zed. mr. massie: i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from idaho, mr. labrador. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from idaho is recognized for two minutes. mr. labrador: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you gentleman from kentucky. this fight today is not about emgration. this fight today is about the -- immigration. this fight today is about the separation of powers. any person who votes for this deal today is voting to cede some of our power to the executive. any person who votes for this deal today is voting to allow the president to make decisions like this on taxation, on e.p.a., on any other agency that this president decides he has the executive authority to take over the powers of the congress. today we all sat here and i think every republican stood up when netanyahu talked about leadership. when he talked about what it was important for a leader to do, he

said we are being told the only alternative to this bad deal, speaking about the deal on iran is war. that is just not true. the alternative to this bad deal is just a better deal. every one ever our republicans stood up when he said that. but today we are being told by our leadership that the only alternative to this bad deal is a government shutdown. that is not true. the alternative to this bad deal today is a better deal. it is to force the senate to actually go to conference so both the house and senate can speak the will of the american people. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from virginia, mr. brat. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. wrath: -- mr. brat: thank you very much. i think everyone in this body knows what it means to run for office. we each represent 700,000 people. we each take that job very seriously. and so it's a sad day today --

everybody in this body has fought very hard to try to come to agreement. unfortunately members in the other body have not allowed us to do that. the fault lies in the u.s. senate. we have asked and we have trusted our leadership to come up with a strong fight, strong messaging. whatever we can do to solve this constitutional problem for the last two months. and at the last minute of the day, the senate has delayed and delayed and delayed and so what is really going on is they are not standing up and representing their people at home. we in this body owe it to the american people to represent their views and the senate will not even allow a vote to bring up a debate. i imfloor everyone back at home, in my district and across the country ask your kids, your ninth graders, college kids everybody. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. brat: it's fairly simple. the congress and the senate --

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. massie: 15 seconds to the gentleman from virginia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 15 seconds. mr. brat: i think the truth in ethics is easy to see. go to your ninth graders in high school civic class and ask them how these bodies are supposed to operate and to investigate. i think when our kids go home and investigate and we investigate what's been going on in the last two months, they'll find the answer. that is -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. brat: the senate will not do its job. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from arizona, mr. schweikert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for one minute. mr. schweikert: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you to my friend from kentucky. all right, for my friends on the left you are going to support this unconstitutional expansion of power. when there is a republican president, are you going to sit there and continue to applaud saying yes, we did not support the separation of powers when we had the chance and look the

other way? one of my heart breaks here is i believe there were creative things we could have done. we are completely dearth of the willingness to try. this is trying about defending the u.s. constitution that we all raised our hands, and yet we are going to allow a vote to go forward to walk away from that fight? this should break everyone's heart in this body. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: mr. speaker, may i inquire how much time is remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky controls 3 1/ minutes. mr. massie: at this point i would like to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from florida, mr. yoho. the speaker pro tempore: gentleman from florida is recognized for one minute. mr. yoho: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to look around this body, what are we asking to you do? we are asking to fund d.h.s. 14u7bd%. we are asking to put safeguards

in there so that we don't move with an executive order that's been deemed illegal by a federal judge. that's all we are asking. and we need to have that language in this bill. i don't know anybody here that doesn't want to fund d.h.s. for us to vote for this without that funding -- without that language in there blocking what this president wants to do, and if we vote for that. we are voting against our constitution. article 1, section 8 is very clear that we have the authority for naturalization. and i say we vote against funding without that safeguard. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield back. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: i yield one minute to the gentleman from georgia, mr. height. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. >> thank you mr. speaker. we are in this mess because of the unconstitutional, unilateral decisions from the president to ignore our constitution and the only thing standing in the way of that progressing is a stay from the courts and as thankful

as i am for the courts, the reality is, we must stand up and defend our constitution. mr. heist: it is a constitutional issue, mr. speaker, and we have the responsibility to stand for that cause. this is not a time to watch this body be obstructed from multiple attempts to make it dysfunctional. it is a constitutional issue. this is a time to stand upon the constitution and i urge this body to do so. with that i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: parliamentary inquiry what order is the closing when there are three speakers and only one opposed? the speaker pro tempore: the chair will recognize members in reverse order. mr. massie: at this point i'd like to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from reserves. the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. simpson: i reserve the balance of my time. we have no other speakers and prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from kentucky will be first to close. mr. massie: may i inquire as to how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky has 1 1/ minute. mr. massie: in closing, congress and in particular the house of representatives, has the power of the purse. our constitution gives this power to the legislative branch, not the executive branch. this means that the president cannot fund his illegal executive actions on immigration unless we, the house of representatives, let him. if today we agree to just give the president all the taxpayer funds he wants so that he can implement his illegal actions, why should the american people ever trust us again? they'll realize that all our bluster about border security is just that, bluster. they'll realize we don't actually care about the best interests of the american people. and that instead we are just

care about going along to get along. even if that means going along with the unconstitutional and illegal actions of the executive branch. today we heard mr. netanyahu say this is the most powerful legislative branch in the world. organization in the world. i would say it is. except for when the senate decides that it's not. we need to stand up, use the power of the purse exercise our constitutional duty to fund only legal and constitutional activities. i urge my colleagues to vote today in the best interest of the american people. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: i support the motion to recede and concur and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back of the the gentleman from idaho is recogni d. mr. simpson: thank you, mr. speaker. thanks for the spirited debate we have had. i agree with many of the comments made by my colleague from kentucky and the people

that have spoken during his time. the problem is i don't see a path to victory with what they are looking at. what they want to do will result in not defunding the president's actions, because there is no funding in this bill for the president's actions. there is no funding in this bill for the president's actions. everybody knows that, don't we? what it will lead to is a close down of the department of homeland security. and that is not a victory. that is dangerous. you know, there's a difference of opinion between republicans and democrats between the administration and congress, as to the actions that the president made. whether they were constitutional or not. i have actually voted for something in here that -- in

this body several years ago that i thought was perfectly legal perfectly constitutional. the court later found out it was unconstitutional told us it was unconstitutional. that's why you have a court. when there are differences of opinion as to what's constitutional and what's not constitutional, a court makes that determination. it's happened since the founders who wrote our constitution disagreed about what they had written. marbury vs. madison. it was up to the courts to make the determination of what the constitution said. as for voting for this, hurting our case, that is -- it's not our case it's the attorney general's case of the states, that is before the courts currently, if this voting to defund homeland security, that doesn't have any funding for the president's action, hurts our case then i would say that any

law that passes congress can't be declared unconstitutional because we all voted for it. that's not reality. again, let the courts do their job. now, it's true that a majority in this congress and in the senate voted to defund the president's actions. but because of the senate rules it didn't pass. we didn't even get to go to conference because of the senate rules. some people suggest, maybe we ought to change the senate rules. we ought to insist that the senate change their rules. for the for the last four, eight years, i was kind of glad the way the senate rules were. they prevented what i believe a lot of bad stuff from coming over from the senate. so i don't know that i would go that way because, remember, at some point in time in history -- i hope it's not soon -- but

at some point in time in history my party is going to be in the minority over there. and it's going to be nice to be able to control some of the agenda. let's remember the underlying bill is a dang good bill -- almost said it -- not quite. is a darn good bill, and we need to pass it and we need to pass it for the security of the american people and for the employees that work at the department of homeland security so those are -- that are considered essential don't have to go to work without way. that's irresponsible. that's us not doing our job. i will fight with anyone and i will stand on their side as long as they can show me a path to potential victory let's get this bill passed. it's a good bill and i would encourage

