Chris Stewart

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Colonel Roger L. McCreery, a close friend of mine, who has faithfully served the United States Army and the Tooele Army Depot for three years, and will now be relinquishing command. It is my honor to recognize the many sacrifices and years of service Colonel McCreery has given to our great nation. I have had the opportunity to work with Colonel McCreery on a variety of issues and I have appreciated his openness and willingness to partner together to help the people of Utah. I offer my sincerest thanks for all those who serve at the Tooele Army Depot, and especially those who have had the privilege to serve with Colonel McCreery. I understand the sacrifices our service men and women make on behalf of our nation. I am humbled by the work Colonel McCreery and these individuals do every day to protect not only my freedom but our nation's freedom as well. Defending honor, duty, and country is the greatest accomplishment one can achieve in the U.S. Army. Colonel McCreery's courage and dedication has helped make our armed forces the most respected in the world.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Chair, I rise today to oppose the Massie amendment and the inaccurate accusations that underlie it. Let me restate that. The supposition of this amendment is based off a fundamental misunderstanding of intelligence operations. Contrary to rumor, it is illegal to use 702 surveillance authorities to spy on Americans. It is subject to multiple layers of oversight, and section 702 is an extremely powerful tool that has proven effective in disrupting terror plots, including, for one example, the 2009 plot to bomb the New York City subway. If this amendment were in effect today, the intelligence community would be unable to query the 702 database for the names of the Orlando nightclub attacker, for his wife, or even the nightclub itself. We should be focusing on thwarting terror attacks, not on thwarting the ability of intelligence professionals to investigate and to stop them. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to prioritize the safety of U.S. citizens and to reject false allegations. Let me say that one more time: false and irresponsible allegations of government spying on Americans. We can scarcely afford to hamstring our intelligence community as it investigates these horrific shootings and tries to prevent similar plots from reaching fruition. All of us want to protect our privacy and our constitutional rights. I want to protect our privacy and our constitutional rights. But objections to intelligence operations must be based on facts and not rumors or misunderstandings. Limiting access to critical law enforcement tools to stop these plots would directly put Americans in danger.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for allowing me to speak in support of the Intelligence Authorization Act. Fifteen years or so ago, I was piloting the B-1, which is one of the most sophisticated aircraft or weapons systems ever developed. At the time, I was preparing to take on the global threats that we were dealing with, but I was reminded that we live in a dangerous world and that the fundamental responsibility of the Federal Government is to protect Americans and to provide for our mutual defense. In the many years since then, I would argue that our Nation faces even greater threats than those I faced during the times that I flew in the Air Force. Russia is, again, increasing its role in Eurasia through formulating strategic partnerships, co-opting local officials, and utilizing its military to establish strongholds in ways we really haven't seen since the height of the cold war. China has dramatically expanded its militaristic sphere in the South China Sea and in other locations. Rogue states like Iran and North Korea continue to develop and expand their weapons of mass destruction programs. And, of course, there is always the Middle East, a thing that we often think about and that we spend so much time worrying about, that requires so much of our resources. It is only through the intelligence community that we are able to identify and then respond to these threats. In fact, as we all know, just yesterday we learned of a U.S. air strike that killed Mullah Mansoor, the head of the Taliban. Successful operations like this are made possible because of the great work of our intelligence community. That is why we must pass the Intelligence Authorization Act. This bill continues to authorize critical national security programs at a time when we face the most significant threat levels since World War II. In my travels around the world, I have this great blessing of working with members from the intelligence community. I see what they do is dangerous. It is exhausting. It is the dirty work down in the trenches, but it is critical to our national security. That is why I ask my colleagues to join with me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, along with many of my colleagues, I rise today to honor National Police Week. One of the favorite things that I get to do as a Member of Congress is to ride with police officers as they go about their duties, and from St. George to Salt Lake City I have had the opportunity to do this. Sadly, many in our society, particularly among the press, have become highly critical of law enforcement officers. Now, I recognize that not all law enforcement officers are perfect. People make mistakes. We all do. But we can't let the mistakes of a few tarnish the name of such a noble and a brave profession. Such criticism of police efforts doesn't come without a cost. It forces the officers to pull back, to become overly cautious, and to view every encounter that they may have through the prism of a lens of a media event. What is the result of this? We now know that crime rates have been rising across the country. Interestingly and sadly, they are rising in some of the poorest communities, the