tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN September 11, 2015 7:00pm-9:01pm EDT
, as it were? michael: i'll just say that, with respect to what omri just aid, i too have been disturbed by the way that the administration has presented things. on monday in a way that it completely contradicted on tuesday. and then nobody is troubled by it. but i would also add that this has played out and this has since the from the moment out interim deal was signed november 2013. the final agreement that we got was prefigured in the interim agreement. the interim agreement gave the iranians the right to enrich, although that phrase was not in the agreement, it effectively gave them the right to enrich. it also gave them the sunset clause, that this would only be a temporary restriction on the program. at the same time, while the
negotiation -- while the agreement was being negotiated, we saw greater coordination between the west and iranians on the ground in the least, where we have shiite militias led by the iranians in iraq, enjoying the air cover of the u.s. air force. the public has been informed. me is therprising to number of people who have seen this clearly and have pretended not to. i can completely explain why that is. >> a lot of people have seen that clearly. we've seen some of the statements, especially from a democratic senators who came out in support. senator booker comes immediately to mind. senator coons as well expresses reservations. if you look at people coming out in favor of the deal, it's like
esoteric writing. why describing the deal is deeply problematic, nonetheless they say they are supporting it. some actually do recognize it. >> the way the administration has helped those people emotionally get over their its latest talking point, which is we're going to push back against the iranians after the deal. the deal is going to help us do this. pushback is the new slogan. we have one picture of this deal that will strengthen iran economically, militarily, and diplomatically, and it will do so immediately. you can see that happening before your eyes with the trade delegations from europe going to tehran's the russians and uranium correlating in syria.
so on and so forth. you can see it happening before your eyes. the administration is exciting, yes, we are strengthening -- is exciting, yes -- is saying yes, we are strengthening iran, but we're going to push back against them. if you support that, go ahead and support the steel. but is not going to make push back easier. >> this pushback talking point is something that plays out through a number of things that we have discussed today. the most obvious one is this idea that the administration consistently said whatever it had to say to get through new cycles, to get through testimony, until facts on the ground made it untenable. in september 2013, we were going to and iran's -- end iran's nuclear program while forcing them to come clean. that was a secretary sherman's political testimony. changed,some of that
but we would have one of the world's toughest anywhere anytime inspections regime. the iranians said no, we continue to give up. no iranians coming clean. the idea that the ic has sufficient knowledge to detect an effort to break out, and so on. the furor among -- the fear among skeptics of this deal is the pushback argument. visit ministration promised to a. -- this administration promised to a. pushback against iran, and b. enforce sanctions. that is management of centrifuges as a promise administrations made to get congress to back off before new facts reach the ground. the concern is we are already seeing that.
at the same time the administration is saying it is total downing -- doubling down on sanctions. leaders who were under travel bans traveling to russia. foxnews got a scoop, they literally disclosed the flight number and the flight times of the plane that he had taken to moscow in violation of the national travel ban. the ministration, when asked for several days, said we don't know. it was a caricature of looking the other way. without hyperbole, literally, as they were on the hill saying they will double down on sentient enforcement in order to provide the emotional buttressing to those who are concerned about iranian expansion. after this, there is nothing left. the reason why they have made to meet these commitments to congress, the latest being the pushback and double down argument is because congress has
been in a position to jam up what is a bad deal, if lawmakers believe that the deal is bad. and of course i bipartisan majority believes it is bad. again there will be no accountability, but instead of pushing back we end syriar instance, feeding to russian coordination. david: i can't speak to those issues. therld just caution that e's a lot of positive things in this agreement. and sure, the duration is not one of them. based on my experience in europe, our allies were not particularly happy with that. that in 10 years compared to what was thought, in the more 20-30 year range, that was the original goal -- that is not
enough. it's not an easy negotiation. it is an agreement that is very long. has lots of moving parts. and decisions were made in the negotiation. i don't think it was made by obama. i think it was made by competent negotiators that they would try to win on this and taht. i think it is an imperfect deal. but it is the deal. and it's going to have to be in limited -- have to be implemented. i would argue we would have to fix these weaknesses rather than a draw party lines and continue this battle indefinitely. i think israel will be shooting itself in the foot if it doesn't start contributing very actively to try and strengthen this deal. i think it can be done. i think there is support around the world.
i don't know how many of you have read about the procurement channel. it is a key part of this agreement, both on the the siteion side and of enforcing bans on i write getting arms and missile imports. -- bans on iran getting arms and missile imports. meetings still need to occur along the general assembly. places there are many at the iaea thinks is very important. there was never in any intention to get iran to confess. i mean, it should -- in my understanding from negotiators, it's not a question from the supreme leader. oh my god, we will never have nuclear weapons. it's more of a question of who gets blamed for sanctions. the iranian narrative blames the west for all the suffering they have gone through on sanctions. if they said, yeah, we did have a nuclear weapons program, guess
what the iranian domestic audience will conclude? yes, it was our fault, or more accurately, the regime's fault. that iran would come clean. it can't admit politically. it has nothing to do with the fatwa. it has everything to do with who gets blamed for sanctions in iran. i think the idea of the effort is not to get iran to come clean, it is to say, we think this is what has happened. it did this and that, he didn't get there and we didn't accomplish that goal. to know the people, to know the sites and to make a determination. tion may be that iran had a nuclear weapon. if they had access so that their
credibility is not underlined, i would argue that would be the sufficient outcome of this whole issue. important to very try and find ways to strengthen this deal and to get beyond some of his fighting, and not make it, what i fear it will be guerrilla warfare, particularly in the house to undermine the deal. i went through the agreed framework in the 1990's. we were a reluctant supporter. we supported the deal despite the iaea being thrown under the bus. job,an't let them do their same arguments. it will cause seoul to be incinerated. we reluctantly went along, but congress didn't. every time you needed money, it was a nightmare. here, you can envision, lindsey graham has only said it. he will hold up money for the
iea. it's shooting yourself in the head, but if you are just trying to kill the deal, it's not a great strategy. real efforts have to be made to try and shift the debate to one of, have you strengthen this? even though many don't like it. the discussions in europe were very different. it's really different. you don't have this congress to deal with. but there and much more willingness to look at the pluses and minuses and move on. no one is sitting saying this is some a perfect deal. not anyone i have talked to. say that here. ist i hear here is -i that different. >> in the spirit of bipartisan
complies, i will say that i am in favor of giving the iaea money in order to do its job. we started a little late. let's take 1-2 questions. gentlemen all the way in the back. i think we have a microphone circulating. if you could just wait one moment. i in a masters student at george washington university. you were discussing the "if-then " statement for congressional republicans and trust between congress and the administration. how congress repeatedly tried to undermine the deal throughout the process and not give it all the breathing room possible. has that affected the administration's trust of congress, the to wait relationship has become more difficult. -- the two way relationship has become more difficult. i am wondering how going
forward, congress can strengthen the deal, what your opinions might be going forward. >> the theory that this started off as a relationship of trust is a difficult one to sustain, if only because we know now that reporting some these meetings have been leaked and posted online as early as january 2014. ben rhodes was taking meetings with alligators and ngos -- with ngo's to "ice congress". . to create a structure that would circumvent congress. whether or not that was justified -- secretary kerry said they didn't pursue a treaty because they couldn't get 2/3
rds. a strange admission to make in those terms. times, that at various congress was less cooperative and in more senses cooperative. there has been an enormous appetite in congress for the last two years to pass on a nuclear sanctions, which are explicitly permitted under the jcpoa. "please don't, mess this up for us." of course you are allowed to do it, but please don't. and congress didn't. and republican and democratic houses and congresses did not. provided anress has enormous amount of breathing instinctsthe better of many of its members. i think it was senator booker, but one of the democratic
senators who recently came out in support of the jcpoa or against a resolution of disapproval. he said, if we could go back, i think we would have made mistake not pursuing sanctions resolution. forward, congress will have to do -- they will take two tracks. there will be efforts to kill the deal. there will be efforts to strengthen the deal. the one of the things you're going to see is an effort to work with the administration, to make good on the administration's pledge to double down on nonnuclear sanctions. if it doesn't turn out, then at the pledge for nonnuclear sentience is another one of these commitments made just to get out of the news cycle. then i think you'll see irreparable harm's to interbranch relations. let's take one more. this gentleman right here on my left.
