tv U.S. House Debate on the Iran Nuclear Agreement CSPAN September 10, 2015 12:00pm-8:01pm EDT
but since its become a fascination with the press, i think she was smart to put it behind. i would gladly relinquish the title of highest ranking woman by being speaker of the house, the third highest position in the land, to having a woman speaker -- excuse me, a woman president of the united states. we had a woman speaker. woman president of the united states. >> madam leader, you mentioned you didn't talk with speaker -- you did talk with speaker boehner about a c.r. ms. pelosi: i spoke with him. they were not what i would describe as talks. i spoke to bush administration hymn about having talks. and basically my point -- host: watch all of this at c-span.org. the u.s. house gaveling in what's expected to be two days of debate on the iran nuclear agreement. live coverage on c-span.
spine the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered today by our guest chaplain, reverend andrew walton from the capitol hill presbyterian church here in washington, d.c. the chaplain: let us pray. as vacations and recesses draw to a close, we give thanks for the gift of rest and recreation afforded us while so many in our country and world have spent those same days in fear and suffering. may we leave business as usual in the shadows of yesterday, seeking to shine with renew purpose -- renewed purpose, inspired wiz tom and transformative action. may every person associated with these halls of power remember their calling as public servants to humbly hold the hopes, dreams, and trust of people from every walk of life and every
state, city, town, village and neighborhood of our country and the world. as numerous streams of opinion, interests, and need flow into the procedures, processes, and decisions of this tai and tais ahead, may there be wisdom and patience to allow them to find their way to pools and ponds of eace, rivers of mercy, and eventually oceans of compassion and common good for all people. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentlelady from alifornia, mrs. walters.
mrs. walters: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. there on: mr. speaker, is a clear fact that these are and that the regime in iran is a dangerous threat to world peace. the president's legacy of failed policies of weakness has led to the middle eastern chaos, with refugees, families fleeing for their lives and drowning at sea. it's not too late to stop a bad situation from getting even worse. a nuclear armed iran is a threat to every country everywhere. we need a deal that is verifiable, enforceable, and accountable. is it verifiable?
no, because the secret deals it will be the iranians who certify whether or not they are complying. is it enforceable? no. because the sanctions that have been effective enin forcing them to the bargaining tainl will be lifted. iran will then have the money it needs to complete its nuclear programs, missile development, and expand their funding of terror. with future terrorist attacks, media should trace the funding to determine if the source is from this deal. is it accountable? no, because the deal permits iran to keep thousands of nuclear centrifuges to enriched uranium. in conclusion, god bless our troops, and may the president by his actions never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from hawaii seek recognition? he gentlelady is recognized. ms. gabbard: this year marks the 50th anniversary of the
hawaii economic opportunity. a nonprofit multiagency known as k.e.o. for half a century this agency has been providing services to thousands of residents in need to ease the pain of poverty and help them achieve self-sufficiency. as the only human services organization on that identify lan, they have been a life line for low-income families and individuals who are looking for a second chance. in the past year alone, k.e.o. has assisted over 5,000 individuals with housing, education, food, medical services, legal services, childcare, transportation, disaster preparedness, employment opportunities, and so much more. i'd like to say mahalo to the c.e.o., mable, the chair brenda, board member staff volunteers, and everyone else who selflessly dedicated their time and attention and aloha to assure the people always have a friend to help them in their time of need. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the
balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. well, once again with the end of summer vacation, it still has in california and the west the onset of fire season. mr. lamalfa: california's seen twice the number of acres of trees burned so far this year and fire season is far from over. while working on reforms to return management to our national forests, the work doesn't stop when the fires are out. every single day a tree lies dead on the forest means it loses more and more of its salvage value and becomes a cost to the taxpayers to remove it later and next dangerous fuel for the next fire. it's imperative the forest service act rapidly to salvage these downed trees. or it's more fuel on the ground. while the forest service estimates there are 12 million dead trees already this year,
virtually no work is being done to remove these dead trees from these forests. we must stop the barriers to getting the work done that's needed for our forest to be healthy and safe. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. mcgovern: i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts virginia tech. tsh-is recognized. -- is recognized. a thank you, mr. speaker. i come to the floor today to ask a simple question of those who oppose the joint comprehensive plan of action. can you show me a viable alternative to this agreement that will lead to tougher international sanctions on iran and prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon? scholars and diplomats, including president bush's iran negotiator, ambassador burns, have stated before members of this very body that there is no way we will be able to keep russia, china, and india in the
sanctions regime if we reject this agreement. mr. moulton: we tried secondary sanctions in 1996 and they failed. our european allies have made it clear that should the united states reject this agreement we are on our own. despite these facts, it baffles me that some of my colleagues have concluded by rejecting this agreement we can somehow get a better deal with less leverage. no deal is perfect. especially one negotiated among adversaries, the joint comprehensive plan of action is the best option we have on the table today. this agreement puts the united states in a better position to confront the iranian regime's threat to world peace. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized. mr. pitts: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in opposition to the president's proposed agreement with iran. iran is the world's number one state sponsor of trim.
they support the murderous assad regime in syria. they support hezbollah terrorists in lebanon. they support the hutey rebels in yemen. iran backed militias have killed american troops in iraq. negotiation is founded upon trust and there can be no trust for the mullahs who run iran. to quote nobel peace prize winner elie wiezel, regimes rooted in brutality must never be trusted and the words and sanctions of the leadership of iran leave no doubt as to their intentions, end quote. in march, i joined with 366 of my fellow members of congress, including 130 democrats, in a letter to president obama we agreed that any deal with iran must last for multiple decades, include full disclosure of iran's past nuclear pursuits with anytime, anywhere inspection for verification. this agreement does not meet these standards and for these and other reasons we must not support it.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. speaker. pope francis will address this body in a joint session this month. and i join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle when i say i am eager to receive the holy father's message of peace as a reminder of where our priorities should be in our work here in the house. as the pope explained earlier this year in an encyclicle, becoming a bert steward of our environment should be a priority for all of us. later the catholic church accurately points out that it is it is a moral imperative to care for others and the gifts we have been given by addressing climate change and address it now. it is time to work together to better protect our environment and build a culture of stewardship. i thank pope francis for his focus on this issue and i hope the words he will share in two
weeks ring true with all of us including those who continue to deny climate change, both in this body and around the world, for having the wisdom to change one's mind and evolve in thought is a blessing. i hope the pope's encyclicle will encourage deniers to work with us, to find creative ways to clean our environment, create jobs, and make our world a little bit better and more peaceful for our kids and grandkids. with that i thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my tifmente the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? if the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. walters: mr. speaker, i rise in recognition of dr. vicky rue i, a distinguished professor of history at the university of california irvine. she's also the president of the american historical association and was most recently named a recipient of the 2014 national
humanities medal. it is a awarded to those who have deepen canned the country's understanding of humanities and broaden citizens' engagement with history, literature, and philosophy. she'll be one of only 10 honorees from top universities to receive this prestigious award from president obama. in fact, dr. rue i is the first faculty member to receive this medal. as the first in her family to earn an advanced degree, dr. rue i began her work at u.c.i. in 2001. in 2008 she was named dean of humanities and currently chairs the department in the school of social sciences. please join me in recognizing her as she receives this award today at the white house. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. -- the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? the gentleman from new york is recognized. >> mr. speaker, during the debate repealing don't-ask, don't-tell four years ago, we noted that gay and lesbian
americans had fought with distinction in every war in our nation's history. mr. higgins: which is true, but while they fought to protect us, we failed to protect them. over 100,000 americans were discharge from the military between 1945 and 2011 solely because of their sexual or thentation. these discharges were often less than honorable, which impacted their veterans benefits and served as a rebuke to their service and sacrifice. we can and must do better. the department of defense allows veterans who were discharged solely for their sexual orientation to petition for an upgrade to an honorable discharge. i encourage all my colleagues to conduct research in their districts and inform veterans of this opportunity to assist them in their applications. congress should pass the restore honor to service members act introduced by senator gillibrand and congressman mark pocan to codify this opportunity for veterans to remove this ensult from their record. a good and grateful nation owes these brave americans nothing
less. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. ever since the iranians agreement completion its proponents have insisted the deal is based on verification not trust. that's because iran has-s not a country that can be trusted. evidenced by their funding of terror, and past attempts of secret nuclear armentament. however details continuing to be revealed it's clear negotiations were based on trust. the verification in this agreement has been entrusted to the iranians themselves while inspections of their facilities can be delayed for weeks. congress still doesn't have access to the agreement in its entirety. it's naive for supporters of this agreement to trust an unstable theocracy when the federal government doesn't trust the own american citizens to self-certify on fuel storage.
i encourage all attempts to disarm iran. it has chattered their credibility in the inter community. and the president's threat to veto al terations is -- congress cannot accept the terms of this agreement which empower an untrustworthy and hostile nation in an already dangerously unstable region. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas virginia tech. mr. veasey: mr. speaker, i rise today mr. veasey: i rise to honor the seis parade in my hometown of fort worth. they recognized that there was no parade to recognize mexico's
independent day. for the last five decades their work has grown and the sell breags has too, into one of the largest in the country for hispanic heritage events. the hard work by the committee will be seen during this year's parade on september 12 which also will serve as the kickoff for national hispanic heritage month. i want to personally thank juanita and her committee for the continued commitment to the hispanic community in fort worth. i wish them the best on this 50th greer. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: the iranian nuclear deal unacceptably lifts certain sanctions on individuals like captain suleimani, the
current commander of iran's quds forest who is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of servicemen in iraq and is leading efforts against u.s. interests in the northeast. who is still idi, wanted by interpol for his role in the 1994 jewish community center bombing in buenos aires, argentina, which claimed the lives of 85 people. also the former head of iran's atomic energy agency who was sanctioned for his nuclear and ballistic missile activities. also the german engineer who facilitated the sale of nuclear equipment to north korea, iran and libya and also the former head of iran's nuclear weapons program who has been described as iran's dr. a.q. khan.
this is a brief sample of the many people who will have adegreesal resources, access and freedom to continue their terror and nuclear weapons activity as a result of this program. we can and must get a better nuclear deal. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one inute. >> instead of working to address our job, the economy, and a responsible budget, my republic colleagues are meeting behind closed doors, scheming up plans, putting our economy and our constituents' jobs at risk. it's pastime that republicans put the needs of americans before partisan politics. american businesses that have what it takes to compete
globally are being left behind because of republicans' refusal to re-authorize the export-import bank. the uncertainty placed on state and local governments by republicans' refusal to put fort worth a long-term highway funding bill is unconscionable. and let's not forget we have yet to produce and pass pass -- and pass a responsible budget. we cannot have a repeat of 2013 with people out of work. i urge my colleagues to put partisan politics aside and let's do what we have been called here to do. based on the latest antics, i can't tell if i'm a freshman in high school or a freshman in congress. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. thompson: i rise today to reject president obama's iranian nuclear deal which would lift sanctions on the regime before delivering any proof it is acting in good faith to curb its
nuclear program. i continue to have concerns that this deal is dangerous and will simply delay iran if obtain nuge clear weapons. we should seek a strong deal to ensure that the current regime is never able to obtain a nuclear weapon. this is not what we've been delivered by the negotiators. sanctions against the regime are the reason they came to the negotiating table. we should not negotiate from a position of strength and not surrender to removing sanctions before there's proof of compliance. the president's -- the president is attempting to sell the american public on a deal that provides billions of dollar that can be used to support iran's clan december tine activities. any agreement must first advance our national security and the security of our allies. a clear indicator of future performance is alsoal -- is always past performance. unfortunately, iran has a decades long history of misrepresentation when it it comes to its nuclear program. thank you mr. speaker and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the
gentlelady from florida seek recognition? he gentlelady is recognized. >> mr. speaker, tomorrow we mark the 14th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on america. this tai will forever remain as one of the most somber in -- in american history. but out of all the horrific and heartbreaking stories, there were also store roifs heroism and honor. -- stories of heroism and honor. in the hours and minute -- in the minutes, hours and days after the attack, firefighters police and other first responders ran into the twin towers, toward the pentagon and to the pennsylvania crash site. they risk thared lives for all of us and now we need to make sure we're still there to support them which is why i am roud to co-sponsor the james
zadroga 9/11 health and compensation re-authorization act this legislation provides medical treatment and financial compensation to the first responders who were harmed in the 9/11 attacks. we owe them this with their medical bills and so much more. our nation will forever be grateful for their sacrifice. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. successful diplomacy requires statesmanship a mutual benefit and a commitment to peace. none of these elements are part of the administration's deal with iran. on statesmanship, this administration's acquiescence has been met with iranian
hostility. just this week, the ayatollah said israel would be destroyed within 25 years. words matter. and we cannot discount iran's dangerous rhetoric. where is the mutual benefit? short of immediate access to a nuclear bomb, iran has been given all it wants. it will receive billions of dollars it can use to fund terrorism against our country and our allies. it will be allowed to reject any time, anywhere inspections that are vital to verifying compliance and ensuring our national security. and in less than 15 years, iran will be allowed to have a nuclear weapons program capable of attacking targets anywhere in the world. the fundamental question is, are we willing to gamble that iran's government will end its destruct i behavior and belligerent rhetoric in the coming days? mr. moolenaar: i for one am not willing to take that chance.
i believe this is a bad deal for america and the world and i oppose it. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from montana seek recognition? mr. zinke: i ask to address the house. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. zinke: what would make america think that iran having nuclear capability in 13 years would be a good idea? what would make any american believe that in five years, relaxing the sanctions on conventional arms, the same missiles that struck 10,000 missiles that struck israel, in eight years, relaxing the sanctions on icbm's. there's only one purpose for an icbm and that's to attack every city in the united states. and lastly, in 13 years, because this deal does not dismantle
anything, in 13 years iran could legally have a path for at least 100 icbm's. those are the facts. in voting for this bill with the secret deals that no congressman has had, no congressman has looked at the deal. my job is truth, my job is to deliver truth to the mesh people. deliver truth to montana. and this deal is not truthful. we're rewarding iran with 50 to -- with $50 billion to $100 billion in terrorism, the idea that we take this deal or go to war is patently false. we need to dismantle this. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman is not recognized. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to
address the house for one minute & revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. ellmers: on september 9, 2015, one of my staff members mistakenly added congresswoman mcsally to h.r. 3443. as a co-sponsor. instead of h.r. 3339. both my staff and i acknowledge and take full responsibility for this unintended addition of ms. mcsally's name. and i apologize for any confusion and inconvenience that this error has caused. this co-sponsorship was not authorized by representative mcsally and i respectfully ask unanimous consent to remove the gentlelady's name from that bill. 3443. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: without
objection, so ordered. the gentlelady yields back her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. when i got on the plane to return from texas yesterday, i felt like it was a done deal, the iran deal was going to happen. but guess what? conservatives in the house came together with a better idea, fueled by hundreds of folks out on the lawn, senator ted cruz speakinging we've come up with a solution that will at least possibly stop iran from develop agnew clear weapon. the bill we've got coming up, to point out that the president has not met his requirement to tell us the entire deal with the side agreements, puts the president and the banks and businesses doing business with iran who might start to do that on notice that they are potentially civilly and criminally liable. mr. farenthold: we're going to use the judicial branch of the
government to help keep america safe. as i read on one of the signs on the lawn yesterday, what part of death to america do you not understand? the iran deal is a bad deal and it needs to be stopped and we are fighting here in the house of representatives to do that. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia eek recognition? the gentleman from west virginia is recognized. >> mr. speaker, today i rise to commend three local citizens from west virginia. the first is twila smith a teacher at philip barber high school. on august 25, one of her students brought a gun to school and held her classmates hostages. twila did a miraculous job calming the teenager and buying time until the police could arrive. the police chief jeff juarez and
the young man's pastor, howard zwick, are the next two heroes. they negotiated the release of the student hostages and convinced the teenager to surrender voluntarily. because of these heroes and their courage in a threatening situation, more than 700 high school students were unarmed -- were unharmed and this man now will be able to receive the help he needs. i yield back the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman seek unanimous consent? >> yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> this agreement with iran will bring the world closer to war. under this deal iran can use its centrifuges to make nuclear weapon iran is trusted to inspect itself, the u.s. must come to the aid of iran if there's sabotage against the
weapons program. meantime, iran is buying fighter jets from russia to strengthen its military. they'll have their sanctions lifted with no proof required that they're in compliance and the president himself admitted this neither denies nor deterse iran from a nuclear bomb, only delays. iran continues to chant death to america, death to israel, and continues to imprison four americans. the same iran that supplies weapons and help to terrorists throughout the world. the iran nuclear deal makes the middle east and the world far more perilous anwar inevitable. it is naive and dangerous to believe otherwise. the american people rightly oppose this deal, i oppose this deal, and for the sake of peace, congress must oppose this deal. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized.
>> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to speak about one of the most important national security matters this chamber will vote on and that is the president's dangerous nuclear deal with iran. we have heard a lot about this this morning. i heard a lot about it while i was in the district during the august work period. i traveled across georgia's 12th district and spoke with my constituents about this terrible agreement. today i come to the floor again to voice the concerns i heard from the overwhelming majority and to say to my colleagues in the house and senate, we must stop this deal. the consequences of the president's agreement are clear, we have heard it over and over. it would chart a clear path to allow iran nuclear capability, and in the meantime the iranian regime will use billions of dollars in sanctions relief to continue promoting terrorism. i visited israel last month and met with the nation's leaders, including prime minister netanyahu, and learned first
hand about the security can threats israel and the region face every day. we cannot allow this deal to move forward and further empower those who seek the destruction of israel, the same leaders who shout, death to america. i reject the president's false choice between this bad deal or war. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. allen: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from arizona seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from arizona is ecognized. mrs. kirkpatrick: tomorrow is the anniversary of september 11, 2001, when islamist -- ms. mcsally: killing nearly 3,000 innocent people. that day brought terrible destruction, it also sparked a renewed sense of deteination and unity that should not be forgotten. today we must recognize that the threat from islamist extremism is as great as ever.
we are in gean rational fight against terrorists like isis who seek our complete destruction and that of our allies and our way of life. we must remain vigilant and have the courage and will to stand against this evil to protect americans and ensure our enemies never have a chance to attack us again. this week we remember americans to lost their lives 14 years ago. americans like aaron jeremy jacobs and carol ann both born in tucson, arizona, and killed in new york city. and we remember the bravery and selfless acts of first responders and ordinary citizens who put themselves in danger so others may live. our thoughts and prayers continue to be with the family died.iends of those who with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her ime. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a commine case.
the clerk: pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on september 9, 2015, at 9:42 a.m. appointments, congressional award board, congressional executive commission on the people's republic of china, signed, sincerely, karen lks haas. -- l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. sessions: mr. speaker, by direction of the committee on rules i call up house resolution 412 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar umber 5p, house resolution 412 ,resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the house the resolution h.res. 411, finding that the president has not complied with section 2 of the iran nuclear agreement review act of 2015. the resolution shall be considered as read.
the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except two hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair of the committee on foreign affairs and the minority leader or their respective designees. section 2, upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill h.r. 3461, to approve the joint comprehensive plan of action, signed at vienna on july 14, 2015, relating to the nuclear program of iran. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. the bill shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except, one, three hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair of the committee on foreign affairs
and the minority leader or their respective designees, and two, one motion to recommit. section 3, upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill h.r. 3460, to suspend until january 21, 2017, the authority of the president to waive, suspend, reduce, provide relief from, or otherwise limit the application of sanctions pursuant to an agreement related to the nuclear program of iran. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. the bill shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except, one, two hours of debate, with 30 minutes controlled by the chair of the committee on foreign affairs or his designee, 30 minutes controlled by the chair of the committee on ways and means or his designee, and one hour controlled by the minority leader or her designee, and two, one motion to
recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one hour. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, during consideration of this resolution all time is jackson leed for the purpose of debate only. i yield the customary 30 minutes the gentlewoman, my friend from new york, ms. slaughter, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for such time he wishes to use. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, as soon as i say this for debate only, on behalf of texas delegation, we want to say speaker pro tempore, happy birthday, we were celebrating your birthday at the texas lunch, we were sorry you were unable teend. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks . the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, this rule would empower the u.s. house of representatives with the opportunity to block this administration's devastating nuclear deal with the country of iran. it is my belief that this deal needs to be ripped up, word by
word, line by line, and it is this body that needs to help do that and the process is going on today. and tomorrow. and it needs to continue until we kill this deal. this rule includes three legislative items and is designed to give the u.s. house of representatives multiple opportunities to block this disastrous iran deal. make one thing perfectly clear from the beginning, there is nothing unprecedented about this rule. what is unprecedented is that the administration and administration of the united states has negotiated a deal that pardons a state that supports terrorism and turns it into a legitimate nuclear state in a matter of time. there is nothing to hide in this rule. whereas a significant part of this so-called deal with iran is still hidden. not just by side agreements,
but in facts of the case that it was up to the united states congress to openly understand, to debate, and then make decisions on. first, h.res. 411 would find that the president has not complied with the requirements of section 2 of the nuclear agreement review act of 2015, which passed congress and became law of the united states of america in may of 2015. this resolution simply says that the president should to thele law and the law he signed only four months ago would be followed and give congress access to all parts of the deal as they attain to this nuclear opportunity and deal that's being cut, including the iaea and iran. second, h.r. 3460 would stop the administration from lifting sanctions placed currently on
iran. third, h.r. 3461 would allow for a vote to approve the deal with the administration made with iran regarding its nuclear program. while previous legislation would have allowed congress to disapprove this deal, this legislation would not allow the deal to go forward without congressional approval. so, mr. speaker, what does the administration deal do? first, the deal guarantees permanent sanctions relief, but only temporarily blocks iran from building a nuclear bomb. in other words, this deal would inject, i assume, as a signing bonus, $150 billion into the iranian economy with almost completely no rules or regulations related to that use of the money and would allow iran to build and possess a
nuclear mom in just a matter of a few short 15 years. mr. speaker, we should not encourage the leading funder of terrorism in the world to have immediate access to billions of dollars now and billions of dollars later. let there be no doubt this money will go to hezbollah, hamas, and the iranian revolutionary guard, groups that are dedicated to wiping out not only the united states but our friends and allies around the world, including it their number one target, israel. mr. speaker, when i visited the middle east in may of this year, we met with our partners all around the region, and they were furious this administration was negotiating with iran. presidents from both parties that spent decades in the united states persuading countries around the region not to build a nuclear bomb, yet now this administration wants to allow iran to have access to that, that which we have been
protecting and holding away from even our closest of friends. we will give that to this country that calls us the evil empire. under this administration,er for six years, america has led from behind. we have led from behind when it should have been chosen to lead from the front. now this administration has decided to engage with a nation that jails americans and where death to america and death to israel is chanted every single day. all over the streets of iran and by its chosen leaders. even worse, when the administration chose to engage with iran, it chose to negotiate from a position of weakness. this negotiation ened with a deal that gives iran literally everything it wants and as i see it delivers nothing for the american people. what does this deal exactly do? instead of allowing
international inspectors into sites within 24 hours, the administration agreeed to give iran 24 days notice. the plan also ends restrictions on the iranian intercontinental ballistic missile, icbm program, in just over eight years, which means within a decade iran can go back to developing warheads that could reach the united states. mr. speaker, they cheat on every single deal they make. why would you negotiate with someone you don't trust? why would you give someone you don't trust and who had a track record give them everything they wanted? well, even worse, reports have indicated that there's also a side deal, a side deal between iran and the iaea that allows iranians to inspect their own nuclear sites. mr. speaker, this would be like a person in college or any school being allowed to grade their own test. that's not the right way you handle international affairs.
