader, Rouhani, took office, and thousands of ethnic and religious minorities are imprisoned and sentenced to death. The President has done everything in his power not to upset the Iranians because he doesn't want to ruin the chance for a nuclear deal, a deal which will cause a nuclear and conventional arms race in the region, and his words yesterday proved to be empty rhetoric when matched to his policies and actions in the past. Not to be outdone, Raul Castro doubled down on his intransigence, further demonstrating that the Obama administration offered concessions to the regime, which have resulted in even greater oppression by that hated Cuban dictatorship. But per usual with the President, it was the ``blame America first'' narrative that he was trying to peddle with his misguided policies toward Cuba. President Obama used this opportunity to undermine the United States Congress, and perhaps foreshadowing an eventual abstention on the U.N. vote on the Cuban embargo, he stated: I'm confident that our Congress will inevitably lift an embargo that should not be in place anymore. President Obama failed once again to put the onus on the Castro regime to release all political prisoners, to hold free and fair elections, and to respect human rights in order for us to lift the embargo. The Cuban embargo language in the law is clear on all the conditions, Mr. Speaker, conditions that have to be met in order for it to be lifted, conditions that the Castro regime has no interest in abiding by. President Obama should stop ignoring current law and stop loosening regulations on a regime that has done nothing to deserve this praise. The Castro regime is the one responsible for the human rights violations occurring in Cuba and the constant beatings against pro- democracy leaders. The U.S. embargo cannot be held responsible for that. Does Castro say: ``Oh, I had to beat the very peaceful group Ladies in White walking to church because the embargo says I must beat their heads in?'' Does Castro say: ``Oh, I cannot have any political party operating in Cuba other than the Communist Party because the embargo has me, obligates me, to only have this political party operating?'' Does he say: ``I cannot respect human rights in Cuba because that nasty U.S. embargo forces me to violate human rights?'' Of course not. That is lunacy. That is a responsibility that only Castro can claim. The Castro regime instead has done nothing--nada--to unclench its iron fist. Mr. Speaker, President Obama's remarks yesterday at the U.N. made him part of the problem with what is wrong at that broken institution; and, once again, it highlighted that his misplaced priorities and misguided foreign policies have not kept our country any safer. That is why it is up to us in Congress to be proactive and to push for reforms at the United Nations. That is why this week I am reintroducing my U.N. Transparency Accountability and Reform Act. My bill would fundamentally change the way that we fund this failed institution by shifting the funding mechanism from assessed to voluntary contributions in order to make the organization more effective and accountable to its objectives. For example, the Human Rights Council does not deserve our assistance when countries like Cuba, China, Venezuela, some of the world's worst human rights violators, push a decidedly anti-American, anti-Israel agenda at the Council. We should not fund these bodies at the U.N. We should only fund the ones that we believe are working, the ones that are transparent, the ones who are accountable to the member states that donate their budgets. Mr. Speaker, the Obama administration has had 7 years to implement reforms, and it has failed. It is time for Congress to take the lead, and I urge my colleagues to sign up to my bill this week.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise out of respect and admiration for our tremendous Speaker, the incredible leader of our Republican Conference and my friend, John Boehner. He has stayed true to his home State of Ohio for well over 20 years, serving his constituents with pride and integrity. His distinguished career was marked by an honest pursuit of what is best for the American people as well as the inclusion of more folks under the big tent of our GOP. He has worked in a bipartisan manner to help create jobs and restore America's leadership, all the while maintaining a hard line on the Castros' despotic rule in Cuba, being supportive of our strong relations with Israel, as well as remaining a tough opponent of the weak and dangerous Iran nuclear deal. John's decorum, grace, and patience are his hallmarks, and they will be greatly missed in our Nation's Capitol. Only in America can the son of a barkeep rise to make a lasting positive contribution to our history as Speaker of the people's House. I wish John, Debbie, the entire Boehner family, including his new granddaughter Alistair, all the best. Godspeed, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to denounce the unjust sentence of almost 14 years that was handed to human rights activist Leopoldo Lopez in Venezuela. Leopoldo is pictured here in this poster with his slogan, which says, ``Wanting a better Venezuela is not a crime.'' Liberate Leopoldo. Sentenced along with Leopoldo as human rights activists were Cristian Holdack, Angel Gonzalez, and Demian Martin, three students whose charge sheets include public instigation, damages to property, and arson--all false charges. Their crimes were nothing more than standing up to the regime--the corrupt, illegitimate regime--of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela and demanding a better country that would have respect for human rights, that would have freedom of the press, and that would have free and fair elections and other universally recognized rights. As this says, demanding a better Venezuela is not a crime, except it is in Venezuela. Democracy advocates are harassed; they are abused; they are imprisoned; they are beaten; and some are even killed--yes, killed. We cannot stand idly by while democracy and due process are trampled on in our own hemisphere. Democracies like Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, and Chile should join the U.S. in advocating for democracy and stability for Venezuela, and freedom for the many political prisoners who are languishing in Maduro's gulags. I urge the Obama administration to immediately sanction the judge, prosecutors, and those who led this politically motivated kangaroo court against Leopoldo Lopez, against these students, and against so many. The President can use the power granted to the executive branch when we passed here in the U.S. House of Representatives and in the United States Senate the Venezuelan sanctions legislation last year. The President must act. Mr. Speaker, let's hope that he does. Mr. Speaker, I rise to denounce so many