communities that most need the help of an effective police force. Now more than ever we need brave men and women who are willing to serve and to protect. As I have said, I have had the chance to go on several ride-alongs with several police departments. Again and again I have been impressed with their hard work, their professionalism, and their willingness to put themselves at risk to protect other people. There is a great example of this. I am reminded of the heroic actions of Officer Hone, a police officer who in the last year saved two young girls in Salt Lake City. A disturbed man who had recently been released from prison and was on drugs broke into the home of two sisters, both of them college students. He began to viciously attack them. He took a knife and attempted to take their lives. Fortunately, Officer Hone was in the area, heard the screams of these young girls, and just seconds before the intruder expected to take the life of one of them, this heroic officer quickly diffused the situation, literally saving her life. Bree, the sister who was saved, said of this officer, ``He was so professional and calm. Right when we made eye contact, I knew I was safe. It's a miracle that he had so much composure. He was our angel.'' This is just one example of the thousands of courageous police officers we have in America. I am proud to live in a country where professionals are ready to put their lives at risk in order to serve and to protect members of their community. Let us honor these police officers, their courage, their selflessness, and their dedication. Let us honor them not just this week, but, frankly, all year round for the sacrifices they make for us.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I am concerned by the great opioid epidemic that is sweeping our Nation. Every day more than 78 Americans die from opioid overdoses--78 Americans. Think about that. That is more than three every hour. Nearly 2 million Americans are addicted to or abuse opiate-based painkillers. Unfortunately and, frankly, very sadly, my home State of Utah is all too familiar with these statistics, as we are fifth in the Nation in the most opioid-related deaths. These drug addictions are destroying opportunities and are devastating families and communities all across the country. We simply must take steps to help alleviate this suffering. I am proud to be supporting a number of bills that the House will be debating and voting on this week to combat opioid abuse, legislation that will lead to updated best practices for prescribers of pain medication, legislation that will improve drug abuse programs, and legislation that will give States and local communities more flexibility to attack this problem and the problems that are unique to those communities. I urge support from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and am pleased to see that there is bipartisan support of these much-needed reforms.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, the BLM just announced that it would significantly cut grazing allotments and possibly eliminate all cattle grazing on Federal lands in Elko, Nevada, to accommodate the overpopulation of wild horses. Many rural areas in my district are facing the exact identical situation where wild horses are taking over the ranges. I grew up ranching and riding horses, and I desperately want to protect them. But with 50,000 wild horses on ranges in the West--which is double what the land can sustain--the ranges are overgrazed, and now horses are starving to death. Not only are the current conditions inhumane, but due to the overpopulation, the Federal Government is forced to house an additional 50,000 horses at a cost of $55,000 per horse. I urge my colleagues to join with me to look for solutions to this problem. One solution is my bill, the Wild Horse Oversight Act, which would simply allow States to manage wild horses and burros. If you care about these horses like I do, then help me solve the problem. If you care about our range and how these animals are destroying the range, then, again, help me solve this problem.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, in the tumult of a Presidential election, a lot of important and newsworthy events don't get enough attention. One such event last week was the Czech Republic's release of Ali Fayyad, a dangerous Hezbollah terrorist who was indicted in 2014 by the United States for conspiracy to kill officers and employees of the United States. The United States had requested Mr. Fayyad's extradition to the United States, and the Czech courts had approved that extradition request. But the Czech Minister of Justice, who is aligned with Vladimir Putin, refused to honor that decision and released this terrorist. Fayyad has deep ties with the Russian black market for weapons and was an adviser to the former President of Ukraine and a close ally of Vladimir Putin. It appeared at one point that Mr. Fayyad was exchanged for several Czech nationals being held hostage in Lebanon, but journalists have since shown that the hostage situation was a sham staged by his family and defense team. This episode is significant for several reasons. First, Mr. Fayyad's presence and influence in Central Europe are yet more evidence--as if we needed more--that Iran, through its proxies like Hezbollah, has tentacles throughout world. More importantly, the event demonstrates Vladimir Putin's increasing influence with an important member of NATO. And it is not just the Czech Republic. This is a trend, and it is more concerning. Mr. Putin appears to be quietly undermining NATO by leveraging his cronies in influential positions in a number of European nations. Several months ago I asked the Congressional Research Service to look into the connections between Putin and high-ranking officials in Europe, particularly NATO members. The findings are alarming. The report tracks pro-Russian rhetoric and actions of leaders in the Czech Republic and