>> this was a very very strong message that sent a message to our enemy, to american people, and workers in homeland security that we are there to keep the american people safe. to remove all doubt that our commitment to the homeland security of the united states we are very proud of the vote that happened today. in that spirit, i want to yield to our ranking member on the homeland security committee, mr. thompson. >> thank you very much, madam leader.

i think the question for a lot of us is why did it take so long? we are very happy that today you saw the process work. it's unfortunate that the men and women who are in the department of homeland security had to feel like their government did not care about them. today we put that to rest. but we also made a statement that we're here to keep america safe. it's unfortunate that it took us so long to get to this point. i'm happy about it. i want to thank our leadership for staying strong. we made it very clear, democrats care about the security of this country and american citizens. >> as i yield to congresswoman lowey, again, our ranking member on appropriations committee, the full committee, i want to also say that, on the way here, mr. hoyer and received a call from the secretary of homeland

security, jeh johnson where he was grateful for what had happened today, of course. but we thanked him for saying -- staying strong and being clear about why it was important for us to have the full funding bill until the end of the fiscal year. and nobody knows more about the appropriations committee and the fiscal year than congresswoman lowey. >> thank you. at the outset i want to thank our courageous leader for working with all of us to finally get this bill passed. it's really quite extraordinary that it's taken this long. way back in december appropriations, democrats and republicans, worked together and passed a good bipartisan homeland security bill. this was december. but better late than never. it's march. and now i'm very pleased that there was a bipartisan effort to pass this bill and our firefighters, our police, our ports, t.s.a. workers, all those who are critical to the safety of

our country will get paid and be on duty and i was very pleased that secretary johnson of the department walked around, talked to members, made it clear how important this bill and this funding is to the homeland security of our country. so, congratulations again to leader pelosi and all those who work together. better late than never. glad we passed this bill today. now i'm very happy to turn the microphone over to the ranking member of the homeland security subcommittee of appropriations ms. roybal-allard. >> thank you so much. i too want to thank our leader nancy pelosi, bennie thompson, nita lowey, and steny hoyer, and all who helped to highlight just how important this bill was to pass. today's passing of this bill is really a victory for the safety

of the american people and this country. we've all heard all the reasons why it was so important. but it is also important because now, secretary johnson his directors, his staff, can go about the business of not only taking care of the security of our nation today, but planning for the security of the future. and the men and women who put themselves on the front lines every single day to protect our country can do so knowing that they don't have to worry whether or not they're going to be able to make their mortgage payment, put food on the table and pay the bills. so once again i just want to say thank you to the tremendous work of the leadership in the democratic party here in the house, to secretary johnson who, as nita lowey said, was here talking to all the members, both sides of the aisle, to emphasize just how important

this bill is. so now the people of the united states, everyone can feel confident that the department of homeland security is now on the right track, both taking care of our security today and in the future. >> i want to commend all of the members. we're going to hear from our distinguished whip right now. we've spent hours in the office on friday on chocolate, strictly chocolate diet, so that we could have the energy to have the staying power to get through all of the calls that it took to do this. and the lead on all of that was our distinguished whip, mr. hoyer. >> thank you, madam leader. there is a time to debate and there is a time to decide. today was a time to decide. the senate had decided that it was time to decide and today the

house did as well. this means that over approximately 230,000 people who we ask daily to work for the federal government on behalf of america's security and the safety of our people will have the assurance for the next seven months that they will have a funding stream and the resources to allow them to protect our country. i am glad that we came together on this bipartisan vote. clearly there are differences. there are differences on immigration reform. we ought to put a bill on the floor on that subject and talk about it in a bipartisan way. everybody says immigration is broken. let's fix it. let's put a bill on the floor. and we can do for immigration reform what we did today for the funding of homeland security. this is a good day for america. the congress worked today.

let us hope we use this as an example for the congress tomorrow and the days thereafter. thank you very much. >> we'll take a few questions. >> do you feel by providing -- >> let chad just get in there. >> with such an overwhelming vote by democrats for this bill, do you feel in some ways that democrats are holding all the cards or that you are in fact the de facto speaker these days? >> i'm going to tell you something. if there's ever an oxymoron it's de facto speaker. you're the speaker or you're not. so let's not even go to that place. i am proud of the democrats and let me tell you one other reason why. because when the republicans were putting out these bills to say we're going to keep government open for this three weeks, it's very hard for a member to vote against a bill that will keep homeland security part of government open.

unless you're seeing a longer view, a more enlightened view of what can be better in a matter of days. so the important thing for us was that our members had the courage to say, i don't want government to be shut down, but i'm not falling for this three-week plan, which really cripples the ability to plan for homeland security, even if it would keep government open in relationship to homeland security for three more days, so that's where our strength sprang from, was the unity of the house democrats. it was also important to acknowledge the senate. in a bipartisan way they defeated the motion to go to -- didn't give cloture to the motion to go to conference and they also defeated a motion to table which enabled the bill to come back here when we were in disagreement, house and senate to enable us, congresswoman lowey and congressman simpson, to call the bill forward. and that was what we were depending on, so it wasn't about

anybody giving us anything. it was about the regular order prevailing in the house of representatives. so this was bipartisan in many respects. >> you were physically agitated during the prime minister's speech and obviously afterwards -- >> excuse me, i'm happy to answer -- not happy, but i'd be willing to answer any questions about the prime minister's speech but first can we deal with this? because this is the point. >> we had some other big deadlines coming up with the highway bill. are you offering the speaker of the house right now democrat votes -- >> we can't offer anything until we see wlat bill is. -- what the bill is. but i will say that highway infrastructure, that's never been partisan. week of always acted in a -- we have always acted in a bipartisan way on infrastructure and all of those issues. it was only recent in opposition

to president obama republicans did not support those initiatives. but hopefully we can come back to where we've always been transportation and infrastructure has always been really a nonpartisan committee. i don't know if anyone else wants to speak to that. >> i just want to say that 2/3 of the senate and now the overwhelming members of the house decided this was the commonsense, right thing to do. on all those other bills, if we can come to agreement that this commonsense, right thing to do i'm sure that democrats and republicans can vote together to do those kind of things. that's what we want to do. that's what we came here to do. >> i think it might be easier because 167 republicans voted to keep government shut down in terms of homeland security today. i think that's probably the high number. i think on issues like transportation, there might be more cooperation. >> i was just going to mention something because it's so current. rosa delauro's the ranking member of the committee that funds the national institutes of health and many other very vital programs. we had an excellent hearing this

morning and several of us referenced a time when jon porter, the republican chair of the committee, worked with the democrats and we doubled the funding for the national institutes of health. helpinging to cure diseases, -- helping to cure diseases, creating jobs, good for the economy. so i hope today's action, and frankly our hearing this morning, where there were many bipartisan, positive comments, will lead to more cooperation, because that's what we're here for. rather than have all kinds of arguments about minutia. let's get on to the important jobs ahead. create jobs, strengthen the economy, get people well with these kind of important investments. >> if your question is, do we stant ready to cooperate, we most certainly do. >> comments on the netanyahu speech? >> i put out a statement.