human rights violations that are occurring throughout the hemisphere, whether it is in Venezuela or my native homeland of Cuba. As the Pope prepares for his historic trip to Cuba this weekend, he should meet with those people, like the political prisoners who share common interests of peace and justice with the Catholic Church. The church stands for liberty; it defends the freedoms of oppressed people, the freedoms to pursue one's goals and dreams without having to live in fear. The Castro regime stands for the complete opposite. It stands for oppression, for violence, for hatred, for injustice, and I would urge His Holiness to meet with those who truly defend the values for which the church stands; people like this young man, a graffiti artist, a young man who has only known Communist Cuba as his government. His name is El Sexto. It means the sixth one, in reference to some other charges. El Sexto has been behind bars for nearly 9 months. He has been on a hunger strike to protest the brutal Castro regime. What did he do? This is what he did. He had a picture of two farm animals, and he put the names of Fidel and Raul on them. For that, he has been imprisoned with no contact with the outside world. In January, another young man, a Cuban rapper named El Dkano, was sentenced to a year in prison just because he used music to criticize the Castro regime, a regime which has not unclenched its fist against the Cuban people. Yesterday, pro-democracy leader Jorge Luis Garcia Perez, also known as Antunez, and 10 of his activists of the organization National Civic Resistance Front announced that they have begun a fast in an attempt to get a meeting with His Holiness to raise the plight of the suffering Cuban people. These are just a few of the prisoners, Mr. Speaker, who have received harsh sentences after President Obama signed and announced this ill- fated deal with the Castro regime on December 17. Reports indicate that the Castro regime is planning on releasing more than 3,000 prisoners in advance of the Pope's visit to Cuba, and you will think, hey, that sounds like a good idea, but let's remember this: Many of those prisoners should have never been in jail in the first place. By the way, political prisoners like El Sexto, for doing an artwork, will not be included in that number. No political prisoners will be freed, but that is not anything new, Mr. Speaker. In 1978, Fidel Castro released almost 3,800 political prisoners ahead of Jimmy Carter's visit; in 1998, Fidel Castro released 300 prisoners ahead of Pope John Paul's visit; in the year 2011, Raul Castro released nearly 3,100 ahead of Pope Benedict's visit; yet the Castro regime has detained an unprecedented number of Cubans this year. With all of these people being freed, this year, there has been an unprecedented number of arrests in Cuba of political activists. We can be sure that before the Pope's visit, during the Pope's visit, and after the Pope's visit, more innocent Cubans will be detained--like El Sexto--by the regime and thrown into Castro's gulags. This tactic is nothing new, and it is not indicative of a change of policy by the evil, despotic, sadistic Castro regime. It is just a political propaganda farce. Will the Pope see this cynical move for what it is? We shall soon see, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to recognize Officer Edison Cruz for being named the officer of the second quarter of 2015 of the police department at the Village of Pinecrest, my hometown. Officer Edison is an invaluable member of the Pinecrest police DUI enforcement program and is highly regarded for his knowledge in this important area of policing and community safety work. Officer Edison's leadership is further exemplified by his role in the coordination of the department's training regarding new DUI blood warrants requirements. In addition to this most recent honor, Officer Cruz has received two awards from Mothers Against Drunk Driving, MADD, for his successful efforts to protect the public from the terrible crime of drunk driving. I thank Officer Cruz for his dedication and important work in the service of the people of the place I am so proud to call my home, the Village of Pinecrest. Congratulations, Officer Edison Cruz.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to congratulate Mario Kreutzberger, better known as Don Francisco, for his successful career as the host of Sabado Gigante whose last airing will be this Saturday, September 19. From its humble beginnings in the country of Chile 53 years ago, Sabado Gigante has captivated and won the hearts of audiences throughout Latin America and especially in our south Florida community. Nearly 30 years since its first transmission into the United States, Sabado Gigante has attracted loyal and enthusiastic viewers who enjoy the combination of entertainment and coverage of current events. In 2012, the Guinness Book of Records listed Sabado Gigante as the world's longest running TV variety show. Don Francisco has also been dedicated to promoting charitable giving through his Teleton and has served as a spokesperson for the Muscular Dystrophy Association. Wherever Don Francisco decides to go, he will not only find success, but also the heartfelt support of our community. Congratulations--felicidades, Don Francisco. Godspeed.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, the Iranian nuclear deal unacceptably lifts certain sanctions on individuals like: Qasem Soleimani--in the middle--the current commander of Iran's Quds Force, who was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American servicemen and -women in Iraq and that is right now leading Iran's efforts against the U.S.' interests in the Middle East; Ahmad Vahidi, the former Quds Force commander and defense minister, who is still wanted by Interpol for his role in the 1994 AMIA Jewish community center bombing in Buenos Aires, which claimed the lives of 85 people; The former head of Iran's atomic energy agency who was sanctioned by the U.N. for his nuclear and ballistic missile activities; Gerhard Wisser--right here--the German engineer who facilitated the sale of nuclear equipment to North Korea, Iran, and Libya; Also, the former head of Iran's nuclear weapons program, who has been described as Iran's Dr. AQ Khan. Mr. Speaker, this is just a brief sample of the many people who will have additional resources, access, and freedom to continue their terror and nuclear weapons activity as part of this unacceptable program. We can and must get a better nuclear deal.