when republicans say you negotiate with weakness, this exactly what we are talking about. mr. speaker, it is not clear what the american people would get from this deal. what is clear is that this deal will empower a stronger iran to be the strongest country in that region to be competitive against the united states and to have everything they wanted, two nuclear weapons in their future. so, what's at stake here? congress is being asked to join in this deal. they are being asked to endorse a plan that would eventually legitimatize the iranian nuclear state and fund its terrorism activities. and to support our president in doing this. mr. speaker, that's why we are here today. we are going to debate it. we are going to pass this legislation. and we are going to put this house on record of where we would be. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york seek recognition? ms. slaughter: i thank the gentleman for yielding me time. and i seek it to debate.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: thank you very much, for yielding, mr. sessions. i appreciate it. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for as much time as she wishes to use. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, the vote on the iran nuclear agreement has been touted by the majority as the most consequential of our careers, maybe even our lifetime. . we've had months of consideration, hearings, questions, open debate, following rules and customs more or less surrounding the joint comprehensive plan of action with iran, an agreement carefully negotiated by the united states, united kingdom, france, russia, china and germany to curb iran's nuclear activities and to listen this morning, you would think this was a negotiation between barack obama and the ayatollah. the other countries played major roles here and they are the most
important economies in the world this agreement is the best available option for peacefully and verifiablely cutting off iran's pathways for a nuclear weapon. on tuesday evening, the rules committee had a meeting on the third floor of the capitol that lasted over three hours. there was testimony from chairs and ranking members of the relevant committees. we had a robust discussion and healthy back an forth. we prepared for the rule debate. we had our statements written. ut 12 hours later, the dissident wing of the majority party emerged from a bar, the tortilla coast, emerged with a different plan in mind. the house was forced into a holding pattern all day yesterday while the republican dissidents brought their party to its knees. once again, instead of regular order, in a perversion of our
legislative process, we were thrown into chaos by the majority chasing its tail, throwing together three bills that may as well have been scribbled on the back of a cocktail napkin. these bills have been whipped up in an afternoon to mollify a disgruntled wing of the republican party who shows no interest in governing. the only goal of these bills is to feed the monster seething within their own ranks. there's been no committee action on these bills, there's been no debate, there's been no time even to consider them. why didn't we do them in our relation scheduled tuesday night meeting? because we didn't know they existed. instead of addressing an issue of international global importance, we are occupied with republican internal politics and it is an embarrassment to this country this dog and pony show has turned congress into a stage to play out the internal drama
that diminishes our constitutional role. if the majority cannot devise a process for a measure on which they agree, on which they have the vote unanimously if they can't devise a process for a measure like that, i shudder to think what's coming with act two, which we are hurtling toward because we are days away from a government shutdown. we have no budget, our troops would not get paid, flights would be canceled and what's more, last time we had a republican inflicted shutdown, $24 billion were lost to our economy at a time when we were struggling even more than now to regain it. even so, here we are, forced to join in yet another pointless exercise and the senate has said they will not take up these bills. and so this agreement will be implemented which leaves the republican party, majority in
both houses which they control work no consensus. once more, keeping iran from building a nuclear weapon is a once in a lifetime opportunity to silence the drum beats of war. with all you've heard about this won't do, it's awful, have you heard a single alternative? not one. the possibility of peace in a powder degree region of the world should be considered carefully. mr. speaker, in may of 1946, shortly after the second world war ended, when the horrors of global violence were fresh in our collect i memory, albert einstein asserted that, quote, the unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe, end quote. very rarely do we have an opportunity to stop that
so-called drift toward catastrophe. but we do with this measure. and all of our allies have agreed to it. only we are trying to hold it up. the joint comprehensive plan of action provides for unparalleled access to iran's nuclear facilities. the agreement blocks all four possible pathways to a bomb. contrary to falsehoods reported by the media, iran will not be self-monitoring. the inspectors from the international atomic energy agency have unprecedented and continuous daily monitoring authority. and it is so easy, they tell me, to detect the radioactive material if they were to break this agreement. only certain sanctions will be lifted. for example, what they do with terrorist organizations and supplying arms with other people, we are
continuing those sanctions. if iran fails to comply, all the nations involved in the negotiation have said they will be reinstituted by using a snapback provision which is in the bill. let me repeat that. we've heard from ambassadors of almost all those nations yesterday, saying their countries would absolutely comply with reintroducing the sanctions. now let me remind people that should the iranians attempt to conceal their work, even a nanogram a billionth of a gram, of nuclear work is detected. retired american military leaders, former secretaries of state from both party, the israeli security professionals and faith lead verse come out in full support of this accord. the former chairman of the joint chiefses of staff and former secretary of state under president george w. bush, retired four-star jenco lynn powell called this agreement, quote, remarkable. the former head of israel's intelligence and special
operations agency supports the agreement as well. e said recently to pbs' judy woodruff, that, quote, i believe this agreement closes the roads and blocks the road to iranian nuclear capabilities for at least a decade. that is not a trivial thing. domestic faith lead verse implored this congress to follow the old testament creed, to, quote, seek peace and pursue it, end quote. the agreement was painstakingly negotiated by the secretary of state, john kerry, deputy secretary of state, wendy sherman and secretary of energy ernest moniz representing the united states. when discussing this agreement, rent scowcroft, former advisor to both president george w. bush and george h.w. bush said there's no more credible expert
on energy weapons than secretary moniz. when he asserts this blocks each of iran's pathways to fissile material responsible people listen. responsible people listen. end quote. it's not clear based on this support in the senate that the effort to kill this will end in the upper chamber. but regardless of that certainty, the house majority has nonetheless thrown us into disarray. we'll vote today on two bills, another one tomorrow. in which -- it was decided that first there will be a bill to say that the president cannot lift the sanctions and a bill on side agreements they think are out there that nobody else knows about. and the most interesting one is the bill tomorrow will be to approve it. you know, you've already had all these discussions, we can't have it, the world will not survive, we have to approve it. but just in case because the senate won't cake up up an
approval message, they took up another rule last night. first they did away wit and then they put it back so next week we can come up with a disapproval rule and hope that -- by next thursday the 60 tais are up and the president may go ahead with the agreement. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this rule and support this agreement and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman, the chairman of the defense subcommittee chairman, mr. frelinghuysen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. i rise in support of the rule before us and in strong opposition to iranian nuclear agreement. there may be many reasons to stand against this deal, it comes down to a fundamental reality. the iranian nuclear agreement
fails to achieve its objective, blocking all of iran's pathways to a nuclear weapon. in fact, this deal provides iran with an international endorsement of an industrial scale nuclear weapons policeman. my colleagues, we must not forget where it starts, with the president declaring iran must never be allowed to achieve a nuclear weapons capability. to get from that point to where we are today, our negotiators have made some inex-clauseable and dangerous concessions on inspections and verification and on iran's missile defense program and their access to conventional weapons. worse than that, iran will economically be strengthened by early relief from sanctions providing the ayatollah with fresh resources with which to fund the quds force and its global terrorism network. supporters of this agreement have proclaimed loudly it's the
-- that the only alternative to this agreement is war. i reject that notion and predict it will lead to more iranian aggression in the middle east. it talks about economic relations with iran and implementing this in good faith based on mutual respect. but how can there be respect for a regime that actively promotes regional instability publicly and constantly advocates for the destruction of the state of israel and uses the phrase death to america as a mission statement. mr. speaker, our first responsibility as members of congress is to provide for national defense. this deal is bad for our national defense. i sincerely regret that this vote has been argument kies -- characterized as a partisan measure, it's not. it's a vote of conscience, far and above politics, and that's why i'll vote no on the motion to approve this disastrous agreement and yes on the rule.
i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. welch: i want to thank the gentlelady and thank my colleagues, mr. frelinghuysen, i agree with many of the points you made. this is a vote of convince for all of us. the question is not -- of conscience for all of us. the question is not whether we trust iran, we don't. the question is not whether we want iran to have any pathway to a nuclear weapon. proponents of this agreement, i'm one, opponents of this agreement, there are many, don't want iran to have a nuclear weapon. this question about trust, we've got to step back a minute. one of the fundamental challenges that a strong and confident country faces is to secure its national security. that requires the commander in chief whose fundamental
responsibility is to exercise his judgment about what will work to increase our security to ter into negotiations with adversaries, and there may be no greater adversary to the united states, to our allies, particularly israel in iran. keep in mind, president kennedy negotiated with the soviet union after their -- one of their leaders said they will bury this country, and he did that and it turned out he was right to limit nuclear proliferation. president nixon went to china, when it was red china, and ab-- an absolute adversary of this country and our way of life and it's worked to the benefit of the national security in this country and president reagan did the same. the fundamental question here is not at all about whether we trust iran. we don't trust iran. it's not about whether you negotiate with people you trust,
you have to negotiate with people that are your adversaries. the question is whether the terms and conditions of this agreement that the president is recommending along with our very close allies germany, france, great britain and russia and china, will improve our national security and that oural -- and that of our allies particularly israel. my judgment is it will. one, there is no pathway for iran to have a nuclear weapon under this agreement. number two, this is not based on trust, it's based on distrust and strong verification provisions that will give us a heads up if there's any effort of iran not to comply. third, we have the opportunity to snap back the sanctions that all of us supported that brought iran to the table and we don't have to get a majority vote, we can do that unilaterally. and then finally, we do have to
ask the question, not whether this is the perfect agreement, undoubtedly there could be a better agreement that might give more satisfaction and security and peace of mind to all of us, it's a question of this agreement or no agreement. that's the question that we face. in the weight of opinion in judgment is that if we repudiate this agreement, the sanction regime that we constructed on the -- under the leadership of george bush and barack obama would dissolve. what happens then? iran gets the money and they have no restraint on their ability to get the bomb. i urge us to support this agreement in the national security interest of the united states of america and israel and our allies. i yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york reserves her time, and the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from butler, pennsylvania, a member of the ways and means
committee, congressman mike kelley. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for three minutes. mr. kelly: i stand before you today not to speak for republicans but to speak for america. when 80% of the american public say no to this deal, how can america's house, how can we, elected by the american people say you are wrong and we are right? a vote for this deal is a vote against the american people. history tells us that chamberlain in 1938 came home from meeting with hitler and aid peace in our time. judeas went to the last supper and put onto the lord and they gave him 30 pieces of silver. we are not even getting 30 pieces of silver. president obama said this is the best deal i can get. in my lifetime, anybody that comes back from negotiations and say it's the best they can do it means they lost.
they did not get what they wanted. they got the best they could, and in this case it's a losing hand. this deal endangers the safety, security and stability of not only america but the entire world. this deal comes with absolutely no accountability, no verification and no enforceability. i ask you, how can you sit in america's house when the president's number one responsibility is to protect the american people and say this is the best we could get? this gives the american people nothing. his gives iran everything. now, in just 24 hours, we are going to commemorate the 14th anniversary of a terrorist attack on the united states, and we are going to grant the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world $150 billion to show how much we have turned a deaf ear to the
cries of the dead and a blind eye to the destruction of america that day. to sit here and even to begin to think and -- sit here and think this is a good deal for america is false. we are sacrificing the safety of 330 million americans for the legacy of one man. that is not what america wants. that is not who america is. that is not who america should ever allow itself to be. and to sit here and listen somehow we have not done our job. ladies and gentlemen, our job is to protect the american people. it always was. it always is. it has morphed into something greater than that, i understand that. but at the base of the day, it is to protect the american people. and let me tell you as tomorrow , the dawn, the sun comes up, all you have to do is turn your ears to the east and our enemies will be shouting, death
to the great satan, death to america, death to israel and the supreme leader himself says that within 25 years there will be no israel. the hypocrisy to stand before this house today, america's house and sail the american people down the river is a travesty who we are. it's more than that. it lies in the face of the 1.4 million americans in uniform who have given their life to give us this opportunity to defend this great nation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. kelly: i thank you for the time and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. every gett: almost observer, even the host of seeking the re
republican presidential nomination says that iraq was a foreign policy disaster for which so many military families are continuing to pay a high price and american taxpayers will ultimately pay over a trillion dollars for that failure spurred on by some of the speeches like the one we just heard. and so we look next door to baghdad at tehran and we see a despicable government there, just as there was one in baghdad. we have ample intelligence evidence that that despicable government was pursuing a nuclear weapon program that is unacceptable to us, and we try to learn, is there a way for america to use its other power, its diplomatic power, to stop that because we know our use of military power did not accomplish positive forpe policy objectives by itself in
-- foreign policy objectives by itself in a go it alone approach. we had an approach that had a strong bipartisan approach and that is to impose strong economic sanctions on the iranians. it didn't work so well originally the first time that i and almost everyone in this house voted for it because america coldn't go it alone as they couldn't be successful in go it alone invasion in iraq. we brought some people along like russia and china to join in this sanctions regime, it finally forced iran to the table to begin to deal with the critical elements of this nuclear weapon program. and step by step through very hard negotiations by bringing the rest of the world along to force those economic sanctions on iran, all of which i supported, they begin to move
forward on trying to resolve this issue through diplomacy, through acting that way rather than bombing first and asking questions later as some of these folks have advocated. at every step in that process, as we approached an interim agreement, we had an object first, read later approach from those who are pushing this rule. the interim agreement was announced. they rejected it that night before they even read it, and it proved their objections were totally unfounded, that we gained more in terms of intelligence. we came to understand better the iranian program, and we put a stop to it in that interim agreement. we are safer today because that agreement was adopted, and we come along to about march of this year and the same folks that are advocating this rule were out here telling us there was one thing this congress had to do. t had to have the power to disapprove this agreement if it did not feel the final
agreement met the objectives. does the gentlelady have another minute? ms. slaughter: i can give you 30 seconds. mr. doggett: that is how we began this week with the resolution of disapproval, but yesterday they brought their foreign policy experts to washington. sarah palin, glen beck, donald trump and they said a resolution of disapproval is not enough. so today the republicans have abandoned the only tool they had to stop this agreement, a resolution of disapproval, that's not even in this resolution, and they're off on a three-prong approach to satisfy the most extreme views that prefer to use war as the first instrument instead of the last instrument. we have a choice in this congress, and it is the choice of using the strong power of america with verification to prevent this program rather than calling on more military families to sacrifice for an
unnecessary endeavor. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker. we will do everything in our power to try and stop this bad deal. you're darn right we will. mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from farmington, utah, member of the intelligence committee, appropriations committee and a member of the united states air force for years and years, a veteran of this great nation, the gentleman, congressman chris stewart. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah is recognized for three minutes. mr. stewart: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you for that great introduction. 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. we have got to get this right, and we simply haven't done that yet. and if i could elaborate on my background that leads me to this conclusion -- as the
chairman said, i sit on house intelligence committee. was 14 years an air force pilot. i worked for the implementation of various nuclear treaties, and i understand that for any treaty to work there has to be a modicum of trust. there has to be a colonel of trust between the two parties, and let me ask you this. do you think we can trust the iranians? asked secretary kerry on two occasions, give us a single example where they worked with us 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 who have been killed and maimed because of the iranian-backed shiia militia. this is what they do and we are
supposed to trust them. 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 prohibitive equipment from germany. they refused 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 building now military posts in syria. we went into libya, created chaos and walked away. we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in iraq. we're 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 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, that will be his foreign policy legacy. we need to defeat this agreement while we still can, and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from colorado, distinguished member of the rules committee, mr. polis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for three minutes. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i rise
in opposition to this extremely convoluted rule as well as the underlying legislation. when i was a child in the 1980's, i remember my mother taking me to mother's embracing nuclear disarmament rallies and i recall wondering why america possesses enough nuclear weapons to blow up the entire world at least seven times over. as an adult, i never succeeded in finding a satisfactory answer to why we want to be able to blow up the world seven times. now, we're all here because the potential for nuclear war is one of the greatest threats to the future of humanity and perhaps to the future of life on the planet itself. that's why this agreement to make sure that iran, a country that supports terrorism, does not acquire nuclear weapons is so important. now, let's be clear what this deal is and what it isn't. it's not a peace deal. it's not a deal that calls on us to trust iran or like iran.
in fact, the very reason we want to make sure that iran doesn't develop nuclear weapons is we see how much damage they cause to their mischief making who supported hezbollah and others on the conventional front. if that was compounded by nuclear capabilities, it would significantly increase the chance of global destruction. this agreement is based on verification and enforcement. it's built on extensive electronic monitoring and unprecedented access for ternational investigators at suspected iranian nuclear sites. no deal is perfect but perfection can't be our standard or else we wouldn't support anything around here. our job is to consider if this deal is better than the alternatives. if congress rejects this agreement and it leads to a nuclear iran, what then? it was multilateral sanctions that brought iran to the negotiating table, not american sanctions alone. it's clear that russia and
china will likely grant iran sanctions relief regardless of what the u.s. decides to do, and we also worry about the dedication of our european allies in this regard. so with sanctions disappearing and iran's money being unfrozen, the deal's moving forward. shouldn't we want this agreement to proceed with the oversight of the united states of america to make sure that iran abides by the very letter of this agreement not to develop nuclear weapons? instead of standing in its way, we in congress should play a leading role in the implementation and rigid enforcement of this deal to prevent iran from developing nuclear weapons. . this agreement is an unprecedented opportunity to stop iran's nuclear weapons program and make the world a safer place. of all our options, it's the one most likely to succeed in preventing iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. i urge my colleagues not to stand in the way of this important deal to make sure that
iran a country that supports terrorism, has a terrible record of human rights violations at home, and even just two days ago said that the state of israel wouldn't last 25 years, it's important that we ensure that they don't have access to the nuclear weapons that will allow them to carry through with their terrorist goals. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the favorite son from windsor, colorado, congressman buck. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. buck: president obama negotiated with a band of villains. he believed iran would change their ways because of his kind and forgiving nature. but we've seen hypocrisy far too long to think they could change. we must prevent them acquiring nuclear capability. iran's leaders promise to wipe israel off the map and takes to
twitter to call for israel's annihilation. the administration has negotiated with iran a nuclear nonproliferation as if they were an honorable country with honorable intentions but it is certainly not honorable when our department of state lists iran as a state sponsor of terrorism and no honorable country would occupy that unworthy distinction for the past 30 years. nor would an honorable country supply terrorists around the world with weapons to kill americans and israelis. in fact, iran supplied i.e.d.'s to kill and maim american soldiers and marines in the iraq war. on the day we remember the worst terrorist attack on u.s. soil, we're going to vote on whether or not to allow billions of dollars of funding to the world's larblingest state sponsor of terror. this deal has at -- is at best delusional and at worst despicable. iran is in pursuit to have a nuclear weapon and their intentions toward the united states is death. i urge a vote in favor of this
rule and yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york. ms. slaughter: i yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from connecticut, ms. delauro. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for three minutes. ms. delauro: i rise to support the agreement reached by secretary kerry and the international community because i believe there is no better alternative for preventing iran from immediately developing a nuclear weapon. since the first sanctions were imposed on iran a decade ago, i have supported tough economic measures. as a means to bring iran to the negotiating table. in that respect the sanctions worked. but sanctions alone will not stop iran from moving toward nuclear weapons. after review of the july 14 agreement and all its annexes, i have reached the conclusion that the agreement is the best ooption available today for keeping nuclear weapons out of iranian hands. under the agreement, iran is bound, and i quote, under no
circumstances ever to seek, develop, or acquire any nuclear weapons. among other things iran must reduce its active centrifuges by 2/3, give up 97% of its uranium stockpile, reconfigure the reactor so it can't produce weapons grade plutonium. the number of inspectors in iran will triple. they will gain full access to nuclear facilities including the entire iranian supply chain at any time. this is the most intrusive inspection regime of any nonproliferation agreement in u.s. history. that is important because it will give the united states and the international community far greater insight into the rejome's behavior and enable us to monitor them closely. it is true that iran may try to cheat but that is exactly why we need this agreement. with severe restrictions and an agreesive -- and an aggressive regime in place, we will be much
more likely to discover any violations. in that event, the united states will be authorized to reimpose sanctions on iran immediately and that applies not just to the u.s. sanctions but to u.n. sanctions as well. in summary, this agreement comprises harsh restrictions on iran's nuclear activities a strong monetary system, tough penalties for violations, a group of 29 leading american scientists including noble laureates have called it, and again i quote, a technically sound, strin general and innovative deal to provide the necessary assurance in the coming decades and more that iran is not developing nuclear weapons, end quote. if we walk away from this agreement, the only remaining alternative is military action. we have been down that path for 15 years and we have seen the grave consequences of not allowing diplomatic efforts to move forward. ronald reagan said of the soviet union, and i quote, trust but
verify. this a i -- this agreement is not rooted in trust. but in our ability to verify compliance and to deal with enforcement. i believe it meets the goal of our negotiations to deny a dangerous iranian regime access to a nuclear weapon. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you very much. at this time i would like to yield one minute to the gentleman from sugarland, texas the gentleman from the energy and commerce committee, congressman pete olson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. olson: i thank my friend. this the worst parts of agreement with iran is that it opens the door to nuclear bombs blowing up right here in america. this man is a terrorist from
iran. al-barbsur.mansur he comes from a family of hate. the 1, he approached notorious drug cartel with a scheme to kill the ambassador from saudi arabia right here in this city. he offered them $15 million -- offered them $1.5 million for the hit. luckily, we caught him. president obama's agreement gives iran at least one -- gives iran at least $100 billion to hire this man and others to unleash nuclear material and death on innocent americans. we caught them once, will we
atch them again? tomorrow, vote to reject president obama's agreement with iran. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield two minutes, five minutes, no, i'm sorry, i'm going to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from california, ms. lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. ms. lee: thank you very much. let me thank our ranking member for yielding me time and also for your leadership on this vital global piece of national security issue. mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to h.res. 412, the rule providing for consideration of three bills surrounding the nuclear agreement negotiated by this administration and the p-5 plus one. make no mistake. these bills are nothing more than yet ood attempt to purposefully and deliberately thwart the iran deal. mr. speaker, all of us have the same goal, to prevent iran from develop agnew clear weapon.
as one who has been involved in many nuclear nonproliferation efforts since the 1970's, i am convinced that this deal brings us much closer to a nuclear weapons free iran. and i believe that the president negotiated with our p-5 plus one partners, while not perfect, this deal achieves that goal. the joint comprehensive plan of action cuts off all pathways to a bomb and ensures robust oversight and inspection. it's the best way to promote regional security and global peace. and the majority of americans agree. according to recent university of maryland poll, 55% said that congress should get behind this agreement. that's why we need to be clear on the ramifications of rejection of the deal. the if -- if the united states walks away, we'll be walking away alen. as united nations ambassador samantha powers stated in her recent politico op-ed, if we
walk away there's no diplomatic door number two. no do-over. no rewrite of the deal on the table. rejecting the iran deal will isolate the united states from our international partners and will not make us any safer. and it certainly won't result in a better deal with iran. instead, it would allow iran to accelerate their weapons programs with no oversight and it will significantly undermine our ability to engage with our partners on critical issues like addressing international terrorism. simply put, rejecting this deal would isolate the united states and would put us back on the path to war. as the scriptures say, let us study war no more. may i have an additional 20 seconds please? ms. slaughter: i yield the gentlelady 30 seconds. ms. lee: thank you very much. the scriptures do say let us study war no more. that's why it is critical for us to support the president and our
diplomats and give this deal a chance to succeed. s that defining moment for our country, for the world. let us continue to work for peace because the military option, that's always there. let us work for a world worthy of our children and future generations. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this rule. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: at this time i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman, the member of the rules committee, the gentleman from fair hope, alabama, congressman byrnes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. byrnes: i rise today in support of this rule and in strong opposition to the iran nuclear iagreement. president obama has created a false choice by claiming the only alternative to this deal is war. first of all, this deal itself can most definitely lead to war. by giving one of our biggest enemies access to nuclear
weapons, intercontinental ballistic missiles and billions of $s in sanctions relief, we are effectively giving iran the tools they need to live out their dream of bringing death to america. mr. byrne: the other flaw in the president's logic is that there are other alternatives than war. what about a better deal that includes any time, anywhere inspections. what about increasing the sanctions which were clearly working to begin with? what about requiring release of americans held as political prisoners in iran? these are clear alternatives. mr. speaker, this is the people's house. i think it is critically important that we actually thereon the people. last month i held over 15 town hall meetings all across my district. at each and every stop, someone asked me what congress is going to do to stop the iran nuclear deal. just look at the public opinion
polls. only 21% of those surveyed in a recent poll said they approve of this agreement. that's less than one in four americans who believe this is a good deal. i implore my colleagues to put the opinion of the american people over loyalty to some political party. i ask my colleagues to listen to our nation's military leaders who have made clear the serious consequences of giving iran access to icbm's instead of party bosses. i plead with my colleagues to look past short-term legacy of our president and instead look at the long-term ramifications this deal will have on the safety and security of the american people. mr. speaker, there is no greater responsibility of this house than to do everything we can to keep the american people safe. with that in mind, i strongly urge my colleagues to stand strong and oppose this deal. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i am pleased to yield five minutes to
the gentleman from massachusetts, a distinguished member of the rules committee, mr. mcgovern. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mcfworn: thank you. i rise today in strong support of the iran nuclear agreement and in strong opposition to this convoluted rule and process. today the house should have already complete -- mr. mcgovern: thank you. i rise today in strong support of the iran deal. today we have before us a convoluted process with three measures that won't go anywhere in the senate and will never reach the president's desk. the fact, the president has the votes to move this historic agroment forward. we should be having a serious debate and moving toward a vote in a timely fashion. instead, the republicans have cooked up a series of votes to drag this out and appeal to their extremist base. we know how serious this is for the security of the middle east, the united states and the world. after reading and listening to many diverse views, i believes
the strongest available option to prevent -- i believe it is the strongest available option to prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and prevent yet another war. these negotiations were never meant to solve all the problems that we have with iran. their purpose was clear from the beginning. to shut down the pathways available to iran to develop and produce a nuclear bomb. period. quite simply, is it better to have an iran capable of producing a knew leer weapon by early next year? or is it better to shut down that capability for the next 10 to 15 years and even longer. and let me be clear. the agreement is set up to ensure iran remains a nuclear weapon free state with mechanisms for inspections and verification that remain permanently in place. now i know that some hoped that a better deal might somehow be renegotiated if we just keep increasing sanctions and threaten or even use military force against iran but we already know that 10 years of sanctions and military threats
only gave us a significant increase in iran's nuclear capacity and that the number of centrifuges needed to produce weapons grade enriched uranium also increased. . we saw yirpe's program stopped and rolled back. the final agreement degrades even further iran's ability to develop a nuclear agreement, blocks all pathways for iran to acquire the materials needed to create a bomb and has the most comprehensive inspection regime of any nuclear arms agreement to date. in return, iran will receive sanctions relief that is phased in over the next decade, dependent on iran's compliance. do i trust iran? certainly not. iran doesn't trust us either, but, again, that's the whole point of negotiations. for nations that don't trust one another to sit down and to hammer out a deal that all parties can live with and abide
by. as nelson mandela is credited with saying, the best weapon is to sit down and talk. this means compromise for all parties to get something out of the final agreement. for iran that's sanctions relief. for the world, that means that iran without a nuclear weapon. it is not based on trust. it is based on tough inspections and verification. mr. speaker, this is not an accord between just the u.s. and iran. six of the world's major powers -- russia, china, france, germany, the u.k. and the u.s. hammered out this deal with iran. if the u.s. walks away now, we will never be able to put the pieces back together or get these nations to take a risk with us again. without this agreement, iran could simply return to developing a nuclear weapon. after two years of arduous negotiations, why would the u.s. insult the very nations whose cooperation and commitment we need to ensure iran's compliance?