Slovakia and Hungary as well as the increasingly evident ideological link between Europe's far-right parties and the leadership of Russia. Mr. Speaker, though I won't read the entire report at this time, I will include it in the Record. I say all this, recognizing that Russia is a much more proximate threat to our European allies than they are to us. It would be foolish not to acknowledge that European leaders are in a different position than we are. The democratic institutions that we take for granted are still fragile in many of these countries, and Putin knows that. However, what makes it all the more important is the fact that we, as the world's superpower, do more than offer simple condemnations of Putin's actions. Both the House and the Senate held hearings last year exploring Russian propaganda efforts. This was a good start, but now we need to dig deeper to understand all of the levels of Russian pressure, including agents of Russian influence who occupy high political offices and own national and regional media outlets. More than anything, we need the President to get off of the sidelines and show that he is serious about countering Putin. That could start with a serious effort to determine who cooperated with Russia in releasing Mr. Fayyad, and then issue targeted sanctions on those officials. Mr. Fayyad is likely to continue plotting to harm the U.S., and his release isn't a simple oversight that we should ignore.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, on August 14, 2004, David Sneddon, a student at Brigham Young University, disappeared without explanation while hiking in the Yunnan province of southwest China. David is an outstanding young man who speaks fluent Korean and had spent the summer studying Mandarin in Beijing, with plans to return to the U.S. in August to finish his degree in Chinese. He had already paid a housing deposit and registered to take the Law School Admission Test. The U.S. State Department and the Chinese Government eventually concluded that David fell into a gorge while hiking, but David's family conducted their own exhaustive investigation, with David's father and two older brothers flying to China shortly after his disappearance to retrace his steps. In the course of talking with numerous eyewitnesses, David's family discovered facts which contradict the official explanation and which, I believe, are compelling evidence of another possibility, which I will get to in just a moment. My staff and I met David's family and heard his story soon after I was elected 3 years ago. The Sneddons are remarkable people of great faith who have continued to pursue an explanation for David's disappearance for the past 11 years. The resolution I am introducing today regarding David's disappearance is a result of the hard work and diligence of David's parents, siblings, and cousins. They deserve answers. They deserve to have their government do everything possible to determine what happened to David. I should also add that David's story is personal to me. He was a close friend of my oldest son, Sean. In fact, following David's 2-year missionary service in South Korea, David taught my son Sean the Korean language as he was preparing to begin his own missionary service in South Korea. Though I have not met David, I am grateful for the impact he had on Sean's life. Over the past 3 years, I have had various opportunities to meet with State Department personnel to discuss David's disappearance. They are good people, and I commend them for their help, particularly in the immediate aftermath of his disappearance when they repeatedly pressured the Chinese Government to pursue the various leads identified by David's family. However, I am concerned that bureaucratic inertia has made the State Department complacent in this case. I am concerned the State Department leadership has not done all they can do to pursue all of the possible explanations for his disappearance. One of the unexplored possibilities is that David was abducted by agents of the North Korean regime, something which a number of respected experts on North Korea have advanced in recent years. While this may sound like an outlandish theory to those unfamiliar with North Korea's history, it is becoming very plausible when you understand the regime's long history of abducting foreign citizens to use in training their own foreign agents. For many years, North Korea systematically kidnapped Japanese citizens and used captives to train their intelligence operatives in Japanese language and culture. The regime finally admitted to the abductions in 2002 and returned five of the Japanese citizens. There are numerous other facts which, when combined, make North Korea's involvement conceivable. North Korean agents are known to operate in Yunnan Province, a common area for those escaping North Korea into Southeast Asia. David disappeared during a long time of heightened tensions between the U.S. and North Korea, just weeks after this House passed the North Korean Human Rights Act. And David disappeared 1 month after North Korea released Charles Jenkins, an American deserter from the Korean war being held and used precisely as the abducted Japanese citizens: as a language teacher for North Korean military cadets and spies. Jenkins was the last of the known Americans being held for this purpose, and it is possible the regime needed a replacement for him. Just this past Sunday, North Korea's rocket launch, in defiance of sanctions and against explicit counsel of the international community, reminded us that North Korea doesn't operate on the same norms that guide diplomacy for most of the rest of the world. They are a criminal enterprise more than a government, and they can do nothing for their own people, let alone for other nations. Mr. Speaker, I don't raise the possibility regarding David Sneddon's disappearance lightly, and I didn't sponsor this resolution lightly. I recognize the words we speak on foreign policy have consequences