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, we need to ask ourselves if this nuclear deal with Iran makes the United States safer. Does it make Israel safer? Does it make the world safer? As a result of this deal, Iran will be nuclear-capable, and its neighbors will not be complacent knowing that Iran can't produce a nuclear weapon. The billions of dollars that the regime is set to receive will undoubtedly go towards building its military capabilities, not to mention its support for terror and other illicit activities. Because this deal jeopardizes Iran's neighbors, the administration is promising Gulf countries military arms sales to defend against the increased Iranian threat. We then will be the major proliferator of nuclear and conventional arms in the Middle East. Do we really believe that arming an extremely unstable and violent Middle East region to the teeth and having nuclear-capable Iran right there in the middle will make us or the world safer? The answer is clear, Mr. Speaker. This deal is dangerous. It is bad public policy. We must oppose it.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed chairman for his leadership on this critical issue. I also want to congratulate Mr. Pompeo, whose resolution we are discussing. Mr. Speaker, this deal will allow Iran to become nuclear capable in just a short order. It will allow Iran to grow and expand its military. It will allow Iran to continue with its support for terror. These facts are indisputable. What is also indisputable is that the regime in Tehran detests the United States, the West, and the democratic Jewish State of Israel, our steadfast partner. The Supreme Leader of Iran constantly incites chants of ``death to America'' and ``death to Israel.'' Are we not listening? Through its proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas, Iran seeks to make this threat into a reality. Earlier this week, the Supreme Leader threatened that Israel will no longer exist in just 25 years. Because of this agreement, Mr. Speaker, the regime will now have the weapons; it will now have the capabilities to pose an even greater threat to us, to Israel, and to our interests in the region. Giving a regime that openly calls for and works toward our destruction and the destruction of Israel is insane. We are providing Iran a path to nuclear weapons and increased conventional weapons capability. This isn't just bad policy. It is dangerous. It is naive to think that this nuclear deal with Iran won't make us and the world less safe, less secure, and less peaceful. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we must reject it. I thank Chairman Royce and Mr. Pompeo for this resolution.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to highlight the hard work of our esteemed chairman, Mr. Royce of California, and our ranking member, Mr. Engel, who have done an incredible job throughout--I don't know how many hearings we have had in our Foreign Affairs Committee-- highlighting the many flaws of this deal and giving the other side the opportunity to present what is good about this deal. Mr. Speaker, after all of those hearings in our Foreign Affairs Committee led by Mr. Royce and Mr. Engel, it is simple to realize what is before us today. This deal paves the way for a nuclear-armed Iran in as little as 15 years. This deal lifts the arms embargo. This deal lifts the sanctions on Iran's ballistic missile program. This deal releases billions of dollars that will allow the regime to increase funding to support terror, as it has been doing, to support its regional hegemonic ambitions. If all of that were not bad enough, with this deal, the P5+1 countries will actually be obligated to help Iran modernize and advance its nuclear program. Yes. You heard that right. This is important because this modernization requirement gets lost with all of the other many flaws of this deal. We actually have an agreement before us to help Iran strengthen its ability to protect against nuclear security threats, to protect it against sabotage, to protect all the physical sites. Incredibly enough, we will be helping Iran with its nuclear program. So now, not only do we have to allow Iran to enrich, not only do we have to allow Iran to become a nuclear threshold state, but, yes, we must actually protect Iran's nuclear program from sabotage and outside threats. Mr. Speaker, how does a rogue regime that has been in violation of its nonproliferation treaty obligations for decades, a rogue regime that has been in violation of--one, two, three, four, five--six United Nations Security Council resolutions and a regime that violates other international obligations get to be the beneficiary of such protections from the U.S. and other P5+1 countries? This is madness, Mr. Speaker. It simply defies logic. We must oppose this deal. Let's vote that way.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, this week, we will debate and vote on one of the most consequential national security and foreign policy issues that we have faced in quite some time--the Iran nuclear agreement. This deal allows Iran to continue to enrich uranium and to keep in place nearly every key aspect of its nuclear program. It also provides an economic lifeline to the Iranian regime, with billions of dollars in sanctions relief, which will fund Iran's support for terror and its other acts of belligerence in the region. This deal also lifts the arms embargo on Iran, lifts sanctions on its ballistic missile program, and lifts certain sanctions on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and its leader, like Qasem Soleimani. This is not a partisan or a political statement--this is the grim reality of the situation. This deal, as it has been presented to Congress and to the American people, will not prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state. As such, it is incumbent upon us to reject this weak and dangerous Iran nuclear agreement this week.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, a bad deal is a bad deal under a Republican President or a Democratic President. This Iran nuclear deal is a bad deal because we have seen this movie before. We know how it ends. I have repeatedly stated that Iran has been following the North Korean playbook on exactly how to extract concessions from the United States and the international community while simultaneously continuing to improve its nuclear program, expand its infrastructure, and support its illicit activities. Many analysts have made the same observations, including Alan Dershowitz in a Jerusalem Post article last week. It is not just how the process unfolded and how the international community fell for the tricks of the rogue regimes that are so scary. Because, obviously, Iran saw North Korea as having been the victors in its battle over its nuclear program; so, naturally, it would want to replicate that. But it is alarming and striking just how similar the rhetoric is between President Clinton's announcement of a nuclear agreement with North Korea and President Obama's announcement of a nuclear agreement with Iran. Let's look at the similarities that Mr. Dershowitz noted between President Clinton's remarks in 1994 and President Obama's from earlier