why would we undermine our standing as a good faith negotiating partner, not just on this agreement but on every other negotiation we are engaged in now and in the future? mr. speaker, i do not believe that the iaea inquiry into iran's past nuclear activities is a side deal. it is its own separate bilateral agreement. it neither affects nor delays the p-5 plus one agreement's rigorous inspections and verification process on iran's obligations to significantly degrade and dismantle its nuclear infrastructure before getting any sanctions relief. but quite frankly, the u.s. long ago reached its own conclusions about iran's nuclear activities. we believe if left unchecked, iran would soon acquire enough weapons grade plutonium and highly enriched uranium to build a nuclear bomb. it's why we approved nuclear-related sanctions and supported international sanctions and it's why the white house began serious multilateral negotiations with
iran to cut off every pathway iran might have to make a nuclear weapon. and we were successful. we were successful. mr. speaker, my support for the comprehensive agreement is not something i give reluctantly or grudgingly. i am proud to support this deal and to cast my vote in support of the resolution of approval. and i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in opposing this rule and supporting the resolution approving this historic agreement and to rejecting both the roskam and pompeo bills that seek to delay its implementation. this is a good deal. it deserves our support. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, thank you very much. mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from the foreign affairs committee, the chairman of the subcommittee on terrorism, nonproliferation and trade, the gentleman from texas, judge poe. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. thank the gentleman.
mr. speaker, when i was home during the august break, i talked to a lot of folks, and many of them were fearful, they were fearful about national security and it focused on the deal, the iranian deal that we're here for today. the iranian deal, mr. speaker, is bad for america. it's bad for israel. it's bad for the middle east but oh, what a deal for iran. we approve this deal, they will be singing and dancing in the streets in iran, especially with the high ayatollah leading. why? the deal certifies a nuclear iran eventually. we can argue over when but they're going to get nuclear weapons. how lovely is that? the world going to be safer because of that? no. iran is a wolf in wolf's clothing. they make no -- they make absolutely no secret about they
want us dead. they want israel dead first. they were preaching this while we are working on this peace, peace, peace at any price deal. talking about how they want to destroy us. and so why don't we just look at the law right now? we've heard a little bit about a side deal. secretary kerry was before our foreign affairs committee. i asked him about a side deal. it came up about the iaea deal with iran. he said he hadn't read it. he's been briefed on it. congress needs to read the side deals before we ever vote to approve this deal. we got to read the fine print, like all of us is supposed to do when we sign a contract. now, let's read what the law says. the iran nuclear agreement review act is quite clear, mr. speaker. the president is obligated by law -- the law he signed -- to provide congress, and i quote, the agreement and any
additional materials related thereto, including annexes, appendices, side agreements, implementing materials, documents and guidance, technical or other understandings and related agreements. that's in the law. i haven't seen the side deal. i haven't seen anybody in congress that has seen the side deal. the law, the president signed, says we are to see all these side deals, agreements before we even vote on whether or not to approve this deal. otherwise, the clock doesn't start ticking for the 60-day approval requirement. so show us the side deal. let us read it. i think congress maybe has had enough embarrassment over the years voting on laws where we haven't seen all of the information before we voted on it. show us the side agreement, let us go from there.
of course, the deal in itself is a bad deal for all of us. i don't understand why we're giving $150 billion to iran while we got $47 billion in claims by americans against iran for terrorist activities. why don't we give them the money first? and i know i'm out of time, but let's not approve the deal. let's vote for the rule and make sure before we ever see any vote on the agreement we see the side deals. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair would advise members that the gentleman from texas has 7 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentlelady from new york has one minute remaining. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, may i inquire of my colleague if he has further speakers? if not, i'm prepared to close. mr. sessions: in response to gentlewoman we have three or four more speakers. ms. slaughter: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from
georgia, the gentleman, congressman carter. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. carter: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise today to discuss what i believe will be one of the most consequential votes in the history of this body. a fundamental duty of the federal government so much that it is enshrined in the preample to our constitution is to provide for the -- preamble to our constitution to provide for the common defense. will this be good for the safety of the american people? no. it imperils the united states and for our allies around the world. look to iran's neighbors who universally opposed the deal. why? because it's built on trusting the regime that's cheated on international agreements time and again and because it will launch a nuclear arms race in the most unstable region in the world. so today we have a choice, and to me the choice is clear. we can support this deal and stand with the regime that spreads terror around the leads leads to people --
people in chants death to america. or we can reject the deal and stand strong as a country, resolute in our pursuit of freedom and justice, stand with our allies like israel and stand with the american people who overwhelmingly oppose the deal. i know where i stand. i ask my colleagues to join me in opposing this deal and send a clear message to the deal that we will not accept a nuclear iran. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, thank you very much. at this time i'd like to yield to the gentleman with compassion and healing, a gentleman who is a physician, the gentleman, congressman phil roe. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. roe: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to support legislation expressing disapproval of this proposed nuclear deal with iran. 40 years ago i was a young soldier just south of the demillerized zone in korea when they did not have a nuclear weapon. now when they joined the nuclear community, does the
world feel safer with a rogue nation having a nuclear weapon? i pose this question, what is this agreement in america for america? does it make us safer? this is not a republican or democratic issue. this is an american issue. it affects all of us. it affects the middle east where our closest ally feels endangered and i agree they are and i pose the narrative question -- what is it about death to america this administration does not understand? the president presents a false narrative. war or this agreement. i could not disagree more. the sanctions brought the iranians to the negotiating table. and what kind of agreement did we negotiate? what happened to anytime, anyplace inspections? what happened to americans actually being on the inspection team? i think everyone, every thoughtful person realizes this just slows the process down but ultimately the iranians will develop a nuclear weapon. i support the rule and the underlying bills. i yield back the balance of my
time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, thank you very much. mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield one minute to the former chairman of the foreign affairs committee, the gentlewoman from miami, florida, congresswoman ileana ros-lehtinen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida is recognized for one minute. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you very much, mr. speaker. we need to ask ourselves, does this nuclear deal with iran make the united states safer, does it make israel safer and 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 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 jeopardized 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, and i thank you for the time, mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, thank you very much. mr. speaker,ed a this time i'd like to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman who spent several hours with us, four, five hours in the rules committee with us, the gentleman from wheaton, illinois, one minute to congressman roskam. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one minute. mr. roskam: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank chairman sessions. secretary kerry came and gave a briefing to a closed session of congress, part of it was open for discussion and he said something provocative at the end. he said, folks, what's the alternative? i said to him in a question and
answer session. you know, mr. secretary, for two years the administration has been telling us that no deal is better than a bad deal. and if no deal is better than a bad deal, that means there was an alternative. secretary kerry, during that same briefing, said he walked away from the deal three times with the iranians and i said, secretary, when you walked away from the deal, that means that there was an alternative. so the administration does not get to argue today, mr. speaker, to this congress or to the american people that there is no alternative. there's an alternative, and this house is prepared to offer alternatives. i appreciate chairman sessions. i appreciate the rules committee bringing forth this package of bills that we can begin to discuss getting us out from underneath a disastrous deal. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from georgia, congressman jody hice. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is
recognized for one minute. mr. hice: thank you, mr. speaker. and i appreciate the chairman for providing this time. i rise in support of the rule and against the iran nuclear deal. mr. speaker, we cannot in good onscious have an agreement brokered by agreements nor can we grant $150 billion to the world's foremost sponsor of terror and turn our backs on israel. mr. speaker, it is because of this bad deal that the supreme leader of iran now is publicly embolden to say that israel will not exist in 25 years and that terror will continue to plague the middle east, israel and the entire world. mr. speaker, as we approach september 11, i would ask my colleagues to please join me in rejecting this bad deal and let's defeat terrorism rather than advance it.
thank you very much, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentlelady has one minute remaining. mr. sessions: at this time i would like to yield one minute to the gentleman from illinois. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today in strong opposition to the deal with ran. mr. bost: in addition the regime is working to undermine governments across the northeast, including iran -- i cross the middle east, including iran, syria, and lebanon. as the iraniansal rally behind death to america, i'm left to wonder what other options we have but stopping them from obtaining the most dangerous weapons on earth.
unfortunately, i believe this deal falls way short of that goal. and i'm -- and i pledge and will be working with my colleagues to make sure that we oppose this deal and that we find other alternatives and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: we reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: may i inquire again if my colleague has further speakers? mr. sessions: that's why i've -- i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. slaughter: thank you, mr. speaker. the weight of this decision falls heavily on this chamber. instead of following regular order, the majority's insistence on governing by crisis has once more taken over and we're thrown into disarray. this iran agreement is the best option that we have to curbing iran's nuclear ambitions. people who know nuclear
scientists, ambassadors, people of the military have all said, including colin powell, i might add that this is a good deal. this is a good negotiation that will help keep us safe. the work ahead will be arduous and it's going to take our nation with our international partners who also negotiated this agreement with us. but peace is always prefer to believe war and i urge my colleagues to support the agreement and vote no on this rule and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. sotions: thank you very much. i want to thank my distinguished colleagues and friends on the rules committee, mr. mcgovern, judge hastings and ms. slaughter for their participation today and i thank you, ms. slaughter for your professional attributes in this very, very difficult debate in the last few days that have taken many, many hours.
it's clear to me that the deal with the -- it's clear to me that the deal the administration negotiated is a disaster. we talked about that all morning. speaker after speaker after speaker after speaker spoke about the lack of benefit to the american people, it undermines american leadership abroad, it empowers the iranian regime and ignores what has been decades of policy where americans would not deal with terrorists. by overturning the decades of this bipartisan policy, the administration is telling the world that the united states is willing to negotiate with rogue states. those people who say death to america, we'll in negotiation give them exactly what they want. this will embolden future actors, it will limit the united states' ability to progress -- to aggressively pursue sanctions against other countries, the rest of the world will take note of our weakness. this is not leading, this is
weakness. if the united states is willing to lift sanctions against iran we will unilaterally limit our ability to solve issues through diplomacy and through peace. it's time -- it's time for congress to stop this deal which is why republicans are on the floor today. we invite all our colleagues to vote with us. because it's the right thing. the adoption of this rule, obviously the lengthy debate we're going to have today is going to lead us to a conclusion that the underlying piece of legislation must be properly voted onful i yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered. the previous question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. ms. slaughter: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady requests the yeas and nays. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ord.
members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 2436789 the nays are 186. the resolution is adopted. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the chair lays before the house a message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states. section 202-d of the national emergencies act 50 united states code 1622-d provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, within the 0 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration the president publishes in the federal register and transmits to the congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. consistent with this provision, i have sent to the federal register the enclosed notice stating that the emergency declared in proclamation 7463
with respect to the terrorist acts -- attacks on the united states of september 11, 2011, is to continue in effect for an additional year. the terrorist threat that led to the declaration on september 14, 2001, of a national emergency continues. for this reason i have determined that it is necessary to continue in effect after september 14, 2015, the national emergency with respect to the terrorist threat. signed, barack obama, the white house, september 10, 2015. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on foreign affairs and ordered printed. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair would ask all members o please take their seats.
the chair would ask all members to please clear the aisles and take their seats. would ask all members and staff to please thick their conversations from the floor. -- please take their conversations from the floor. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to
house resolution 412, i call up h.res. 411 and i ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 411, resolution finding that the president has not complied with section 2 of the iran nuclear agreement review act of 2015. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 412 the resolution is considered as read. the resolution shall be debatable for two hours equally divided and controlled by the chair of the committee on foreign affairs and the minority leader or their respective designees, the gentleman from california, mr. royce, will control one hour. the gentleman from california, mr. schiff, and the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings, will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. royce: thank you. thank you very much, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to submit extraneous materials on this measure. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. royce: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend.
the chair would ask all members to please take their seats. ask all members and staff to please their conversations from the floor. mr. royce: mr. speaker, i think we all know why we are here to debate this resolution today. and the bottom line is that for those of us that were involved in this agreement, we always thought that international inspections were going to be done by international inspectors. not by the iranians. not by those in the iranian regime. and whether you like the iran agreement or not, one thing i think all members can agree on is that sound verification must viable drock of any agreement. iran cannot cheat and get away with it, and the reason this is
an issue for us is because iran has cheated on every past agreement. that's why the verification was so important. the problem is key aspects of this verification agreement have not been presented to congress to review. indeed, there are two separate arrangements agreed to between iran and an arm of the u.n. here, the international atomic energy agency. one is regarding the regime's past bomb work of which there are a thousand pages of evidence that the iaea tell us about, and the other involves access to the iranian military base at parchin where that evidence shows that that testing took place. in order to fully assess the agreement, members of congress should have access to these
documents. this is especially important since iran will almost certainly treat these arrangements and setting a -- as setting a standard for future iaea requests to assess any suspicious sites, especially military sites since they have made it clear nobody is going to their military sites. physical access by the iaea to parchin is critical to understanding iran's past bomb work. this is where iran constructed a large explosives containment vessel, to quote the iaea. and why did they do it? to conduct experiments related to the development say the international inspectors, of nuclear weapons. iran has blocked their access, the international inspectors' access, to parchin for years, and in the meantime we are told
by those inspectors that they watch on spy satellite as iran bulldozes and paves over the site. and then paves over the site again. if the international inspectors cannot attain a clear understanding of the experimentation that took place, then the united states will have great difficulty figuring out how long it would take iran to rush towards a nuclear weapon. in recent congressional testimony, administration officials expressed confidence in their access to suspicious sites that the agreement provides the iaea. yet these separate angments -- arrangements have the potential to seriously weaken our ability to verify the agreement as a whole if it is true that iran is going to do self-inspections here which is what iran asserts. mr. speaker, the history of iranian negotiating behavior as we know is to pocket past
concessions and then what do they do? they push for more and more and more. the separate arrangement agreed to between the iaea eniran regarding inspection of the facilities at parchin will almost certainly be regarded by that government in iran has a precedent for their iaea access to future suspicious sites in iran. in other words, you don't get access to this site, you're not going to get access to other military sites where there's evidence that the same type of thing has occurred. so if iran won't let international inspectors do the international inspecting today, what makes us think that the iranians will allow intrusive terms to these agreements in the future after sanctions have been lifted when we find evidence of the next site? i have little doubt that the side deals of today will become central to the agreement's
verification provisions tomorrow. this makes it imperative that these agreements are made available to congress. mr. speaker, 350 members, house -- of this house, democrats and republicans, think we have majority of the democrats, we had, i think, every republican right to secretary kerry. last fall iran's willingness to resolve concerns over its bomb work, as we said in that letter, is a fundamental test of iran's intention to uphold a comprehensive agreement. that's why we all wrote that letter together. in order to make that point. the administration once took the same position we are taking right now on the house floor as well, but it gave that position away in negotiations. it gave away that position. reviewing these site agreements is critical to understanding
whether iran intends to pass that test. we need access to those agreements. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california, mr. royce, reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. schiff. mr. schiff: thank you, mr. speaker. i claim the time in opposition and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. schiff: after several years of difficult negotiations with a dangerous and malevolent regime, the administration and representatives of the other p5+1 nations reached an agreement with iran over its nuclear program. the primary objective of the united states in the negotiations was to prevent iran from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon. given the unthinkable consequences of iran, the world's foremost sponsor of terrorism obtaining the bomb, this has been an overriding national security imperative of the united states for decades. as an american and as a jew who is deeply concerned about the security of israel, it is also
intensely personal. i believe our vital interests have been advanced under the agreement since it would be extremely difficult for iran to amass enough figuresable material to make a nuclear weapon without giving the united states ample notice and time to stop it. we will still need to guard against any iranian effort to obtain nuclear material or technology from proliferators abroad, a reality even if iran had given up all enrichment, but the agreement likely gives the world at least a decade and a half without the prospect of an iranian nuclear weapon and without going to war to make that so. that is a major achievement. the united states realized this objective by securing a number of important provisions in the agreement, including the power to snap back sanctions in whole or in part and not subject to a veto in the united nations. th procured extensive intrusive inspections regime that lasts for 25 years or
more. by applying to the whole chain of the enrichment process from the ground to the centrifuge, it realistically precludes iran from developing a hidden and parallel enrichment process. with respect to those inspections i think it's very important to clarify something which i off hear the opponents obscure and that is there are inspection was respect to iran's prior military work, inspections of known nuclear sites, and inspections of other sites which we may suspect iran may conduct work in the future. the mechanisms with respect to each are different. with respect to the no nuclear sites, there are 24-7 eyes on iran's enrichment activities that will be the most extensive and intrusive inspections any nation has seen of its nuclear program. with respect to its potential sites, that is sites we don't know where we suspect in the
future they may do work, we'll have a mechanism to obtain inspections in a timely way. and certainly in a timely enough way that if they were to ever utilize radioactive material, they would be detected. and finally, we have the inspections into their prior military work, and will i say this with respect to the prior military work, those of us that have reviewed the intelligence know that we have an extensive bank of information about what iran had been doing in the past. . to the degree we have a baseline of what iran's work has been, we have a baseline and i think that's a pivotal consideration going forward. as recently as yesterday, the director of national intelligence stated that he has great confidence that we can determine if iran fails to comply with the agreement. for me it is the size and sophistication of iran's nuclear enrichment capability ability after 15 years that is the key challenge. at that point it is the work necessary to produce the mechanism for the bomb that
becomes the real obstacle to a breakout and that work is the most challenging to detect. nevertheless, i have searched for a better, credible alternative and concluded that there is none. when it comes to predicting the future, we are all looking through the glass darkly, but if congress rejects a deal agreed to by the administration and most of the world, the sanctions regime will, if not collapse, almost certainly erode. this does not mean that iran necessarily dashes madly for a bomb, but it will almost certainly move forward with its enrichment program, unconstrained by inspections, limits on research and development of new centrifuges or other protections in the deal. in short, iran will have many of the advantages of the deal in access to money and trade with none of its disadvantages. instead of rejecting the deal, therefore, congress should focus on making it stronger. first, we should make it clear
that if iran cheats, the repercussions will be severe. second, we should continue to strengthen our intelligence capabilities to detect any form of iranian noncompliance. third, we should establish the expectation that while iran will be permitted to have an enrichment capability for civilian use, it will never, never be permitted to produce highly enriched uranium, and if it attempts to do so, it will be stopped with force. fourth, we will share with israel all the technologies necessary to maintain its regional military superiority and if necessary to destroy iran's nuclear facilities no matter how deep the bunker. and finally, we're prepared to work with israel and our gulf allies to make sure that every action iran takes to use its new-found wealth for destructive activities in the region will prompt and opposite reaction and -- equal and opposite reaction and will
combat their influence. the iranian people will one day throw off the shackles of their oppressive regime, and i hope that this deal will empower those who wish to reform iranian governance and behavior. the 15 years or more this agreement provides will give us the time to test that proposition. then, as now, if iran is determined to develop the bomb, there is only one way to stop it and that is by the use of force. but the american people and others around the world will recognize that we did everything possible to avoid war. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. royce. mr. royce: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. nunes, chairman of the permanent select committee on intelligence. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california, mr. nunes, is recognized for three minutes. mr. nunes: thank you for yielding. mr. speaker, although the obama administration has pitched the iran nuclear accord to prevent the ayatollahs from making
nuclear weapons, it lifts their activities after 10 to 15 years. many of my fellow members wonder how the administration can be so naive as to pave the way for an iranian bomb in the course of trying to prevent an iranian bomb. well, the answer is clear to me. the president is gambling. he's betting on the very act of engaging with iran will moderate the regime's behavior. so that in a decade or so from now we won't have to worry about it anymore. he has called his engagement with iran a cat -- calculated risk. indeed it is a risk. as i said, the president is placing a bet, but why would anyone bet on the moderation of the iranian regime? it has not changed one iota since the ayatollah seized power since 1979. iran is the world's biggest state sponsor of terrorism. it is also responsible for the deaths of thousands of u.s.
