on registration threshold. another provision i believe is reasonable. the sbic program was created in 1958 to help small businesses grow. it is a self-funded program and has provided needed capital to communities via the partnership between the small business administration and private businesses. i'm also comfortabled by the provisions in this legislation because the s.b.a. actively oversees sbic's ensures compliance and restricts leverage. i'm pleased that we're able to work together in this committee to ensure the continued vitality of this long-standing program. last congress i met with an sbic low catted -- located just outside of my district. escalot financial fartherers in which manages technology firms. since 2010 the firm has financed 27 companies and

increased its payroll by 2,000 jobs. however, this firm has been inadvertently caught up in unnecessary s.e.c. registration because with sbic assets undermanagement being counted, it exceeds the $150 million exemption threshold we established in dodd-frank. without undermining the key systemic risk and investor protection requirements, we established under dodd-frank, h.r. 432 provides escalot capital partners and similarly situated sbic's with targeted relief. so i applaud the bipartisan co-authors and urge members to support this bill. i will reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california reserves the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri seek recognition? mr. luetkemeyer: mr. speaker, i yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett, the member of the financial services committee and distinguished chairman of the

subcommittee on capital markets. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. garrett: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 432, the sbic advisers relief act, and first, i want to say thank you to mr. luetkemeyer for his hard work and leadership on this issue, among others and on the legislation which passed out of the financial services committee unanimously this past may. what would it do? it would fix yet another unintended consequence of the dodd-frank act. that is an interpretation the bill would require unnecessary and costly registration of investment advisors who all play a very critical role in our economy today. you see, the dodd-frank act amended the private fund exemptions under both the advisors act to include an complicit exemption for advisors to both venture capital funds as well as advisors to small business investment companies sbic's. now, whatever the merits of changing the private fund

exemption this way congress very clearly intended to exempt advisors from such funds on the burdens and added costs associated with yet another s.e.c. registration. unfortunately, due to the way the legislation text was interpreted, someone who happens to advise both a venture capital fund and also sbic is being required now to also register with the s.e.c. this makes absolutely no sense and is clearly contradictory to the statutory language. there's no valid argument or reason to require an advisor to register simply because they advise both a venture capital fund and sbic. you see, such a requirement would not in any way enhance investor protection or would it help capital formation. it's also important to note that sbic's is already overseen and examined by the small business administration. so registration with the s.e.c. would be unnecessary and would duplicate that. so why is all this important? why do we have the legislation

here today? well according to the small business investor alliance, initial registration costs to the s.e.c. are estimated to cost $100,000 a year. some go up to $250,000 a year. that's money. that's money that could otherwise be used for salaries, hiring more people and helping the economy. so it's important to note in conclusion to keep in mind that the small businesses that we're talking about often don't have an array of lawyers or compliance specialists to deal with registration, oversight from the s.e.c. oftentimes these are businesses that only have a handful of employees. so, again, i thank the gentleman, mr. luetkemeyer, and all my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who support this, financial services for all their hard work on this issue, and i urge support of the underlying bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: thank you mr. speaker. i will yield to the gentlelady from new york as much time as she may consume.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized for as such time as she may consume. mrs. maloney: i thank the gentlelady for yielding and for her work on this area. i rise in support of h.r. 432, the sbic advisers relief act and i'm pleased to be an original co-sponsor with this bill, along with my colleague, mr. luetkemeyer, who has been a tremendous leader on the financial services committee, not only on this bill but in so many other areas. the sbic advisers relief act fixes a truly unintended consequence of dodd-frank. under dodd-frank an investment advisor that only advises a venture capital fund is exempt from s.e.c. registration. likewise, an investment advisor that only advises small business investment companies, or sbic's, is also exempt.

but an investment advisor that advises both a venture capital fund and an sbic, is not exempt for some reason. this makes no sense and it provides no additional protections for investors. moreover, it discourages investment advisors who may have experienced advising successful venture capital funds that have invested in larger, more mature enterprises, from bringing their expertise to sbib's who want -- sbic's who want to invest in similar startups. this ultimately restricts small businesses access to much-needed investment capital. our bill fixes this problem by clarifying that investmented a advisors that advise both venture funds and sbic's are also exempt from s.e.c. registration.

this fix does not pose any investor protection concerns because sbic's are already subject to strict oversight by the small business administration, which supports sbic's by providing a guarantee on funds used by sbic's to invest in other small businesses. the sbic program has a long history of success and has provided early stage financing for companies that have since grown to become worldwide icons such as apple, intel and staples. this drill is identical to a bill that passed the -- this bill is identical to a bill that passed the house by voice vote last congress and it passed unanimously in the financial services committee earlier this year. i therefore urge my colleagues to support h.r. 432, and i yield back the balance of my time to the distinguished ranking member. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york yields back the balance of her time.