this month. Then, Mr. Speaker, it will be easy to understand why so many of us oppose this nuclear deal. In 1994, President Clinton said that the North Korea agreement will make the U.S., the Korean Peninsula, and the world safer. Earlier this month President Obama said that this deal will bring about change that makes the U.S. and the world safer and more secure. In 1994, President Clinton assured the world that the North Korea deal ``does not rely on trust. Compliance will be certified by the International Atomic Energy Agency.'' Last week President Obama proclaimed, ``This deal is not built on trust. It is built on verification.'' President Clinton predicted--as we now are painfully aware, inaccurately--that the North Korea agreement would be ``a crucial step toward drawing North Korea into the global community'' and predicted the end of the rogue regime's isolation. Similarly, last week's statement poses that the Iran deal ``offers an opportunity to move in a new direction'' because we have taken a different path that ``leads to more integration into the global economy, more engagement with the international community, and the ability of the Iranian people to prosper and thrive.'' And, of course, there was the spurious promise to an ally to assuage them that we didn't just put their national security in jeopardy. First, President Clinton reaffirmed our commitment to protect South Korea. Now, President Obama, already knowing that Israel vehemently objects to this deal and feels as though this gives Iran--an existential threat to its existence and a regime that has promised to wipe the Jewish state off of the map--the ultimate weapon to achieve its goals, promises to ``continue our unprecedented effort to strengthen Israel's security, efforts that go beyond what any American administration has done before.'' Not only are these empty words, Mr. Speaker, but they are disingenuous to boot. When the North Korea deal was reached, one of the most significant flaws was that it failed to dismantle any of North Korea's nuclear infrastructure. The deal was designed merely to delay the North Korean bomb, not prevent it. That is what this nuclear deal with Iran is designed to do. We saw what happened with North Korea, and we can be sure that Iran plans to follow suit. The totality of this deal hinges on a bet by the administration and the rest of the P5+1 that the Iranian regime will see the error of its ways and wants to be part of the global community and forsake its support for terror and other illicit behavior. That is a dangerous gamble to make with U.S. national security, and it is not a gamble that I or any one of us should be willing to take. That is why, Mr. Speaker, we must reject this deal and demand a better deal or else reimpose the sanctions and use the only thing, the only tactic, that Iran understands--strength--to force it to abandon its nuclear ambitions.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to honor the continued efforts of a local family in my congressional district who have made extraordinary efforts to improve the lives of our elderly. In a few short weeks, the Garazi family will hold its 5th Annual Solomon Garazi Memorial Day at the Races to benefit the Miami Jewish Health Systems, otherwise known as the Jewish Home. The Jewish Home is a great South Florida institution that has done, and continues to do, so much to improve quality of life for seniors. Solomon Garazi, who passed away in 2010 at the age of 85, was known for his honor, integrity, and strong spirit. In 1960, the Garazis fled the brutal Castro regime and sought refuge in Miami, where Solomon and his in-laws founded two businesses--the Suave Shoe Corporation and the Oriental Trading Company. Suave later became the first company owned by Cuban refugees to be listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Solomon was a very prominent member of the Jewish Community. He was one of the founders and a president of Temple Moses. He served on the Board of Directors of the Michael-Ann Russell Jewish Community Center, and was the first Cuban American to be on the board of the Greater Miami Jewish Federation. He also helped establish the Sephardic Jewish Studies Program at the University of Miami. Additionally, Solomon was extensively involved with the Miami Jewish Health Systems. In 2009 the Jewish Home's Latin Auxiliary, which Solomon helped organize in 1980, bestowed upon him its Lifetime Achievement Award for all his work on behalf of the institution. The Miami Jewish Health Systems serves more than 12,000 patients, participants and residents annually, through more than a dozen varied healthcare programs and services. Its services include rehabilitation assistance, religious programming, and full residential care. It also is at the forefront of innovative research into dementia and other geriatric conditions. Currently, The Mental Health and Memory Center at Miami Jewish Health Systems is running an innovative clinical trial to evaluate medications to treat and potentially cure Alzheimer's. The Solomon Garazi Memorial Day will directly support the maintenance and the expansion of the Jewish Home's Latin Auxiliary Music Therapy Program. The program offers a full-time board-certified music therapist, musical instruments, and a wide range of music media, recordings, equipment and resources. Through musical involvement in a therapeutic context, individuals' physical, emotional, cognitive, and social needs can be addressed from a unique angle. The music serves as a powerful medium, helping them express themselves in ways words do not allow them to. It opens up a new world of language for them, one that is not bound by the need for precise articulation. The sense of empowerment that this therapy fosters improves lives. I commend the Garazi family--Esther Garazi, Isaac and Anita Garazi, Blanca and Richard Schoonover, and their families--as well as everyone else involved with the Day at the Races, for their work in putting this event together year after year. Thank you for supporting a pillar of our South Florida community.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bid farewell and good luck to Josh Zarka, who for the past 4 years has been the Minister for Congressional Affairs at the Embassy of Israel here in Washington, D.C. Since 1991, Josh has had a long and distinguished career with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, representing the Jewish State in Israel and, indeed, around the world. During his time here in D.C., Josh has been a major influence in strengthening the U.S.-Israel relationship; and there is no doubt that his tireless work to promote and strengthen the ties between our two countries has contributed greatly to the safety and security of Israel, of its citizens, and of us here in the United States. Josh can be proud of the work that he has done here; yet I know that what he values the most is his family--his wife, Esther, and their four children. I wish Josh and his family much success, especially as they prepare for his daughter, Adi's, upcoming wedding. We will miss you, Josh. Stay in touch.