soldiers in iraq. obama has spoken of the ayatollah khomeini as possibly seeking to rejoin the community of nations this is a thin read to justify giving iran a path to a bomb in the near future. with the ritual death to america chants. i don't know how the iranians can make it any more clorer that they don't want to re-- clearer that they don't want to rejoin the community of nations. they want to blow up the community of nations. soon after the iranian agreement was signed, khomeini himself tweeted a silhouette image of president obama holding a gun to his head. i just don't understand what is more clear that this regime could do to make its intentions clearer to the american people. but our president sees things differently, as he told "the new york times," if the nuclear agreement is signed, quote, who knows, iran may change. well, consider this. if you're rolling the dice at a
casino, who knows, you may roll a seven. if you're at the roulette wheel, who knows, it may land on your number. but when you're gambling one thing is for sure in the long run, the casino -- one thing is for sure, in the long run, the casino wins. mr. speaker, unfortunately this is not a casino nor is it about a gambler losing money. this is about gambling on human lives. the u.s. lives and our western allies. and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. schiff. mr. schiff: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield five minutes to the gentlelady from new york, mrs. lowey, the ranking member of the appropriations committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for five minutes. mrs. lowey: thank you, mr. speaker. reasonable people disagree about the merits and shortcomings of the joint comprehensive plan of action. in the strongest democracy in
the world, we have the sacred duty to uphold the high standard of debate and govern responsibly. that's why i'm profoundly disappointed by personal attacks, character assassinations on both sides of this debate, and i am outraged by the republicans' attempt to score political points on this critical issue of national and global security. the threat to pursue wasteful litigation and to tie the hands of our president until the end of his term are particularly outrageous when the senate has indicated it will not even consider these measures. i strongly oppose the blatantly irresponsible partisan political measures before the house this week. as ranking democratic member of the house appropriations committee and the subcommittee on foreign operatis, i have participated in dozens of classified and unclassified iran briefings with the obama
administration, including members of our negotiating team and colleagues in congress during the last two years. i have thoroughly evaluated the joint comprehensive plan of action released in july, met with foreign leaders, nuclear experts and heard from thousandses of thoughtful and passionate -- thousandses of thoughtful and passionate people. i will vote against approval of the agreement. sufficient safeguards simply are not in place to address the risks associated with this agreement, and it will not dismantle iran's nuclear infrastructure. first, in approximate 15 years, iran will become an internationally nuclear threshold state capable of producing highly enriched uranium to develop a nuclear weapon. second, releaving u.n. sanctions on conventional arms and ballistic missiles and releasing billions of dollars to the iranian regime will lead
to a dangerous regional weapons race and enable iran to bolster hamas ding of hezbollah, and assad. third, the deal does not require them to disclose their previous work before sanctions relief is provided. inspectors will not have anytime anywhere access to the most suspicious facilities, particularly the parchin military complex, with a process that lacks transparency and could delay inspectors' access for up to 24 days. finally, there are no clear accountability measures regarding punishment from minor violations of the agreement. in recent weeks, the administration has responded to some of my concerns by committing to additional security assistance to israel and our gulf partners and to improving international cooperation on countering
iran's nonnuclear destabilizing activities. i will work in congress and with the administration to expeditiously implement these commitments to enhance, not just maintain, nonnuclear-related sanctions to establish stronger mechanisms to deter iran and to ensure iran never develops a nuclear weapon. one of my highest priorities will continue to be the protection of israel's qualitative military edge so that our closest ally in the region can defend itself against all threats from iran or its proxies. in the same week, my colleagues, that congress holds this important vote, iran's supreme leader vowed again to annihilate the jewish state of israel and to vilify the great satan that he calls the united states of america.
it is my sincere hope that we can work together in a bipartisan way moving forward. the security of the united states of america and our allies depends on it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. royce. mr. royce: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, who chairs the foreign affairs subcommittee on the middle east and north africa and was the author of some of the iran sanctions laws that are enforced today. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida is recognized for two minutes. ms. ros-lehtinen: i thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank my esteemed chairman for his leadership on this critical issue and 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 detest the united states, the west and the democratic jewish state of israel, our steadfast partner. the supreme leader of iran constantly insites chants death to america and death to america. are we not listening? and through its proxies, hezbollah and hamas, iran seeks to make this threat into a reality. and earlier this week, the supreme leader threatened that israel will no longer exist in just 25 years. and 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, and this just isn't 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 my chairman, mr. royce, and mr. pompeo for this resolution and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. schiff. mr. schiff: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, the distinguished assistant democratic leader, mr. clyburn. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for three minutes. mr. clyburn: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. i rise today in strong support of the joint comprehensive plan of action negotiated between the united states, the permanent five members of the united nations security council
plus germany. the european union and iran. i support this deal because it is the best available option to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, an outcome that all of us agree must be prevented. the opponents of this agreement say that iran supports terrorism. i don't disagree with that. this deal, however, is about only one issue, the issue that the entire world agrees is by far the most pressing -- preventing iran from getting a nuclear weapon. it is precisely because iran is so nefarious that this deal is o important. dangers remain. iran will be far more dangerous if they acquired a nuclear weapon. this deal is the best way to prevent that unacceptable
outcome. the opponents of this agreement say that we can't trust the iranians to abide by the agreements' strict restrictions on their nuclear program. that may be true, and i wouldn't be supporting the agreement if it required us to trust the iranians, but it doesn't. this deal is built around the strictest verifications ever devised. -- we will s to likely catch them using the verification procedures under this deal than we would be without it. . were this deal in place if we do cash iran dashing toward a nuclear weapon, all options will be on the table to stop them. but military force must always be a last resort. i have not heard any of the opponents of this agreement
present any realistic diplomatic alternative that would be anywhere near as likely to stop iran from getting a nuclear weapon. if we reject this deal, military action will become more likely. whenever we send americans into harm's way, we must be able to look them and their families in the eye and honestly tell them that we have exhausted every other option. this deal is a diplomatic option we must exhaust. this deal's opponents resent -- present no other. israeli prime minister rabin said, and i quote, you don't make peace with friends. you make it with unsavory enemies. end of quote. we are now faced with three
choices. this deal drastically increase likelihood of military confrontation, or a nuclear iran. i support this deal and ask my colleagues to join me in doing so. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. royce. mr. royce: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith, chairman of the foreign affairs subcommittee on africa, global health, global human rights, and international organizations. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. smith: mr. speaker, it was previously unacceptable an iranian nuclear state is now inevitable under the terms and conditions under the joint comprehensive plan of action. it is riddled with serious flaws, gaps, and huge concessions to iran. taken as a whole it poses a threat to israel and other friends in the region and is a significant risk to the united states. not only is iran now permitted to continue enriching uranium, a previous nonnegotiable red
line with no enrichment whatsoever, but under this agreement iran will be able to assemble an industrial-scale nuclear program once the agreement begins to sunset in as little as a decade. make no mistake about it, iran's decade long hatred of israel shows no sign of abating any time soon. yesterday the times of israel reported that iran's supreme leader has said to israel, you will not see the next 25 years. adding that the jewish state will be hounded until it's destroyed. mr. speaker, inspections are anything but any time or anywhere the obama administration's previous pledge to the nation and the world. we have learned that the iaea has entered into a secret agreement that precludes unfettered robust inspection. it also violates the corker law we have not gotten that information. mr. speaker, iran is the world's leading supporter of terrorism. disagreement -- this agreement provides tens of billions of
dollars for weapons and war making material. the supreme leader also criticized any call to end his ballistic missile program. another 11th hour concession. he called that stupid and idiotic as the supreme leader. and that they should mass-produce such weapons, such means of delivery. countries build icbms, mr. speaker, to deliver nukes. the administration was reluctant. i held two hearings, the chairman held several hearings on the americans being held hostage. they remain in jail, abused, tortured, or missing. why are they not free? i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. schiff. mr. schiff: mr. speaker, at this point i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from indiana, mr. visclosky, the ranking member of the appropriation committee's subcommittee on defense. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for three minutes. mr. visclosky: i thank the
gentleman for the time. i rise to express my strong support for the iran nuclear agreement. as the ranking member of the defense subcommittee of the house appropriations committee, i'm acutely aware of the harmful influence iran and his proxies have on the security situation in the greater middle east. however, despite my clear and deep distrust of iran, i firmly support the joint comprehensive plan of action given the improvement it works. this hard fought multilateral agreement will severely limit iran's nuclear am missions, establish a verifiable and robust inspection regime, allow for the timely reinstatement of sanctions for violations of this agreement, and in no way limit u.s. military options. i can argue that the agreement -- i can't argue that the agreement is perfect and i am frustrated at its limited scope, however in any
negotiation, especially one among sovereign nation, each having their own economic and security considerations, some compromise is necessary. critically i believe the agreement reaches an accomplishment and the goal of preventing iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. i concur with the sentiments of my esteemed friend and former senator, richard lugar, who recently croat that congressional rejection of the iran deal would kill the last chance for washington to reach a verifiable iranian commitment not to build a nuclear weapon. and destroy the effective coalition that brought iran to the negotiating table. i believe it is vital for the duration of the agreement that the u.s. leads the international community to maintain focus on iran's compliance and ensures that iran does not undermine regional stability through other pathways. to accomplish this, we must
remain steadfast in our commitments to israel and all our regional partners. i ask all to constructively work to improve the security situation in the middle east rather than using all of their energy to undermine the agreement. we cannot rely on force of arms alone to bring lasting stability to any region of the world. in conclusion, i do hope that the exhaustive multilateral negotiations that led to this agreement will serve as a template for future u.s. and international engagement and other outstanding issues that have led to instability and violence in the region, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield back. the gentleman from california, mr. royce, is recognized. mr. royce: yes, mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, judge poe, chairman of the foreign affairs subcommittee on terrorism, nonproliferation, and trade.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. poe: i thank the chairman from california and his leadership on this critical national security issue. this iranian deal promises peace, peace in our time by guaranteeing a nuclear weapon ized iran in our children's time. anyone who has read the iran nuclear agreement act should support this legislation before s. 9 iran nuclear agreement act is to allow the representatives of the american people, us, to read what's in the deal before we vote on the deal. the nuclear deal with iran may be the most important international agreement in our lifetime. and the coker bill is crystal clear when it comes to defining what the president needs to provide congress before the
review period of 60 days begins . the president is obligated under the law, let me read a portion of the law, that the president signed. here's what it says. the congress is allowed to have the agreement itself, any additional materials related thereto, including annexes, apen december, codicils, side agreements, implementing peerns, documents, and guidance, technical or other understandings, and any related agreementses -- agreements. the logic behind this requirement is simple. congress cannot review an agreement without having access to everything, including the fine print. we need to see all the secret side deals, mr. speaker. testifying before the foreign affairs committee, secretary kerry, who was making the deal for us, said that even he had not seen the secret side deals. these secret deals are not just
technical formalities. and the deals i'm talking about are the iaea agreement to let iran inspect itself and the parchin facility. it is known as the place where iran has worked to build nuclear warheads. there's absolutely nothing normal about allowing iran to inspect itself. that's what this side agreement apparently does if we ever get to see the whole thing. i was a judge in texas for a long time. that's like a burglar coming on trial and say hey, judge, you want 12 burglars on my jury. we would never let that. but we will let iran inspect itself? we want to see the side secret deals, and these revelations may be only the tip of the iceberg. what else is included in these secret deals, these side deals? we don't know because we haven't been furnished by law these deals. it's the legal right of congress to know all of those details before voting to approve or disapprove this
nuclear agreement. we in congress and representatives of the people. isn't it about time we start reading all the information before we vote? i don't know that congress has learned that lesson. the citizens of this country have a right to know absolutely about these side deals. the president signs the corker bill. it's the law. he has to live by it whether he likes it or not. that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. schiff. mr. schiff: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentlelady from illinois, ms. schakowsky. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois is recognized for three minutes. ms. schakowsky: in 2002 the president of the united states and this congress voted to address the perceived threat of a mushroom cloud coming from iraq by going to war. a war that unleashed massive violence in the middle east and threatens the world even today. the obama administration faced
with the actual threat of a nuclear weaponized iran has stood instead the path of diplomacy, the path of peace. i'm proud to support this historic agreement. as the president said, quote, this deal demonstrates that american diplomacy can bring about real and meaningful change, change that makes our country and the world safer and more secure. voices inside and outside the congress are calling for a rejection of this historic agreement. among them the same neocons who stampeded the united states into war with iraq. they were congress then and they are wrong now. iran is now two to three months from being able to produce a nuclear weapon, and yet the critics have offered no credible alternative to a deal that blocks all the paths to a nuclear weapon. now, we know this deal is not perfect. iran's a bad actor. the president and all of us
would have much preferred a deal that prohibits iran from enriching any uranium for ever and maintain sanctions until iran changes its behavior, becomes a responsible member of the world community, but that deal didn't happen because it never could have happened. but this deal greatly improves the outlook for peace by blocking all of iran's top tests with nuclear weapon. this is carefully spelled out in the agreement itself, often in very technical language around stockpiles of rich uranium will be reduced from enough for 10 bombs to less than one. the number of iran's installed centrifuges is reduced by over 2/3. far from trugs iran, the deal demands the most robust, intrusive inspections regime ever in an international agreement. we have heard yesterday many of us from the ambassadors from five of our allies in the p5+1, these ambassadors said if the
united states walks away, iran would be without any constraints to move ahead with its nuclear weapons program. all paths would be open. there would be no inspections whatsoever. no insight into iran's activities. the ability of the united states to build meaningful international coalitions would be eroded for the foreseeable uture. i view this upcoming vote on iran as one of the most important of my career. and my colleagues, i would say that is true for much. one of the most important of my life. and for me the choice is clear. diplomacy over war. and colleagues let's remember nothing is off the table. but why wouldn't we choose peace and give peace a chance? i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the chair recognizes the
gentleman from california, mr. royce. mr. royce: mr. speaker, part of diplomacy, part -- i yield myself two minutes. part of the diplomacy is making certain that you have verification. and our problem here is that the iranians are boasting right now that the u.s. is not going to have access or any other international i.n.s. spectors are going to have access to their -- inspectors are going to have access to their military sites where they do this work. the problem is that inspectors don't get 24 hours notice, they get 24 days notice. and then they go through a process in which iran and china and russia can block and the former head of the c.i.a., michael haden, testified in front of the foreign affairs committee, that we never believed that the iranian -- that the uranium at iran's declared facilities would ever make its way into a weapon. we always believed that that work would be done somewhere else in secret. .
o again, if you cannot get international inspectors into parchin, where they did that work, what makes us believe that in the future we'll have international inspectors, once that's the established premise, go anywhere else? go anywhere else. as haden said, requiring consultations between the world powers and iran takes inspections from the technical level and puts it at the political level which we he lls a formula for chaos, obfuscation, ambiguity, and doubt. and we do not even know how bad the capitulation was in the side agreement a kitchlation that will undermine the ability to catch iranians cheating. that's why we're concerned about the way this was negotiated. but i'll reserve the balance of my time.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california eserves. the gentleman from california. mr. royce: let me go now and yield three minutes if i could, mr. speaker to the gentleman from kansas, mr. pompeo, the author of house resolution 411. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. pompeo: thank you, mr. speaker, and thank you, chairman royce. a great deal about what we have learned about this deal has come out of your committee. thank you for all the hard work the foreign affairs committee has done relating to this agreement. there's lots of things to say about the iranian deal that this president has set up but this bill is very narrow and very simple and very straightforward. it's aimed to establish a simple precedent, which says if the president signs something into law, he's going to fulfill the obligation which he has made for himself. i've listened to the debate so far today, i can tell you that we've not had any member of this house stand up and tell you that
they have read the entire agreement. i suspect that we will not. that's because there is no american who has read the entire agreement. that's right, not the president of the united states, not the secretary of state, no undersecretary sherman new york member of congress, no member of the public, no american citizen has read this entire agreement. and yet we've got members who say, this is a great deal and i'm excited to vote for it. i don't know how one could feel that way about an agreement that one has not read. we have members of congress stand up and demand that they see -- that they've seen the text of bills that rename -- that they see the text of bills that rename post office, yet this is a historic agreement and many of my colleagues will vote for it without knowing what the details are about important components of how we're going to verify this the iranian regime has complied with this agreement. i think that's deeply troubling. i think as representatives we have a moral obligation to understand what it is we're
voting on. i think we have a constitutional duty to require that the president comply with his obligations. and i know there's a legal obligation for the president to turn over every element of this deal. mr. speaker, in july, i and senator cotton traveled to vienna, where we were informed by the deputy director of the iaea of these two secret side deals he looked us straight in the eye and said he'd read them but i wasn't going to get to. i think that's wrong. i think it makes it impossible for a member of congress to support this agreement. he informed me that iranians had read these two secret side deals. but senator cotton and i weren't going to get to read them. i have spent the intervening 50 days asking, cajoling, demanding, praying that this president would do what he's required to do under corker-cardin and what every member of congress is entitled to have, that is provide us with the deal. we don't have that. and h.res. 411 simply says we as
members of congress are going to demand that this president comply with what corker-cardin sets out. show us the terms of the deal. allow us the opportunity to read the agreement so that we can form judgments and the american people can form judgments about its scope. in the absence of that, h.res. 411 makes clear that the president can't lift sanctions. that was the deal. in exchange for not demanding that this be a treaty, corker-cardin said what we want is simple transparency. just show us the simple terms of the deal. and this president couldn't do it. i ask all of my leagues to vote for h.res. 411 and demand that the president show us the secret side deals. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expire. the gentleman from california reserves, the chair recognizes the gentleman from california mr. schiff. mr. schiff: i'm pleased to yield to the gentleman, mr. becerra. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.
mr. becerra: i thank the gentleman for yielding time. the goal of america and the international community in our negotiations with iran is and has been to prevent iran from producing and possessing nuclear weapons. by all accounts iran had already reached a point where it was perhaps just months away from crossing that nuclear threshold. i repeat, months away. not years, not decades, months away. so few votes can be taken more seriously than one intended to halt the spread of nuclear weapons. that's why this congress and the american people should support the agreement negotiated to prevent iran from producing and possessing nuclear weapons and we should vote in this congress against any of these congressional measures attempting to thwart its implementation. the negotiate aid greement provides for inspection and verification a regime which iran had to consent to and it must
now submit to. that regime for inspection and verification is not just credible, it's enforceable. and those who have conducted nuclear inspections will tell you that, as those who deal with knew -- ask those who deal with nuclear materials and they'll tell you that. and those who have butted heads and had to negotiate with iran will tell you that. our ability to respond as well should iran decide to regress from its obligations is real and it's robust. nothing in this negotiated agreement is based on trust. the inspections, the penalties, they all are mandatory and unambiguous in their terms. no deal is perfect. we can always think of ways of making a deal better. but thinking is not doing. speculation won't stop iran from reach agnew clear weapons capability. it should escape no one's notice that every measure, every economic sanction in place today against iran has failed to stop
iran's lurch toward a nuclear weapon. remember, perhaps only months away from that nuclear threshold, it was time for america and our international partners to take this to another level before the only alternative available to all of us was the use of military force. this is why the u.s., great britain, germany, france, russia, and china join together to force and drive iran to the negotiated agreement. how often these days can we utter the names of those six countries together, working for he same cause. -- cause this -- cause? back in july when this agreement but reached, estated that it, quote, must constitute measurable progress in halting nuclear proliferation, driving the region and the world further away from nuclear arm fwed don. the fwoshte aid greement meets that test and with the support of great britain, germany,
france, yes, even russia and yes, even china, we will hold iran to that test and that is why we should support the negotiated agreement. i yield back the balance of my ime. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from california. mr. royce: i yield to the gentlelady. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. >> this deal represents a direct threat to the united states-israel -- to the united states, israel and the world. recently i visited israel and met with prime minister netanyahu. this is a very bad deal and could result in grave consequences for the world. first, this deal allows iran to continue to enrich uranium that can be used to develop a nuclear weapon. second, this deal is ban -- this deal abandoned the president's promise of any time, anywhere inspections to a process that allow ice ran to delay up to 24
days. mrs. walters: third, this agreement would result in the comprehensive lifting of sanctions that have stifled their quest for a nuclear weapon. it still presents far too many risks for the u.s. and far too many rewards for iran. when the ayatollah chants death to america heck means it. -- that should cause serious concern for every american. it's time for america to wake up and understand the danger and threat this deal presents to our national security. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields. the gentleman is recognized. mr. schiff: i yield myself two minutes. i want to address briefly the strained interpretation my friends are giving the corker legislation. to accept the arguments of the opposition to the deal, you would have to accept the proposition that the corker legislation requires the administration to provide an
agreement between the iaea and iran to which the united states is not a party, which the united states has no obligation, and to which the iaea is precluded from providing to the administration. that seems to me a very farfetched interpretation of the corker legislation. what's more, if you accept the argument that we can't have a vote on the agreement until we have this document between the iaea and iran, then why has the majority scheduled a vote on the agreement for tomorrow? so it's inconsistent with what their own majority has scheduled. but finally, i don't think anyone is fooled by the nature of this procedural motion or bill. no one expects in the least that anyone who has voiced their opposition to the agreement is somehow going to change their opinion if they have access to this private document between the iaea and iran.
what's more, as we know, the iaea enters into these agreements with individual nations around the world, this is not at all unique to the situation with iran. one final point i would like to make. we are now well into the debate on the agreement. and for all the arguments that have been advanced as to why we should have concerns about provisions in the agreement or concerns about iranian behavior, many of which i share, there's one thing we have heard precious little about. from the opposition to the deal. and that is, what is the credible alternative? so i ask the question, what is the credible alternative? and the answer from what i am able to divine from the scarce attention that the opposition pays to this, i yield myself an additional minute -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is reck rise -- recognized for an additional minute. mr. schiff: the answer as far as i candy certain to the deal is
this. this is how the alternative would work. congress rejects the deal. congress -- the administration then somehow goes out and persuades the rest of the world to maintain sanctions even when we rejected an agreement adopted by the other major powers and even when those other powers tell us explicitly that there will be no new negotiation. but somehow we maintain the sanctions regime under this theoretical alternative. and what? iran gives up all enrichment and comes back to the table prepared to capitulate everything? that seems so fanciful, so far removed from the reality of the situation, that it is no surprise that the opposition devotes very little, if any time, to discussing a credible alternative because indeed there is no credible alternative. and so again, this is why i think it's so important for us to focus on how we can strength then constraints in the
agreement, mitigate the risks that we will face, and that is a much more constructive path forward than rejection of this, seeing iran going back to spinning its centrifuges, picking up where they left off at 20% enrichment and going beyond, picking up where they left off with 19,000 more centrifuges and thousands of kilos of uranium, is that really the path we want to go down? i think not. i reserve the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: but there was a credible alternative. i yield myself two minutes. there was a credible alternative that this body passed by a vote of 400-20. bipartisan legislation which the administration blocked in the senate. legislation which would have put that additional pressure on the regime in iran, knowing that the united states is the 800-pound gorilla, knowing that countries do not have the option and companies around the world do not have the option of making a choice when they have to make
that choice between doing business with the united states or doing business with iran, they have to do business with the united states. we put that bill into the senate, the administration blocked it. that legislation would have ensured the type of pressure on iran that would have forced the ayatollah to make a choice between real compromise, real compromise on his plan to nstruct a weapon or economic collapse. economic collapse for that regime. and we would have had that leverage in this agreement -- in this negotiation, that leverage was given up by this administration by blocking that bill in the senate in the last congress and frankly, that option is still available to us but i will yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. chabot. .
mr. chabot: i thank the gentleman for yielding. tomorrow's september 11. a solemn day in our history, when thousands of americans lost their lives in the worst terror attack in our history. it's disturbing that we happen to be debating whether a state sponsor of terror should have a glide path to nuclear weapons at this time. but we are. i've been a member of the foreign affairs committee for a long time. almost 0 years now -- 20 years now. i chaired the subcommittee on the middle east. i can tell you, without any reservation, that this deal with iran is a disaster. it will weaken the security of our allies in the region and it will make americans less safe here at home. if this deal goes through, iran will receive up to $150 billion , that's 25 times what iran currently spends on its entire military, does that seem like a good idea?
we're talking about the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism here. this money will fund more and more terror across the globe and here. my district is the greater cincinnati area. g.e. aircraft engines is headquartered there. an air force base is just up the road. that's been top potential targets for icbm's since the cold war. this deal allows iran to get more sophisticated icbm technology from russia, which will allow them to target not only tel aviv, but washington and new york and cincinnati. this is just nuts. and what happened to the any time, anywhere inspections? gone. and it will take months to get the inspectors in. by that time they'll have removed the incriminating evidence elsewhere. the bottom line is, the obama administration wanted a deal,
any deal, more than the iranian mullahs did. this administration was willing to sell out israel and our allies in the region and make us less safe here at home. this is a lousy, lousy deal and it ought to be rejected. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: thank you, mr. speaker. just to take a brief moment to respond to my colleague from california, i wish it were so simple that a credible alternative was the passage of a bill in congress that had not passed before that we could pass now. mr. schiff: and through the mere act of our legislation, compel the rest of the world to join us in a new negotiation and a stronger rounleds of sanctions. -- round of sanctions. we simply don't have that power . what's more, to imagine that a new sanctions bill will somehow come back to the
table ready to concede its entire enrichment program is simply not credible. if that's what we're left with, we're really left with no good alternative. again, i think that is precisely why we need to move forward with the agreement that has been reached between the world powers and iran. at this point i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentlelady from minnesota, ms. mccollum. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: thank you, mr. speaker. the iran nuclear agreement is fundamental to the national security of the united states. and i applaud the tremendous efforts of secretary kerry and secretary moniz, who worked in concert with the world's most powerful military, economic nations to reach a verifiable agreement that will deny iran the ability to develop a nuclear weapon. in past eras, when politics was civil and foreign policy was bipartisan, this diplomatic agreement would have been championed by republicans and democrats as a nonproliferation triumph. as it is today in great britain, our greatest ally. this agreement will prevent
iran from developing a nuclear weapon. as an israeli intelligence analysis said, and i quote, this is not about trust or goodwill between states -- sides. it is strict inspection and verification regimes that will ensure the success of this agreement. and if iran violates the agreement, sanctions will snap back and the international community together will take action. i strongly support this agreement and i'm grateful for president obama's unwavering leadership in the face of hostile and unprecedented attacks from republicans and israel's prime minister. "the new york times" calls the republican efforts, quote, a vicious battle against mr. unseemly spectacle. i want to be crystal clear. i support our commander in chief. the republicans and israeli
opponents of this agreement are the same neocons who sold the war in iraq to america based on lies, distortions and misinformation. and now what do the republicans offer us as an alternative? nothing. they have no plan. no plan other than to kill this agreement, which means that iran will either obtain a nuclear weapon or the u.s. goes to war to stop them. let me tell you, i am not interested in another republican war in the middle east. now is the time to put the national security of the american people first. let's reject this republican game playing and support a tough diplomatic agreement that will stop iran from gaining a nuclear weapon. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. shuster, chairman of the committee on transportation and infrastructure. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. shuster: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, i rise today to voice strong opposition to this fatally flawed iran deal.