much.nk you very i am a recently retired state department officer. in the last week or so, when the new aspects -- one of the new aspects is that the agreement allows from continuing research on uranium. but that it stops any research on plutonium. if you really want a bomb, what you really want is plutonium. i'm wondering if you can comment on that. >> there was a new york times piece about the iraq reactor. andd -- i like broad respect his work. they left out a key thing, which is the processing of plutonium separation. reactor has always been a secondary to enrichment. the main reason is that it wasn't done. it turned out it wasn't close to being operational. said it didn't intend
to build a plaintiff to separate the plutonium -- build a plant to separate the plutonium. it gives iran the ability to make weapons grade uranium that could be used in a bomb. when finished, it would give iran the ability to have plutonium fuel. they needed a reprocessing plant. yes, we think iran was working on that years ago, but it stopped. enriched part has already gotten a priority. the administration perceived that, as you are you know, much harder than the iraq reactor. everyone is happy with the limitations on the iraq reactor, for sure. but the story over civil fight and mr. presented at -- story oversimplified what was happening. i want to point out in this deal, iran has committed not to do research on plutonium
metallurgy. i don't know of anyone who was made a bomb using uranium oxide. they use metal. so iran is committed not to do that research, even indefinitely, along with several other nuclear weapons nation activities. -- nuclear weaponization activities. that was seen as a positive achievement. i don't know who originated it. certainly the french were big proponents of it. i think that is an important achievement. it's also another reason why you want the achievement to go right. that experience is related to the development of a nuclear weapons component. it is very small scale and hard to find. you want the iaea to go quickly to verify that those activities are taking place. any final agreement, it's going to be nuclear weaponization
activities that they will have to verify. if you can't to the military sites, you can't verify that part of the agreement at all. mr. albright: david, thank you very much. that will bring our panel to a close. i want to especially thank david albright. i want to thank our c-span audience, and most of all, you for showing up this afternoon. [applause] thanks and we will see you soon. >> today on capitol hill, the senate without, but the chamber failed to get the iran disapproval resolution to about. at 6:00 eastern time, the plaintiff hold a second vote on the legislation to bring the bill to the floor again. you can watch the senate live on c-span2. and earlier today, the house rejected the iran nuclear agreement by 162-269. they also passed measures that
prevent the president from lengthy sections on iran. -- from lifting sanctions on iran. the house done for the week. numbers returned wednesday after the jewish holiday. here is part of the house debate from earlier, beginning with ways and means chair paul ryan. mr. speaker, i will yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i think this is a terrible deal. this administration has made a lot of mistakes when it comes to foreign policy. this has got to be the worst one because this deal will not stop iran from getting a bomb. this deal will all but guarantee it. we went into these negotiations saying that iran had to eliminate its nuclear program,
all of it, full stop. now they're saying that was unrealistic. too unreasonable. too high in the sky. and we're handing over hundreds of billions of dollars in sanctions relief. so iran gets billions of dollars in exchange for what, for taking up some, not all, just some of its nuclear program? and then in 10 or 15 years, all of these limits expire. in other words, they're getting something for essentially nothing. it's a steal, and that's if they don't cheat. now, the administration says that this deal will bring about unprecedented transparency. we'll get regular access, they say. we'll see what iran's up to, they say. but if the inspectors think something's up, iran has 24 days to cover its tracks, and
in some cases iran's own inspectors will get to collect the evidence. finally, against all of the advice from our military, we are going to let iran buy ballistic missiles in just eight years. mr. speaker, you only buy ballistic missiles if you're looking to build a bomb. i get why russia and china like this idea. they get another big customer. but i don't for the life of me understand why we would ever agree to this. mr. speaker, the president -- the president's taking a huge gamble here. he thinks if we make nice with the iranian regime they'll change their ways, bring them into the global economy and they'll become more like us. now, i think the iranian people, they want democracy. they want freedom. but we are not talking about the iranian people here. we are talking about an extremist regime that is
unaccountable to their own people. this is a regime that chants "death to america." this is a regime that funds terrorism all around the world. has is a regime that called for wiping israel off the map. i'm all for diplomacy, but i am not for rewarding a rogue regime. i'd also point out that the sanctions we are lifting will let european and asian companies build up iran's economy and they will make the regime even stronger. and should iran start to cheat, which they have a pretty darn good track record of doing so, it will be that much harder to put back in place the sanctions. our trading partners, they'll feel the pinch and they won't want to hold this regime accountable. so i want to stress how firmly i oppose this deal.
i know the president may have already lined up enough support to save his deal, but with this vote, with this vote we need to send a message to both iran and to the world the regime, the regime may have bamboozled this administration, but the american people know this is a rotten deal, and i fear that because of this deal the middle east and the world at large will only become a much, much more dangerous place. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: before i yield myself such time as i shall consume, i'd like to yield 30 seconds to the ranking member of the budget committee, mr. van hollen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for 30 second. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank my friend, mr. levin. this agreement represents the best path to achieving our goal of preventing iran from ever
obtaining a nuclear weapon, and it advances the national security interests of the united states and our allies, including israel. i ask that the remainder of my remarks be placed in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: thank you, mr. speaker. for far too long we faced the nightmare of iran with nuclear bombs. impacted by heavy sanctions, iran finally agreed to negotiate, led by the united states and five other nations. after agreeing on a framework, which iran complied with, the parties completed the much-detailed joint comprehensive plan of action. when i issued my statement of support for jcpoa six weeks ago, its fate was uncertain. what decisively turned the tide
was the impassioned leadership of the president with secretaries kerry and moniz, combined with a momentus outpouring of support outside the political realm from a vast array of scientific experts, experienced diplomats, key figures from all religious faiths, a wide variety of military leaders and informed expressions from major former governmental figures of the highest integrity, including colin powell. . it also became increasingly clear that there was no other workable alternative. this point was reinforced by the joint statement yesterday from prime minister -- british prime minister cameron, french
president holland, and chairman chancellor merkel. they said among other points, and i quote, this is not an agreement based on trust or any assumption about how iran may look in 10 or 15 years. it's based on detailed tightly written controls that are verifiable and long lasting. iran will have strong incentives not to cheat. the near certainty of getting caught and the consequences that would follow would make this a losing proposition. it is now absolutely clear that the jcpoa will go into effect. requiring the initial set of detailed obligations that iran must fulfill. .t is therefore time to go on
this institution, which has been a major center of attacks on the jcpoa, would hopefully have those who opposed now join with those who support the agreement and work together to rekindle the kind of overall bipartisanship that senator van denburg of michigan urged should apply to key foreign policy issues as they approached the water's edge. surely this kind of rekindled bipartisanship needs to be undertaken in particular to take steps to deepen support for israel's security. to fight and defeat terrorism. and to rekindle efforts for viable peace negotiations. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on h.r. 3461, which is a vote of
approval for the comprehensive agreement that would prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon. i urge my colleagues to vote no on h.r. 3460, which would suspend the president's authority to waive sanctions and in effect prevent him from implementing the comprehensive agreement. i close, it is indeed time to move on and to take next steps. tolure to do so with instead perpetuate partisanship will, i strongly believe, be counterproductive for any who try it and for our entire nation. we can and we must do much better. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is ecognized.