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Jewish Community Services of South Florida and its upcoming annual Milk & Honey event, which will take place on August 30 and starts at the Greater Miami Jewish Federation. This tremendous, faith-based, nonprofit organization has worked to improve the lives of South Florida residents since 1920. It is one of our State's largest and most reliable social service organizations. Among the many important services that the JCS of South Florida provides are those focused on supporting our elderly. This year's Milk & Honey event will, again, bring together hundreds of volunteers to assemble food baskets and hurricane preparedness kits for vulnerable South Florida seniors. My community liaison, Harriet Carter, and I have participated in many events of the JCS of South Florida, and I thank all the volunteers who will make this year's Milk & Honey event a smashing success.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about Cristina Gomez and thank her for her kind, generous, and caring spirit. It has been a little over a year since this promising young woman from South Florida suffered a serious traumatic brain injury after she fell while jogging. Before her tragic accident, Cristina was a senior at my alma mater, Florida International University. She was studying to be a teacher and donated much of her free time to help others. Cristina's family has established the Cristina Gomez Traumatic Brain Injury Foundation to help other families in similar circumstances and to carry on Cristina's legacy as she recovers. Christina, the thoughts and prayers of our community are with you and your family. Get well soon. Florida International University misses you and wants you back.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, we repeatedly hear supporters of this weak and dangerous Iran nuclear deal throw out this false dichotomy: It is either this deal or war. The reality of the situation is this: If Congress does not reject this naive Iran nuclear deal, then we won't be faced with the deal or war. We will be faced with this deal and war. Why do I say this? Other countries in the region are going to want what we have conceded to Iran, especially because we inexplicably agreed to a lifting of the arms embargo and a lifting of the sanctions against the regime's ballistic missile program. So what have we guaranteed with this unverifiable deal? There is a conventional and nuclear arms race already set in motion in the region, and Iran will be nuclear in just about a decade's time. The only rational decision, Mr. Speaker, is to vote against this deal if we truly want to avoid war.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, just a few days ago, the White House formally transmitted to Congress the Iranian nuclear agreement. I am holding it here in my hand. And now there will be much discussion in Congress over the role of this legislative body regarding nuclear agreements, but I would like to remind my colleagues that a process is already in place for civil nuclear agreements. This Iran deal that we have in front of us includes sections about a civil nuclear cooperation with Iran. Under current law, section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act specifies the conditions by which the United States should enter into a civil nuclear cooperation agreement with other countries. Parts of the terms determined by the 123 agreement is the cessation from enrichment or reprocessing, a term that is coined, Mr. Speaker, as the gold standard. But the Obama administration has taken the liberty to enter into 123 agreements without abiding by the gold standard. Why should we hold different countries accountable for different terms when it comes to proliferation? We should be holding each country to the very strictest of standards to ensure maximum safeguards are in place. This is why, Mr. Speaker, in the last Congress I reintroduced, alongside with my congressional colleague Brad Sherman, a bill which reforms the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to provide greater congressional oversight of nuclear agreements with foreign countries and to protect against the threat of nuclear proliferation. So when the President says that it is either this deal or we go to war, there is actually another option. Let's not forget about the U.S.-Russia nuclear cooperation agreement, which was previously withdrawn by the Bush administration in 2008 because the President could not certify under the Iran, North Korea, Syria Nonproliferation Act that Russia was not providing nuclear, missile, and advanced conventional weapons to Iran. Yet, through this new deal with Iran, Iran can buy nuclear, missile, and advanced conventional weapons from the Russians. Next on the list was the 123 agreement with Vietnam. I strongly opposed this agreement because it allowed Vietnam to enrich. Next up, the pending U.S.-China nuclear cooperation agreement. Again, I opposed that agreement because it allows China to enrich. So what kind of message are we sending to our allies, Mr. Speaker? Jordan and the UAE, some of our closest partners in the region, are not allowed to enrich based on their commitments to our 123 agreement, but bad actors such as Russia, China, and Vietnam, oh, they can enrich. It does not make much sense, Mr. Speaker. Page 5, section 13--and I hope that our constituents read it--of the general provisions of the Iran nuclear agreement states that the P5+1 nations will ``cooperate, as appropriate, in the field of peaceful uses of nuclear energy and engage in mutually determined civil nuclear cooperation projects as detailed in Annex 3.'' So when we go to Annex 3, the situation becomes really scary. According to Annex 3, the P5+1 nations and Iran can cooperate on civil nuclear and scientific projects. What does that mean? Oh, it spells it out, and it includes--listen to this--facilitation of Iran's acquisition of light water research and power reactors, for research, development, and testing; construction of new light water power reactors, including small- and medium-sized nuclear reactors; construction of state-of-the-art light water moderated multipurpose research reactors; supply of state-of-the-art instrumentation and control systems for the research and power reactors. Oh, but the list keeps going. Supply of nuclear simulation and software solutions with regard to these research and power reactors; on-the-job training on fuel management scenarios for these research and power nuclear reactors; and, last but not least, joint technical review of Iran's current nuclear reactors, upon the request by Iran, in