i was near tears because -- i'm just speaking for myself here. others may have a different view of this speech. i was near tears because i love israel very much. i value the importance of the relationship between israel and the united states. my granddaughter had a ceremony on sunday at the u.s. community -- at the jewish community center in san francisco. this is something that means a great deal to us. not only as an issue, but as a value. i thought that part of that was undermined by the tone of the prime minister's speech. why don't you just read my statement, ok? >> do you regret going? >> no. i don't regret going. if i regretted going, i wouldn't have gone. if you can follow that. >> [inaudible] >> no, well, it didn't matter. i went, i listened i was , disappointed. but i don't -- you know, i think that -- many of us have worked part of our official lives to stop nuclear proliferation.

it's been a real -- it's a core principle of our foreign policy. that is whether israel never existed. i happen to think the establishment of israel was the greatest political accomplishment of the 20th century. a terrible century. that was a bright star. but even if israel never existed, the united states of america has, as one of the pillars of its national security and foreign policy, stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. and that's what we do. and that's what president is doing in the negotiation. if a deal isn't good enough, he won't accept. i don't think we needed any lectures on that. that's just my deal. >> do you think he did irreparable harm to the relationship with the u.s.? >> i hope not. >> thank you. >> thank you.

>> coming up, benjamin netanyahu is speech. we will start with democrats followed by president obama's reaction. >> the supreme court is set to hear the oral arguments in king versus burwell, a case challenging the federal subsidy for the purchase of health care for the affordable care act. on the next washington journal talking about the case and the potential outcome. then more about the affordable care act and subsidies with mary agnes of kaiser health. washington journal's live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. you can join the conversation with your phone calls and comments on facebook and twitter. >> president obama's chief economic adviser, jason furman testifies before the joint

economic advising wednesday. you can see it live starting at 2:30 p.m. eastern on c-span three. >> you would see a combination when i was a kid washington was a large man. six-foot, very robust. terrific natural activity -- athlete. madison is a skinny little guy. >> this sunday on q and a historian david o stewart on standing farther james madison and a partnership that aided in the success of our fledgling nation. >> begins i write most about is his ability to form a remarkable partnerships with the great people of his era. but it also leads to his gift to

the country of his talents and what he was able to do to help create the first self-sustaining constitutional republic. >> sunday night >> israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu addressed congress on tuesday. he thanked the u.s. for standing with israel throughout its history but warned against the threat of a nuclear iran. his remarks are 45 minutes. >> the prime minister of israel.

[applause] [applause] [applause]

[applause]

[applause] speaker boehner: members of congress, i have the distinct honor of introducing to you his excellency, the prime minister of israel, benjamin netanyahu. [applause]

prime minister netanyahu: speaker of the house, john president pro tem senator orrin hatch, boehner, senate minority leader mitch mcconnell, house minority leader nancy pelosi and house majority leader mccarthy. i also want to acknowledge senator and democratic leader harry reid. harry reid, it is good to see you back on your feet. [applause] it is true what they say to you cannot keep a good man down.

i am deeply humbled by the opportunity to speak for a third time before the most important legislative body in the world, the u.s. congress. [applause] i want to thank you all for being here today. i know that my speech has been the subject of much controversy. i deeply regret that some perceive me being here as political. that was never my intention. i want to thank you democrats and republicans for your common support for israel, year after year, decade after decade. [applause]

[applause] i know no matter which side of the aisle you sit, you stand with israel. [applause] the remarkable alliance between israel and the united states has always been above politics and it must always remain above politics. [applause] because america and israel, we share a common destiny, of a promised land, cherished

freedom, and offer hope. israel is grateful for the support of america's people and of america's presidents, from harry truman to barack obama. [applause] we appreciate all that president obama has done for israel. some of that is widely known. [applause] like strengthening security cooperation and intelligence sharing, opposing anti-israel resolutions at the u.n. some of what the president has done for israel is less well-known.

i called him in 2010 when we had the forest fire and he immediately agreed to respond to my request for urgent aid. in 2011, we had our embassy in cairo under siege and again, he provided vital assistance in crucial moments. support for more missile interceptors during the operation last summer when we took on hamas terrorists. [applause] in each of those moments, i called the president, and he was there. some of what the president has done for israel might never be known because it touches on some of the most sensitive and strategic issues that arise between american presidents and an israeli prime minister. but i know it and i will always be grateful to president obama for that support. [applause]

and israel is grateful to you, the american congress, for your support. for supporting us in so many ways, especially in generous military assistance and missile defense, including iron dome. [applause] last summer, millions of israelis were protected from thousands of hamas rockets because this capital dome helped build our iron dome. [applause]

thank you, america. thank you for everything you have done for israel. my friends, i have come here today because, as prime minister of israel, i feel a profound obligation to speak to you about an issue that could well threaten the survival of my country and the future of my people. iran's quest for nuclear weapons. we are an ancient people. in our nearly 4000 years of history, many have tried repeatedly to destroy the jewish people. tomorrow night, on the jewish holiday, we read the book of esther. we will read of a powerful persian who plotted to destroy

the jewish people from 2500 years ago. but a courageous jewish woman exposed the plot and gained for the jewish people the right to defend themselves against their enemies. the plot was foiled. our people were saved. [applause] today, the jewish people face another attempt by yet another persian to destroy us. iran's supreme leader, ayatollah khomenei spews the oldest hatred of anti-semitism with the newest technology. he tweets that israel must be annihilated.