by signing the iran nuclear agreement review act of 2015, the president agreed to allow all documents, secret annexes and side deals, to be reviewed by the u.s. congress. but once again, president obama has not complied with the law of the land. and therefore does not have the authority to wave saxeson iran. by lifting sanctions on the iranian regime, a nation that finances the likes of hezbollah, hamas and other terrorist groups, will receive over $100 billion in as a ets and no doubt will continue -- assets and no doubt willen to fund terrorist organizations at greater levels than they're able to do today, terrorist organizations with the motto of death to america. have we learned nothing from our past mistakes? the same person that negotiated the deal with north korea also led the discussions with iran. we must ask ourselves, is the world a safer place when unstable nations like north korea are testing nuclear
weapons? the number one responsibility of the united states congress, charged to us in the constitution, is national security. this agreement jeopardizes our security because, i believe, as the prime minister of israel believes, that this will ensure that iran will get a nuclear weapon. for the security of america and our friends and allies around the world, we must oppose this agreement and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. schiff: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield to the distinguished minority leader for as much time as she may consume, representative nancy pelosi of san francisco. pell pell just one minute. the speaker pro tempore: -- ms. pelosi: just one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. pelosi: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding and i commend him for his extraordinary leadership, ranking member on the intelligence committee. which has served us so well. his leadership has served us so
well in this debate today and in our deliberations leading up to this debate. has served us well on the ongoing, as we use intelligence to protect the american people. thank you, mr. schiff. i did not go to the well as usual for the leader, but i wanted to be here because i have some materials that i want to share with you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i think today and tomorrow, the next 24 hours, is a very, very special time. in the congress of the united states. members will be called upon to make a decision that affects our oath of office, to protect and support the constitution and of course the american people. this is a moment that we have prepared for and that's what i have this binder here for, to say that i commend my colleagues because they have spent thousands of hours reviewing the agreement,
reviewing the annexes and the classified materials, speaking with experts, gaining information, acquiring validation from outside sources , other than the administration and the agreement itself, conversations with each other, conversations with their constituents. all to have, again, a sense of humility that we all don't know everything about this subject and we have to get our assurances from those whose judgment we respect. as well as to support this agreement on the merits. it is a very fine agreement. i will take a moment just to talk about my own credentials because i see that people are doing that in their statements. i read with interest mr. menendez's statement in the senate where he talked about his service in the senate and i will talk about mine in the house.
for over 20 years i have served as a member of the intelligence committee. both as a member of the committee, as the rank -- top democrat on the committee, as the speaker and leader over the years. longer than anyone in the history of the congress. i went to the intelligence committee because i had a major concern, which sprang from my district, which was a very big interest there, in stopping the pro live ration of weapons of -- proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. an organization dedicated to that purpose was founded there. they absoluted president reagan -- saluted president reagan and the actions that he took when he was president. and they are very actively supporting this agreement now. i mention my credentials because i brought that experience to make a judgment on the agreement, after it was negotiated. of course we were briefed as members of the committee and as members of the leadership on the ongoing, as to the progress
that was being made in negotiations. again, having been briefed all along the way, i still was pleasantly pleased to see what the final product was. what the president negotiated was remarkable. it was remarkable in several respects. one was that the p-5 the permanent members of the security council, plus one, at would be germany, the p-5 nations americaed this agreement with iran -- negotiated this agreement with iran. china, russia, france, the u.k., the united states. this is quite remarkable, that all a of those countries -- all of those countries could come to agreement. and under the leadership -- an important part of that leadership was the leadership of president obama, to have that engagement sustained over a couple of years. now, president obama --
president bush took us a bit down this path and that is referenced in an op ed that was put forth by someone. when he supported this -- lation, he says that committing -- the deal ensures that this will be the case for 15 years and longer. but he talks about the fact that this has been a goal, is what ronald reagan did with the soviet union, arms control, and what president nixon did with china, it was a negotiation. and he talked about the fact that this particular agreement was one that was worked on under the presidency of president bush. actually, he says, a few places in time. let me read his comment. congress again faces a momentous decision regarding
u.s. policy toward the middle east. the forthcoming vote on the nuclear deal between the p5+1 and iran, known as the joint comprehensive plan of action, will show the world whether the united states has the will and sense of responsibility to help stabilize the middle east, or whether it will contribute to further turmoil, including the possible spread of nuclear weapons. strong words perhaps, but clear language in helping in the can -- helping in today's media. in my view, he says, the jcpoa a, as the agreement is known, meets the key objective. shared by recent administrations of both parties , that iran limit itself to a strictly civilian nuclear program with unprecedented verification and monitoring by the atomic -- international atomic energy agency and the u.n. security council. he goes on for a couple of pages and with your permission,
mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to submit this statement for the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. pelosi: thank you. i also want to quote another epublican, who served in the administration of president george herbert walker bush. senator john warner joined carl levin, senator carl levin, two chairman of the senate armed services committee. one a democrat, but before him, a republican, john warner. . they talk about how they support this. the deal on the table, they say, is a strong agreement and it leaves in place the robust deterrents and credibility of a present military option. we urge our former colleagues not to take any action which would undermine the deterrent value of a coalition that
participates in and would support the use of military option. the failure of the united states to join this agreement would ave that effect. i submit karl levin and john warner -- carl levin and john warner's statement never record. and again, i refer to statements of my colleague, they're -- colleagues, they're thoughtful, they're serious and they're courageous in support of the agreement. i'd like to thank president obama and the entire administration for being , as members sought clarification, respond to their concerns. i want to thank secretary kerry, secretary moe these and so many others -- moniz and so many others for their availability to us in a bipartisan way and in our democrat excaucus. for years iran's rapidly
accelerating capability and burgeoning nuclear stockpile has represented one of the greatest threats to peace and security anywhere in the world. we all stipulate to that. that's why we need an agreement. and that's why i'm so pleased that we have so many statements of validation from people. the agreement is one of the great, as the experts say, this agreement is one of the greatest diplomatic achievements of the 21st century. it's no wonder that such a diverse constellation of experts have made their voices heard in support of this, again i use the word, extraordinary accord. on the steps of the capitol the other day, with our veterans and with our gold star moms who have lost their sons, we heard the words of diplomat and soldiers, generals and admirals, and dip
will mats by the score. -- diplomats by the score. democrats, republicans, nonpartisan. we heard from our most distinguished nuclear physicists. we heard from scientists and we heard from people of faith. and i would like to quote some of them. more than 100 democratic and republican former diplomats and ambassadors wrote, in our judgment, the jcpoa deserves congressional support and opportunity to show that it can work. we firmly believe, they said, that the most effective way to protect u.s. national security and that of our allies and friends is to ensure that tough-minded diplomacy has a chance to succeed before considering other, more costly and risky alternatives. that's the diplomats. the generals and admirals wrote, there's no better option to prevent an iranian knew career weapon. if the iranians cheat, advanced
technology and inspections will reveal it. and the u.s. military option remain on the table. if a deal is rejected by america, the iranians could have a nuclear weapon within a year. that choice, the choice is that stark. 29 of our nation's most prominent nuclear scientists and engineers wrote, we consider that the joint comprehensive plan of action the united states and its partners fwoshted with iran will advance the cause of peace and security in the middle east and can serve as a fwide post for future nonproliferation agreements. i quote that, and can serve as a guide post for future nonproliferation agreements. this is an innovative agreement with much more stringent constraints than any previously negotiated nonproliferation framework. they went on to say more. 440 rabbis urge congress to
endorse the statement, writing that it has brought together major international powers to confront iran over its nuclear ambition. the broad international sanctions moved iran to enter this historic agreement and they urge support. 4,100 catholic nuns wrote to congress stating that as will of faith, followers of the one who said, blessed are the peacemakers, we urge that you risk on the side of peace and vote to approve the iran nuclear deal. secretary -- treasury secretary jack lew woonched the hazards of rejecting the agreement, warning us that foreign governments will not continue to make costly sacrifices at our demand. indeed, and i say this in response to something that my distinguished colleague from california said, indeed, they would more likely blame us from walking away from a credible solution to one of the world's
greatest security threats and would continue to re-engage with iran. ehe -- he went on to say, instead of toughening the sanctions, the decision by congress to unilaterally reject the deal will end a decade of isolation of iran and put the united states at odds with the rest of the world. we certainly don't want to do that. today, something very interesting happened, mr. speaker. there was a statement put forth by the u.s. -- the u.k. prime minister, david cameron, french esident francois al mand and german chancellor angela merkel. they wrote an op-ed and said, this is an important moment. at a time of -- it is an opportunity at a time of global insecurity to show what we can achieve. this is not based on trust or any assumption about how iran may look in 10 or 15 years.
it is based on detailed, tightly written controls that are verifiable and long lasting. they went on to say we condemn in no uncertain terms that iran does not recognize the existence of the state of israel and the unacceptable language iran's leaders use about israel. israel's security matters are and will remain our key interest too. we should not have reached the nuclear deal with iran if we did not think that it removed a threat to the region and the nonproliferation regime as a whole. we are confident that the agreement provides the foundation, will resolve conflict on iran's nuclear program permanently. this is why we do not want to embark on the full -- that's why we want to embark on the full implementation of the joint comprehensive plan of action once all national procedures are complete.
and then our own president wrote to congressman jerry nadler, i believe the jcpoa which cuts off every pathway iran could have to nuclear weapon and creates the most robust verification regime ever negotiated to monitor nuclear programs is a very good deal for the united states, for the state of israel, and for the region as a whole. many of us share the views that have been expressed by those in a position to make a difference in this agreement. tuesday night again after the vote here in this house, members supporting the nuclear agreement stood on the steps of the capitol. we are we were honored to be joined by military veterans, gold star families, men and womens who sacrifices remind us of the significance of putting diplomacy before war. they remind us of the significance of this historic transformational achievement.
congratulations. these nuclear physicists congratulated the president on this agreement. i congratulate him too. our men and women in uniform and our veterans and our gold star moms remind us of our first duty, to protect and defend the american people. i am pleased to say we achieved that with this agreement. i urge my colleagues to support the agreement, to vote no on the other items that are being put before us today. we all have to, as we evaluate our decision, ask ourselves if we were the one deciding vote as to whether this agreement would go forward or that we would fall behind, how would we vote? none of us has the luxury to walk away from that responsibility. i'm proud of the statements that
our colleagues have made, the agreement the president has reached, and i know that tomorrow we will sustain whatever veto the president may have to make. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: yes, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. mchenry, the deputy chief whip and a member of the financial services committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. mchenry: i thank the chairman and thank him for his leadership on this important matter of national security. today i rise in opposition to this bad nuclear deal the president has negotiated. i don't oppose it because the president negotiated it. i don't oppose it because it was brought forth by this administration. i oppose it because it's bad for the security of america. it's bad for the security of the world. it's bad for the security of our most sacred ally, israel.
it's bad for the nonproliferation strategies the world has had to mean we have fewer nuclear weapons on this planet. now, you have to ask yourself a few base exquestions. has iran warranted the trust of the international community to enter into this agreement? the answer is no. it's very clear by their actions over the last 20 or 30 years that they should not be trusted. number two, we hear the supreme leader of iran saying time and again, death to america and israel. he's declared his nation as committed to destruction of israel. he's called america the great satan. now, how can we believe a country is fully committed to our destruction yet at the same time uphold their end of the bargain? we can't. so we must suppose this agreement -- we must oppose this agreement, based off what is
best for international security and what is best for our nation's security. we also have to oppose this because it wull mean during my lifetime or during my children's lifetime we will have more nuclear weapons, not fewer. this is a bad agreement and we should reject it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. schiff: i'm pleased to yield the balance of my time and the ability to control time on our side to the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is ecognized. mr. cummings: mr. speaker, i rise and claim time in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cummings: i want to thank you, mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.
mr. cummings: since 1998, i've had the privilege of sending a group of high school students each year to israel, where they are paired with israeli teens to learn about what life is really like in israel. when these students return, they have learned life lessons that stay with them forever. but just as important, they have made friendships that will also last a lifetime. so i'm a proud and strong friend and ally of israel and i have been for a very long time. this is why i believe we must support the joint comprehensive plan of action and why i'm here to oppose the resolution. the world cannot tolerate a nuclear armed iran. and i will not stand by as iran continues to gain ground toward that objective.
this agreement puts real, con secrete steps in place to prevent iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. steps that have already begun to degrade iran's ability to produce nuclear materials. according to the independent experts, this deal, and i quote, effectively blocks the plutonium pathway for more than 15 years, end of quote. these experts also assess that thout the deal, iran may shrink its breakout time to a few weeks or even days. the steps outlined in the agreement complement existing prohibitions on the development of nuclear weapons by iran. under this agreement, the international community will have unprecedented access to ensure that iran never gets one. this agreement will not be
monitored merely according to the good will of iran. its enforcement mechanisms are verifiable and indeed transparent. under this agreement there will be more inspectors than ever in iran. these inspectors will have daily access to iran's declared nuclear sites and will be able to have access to undeclared sites that they suspect may be involved in nuclear activity. inspections will be regular and they will indeed be invasive. they will not be oriented around iranian convenience but around compliance. ensuring the international community remains safe and indeed, informed. if at any time iran is found to be in violation of the agreement, the full brunt of international sanctions will
snap back once again hobbling the iranian economy. . it is important to note that many sanctions will still be in place. relief will come only from those sanctions related to nuclear activities. bans on technology exports, restrictions against the transfer of conventional weaponry with w.m.d. technology, sanctions based on terrorism activities and bans on foreign assistance will all continue. without this deal, experts estimate that iran will have enough nuclear material for weapons in two or three months. during negotiations, iran stopped installing centrifuges, but they will resume if this agreement falls apart. potentially accelerating their timeline. the opponents of this agreement propose rejecting this deal and
pursuing a stronger one but that plan could have grave consequences. if the united states rejects this deal, iran will continue developing more sophisticated enrichment technologies. by the time any negotiations begin, iran would likely already be a nuclear state. there's also no guarantee that iran would return to the negotiating table after having wasted two years on this agreement. is this worth the risk? i do not believe that it is. we should support this agreement. this agreement accomplishes a critical goal, establishing a set of verifiable provisions to prevent iran from developing enough nuclear material to build a bomb. this deal does not change in any way our solemn commitment
to protecting israel. nor does this prevent us from using any other measures if iran should violate the agreement. including using the full force of the strongest military in the world. but the united states would lead not only with our military might, we have worked diligently to achieve a peaceful revolution to this issue. and it is time for us to show our integrity and values for which we stand. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. sam johnson, a true american hero who served this country with distinction in korea and in vietnam and is a -- was a prisoner of year for nearly seven years. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, sir. i thank the chairman for yielding. at this grave hour, i come to express my opposition to
president obama's deal with iran. o this day iran chants, quote, death to america. in fact, iran is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. its regime has the blood of american service members on its hands. iran is our enemy. the president asked us to trust iran, but what has iran done to earn our trust? nothing. this is a deal of surrender and with it iran will go nuclear. the alternative isn't war, the alternative is to strike a better deal. i say this as one of the few members of the congress who has seen combat, who has fought two wars and who spent nearly seven years as a p.o.w., so i say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, do the right hing, put country above party.
listen to the american people, uphold your most sacred duty, safeguard our republic from those who seek to destroy it. vote this deal down. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: mr. speaker, i yield four minutes to the distinguished lady from the district of columbia, ms. norton. the speaker pro tempore: jeat the gentlelady -- the gentlelady is recognized for four minutes. ms. norton: i thank mood mayorga good friend for yielding to me on this important subject -- i thank my good friend for yielding to me on this important subject for our country. mr. speaker, while many republicans have been trying to find the way just this very day not to have a vote on the iran agreement, i've been searching for a way to represent my 650,000 constituents by voting on any version offered.
five nations, whose systems differ from one another in every conceivable way, and the united nations, have approved this deal. but the republicans are torn on whether to even vote on the deal at all. no wonder. left with no credible argue aments against the deal it -- arguments against the deal itself, republicans have changed the subject. even knowing that iran is close speak, ng the bomb as i and risking the loss of u.s. international credibility. instead republicans cite side agreements. however, they have all of the information available to any nation on all nuclear
agreements. or they cite issues not under negotiation at all. like iran's role in the middle east. here's what my constituents cite, mr. speaker. $12,000 in federal taxes per resident, the most per capita in the united states. but no vote on the iran deal or on anything else on this house floor. with statehood, d.c. would vote yes and be counted. just as uncle sam counts our taxes every single year. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from the district of columbia yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield one minute to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. pittinger, a
member of the committee on financial services. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for one minute. mr. pittenger: thank you, mr. chairman. for yielding this time. and thank you for your strong leadership to reject this administration's agreement with iran. this deal is a dramatic reversal of u.s. policy in the middle east and toward the iranian government. for years the iranian government has actively opposed u.s. interests in the region and has directly financed the world's most oppressive terrorist groups, most notably hezbollah. mr. speaker, as a result of this agreement, over $100 billion will be released from -- back to the mullahs in iran. 46 banks in iran will now be approved to transmit money through the international financial system. look at what they've -- look at what they've done previously with their finances. we gave them $700 million a month as a precondition just to come to the negotiating -- negotiations. $12 billion over a 16-month
period. you can see their footprint in lebanon, you can see it in iraq, you can see it in yemen, you can see it in syria, you can see it in south america. mr. speaker, what we're doing today is going to translate into increased, enhanced terrorist activities throughout the world. may we look back on this day as one of the most consequentialal votes we will take -- consequential votes we will take, tomorrow in this chamber, as consequential as what we did in declaring war against japan and germany. may we recognize the reality of what is taking place. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. we yield four minutes to the gentleman from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for four minutes. mr. desauliner: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the distinguished ranking member of the committee, from maryland. and i want to speak as a freshman member of this body,
who has been able to learn a great deal about this difficult, difficult area of the world, a place where america has invested too many lives and too much money. and to talk about my journey in coming to the decision to vote with the president and feeling like he deserves a glattory note for this accomplishment, a have -- in a very difficult and complex piece of diplomacy, perhaps equal to the difficulty and complexity of this area of the world, which has had so much turmoil in history. i've spent the last 60 days taking every opportunity to listen to constituents and experts. i've been personally briefed at the white house before president obama with a small group of my freshmen colleagues, traveled to israel for the first time and met with high level israeli officials, including prime minister netanyahu for almost two hours. learned about the 3,000 years of history and animosity
amongst groups and also the proximity, the very close proximity of which those groups have lived for thousands of years and shared their difficult history. met with leaders of our international coalition and continued to be a staunch supporter of the u.s.-israeli relationship, as i believe most of my colleagues on both sides are. i held six town halls, certain measure of mass kiss much perhaps by a -- masachism perhaps by a freshman member. it took hours. we received over 1,000 phone calls, emails and constituent questions on this issue and more than 70% of them were in favor of the proposal. ultimately at the heart of my decision, in supporting a deal, is the possibility that this deal promotes the long-term investment and peace in this difficult part of our planet.
in addition creates security and stability ultimately for the united states. i believe that this accord is our best option for achieving both those goals. as recently as yesterday, i was able to listen to advisors and leaders who represent our coalition partners. the sanctions regime, due in large part to the european union's participation, deflated iran's economy and forced them to the negotiating table. in 2012 iran's economy shrank for the first time in two decades by almost 2%. this is the final proposal, i believe, if the u.s. were to withdraw. our coalition partners that helped negotiate this deal and create the ability and the leverage to negotiate will not come back to the table, our authority and standing in the world community will be severely diminished. there are some who say that iran cannot be trusted and i think we all agree on that. the future of this rollout is not black and white and has
many unknowns and hypotheticals on both the supporters' and the opponents' side. we do not know if iran will cheat, but we do know the oversight and compliance is strong and consequential and cheating will be enforced by the international community. it is in the national security, in my view, of the united states of america to support this agreement. it's an opportunity to let diplomacy work and to put it in action. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back his time. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield one minute to the gentleman from kentucky, mr. guthrie, a member of the energy and commerce and education committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. guthrie: i rise today to express my disapproval of president obama's deal with iran. i asked myself this question. as iran -- has iran earned the right to be trusted? we must ask this because we know there are secret deals
that my colleagues and i were not privileged to. therefore a vote to support this deal is a vote to trust iran. the behavior of iran's leaders over the last 30 years offer noes indication that the next decade -- offers no indication that the next decade will be any different. now with these secret details we cannot know if the deal is verifiable, if it's enforceable, and accountable. to people who know iran best, trust them least. iran's neighbors have already requested additional arms from the united states to protect themselves from this very deal. any deal should include these three powerful principles, safety, security, stability. this deal falls short and i cannot support it. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: mr. speaker, we yield four minutes to mr. langevin of rhode island. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for four minutes.
mr. langevin: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from rhode island is recognized. mr. langevin: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, this is probably -- this has probably been one of the most difficult decisions i've had to make during my time in congress. for the record, i still have deep reservations about the joint comprehensive plan of action. . while it's not without flaws or risks, i believe the plan presents our best chance to limit iran's nuclear a.m. bigs and protect the security of the united states and our allies. the preamble to the agreement is both critically important and crystal clear when it states that, and i quote, iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapon, end quote. and we will hold iran to it.
mr. speaker, i do not trust iran. but this agreement is built on verification, not trust, and i believe it includes the needed monitoring and enforcement tools. if iran violates the deal in any way, increased international monitoring will allow us to act quickly and decisively. converselyf we were to abandon this agreement despite the international community's support, iran's nuclear ambitions could go unchecked and that is not a risk i'm willing to take. like many of my constituents, i have concerns with the agreement and iran's pattern of behavior, particularly its support of terrorism. that's why i'm committed to exercising rigorous oversight of this plan's implementation leaving no doubt that cheating will result in severe repercussions. as the president has said
publicly and reiterated to me personally, all of our options remain on the table when it comes to responding to failed iranian commitments, including military options and the reimposition of sanctions in whole or part, either unilaterally or multi laterally. all of the terrorism-related sanctions are outside the scope of this agreement and remain in force and i'm committed to providing further tools necessary to constrain iran's destructive nonnuclear activities. mr. speaker, congress should establish an oversight commission or a select committee to ensure iranian's adherence to the deal and recommend courses of action in response to any breach. this would be in addition to the oversight committees related to intelligence or the foreign affairs committee or other committees, including the armed services committee that might also have jurisdiction.
the more eyes on iran in making sure they are living up to the commitments, the better. we need to show our resolve and execute the fundamental objectives preventing an iranian nuclear weapon. while i have deep concerns about the deal, rejecting it now could lead us down a darker path without the support of the international community and with severe and unpredictable circumstances. i will vote to support this deal and what is our best chance to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear threat, our best chance for the international community united in support and our best option for peace. we must give diplomacy a chance to work. with that, i thank the speaker and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. royce: i yield one minute to the gentleman from new york,
member of the committee on foreign affairs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. donovan: i believe the house of representatives will reject this deal. i have asked myself as many people have asked, why is this a good deal for the united states? iran is holding four americans illegally hostage in their country. that was not part of the negotiations. iran continues to support worldwide terrorism. there's no restrictions on that in this deal. $50 billion will be immediately released to the regime with no restricks on its use. that was not part of the deal. and they continue to develop icbm's that could reach american mainland. there were no restrictions on that during this deal. we are told by the administration that if we reject this deal, the rest of the p5+1
will not join us. last week iran's top cleric said america remains iran's number one enemy. days after the deal was announced, iran's supreme leader cailed for the death of america. not the death of france, not the death of great britain, not the death of russia or china, but the death of america. mr. royce: i yield an additional 30 seconds. mr. donovan: when is america to stand alone. i went to israel recently and sat with the prime minister who told us this deal guarantees in 15 years iran will have a nuclear arsenal. the supreme leader tweeted that israel won't exist in 25 years. i visited the holocaust museum and like many people who weren't alive during that tragedy, why didn't anyone stop this? my fear is someday people will
ask why didn't america stop iran? this is a bad deal for america and bad deal for israel and bad deal for the world. i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: may i inquire how much time has. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland has 14 minutes remaining and the gentleman from california has 27 minutes. mr. cummings: i yield to the gentleman from kentucky, mr. yarmouth. mr. yarmuth: i rise in support of this historic agreement with iran, good for america and critical for israel and historic step towards a more stable middle east. we entered in the p5+1 negotiations with one goal to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and that is what this agreement does. iran can never have a nuclear weapon. i want to repeat that because there has been false reports
about iran being able to build a bomb in 10 or 15 years. under this deal, iran can never have a nuclear weapon. this is the third provision of the deal. iran will iran seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons. iran has agreed to never have a nuclear weapon and with this agreement in place, we will have an unprecedented inspection regime to guarantee it. iaea inspectors will more access than any other country. no nuclear site is off limits. they will have access whenever and wherever they need it at every single stage in the process. this agreement is built on verification and full cooperation. if iran fails to meet either of those standards, if at any point inspectors believe that iran is stonewalling or being uncooperative, the deal ills
violated and sfrict sanctions return. this is a good deal and no possibility of a so-called better deal. our partner nations made it clear if we walk away, they will not support the tough sanctions that brought iran to the negotiating table in the first place. that is the reality. and as a result, a vote against this agreement is a vote to weaken international sanctions against iran. it is a vote to allow them a clear path to a nuclear weapon and it is a vote to make israel less safe and the middle east more dangerous. i urge my colleagues to recognize that reality and support this agreement and allow our president and our nation to take these historic steps towards a more peaceful world. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky yields back. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from ohio. mr. latta: i thank the chairman for yielding and his leadership
on this issue. mr. speaker, i rise today in strong opposition to president obama's disastrous iran nuclear deal. this deal not only threatens the safety and security of the united states, one of our closest allies of israel but the -- threatens the safety and security of the world. iran now simply has to wait a decade before becoming a nuclear power. in the meantime because iran gets everything they need and want in return for so-called reductions in their nuclear capabilities, they can expand their dominance in the region and buildup their weapons capabilities and roll their economy and military and greater ability to fund and promote terrorism. mr. speaker, can we really expect to trust a government of iran whose leaders chant death to america? i advise my colleagues to oppose
this horrible deal. our nation and allies deserve better. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: i yield four minutes to ms. esty. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for four minutes. ms. esty: i rise to support the joint come presence agreement but a path forward to prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. i do not come to this decision lightly or easily. iran is a deadly state sponsor of terrorism and the iranian regime has repeatedly threatened america and our close ally israel. despite sanctions by the unions, iran has come within months, within months of succeeding in
its efforts to acquire material for a nuclear bomb. the question before us today is not is this a perfect agreement that addresses all of iran's dangerous behavior? the truth is, there are no perfect options in dealing with this regime. instead, we must ask, will this agreement prevent a nuclear-armed iran? exempt agreement america's national security interests in the region and will this exempt our ally israel? i have reached the conclusion that the answer to these three questions is yes. i believe that it is better to have this imperfect international agreement that we can aggressively enforce than to
have no agreement at all. during august, i spent a week in israel, meeting with political and military leaders and hearing from ordinary citizens who are deeply concerned about iran's intentions. as i stood on the golan heights, i could see the smoke rising. that smoke, a visible sign of the chaos and danger in the region for both the united states and for the entire middle east. i'm keenly aware of the very real threats iran poses to israel's security and to all our national security. and i share the deep concerns of many of my constituents, of many jewish leaders who distrust iran. and that is why, mr. speaker, i believe that after this week's vote, we have another critical choice to make. it is an important choice to make for our children, our
grandchildren and our men and women in uniform. our choice is this. will we come together as americans to enforce the iranian nuclear agreement in the years to come? if the iran nuclear agreement goes into effect, we must work together no matter our vote this week to enforce iran's ommitments and to stand to act decisively when iran tests our resolve. we cannot afford to cast a vote and walk away. we have the greatest opportunity to achieve stability in the region when we lead our allies and work with other international partners as we did when we created the international sanctions that have brought iran to the negotiating table. the iranian nuclear agreement is the beginning of a long-term
multinational commitment. we must stand strong with our allies. we must commit to ensuring that the inspectors have the access and resources to carry out the agreement. and we must stand ready to act. to lead the world to respond to signs of cheating or other iranian efforts to undermine its obligation. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the the gentlewoman from connecticut yields back. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. lance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. lance: i rise today to urge rejection of the underlying iranian agreement. the president did not submit to congress two inspection side agreements secretly goirnted between the iaea and iran. congress and the american people
have no information on what these secret side agreements entail although news reports suggest that iran will be able to inspect some of its own military facilities. under the underlying agreement, the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, an antagonist of the united states, of israel and several arab nations, a 35-year-old regime known for horrible human rights abuses will receive at least $100 billion immediately, some of which will undoubtedly be used for terrorism. a better underlying agreement can be negotiated making sure iran does not acquire nuclear weapons or icbm's, whose only purpose can be military. the clear majority of the american people and clear majority of both houses of congress, republicans and some democrats together, the
representatives of the american people, oppose this deal. this is the moss this is the most consequential bill i will vote on since i've been here. ask that you vote against the iran nuclear deal. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland is ecognized. mr. cummings: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cummings: the iaea separate arrangements with iran are not part of the agreement within the definition of the iran nuclear agreement review act. the separate arrangements were negotiated between the iaea and iran to resolve outstanding issues. the arrangements between iran nd the iaea are considered
safeguards confidential, meaning that the iaea does not share the information with member states. the u.s. also has safeguard confidentials, arrangements with the iaea, and we would not want any member state to be able to request access to information about our nuclear infrastructure. and beyond that, mr. speaker, ea director has declared the arrangements between the iaea and iran are technically sound and consistent with the agency's long-established practice. they do not compromise the iaea safeguard standards in any way. let's be clear, there's no self-inspection of iranian facilities, and the iaea has in no way given responsibility for
nuclear inspections to iran, not now and certainly not in the future. that is not how the iaea does business. with that i reserve the balance of my time and would inquire as to how much time he has. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 6 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: yes, mr. speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. diaz-balart, a member of the appropriations and budget committees. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for two minutes. mr. diaz-balart: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the chairman as well. mr. speaker, i rise today to speak against a deal which i believe will become one of the most dangerous mistakes in u.s. history. this deal does not stop iran from pursuing a nuclear program. it recognizes and legitimizes their nuclear program in short order. it allows iran to develop ballistic missiles and brings an end to the arms embargo against that regime. it frees up hundreds of
billions of dollars to fund and export terrorism. i'm convinced that this will also lead -- this deal will lead to a nuclear arms race in the middle east. this does, mr. speaker, this deal is one of the biggest mistakes that we, our children and our grandchildren will pay a very dear price for. mr. speaker, history will record this deal as the moment that the united states and the world granted the largest, most dangerous sponsor of terrorism, that which it covets the most, nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. i hope i am wrong, mr. speaker, but i fear that i am not. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: mr. speaker, i want to be clear, the disagreement isn't based on trust. it's based on the most
intrusive verification regime in history. the international inspectors will have 24/7 surveillance of enrichment facilities and reactors, and regular nonrestricted access to all other declared sites. beyond declared facilities, the inspection provisions give the international inspectors the access they need when they need it to carry out the most intrusive inspection system ever peacefully negotiated. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. shimkus: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. chairman, this chamber has
a lot of heroes. sam johnson is one of them, and i'm proud to have followed them and i salute them. i've been fortunate to do many things. i was an army officer in west germany, a high school student, a local official. now as a member of congress i'm honored to cast votes for people i represent. my constituents wants the president to follow the lawal as is his responsibility under article -- law as is his responsibility under article 2 of the constitution. the president did not submit necessary documents as required under law. i and my constituents want to know what's in these side agreements. when we're going down this path of peace and war to trust the iaea with no documents, not being able to see that. our primary responsibility here is to protect our citizens against all enemies, foreign and domestic. this deal gives iran more money . they will remain the number one state sponsor of terror. they will continue to chant
"death to america" and "death to israel." they will not free our citizens, so now we assure that iran will have nuclear weapons. the region will go into a nuclear arms race and the world and the u.s. will be less safe. this is a terrible deal, an embarrassing deal and one we will regret in the future. vote to fully disclose this deal. vote against the deal, and vote to keep the sanctions on and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: we continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. perry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. mr. perry: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, no one wants iran to have a nuclear weapon. i certainly don't think the president wants them to, but i think it's clear that they're going to.
the question is when. clearly the president tried to make -- he tried to make a good deal. i don't think he thinks that iran can be trusted, but i do think he thinks they won't cheat. mr. speaker, the road to hell was paved with good intentions, and i'm sure that the administration had and has good intentions, but the facts remain. iran has been cheating literally for thousands of years or at least that region has and certainly we know. the facts, the facts is for the last 36 years iran has cheated on every single agreement they have signed. they're cheating at this very moment. so an agreement that's based on that, that they wouldn't cheat is an agreement that is fatally flawed. mr. speaker, this is the same country that won't cheat. this is the same country that leaders recognize the stoning of women, the hanging of
homosexuals, the sponsor of mass terrorism. this is a country we have signed an accord with. the other side say this is great agreement and inspection paradigm. with all due respect, no one knows what this is. and yet the pillar of this agreement is based solely on that, an inspection paradigm that iran can't cheat and we don't know what it is. we are literally voting for something and on something we don't know what it is and we're being urged to vote for it. mr. speaker, iran cannot be trusted. the blood will not be on my hands. these rockets that hamas launches into israel, these american soldiers that come home in body bags in the future, i just want to let everybody know that the blood will not be on my hands and the hands on those that vote against this disagreement. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california
reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: i yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from california, mr. farr. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. farr: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you for you yielding. i've been listening to this debate all day and i really have to be i guess enangered about the number of misstatement of facts here and about this house being so negative about this country and about our president. you can't get away with criticizing presidents of other -- leaders of other countries being negative about us when you're standing around being negative about our own country and our own president. this agreement is about trust and it isn't about trust with iran. it's about trust with the international atomic energy commission. nobody's spoken what that commission does other than the chairman about how important it is. it's been around since 1957. we helped create it. it's got 2,400 employees. we probably trained most of them. they know about inspections.
they're an international organization. they don't belong to anybody. no country owns them. you can't go and crash all day that they have a secret greement with iran when they have a secret agreement with the u.s. and russia. that's their business. they go and verify. we don't come into our top classified areas about some agreement how they're going to handle that information. they can't release that information to other countries. they wouldn't have any credibility. when you talk about the president release it. he doesn't own it. it's the iaea. what if iran says we don't want to enter into this agreement because we don't know what the iaea has entered into with the united states? so some trashing the process. trust this organization. we've been proud of it for 48 -- 58 years. it's the top cop on nuclear inspections. all the 1,100 facilities around the world, nuclear power
plants, military bases with nuclear equipment, weapons. they're the inspectors. they're the ones that trust and verify. give them a chance. everybody in the world thinks this is the toughest agreement ever negotiated. why would we not be celebrating it? this is diplomatic history. we have done great things here. and you want to trash it. and you want to trash the administration. that's not america. give peace a chance. ote no on this awful bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: mr. speaker, i yield myself two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: you know, some of us have seen this before. some of us were around for the north korean nuclear agreement and president obama's iran nuclear deal looks increasingly like the dangerous deal that we struck with that regime in north korea. in 1994, the u.s. government
signed a deal with north korea that according to then-president clinton would make the united states, the korean peninsula and the world safer, in his words. the agreement, we were told, did not rely on trust but would instead involve a verification program which would stop the north koreans from ever acquiring a nuclear bomb. that sounds familiar today. unfortunately, the north korean deal had holes that you could fire a ballistic missile through. the deal did not dismantle north korea's program. it committed the united states to rewarding north korea with large quantity its of fuel oil without requiring the regime to implement the terms. and worst of all, the deal relied on inspection provisions that were naive and ultimately were worthless. the predictable result was that on october 4 of 2002, north korea revealed it had been lying all along and that it
continued to secretly develop nuclear weapons. and four years later, north korea's dictator, kim jung ill, had an underground nuclear test and today it's a global menace and it supports and sponsors terrorism and it is the most unstable nuclear power on earth. so there is a reason when some of us raise these issues. i yield two minutes -- 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. rouzer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. rouzer: thank you, mr. speaker. and thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today in strong opposition to this so-called iran deal because it paves the way for iran to obtain nuclear capabilities that will not only threaten israel and create an arms race in the middle east, but it will also be a direct threat to america. time and time again the government of iran has demonstrated its unwillingness to be transparent and open
regarding their nuclear arms development and fraudulent behavior. let's not forget that we just recently discovered two of their secret nuclear facilities and who knows how many more they have. the sanctions relief included as part of this deal guarantees that iran, the world's number one sponsor of terrorism, will have billions -- let me repeat -- billions more to fund their evil acts. and if there is any confusion, iran stated intentions of wiping israel off the face of the earth and their public chants to death to america make their intentions very clear. mr. speaker, america has always stood for what is right. the greatest force for good mankind has ever known, let's keep it that way and defeat this agreement. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: we reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized.
mr. royce: i yield one minute to the gentleman from florida, mr. yoho. mr. yoho: i stand in opposition for this deal. it's a terrible deal for america and for the world. this is a deal that can't be verified. the iaea is so eloquently talked to about my colleague across the aisle is the same iaea that had their inspector buying nuclear materiel for north korea and this is a deal that they are the number one sponsor of terrorism in the world shouting "death to america." and when they stop hearing the rhetoric from their president and stop denouncing terrorism and release our hostages, then we can go forward with this. but this will do nothing but embolden iran, make them stronger and make the middle east more unstable. and i yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida yields back. the gentleman from california reserves.
the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield one minute to the gentleman from new york, mr. zelleden. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> congress is not on the clock because we haven't received the entire agreement. and if anyone wants to be supportive of this deal, let's hear what the president was telling the american public and all of us. the deal wasn't built on trust but verification. how do you support a deal without knowing what the verification is? mr. zeldin: if anyone wants to stand up and explain how you support a deal without knowing hat the verification is?
you can't. that's why we are asking tore it. and for those who say opposing this deal is somehow negative towards america, i took an oath fight and die in protection of our freedom and liberties. i love this country and i took an oath here to serve here the members of my district because i love america. so don't tell me that somehow opposing this deal is negative towards america. i oppose this deal because i love my country. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. royce: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois. mr. roskam: did you notice something? did you notice that for the past two years the president of the united states has said that we were going to have a deal, it was going to be based on full
disclosure. mr. speaker, the president said that we were going to know all of the information and the state department submitted to the congress a document that said here's all the information but then after that, mr. speaker, you know what we found out? there are two secret deals. there are two secret side deals, side arrangements that we have not seen. think about it. there are two alternatives. either this is sacrosanct iranianthe iaea and the regime and it's totally confidential or it's not. how can it be that some elements of the administration have been briefed on those documents, but they have not been disclosed to congress and not disclosed to the american public? how can that be? i will tell you how that can be because this is absurd. because the administration has not disclosed material
information. so why are we here today? why is chairman royce managing this time? why are we contemplating this resolution that is brought forth? it is to say this, administration, you have not complied, therefore, corker or cardin have not been invoked and therefore the house is not going to vote on this deal. this is an awful deal, mr. speaker. and it should be wholeheartedly rejected with all urgency. i urge the passage of this resolution to make it very clear that we are not going to be complicit. we are not going to be omplicit, mr. speaker and be midwives and bring into the world this awful thing. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. a few speakers ago, there was a
statement made about folks loving america. well, guess what? we all love america. and the fact that we may have disagreements with regard to this proposal does not take away from our love of this great country. we may differ, but the facts still remain that we love our country. i just want to make that clear because it's sickening to hear those kind of comments. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield one minute to he gentleman from minnesota. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. emmer: the american people have spoken and overwhelmingly oppose this agreement. our allies in the region who know iran best oppose this deal. the president and enabled by
senate democrats continues to live in a fantasy land. his track record in appalling. red lines in syria, failed isil strategy and withdrawal from iraq, just to name a few. handing billions and a legal pathway to a nuclear weapon in iran. people deserve the truth about snapback sanctions and secret side deals, iran's right to enrich uranium and congress' role in this bad deal. members of congress must ask themselves two questions, does this deal make us more secure? does this deal make us more safe? the answer to these questions is a resounding no. secretary of state kerry said no deal is better than a bad deal. i couldn't agree more. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from georgia, mr. loudermilk. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. loudermilk: iran is an enemy to the united states of america. not by our declaration but by proclamation by the most senior and military leaders of that nation who have stated their destiny is to destroy the united states of america. i was recently told by the prime minister of israel, benjamin netanyahu that when someone says they want to destroy you, believe them. so are we to trust? are we to trust iran when they say that their destination and goal is to destroy the people of the united states of america or do we trust them when they say they will commit to not develop a nuclear weapon or do we trust
an international organization who has details about verification that they won't even share with the representatives of the people of this nation who would be drastically affected by that? yes, i have been told it's not about trust but verification. but the details are the most critical part of that negotiation is being kept secret from members of congress who would approve this deal that would have a drastic effect on the people of the united states. those who chant "death to america," they know the details of it. we must stop this now. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield one minute to the gentlelady from tennessee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. blackburn: i thank the chairman for the work that he has done on this issue and the
awareness that he has helped to raise, not only with members of this body with the american people. and the american people are speaking up. they do not want this iran deal to be on the books. and there are good reasons why. as i was home in talking to my constituents, many are like me. there are moms, there are grandmothers and they fear what this will do to our country. they fear what it will do to the safety of our children and future generations. they're asking the right questions. has iran deserved the right to be trusted? absolutely not. when their neighbors don't trust them, should we trust them? the answer is of course not. is this a transparent agreement? of course not, the secret side deals that have been made. why would we do that and incentivize and create a pathway
for iran to have a nuclear weapon? i think what we should do is require the president to come forward with every component to expose this so we know what kind of future this creates for our children and our grandchildren. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: if i could return, mr. speaker, i yield myself two minutes. returning to an argument i was making earlier about this body's experience with north korea, it does look to me like many are willing to concede to iran the same loopholes that we gave north korea. supreme leader ayatolla has declared that his country would never agree to anywhere any time
inspections. that's what's a little confusing about this, especially, he says iranian military sites. what we are informed of is iran is going to do its own inspection at parchin, without full ability to inspect these sites. we will be verifying in the dark just as we were with north korea. the eye tolla is demanding sanctions be lifted before iran dismantles its nuclear infrastructure. in short, the supreme leader says he isn't going to let the inspectors and yet he wants sanctions relief that he could funnel into terrorist groups that he funds including hezbollah and hamas. just like north korea, iran wants its rewards up front. and again like north korea, what is iran glanding? the best prize of all, the stamp
of international legitimacy for its nuclear program. the truly stunning thing about this nuclear deal even if iran fulfills all of its commitments in a few short years they will be free from restraints and have international blessing for iran's nuclear program and will have billions of dollars that -- in my opinion what will they use it, destabilizing the region. their military controls the contracts. not too late to stop iran from getting nuclear weapons. but to do so we need to learn from our mistakes. and if we don't, the eye tolla ayatolls will have the bomb. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: how much time do
we have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland has three minutes. mr. cummings: we are prepared to close and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cummings: i want to make it clear that this agreement is not based on trust, it's based on the most intrusive verification regime in history. there's been a lot of talk about $100 billion and others floated other figures in sanction relief, but we know that it's more like around $50 billion and it's conjecture as to how iran will spend this money. our terrorism sanctions will remain firmly in place to combat the money that iran passes to any terrorist groups. so this is a good deal. not because the president says
so. not because i say so. not because anyone else in this chamber says so. it's a good deal because the experts say so. uclear physicists, disarmament experts, anti-nuclear proliferation experts, members of the intelligence community, including the head -- former musai and our allies all agree that the right thing to do is to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is to support this deal. and i reserve the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. weber. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. weber: neville chamberlain spoke to the crowds. he said the settlement of the
czechoslovakia problem has been achieved. he said this morning i had another talk with german chanceler hitler and here's his signature that bears mine. we see this as symbolic of the our two peoples never to go to war again. later that day he read again. he said, my good friends, for the second time in our history a british prime minister has returned from germany bringing peace with honor. he said, i believe it is a peace for our time. we thank you from the bottom of our hearts. go home and get a nice quiet sleep. mr. speaker, we all know how that turned out. y friends, if this deal passes and make no mistake, it is quite a deal for iran, americans will not get a quiet night's sleep as long as barack
hussein obama is in office aiding the iranian terrorist regime, we will not be safe and americans will not sleep well. this is a bad deal. you don't argue. you don't make deals with the devil. deals with the enemy. do we not learn from history? did we not learn anything from world war ii? this is a bad deal. i urge my colleagues to vote this deal down and it is time to put america first. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. members are reminded not to engage in personalities towards the president. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. some tried to demean the importance of what the chairman and others here on the republican side are trying to do right now.