the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. luetkemeyer: thank you mr. speaker. i yield to the gentleman from arkansas, mr. hill who has -- a member of the financial services committee, as much time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. hill: i rise in support of h.r. 432 the sbic advisers relief act. this commonsense bill eliminates costly, confusing and duplicative regulation on small business investment companies, sbic's. like diamond state ventures and mcclarty partners in little rock, arkansas, by the drafting in the dodd-frank act. indictment state has made over 18 investments in small businesses in my state, employing over 2,300 arkansans and investing over $40 million

in arkansas businesses. sbic's are already heavily regulated by the s.b.a. and provides significant long-term investments in small businesses across the u.s.a. while dodd-frank exempted advisors that solely advise sbic funds from registration, it was silent on the state concept of federally licensed sbic funds, creating this confusion and requiring this action today. it's going to save money legal fees, accounting fees and make our sbic's much more cost-effective. and in that i thank chairman luetkemeyer and our colleagues for the work on this issue and urge my colleagues to support it. i yield back to the chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas yields back his time. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: mr. speaker, i have no additional speakers, and i'd yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from missouri is

recognized. mr. luetkemeyer: thank you mr. speaker. i just want to thank the gentlelady from new york, mrs. maloney, for her hard work on helping co-sponsor this bill as well as ms. waters the ranking member, as well as the gentleman from arkansas, new jersey here, mr. hill and mr. garrett, for their support and kind words. with that i just want to yield back and ask for support of h.r. 432. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri has yielded back. all time having now expired on this legislation, the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 432. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 1334, to amend the securities exchange act of 1934, to make the shareholder threshold for registration of savings and loan holding companies the same as for bank holding companies. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1334, a bill to amend the securities exchange act of 1934 to make the shareholder threshold for registration of savings and loan holding companies the same as for bank holding companies. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule the gentleman from virginia mr. hurt and the gentlewoman from california, ms. waters, each will control 20 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. hurt: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. hurt: mr. speaker i yield

myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. hurt: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 1334, the holding company registration threshold equalization act. i'd like to thank representatives womack himes, wagner and delaney for their bipartisan work to achieve a unanimous vote in the financial services committee. h.r. 1334 provides a technical be correction to the jobs act in the truest sense of the term. the jobs act updated the threshold for them to register and deregister to 2,000 shareholders and 1,200 shareholders respectively. however, due to a technical oversight, the statute did not specifically extend the same treatment to savings and loan holding companies despite them being recognized as bank holding companies. since enactment of the jobs act, dozens of bank holding companies have taken provisions while those have had to wait for action by congress to correct the error.

h.r. 1334 provides these institutions the same flexibility as banks to reduce their like-s.e.c. related compliance cost and better deploy capital throughout their communities. h.r. 1334 is identical to legislation that received 417 votes in the last congress. i ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this commonsense bipartisan legislation. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. waters: thank you very much, mr. speaker. it is my understanding that this bill addresses an oversight in the jobs act that establishes new higher thresholds for registration, termination of registration and suspension of public reporting for banks and bank holding companies but not for savings

and loan companies. in the jobs act, we recognized that banks and bank holding companies were inadvertently becoming public companies by virtue of their securities being distributed to a larger number of shareholders than permitted under the securities laws. even though these institutions were largely held within their own communities. accordingly we provided banks and bank holding companies with regulatory relief by raising the threshold that trigger public company reporting. h.r. 1334 would extend this relief to savings and loan companies which like banks and bank holding companies are still subject to mandatory public reporting requirements by the banking regulators. so information will continue to be available to shareholders and the public. last congress we passed this noncontroversial bill out of committee and on the house floor.

since that time, the securities and exchange commission has under its own authority proposed to extend the jobs act provision to a savings and loans -- to savings and loan companies. the s.e.c. estimates that approximately 90 of the 125 savings and loan holding companies that have a class of registered securities would be eligible to terminate registration or suspend reporting under its proposal. i'm pleased to support this bill which would extend the benefits we provided in the jobs act to those 90 companies that represent additional class of community banks. thank you, mr. speaker. i reserve the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california reserves her time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. hurt: at this time i'd like to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from arkansas, mr. womack. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from arkansas is recognized for such time he may consume. mr. womack: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the manager of this legislation for the time. i'd like to also thank chairman hensarling and the entire financial services committee for yet again ensuring that this bill, the holding company threshold equalization act is put in front of the full house and sent on to the senate. i would also like to express my gratitude to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, representative himes, representative wagner, representative delaney for their tened efforts to codify this necessary jobs act clarification. mr. speaker, this is the third time that i have come to the floor to speak on this truly bipartisan bill, and it's unfortunate that we are still without a successful resolution to the problem. because we can all agree that small community banks and sloan -- savings and loan holding companies were not the cause of the financial crisisment they