far beyond this room. But David is the only American to disappear in China without explanation since the normalization of relations during the Nixon administration. This is not a fact to be taken lightly. My resolution lays out the facts of his disappearance and asks three essential actions by the State Department and intelligence community: First, that they continue to investigate and consider all possible explanations for David's disappearance, including potential abduction by North Korea; Second, that they coordinate their efforts with the Governments of Japan, South Korea, and particularly China, the country known to have at least some influence over North Korea; And finally, that they keep the Congress and the Sneddon family informed of these efforts. I would like to thank Senator Lee for sponsoring the companion bill in the Senate, and the rest of the Utah delegation for joining me as cosponsors. I think I can speak for the delegation when I say that David's family deserves a thorough effort from their own government to discover what happened to him. This is the very least that we can ask.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the World Health Organization declared the Zika virus outbreak a global public health emergency. The virus is particularly dangerous to pregnant women as it has been linked to serious physical and neurological defects in their unborn children. As the father of six children, I understand how frightening this could be. Experts fear the virus will spread more widely to the United States, especially with the Olympic Games in Brazil on the horizon. That is why I have introduced the Zika Response and Safety Act, to ensure that key agencies have the resources necessary to combat this growing threat. In 2014, Congress allocated more than $2 billion to fight Ebola. Much of that money is still unspent. I would like to make some of that funding available to be used to combat the Zika virus. This virus is a global health threat that requires our immediate attention. I urge my colleagues to support the Zika Response and Safety Act so that we can provide the necessary resources to understand and to prevent the harmful effects from Zika.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, in my work on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I have spent an awful lot of my time on these types of issues. I think there is much we can say about this bill, but at the end of the day, it comes down to two fundamental questions. They are really quite simple. The first is: Do you believe that the President will hold Iran accountable? In an interview yesterday, I challenged the other person to show me the President's foreign policy success because I believe in this administration there has been 7 years of foreign policy failure, from China, to Russia, to Afghanistan, to Syria. The list is long. We have to ask: Do we trust the President to implement policies that keep the world more or less safe? The second question is just as simple: Do we trust Iran? I asked Secretary Kerry to show me a single example of Iran working with us or with our allies in any positive fashion. They are, as has been said here, the world's greatest sponsor of terrorism. Recently they broke U.N. agreements not to test ballistic missiles. They have held our soldiers. From Hezbollah, to Hamas, to Syria, they foster terror and darkness everywhere they go. Do we trust Iran? Very simply, the answer is no, which is why this bill is so important. It helps us to hold Iran accountable. It helps us to hold their proxies accountable. It removes the incentives for them to continue to expand their power and their policies and their goals, which are counter to U.S. and Western goals throughout the world. That is why I support this bill. I urge my colleagues to as well.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, President Obama issued an executive memorandum that could turn into one of the most far-reaching and devastating environmental regulations in history. This document, which holds the same weight as an executive order, aims to expand a 26- year-old policy that requires agencies to set a no net loss of wetlands to all natural resources. The economic impact of this regulation would be devastating to the West. Why do I live in Utah? I live there because I love it. I love to rock climb. I love to ski. I love the beauty of the place I live. All of us want to protect our natural resources, but we can't put human interests at the bottom of the priority pile. This is more than a huge power grab. It is going to devastate the trust that is essential between the President and the American people. If the President wants more regulations and further protections on natural resources, such a thing must be done in the people's Congress by those who are closest to the people. For that reason, I will use every tool at my disposal in order to ensure that this outrageous Presidential decree is not implemented.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. In my district, I have some of the largest trucking companies in the country. I recognize these are hardworking, dedicated people who play a vital role in the success of our economy. The growth of regulations under this administration has made their jobs much, much more difficult. This amendment seeks to relieve truck drivers of a patchwork of regulations that make their jobs very difficult, with little positive effect. Let me correct a common misunderstanding. This amendment does not prevent drivers from taking breaks when they think it is appropriate. In fact, it does the exact opposite. It allows the drivers to be flexible to take breaks when they think it is most appropriate and most safe and not to worry if they are violating the law. Arbitrarily predetermined break times set by 50 different States simply will not work, and that is why I am such a strong supporter of this amendment.