BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow marks the 1-year anniversary of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the so-called Iran nuclear deal.
President Obama made a series of promises to the American people. One was that Iran would cease its illicit nuclear activity. And yet, last week, Mr. Speaker, Germany reported that Iran has increased its illegal proliferation of nuclear technology.
President Obama also promised that the nuclear deal would moderate Iran. In other words, there was a gentle, nice Iran that was waiting to come out, if only we would be more understanding. But in the past year, the Islamic Republic has launched nuclear ballistic missiles in violation of U.N. security resolutions, kidnapped U.S. sailors, shot rockets within 1,500 yards of U.S. Navy ships, and increased their support for terror regimes and terror groups, and remain the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism.
The President also stated that the U.S. sanctions regime would stay in place against Iran's terror activity while it was being lifted against the nuclear activity.
But, instead, the U.S. has become Iran's negotiator in chief on the world stage and has rewarded companies that continue to support the Iranian National Guard Core and is devising ways to give Iran access to the U.S. financial system.
One year after the President agreed to a dangerous nuclear deal, Iran continues to be a major adversary. Congress needs to highlight and spotlight Iran's malevolent activity. The good news is Congress is doing just that, Mr. Speaker.
I am encouraged that the House will take up three very important pieces of legislation. It will deal with the heavy water bill.
Think about this. Iran gets caught manufacturing heavy water. Rather than calling out the Iranian regime, in clear violation of the nuclear deal, what does the administration do?
The administration says: Well, we are going to help Iran comply with the deal that they have just violated by using United States taxpayer money to buy the heavy water from Iran.
You can't make this up. It is so absurd. We are only given excuses. We have got to focus in on what else is happening on this issue.
Now, Boeing and Airbus have failed to understand the deep risks that come from doing business with Iran. These aren't necessarily risks for their bottom line. They are very willing to sell to a terrorist regime. But they are risks to freedom-loving people around the world.
Both Airbus and Boeing want to do what?
They want to sell a product that can be used for terrorism. They can use airlines for the purpose of moving things into illicit areas.
We all know that Iran Air was sanctioned for ferrying weapons and troops to rogue regimes and terrorist groups. We know that Iran Air was implicated in North Korea's ballistic missile tests. And we also know that Iran systematically uses their commercial aircraft to transport weapons, troops, missiles, cash, and other supplies to terror groups.
Mr. Speaker, on my left is a display. This is a computer printout that shows a flight from Tehran to Damascus last week. Now, think about this. This is the hubris of the Iranian regime: the Iranian Air Force flying a Boeing 747 in the middle of the night from Tehran to Damascus.
Do we think that this is for commercial purposes? Of course, not.
Did we think that this is for tourism? Of course, not.
Do we think that they are flying baby formula or textbooks? Of course, not.
What they are doing is a bad act, and we ought to not be complicit in this.
Mr. Speaker, 1 week ago, this House passed, on a bipartisan basis, limitations to the Financial Services Appropriations bill that would prevent this sale. And we did it by voice vote. What a voice vote means is that nobody substantially rose in opposition.
Why? Because there is no real reason to rise because more and more people are recognizing that these types of sales should not go through.
In response, the CEO of Boeing, Dennis Muilenburg, essentially said: Well, look, us selling to Iran is a good business opportunity to do business with the Iranians.
And then he also said: Well, if Boeing can't sell, then nobody else should be able to sell.
But did you notice something, Mr. Speaker, in those two comments?
He didn't say: Look, we have got this under control. He didn't say: We are positive that nothing is going to be used for terrorism. He didn't say that this wouldn't jeopardize national security. He just said: If we can't do it, nobody should be able to do it.
Look, I agree, if Boeing can't do it, nobody should be able to do it. It is well known that all of Boeing's competitors--Airbus of France, Bombardier of Canada, Embraer from Brazil, Comac from China--each of these companies sources at least 10 percent of their components from the United States. They require the same license that Boeing does.
But that is not the point. What we need are iconic American companies following the lead of companies like Lockheed Martin--which has said they won't pursue this--Northrop Grumman, and others that haven't sullied their reputation.
It is time for Congress to continue to do its good work.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT