tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN September 11, 2015 12:00am-2:01am EDT
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 m 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 sai 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 bomb, 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 >> the one term ended over public frustration. this sunday night at 8 p.m.
eastern on c-span's original series, first ladies: influence of image. examining the public and private lives of the first ladies and their influence on the presidency, from marshall washington to michelle obama. on american history tv on c-span three. c-span's coverage of ceremonies marking the anniversary of 9/11 begins at 8:40 eastern tomorrow morning, with an event at the world trade center in new york city. and putting a reading of those of the names who died. at a: 45 on c-span, president obama and the first lady was observed and moment of silence of the south lawn of the white house. then, a ceremony for victim families at the pentagon, with defense secretary ashton carter and vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. an american flag will be
unfolded at 9:30 eastern on c-span two. and another ceremony at the or department of defense employees on c-span three. >> stephen joins us, he is with the washington times reporting. let's talk with the latest on the iran legislation. the senate holding a closure vote on a disapproval resolution articleiled, and your details of oh, tell us what happened today. democrats supporting and opposing a filibuster. >> you wind up with a crazy situation here, resolutions of disapproval. to overturn or block the iran deal. and what you have are democrats
filibustering. that democratsis have sustained the presidents position. they are allowing him a free hand to go ahead and lift the sanctions, as he wants to do. there were 58- senators who wanted to overturn or block the deal. ,4 of those were republicans four of those were democrats. you have the 42 members of the democratic caucus, voting for the filibuster. so one more than the absolute number needed to sustain a filibuster. a fairly close vote. theh mcconnell on republican leader, said they will try again next week. but unless there is major pressure back home on those 42 democrats, is unlikely that anything will change. but there will be a revote next week. overall, the fact that they are where they would be with a 42 democratic supporters means the
president will have a free hand thereafter to lift the sanctions that the u.s. had imposed. and to unfreeze the money that iran is seeking in the deal. mcconnell,ed senator here in exchange with senator harry reid. tells little bit about what happened between those two. there is been a big debate over as anology, because democrat said, they do not want a filibuster. they just wanted a straight vote on blocking the deal. blocking the disapproval resolution. but they still wanted that to be at a 60 vote threshold, which is for aitional threat ho threshod filibuster. they got heated back-and-forth, mcconnell said this is so serious, we need to stay on this. you are going to get another chance to vote on this. we hope you change your mind.
harry reid said we have showed where we are. let's move past this. the one thing that is just as interesting, number of democrats who voted to sustain the hand in this, there was political distance, because it was unpopular. democrats were arctic talking about the sustained deal. they wanted more deals. look,connell told them you had a chance to say what you thought of iran. all through this vote on the deal, if you're going to come up with new proposals, you better be sure that you have a two thirds majority of cosponsors in the senate before we pick it up. we need to be able to prove that we can override a president of veto. but obviously, the republicans cannot have done during the situation. we want to be sure that if they're going to do any more legislation, they want to override a veto.
youcally, mcconnell saying guys if they live with it as you go face voters in 2016. >> the white house then, what has been the reaction after the senate vote. >> it was a statement of victory, even though he got less than a majority of victory. he claimed the mandates for his position. which is to lift the sanctions, his argument that the only choice between this international deal, because of the stance of our partners on it. it was either this deal or else he would have no choice but to conduct military strike. so this was his option he was hoping for. he said because the senate did filibuster to sustain it, it was a victory. he claimed a victory for national security. house, they began debate on three measures today, voted on one of those already. where do things stand there, and what are their plans for tomorrow?
>> this is already confusing enough, but the house had theynally said a day or so had planned to do the same thing as the senate. hold a vote on the resolution disapproving the iran deal. but as of today, all of those plans are all. they have already voted on a resolution that declares that the 60 day clock -- the review. the congress has to look over this deal has not actually started. there are certain side agreements between iran and the international atomic agency that are not public and have not been submitted, they argue that the clock on the review. has unofficially started. leaderste republican rejected that. the house move forward, it was a straight vote today. the republicans said that is true, the clock has been started. they put deposition out there. and tomorrow they will be voting on a resolution of approval. sort of the opposite of the vote
the setup. this is a resolution of approval, which republican leaders intend to defeat and they will also be voting on a resolution -- a statement that says the president should not january,tions until giving enough time as to whether the clock and started taking. -- the first first of those switches are a pass, the resolution stating the clock has not started, that is already passed. we expect the resolution telling the president not to let sanctions until january to also pass. and we expect the resolution of the deal to fail. that would be the equivalent to what the senate tried to do, the house saying they disapproved of the deal, there is a lot of technical reasons why they are doing that as opposed to the resolution they would want to succeed. >> and is briefly stephen, what happens if nothing makes it? >> there is where it gets
convoluted. because of what the house is done, they are arguing the clock out and started taking. that creates a bit of a legal problem for the president, and it may open it up for a lawsuit if someone can find standing to sue over this. but as things stand right now, the president believes that he has the authority to lift the sanctions. the senate has essentially agreed with that by going ahead with the process. so as of next week, if congress takes no action under the law that congress wrote and the president signed earlier this year, the nuclear agreement review act, the president will then have the authority to lift the sanctions and carry out the other parts of the deal with no action from congress. >> thanks for joining us. >> the house considering three bills dealing with iran nuclear demon. part one was approved today.
is not the white house provided documents on-site deal. the second part deals with the nuclear deal itself. in the final debate tomorrow would prevent obama from removing section. up next, debate on the iran deal approval. extraneous 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 wa 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 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 recogned. 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 the other side the
not only do we have to allow -- not only do we have to allow them to become a nuclear threshold stay, yes, we must protect the nuclear program from sabotage and outside threats. mr. speaker, how does a rogue regime that has been in violation of the non-proliferation treaty of obligation for decades -- a rogue regime has been in nationsn of six united security resolutions, a regime that violates other international obligations get to be the beneficiary of such protections from the u.s. and other countries. this is madness, mr. speaker. it simplifies logic. andust oppose this deal,
let us vote that way. and i thank the chairman for the time. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. >> is my pleasure now the yield --mendous to the gentleman to yield four minutes to the gentleman from florida. four minutes. >> 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.