mr. ryan: you mean wisconsin? the speaker pro tempore: wisconsin. mr. ryan: please, please, don't say california. mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield 1 1/2 minutes to a member of the ways and means committee, the distinguished lady from kansas, ms. jenkins. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from kansas is recognized for a minute and a half. ms. jenkins: i thank the gentleman for yielding. sanctions are about more than nuclear weapons. they are about the principles and values america holds dear. iran continues to hold american prisoners hostage. sponsors terrorism around the world. and american soldiers have died because of the terrorist actions of iran. iran st this week the supreme leader said, israel will be destroyed within 25 years. now, every lawmaker must ask, are we willing to put $150 billion into the hands of an
iranian regime who chants death to america and wants to eliminate israel from the earth? we must ask, are we willing to risk american lives on the promises of a leader who believes those same american lives are worth nothing? i refuse to sit idly by while this administration leaves the safety, stability, and security of everyone, everywhere at the whim of iran whose neighbors fear them and allies consist of the assad regime and hezbollah. this agreement with iran would threaten all that we hold dear. i encourage my colleagues to join the bipartisan opposition against the iran deal and instead support the security of america above the dangerous desires of iran. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back of the
the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: it's now my pleasure to yield four minutes to mr. rangel, to put it mildly, a senior member of our committee. mr. rangel: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from new york is recognized for four minutes. mr. rangel: my fellow members, this is an historic occasion for the house and very emotional time for me because unfortunately i have known -- i have known the horrors of war and i speak for all of those that had this horrendous experience to say that we should always give diplomacy a chance before we put any american in harm's way. i don't think any of us with any degree of certainty have any idea whether this agreement is
going to hold. or we can contain the criminal and human ambitions of the leadership in iran. what we do know is that the international powers p, not just f china, not just of russia -- powers, not just of china, not just of russia, but the united kingdom, france, germany, and thinking the united states of america truly believe that this is the best possible way to avoid war. it would seem to me that now is in the time for us to engage exchanges that separate and bring us apart as a nation. the rules of the house and the senate make it abundantly clear
that whether you like it or not this is going to become the policy of the united states of america. this will not be the policy of president obama, of democrats or republicans, but the policy of our great nation. it pains me as i'm about to leave service in this august body that we have people in this hamber that have such hatred and disdain for the leadership of this country that they would put this feeling above what is the best policy for the security of this great beloved nation of mine. i know that if the president of the united states was able to
walk on water, there would be people in this chamber that would say, see, we told you that he couldn't swim. -- i what i am saying if don't think i can do that because you said that china and russia supporting this because they want to sell arms to iran. nd i think that was despicable because that includes united kingdom, that includes france, that includes germany, that includes people that are talking about this is the best way that we are able to do this. so what i am saying is this. 14 years ago a terrible thing happened to my country, to my ity, when terrorists struck on
9/11, and now we have the opportunity to bring our country together the way we did then. 14 years ago there were no republicans, there were no democrats, there were americans that would say we have to come together. we are not going to change this agreement. this is the policy of the united states of america or soon will be. should we not be saying, what is the enforcement, what are we going to do, what happens if they violate it? are we here to embarrass presidents, republicans or democrats, or are we here to preserve -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. rangel: thank you, mr. chairman. or are we here to preserve the dignity and the integrity of the united states of america no matter who is the president? if ever there was a time for us
to come together and support the policy, the time is now. thank you so much for giving me this opportunity. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves. mr. ryan: i give myself 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, the oldest trick in the book, if you cannot win a debate on the merits is to impugn the other person's motives. people who are opposing this agreement, whether they be republicans or many of the democrats who are opposing this agreement are opposing this agreement because it's a terrible agreement and there is no other reason. with that i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlelady from tennessee, a member of the ways and means committee, mrs. black. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will remind all persons in the gallery that they are here as guests of the house and that any manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is a violation of the house rules. the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. black: thank you, mr. speaker. this nuclear deal isn't much of a deal at all. it's a gift to the iranian
regime. we're sorry we gave them permanent sanction relief to the tune of $150 billion in exchange for temporary enrichment restrictions. mr. speaker, the ayatollah calls the united states a great satan. just this week he said that israel will not exist in 25 years. imagine that evil that this regime can carry out when they cash in their billions. under this agreement iran will undoubtedly become the central bank of fear. what's more, with this deal we shrunked off the opportunity for time anywhere inspections. instead we gave iran and opportunity in many ways for investigations of their nuclear sites and conceal the signs of compliance. even worse, under the secret side deals, that was not transmitted here to congress, we learned that iran will be allowed to self-inspect a key military base. so to be clear, members of this body who vote for this agreement
will be voting for a deal that they have not seen in full. mr. speaker, i'm not prepared to tell tennesseans that i represent that the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism without knowing every last deal. we cannot and should not leave anything to chance when it comes to the security of the america and our allies. i will be casting my vote on behalf of the tennessee's sixth district against this dangerous deal. i urge my colleagues to do the same. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i now yield 2 1/2 minutes to another so valuable member of our committee, mr. lewis from georgia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. lewis: i thank my friend, the ranking member, for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in support of diplomacy, a pathway to peace. for many months i thought long and hard about this decision.
attended briefings, red documents, and met with citizens of my district. i even had a long executive session with my staff. i reflected on the words that dr. martin luther king jr. to call upon us to rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter but beautiful struggle for the world. the way of peace is one of those principles as thought and reflection, i believe that this is a good deal. no, it may not be perfect, but do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. i remember standing on this very floor seven years ago and speaking against a war in iraq. i said again and i will say gain today, war is bloody. it destroyed the hopes, aspirations, and the dreams of a people.
the american people and the people around the world are sick and tired of war and violence. we do not need more bombs, missiles and guns. when you turn on the news, when you read the newspaper you see a mass dislocation. too many people suffering and many are desperate for a chance at peace. i believe in my heart of hearts that this may be the most important vote that we cast during our time in congress. to put it simple, it is nonviolence or nonexistent. it is my hope that my vote today, along with the votes of others will be a down payment for peace toward a world community with itself. maybe with this deal, we will send a message that we can lay down the burden and tools of
war. maybe we can come together as a family of human beings. mr. speaker, we have a moral obligation, a mission and a a chance. give peace thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: at this time, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from ohio, the speaker of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio, the speaker of the house, is recognized for one minute. the speaker: let me thank my colleague for yielding. my colleagues, later today we'll cast two votes and these votes will be amongst the most consequential votes that we'll cast some of us in our careers. our founding fathers charged both the president and the congress with providing for the common defense for good reason. it's the core responsibility of our federal government. it's the key to our freedom and for all of our opportunities. and that's why at the front of
the oath every member takes it states, i do solemnly swear that i will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic. so as we consider this nuclear agreement with iran, it's our duty to determine whether it will keep america safe. sadly, this deal is far worse than anything i could have imagined. why? because the president and his negotiators broke every one of their promises. does this deal dismantle iran's nuclear program or shut off their path to a nuclear weapon as they promised it would? no. instead, it allows iran to keep thousands of nuclear centrifuges spinning as they are today. and within 10 years in the best case, it allows iran to achieve
a nuclear status. was this agreement full-on verification? no. it appears the side deal will trust iran to self-inspect a key site where the regime conducted tests on nuclear detonators. of course, we have not seen that side deal and we don't know if there are other secret components. does this agreement allow inspectors to have anywhere 24/7 access as they promised it would? no. inspectors would have to wait up to 24 days of access to suspicious sites. will sanctions snap back? no. the administration admits that nothing at the u.n. happens in a snap. does it shut down iran's ballistic missile program as they promised it would? no.