order to upgrade current equipment and systems. So, essentially, we will be helping Iran to modernize and upgrade their reactors. This is absolutely absurd--and dangerously absurd, Mr. Speaker. How could we ever expect any country to agree to the gold standard when they can point to the JCPOA and say they want the Iran standard? They don't want the gold standard. We want the Iran standard because that is what is going to be one of the lasting legacies of this weak and dangerous deal: we have obliterated any of our moral or legal standing to insist that other countries forgo their own enrichment programs. No country's leaders in their right minds would ever agree to anything less than what we have allowed Iran to do; and now if we don't block this deal's implementation, Mr. Speaker, we are putting into motion a nuclear arms race that we will not be able to stop. Mr. Speaker, one of the most egregious mistakes of this nuclear deal--which is saying something. It is a long list of bad things. This deal is chock-full egregious mistakes, but one of the worst is the lifting of U.S. sanctions on conventional weapons and ballistic missiles as well as the lifting of sanctions on Iran's central figures of its nuclear weapons program by the E.U. and the U.N. Just last night, Mr. Speaker, The Wall Street Journal reported on the sanctions that are to be lifted on the Iranians and the institutions behind Iran's decades-long, covert, and illegal nuclear program. This doesn't even begin to touch on the issues of sanctions being lifted against Iran's Quds Force leaders and the IRGC, the very same people who are responsible for carrying out and planning Iran's most deadly attacks and for supporting terror attacks across the world, the very same individuals, Mr. Speaker, who have American servicemembers' blood on their hands. That is right. The administration and the P5+1 have agreed right there in Annex 1 and Annex 2 to remove these individuals and these entities from the U.N. and European sanctions list. How the administration can even begin to try to justify removing these people from these sanctions lists and these designations is beyond comprehension. In fact, it is a direct affront to every man or woman who has served in the U.S. Armed Forces and their friends, families, and loved ones. The administration needs to explain--and I would like viewers to look at this poster--how Soleimani, the gentleman here in the middle, the head of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, the commander of the Quds Force, not only gets to get rid of these sanctions, but soon will get a boon to his coffers to increase his attacks against the U.S. and our interests. But look at this rogues gallery. We are not done yet. How about General Vahidi? General Vahidi, this fine gentleman here, former Quds Force commander, Iranian defense minister, has been wanted by Interpol since 2007 for his role in the 1994 AMIA Jewish center bombing in Buenos Aires, Argentina. He will come off some of these sanctions lists, this gentleman responsible for the murder of innocent men, women, and children. But as The Wall Street Journal article notes, we are actually going to be lifting the sanctions on the scientists and the individuals responsible for developing Iran's covert nuclear weapons program. Mr. Speaker, this will leave these individuals free to continue to work on the regime's nuclear program. But not only that, it will leave them free to proliferate their expertise and knowledge. What we have here, Mr. Speaker, is that we essentially have agreed to lift the sanctions and designations on most of the key individuals on Iran's covert nuclear weapons program while, at the same time, allowing all of Iran's key components of its nuclear program to remain intact. How does that benefit our national security? We have agreed to lift sanctions on the Iranian equivalent of A.Q. Khan, this gentleman here, the head of Iran's WMD program. A.Q. Khan, if you remember, Mr. Speaker, is the Pakistani nuclear physicist responsible for the proliferation network that helped Libya, North Korea, Iran, and China develop their nuclear programs. He is the equivalent of A.Q. Khan. The Iranian A.Q. Khan helped the regime in its attempt to develop a nuclear explosive device which the regime still refuses to come clean about to the International Atomic Energy Agency. So look at this rogues gallery. We are not done. Now the Iranian equivalent of A.Q. Khan will be likely taken off the designation list before the terms of this agreement is up, meaning that, by the time this deal expires, this Iranian, A.Q. Khan, will have had years to perfect his explosive device without repercussions. This deal will also lift sanctions on the nuclear scientist named Abbasi-Davani. This fine gentleman here was the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Agency. Not only was this man once the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, but he was sanctioned by the U.N. Security Council, sanctioned by the U.N. for his work on both Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile program, which, by the way, just underscores the absurdity of the notion that Iran's nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. Only nations that intend on having a nuclear payload develop ballistic missiles, and this man was involved in both. Yet he too will be removed from U.N. sanctions before this agreement expires, leaving him several years to continue his work without any international scrutiny. But we have one more fine gentleman to point out, Mr. Speaker, as if that weren't enough. German engineer Gerhard Wisser, right over here, is a collaborating German scientist. He was an individual who was convicted and imprisoned in South Africa for his involvement in the A.Q. Khan network and who has facilitated the sale of nuclear equipment to North Korea, to Iran, and to Libya. He will be delisted, as well. On top of all of this, Iran's organization involved in spearheading its nuclear weapons research will be removed from the U.S. sanctions list, despite its long record of noncompliance with the International Atomic Energy Agency. All I see in this agreement, Mr. Speaker, is a path to the Iranian bomb and not the prevention of one, as the administration claimed was the objective. Any way you slice it, Mr. Speaker, Iran will be a nuclear weapons state within a decade or so, and these individuals will be free to harm our international interests. Even if the U.N. Security Council opts to reimpose sanctions on the regime, Iran has built into the agreement that this would be a violation of the agreement. Listen to that, Mr. Speaker. If the U.N. Security Council opts to reimpose sanctions, Iran has in this deal a stipulation that this would be a violation of the agreement, and then it can simply snap back its own nuclear program. That is the only snapback that