in iran, there is not exactly free internet but he tweets that israel must be destroyed. for those who believe iran threatens the jewish state but not the jewish people, listen to the leader of hezbollah, iran's chief terrorist proxy. he said, if all those jews gathered in israel, it will save us the trouble of chasing them down around the world. but iran's regime is not merely a jewish problem any more than the nazi regime was merely a jewish problem for the 6 million jews murdered by the nazis were but a fraction of the 60 million people killed in world war ii. iran's regime poses a great threat, not only to israel, but also to the peace of the entire world. to understand just how dangerous

iran would be with nuclear weapons, we must fully understand the nature of the regime. the people of iran are a very talented people -- they are heirs to one of the world's great civilizations. in 1979, they were hijacked by religious zealots who imposed on them immediately a dark and brutal dictatorship. that year, the zealots drafted a constitution, a new one for iran. it directed the revolutionary guards not only to protect iran's borders, but also to fulfill the ideological mission of jihad. the regime's founder exhorted his followers to export a revolution throughout the world. i am standing here in washington, d.c., and the difference is so stark. america's founding document promises life, liberty, and the

pursuit of happiness. iran's founding document pledges death, tyranny, and the pursuit of jihad. as states are collapsing, iran is charging into the void to do just that. their goons in gaza, its lackeys in lebanon, it's revolutionary guards in the golan heights, are threatening israel. backed by iran, assad is slaughtering syrians. shiite militias are rampaging. backed by iran, threatening the strategic straits at the mouth of the red sea. along with the straits of hormuz, that would give iran -- just last week, iran carried out a military exercise of blowing up a u.s. aircraft carrier. that is just last week.

while they were having nuclear talks with the united states. unfortunately, for the last 36 years, iran's attacks against the united states have been anything but mock and the targets have been all too real. iran took dozens of americans hostage, murdered hundreds of american soldiers in beirut, and is responsible for killing and maiming thousands of american servicemen and women in iraq and afghanistan. beyond the middle east, iran attacks america and its allies through its global terror network. it blew up the jewish community center in buenos aires and helped al qaeda bomb u.s. embassies in africa. it even attempted to assassinate the saudi ambassador right here

in washington, d.c. in the middle east, iran now dominates four arab capitals --baghdad, damascus, beirut, and sanaa. if iran's aggression is left unchecked, more is certain to follow. at a time when many hope iran will join the community of nations, iran is easy gobbling up the nations. [applause] we must all stand together to stop iran's march of conquest, subjugation, and terror. [applause] two years ago, we were told to

give president rouhani and the foreign minister a chance to bring change and moderation to iran. some change. some moderation. rouhani's government persecutes christians, hangs gays, and executes even more prisoners than before. last year, the same man who charms western diplomats laid a wreath at the grave of the terrorist mastermind who spilled more american blood than any other terrorist besides osama bin laden. i would like to see someone ask him a question about that. iran's regime is as radical as ever. it cries death to america, as loud as ever.

this should not be surprising because the ideology of iran's revolutionary regime is deeply rooted in militant islam. that is why this regime will always he an enemy of america. do not be fooled. the battle between iran and isis does not turn iran into a friend of america. iran and isis are competing for the crown of militant islam. one calls itself the islamic republic and the other calls itself the islamic state but both want to impose a militant empire first on the region and then on the entire world. they just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that order. in this deadly game of thrones there is no place for america or israel, no peace for christians,

jews, or muslims who do not share the medieval creed. no freedom for anyone. when it comes to iran and isis the enemy of your enemy is your enemy. [applause] the difference is that isis is armed with butcher knives, captured weapons, and youtube, well iran could soon be armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs. we must always remember, i will say it one more time, the greatest danger facing our world is the marriage of militant islam with nuclear weapons.

to defeat isis and let iran get nuclear weapons would be to win the battle but lose the war. we cannot let that happen. [applause] but that, my friends, is exactly what could happen if the deal now being negotiated is accepted by iran. that deal will not prevent iran from nuclear weapons. it will all but guarantee iran gets those weapons -- lots of them. let me explain why. while the final deal has not yet been signed, certain elements of any potential deal are now a matter of public record.

you do not need intelligence agencies and secret information to know this. you can google it. absent a dramatic change, we know for sure that any deal with iran will include two major concessions to iran. the first major concession would leave iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure, providing it with a short break out time. break out time is the time it takes to amass enough weapons grade uranium or plutonium for a nuclear bomb. according to the deal, not a single nuclear facility would be demolished. thousands of centrifuges used to enrich uranium would be left spinning. thousands more would be temporarily disconnected, but not destroyed. because iran's nuclear program would be left largely intact iran's breakout time would be

very short, about a year by u.s. assessment and even shorter by israel's. if iran's work on advanced centrifuges is not stopped, the breakout time could still be a lot shorter. true, certain restrictions would be imposed on iran's nuclear program and iran's adherence to those restrictions would be supervised by international inspectors. here is the problem. inspectors document violations. they do not stop them. inspectors knew when north korea broke to the bomb, but that did not stop them. north korea turned off the camera. within a few years, it got the bomb. now, we are warned that within five years, north korea could have an arsenal of 100 nuclear bombs.

like north korea, iran is to fight international inspectors on at least three separate occasions -- 2005, 2006, 2010. like north korea, iran broke the locks, shut off the camera. iran not only defies inspectors, it also plays a good game of hide-and-cheat with them. the iaea said yesterday iran refuses to come clean about its military nuclear program. iran was caught twice operating secret nuclear facilities, facilities that inspectors did not know existed. right now iran could be hiding nuclear facilities that we do not know about, the u.s. and israel.

as the former head of inspections for the iaea said in 2013, if there is no undeclared insulation today in iran, it will be the first time in 20 years it doesn't have one. iran has proven time and again that it cannot be trusted. that is why the first major concession is a source of great concern. it leaves iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure. that concession creates a real danger that iran could get to the bomb by violating the deal. the second concession creates a greater danger. that iran could get to the bomb by keeping the deal. virtually all of the

restrictions will expire in about a decade. a decade may seem like a long time in political life. it is the blink of an eye in the life of a nation, a blink of an eye in the life of our children. we have the responsibility to consider will happen when the sanctions will have been lifted. iran would be free to build a huge nuclear capacity that could produce many nuclear bombs. the supreme leader says that openly, that iran plans to have 190,000 centrifuges. not 6000, or even the 19,000 that they have to day, but 10 times that amount, 190,000 centrifuges enriching uranium. iran could make the fuel for an entire nuclear arsenal, and this

in a matter of weeks. john kerry confirmed last week that iran could possess that centrifuge capacity when the deal expires. i want you to think about that. the foremost sponsor of global terrorism could be weeks away from having enough uranium for an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons, and this with full international legitimacy. if iran's ballistic missile program is not part of the deal, and so far iran refuses to put

it on the negotiating table, iran could have the means to deliver that arsenal to the far corners of the earth, including every part of the united states. say you see, my friends, this deal has two major concessions. one, leaving iran with a vast program and lifting the restrictions in about a decade. that's why this deal is so bad. it doesn't block iran's path to the bomb, but paves their way to the bomb. why would they make this deal? they hope iran will change for the better in the coming years or they believe the alternative is worse. i disagree. i do not believe iran's radical regime will change for the better after this deal. this regime has been in power for 36 years. this deal would only whet iran's appetite for more.

will iran be less aggressive when sanctions are removed and the economy is stronger? if iran is gobbling up four countries right now, how many more countries will they devour when sanctions are lifted? will they fund less terrorism? why should the regime change for the better when they can enjoy the best of both worlds? aggression abroad and prosperity at home. this is a question that everyone asks in our region. israel's neighbors, iran's neighbors know that iran will sponsor more terrorism when it's economy is unshackled and it has been given a clear path to the bomb.

many neighbors say they will respond by racing to get nuclear weapons of their own. this deal will change the middle east for the worse. a deal that is supposed to prevent nuclear proliferation will spark a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous part of the planet. this deal will not create a farewell to arms, but a farewell to arms control. the middle east will soon be crisscrossed. a region would turn into a nuclear tinderbox. if anyone thinks this deal kicks the can down the road, think again. when we get down that road, we will face a much more dangerous iran, a middle east littered with nuclear bombs, and a

countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare. ladies and gentlemen, i have come to tell you we don't have to bet the security of the world on the hope that iran will change for the better. we don't have to gamble with our future and our children's future. we can insist that restrictions on iran's nuclear program not be lifted for as long as iran continues its aggression in the region and the world. [applause] [applause] before lifting those restrictions, the world should demand that iran do three things.

first, stop its aggression against its neighbors in the middle east. [applause] second -- [applause] second, stop supporting terrorism around the world. [applause] and third, stop threatening to annihilate my country, israel, the one and only jewish state. [applause]

thank you. if the world powers are not prepared to insist that iran change its behavior before a deal is signed, they should insist that iran change its behavior before a deal expires. [applause] if iran changes its behavior the restrictions would be lifted. if iran doesn't change his behavior, the restrictions should not be lifted. [applause] if iran wants to be treated like a normal country, let it act like a normal country. [applause]

my friends, what about the argument that there is no alternative to this deal, that the nuclear know-how cannot be erased. that the nuclear program is so advanced that the best we can do is delay the inevitable, which is essentially what the proposed deal seeks to do. nuclear know-how without infrastructure does not get you very much. a race car driver without a car cannot drive. a pilot without a plane cannot fly. without thousands of centrifuges or heavy water facilities, iran cannot make nuclear weapons. [applause] iran's nuclear program can be rolled back beyond the current

proposal by insisting on a better deal and keeping up the pressure on a vulnerable regime, especially given the recent collapse in the price of oil. [applause] if iran threatens to walk away from the table, and this often happens, call their bluff. they will be back. because they need the deal more than you do. [applause] and by maintaining the pressure on iran and on those who do business with iran, you have the power to make them need it even more. my friends, for over a year, we have been told that no deal is better than a bad deal.

this is a bad deal. it is a very bad deal. we are better off without it. [applause] now we are being told the only alternative to this bad deal is war. that is just not true. the alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal. [applause]

a better deal that doesn't leave iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and such a short breakout time. a deal that keeps the restrictions on the nuclear program in place until iran's aggression ends. [applause] a better deal that will not give iran an easy path to a bomb. a better deal that israel and it's neighbors may not like but with which we could live literally. and no country has a greater stake than israel in a good deal that peacefully removes this threat. ladies and gentlemen, history has placed us in a fateful crossroads. we must now choose between two paths. one path leads to a bad deal

that will at best curtail iran's nuclear ambitions for a while. but it will lead to a nuclear armed iran whose aggression will inevitably lead to war. the second path, however difficult, could lead to a much better deal, that would prevent a nuclear armed iran nuclearized middle east, and the consequences of both to all of humanity. you don't have to read robert frost to know, you have to live life to know that the difficult path is usually the one less traveled, but it will make all the difference for the future of my country, the security of the middle east, and the peace we all desire. [applause]

[applause] standing up to iran is not easy. standing up to dark and murderous regimes never is. with us today is holocaust survivor and nobel prize winner elie wiesel. [applause]

your life inspires us to give meaning to the words "never again." [applause] and i wish i could promise you elie, that the lessons of history have been learned. i can only urge the leaders of the world not to repeat the mistakes of the past. [applause]

not to sacrifice the future for the present. not to ignore aggression in hopes of gaining an illusory peace. the days when the jewish people remain passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over. [applause] we are no longer scattered among the nations, powerless to defend ourselves.

we have restored our sovereignty and our ancient home. the soldiers who defend our home have boundless courage. for the first time in 100 generations, we can defend ourselves. [applause] this is why as prime minister of israel, i can promise you one more thing. even if israel has to stand alone, israel will stand. [applause] [applause] but i know that israel does not

stand alone. i know that america stands with israel. i know that you stand with israel. you stand with israel because you know that the story of israel is not only the story of the jewish people, but of the human spirit that refuses again and again to succumb to history's horrors. [applause] facing me in the gallery overlooking all of us in this august chamber is the image of

moses. moses led our people from slavery to the gates of the promised land. before the people of israel entered the land of israel moses gave us a message that has steeled our resolve for thousands of years. i leave you with his message today. [speaking hebrew] "be strong and resolute, neither fear nor dread them." my friends, may israel and america always stand together, strong and resolute. may we neither fear nor dread the challenges ahead. may we face the future with confidence, strength, and hope. may god bless israel and the united states of america. [applause]

[applause] [applause] [applause]

thank you very much. [applause] thank you, all. you are wonderful. thank you, america. thank you. thank you. thank you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> more than 50 democrats skipped prime minister's netanyahu meeting. later house democrats fell -- help a press conference and criticized it as political theater. this is 45 minutes. >> you don't pay attention to him any way. >> thank you all for being here, i'm john yarmouth of kentucky. gathered with me are colleagues, all of whom opposed the appearance of prime minister netanyahu today. some who attended the event and some who didn't and all of whom have something to say about his appearance. first of all, these remarks only attributable to me.

i would like to congratulate speaker boehner and prime minister netanyahu on a bit of political theater and the prime minister can say he lectured he american people on things we didn't know. i think the speech validated all of the reasons i said i was opposed to the speech. i expected the prime minister to speculate on and mischaracterize the negotiations on a potential deal. for instance, he continually said that the deal ends in a certain period of time and there are no restrictions -- would be no restrictions on iran's nuclear program after the deal expired. that is not the case, as we have been advised by the white house. but, again, this is part of the strategy that he used. i resented the condescending tone that he used that he didn't

think anybody in congress or the country understood the threat that a nuclear weaponized iran poses to his country, to the region and to the world. i think the president has made it very clear, we understand that threat. i don't think there's any doubt that everyone in congress and the administration understands that iran has been a bad actor in the region, that it has sponsored terrorism and has done things that we would like to see changed. we all know that. it's nice of him to remind us and i resent the act he was telling us how to negotiate when the administration and their representatives have been at this for two years now. with the cooperation and participation of five other major nations in the world. this speech was straight out of the dick cheney playbook, this was fear mongering.