actually the agreement lifts the arms and missile embargos n five and eight years respectively. and they are allowed to build icbm's capable of delivering a warhead right here in the nited states of america. does it help the leading sponsor of terror? yes. it gives them billions to support terror around that part of the year and it gives amnesty to the shadow commander responsible for the deaths of hundreds of american troops in raq. and this is all without iran cheating. the ayatollah won't even have to cheat to be just steps away from a nuclear weapon. so today we are going to cast two votes and these votes are aimed at stopping president obama from unilaterally lifting
sanctions on iran and ensuring ccountability. my colleagues in pursuing this deal with iran, president obama refused to listen. he ignored the concerns of the american people, national security experts and a bipartisan majority here in the congress. and now he's trying to enforce this deal over our objections. never in our history have something with so many consequences for our national security been rammed through with such little support. today is september 11. today for all americans to come together and for us to keep the oath we swore to our constitution. so our fight to stop this bad deal frankly is just beginning. we will not let the american people down. yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: it's now my pleasure to yield one minute to our leader who indeed, as she goes leader , has been our on this effort, the gentlelady from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. ms. pelosi: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding and i thank him for his leadership, for the courage it took for him and the humility to listen and to learn what was in this legislation and this agreement and that is something that i commend the members of the house for doing, to listen and to learn. our distinguished speaker just referenced the oath of office that we take when we become members of congress, and it is a vow that we make to the american people, to protect and
support our constitution and our responsibility to protect and defend the american people. today, mr. speaker, we will vote on an agreement to make america safer. indeed, to make the world a safer place. so say the nuclear scientists and the diplomats. so say the military and security leaders of both parties or of no party. so does the faith community beseach us to do. this morning father conroy offered a prayer to god to, quote, help the members of this house to recognize that you are with us in our deliberations. indeed, as we cast our votes on this historic agreement, we were thankful to god that god was with us to, again, give us the humility to learn and the courage to act. and for that we should all be grateful. it's important to note that
support for this agreement, as i have said, comes from both sides of the aisle, hundreds -- more than 100 former diplomats, democrats and republicans, ambassadors, etc., wrote, in our judgment the agreement deserves congressional support and the opportunity to show it will work. we firmly believe that the most effective way, mr. speaker, to protect u.s. national security and that of our allies and friends is to ensure that the tough-minded diplomacy has a chance to succeed before considering the more costly risks and alternatives. 36 generals and admirals wrote, there is no better option to prevent an iranian nuclear weapon. if the iranians cheat, as the speaker suggested they might, if the iranians cheat, our advanced technology,
intelligence and inspections will reveal it. and the u.s. military options remain on the table. and if the deal is rejected by america, the iranians could not -- could have a nuclear weapon within a year. the choice is stark. what is mysterious to me, when our colleagues come to the floor under this agreement iran can be a nuclear power in 10 tore 15 years, so we should reject this agreement. no. without the agreement, they are a threshold nuclear power right now and could have a weapon within months or a year. seems to me the choice is clear as the generals and admirals pointed out. it's also interesting to note that our distinguished speaker pointed out that some shortcomings in his view in the agreement. ell, that is disagreed by --
by the best nuclear physicists who wrote to congratulate the president on the agreement. as they wrote, we consider -- now, these are noble laureates, these are engineers, nuclear physicists who work and specialize in nuclear weapons, research and development. they said, we consider the joint comprehensive plan of action of the united states and its partners negotiated with iran will advance the cause of peace and security in the middle east and can serve -- this is really important -- this can serve as a guidepost for future nonproliferation agreements. they went on to say, this is an innovative agreement with much more stringent constraints than any previously negotiated nonproliferation framework. that's why they were
congratulating the president of the united states. i mentioned the prayer of father conroy this morning. i also this morning saw in "the washington post" that the prime minister of the u.k., david cameron, the french president, holla information de, and german chanceler angela merkel said, this is an important moment, these heads of states said, it's a crucial opportunity at a time of heightened global uncertainty to show what diplomacy can achieve. these heads of state went on to say, this is not an agreement based on trust or any assumption of how iran may look in so or 15 years. it's based on detailed, tightly written controls that are verifiable and long lasting. we condemn, they said, in no uncertain terms that iran does not recognize the existence of
the state of israel and the unacceptable language that iran's leaders use about israel. israel's security matters are and will remain our key interests too. prime minister cameron, president hollande and chanceler merkel then said, we will not have reached the nuclear deal with iran if we did not think that it removed a threat to the region and the nonproliferation regime as a whole. we are confident that the agreement provides the foundation for resolving the conflict on iran's nuclear program permanently. that is why we now want to embark on the full implementation of the joint comprehensive plan of action. today, i urge my colleagues to vote in support of the agreement that enhances our vigilance and strengthens our security. i just always am fond of
quoting sol men in the bible. -- solomon in the bible. he was uncertain as to his ability to be king in terms of his wisdom and the rest. and he prayed to god and prayed that god would give him the wisdom because david was such a great king and how could he -- said to god, going to be the king of your people. help me with knowledge. wisdom. with wisdom. christ -- excuse me -- god came to him in the night and said, solomon, because you did not ask for longevity, because you did not ask for great riches, because you did not ask for vengeance upon your enemies, i will give you more wisdom than anyone has ever had and you will be renowned for wisdom. the solomon of wisdom which sprang from humility. e humility to pray for
enlightenment, for knowledge, for wisdom, for judgment. and that humility is so essential in the job that we do here, that we don't have foregone conclusions. that's why i'm so proud of my members who spent so much time tudying this issue, not only reading the agreement and the classified sections and the rest but seeking answers, having information, seeking validation from generals and admirals and scientists and leaders of other countries as to what their actions would be should we unfortunately reject this, which happily we will not do today. they had the humility to open their minds to learn, and when they learned they had the where to take an action some other of their friends may not have arrived at because
they didn't have the benefit of all of this information. we know one thing, that we have to come together in the end, to protect our country and stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. . i say that i've had decades of experience track iran and its nuclear ambitions, longer than anyone, more than two times longer than anyone on the intelligence committee, so i know of what i speak and i went to the intelligence committee to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. that gave me some judgment as to what the president brought back in this agreement. and still, i want to subject it to the harshest scrutiny as from my experience, if i thought that this was the best possible deal we could achieve. we mustn't judge achievements.
-- we mustn't judge agreements by with they don't do but what they do do. this makes our country safer and our friends in the region safer as their own national security experts have attested. i thank my colleagues, i thank you for listening, for learning, for coming to whatever conclusion you came to but understanding at the end of the day we have a respect for each other's opinion and a regard for our responsibilities to our people, to people in the region, our friends in israel and also a tpwhrobal responsibility. bop i could join the nuclear physicists in congratulating president barack obama for his great leadership in giving us his opportunity. today we will not just be
making history, we will be making progress for the cause of from earlier today. john boehner a few moments ago. we will show you all the action later, but first, we want to take your phone calls, get your reaction and know what you think about the agreement and how capitol hill has been handling it. the numbers on your screen. announcer: let's take a look back at what happened today and also part of yesterday, one of three votes happening yesterday, voting on the nondisclosure of side deals. sed and said congress is
not counting against the clock. it said it does not have enough information in the side deals between the iaea and iran, and then the measure today which failed. only one republican voting neither yes or no. that was thomas massie of kentucky. president obama would not be iran sanctions. a look at what happened in the thete, which will take up same bill dated earlier this week and work on that tuesday at 6:00 p.m. eastern time, wanting to pass a resolution of disapproval on the iran agreement. they could not meet the 60-vote
threshold earlier. we will see what surely has to say. hi. caller: i would just like to say i am doing good. i would like to say that i am totally against it. i think if you make a deal with the devil it never turns out good, ever. there are four americans is still over there in iranian prisons. we did not even get one of them out of there. i think it is a bad deal all around and if the american people could vote, it would not move at all. >> how do you think the gop has been handling it in the house? i just got home from work and i was watching them on there and i am glad that they are all leaning towards our site right now.