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I think this is absolutely nuts. Yesterday the House and the Senate sent the President the National Defense Authorization bill requesting his signature, which he has now threatened to veto. I was an Air Force pilot for 14 years, and I sit on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. I understand how critical it is that our military be prepared; and to be prepared, they have to be adequately funded. Vetoing NDAA means that we simply don't provide authorization for funding for our troops. It means we cut our military readiness. It means we can't continue our fight against ISIS. It cuts such critical programs that protect us as our missile defense program. I just simply don't understand it. The President doesn't have any specific objections to this bill. It funds to the exact level that he has requested. By doing this, the President has ignored the primary responsibility that the Federal Government has to defend and protect the United States. I hope that the President will not fail in that responsibility. I hope he will sign this critically important bill.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. I would like to thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I come from a family of educators. My father taught me in fifth grade. My brother and sister are both teachers. My wife is a teacher. One of my sons recently spent 2 years doing Teach for America in an inner-city school before he started graduate school. Every weekend, it seemed, while he was teaching, we would hear stories and personal experiences of children who desperately needed help to get the education that they needed so they had any chance, any hope, of being successful in life. And, finally, I am also the father of six children. I understand in a deeply personal way how important it is that we teach our children and educate our children. This idea goes back to Jamestown, 1609, where literally for the first time in the history of the world we made a commitment that we would educate all of our children, that every village, every town, every community would educate all of our children. That is what the SOAR program is about: giving all of our children the opportunity to succeed. So let's look at the program and see what it has accomplished. Since 2004, more than 6,000 children have had the opportunity to attend a private school of their choice. This has changed the trajectory of their lives. More than 90 percent of them now graduate from high school, compared with 58 percent throughout the rest of Washington, D.C. Eighty-eight percent of them go on to a 2- or a 4-year university. Eighty-five percent of their parents express satisfaction with this program. Why in the world would you want to take that away? How could you not support this program? How could you not want to give these children the opportunity to succeed? Why in the world would you put the interests of unions and teachers above the interests of these children who desperately need our help? I would ask my colleagues to support this rule and to support the underlying legislation. Give these kids an opportunity to succeed. That is all we are asking for.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I sit by an American hero, my friend, Sam Johnson, to recognize three American heroes in my own hometown: a brave police officer and two sisters, Bre and Kaylie Lasley. Last week, a man broke into their house and began to viciously attack these two sisters with a knife. They defended each other, they supported each other, and they fought for each other's lives. Fortunately, a police officer was in the area and, when he heard their screams, he ran to the rescue. Just seconds before this intruder was expected to take Bre's life, this heroic police officer entered the scene and saved her. Speaking of this officer, Bre said: ``Right when we made eye contact, I knew that I was safe. It's a miracle that he had so much composure. He was our angel.'' I am proud to serve in a country where police officers put their lives on the line every single day to save us. I am proud to serve in a country where we know that the country isn't great because of the actions of the government; it is great because of heroic and courageous actions of individuals, which is why I would like to present this police officer with my first Profile of Courage award.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that gracious introduction. Mr. Speaker, this agreement is deeply, deeply flawed; and when you talk to our friends across the aisle, in moments of honesty, they will admit that it is deeply flawed. This is the most important national security question of our generation. We have got to get this right, and we simply haven't done that yet. If I could elaborate on my background that leads me to this conclusion, as the chairman said, I sit on the House Intelligence Committee. For 14 years, I was an Air Force pilot. I flew aircraft that carried nuclear weapons. I worked for the implementation of various nuclear treaties. I understand that for any treaty to work, there has to be a modicum of trust. There has to be a kernel of trust between the two parties. Let me ask you this: Do you think we can trust the Iranians? I asked Secretary Kerry on two occasions to give me a single example of where the Iranians have worked with us or our allies in any positive fashion, and he could not do that. But I can give you a long list of where they have worked against us, where they have created death and chaos: Hezbollah, Hamas, assassinations in Central America. Hundreds of Americans have been killed and maimed because of the Iranian-backed Shia militia. This is what they do. And we are supposed to trust them? And by the way, I believe they are going to cheat, because they are cheating even now. In the last few months, they tried to buy prohibited equipment from Germany. They refuse to answer questions from the IAEA even now. Which brings me to my second question: Do you think we can trust this President? I