phrases like saying nuclear war is inevitable if a deal were to be accepted. phrases like this, this would pave the way for iran having a nuclear bomb. these are things that i think are part what dick cheney would have done and did. this has been the prime minister's pattern. and has gone to the u.n. and did the same thing. and i understand and all of us do, all of us who support israel and care very deeply about israeli security that israel perceives its threat differently than we might. but i don't think there is any question that the administration and all of us understand that threat and trying our best to thwart it. the -- my final comment, prime minister netanyahu basically said that the only acceptable deal was a perfect deal or an ideal deal.

it's like the child who says, i want to go to disneyland, every day and drink coca-cola and not go to school, this would be a nice life for a child, but this is very serious business and being conducted in a very, very real world. idealism is fine as william f. buckley once said, but when it approaches relatey, the cost are prohibitive. insisting on the ideal deal in a real world where things constantly change and reality changes, the costs would be prohibitive and that would be lost opportunity to put an end to iran's nuclear program. and with that, i would like to interviews david price of north carolina. >> thank you, john, and good morning. as john said, the members here individually made our decisions about attending the speech.

but what we're united in is our determination to learn from this controversy, the controversy that surrounded the speech and to move on to reinforce the u.s.israel security relationship and protect the world against nuclear-armed iran. speaker boehner should have never extended this invitation at this time given the proximity to israel's national elections and delicate international negotiations which the prime minister clearly wants to upend are hanging in the balance at this moment. and prime minister netanyahu shouldn't have accepted this which was extended by the house majority. for these reasons, the invitation the speech sent a dangerous precedent where one can invite a foreign politician and in doing so, we not only

tarnish the grand tradition, but we have political relationships in this case, a very special relationship dedicated to israel's security and prosperity. but the speech has happened. but we have to determine the best way forward. we must give new consideration to what the prime minister has said. we must also subject his charges and claims to intense scrutiny. for example, the notion that everything has to be solved in terms of our bilateral issues before anything can be solved. for example, the description of the deal which makes an agreement seemingly, totally out of reach. we must redouble our efforts to protect israel, the region and the world from a nuclear-armed iran. these are tough negotiations. of course, they are tough. but there are no good alternatives to bringing a comprehensive, strong and

enforceable agreement to fruition. it is extremely important for us and for the international community to stay on that course. through all of this, a commitment must remain firm and open dialogue is critical to that process. i and all of us stand ready to engage with israeli leaders from across the political spectrum. this speech today wasn't about whether we agreed or disagreed but about the circumstances of this invitation and the lasting damage it could do. but it's our job now to get past this controversy to focus on the task at hand, securing the relationship with israel and securing an international agreement that will prevent a nuclear-armed iran. >> next, i would like to introduce one of the icons of congress, john lewis of georgia.

>> thank you very much. in this congress, i take a back seat to no one in my commitment or support of israel and the american jewish community. on many occasions we have worked side by side to strengthen our democracy and fight for equality and justice in this country. the commitment will not change. we are consistently throughout my career for long-term peace in the middle east, a secured jewish state and fight against anti-semitism and hate on american shores and abroad. however this nation is currently involved in ongoing negotiations with iran. election in israel just about two weeks away on march 17. the speaker of the house of

representatives would allow the floor of this chamber to be used to neglect the negotiations of the president of the united states is partisan and not right. several ambassadors as well as the leader of jewish organizations called upon the prime minister to cancel his speech. the speech is an afront to the united states, to the democratic leadership of congress and the department of state. it is meant to undermine the work of our elected and appointed representatives who are the ones responsible to protect the interests of the american people. the floor of the house is a centerpiece of public debate in our democracy. it should not be used as a partisan tool. and i'm saddened that the speaker would use this historic

position, bipartisan support of our israeli brothers and sisters by this action. it is for this reason that i chose not to attend this morning's address and it is my hope that today's partisan political low will never ever be repeated again on the house floor. thank you. >> next is jan schakowsky of illinois. >> thank you very much. i agree very much with the goal that iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. the president could not be clearer and that has been the point of the negotiations with five other major powers in order to make sure that happens. i agree with the prime minister

that the united states is israel's best friend. sometimes as in -- as often before the united nations, israel's only friend. and i agree with the prime minister when he said we have to learn the lessons of history and not repeat the mistakes of the past. and so, i want to recount for you some of the words of the prime minister when he was a public citizen, not an elected official in israel in 2002, when he made a major address, actually, it was testimony before dan burton's committee. and he said, if you take out saddam, saddam's regime, i guarantee you that it will have enormous positive impact on the region and he went on to say quote, i think people sitting

next door in iran, young people and many others, will say the time of such regimes, such despots is gone. it didn't turn out that way. the big winner of the war was iran. and then -- just last year, the prime minister said -- any way the prime minister said last year that the joint plan of action -- here it is, that we have had for the last year, he said, that -- this is about the jpoa that we enacted last year it's not made the world a safer place, like the agreement with north korea in 2005.

this agreement has made the world a much more dangerous place. in fact, the joint plan of action has made the world safer by freezing the -- iran's nuclear weapons plans and has been abided by by iran. and so it seems to me with where we are faced right now is a speech as congressman yarmouth pointed out, had many falsehoods about it. but one is the intelligence and security agencies of this country and our allies do not support the idea that iran can somehow unlearn to build centrifuges and have a nuclear infrastructure and that the kind of proposals that the prime minister were suggesting are absolutely impossible even destroying the current infrastructure of iran and its centrifuges and nuclear capacity

would not do the job. the only thing that will do the job is the kind of negotiated, carefully negotiated agreement that has vigorous oversight, intrusive inspections and monitoring, that is where we are going. we should be able to continue to lock down and roll back in a very verifyable way iran's ability to achieve a nuclear weapon. that's the goal. we can't achieve it netanyahu's way. >> next up is g.k. butterfield of north carolina. >> good afternoon to all of you. i'm congressman butterfield and represent the 1st district of north carolina, chief deputy whip of the house democratic caucus and chairman of the congressional black caucus.

i speak in my individual capacity as one of 435 members of the house. you know, my first reaction was to come to this press conference this afternoon and simply remain silent and just keep my personal opinions personal. but that is contrary to my personality and so i will simply just lay out some facts that supported my conclusion. i was a judge for 15 years in north carolina and 15 years before that, i was a lawyer. and first thing we would always do would be to establish the facts and then we would draw upon the facts and reach our conclusion. fact number one, democrats, in my opinion, and i know most of them, if not all of them support the right of israel to exist, free from the threat of anihilation from iran. i support personally the right of israel to exist free from the threat of annihilation.