whether you are democrat or republican, i think it is a bad deal for all of us. surely in washington state. i have games in connecticut on the democrat line. what do you think about the handling, the gop, how they are handling things in the house? is that theyrouble should all be given the american public the entire deal. you get bits and pieces. pelosi, it sounds like -- as the deal and read it later on like she did with the obamacare. there are a lot of side deals in there that are not spelled out. thank you. >> d is waiting on the line. independent. sayer: i just wanted to that i am so appalled that this deal is going through and nancy pelosi just dated that if the deal does not go through, iran
could have the weaponry within a year. these people are so concerned about having weaponry or not, actually, if they are so peaceful, why would they want to do that. number one. and why are our dollars being this thisvance graceful situation. that theyne tells you want to kill you, i would take that seriously. we have such unrest in our world and it is a disgrace that we have to continue handling people who are our enemies. let them get their own money if they want to build something. using the american people's money. we need our money to strengthen our own country and stop this nonsense. stop bowing to people that are bullies. >> take a look at some tweets here. one from the hill. houseboat to reject obama's iran deal. in the house, that was a vote to
reject the deal while in the house, it wasthe a vote to approve the iran deal and it failed. that was different from the way they handle things in the senate. the bill was also talking about the lone house republican who did not vote against the iran deal. that was thomas massie of kentucky. mccain,about senator another tweet. time on. eastern tuesday. the huffington post tweet. we will take a closer look at that in just a moment. a couple of more phone calls here. west hollywood california and independent. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am thoroughly appalled at this deal. same -- the people's
will is being ignored. our veterans have no arms and legs have fought for this, it is disgraceful. for the first time, i am bordering on being ashamed to be an american. we have to attack -- we have abandoned our allies and embraced our enemies. it is horrific. >> in terms of how things have been handled in the house, with the gop, preventing president obama from being able to lift the sanctions. is that something you think was a good tactic? caller: absolutely. i think the gop is very weak and pathetic. i would say the same thing about the democrats. we do not have good leadership in this country.
we are being taken advantage of. i believe everything donald trump says. thank you for the call. in phoenix tony city, alabama. republican line. caller: hello. glad that i can vent a little bit. i am very dissatisfied with the way that everything is being handled. i am totally against the iran deal. president obama has forgotten our veterans. he wants to make deals with people that want to kill us. they want to come in and tear our country apart. they want to bomb israel. i cannot understand the leader of our country wanting to do with -- i call them
satan's people. they call a satan so i am qualified to call them satan also. believe the way that we do. for him and john kerry to allow them to do anything that they want to do and we continue to give them money. $150 billion. for them to supply all of the other radicals. in and kill all of these innocent people overseas. it boggles my mind. >> when you see this article here talking about what the gop may move forward on doing here in the house at least. torpedo theove to deal in courts. moving towards the judicial
tactic. bent on the seems idea of a legal challenge to the iran deal. saying that the option is very possible. soundedld have found -- far-fetched at the beginning of the week. this is in huffington post politics. we will take a couple more calls. nancy is calling right here in washington, d.c. independent line. caller: my comment is with this iran deal, as the previous caller said, they are making deals with people that want to hurt americans. there are four americans in jail and their country. i do not see a rush on getting them out of jail. we are making a deal with people that are terrorists. this is not right. agree with the
congressman that was speaking earlier. the reason why he thinks the majority of the congresspeople want to do the deal, is to make history. we are not about making history. we need to save americans. we need to save lives. >> what you think about how they have been handling it on capitol hill -- specifically in the house? i think they did pretty well. it was not dragged out. i am pretty satisfied with it. i still think there is some indecisiveness within the party and that shows through their inconsistencies through the whole time they have been in congress. let's get a call in here from the democrat line in south pittsburgh, tennessee. this iran deal needs to go through. i have friends that are in the
military, that are fighting, and they said this iran deal needs to go through. in this iranliever deal. i do not believe that our country is in any more danger than it has been. i think that if the deal goes through, i think we will be safer. i do not believe that this country is in any danger whatsoever. i think we would be in more danger, if the iran deal does not go through. that is my opinion. >> thank you for that call. thank you for all of the call. if you did not get a chance to weigh in on a phone call, our lines will be back open tomorrow morning. the conversation continues online at c-span.org and our facebook page. you can always send us a tweet. we will be seeing this issue come up back again on the
senate. 6:00 p.m. eastern time in the senate. today, some action in the house. you can always go back and watch it online in our video library. we will show you the action on the house side. this was from the floor today. gentleman is recognized. mr. royce: mr. speaker, i rise in support of this legislation which would prohibit the president from waiving iran sanctions and prevent the implementation of this fatally flawed agreement. last night we spent many hours debating this agreement. we heard from members on both sides of the aisle, members who have deep concerns about where we are headed. mr. speaker, let's be very clear, this isn't just a bad deal. it's a disastrous deal. it's a disaster for the united states. it's a disaster for our allies and friends in the region, including israel. and when you think about it, when we think about the letter that we sent, 84% of us in this
house signed the letter asking for four critical things in this negotiation. we got rolled on every one of the four. iran won on every point. iran gets to keep its nuclear infrastructure. the obama administration collapsed on the issue of verification. we don't have anywhere, any time inspections in here. we have got self-inspections by the iranian regime with respect to parchin, which is the one military site where we know, we know that the iranians, because of 1,000 pages of documents, did most of their bomb work. and they say now, no, no, no. we'll do the inspections. we'll turn that stuff over, but nobody's going into our military sites. that's the argument they are making. and the sunset clause in this means the key parts of this deal expire at the end of the deal. so, we've got prominent sanctions relief for the iranian
regime, relief that's going to go into their military in exchange for temporary constraints on iran's nuclear program. and the restrictions on iran's missile program designed to deliver those weapons -- now, this came up in the 11th hour of this negotiation, no one anticipated it being in the agreement. at the 11th hour the russians came forward and on behalf of the iranians said we want the lifting of the sanctions, international sanctions that the community has on the icbm program and on the arms transfers. with respect to iran. and unbelievably we ended up getting rolled on this as well. as the secretary of defense told congress, the i in icbm stands for intercontinental, meaning flying, from iran to the united states. that is why, that is why we
never wanted this lifted. it also provides resources and legitimacy to the iranian revolutionary guard corps. the very same organization that has killed 500 u.s. troops in iraq. this nuclear deal really needs to be put in a larger context of the administration's iran policy. it is very dangerous, very risky. i'd say doomed to fail as a policy given the fact that we haven't seen any adjustment out of iran other than a recommittal on the part of the regime in iran where they say we are not going to be bound by any of the ballistic missile constraints. we don't intend to follow that. and by the way, we're advancing new ballistic missiles and targeting and putting that into the hands of hezbollah and into the hands of hamas.
that's the messaging we have seen this week out of iran. so i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you. mr. speaker and members, i strongly oppose h.r. 3460 because it is another attempt to derail diplomacy and set the united states on the path to war. h.r. 3460 suspends until january 21, 2017, meaning through the rest of president obama's term, the authority of the president to waive, suspend, or reduce sanctions pursuant to the iran nuclear agreement.