the fact is that when we talk about the information that's not been provided about the outside agreements with the iaea, it is not only material, relevant, but it's also critical. i'm reading directly from the iran deal. eight years after the adoption day or when the iaea has reached the broader conclusion that all nuclear material in iran remains in peaceful activities, whichever is earlier, goes on to talk about sanctions that will be lifted. another place, same thing. when -- or when the iaea has reached the broader conclusion that all natural -- all nuclear material in iran remains in peaceful activities, then another protocol is lifted. if we don't know what the agreement is with the iaea, then these years mean nothing. the iaea, i already heard say,
as far as it knows nuclear material is being used for peaceful purposes, that would mean that these years are worthless. we got to have the secret agreements. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: we reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: mr. speaker, if i could reserve the right to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: may i inquire as to how much time we still have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland has a minute and a half remaining. the gentleman from california has six minutes remaining. mr. cummings: thank you. i yield myself the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. cummings: with regard to what the gentleman just stated, i'd refer him to senator bob corker who drafted the process that gave congress the right to review the agreement and in talking about this situation that we're addressing today, he says that the motion is not
worth considering. so apparently he feels satisfied that the arrangement with regard to the iaea is -- has been satisfied. let me -- let's also focus with the matter at hand, and the matter at hand is preventing iran from getting a nuclear weapon. instead of working on pointless partisan measures like this one and others we'll be considering tomorrow. this entire piece of legislation that we have been debating is about accusations that the president did not comply with the iran nuclear agreement review act. even as i said a moment ago, the chairman of the senate foreign relations committee does not believe that. let's get back to the business wasting ple and stop their money and wasting their time. so i urge a no vote on this
resolution and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: mr. speaker, i guess the point that i would begin by making is that iran won't have to cheat like north korea did to get close to a bo, and that is because the essential restrictions on iran's key bomb making technology expire or in the words of the agreement, sunset, in 10 to 15 years. and after these restrictions expire, iran will be left with an internationally recognized industrial scale nuclear program. iran could even legitimately enrich to levels near weapons grade under the pretext of powering a nuclear navy. all these activities are permissible under the nonproliferation treaty, and all would be endorsed by this agreement. indeed, to quote the president,
president obama said of this 14, 15, in your 13, iran's breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero. a former state department official testified to the foreign affairs committee that this sunset clause is a disaster. it's a disaster as it will enable the leading state sponsor of terrorism to produce enough material for dozens of nuclear weapons all under the terms of the agreement. as another expert witness pointed out, the bet that the administration is taking is that in 10 to 15 years we will have a kinder, gentler iran. the agreement does not dismantle iran's nuclear infrastructure. iran doesn't have to dismantle any centrifuges or give up any
of its nuclear facilities. at iran's secret facility fordo does stay open. instead the deal temporarily restricts elements of the program. it does that. it restricts elements of the program but it does it in exchange for something else that's permanent. what is permanent in this as opposed to temporary? what's permanent is the sanctions relief. ey restrictions begin to expire after only eight years. if fully implemented, this agreement will destroy the iran sanctions regime, which congress has built up over decades despite opposition from several administrations. i'll remind the members again, this was a hard-fought case over several administrations,
and in the prior congress myself and eliot engel had legislation which would have put additional pressure on iran, that passed here by a vote of 400-20, but it was the administration and it was secretary of state kerry who made certain that that bill was bottled up in the senate and could not see the light of day. now, the billions in sanctions relief that iran will get upfront will support its terrorist activity, but those billions are just a down payment. as this agreement reconnect iran to the global economy, and one of the things that bothers me most about this is that iran is not a normal country with normal businessmen running those companies. when those companies were nationalized, they were turned over to the irgc. they were turned over basically to the leaders in the military, and they were turned over to the clerics and so as future
contracts go forward with iran, it is that entity that is going to be rewarded, is going to have the political power. for those of us that hoped to see change in iran, now the best connected people in iran will be the irgc leaders. and if we think for a minute what that will mean for those that would like to be -- to see real change, i think we lost an historic opportunity here to put the kind of pressure that would have forced change, but we did not do that. in a major last-minute concession -- and this is the final point i would make -- the president agreed to lift the u.n. arms embargo on iran, and in five years iran will be able to buy conventional weapons and in eight years ballistic missiles. russia and china want to sell these dangerous weapons to
iran, and that's why they pushed, that's why it was russia pushing at the 11th hour after we thought this agreement was done. the reason we were waiting those extra days is because russia was running interference for iran saying, oh, no, wait, we also want the arms embargo lifted, including the icbm embargo lifted. as secretary of defense of our country testified, the reason that we want to stop iran from having an icbm program is that the i in icbm stands for intercontinental, which means having the capability of flying from iran to the united states. ask yourself why iran wants to build icbm's, why it is that the ayatollah says it's the duty of every military man to
figure out how to help mass produce icbm's. someone wants asked president kennedy the difference between our space program and the program -- icbm program that russia was building at that . me and he quiped, attitude kennedy's answer was attitude. the answer here is that attitude counts for a lot, and the attitude in the regime when they say they're not even going to be bound by this and are now going to transfer rockets and missiles to hezbollah and hamas tells us a lot about their attitude. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. royce: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate has expired. the previous question is ordered on the resolution and on the preamble. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the resolution is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. mr. royce: mr. speaker, on that
i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 245. the nays are 186. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair lays before the house n enrolled bill. the clerk: senate 1359, an act to allow manufacturers to meet warranty and labeling requirements for consumer products by displaying the terms of warranty on websites and for other purposes.
for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker. mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. >> pursuant to house resolution 12, i call up h.r. 3461, and i ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3461, a bill to approve the joint comprehensive plan of action signed relating to the nuclear program of iran. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 412, the bill is considered as read. the bill shall be debatable for three hours equally divided and controlled by the chair of the committee on foreign affairs and the minority leader or their designees. the gentleman from california, mr. royce, will control 90 minutes. the gentleman from new york, mr. engel, the gentleman from
virginia, mr. connolly, and the gentlewoman from california, ms. waters, each will control 30 minutes. the house will be in order. mr. royce: may i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks extraneous any materials on this measure? the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. royce: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. royce: in the foreign affairs committee we held 30 hearings and briefings on iran since these negotiations began. we've reviewed this agreement in depth, but, mr. speaker, i can come to no other conclusion that not only does it come up short, it is fatally flawed and indeed dangerous. so i will oppose the measure before us.
we should have gotten a better deal. indeed when the house passed stiff iran sanctions legislation -- now, this was in 2013 -- in the prior congress, we passed this legislation authored by myself and mr. engel by a vote -- a bipartisan vote in this body of 400-20, and the intention of that legislation was to put that additional leverage on iran and force the ayatollah to make a choice between real compromise, real compromise on his nuclear program and economic collapse if he did not. unfortunately, the secretary of state, the administration worked to ensure that the other body never took that measure up . this legislation would have put more pressure, as i say, on iran and might have led to an
acceptable deal. but instead of an ironclad agreement that is verifiable and holds iran to account, we are considering an agreement that leaves iran in a few short years only steps away from a nuclear weapons program, one that would be on an industrial scale. under the agreement, iran is not required to dismantle key bomb-making technology. instead, it is permitted a vast enrichment capacity, reversing decades of bipartisan nonproliferation policy that never imagined, never imagined endorsing this type of nuclear infrastructure for any country, never mind a country that lives by the motto "death to america." . while members of congress insisted on any time, anywhere inspections, u.s. negotiators
settled for something called managed access. so instead of allowing international inspectors into those suspicious sites within 24 hours, it will take 24 days and that's to commence the process. and, worse, there have been revelations in recent days about an agreement between iran and the united nations nuclear watchdog, and this agreement sets the conditions in which a key iranian military site suspected of nuclear bomb work, suspected in the sense that we have 1,000 pages of evidence, 1,000 pages of evidence of that -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. mr. royce: will be explored. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentlelady is correct, the house is not in order. the house will be in order. members will please take their seats. members will remove their conversations from the house floor. the house will be in order. mr. royce: mr. speaker, as we've heard, those details -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. royce: thank you, mr. speaker.
those details, we don't have them in our hands. but it's reported that instead of international inspectors doing the inspecting, iranians themselves will take the inspection lead. iran has cheated on every agreement they've signed. so why do we trust them now? and the deal guts the sanctions web that is putting intense pressure on iran. billions will be made available to iran to pursue its terrorism. indeed, iran's elite quds force has transferred funds, and this should bother all of us, has transferred funds to hamas. it has committed to rebuild the network of tunnels from gaza to attack israel. mr. engel and i were in one of those tunnels last year. they have agreed in iran to replenish the medium range missile arsenal of hamas. and they are working right now, they claim, to give precision
guided missiles to hezbollah. i can tell you, i was in haifa in 2006 when it was under constant bombardment by those types of rockets. but they weren't precision guided. and every day they slammed into the city. and there were 600 victims in the trauma hospital. and now iran has transferred eight-fold the number of missiles. and they want to give them the guidance systems. they need money to pay for those guidance systems. iran won late concessions to remove international restrictions on its ballistic missile program and on its conventional arms. and that emperils the security of the region and, frankly, the security of our homeland. for some, the risks in this agreement are worth it. as they see an iran that is changing for the better. as one supporter of this agreement told our committee,
president obama's betting that , we'll have a rs kinder, gentler iran. but that's a bet against everything we have seen out of the regime since the 1979 revolution. already iranian leaders insist that international inspectors won't see the inside of iran's military bases, and that iran can advance its missiles and weapons without breaking the agreement. it's guaranteed that iran will game the agreement to its advantage. so we must ask ourselves, will international bureaucrats call out iran? knowing that doing so will put this international agreement at risk? we're not calling them out now, as they're transferring weapons. and will this administration, which didn't even insist that four american hostages come home as part of this agreement, be any tougher on iran in implementing this deal? does this serve the long-term national security -- long term
national security interests of the united states? does it make the region more safe, more stable, more secure? is there any other reason why iran, an energy-rich country, is advancing its nuclear technology other than to make a nuclear weapon? and why do its leaders chant death to america, death to israel? "the new york times" read a story on quds day, which is the national parade, it was some weeks ago, and there was president rouhani, the so-called moderate, marching in that parade, behind him the crowd were chanting, they were chanting, death to america. in front of them they carried placards on either side of him that said, death to israel. why does their leader march in the quds parade and why does
that refrain constantly come from the clerics? i hope that all members will consider these questions as they consider this vote. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york is ecognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. >> mr. speaker, over the past two years, i've supported our negotiating team in the p5+1, i favored giving time and space to achieve a diplomatic breakthrough. mr. engel: to -- eng -- mr. engel: to foreclose iran's pathways to a nuclear weapon. i'm grateful to the tireless effort by president obama, secretary kerry, secretary moniz, secretary lew and undersecretary sherman. i appreciate the work of our p5+1 partners in concluding an agreement with iran.
but unfortunately i cannot support the joint comprehensive plan of action and i plan to oppose the resolution. let me say at the outset, i was troubled that iran was not asked to stop enriching while we were talking, despite several separate u.n. security council resolutions calling for a pause. and after using this review period to assess the details of the agreement, i'm not convinced that this deal does enough to keep a nuclear weapon out of iran's hands. i have raised questions and concerns throughout the negotiating phase and review period. the answers i have received simply don't convince me that this deal will keep a nuclear weapon out of iran's hands and may in fact strengthen iran's position as a destabilizing and destructive influence across the middle east. first of all, i don't believe that this deal gives international inspectors adequate access to sites.
24 days is far, far too long a time. iran can stall and in 24 days they can cover up whatever they have. i'm especially troubled by reports about how the iranian military base at parchin will be inspected. with these potential road blocks, iaea inspectors may be unable to finish their investigation into the potential military dimensions of iran's nue nuclear program -- nuclear program. i don't think it's essential that iran provide a full mia kulpa of its past activities, but we should have a clear picture of how far iran has gotten in developing a nuclear weapon. i also view as a dangerous concession the sunset of the international sanctions on advanced conventional weapons and ballistic missiles. i was told that these issues were not on the table during the talks. so it's unacceptable to me that after five years iran can begin buying advanced conventional weapons, after eight years
ballistic missiles. worse, if iran were to violate the weaken prod visions in this agreement, such an action wouldn't violate the jcpoa and wouldn't be subject to snapback sanctions. in my view, iran is a grave threat to international stability. it is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. it continues to hold american citizens behind bars on bogus charges, and our prisoners still languish there, we have an agreement, their release was not part of the agreement. iran's actions have made a bad situation in a day otic region worse -- in a day otic region worse -- in a chaotic region worse. even when iran had no money, when its currency was worthless, when its economy was in the toilet, iran found money to support international terror . iran has been able to support terrorist groups such as hezbollah, hamas -- hamas and other violent extremists. awash in new cash provided by
sanctions relief, iran will be poised to inflect even greater damage -- inflict even greater damage in syria, yemen, iraq, lebanon, israel and our gulf partners. iran's leadership is -- has every interest in shoring up support from hard liners. after all, if a deal goes through, hard liners will need to be placated. i can tell you that over the next few years the next lebanon war with israel, hezbollah will have missiles raining down on israel. and some of those missiles will be paid for by the windfall that iran is going to get as a result of sanctions being lifted. i think that's unacceptable. we can have no illusions about what iran will do with its newfound wealth. we can have no doubt about the intent of a country's leader who chants, death to america and death to israel, just days after concluding a deal, the ink wasn't even dry on the deal and four days later the supreme leader led a chant of, death to america.
after negotiating with us and agreeing to this agreement, couldn't even wait more than four days, back to the same old death to america. finally, and very importantly, i have a fundamental concern that 15 years from now, under this agreement, iran will be free to produce weapons-grade highly enriched uranium without any limitation. what does that mean? it means iran will be a legitimatized nuclear threshold state after the year 2030, with advanced centrifuges and the ability to stockpile enriched uranium. so in reality, this doesn't prevent this agreement -- this agreement does not prevent iran from having a nuclear weapon, it only postpones it. if iran pursues that course, i fear it could spark a nuclear arms race across the region. after years, i am simply not confident that iran will be a more responsible partner. before i finish, i also would like to say a few words about the debate surrounding this
issue so far. we can disagree on the issues, we should debate the details of any important policy, such as this one, and we must rely on a democratic institution -- our democratic institutions to follow us forward as they have for so long. but we cannot question the motives of any members of congress, no matter where he or she stappeds on this issue. instead of using -- stands on this issue. let's look down the road. after all, we know what this deal is going forward. when that happens, we need to ask how we can make this agreement stronger. how do we ensure the security of israel and our other friends and allies in the region? how do we keep resources out of the hands of terrorists as sanctions are lifted? what support does congress need to provide so that the united states and our partners can hold iran to its word and ultimately keep it from getting a bomb? the time to start answering these questions is now. that's why in the weeks and days ahead, i will reach out to colleagues, republicans and democrats alike, to chart a
path forward. i'll be working with chairman royce and others on both sides of the aisle. i will develop new legislation to counter iran as it dumps its soon to be acquired billion of dollars into terrorist groups and weapons programs. i will work with other lawmakers toward new initiatives that support israel and our middle east allies so that they can stand up to an unleashed raptor. and i will work -- iran. and i will work here in congress and with the administration to make sure the deal is fully implemented to the letter. we need to focus on strengthening our deterrence in the region and most importantly we have to work hard to continue to enhance the u.s.-israel relationship. we must reinvigorate the bipartisan consensus which has been the foundation of america's relationship with israel. and we must ensure that israel is able to maintain its qualitative military edge and its ability to defend itself. the world is watching us this week. the united states is being looked to.
not for rhetoric and outrage, but for leadership and resolve. so let's present our arguments and cast our votes. then let's work together to move forward in a productive way. i appreciate how we've worked together on the foreign affairs committee, with chairman royce. i thank you, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. royce. mr. royce: mr. speaker, i appreciate the bipartisan relationship that all of the members on the foreign affairs committee have. but especially today. the words of mr. engel, that every member of this house should be mindful, that impugning motives, questioning the motives of those who disagree with us is not conducive to an honest and fair debate over these issues. i thank him for making that point on the floor today. and at this time i would yield three minutes to the gentleman from louisiana, the majority whip, steve scalise.
the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the majority whip, mr. scalise. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from california for yielding and for his leadership. you know, mr. speaker, when the president started these negotiations with iran, i think when you look at the fatal flaw in the beginning of those negotiations, they should have started with one basic premise. and that premise, mr. speaker, ought to have been to finally force iran to dismantle their nuclear weapons program. unfortunately, unfortunately, mr. speaker, that was not the objective of these negotiations. in fact, if you look it's seem there is more interest on making sure a deal could be reached that china and russia and iran could finally agree to. and the problem is when you look at the fatal flaw of that negotiation, what has it yielded and why is there such
strong opposition across the country from members of both parties to this agreement? i think most americans recognize that iran cannot be trusted with a nuclear weapon. just look at their own rhetoric. just this week the ayatollah himself led the chant "death to america." these are the people that the president is negotiating with to ultimately end up at the end of this deal with the ability to develop not just a nuclear bomb but a nuclear arsenal, mr. speaker. just look at the tenants of the deal itself. one of the conditions in the deal actually allows iran to have more than 5,000 centrifuges. if they comply with the deal, they can keep more than 5,000 centrifuges to enrich uranium. it took pakistan about 3,000 centrifuges to develop their
bomb, and iran will have over 5,000 centrifuges if they comply with the deal, let alone if they cheat, and we know the history there. let's look at other components of the deal, mr. speaker. in this deal, if there's a site that's undeclared and our intelligence along the way over these next few years exposes the fact that there's something there that we want to go look at, that we request whether or not they're cheating -- that we question whether or not they're cheating, mr. speaker, we have to wait over 24 days. imagine all of the things that could be hidden in 24 days if we have the intelligence that they're cheating. how could this be part of the deal that we would agree to that's he that's in the american best interest? ultimately what we have to agree on, what's in the best
interest of the united states of america and we have to be concerned about israel and the other arab states and others that have deep, deep concern about this? others are indicating this will start a nuclear arms race within the middle east. within 10 years you could have half a dozen countries in the middle east with nuclear arms. this isn't the way we ought to go. and then, of course, there are the secret side deals, and we've seen evidence now that there are secret side deals that president won't disclose. mr. royce: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scalise: mr. speaker, under the law that president obama himself signed, the law actually says the president has to disclose to congress and the american people all information related to this deal, including, and i quote, side agreements, side agreements, and now we're hearing at least two secret side agreements exist, one that allows iran to
actually do their own inspections. mr. speaker, these are the people that this deal is going to allow to inspect their own nuclear facilities. the president ought to release to the american people the details of these secret side agreements right now, right now or withdraw this entire proposal. president reagan said trust but verify. under this agreement, president obama is saying trust iran to verify. you cannot allow this to go through. i urge all of my colleagues to reject this deal. the president lays out a false premise that it's this deal or war. i suggest, mr. speaker, there's a much different approach, a much better approach and that is to go get a better deal that protects the united states of the -- the interest of the united states of america for decades and decades to come. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. engel. mr. engel: thank you, mr. speaker.
it's my pleasure to yield four minutes to the gentleman from california, a very valued member of our committee and one of the subcommittee ranking members, mr. sherman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute -- mr. engel: four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: four minutes. mr. chairman, when i came to this house in 1997, a few months after i served on the foreign affairs committee, i said back then that the iran nuclear program was the greatest single threat to the security of americans. it was true then. it's true now. on july 14, a few hours after the deal was published, i came to this floor and said that the -- what this house ought to do is consider a resolution of proval of the nuclear deal
and to vote it down by a large vote. that is exactly what we will do tomorrow morning. let me go through a number of oints that opponents and proponents of this deal can both agree on. the first is this resolution is quite a bit different than the one we've been thinking about for the last month. it's a resolution of approval, and even if we vote it down the president can and will carry out this agreement. that's very different from the resolution of disapproval that was -- that we've all talked about and made commitments about. we don't have any commitments on this resolution. it's a totally new resolution. this resolution will express the feelings of congress but will not prevent the president from carrying out the deal. second, we can agree this deal is better during the next year and a half than it is next
decade. the controls on iran's nuclear program are much stronger for the first 10 years than they are thereafter. whether you like the deal or hate the deal, you've got to agree that it's better upfront than it is in the outyears. the third thing we can agree on is that the president only promised iran that he would sign the deal and that he would carry out the deal and that he would use his veto as he has threatened to do and has successfully done in effect, that he would carry out the deal using his powers to do so. that's already settled. the president never told iran congress would approve this deal. why should we give iran more than they bargained for? they barring ind for the president's signature -- bargained for the president's signature to carry out the deal. that's already settled. why should we give iran
something extra in return for nothing? we should not vote for this deal. the second thing we should agree on is this agreement is not a binding agreement as a matter of constitutional law and they define a treaty and this is not a treaty and certainly would not get a 2/3 vote. and this is not a ratified treaty, not an unratified treaty, not a legislative executive agreement. it's simply an agreement between the executives of the respective governments. the next thing we can agree on is that we don't know what the best policy for america is next decade. let's keep our options open. iran is not legally bound by this agreement, and even if they were they would conveniently ignore that any day of the week. we cannot feel that we are legally bound. now, as the -- as a legal
matter we are not but appearances matter, and if this agreement that's been signed by the president gets a positive vote of approval in this house, there will be those around the world who believe that it is binding on the united states even as a legal matter it is not binding on iran and oh, by the way, their legislature hasn't voted to approve it. so we need freedom of action. what form will that action take? will we demand that iran continue to limit its nuclear program beyond year 10, beyond year 15? after all, we are continuing the sanctions relief all through next decade. i don't know if that will be the right policy or not. the president -- the current president's hands are untied. he gets to carry out his policy for the remainder of the term. vote no on this resolution because if we vote yes, we are tying the hands of future
presidents. in a decade -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california, mr. royce, is recognized. mr. royce: i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, chairman emeritus of the committee on foreign affairs who currently chairs our subcommittee on the middle east and north africa. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you so much, mr. speaker. and 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 through i don't know how many hearings we had in our foreign affairs committee highlighting the many flaws of this deal and giving he other side the
the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. engel. mr. engel: it's my pleasure now to yield four minutes to the gentleman from florida, very important member of the committee, the ranking member of the middle east and north africa subcommittee, the gentleman from florida, mr. deutch, four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for four minutes. mr. deutch: i thank the ranking member for yielding. i thank the chairman for his leadership in the committee. there's been a lot of points made during this debate. i would like to set some context for the rest of the evening. iran's regime is anti-american and anti--israel and violate the human rights of their hem.
iran's support for terrorists has led directly to the deaths of american citizens and works to destabilize the middle east and vows to destroy israel and responsible for the deaths of civilians and members of the military from beirut to argentina and assisted in assad's slaughter of 300,000 of his own people. as we gather here today, four are in iran held by the regime and unable to return home to their families. mr. speaker, it's well known i oppose this deal. on the nuclear issue, it does not dismantle iran's nuclear program but pauses it. the monitoring of the fuel cycle and the reduction in enriched uranium, we cannot access other
suspected nuclear sites in less than 24 days and if we find them in violation we cannot restore sanctions and if we snap back sanctions, mr. iran has the right to cease performing its obligations under the agreement all together. while there has been speculation about what could happen in the absence of the deal, the regime will get billions of dollars to support terrorism. the arms embargo will be lifted and the advanced weapons will be available to the regime and the ban on the development of ballistic missiles will be lifted. now, i have heard a lot of criticism of those of us who oppose the deal. i don't want war, mr. speaker. i want to prevent iran from using billions of dollars to cause more violence and more bloodshed. i don't want to have an arms race but i want to keep them from developing centrifuges and
industrial nuclear program with an unlimited number of centrifuges so other nations will not seek nuclear weapons. and mr. speaker, i don't oppose this deal because of politics or my religion or the people who live in my district. i have simply concluded that the risks are too great. now, these past few weeks have been challenging for all of us. and reasonable people can disagree and i'm saddened by the comments hurled at those of us who have different views on both sides. i also disagree with the decision by the republican leadership to make up new rules ignoring our ability to have an impact right now through the nuclear -- iran nuclear agreement. the consequences of this deal present us with some harsh realities but instead of den eying. it will require bipartisan support to do it.
ramping intelligence sharing and counterterrorism sharing and making clear to our allies that iran's violent activities in the region will not be tolerated and enhancing israel's military edge and let iran know that should it cheat it will be punished and intensifying sanctions for iranian support for terrorism in violation of human rights. president obama made this point last week, nothing in this deal prevents the sanctions and we must do so together. what happens next? i will vote against the deal. mr. speaker, there will be a day after the final resolution of this nuclear deal. and on that day, this house must work together to ensure that iran's terrorism is checked and iran never obtains a nuclear weapon and on that, we all agree. and i yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. royce. mr. royce: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. mccaul, chairman of the committee on homeland security and a member of the foreign affairs committee. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. mccaul, for three minutes. mr. mccaul: i thank the chairman and the gentleman from california. for the last decade, congress has passed bipartisan sanctions to get to the point where we are today and the purpose of these sanctions was to dismantle iran's nuclear weapons program. but this agreement does not achieve that goal. in fact, this agreement puts iran, the world's largest state sponsor of terror on a glidepath to a nuclear bomb. proponents say it's the only alternative to war, but i believe that is a false choice. i recently met with prime minister netanyahu, and he agreed that our goal should be a good deal.
but we cannot put our security at risk for a bad deal. and make no mistake, this is a bad deal for america and for our allies. and it will not stop iran's nuclear program. it will leave iran with the ingredients with a bomb and infrastructure to build it and will spark a nuclear arms race in the middle east. it will give iran a cash windfall freeing up $100 billion to fuel the regime's global campaign of islamist terror and incredibly this agreement lifts restrictions on the ballistic missiles which the eye tolla aid they will -- ayatolla said they will mass produce. it means the united states -- a top general bragged that his country will have a new
ballistic missile test in the near future that will be a thorn in the eyes of our enemies. president reagan, his statement on negotiating advice was to trust but verify. we can't trust a regime that has cheated on every deal. hispresident rue annie said centrifuges will not stop spinning. will not abide by any resolution. the white house is counting on verification, measures spelled out in secret side deals between iran and the iaea which secretary kerry testified to me that even he has not seen. and astoundingly the ap reports that the side deal allows iran to self-inspect its own nuclear sites. now the american people through their representatives in
congress, are expected to vote on this measure without seeing these secret deals, which goes to the heart of verification. this, in my judgment, is nothing short of reckless. let us be clear-eyed about what we are debating. this is not a negotiation with an honest government but with a terrorist state and responsible for american casualties in iraq. if we allow this deal to go forward we are putting the security of the world at risk. security and in defense of the free world, i cannot in good conscience support this agreement. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. engel. mr. engel: i yield to the the entlewoman from florida, representative wasserman schultz. the speaker pro tempore: the
chair recognizes the gentlewoman from florida. schultz schultz i rise in support to -- ms. wasserman schultz: i believe this is in the best. i have been a public official for nearly 23 years. this this is the most consequential vote i have taken and the most difficult decision i have ever faced. i spent the review period going through the agreement raising concerns with the administration and speaking with independent sources including nuclear nonproliferation experts and foreign ambassadors and held a series of meetings with constituents who hold very strong and differing positions. my goal was to determine whether the agreement is the most comprehensive path. this agreement is clearly not perfect. it is one tool that we have to combat iran's nuclear ambition.