would ask you to give me a single example of what you consider a foreign policy success of this administration--give me a single example--and then let me give you a long list of foreign policy failures, beginning with China claiming much of the South China Sea; with Russia, after the reset, going into Crimea, controlling much of eastern Ukraine now, even now building military posts in Syria. We went into Libya and created chaos and walked away. We snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq. We are doing the same thing in Yemen, the same thing in Afghanistan. Why should we trust this President? I believe that most people think this agreement is doomed to fail; and I believe that when it does, we now have to turn towards the question of: What do we do when we have an entirely nuclearized Middle East? When we have four or five countries in the next few years that have nuclear weapons there, how are we going to deal with that, coming from a President who declared it was his goal to see the elimination of all nuclear weapons across the globe? It is a terrible irony that he is going to preside over the greatest and most dramatic expansion of nuclear capabilities in the most chaotic part of the world, that he will preside over that, and that will be his foreign policy legacy. We need to defeat this agreement while we still can.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to celebrate Piute County's 150th birthday. Piute County was formed in January 1865, after a year of hard work by entrepreneurial Mormon pioneers. Press reported that in only 1 year the settlers had built more than 4 miles of canals and more than 10 miles of roads, all to access the good farmland and timber and other things they would need as they built this community. One reporter noted: The spirit of industry and perseverance in the people is manifest. Their actions are kind and benevolent towards one another, and they will make this a great place for future generations. Mr. Speaker, the past 150 years have proven these words to be true. Today, the county is home to many hardworking residents, people who work in a uniquely beautiful rural setting. The county enjoys the world-famous Paiute ATV Trail, boating, fishing, hunting, and horseback riding. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent Piute County. They represent some of the best people our Nation has to offer, and I wish them much success as they celebrate their 150th anniversary.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join my home State of Utah in celebrating Pioneer Day. In a world that seems to be filled with strife and confusion, I am proud to take a moment to celebrate something positive. On July 24, 1847, Brigham Young led a determined group of pioneers, wagons, and handcarts into the Salt Lake Valley where he uttered those now famous words, ``This is the place.'' Over 40,000 pioneers traveled west to Utah. In doing so, they suffered incredibly, hunger, cold, disease, exhaustion, the death of loved ones. My own ancestors were among the many who did suffer. Once they arrived in the Salt Lake Valley, they worked tirelessly to take the desert and to make it bloom into the thriving communities we have today. My, how things have changed. Utah is considered the best managed State. They are considered some of the finest and highest quality-of-life communities. They are one of the best States to do business. We have the greatest snow on Earth, and our National Parks are truly magnificent. We celebrate Pioneer Day to honor those who demonstrate their courage during their journey west and for all those who continue to enrich our great State of Utah.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to recognize one of my own constituents, Phillip Burr, from Burrville, Utah. Phillip has dedicated his career to providing electricity to rural Utah while working for one of my favorite companies, Garkane Energy. He has also spread that passion globally, making trips to such places as Bolivia and, most recently, Haiti. We all know that electricity is a critical element to improving quality of life and increasing access to basic necessities like healthcare, education, and clean water. After learning Haiti has less than 15 percent of its population with regular access to electricity, Phillip traveled there to help build a diesel solar hybrid distribution system that will provide safe, affordable, and reliable power to more than 1,600 consumers. This type of service is what makes America great. I am honored to recognize him for his example of humanitarian service and to thank him for all the work he has done in his community and around the world. Mr. Burr, I salute you.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I am honored tonight to lead this Special Order on what is one of the most critical issues facing our Nation in generations. Now, I know that sounds dramatic and that it sounds like it is a statement that is just designed to capture people's attention, but it is actually true. This is a question that will define our safety and our security for generations to come. The question we face and the issue that we want to address tonight is: Will the U.S. and the international community allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon? For generations, it has been the policy of Republican and Democratic administrations that we would not allow that to happen. It is critical to the security of our friends and allies in the region that we are successful in denying them this. It is critical to our own national security, to the interests at home, and to our interests abroad that we not allow Iran to nuclearize their weapons program. So we come to this question: Will we allow that to happen? Tonight, I stand here, along with many of my colleagues, to express my great concern about what the President is doing and the state of the negotiations as they are now. Tomorrow, we get to hear from the Prime Minister of Israel. I look forward