is involved, Iran snapping back its own nuclear program. And now it will be free of all the burdens of sanctions. It will have its entire infrastructure--complete with the added benefit of U.S. assistance in modernizing its equipment, in advancing certain aspects of it--as well as the key individuals involved and responsible for advancing the program ready and able to produce a nuclear weapon without any problems whatsoever. Mr. Speaker, if Congress approves this deal, we are guaranteeing that Iran becomes a nuclear weapons state, and we are giving away every bit of leverage that we have against this rogue regime. This deal isn't going to avert a war. It might very well precipitate one. Our only real option for peace and a nuclear-free Middle East is to insist on a better deal. Mr. Speaker, we must back that up with tougher sanctions, not a promise to lift sanctions on some of the world's most dangerous individuals. How can we say, Mr. Speaker, that this nuclear deal is anything but a bad deal when it doesn't meet the benchmarks of the U.N. Security Council Resolutions or even the President's own benchmarks from 2013? Iran was in violation of every one of those resolutions; yet, just 2 days ago, the administration and the rest of the P5+1 went to the U.N. Security Council to bind ourselves to lifting the resolutions, even though the Iranian regime never complied with a single one--six resolutions violated. Each of those resolutions confirmed that Iran was not in compliance with the International Atomic Energy Agency, had not halted enrichment, had not stopped reprocessing, had not halted developing nuclear technology, and had not stopped its ballistic missile program. Iran has never met a U.N. Security Council resolution that it didn't violate; yet here we are, pretending that Iran has somehow complied with the international community and can be trusted this time to live up to its obligation under international law. Let's just take a look at what each of those resolutions required from Iran and what we are no longer requiring Iran to do as a result of this disastrous deal. Mr. Speaker, I will start with U.N. Security Council Resolution 1696, implemented on July 13, 2006. It demands that Iran suspend all enrichment related and reprocessing activities, which would be verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency after Iran's noncompliance with the IAEA for over 3 years. It gave Iran 1 month to comply with the IAEA or face the possibility of economic and diplomatic sanctions. It endorsed the diplomatic solution, specifically a P5+1 proposal from 2006 for a long-term, comprehensive agreement to determine the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program. It called upon states to exercise vigilance to prevent the transfer of any item, materials, goods, and technology that could contribute to Iran's enrichment and reprocessing activities and ballistic missile program. Iran did not comply. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1737 passed on December 23rd, 2006, it imposed sanctions on Iran for failing to halt uranium enrichment as stipulated in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1696 that I just spoke about. It reaffirms that Iran shall, without further delay, suspend all enrichment related and reprocessing activities, including research and development to be verified by the IAEA and work on all heavy water- related projects, including the construction of a research reactor, moderated by heavy water. The resolution further imposed sanctions on that country, blocking the import or export of sensitive nuclear material and equipment and freezing the financial assets of persons and entities supporting its proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities or the development of nuclear weapons delivery systems. Also, this resolution established a new committee comprised of all council members to monitor the implementation of the present text and designate further individuals or entities to which the sanctions should apply. I bet Iran was really worried about that new committee. How about this resolution, U.N. Security Council Resolution 1747, adopted on March 24, 2007? It widened the scope of the previous resolution by banning Iran's arms exports, arms embargo, prohibits transfers to Iran of nuclear, missile, and dual-use items, exports from Iran of arms or WMD useful technology. It reaffirmed previous positions on Iran's nuclear program, including the suspension of all enrichment activity. It sanctioned additional individual and entities. How many more people could we put on that list? How about another resolution? U.N. Security Council Resolution 1803, adopted on March 3, 2008, it approved a new round of sanctions against Iran for refusing to suspend nuclear projects and activities. It reaffirmed all previous resolutions and demanded that Iran cease all enrichment and reprocessing and ballistic missile related activity. It required countries to inspect suspected cargo to and from Iran, extended the freezing of financial assets to persons or entities supporting Iran's nuclear-related programs or activities. It called upon countries to monitor activities of Iranian banks. It imposed travel restrictions on sanctioned individuals How about U.N. Security Council Resolution 1835, adopted on September 27, 2008? It reaffirmed all previous resolutions. It reports that it found conclusively that Iran is continuing to develop its nuclear program. I bet that was a surprise. It found that Iran was making progress on developing and operating its centrifuges and continued to deliberately block and stonewall. It called on Iran to comply with obligations fully and without delay. Remember, these resolutions are gone now, Mr. Speaker. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929 adopted on June 9, 2010, it reaffirmed all previous resolutions. It prohibited Iran from investing abroad in uranium mining, related nuclear technologies, or nuclear capable ballistic missile technology. It prohibited Iran from launching ballistic missiles, including on its own territory. It required Iran to refrain from any development of ballistic missiles that are nuclear capable. It mandated that countries not export major combat systems to Iran, but does not bar sales of missiles that are not on the U.N. Register of Conventional Arms. It called on the vigilance of international lending to Iran, providing trade credits and other financing. It called on countries to inspect cargoes carried by Iran air cargo and Islamic Republic of Iran shipping lines or by any ship in national or international waters, if there are indications that they are carrying cargo banned for carriage to Iran. Searches in international waters would require concurrence of the country where the ship is registered, but it could happen. It froze the assets of Iranian persons and entities