ultimately, my support is based on substance. importantly, my jewish identity and jewish heart weighed heavily in my decision-making process. as we listen to iran's leaders call for the destruction of jewish people in israel, history reminds us when we do not listen. they are a leading state sponsor of terrorism. but having a nuclear weapon is far more zarningous. with the agreement in place, we will have their program under the most intrusive monitoring monitoring in place. i have spoken with the president and my colleagues about steps we will take to continue strengthening israel's and our allies' intelligence and military capabilities. opponents say we must press for a better deal. i'm left with no evidence that one is likely or even possible.
i heard directly from our allies, top diplomats that the sanctions regime that we have in place now will erode if not completely fall apart. our partners will not come back to the negotiating table and no -- and neither will iran. i cannot comprehend the why we would walk away. safeguards like 24/7, 365 access monitoring. eliminating 98% of their stockpiles and monitoring every stage of nuclear supply chains. if they cheat, we will know more about their program and effectively eliminate it if it becomes necessary. as a jewish mother and member of congress, nothing is more important to me than ensuring the safety of the united states and israel. supporting this agreement is the
best opportunity that we have to do that. mr. speaker, we have an expression in my faith, may the united states go from strength to strength and as we say in synagogue -- i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. royce. mr. royce: i yield three minutes to the the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: i thank the chairman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to president obama's nuclear deal with iran. now the president says it's a good deal and you know what? it's right. it's a very good deal for iran, but it's a very bad deal for america. i fear in his rush to try to build a legacy, the president has clearly given up far too
much for far too little. he has done this at the expense of our security as well as the security of our friend israel and other u.s. allies. mr. speaker, this is a deadly serious matter. the first thing the president does in his agreement with iran is to give them some start-up capital, $120 billion held abroad will be repatriot try ated back to iran's central bank. $120 billion to a supreme leader that calls for the end of israel and chants "death to america," the regime that has put bounties on the heads of american soldiers and has the blood of american citizens on its hands. the regime has sponsorship of hezbollah and left our closest alley in the region with 80,000 rockets trained on it and some a regime that simply represents the world's largest and most
dangerous state sponsor of terrorism. president obama would have us believe that waiving sanctions would make the world safer. but this is the very same president that dismissed the v. amic state as the j.j. team. this is his assessment. and the stakes involved with a nuclear iran leave zero room for error. in truth, mr. speaker, i fear it is we who sent the j.v. team to negotiate with iran. they were outplayed, outmaneuvered and outwitnessed and the result is the dangerous agreement we have before us today. the president tells congress we have to pass something to actually find out what's in it. in other words, the president has utterly failed to provide the secret side of the agreement. president obama told us we
cannot allow iran to get a nuclear weapon. under his deal, iran's nuclear program will not be dismantled but only temporarily slowed and that is if they don't cheat. but the president's team has failed to achieve any time anywhere inspections. thus it will be impossible to ensure that the iranians are not cheating. we are told the iranians will turn themselves in if they cheat. really? in short, the president's agreement rewards iran's terrorist-sponsoring regime with billions of dollars in relief without any guarantee of compliance. when you look at the record, mr. speaker, i don't trust this administration. i don't trust the iranians. why would we ever trust the two together. for the sake of our national security, i urge all of my colleagues to reject this flawed and dangerous agreement. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields.
the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. engel. mr. engel: i yield three minutes to the the gentleman from north carolina, mr. price. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. price. mr. price: i rise in support of this historic nuclear agreement with the united states and iran. for the sake of our national security and that of our allies, we must seize this unique opportunity. in the midst of these wild charges, let's try to get some perspective. in fact this agreement goes far beyond any negotiated nuclear deal in history. it will reduce iran's stockpile uranium by more than 98%. it will permanently prevent the and -- plutonium pathway dismantle its centrifuges including more advanced models
and terminate enrichment at fordo. -- a s an unprecedented massive degrading of iran's nuclear program. no military strike or strikes could achieve as much. i challenge anyone to find an agreement that will do as much. they won't, they haven't, because they can't. there simply isn't a viable diplomatic alternative for preventing an iranian nuclear weapon. the notion that we could somehow unilaterally reject the agreement and compel the p-5 plus one to resume negotiations is fantasy. our international partners have made clear that reinstating the
effective sanctions regime that brought iran to the negotiating table would be impossible. for congress to scuttle this deal would destroy our credibility as a negotiating party and would very likely put iran right back on the path to developing a weapon. the stakes couldn't be higher. the nuclear issue should transcend political opportunism and partisan rancor. we should be working together across partisan lines to ensure the swift and effective implementation of the jcpoa. we should be exploring ways that we can enhance cooperative efforts with israel, with the international community, to address iran's support for hezbollah and its gross abuse of human rights as well as other critical challenges in the middle east. today, we can start down that path by supporting the agreement.
i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the resolution of approval. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. royce. mr. royce: i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from north carolina, ms. foxx. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlelady from north carolina, ms. foxx, for two minutes. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank my colleague from the foreign affairs committee for his leadership on this work. mr. speaker, i rise to express my strong opposition to this legislation and clear the way for the president's misguided deal with iran. the united states must continue to stand between iran and nuclear weapons capability, but instead the deal legitimizes iran's nuclear achievements and strengthens its extremist regime. they have agreement gradually removes the key barriers that prevent iran from obtaining nuclear weapon capabilities, from growing its economic influence in the middle east and
from continuing its state funding of terrorist organizations that threaten security of this country and the well being of our allies. this deal lifts crit c58 economic sanctions that have limited iran's scope of influence in the region. removes the arms embargo and lifts missile program restrictions. for these reasons i oppose the president's deal and urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. engel. mr. engel: i'd like to inquire how much time i have left. the speaker pro tempore: eight minutes. mr. engel: thank you. i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. hi pinskey. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois for two minutes. mr. lipinski: the iran nuclear agreement should be judged on what's best for our national security and what is more likely to produce peace.
i believe peace has a better chance if we reject this deal, keep sanctions on and go back to the negotiating table to get a better agreement. this agreement was supposed to prevent iran from obtain agnew clear weapon. but at best, iran will be a nuclear threat in 15 years. by practically guaranteeing and legitimizing this access, there will be a rush by others in the reto gain their own nuclear weapons, creating a dangerous arms race in a volatile part of the world. the inspection protocols in the agreement are troubling because they give iran 24 days to delay inspection requests at suspected nuclear sites, a far cry from any time, anywhere. the agreement contains deeply concerning sanctions relief on iran's acquisition of conventional weapons and ballistic missile technology in
five and eight years respectively. these are just some of my concerns that lead me, after careful consideration, to oppose this agreement. mr. speaker, we should and we can do better. i urge my colleagues to reject this resolution. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. royce. mr. royce: i yield two minutes o the gentleman from michigan, mr. troth. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. trott: the fact that we're talking about entering into this agreement is troubling. the united states of america is going to enter into a deal with a regular nation who refuses to release the four americans they are holding, who has cheated on every deal they've been party to
over the last 30 years, who is party to secret deals we cannot see, who calls all of us the great satan, calls for death to our citizens, and wants to wipe israel off the face of the earth. and we're told the deals -- the deal is necessary because the united states of america has no other option. has it really come to this? we have options. one option is a better deal. and a better deal looks like this. release the four americans, no sunset clause, and inspections just like we were promised any time, anywhere. if these terms are unacceptable to iran, then the united states of america will use all of its economic might to put tough sanctions back in place. if we do this deal, let's look at what the next 25 years -- years looks like. immediately in the next 12 months irke ran will get their hands on $50 billion to $150 billion. the money will not be used for their citizens but to perpetuate terror around the world. iran gets its moneying we don't
get our four americans. over the next four months they'll start to cheat and get a bomb or two. over the next 12 months we'll start an arms race in the middle east. over the next five year, we'll try to snap back sanctions but that will be unisket every bays long-term contracts will be grandfathered in. in eight years they'll have a ballistic missile. in 10 years, they'll have a ballistic missile with a nuclear bomb pointed at the united states of america and in 25 years our friend and ally israel may not exist. i've been in business for 25 years before i got here. one thing i learned is you cannot do a good deal with a bad guy. we cannot do this deal with iraq. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york, mr. engel. mr. engel: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york for three minutes. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i rise
today in support of the resolution of approval of the joint comprehensive plan of action. throughout this debate, there have been acquisitions questioning the motives and loyalties of members in making this decision. it is precisely because i believe this agreement is in the interest of the united states and because i've been a strong supporter of israel my entire life that i am supporting the iran nuclear agreement. this must not be a vote of politics but of conscience. i for one could not hi with myself if i voted in a way that i believe would put the lives of american citizens and israelis at greater risk of an iranian knew leer bomb. my priority and overriding idea in this is prevent iran from obtain agnew clear bomb. the interest of the united states and israel in this respect are identical. in addition to constituting an exiss ten rble threat to israel a knew leer-armed iran would make the threats more dangerous and difficult to counter and would pose a greater danger to
the united states, to the region, and to the world. the question before us is not whether this is a good deal. the question is which of the two options available to us, supporting or rejecting the deal is more likely to avert a nuclear armed iran. i have concluded after examining all the arguments that supporting the iran new clear agreement gives us the better chance of preventing iran of developing a now clear weapon. the agreement will shut iran's pathways to developing the necessary fissionable material for a nuclear bomb for at least 15 years. the inspection and verification procedures against ill list plutonium production are airtight. the questions that have been raised about inspection procedures, the so-called side deal the alleged self-inspection, do not relate to the central issue of production of fissionable materials. and without fissionable material, you cannot make a bomb. even after 15 years, with when
some of the restrictions will be eased, we would still know instantly about any attempt to make bomb materials because the inspectors and the electronic and photographic surveillance will still be there. the options available to a future president for stopping iran then would be better than the options available now if the deal is rejected because we would have more access, instant intelligence, and more knowledge of the iranian program. the argument that if we reject the deal we can force iran back to the negotiating table and obtain a better deal is a fantasy. it is not a viable alternative. the other countries that have joined us in multiplat ral sanctions against iran have made it clear that they will drop their sanctions if we reject a deal and american sanctions by themselves have proven ineffective in coercing iran. we must be very clear that if necessary, the united states will use mill fair force to prevent an iranian nuclear bomb. but the odds of that being
necessary are significantly less with approval of this deal than with rejection of the agreement. going forward, it remains vital that we continue to pursue ways to further -- can i have an additional 20 seconds? mr. engel: i yield the gentleman an additional half minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. nadler: thank you. going forward it remains vital that we continue to pursue ways to further guarantee the security of israel and other allies in the middle east. this will require strict and diligent oversight, maintaining israel's qualitative military edge and countering iran's support of terrorism and other destabilizing conduct. we must be ready to take action against iran's nefarious behavior and iran must know the yeats will never allow it to pose a nuclear threat to the region and the world. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from kale, mr. royce. mr. royce: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. dent.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. dent is recognized for three minutes. mr. dent: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to this bill and the underlying iran nuclear agreement. goshting from a position of strength, the deal before us fails to achieve the goal of preventing iran's capacity to develop a nuclear weapon. it simply contains or manages iran's nuclear program. by agreeing to a lax enforcement and inspections regime, and fanciful, unrealistic snapback sanctions, the administration has accepted that iran should remain one year away from a nuclear bomb. i am not prepared to accept that. the sanctions relief will provide iran with billions of dollars, funds that will bolster the revolutionary guard and nonstate militant groups. the deal ends the conventional
arms embargo and the prohibition on ballistic missile technology. not only will this result in conventional arms flowing to oups, like hezbollah, it concedes the delivery system for a nuclear bomb. this will provide iran with nuclear infrastructure a missile delivery system, and the funds to pay for it all. y the way, the i in icbm means intercontinental. i don't believe that new zealand and mexico are the intended targets. that would be us. this deal cripples and shatters the current notion of nuclear nonproliferation. if iran can enrich uranium, which they can under this agreement, their gulf ashe neighbors will likely want to do the same. -- their gulf arab neighbors will likely want to do the same. i do not want a nuclearized middle east a region of
instability new york a nonstate axis. someone explain how deterrence works under that scenario. we should not reward the ayatollah with billions of dollars and sophisticated weapons in exchange for temporary and unenforceable nuclear restrictions. mr. speaker, i have always supported diplomatic resolutions to iran's nuclear issue but this is a dangerously weak adwreement. i urge my colleagues -- agreement. i urge my colleagues to reject it and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. engel. mr. engel: i now yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. var gas. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. vargas, for one minute. mr. vargas: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from california for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise today in opposition to the joint comprehensive plan of action between the p-5 plus one and iran.
the deal fails to dismantle iran's nuclear program. it fails to guarantee intrusive enough inspections to ensure that iran does not cheat and it fails to keep iran from achieving nuclear threshold status and it rewards iran's horrific behavior in the initial phase of this -- behavior. in the initial phase of this agreement, iran would receive a whopping relief package potentially totaling $150 billion. we know iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism and this will embolden the regime openly committed to confronting the united states and destabilizing the middle east. in eight years, iran legally expands its ballistic missile program and continues expanding its intercontinental ballistic missile program under the guise of satellite testing. who do we think -- ecently as yesterday
mr. engel: i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman. . vargas: ayatolla declared, i'm saying to israel they will not live to see the end of 25 years. there will be no such thing as a zionist regime. this is a bad deal and should reject it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields and the chair recognizes mr. royce. mr. royce: i yield two minutes conaway. mr. conaway: i rise in strong opposition to the approval process that's going on in the underlying deal with iran. it is one of the most consequential foreign policies we will confront. this is a terrible deal. i can't state it any more
forcefully. we have seen this movie before. in 1994, president clinton's eal with north korea would rip them apart. that didn't happen and this is the exact same language we heard on that floor then. nd look at their current record. chief state sponsor of terrorism as their economy improves with the dropping of the sanctions, do you think that this ayatolla will become a moderate voice in his country? do you think he will take those resources and expand the mischief he has conducted around the world? the other side has given up on the snapback provisions and said those won't happen because we can't reinforce the sanctions. mr. speaker, this deal ushers in
a world that is less safe, less stable and less secure. trust must be earned. i trust iran's word when they say israel must go away. i trust iran when they say "death to america." do not trust iran when they ill play -- say they will be trusted. we don't know what the activities might be. they will cheat and have cheated and will continue to cheat. we cannot trust these people with a deal. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the motion of approval and reject this deal, tell the world where we stand and see the threat that these folks represent to the world. we can see it and we must vote no. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: i yield one and a
half minutes to the gentleman from texas mr. hinojosa. mr. hinojosa: i rise in opposition to house resolution 64 which disapproves of the plan of action negotiated by thep 5 plus 1. i participated in classified briefings and listened to the many details. this agreement may not be perfect but it's the most viable option we have in reducing iran's capability in acquiring a nuclear weapon. the agreement will silence nuclear breakout times, reduces the number of centrifuges and decreases iran's stockpiles. more importantly, the agreement allows the international atomic
intelligence agency to seek compliance. if iran cheats, sanctions will be re-imposed. in every situation that involves the possibility of military force, i will always side with exploring and exhausting every possible avenue to a diplomat attic resolution. i support the agreement because it provides a solution rather than a worse-case scenario. in support of the 35 generals and admirals and 29 of the scientists confident we are on the right track, all of these distinguished leaders agree that this agreement is the most effective means currently available to prevent iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes mr. royce. mr. royce: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from indiana, mr. messer, the chair of the
republican policy committee. the speaker pro tempore: the chair reck in nieses the gentleman from indiana for three minutes. mr. messer: i rise today to opsose this legislation and joint comprehensive plan of action also known as the iran nuclear deal. the chief reason for this opposition is important yet simple. the iran nuclear deal doesn't make america safer or israel safer or make the rest of the world safer either. whatever your thoughts on this nuclear deal, we should be able to agree, the world would be a much more dangerous and unstable place if iran were to obtain a nuclear weapon. unfortunately, the deal the president negotiated won't stop that from happening. instead, under this deal, iran keeps its nuclear facilities. it will be allowed to self-police those facilities and report directly to the iaea. an idea that would be laughable
if it were not so crazy. iran will get to enrich uranium, all while receiving sanctions relief to the tune of $150 billion. pumped into a $400 billion a year national economy. $150 billion that will be used by iran to bank roll terrorist organizations, furet destabilize the middle east and continue their work to wipe israel off the map. it was ronald reagan who said trust, but verify, during arms control negotiations with communist russia more than a generation ago, but seems the obama administration is asking us to trust iran and then trust some more. well, i'm not willing to do that and the american people aren't willing to do that either. we need to stop this bad deal before it's too late.
and negotiate a better deal, a deal that stops iran's nuclear program and ensures the safety of america, israel and the rest of the world now and into the future. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. onnolly. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. connolly: you know, i rise in support of the joint comprehensive plan of action and against the resolution -- well, actually in favor of the resolution. i must say in starting, we are at a paradox call moment. the fears the haunting specter
of terrible things, the threats posed by a nuclear iran are all legitimate fears and legitimate haunting specters. avoided.hogomeny to be but ironically, those concerns and fears and outcomes raised by my friends on the other side of the aisle and the opponents actually come through and are realized if they do what they want us to do, which is to reject this agreement. the alternative to this greement is an unconstrained iranian nuclear program, mr. speaker. hanging overall of our heads and the security of the united states and israel and regional partners, who knows. the false hope offered by the
critics is let's return to the negotiating table to seek a better deal. man i respect at one of our hearings that chairman royce chaired, former senator leiberman said just that. i said how does that work. he said well, it's not going to work and let's start over. the proposition that we would renounce our own agreement that we negotiated wrought by more than a year of tough negotiations and expect that our negotiating partners, including russia and china and iran itself, to sit back down at the table and start all over again is r our leadership
delusional. cannot be naive about the scenario which congress rejects this agreement brokered by our own country. among our allies we divest ourselves and among our add versus areas we confirm the suspicion we cannot be trusted. the negotiations would collapse and our leverage would be diminished in all future u.s.-led negotiations. most concerning of all, we would return once again to the situation we're at, one of deep anxiety and uncertainty regarding iran's nuclear ambitions. critics of the agreement have offered no alternative and have tried to dine this agreement by what it is not. it is not a perfect deal that dismantles every nut and bolt of iranian nuclear development
programs, peaceful or otherwise. it's not a comprehensive resolution of the entire relationship and the myriad issues the u.s. and our allies have with the repressive regime in tehran and its support for terrorists in the region. no one ever said it would be. what arms control agreement in the history of our country has ever attempted to sir cuck subscribe every aspect of a relationship with our adverse sear and certainly not this one. in other words, this agreement is the indictment matic alternative we sought to attain when we entered into negotiations. the deal adheres to the high standards of verification, transparency and compliance on which any acceptable agreement with iran must be founded. that isn't just my words, that's what former republican secretary of state, colin powell," says.
said. ce scowcroft that's what former senator john warner says. the agreementally recollects an intrees i have regime that provides the iaea to declare nuclear facilities. additionally, they will be able to monitor iran's supply chain including uranium mines, mills, centrifuges, storage facilities and dedicated procurement for nuclear-related or dual-use technology. the agreement will have major components and place strict restrictions on the iranian nuclear program. if these restrictions are not adhered to, the united states can at any time revive the sanctions currently in place. congress should be able to conduct close oversight to
ensure the terms are implemented d iran is living up to its obligations. it isn't about trust. secretary of state clinton today echoed the words distrust and verify. she supports the agreement. more broadly the united states ust signal to iran that it condemnable record of human rights will not be tolerated, nor will we hide with disagreement that action and our response to it. quite the opposite. we will redouble our efforts to stop them and that egregious behavior. mr. speaker, in closing, article 1, section 8, clause 11 of the constitution, vests congress with the duty to authorize war. implicit in that text, congress' additional responsibility to
exhaust all reasonable alternatives before committing the american people and our men d women in uniform to such a fateful path. the plan of action represents our best endeavor to provide just that alternative. it is the product of earnest diplomacy and congress should put aside partisanship and support it for the sake of our country. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. royce. mr. royce: mr. speaker, several members mr. royce: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. royce: several members spoke of iran's commitment under this agreement. while it's true that iran committed to taking certain steps under this agreement, it's also true that iranians have never complied with any agreement related to its weapons program. so let's start with considering
what iran's leaders have been saying today about this agreement. this is what they say. they say that iran can pursue the development of missiles without any restrictions. how can that be given what's in this agreement? president rahani, the supposed moderate here, has argued repeatedly that the only restrictions on iran's missile development are in the u.n. security council resolution endorsing the deal. he says it's not in the agreement itself they don't recognize the security council resolution. so he says, we're not restricted by this agreement. so what you're quoting, they say they're not restricted by that. and iranian leaders say that iran can violate the u.n. security council resolutions without violating the agreement, sanctions do not, therefore, snap back if iran violates the u.n. security council
resolutions, according to iran, and that iran intends to violate the u.n. security council restrictions on weapons sales. and on imports. this is president rahani, again. we will sell and buy weapons whenever and wherever we deem it necessary. we will not wait for permission from anyone or any resolution. unquote. so iran's defense minister has said that iran is negotiating right now to purchase russian fighter jets. we know they're negotiating in terms of ballistic missiles right now. they're in violation of the agreement. we don't see any intention, any intention to enforce that. so we've got to ask ourselves, just what kind of agreement is this? who is this agreement with? as the committee heard sterday, it's an agreement
whose regime -- with a regime whose world view was founded in part on fiery, anti-americanism and a view of americanism as satanism. i don't have to tell the members here, i mean, they hear it every week. those of you that are watching what's coming out of iran. death to america, every week. mr. speaker, this agreement gives up too much, too fast with not enough in return, and we have to judge it on the long-term national security interests of the united states. does it make the region and the stable?re safe, secure, in my mind clearly it does not. so i don't feel this is worthy of house support. but i yield two minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. sanford. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina, mr. sanford is recognized for two minutes. mr. sanford: thank you, mr. speaker.
i too rise in opposition to this accord, partly based on what's been discussed here the last couple of hours but also partly history. we were here together in the 1990's and then-president clinton at that time met with north korea and they formed an accord that basically said we'll give you benefits now for the promise of becoming a responsible member of the world community going forward. the benefits went and accrued to north korea, the responsible membership in the world community never came. in that regard, the president is certainly well intended in his efforts, this promise will prove s real as the notion of, you like your health insurance you can keep it. his intentions were good but it didn't pan out. i don't think it'll be any different in this particular
deal and in that regard i think it's important to think about what neighbors think of neighbors. in this case it's important to look at what the prime minister of israel has said, that he believes that this is a mistake of, quote, historic proportions. i think in many ways it mirrors what we saw in 1938. at that point, neville chamberlain negotiated with hitler and gai away czechoslovakia in the process. but there in the munich accords there was a promise of peace, lasting peace, in our time. the peace lasted less than a year and it did not materialize. i think that the saying is that those who don't learn from history are destinned to repeat it. i think we would be very well advised to look at the recent history of the 1990's in the north korea deal, the history of the 1930's and a whole lots of history across the last thousand years that say trading off peace for security is never something
that works so well. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly. mr. connolly: thank you, mr. chairman. before i recognize mr. meeks of new york i would simply say i think that last analogy is invidious. the history of world war ii is the fact that people ignored warnings for so long that by the time munich happened it most certainly wasn't peaceful. what should have happened is active engagement to preclude that ever happening and that's precisely what this administration has done and it will prevent a munich. it will prevent appeasement. it will provide the engagement, dynamic engagement we need to prevent a nuclear iran. i now proudly yield four minutes to my friend from new york, gregory meeks. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york for four minutes. mr. meeks: thank you.