they have the right to feel threatened by iran assembling a nuclear arsenal. i support president obama to negotiate an agreement with iran, short of imposing additional sanctions. the president is a strong negotiator. that is my opinion. he is a very strong negotiator. secretary kerry is a very strong negotiator. ambassador rice is a strong negotiator and we need not inhibit their ability. it is the protocol and heads of state have standing to invites other heads of state for diplomatic events. in this case, the speaker of the house extended an invitation to the prime minister with full knowledge that the invitation would be viewed as an insult and rebuke to the president and vice

president and secretary of state. the speaker, in my opinion based on my knowledge, did not consult with the executive branch. i think that is acknowledged now. that is a matter of record. the speaker did not consult with the executive branch, which is unprecedented, and i believe it was intentional. i have received numerous calls from strong allies around the country commnding me my personal decision not to attend the joint session. they understand, as i hope you understand, that i have the ability, i'm an intelligent 67-year-old man, i have the ability to separate my support for israel from my disdain of the protocol used by the speaker for the joint session. i received a delightful call a few days from the ambassador reassuring me that the prime minister continues to want and need the support of the

congressional black caucus. during that telephone conversation, i pleaded with the ambassador to seek a postponement of the joint session, but he dismissed that idea. notwithstanding, i pledge to israel my continued personal support and explained that israel has many friends in the congressional black caucus and do not think that speaker boehner's conduct will interfere with our relationship. based on all of these facts, my personal decision was to watch the joint session on television boehner's conduct will interfere and i watched every word of it and not attend, because i believe it was a politically motivated invitation. the speech made a convincing case for continued u.s. support and made clear that which we already knew, that the conduct of iran is threatening and it is unacceptable. i thank you. thank you, mr. yarmouth. >> next is jim mcdermott of

washington. >> thank you and good morning. i concur in the remarks of most of my colleagues. but i want to take a somewhat different point to talk about so as not to repeat. the president of the united states's responsibility is to protect the people of the united states. that's his first and foremost responsibility. and in so doing, he has to deal with all kinds of things. when he came into office, we were at war in afghanistan. we were at war in iraq, and he has gradly tried to bring those situations down and let the forces in most countries begin their evolution of whatever kind of government they want. in the case of iran, we have had the president leading a

negotiated effort consistently pushing forward in spite of a constant barage of efforts to undermine even before it got off the ground and here we are again today seeing that same thing. what you are witnessing today was a very old concept, if you can make the people afraid, you can make them do anything. and that's what prime minister netanyahu was doing. he was trying to make people afraid and somehow saying that the president wasn't doing his job. there is no evidence whatsoever that the president does not have our safety first and foremost in his negotiation and his thinking about the future.

in that sense, this was a very sad display of political activity being brought into the house of representatives to demean what the president has been doing under great stress for the last month, years, six eight months, directly, but even before that, how do you get things on a safe position with iran? the president deserves our support and didn't need this today. john boehner ought to be ashamed of himself. >> lloyd doggett of texas. >> the prime minister's strong speech satisfied his political objectives to attempt to survive in a very desperate election here in the next couple of weeks. i certainly do agree with him that we all stand with israel. it is no more anti-israel to stand here and criticize

netanyahu than it is to challenge dick cheney. if you look at what happened today, it is the first time in american history that as many as 60 members of the congress deliberately chose not to participate in this campaign pep rally and far more than that are questioning the approach that the prime minister is insisting upon. what we know today that we did not know before he gave this speech, i think there is only one thing. he is a rejectionist. there is no agreement that this administration could achieve with iran that would be good enough for him. he wants to resolve all of the many wrong things that all of us have opposed with iran has been a part of and is apart of today and should only be focusing on nuclear issues. i believe the prime minister

thinks that inspectors, no matter how intrusive and how careful they are may not be able to locate all of the nuclear facilities that iran has under way. well, if the inspectors can't locate them, how can he bomb all of them? because the only alternative that he offers really in declining and saying that war is not the option, is complete and total surrender by iran that is not going to happen. i believe we need to continue to pursue verifiable firm intrusive inspections and we cannot give mr. netanyahu a veto power over what will protect both american and israeli families. the prime minister was wrong about iraq. he was wrong in the united nations about an iranian breakout and was wrong about the interim agreement that has made our family safer and wrong today.

i do not trust war as the best way to prevent iran from getting nuclear weapons. the only approach that will work for the safety of our families is a verifiable agreement that this administration has worked so hard to achieve. the iranians may prevent it, but we need to make every effort to achieve it. thank you. >> earl blumenauer of oregon. >> thank you. >> i was six weeks ago, made it clear that i was not going to dignify what i think is a political charade and be part of netanyahu's next campaign commercial, like his last appearance was. nothing that i heard, as i watched the speech on television, suggests that the majority of the israeli people who thought it was a mistake for him to come or the majority of

americans who think it is a mistake to go through this exercise. i saw nothing to suggest that they were wrong. and i think that as our friends in the news media due the deeper dive, as suggested by jan, by lloyd, i have listened to netanyahu. i have been in congress 19 years. i have listened to his alarmist predictions and listened him cheerlead to the single blunder, the iraq war and the extent to which he's accurate that somehow iran controls now four countries. and i think there is some question about that, but the extent to which they have outsize influence, it is a direct result to that disaster and his flawed judgment. he suggests that there is no alternative. listen carefully to that speech and go back and listen.

he gave no alternative path forward, just having a series of demands. nothing that suggests that it would have any greater success. i think people ought to challenge his assumption that iranians and americans will always be enemies. think about that. all of my friends who visited iran as private citizens are struck by how friendly and outgoing iranians are. all of us represent people from iran who are here in the united states and who are not necessarily friends of the regime. but they reject that category that there can't be warmer relations between our countries. surveys tell us that iran is the only country in the middle east where the majority of people average, normal people, still have positive feelings towards

the united states. and we have a rich history of cooperation with the iranian people dating well back over a century. but i was struck that the prime minister took all this time to come all this way, all the pomp and circumstance and i listened very carefully. there was not one word from the prime minister about how he would deal with his failure to move his country forward with a peace process with the palestinians. some of us were in israel recently. the majority of israelis favor a negotiated settlement and moving things forward. prime minister netanyahu repeatedly has failed in that objective and not one word about what he would do any differently. he is lecturing us about how we ought to conduct ourselves in the future, when we have

unparalleled progress with the potential of negotiations with five major countries aligned with us. and who thinks they are going to continue to be with us if we take his hard line and try to go it alone? this was a mistake and i suggest that congress ought to take a deep breath, exhale, and allow the administration to see if they can bring this agreement across the finish line and they can go forward with more extreme sanctions. nothing is lost by attempting to make diplomacy work. >> steve cohen of tennessee. >> thank you. i chose earlier not to be in favor of the speech and asked that it be put off because i thought it would be political

theater and indeed, it was political theater. worthy of an oscar. this republican leadership team has used the gallery and the house to advance political agendas and give little favors to folks who come to washington. i think it was in january, they had a pro-life crowd come up here on the anniversary of roe v. wade and scheduled a 20-week fetal pain bill and say look how good we are and how much we love you and strong with the pro-crowd. speaker boehner was successful in submitting his and the relationship with apac and wealthy donors who were behind this entire speech who are active in the republican party and oppose the president and democrats and i believe the prime minister was successful in

getting re-elected and i'm sure this will play well in israel. as far as how it affects the world in reality, i think it's harmful, because the game is in geneva, not in washington or on television and would have been better if he took his concerns directly to the president and the state department behind the scenes and tried to get a better deal. instead, he has driven himself and country further away from the president and our country. and i agree with the 200 israeli generals and security officials who felt this will hurt israel because it will make israel weaker in the eyes of the united states administration and relationship with the president who felt this will hurt israel and embolden iran to be tougher at the bargaining table. so i think the political game was won, but the world game of peace was lost today. i had misgivings at times listening to the speech.