to hearing his comments. He certainly has, as they say, a dog in this fight, but so do we. Let me begin by telling you a little bit about my background. I spent 14 years as a pilot in the Air Force. I flew the B-1. At one point, I was the pilot rep for the implementation of the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks, or START I and START II, implementing a treaty that we had with the former Soviet Union. This was a very interesting experience. I learned a lot from this. I certainly learned of the details and the necessity of following through with every tiny detail of these treaties and of implementing them. Our Russian counterparts could show up at our base at any time with only a few-hours' notice. They had access to the most highly sensitive areas. They would measure; they would observe; they would talk; they had incredibly sophisticated ways of verifying that we were complying with elements of the START Treaty, as we did with Russia. These elements, in my opinion, are one of the keys to making sure that this treaty that the President is negotiating is successful, which brings us then to, really, one of our central questions, because I learned from my own experience that, for a treaty as sophisticated as this would have to be to be successful, there has to be a modicum of trust, an element of trust, between the two parties--a grain, a core of trust--where they both want the treaty to succeed. I don't know if we have that now. I had the opportunity to address this concern with Secretary Kerry just last week. I asked him very simply: Can you name me a single example where the United States or our allies for generations have had a positive, constructive experience with Iran? Can you show me any example of how they have worked with us in a positive manner? He could not provide me with a single example. Once again, this is one of the central questions that we have to address, so let's ask this question: Can we trust Iran? Let me explain to you why I think the answer to that is ``no.'' You see this map beside me. This indicates Iran's range of influence around the world, and it reaches, as you see, from North Korea, through central Asia, through the Middle East, through parts of Europe, to South America and to Mexico. Iran has been a state sponsor of terrorism for more than 30 years. They, by themselves, have developed an extensive military complex--the Defense Industries Organization, as they call it. The DIO is able to supply Iran with all of the materials that they need in order to carry out their terrorist activities around the world--all of the ammunition, all of the equipment, all of the weapons. In fact, Iran is the primary supplier of the weapons and ammunition of two other officially recognized state sponsors of terror--Sudan and Syria. It is the primary sponsor of a number of listed foreign terrorist organizations, including Hezbollah and Hamas and numerous Shi'a militias in Iraq. Iran has directed the terrorist activities of numerous of these Shi'a militias, and let me point out this fact: over the last dozen years or so, these Iranian-backed militias have been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers working in the theater. Hundreds of American soldiers have lost their lives due to the direct activities of Iran. As I mentioned, and as you can see on the map, they engage in narcotics trafficking and human smuggling in Mexico. In the tri-border area of Brazil and Argentina and Paraguay, Hezbollah has a safe haven for recruiting, training, and fundraising. Even Venezuela is, similarly, a safe haven. In India, they provide support for Syed Kalbe Jawad, who is recruiting Shi'a militias to fight in Iraq and Syria. They cooperate with North Korea in cyber warfare. The list of their interventions in a negative and a destructive way around the world is, indeed, very long. They are a strategic ally of Russia and China. They provide port facilities. They are a strategic ally of North Korea. They have cooperated with North Korea to develop ballistic missiles. So, once again, let me come back to my conversation with the Secretary of State, where I ask him: Can you give us a single example of a positive or constructive alliance or agreement or partnership that we have had with this Nation of Iran? And the answer has, once again, been no. Iranian leaders have stated their objective is to destroy Israel and, of course, the great Satan, the U.S. In fact, I can show you. Look at this picture, and you may wonder what it is. It is not something taken from World War II or from another war. This actually happened last week, where Iran completed a successful exercise in a simulated attack on a U.S. aircraft carrier. Does that sound like the activity of a potential partner? Hezbollah has stockpiled approximately 60,000 surface-to-surface rockets in Lebanon. Hamas has stockpiled approximately 10,000 surface- to-surface rockets in Gaza. Iran is, of course, the primary supplier of both of these, and their stated purpose is to destroy Israel, to wipe it off the map. As the current Iranian President Rouhani said: ``The Zionist regime has been a wound in the body of the Islamic world for years, and the wound should be removed.'' The former President said, in 2012, that Iran has no roots in the Middle East and that it would be eliminated. So let me conclude my part of this hour by emphasizing once again that Iran has demonstrated several generations now of destructive, war- like, deadly activities around the world designed to destroy Israel, designed to weaken or destroy the United States, killing American soldiers overseas, and this is the partner that we think we can trust with one of the most critical issues of our day. I hope the President realizes the danger that we would face if they prove not to be a reliable partner. I will let others share in my time today. First, I would like to invite my friend, Dennis Ross from Florida, a member of the Financial Services Committee, to speak.