named in annexes to the resolutions and required that countries ban the travel of named Iranians. That was back in the day, Mr. Speaker; yet here we are today, 2 days after the administration went around Congress to bind the United States to a U.N. Security Council resolution that will lift all of those resolutions. You see all of those resolutions; we just ripped them up, no longer needed. We did not achieve a single thing that those previous six resolutions called for. Now, to make matters worse, Mr. Speaker, the P5+1 countries will honor their obligations on this new U.N. Security Council resolution, while the Iranian regime laughs at us all the way to the bomb. Iran has never felt compelled to honor its international obligations; and now, we are just supposed to expect it to fully comply with this? A zebra can't change its stripes, and this Iranian regime will never feel obligated to abide by this new international agreement. Why tie our hands like this, Mr. Speaker? This is a bad and dangerous nuclear deal. I would urge my colleagues to reject it. There has been a lot of talk, Mr. Speaker, about these anytime, anywhere inspections. I think it is important for us to examine what this agreement actually says about anytime, anywhere. If the IAEA has concerns regarding undeclared nuclear materials or activities, they can request clarification from Iran. They request clarification from Iran, Oh, please explain to us. If Iran's clarification does not satisfy the IAEA, then the IAEA can request access to such locations--request. If the two sides are unable to reach satisfactory arrangements within 14 days of the IAEA's original request--look at the timeline, Mr. Speaker--then the joint commission would advise on how to resolve that issue within an additional 7 days; then Iran will have another 3 days to implement such a decision. Can you keep up with me, ladies and gentlemen? Do the math. Iran actually has 24 days to stall or hide any undeclared nuclear material. Is that the definition now of anytime, anywhere inspections, Mr. Speaker? I don't think so, and Iran's Defense Minister doesn't think so either. Why do I say that? Just 2 days ago, he said that the IAEA would not be allowed to inspect any of Iran's military sites. They have been saying over and over again--the Supreme Leader has said the same thing multiple times--Iran will not let foreigners inspect any military center or interview its nuclear scientists. On top of that, Iran's Foreign Minister and chief negotiator said, just yesterday, that Iran has secured the so-called right to deny the IAEA access to its nuclear sites for inspections. Iran has also banned American nuclear inspectors from entering any nuclear site or participating on any International Atomic Energy Agency inspection team. No American can participate. Let's just say, for argument's sake, that Iran is caught cheating, as unlikely as that might be--and I am being facetious obviously--what happens then? Well, it says it right here. It is very clear. The deal states that, if the countries believe that Iran is not meeting its commitment under this agreement, they can refer the issue to the joint commission. The commission would have 15 days or longer to resolve the issue; then the issue can be referred to the ministers of foreign affairs if the commission could not resolve the issue. That is another 15 days for the ministers, Mr. Speaker. Let's do the math. We are already up to 30 days at the minimum. Then the compliance participant could request that the issue be considered to the advisory board, which will have another 15 days to issue a nonbinding opinion. If it is not resolved during this process and the U.N. Security Council gets notified, by the end, another 2 months or so would have passed and given Iran enough time to lobby Russia, China, and the rest of the P5+1 to vote with them so that sanctions are not reimposed. Remember, Mr. Speaker, sanctions will only be reimposed in the event of a significant nonperformance by Iran. The key word there is ``significant.'' What does the U.S. consider significant violations? What do the Europeans consider significant violations? What does China consider it? What does Russia and Iran, itself, consider significant violations? Iran can prevent from sanctions being reimposed, as long as they cheat only in small increments and not significantly. If they just cheat a little bit, they can get away with it. Additionally, the JCPOA explicitly states: ``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.'' Iran is saying: If you put sanctions on us, we don't have to continue with this agreement. I am not making it up. That is a quote. Even if Iran is caught cheating and we move to reimpose sanctions, as we are entitled to do under the JCPOA, Iran is actually entitled to walk away from the deal. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I feel that Iran will use this as its trump card to bully the P5+1 into not addressing violations or holding Iran accountable for its cheating. Even though the United States has the ability to veto a Security Council vote, choosing not to reimpose sanctions and hold Iran accountable, we must, again, remember that such a veto would unravel this deal, reapply sanctions, and allow Iran to claim it can walk away. Finally, an effective sanctions regime against Iran that was established over many years cannot be easily reapplied. The idea of snapback sanctions is simply not viable. Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on about all of the loopholes in this deal. Suffice it to say, we can do better than this. We must do better than this. We owe it to our children and our grandchildren to do better than this. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, let's not forget the kind of regime that exists in Iran, a country that will soon be receiving billions of dollars in sanctions relief. Look at this poster. Friday was Al Quds Day in Iran. And what were they all doing? Officially sanctioned parade, shouting ``death to America'' and ``death to Israel.'' Iran has been labeled as a U.S.-designated state sponsor of terrorism for over three decades now. Yet, just yesterday the White House spokesman couldn't even confirm that Iran would remain on the terrorism list after this deal. How hard a question is it to answer, Mr. Speaker? Will the administration's next concession to Iran be to remove it from the terrorism list in addition to the billions of dollars in sanctions relief? Doing so would mean that we will be helping to finance Iran's support for terror, most of it aimed at us and our ally, the democratic Jewish State of Israel. Look at this poster, Mr. Speaker, where the Supreme Leader says, ``No cure for barbaric Israel, but total annihilation.'' Doing so would be a problem of serious consequences to the United States. Let's get a better, tougher deal. We deserve better.