this legislation was introduced less than 48 hours ago, and has absolutely no committee process. while the foreign affairs committee has held 30 hearings since the announcement of the joint plan of action in november , 2013, this legislation has never even been a topic of committee discussion. so this is not a serious attempt to legislate. put simply, it's a political attack on the president of the attempt to s and an derail a good deal that is in the best interest of the our ation. but iran -- the iran deal represents the cumulative effects of countless diplomats
after imposing some of the toughest sanctions in the the ry, the p 35 plus one, u.s. -- the p5+1, the u.s., united kingdom, germany, france, russia, were able to bring iran to the table and strike a deal that achieves our core strategy objectives. president obama and secretary of state kerry deserve our respect and thanks for this achievement. they kept together a coalition that forced iran to make serious concessions in how they operate their domestic nuclear program. redid not get everything that we wanted, but we achieved a verifiable deal that is our best hope to prevent iran from
developing a nuclear weapon. details of the deal are commendable, among other things, iran will reduce its uranium stockpile by 98%, and lower its enrichment level below weapon levels. this will increase the breakout time or how long it takes to create a weapon to one year. in addition, the international atomic energy agency will oversee testing and inspections and cheating will be severely punished with snapback provisions that reimpose the crippling sanctions that brought iran to the table. unfortunately, it appears that the majority does not understand
progress in diplomacy. those who are trying to undermine this historic agreement are motivated by the same naive approach to negotiation that has paralyzed this congress. this time unless they get everything they want, they will not accept the deal that forestalls war and prevents iran from becoming a nuclear power. it this intransigence may be new in its degree, but it is an old and regretful approach taken by critics of diplomacy. i remember almost 30 years ago when a president late in his second term reached out his hand in peace. attempts to constrain and
ultimately reduce the nuclear stockpiles were mocked. i rarely saw eye to eye with that president, but nearly three decades later i'm glad that he stood up when he did. that president was ronald reagan . when he signed the treaty with mr. gorbachev, he faced the same fury we face today. however, the soviet union was replaced by a growing number of free and independent states and 28 years later the united states is still standing and remains as strong as ever. the lesson in all of this is that diplomacy is rarely clean and it develops in its own
time. there are stops and starts. things move forward. sometimes backwards. and even often sideways. but repeatedly we have shown that a step in the direction of peace will be met in kind, whether a republican or democratic president seeks that piece -- peace, congress has an obligation to support those efforts. i'm proud of our president's efforts to forge a new path with iran. the iran deal prevents iran from developing a bomb, creates new foundation for diplomacy and and stands as a proud tradition of progress. i urge my colleagues to
carefully consider and oppose i . 3460, and mr. speaker, reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: mr. speaker, i'd make the point with respect to ronald reagan, when president reagan was presented a bad deal in his negotiations with the russians, at that point -- at that point he walked away from that deal. he pushed away from the deal because in his mind we could come back and get a better deal if we stood our ground. this was not the circumstance with respect to our negotiations with iran. with iranian negotiations, we had four points that this congress, 8 % of us sent a -- 84% of us sent a letter to the secretary of state. those points was to be
anywhere, anytime inspections. it was supposed to last multiple decades. we were not supposed to lift the sanctions upfront but do it over the entirety of the agreement in order to get compliance, to ensure we had compliance. it was to make certain that those 12 questions that the iaea had asked were answered. these were all important because, again, as reagan ointed out to the russians, he threw their own expression back to them. there is an old russian expression, trust but verify, and that's what we need to apply to the agreement. that's the last point i would make here, the verification component of it. when you have side agreements, which congress has not seen, and those side agreements allow, in the case of parchin, where we have ample evidence of their past bomb work, allow the iranians to do their own inspections. i mean, i always thought it was
going to be international inspectors that did the international inspections. not the iranians themselves. and for these reasons i do not think it's anational just. i think we -- analogous. i think we should do what reagan did, no, we need a tter negotiation and we need to trust but verify. i yield to the gentleman from montana for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. zink: we are talking about billions of dollars into iran. at least 500 troops, which i served with in yirke, died as a result of iran. mr. zinke: iran is not our friend. they are our enemy. at this -- at least this
regime. you cannot say that hezbollah or hamas, the surrogates of iran, would not do the same on 9/11 as what occurred today in 2001. let's look at this deal. general dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said upped no circumstances do we send missile technology to iran and yet for five years we relax sanctions to include missile systems, to include the same missile systems that iran has given to hamas. at least 1,000 of them directly and as many 10,000 into israel from gaza. in eight years we will relax sanctions on icbm's. there is only one purpose for an icbm and that is to strike america. yet, in 10 years -- remember, part of the deal, dismantle for dismantle. dismantle the sanctions.
iran was going to dismantle their nuclear facilities, their capabilities and their ambitions. in 10 years the centrifuges that are not dismantled come out, they're upgraded and in 13 years, by experts, iran will have the capability of having at least 100 nuclear-tipped icbm's. how is that in the best interest of america? how is that in the best interest of our allies in the middle east? how is that in the best interest of america and the world? it is not. the policy of the united states has been to reduce our stockpiles, reduce the countries that hold these incredible, destructive weapons -- ukraine, south africa are examples. lastly -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. royce: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. zinke: lastly, how could anyone vote for a deal in which
full disclosure of documents is not delivered? no member of this body has been privy to the secret deal between the international atomic energy agency and iran. no member has read this. and yet the verification is so incredibly critical and yet we're willing to cede our sovereignty. no americans on it for a verification process that is 24 days that even general hayden says you can only monitor what you can see. this is a bad deal. the argument is take this deal or go to war. i say this deal promotes war. it promotes nuclear proliferation. it's not the best interest of the united states and it puts ourselves, americans, and the world at risk. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you. i yield to the distinguished
gentleman from california, mr. huffman, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. huffman: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, i rise in support of the joint comprehensive plan of action because we cannot allow iran to have a nuclear weapon and this is the smartest, most responsible way to prevent that. nuclear experts, our own military and intelligence communities and all five nations that have negotiated with us, countries that have a direct interest in preventing an iranian bomb, all agree this deal will work. t does it by restricting their enrichment to nonthreatening level and has an unprecedented of inspections, mechanisms that are not built on trust, they are built on distrust and verification. is this deal perfect? no. i would prefer a deal that permanently bans all enrichment. however, experts agree that this deal can and will keep
iran's nuclear program in a box for at least the next 15 years. now, opponents think we should blow this deal up, walk away and try for a better deal. with all due respect, i think they're in denial. all of our negotiating partners tell us that's not going to happen. we'd go forward with a much weaker hand, without any, perhaps, sanctioned partners at all with a huge loss of credibility for abandoning our own deal. blowing this deal up only makes sense if you're prepared to go to war. and i know that across the aisle -- i'm distressed to say -- many think that's a good idea. i'm concerned across the aisle there is a outbreak of dick cheney fever and apple neshia. they want to -- amnesia. they want to take us back to the years where militarism made us less safe. there is a smarter way forward to prevent iran from having a bomb. let's give diplomacy and peace a chance. let's support this agreement. i yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. george holding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. holding: i thank the chairman. the chairman is one of the most brightest and inciteful foreign policy minds that this congress has ever produced. i rise in support of the legislation in front of us. mr. speaker, for years our nation, in conjunction with partners across the globe, built up a robust sanctions package against the regime in tehran for their illegal nuclear work, among other illicit actions and activities and these sanctions worked, mr. speaker. iran's economy crumbled which forced them to the negotiating table. only trouble is, mr. speaker, on the other side of that negotiating table was the obama administration, a group so eager to sign a deal that they gave into the iranians at every turn and forgot the true nature and evil of who they were dealing with. to get a deal the
administration walked back many of their initial demands, demands that actually might have made this a better deal. mr. speaker, it is all too clear that this deal must be reworked and rejected. now, i certainly believe that there is a role for diplomacy, but diplomacy must come from a source of strength, not weakness and capitulation, which is why the legislation before us today is so important. the waivers built into our sanctions were not meant to be used by any president to force and reement, pass congress the majority people. we should not be relaxing sanctions and giving iran more money. more money to spread terror, more money to execute civilians, more money to support murderous proxy regimes. mr. speaker, this deal cannot stand, and i urge support of this deal and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized.
mr. conyers: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield two minutes to the distinguished the gentlelady from california, ms. chu. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for two minutes. ms. chu: i rise today against this measure to restrain president obama from lifting sanctions and to support the iran deal, the most important step that we could take to secure the future of this planet by stopping iran's nuclear program for 15 years. a nuclear iran is an unacceptable danger. iran's support of terror and aggression throughout the world, its stated threats to israel and the nuclear arms race they would trigger are the reasons the world's major powers came together to put crushing sanctions on iran in the first place. currently iran could produce enough material for a nuclear weapon in two to three months. under this deal, iran must take several unprecedented steps that would prevent them from having a nuclear weapon in 15 years. this deal goes further than any
agreement in history by including inspections of iran's entire uranium enrichment supply chain for up to 25 years. additionally, iran will be subject to inspections under the additional protocol forever. it is those crushing economic sanctions that brought iran to the table to finally accept the nuclear deal. what is critical to remember is that our terrorism sanctions a ll remain in place, and if military strike is necessary, the u.s. will have the time and temmings to intervene but -- intelligence to intervene but without the threat of a nuclear bomb in 15 years. without this deal, sanctions will be lifted anyway and we will be left with nothing but fear, uncertainty and an unfettered iran. considering the anxiety of recent years when the prospect of a military strike on iran felt imminent, this deal is a welcomed alternative, and the risks of rejecting it are too great.