Mr. STEWART. Thank you, Mr. Ross, for your comments tonight and for your defense of these concerns that we have. I would ask the question, to emphasize something that you said, sir: Why is Iran building ICBMs? As Charles Krauthammer pointed out in the last few days in an article, he said: You don't build ICBMs to deliver dynamite. It is very clear what their intentions are, I would think. And although we will come back to this, I would like to follow up with one other point that you made. But before we do that, let me turn the time now to my friend, Mr. Roger Williams from Texas. He also serves on the House Financial Services Committee.

Mr. STEWART. Thank you, Mr. Williams. I can't let the moment pass without reemphasizing something you said: Don't do stupid stuff. Is it stupid to trust Iran? Is it stupid to negotiate an agreement that is fatally flawed? And I have deep concerns about this agreement in that it is fatally flawed. For example, and perhaps most glaringly, there is this provision that allows for a sunset. We are not precluding Iran from developing nuclear weapons. In the very best case scenario, we are simply delaying them from developing nuclear weapons. How in the world is it within the interest of the United States or our allies in the region or others in the area, as well, to simply say we are going to stop you from developing nuclear weapons for 10 years, which is reportedly one of the provisions of this agreement? That doesn't stop them. It delays them. It delays them only if it assumes that they adhere to the agreement, something that many of us are very skeptical about. I could elaborate, but let me turn the time now to my friend, Robert Pittenger from North Carolina. We came to Congress together. He is active in the foreign affairs community, and, I am proud to say, he is the chairman of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare. Mr. Pittenger.

Mr. STEWART. I thank Mr. Pittenger for his remarks and for the great work that he does as the chairman of the Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare. I have to interject here for just a moment something that others have alluded to as well, and that is this idea of a sunset provision. We have to recognize what a dramatic change in policy that is. It is no longer our policy that we would not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. It is simply our policy if that provision is agreed to that we would delay them from having nuclear weapons. The sunset provision allows them to grow their economy. It lifts the sanctions. They can sell their oil. They can continue to finance terror operations around the world, all under the understanding that, in 10 years, they could resume their nuclear program. Again, that assumes that they don't cheat in the interim which is, in my opinion, likely that they will. Let me ask this question: Why a sunset provision? Do you think the world is going to be more stable in 10 years than it is now? Will Iran become our trusted friend and ally over the next 10 years? Will they lose all of their regional ambitions? It will lead inevitably to a dangerous and chaotic and destabilizing arms race in the region. Let me quote our own President. In an interview with The Atlantic about 3 years ago, he said: ``It will not be tolerable to a number of States in that region for Iran to have a nuclear weapon and them not to have a nuclear weapon . . . and so the dangers of an Iran getting nuclear weapons that then leads to a free-for-all in the Middle East is something that I think would be very dangerous for the world.'' Mr. President, I could not agree more, which is why it makes no sense for your agreement to contain anything close to a sunset provision that allows them to develop their nuclear weapons a few years down the road. I would like to turn the time now to the gentleman from New Jersey, my friend Tom MacArthur. He serves on the House Committee on Armed Services, as well as the Committee on Natural Resources. He is one of the bright, young Members of the Congress.

Mr. STEWART. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend, Mr. MacArthur. I now recognize another friend, someone who I have come to respect tremendously from the tireless work that she does on the House Committee on Armed Services and has become a leader among her peers here in Congress, the gentlelady from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski).

Mr. STEWART. Mrs. Walorski and the other speakers bring up many good points. Let me emphasize just a few of them if I could. The New York Times reported just last week that the IAEA said Iran was still refusing to answer questions regarding its previous weapons program. Even in the midst of negotiating with the administration, they are still refusing to answer questions about their previous nuclear weapons program. I think the administration, even now, has refused to release the full text of the deal. It has even been reported that there is an informal side deal that is something like a 30-plus page text. These facts prevent observers, like myself and others, who are interested and concerned, from determining what constitutes cheating by the Iranians. There are so many other reasons that we are concerned about this. Let me just mention one more very quickly. It was reported that Iran can still produce enough nuclear material to fuel a bomb in as little as 2 months. In as little as 2 months, they would be a breakout nation that would keep the region--and, in fact, the entire world--on a knife's edge, wondering if they would make the decision to weaponize and to break out. Those are some of the concerns that we have. Let me recognize my friend, the gentleman from Ohio, Brad Wenstrup. He is a past Army Reserve officer--thank you, sir, for your service. He is a doctor. He serves with me on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as he serves on the Committee on Armed Services. Dr. Wenstrup.