as a jewish american, whenever the holocaust is brought up, threats to the jewish people i'm concerned, but i definitely feel that everybody is trying to do the same thing and be on israel's side and support israel. and the president has israel's best interest to heart as well and negotiations are the only way you can do it. there was not an alternative except for more sanctions. everybody pretty much agreed -- i watched the speech on television with a bunch of apac folks from memphis and we believe that this regime is rather bizarre in most of its ambitions. but with that as a given, i don't think additional sanctions and lack of an agreement would drive them to their knees. it would embolden them and make the world less safe. >> peter welch of vermont. >> thank you very much.

i feanded the speech. i have a strong relationship in support of israel, strong opposition to iran. voted 10 times for new sanctions and to enhance existing sanctions. voted five times to condemn the government of iran for human rights violations, signed letters and did everything to support strong israel and to challenge belligerent iran. and i went to the speech because i was hoping i would hear from the prime minister something that would justify why he came in the first place to give this speech two weeks before this election and why he arranged this speech totally behind the back of the white house with speaker boehner and why he wanted to make a decision that put at risk what has always been a strong bipartisan approach towards israel and turn it into a partisan battlefield. i came away from this speech disappointed.

you know, a nuclear iran is off the table. the president has made that clear. in his position, trust but verify. his position, no deal is better than a bad deal. what i heard from the prime minister today was that no deal is better than any deal. i did not hear from the prime minister, plan b. what will happen as an alternative if we have no negotiations? does that mean the military strike and who's involved? does it mean we follow the advice with respect to iran that he gave us with respect to iraq? the biggest long-term mistake that i think the prime minister made was in embracing a boehner-led effort while he snubbed very directly the president of the united states. a strong u.s.israel relationship has the support of congress. it needs the continued support

of the administration. and why would a friend of america act this way towards the president, whose record itself is one of enormous support for israel? under president obama, -- and with our support, israel has received over $20 billion since 2009 and under president obama the u.s. has provided israel with over $1.3 billion for the iron dome system alone. that was after gaza. totalling $2.9 billion under president obama. and last year it was the united states standing by israel with respect to 18 resolutions in the u.n. prime minister netanyahu directly challenged the president, who has directly and steadfastly been the friend of israel. and he did not offer an alternative to negotiations, but

repudiated those negotiations before we even know what the final deal may be. so this, i think, did not help. and it's unfortunate that the prime minister chose to make the speech at this time. thank you. >> and last, but tallest representative hoffman from california. >> i attended the speech. but i might have well joined my colleagues in not attending it but almost every day around here there is something outrageous going on in that floor upstairs and i would get myself into a problem if i start not attending if i had frustrations or concerns. i'm pro-israel. i voted to support israel and support the u.s.israel relationship. i have family in israel. my eyes are wide open about iran and the current regime in iran.

i don't want them to have nuclear weapons. i understand the threat they pose not just to israel but broader security concerns that we care about. but we have to give the diplomatic solving-problem track at least a chance to succeed. the danger in what happened today, we had netanyahu saying stop trying. don't pursue a diplomatic track with this government. he did a great job of smacking down a strawman deal that doesn't exist. and may never exist. but there is a real danger that says we aren't going to pursue diplomatic solutions anymore. and i want to add one more thing, to hear it from a foreign leader who has a real credibility problem on these issues makes it that much more troubling, mischaracterizations, whether it was last year when he wanted us to go to war in syria,

whether it was the original iraq war, we have a real correct and judgment problem. to hear the prime minister tell us that the enemy of our enemy is our enemy and we must always be enemies of iran, is too much for me to stomach. this was a step back unfortunately, in our relations. it does not shake my support for israel. it does give me one more reason to be concerned. hope in the future, whether it is prime minister netanyahu or another, we will have a prime minister who not only says he respects our president but treat her president with respect. -- treat our president with respect. >> questions for everybody. >> what did you achieve by not attending the speech? what did you achieve by not being there? >> i was not part of the charade. >> i was not part of either.

i was not part of what i thought was political theater and what i thought was a wrong use of the chamber. >> the house of representatives and what i thought was a wrong use is the most procedures venue in the world. to use it for political purposes was something i did not want to be part of. >> let me under score, this is not the matter of agreeing or disagreeing with the speaker. we have all been to speeches that we've partly agreed with and partly disagreed with. including prime minister netanyahu's prior speeches. this is a matter of abstaining from a speech that should never have occurred. that is what is different about it. >> occasionally, the house of

representatives is involved in political the ettrick. this was in the -- the ettrick. this was unusual and how it was undercutting our own government. >> i had a session with myself. i listened to every word of the speech. with 25 members of apac and then talked with them. i think i did the right thing. >> when the president said -- can i get your take on that? >> >> he made the same argument over the iraq war. that it was time for the united states to not pay attention to any world opinion, but just to go it alone.

what i heard today felt to me like an effort to stampede united states into war once again. that we should break from the p5+1, and i believe it was to consider war. >> let me say he apparently tried that once before. one of the only bush decisions that i agree with -- they said no according to reports. we need to be clear that that is not an acceptable approach. the israeli people will decide in this election if they think it is an acceptable approach. >> i think that is delusional. they have nuclear weapons. netanyahu presumably could unleash dozens of nuclear

weapons. israelis know they can't go it alone. that is why all of us have voted repeatedly for money and assistance, sometimes when they do things that give us heartburn. like a reckless settlement policy. but the notion that he somehow thinks israel can just bull through this on their own against the world, i think based on my limited experience in israel -- israelis don't believe that. that is why they think their country is on the wrong path. regardless of how their audit -- their odd math works out. >> what is the white house going to do both publicly to respond?

>> i think it is the white house's decision. we are here today because this was in our body and our house. none of us supported that activity. i do think what you will see in the coming days is a white house that is committed to pursuing these negotiations. i don't think they are going to let this speech distract them from that. that is the most important thing they have going right now. i think they will move on and let their actions the the response. >> let me just say at the very least the intention, the hope of the prime minister was to force the adminstration to make the case for diplomacy. to raise questions that the white house has to vote itself to explain.