for the sake of our -- the security of our allies and our position as a trustworthy global leader, i urge my colleagues to support the deal and reject this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. jeff duncan, chairman of the foreign affairs subcommittee on the western hemisphere. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. duncan: thank you, mr. chairman. let me just pause to say that i remember the events of 9/11/01 and i want to thank the first responders and those men and women in uniform and those that protect us every day. mr. speaker, i strongly oppose the nuclear agreement with iran. i strongly oppose giving the president the ability to unilaterally lift sanctions, congressional sanctions. our allies don't trust us and our enemies don't fear us. i think we ought to take iran
at its word. here's some quotes. during the negotiations, ayatollah said this, the enemies are talking about the options they have on the table. they should know that the first option on our table is the annihilation of israel. the ayatollah khomeini said this, the iranian people and leadership with god's help will increase their defensive capacity, capability each day. through the iran deal we're getting ready to give iran $150 billion. they can do a lot of damage with that. they're the largest state sponsor of terrorism. they're responsible for killing people in indonesia, in india and all across the globe. . the ayatollah has said we will not stop supporting our allies. that's hamas, that's hezbollah,
and other terrorist groups. they have said their own words, take them at their word, they will continue to support materially and financially the terrorism groups like in yemen. there's nothing we can do to stop it. they have also said that we, western powers, will not have access to secret military sites or secret nuclear sites. yet we are going to give them 24 days in this agreement? america, i didn't say 24 hours, i said 24 days advance notice. 24 days advance notice before we are going to inspect a site. are you kidding me? we are going to allow them to self-regulate. that means they can go out in the desert and get clean dirt and air and provide that. that's like telling a regular drug user you can bring somebody else's urine and hair sample to a drug test. this is crazy that we are giving iran $150 billion and an opportunity to get a nuclear weapon in 10 years or less. 10 years or less assuming they
are going to adhere to every line of the agreement which nobody i talked to believes iran will adhere to the agreement. they will have a nuclear weapon. the immediate concern is $150 billion and lifting sanctions. money given to iran so they can continue to fund terrorism around the globe. people will die as a result of this agreement. $150 billion can buy a lot of weapons, financial support for terrorist groups, continue attacking our allies and americans anywhere they are in the world. mr. chairman, i strongly oppose that as you can tell by my passion today, it's time for us to really talk in real terms about what this agreement is. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased now to recognize the gentlelady from california, ms. sanchez, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for two minutes. ms. sanchez: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman.
they sound like warmongers, don't they? those iranian leaders. so we sit here today humbled at the task before us. we sit here as members of the world's greatest legislative body debating the future of our country and the future of the world. because iran with a nuclear weapon is a threat to the world. after months of intense review and passion and conversation with the people i represent and with advisors, with my colleagues, after 19 years on the armed services committee, 17 of those on the committee that deals with nuclear proliferation and nonproliferation, chairing that committee for the democrats , i believe that diplomacy first is the best path for the united
states and our allies. we stand here to discuss the issues of war and peace. of whether we believe in diplomacy with verification or armed engagement. we sit here and we reflect on all of those that will be affected by our votes. my family, our family, the soldiers, and countless others. but can we look them directly in the eye and say we did all that we could do? can we tell them we did not give diplomacy a chance? so don't get me wrong. i'm no fan of iran. when some many in this chamber rush to war in iraq, i stood up and said no. and i said, at that time, iran is where we need to keep our
focus. we need to ensure that this deal is implemented, and we need to hold those accountable to implement it correctly. and that's our role as members of congress. no deal is perfect. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. sanchez: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from california can is recognized. mr. royce: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. meehan. the eaker pro tempore: gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. mr. meehan: i want to thank the chairman for his leadership. mr. speaker, i raise rise in opposition to the iran deal. i believe the inspections regime is weak. i don't think the iranians can be trusted. nor can we reasonably assume that iran will hold up its end of the deal. a broad swath of sanctions is lifted all at once and the deal lists the arms embargo. iran will further destabilize an
already dangerous middle east by trafficking more weapons and rockets to its terrorist proxies like hamas and hezbollah. iran's coffers will be flush with cash to fund iranian terror around the world. but iranian terrorism isn't new. iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism. its support and influence was there in beirut in 1983, khobar 1998. in 1996, nairobi in on this day, 9/11. it's been there at suicide bombings on buses at shopping malls and pisa shops. it supported hostage takings and assassinations around the world. and to this we are to look to diplomacy? u.s. law allows victims these attacks to sue iran for damages in u.s. courts. over the last 15 years the united states courts have handed down more than 80 judgments against iran with $43 billion in
damages. of course not a penny has been paid. i know there's disagreement on this overall issue, but truly we can agree that iran should have to pay out these damages to its victims' families before iran benefits from u.s. sanctions leaf. i have introduced a justice for victims of iran act. it requires the president to certify that iran has paid all judgments owed to its victims before u.s. sanctions can be lifted. our position is, not one cent. and sanctions relief for iran until it pays up to its victims. not one cent. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield to a distinguished member of the judiciary committee, the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee, four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for four minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman very much. what a weighty responsibility to stand on this floor on september
11. for those of us who were here in this body on that day, there's no more solemn responsibility than the national security of this nation. for that reason i'm gratified to my ranking member for being able to serve with him through those very difficult times and to be one of the original members of the new homeland security committee. i state on both those -- stayed on both those committees who hold in their hands the constitutional rights but also the national security. so i rise today with a heavy very to speak to this difficult decision. so i start by saying, i stand here as a mother. i will choose to speak to that child in israel and the child in urban and rural america, and the children around the world, and i would ask my colleagues the question, what is our burden and
responsibility to those children that if we have an opportunity not for peace but an opportunity to stop a potential nuclear rogue. would we not take that opportunity? or would we find all kinds of obstacles? i rise in opposition to the underlying bill and i rise today in support of this nonnuclear proliferation agreement. i thank the president and secretary kerry, but i thank more importantly, republicans and democrats and independents. i thank the negotiators. mr. speaker, what we have is the statement and the agreement signed by iran that it will never, never become a nuclear power. this agreement creates an enforceable road map for dismantling iran's nuclear program. before the interim joint agreement in 2013, iran went
from operating approximately 164 centrifuges to 10,000. and then they went to 19,000. but this agreement brings them down to 6,000. is that not a standing in the gap against a known actor of terrorism? and then of course we have them at 300 k.g. enriched uranium and they are only allowed to ebb rich 3.67. we have a road -- enrich 3.67. we have a road map for the various entities that contributed to their ability to make a nuclear bomb. make no mistake about it. you cannot take away knowledge. even if you bomb iran through war, you cannot take away knowledge. they will ultimately have the ability to come back again. now we have an agreement with the p5+1. this is not munich. for munich was a capitulation. no one in this agreement is capitulating to iran. we are demanding that iran cease
and desist. tell the american people the truth. this is the best pathway to ensuring that the scientists and all. and for those who say that it is a reckless regime or scheme, rather, of inspection, they are wrong. because the only 24-day process deals with the undeclared. and even that has an ultimatum that the sanctions will snap back. but the iaea inspectors trained by the united states, the united states will be present on site at the iaea, and many members travel there and got a direct briefing of the intenseness of their inspection process. america will be on site when they come back with their inspection materials, and we will be at the table. we'll also be engaged in the redesign of some of those facilities in iran for more civilian uses. i ask you, mr. speaker, that if we have the opportunity to take
away -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. jackson lee: if we have the opportunity -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. jackson lee: to save a child from a speeding train, would we not take that opportunity to -- you the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. jackson lee: i think we would. we need to save the children. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is no longer in recognition. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i'm pleased to yield one minute to our majority leader, mr. mccarthy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to take a moment and thank the chairman. for his work that was done to the american public that they have been able to see directly through what this iran agreement's about. interesting thing is happening on this floor as i sit around and listen. i'm hearing republicans and
democrats on the same side. those that are opposed to it are bipartisan. those that support this all come from one place. when i came to congress the one thing you were always told is, find a committee and stick with that committee because what happens is you get expertise. you care about banking you go to financial services, you get expertise year over year. taxes, ways and means. comes to foreign affairs, you get the expertise of something like this. you know what? i have listened to those who sit on those committees. and i look to the chairmen and the ranking member on the democratic side. you know what i heard from both of them? they are in the same position. they are opposed to this agreement. they took their years of expertise, they read through it, they did the hearings, and they
came to the same conclusion. so i wonder, could that happen on the other side of this building inside the senate, because they have committees as well? the same bipartisan conclusion ame. it just didn't even come from the committees. the next democratic leader in the senate, the number two is opposed to the iran agreement. the american public always asks us for bipartisanship. this has brought us together. but it's not just in this house. it's almost in the majority of houses across america. you see, in the latest poll, only 21% of the american people actually approve of the deal. 49% oppose. more than two to one. only 2% of americans are
confident that iran will abide by the agreement. why? because they never have before. iran has a history of not living p to their promises. it's clear today that what the president said he did not achieve. r. speaker, just in april it president obama said he will, and i quote, do what is necessary to prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. he said he would implement this deal, and i quote, to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. he did the opposite. in 13 years iran can have a nuclear weapon, not just
because iran wants it, but america will say, then, it's ok. 13 years is not that far away. but that's not all iran gets in this deal. while we had sanctions on iran, the only reason they wanted to come to the table, what did they do with their money, even though it was scars, but they didn't have much? it funded terrorism around the world. well, what does this deal do? it gives them as much or maybe even more than the bailout that greece got. so what will iran become? they will become the central bank for terror in the world. that's what we're voting on today. if you want to know the truth about the deal, you go even further because there are side secret agreements we do not know. so on this side of the aisle we
think we should keep with the law. we think when 400 people on this floor voted for the corker-cardin bill that said you had to have all agreements. we felt when there was 98 senators and only one opposed that you'd want to hold to the same agreement. why would anybody want to vote on something without having all the facts? especially after you read the do ts that maybe iran can self-inspection. well, if that's the case, why don't we wring to the floor and change the olympic committee and those athletes should be able to test them 70's -- themselves? i look for the education committee, maybe students should grade themselves. maybe that's facetious, but this is probably the most important bill you will vote on . your term in congress
don't fall to political pressure because you don't need to. the bipartisanship, the majority of americans stands opposed. the expertise in this house hat you respect, regardless of what party you're in, because you elected them to head those committees, are opposed. if that's not enough, study history. history always repeats itself. have we not learned peace without freedom is meaningless? the president said he would not agree to any bad deal. well, i believe we can have a better deal. you know, history has shown chamberlain just wanted peace. history has shown at other times in america where presidents have stood up and stepped back and got a better agreement.
ronald reagan wanted to end the nuclear weapons when it came to the soviet union. in the end of ronald reagan's second term he sat in iceland with gorbachev. he sat down across the table and he got almost everything he had asked for, but gorbachev asked for one more item. he asked that america would end their f.d.i. investment. ronald reagan had a choice. ronald reagan said no, but he said, i'll do something even better. i'll provide you the technology as well so everyone in the world could be safe. gosh shaff said no -- gorbachev said no. so that's a defining moment, not for that man but for this world, and ronald reagan got up and walked away. some people criticized on
political basis, but i ask you this -- would the soviet union have collapsed with the berlin -- or the berlin wall collapsed at the time it did had reagan kept his firm and word for a better deal? peace without freedom is meaningless. this deal does not bring greater freedom to the world. it brings a nuclear missile race. this is not just about america, iran or a few other countries. no country in the middle east will sit back after this action . the world will not be safer. we will not be freer, but there's still an opportunity. history has shown if we're willing to stand up, take a step back and get a better agreement, we can have peace
and freedom. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, how much time remains on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan has 13 minutes. the gentleman from california minutes. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you. i'm pleased now to recognize the distinguished gentleman from illinois, mr. gutierrez, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. gutierrez: mr. speaker, i'm -- i have a proud record, a record as strong as any member in congress in supporting israel and it's because of this support that i backed the deal that the president and our allies have negotiated. if i thought that this agreement made the state of israel more vulnerable, i would not support it. but that's just not the case. every security expert i trust, like colin powell, supports this deal, and almost every former government official i deeply distrust, like vice president dick cheney, opposes the agreement.
this is one of the most detailed international agreements of its kind in memory, and it was no small task of american diplomacy, statesmanship and good old-fashioned negotiating that brought the deal to reality. the power and position of the united states as a world leader brought our allies to the table. it achieved an outcome our country working alone could not have achieved. it is not something that europeans, the russians, the chinese or even the united nations could have achieved. it is not something sanctions alone could achieve, and not something that war alone could achieve. the united states working with our friends and in some cases our rivals brought about this end to iran's nuclear weapons program with an agreement for verifiable, enforceable, effective curbs on iran's nuclear ambitions and it is in iran's interest to abide by this agreement. with this one step forward, the u.s. has helped erase our record of international shortsightedness. it gets us back on track as a leader who leverages our economic power, our military
power, our powers to persuade and compromise and bring people together. there are not many times in a person's congressional career, in the course of history, for that matter, when a person can cast a vote literally for war or peace. voting to support the iran agreement is a vote to give peace a chance. stand up for men and women in uniform and their families and our nations by avoiding war. let us support a deal that is good for israel, good for america, good for peace and good for the world. mr. speaker, i'd like now to ask unanimous consent, representative yarmuth and i wrote an op-ed peace for "the hill" newspaper saying that iran deal is a good deal for america and a good deal for the world. i ask that be entered in the world. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from indiana, mr. todd young.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. young: i thank the chairman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise to join the bipartisan opposition to the president's nuclear deal with iran. i didn't arrive at this decision lightly. as a former marine corps intelligence officer, i know the difficulty of detecting covert military activity, and i fully expect iran to cheat. for years president obama has said no deal would be better than a bad deal. now as the sun sets on his final term, he's jammed congress with an agreement riddled with dangerous concessions. no matter the verification arrangements, this deal does not block iran's pathway to a nuclear weapon. this much we know. rewarding the largest sponsor of international terrorism with billions of dollars and long-range missiles requires
americans to compromise our nation's security. it's too high of price and one this marine's unwilling to pay. so as sure iran will continue chanting "death to america, "death to israel," i will oppose this agreement and i will resolve to work in a nonpartisan basis to proserve peace by projecting -- preserve peace by projecting strength. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. speaker, i'm pleased now to recognize the distinguished gentleman from california, mr. thompson, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. thompson: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, a nuclear armed iran is certainly unacceptable. and there are two ways to prevent iran from developing a nuclear weapon -- diplomacy and military force.
as someone who served in combat, i believe our nation's first choice should always be diplomacy. i say first choice because nothing in this deal takes military action off the table. but before we go down that road, we need to give diplomacy a shot, and this deal is the best way forward. i'm not new to the issue. i just finished serving eight years on the intelligence committee. i reviewed the intelligence, i've read the classified documents and i've had numerous briefings with experts from every side of this issue. there is no other deal to be had. it's this or it's the status quo, and make no mistake, the status quo leaves iran just a short time away from a bomb. all of the intelligence clearly points towards the fact that this agreement is far better than doing nothing, better than the status quo. iran is already a nuclear threshold