shouldn't be treated as if they were. that's exactly why the house and senate eliminated some of the unnecessary burdens placed on our small lenders by passing the jobs act in the 112th congress. however, the jobs act which raised the registration threshold and increased the deregistration threshold for bank holding companies unfortunately didn't explicitly do so for savings and loan holding companies as well. mr. speaker, this was an oversight. thanks to the oversight, savings and loan holding companies are still having to spend their resources to comply with regulations intended for larger banks instead of sharing the same ability bank and bank holding companies have been granted to focus on serving the lending needs of their communities. as a co-sponsor of the jobs act, i can say with absolute certainty that excluding savings and loan holding companies was not our intent. h.r. 1334 would correct this oversight and would simply

ensure that savings and loan holding companies are treated in the same manner as bank and bank holding companies something my colleagues confidently affirmed when this bill passed in the 113th congress 417-4. mr. speaker, they say the third time is the charm. i'm hopeful that with the senate's newfound leadership we will finally get this bill where it needs to be. on the president's desk. i urge my colleagues to help me get it there by supporting the passage of h.r. 1334. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas yields back. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: mr. speaker, i'm very pleased to stand here with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle today to support so many pieces of legislation that have come out of the financial

services committee. i have always said with d.o.d.-frank -- dodd-frank, where there were technical problems or oversights or unintended consequences that i would work with my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle and much of what you see here today is what we have done. and just as there may have been some unintended consequences in dodd-frank, we find with the jobs act there were unintended consequences and certainly i stand with them in correcting those. it could happen in any legislation. we know that. and this is an example of that. so i'm very very pleased to support this legislation today and i would yield back the balance of my time. thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is prepared to yield back. but the gentleman from virginia has an additional speaker. mr. hurt: that's correct.

thank you, mr. speaker, at this time i would -- it's my pleasure to be able to yield as much time as he may consume the chairman of the capital markets subcommittee, mr. scott garrett from new jersey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. garrett: thank you mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for his work on this and i also thank the -- mr. womack and mr. himes of connecticut for all of their work on h.r. 1334. i also thank the great bipartisan comments we heard by the ranking member we just heard on the jobs act and i look forward to working with you even more on those technical corrections on the dodd-frank piece of legislation. looking forward to doing that going forward. there is little doubt that the jobs act did have a positive impact. upon our economy as evidence by the boost in the initial public official since 2012. the number of companies, both public and private companies, that are taking advantage of some of the law's provisions right now. in title 6 of the jobs act

included important position the gentlelady talked about, the increase the outdated shareholder thresholds that determine just when banks and bank holding companies have to register with the s.e.c. and these thresholds by the way, they have been around for a long time. they haven't been changed for over four decades. what they were doing, they were forcing the smaller company, small banks to register as full reporting companies with the s.e.c. and that's really a very costly burden on them. it's very often the case it's inappropriate for small lenders who are already regulated and examined by a whole series of bank regulators. as the gentlelady points out, we had a slight oversight in the drafting of the jobs act and the s.e.c. at first they did not include savings and loan companies under the updated threshold. this made no sense. particularly when considering the s&l's perform lagly the same functions as banks and overseen by the same regulators. with few exceptions s&l's tend to be generally small institutions that serve the local communities.

so this registration with the s.e.c. would have had the ultimate effect of raising the cost of lending to families and small businesses. and that would be the exact opposite, it would be the opposite of what the jobs act was intended. so the underlying legislation would make a technical correction to the jobs act. it would ensure the s&l's are able to take advantage of the new provisions of the law. and one final point. while the s.e.c. last december proposed to include s&l's under the new threshold, a regulation that can be taken away at any moment is no substitute for what we have here, statutory text. congress has a clear role here to step in and fix the issue. again i thank mr. womack and mr. himes for their work in fixing that issue. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey yields back. the gentlewoman from california earlier yielded back. do you wish to continue to yield back or do you have additional comments? ms. waters: i have no additional speakers. i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized to close debate on this legislation. mr. hurt: thanks, mr. speaker. i want to thank again chairman of the subcommittee on capital markets for his leadership on this. i want to thank the ranking member for her spirit of bipartisan cooperation in fixing this part of the jobs act. in conclusion, it's my hope that this house will pass this good commonsense measure. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia yields back. all time having now expired on this bill the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 1334. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the will is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. hurt: i move to suspend the

rules and pass the bill h.r. 1723, to direct the securities and exchange commission to revise form s-1 to permit small reporting companies to use forwarding corporation by reference for such form. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 150, h.r. 1723 a bill to direct the securities and exchange commission to revise form s-1 so as to permit smaller reporting companies to use foreign incorporation by reference for such form. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from virginia, mr. hurt, and the gentlewoman from california, ms. waters each will control 20 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. hurt: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. hurt: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hurt: thank you, mr.

speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 1723, the small company simple registration act. i would like to thank representative wagner and representativeual for their efforts to successly -- representative sewell for their efforts on successfully passing this sligs. it simplifies the registration process by amending the s.e.c.'s s-1 registration statement, the basic registration form for new securities official to allow smaller reporting companies to incorporate by reference any documents filed with the s.e.c. after the effective date of the form s-1. this forwarding corporation by reference eliminates the need for filing excessive paperwork with each subsequent filing. thereby lowering compliance costs associated with filing redundant paperwork. streamlining this requirement allows eligible companies to direct more resources to growing their business. h.r. 1723 is consistent with the recommendations of the s.e.c.'s government business forum on small business capital formation, final report. and it has been endorsed by several witnesses before the

capital market subcommittee. for example, tom of the united states chamber of commerce testified that by enacting h.r. 1723 smaller companies can use forwarding corporation as a way to streamline disclosures and get the information to investors without repepive disclosures. he went on to say that the explosion of disclosures for smaller companies isn't providing material information to investors. additionally, professor john coffee with columbia university law school previously testified that for some time the s.e.c.'s government business forum on small business capital formation has called for changes to permit smaller reporting companies that have filed a form s-1 to incorporate by reference documents filed with the s.e.c. i believe this one does have real efficiency justifications and could help smaller issuers. h.r. 1723 is a commonsense update to our securities laws that will more appropriately tailor their requirement for smaller companies. i ask my colleagues to join me in supporting h.r. 1723, and i

reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: mr. speaker i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for such time as she may consume. ms. waters: thank you, mr. speaker. h.r. 1723, the small company simple registration act of 2015 is a commonsense provision to help smaller companies avoid having to obtain an audit related to a filing that is itself already audited. the bill would no longer require a company to amend its registration statement when it issues a quarterly or annual filing. although one witness noted the concern that all information would no longer be reflected in a single document, she recommended that the s.e.c.'s public filing system be improved and that the issuer be required to post the registration statement on its

website. complete with hyperlinks to the documents that are incorporated by reference. this seems like a reasonable approach. i believe that the s.e.c. can do both and likely would if h.r. 1723 is passed. this one change has the potential to have companies save $10,000 and with all s.e.c. filings able to be quickly found online it does not diminish investor protections in any way. last congress this provision was unfortunately attached to a larger bill that did not make a lot of sense. i'm glad to see it has now been offered on its own. as i think it now has a much better likelihood of moving to the president's desk. so i certainly support the adoption of this bill and i would reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california reserves the balance of her time.

the gentleman from virginia is recognized. plp hurt: thank you, mr. speaker. it's my pleasure to recognize the author of this bill, the gentlelady from missouri, mrs. wagner. for as much time as she may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from missouri is recognized for such time mae shy consume. mrs. wagner: i thank my colleague, mr. hurt, for yielding. i'm glad the house is taking up h.r. 1723 the small company simple registration act. which will take a much needed step in helping remove financial barriers and make it more he efficient for small businesses to go public. this bipartisan legislation which i have sponsored with mrs. terry sewell from alabama and approved by the house financial services committee on a completely unanimous vote of 60-0 would make a simple change in the basic registration form for new securities official the form s-1. specifically, it would allow smaller reporting companies to incorporate by reference any documents filed with the s.e.c. after the effective date. which means that those companies will not have to go through the trouble of refiling

the form s-1 again and again. this will have a profound impact on these small companies by cutting compliance costs as they will not have to refile redunn can't paperwork and wait on the s.e.c. to improve their filing in order to raise capital and grow their small business. . but struggles with finding access to capital in order to grow their business. it's a fact that small businesses are the main driver of economic growth in our country as they create more jobs than any other business sector in america. in fact, the kaufman foundation which is a nonprofit research organization based in kansas city, missouri estimates in 2010 that startups create an average of three million jobs annually and stated that without startups

there would be no net job growth in the u.s. economy. it is clear that we must empower small businesses with every avenue to grow and therefore create jobs. for many small businesses looking to take the next step in expanding going public is an attractive option that grants them access to the capital markets and allows them to issue stock to a wider range of investors. however the price of admission for this avenue to raising capital is continually increasing due to the amount of compliance and red tape required and for many it simply is not worth it. indeed our securities laws are structured in a way that favors large companies over small startups, which are struggling to gain market share by increasingly requiring more legal compliance and providing exemptions for companies over certain revenue thresholds. the jobs act from 2012 made many improvements to this system and provided small

companies additional access to the equity market. my bill the small companies simple registration act, expands upon the progress of the jobs act by making securities registration forms more efficient for the main driver of our economy, small business. during a hear before the house financial services committee earlier this year, a representative of bio, testified about their experiences with doing a follow-on offering inside of a year of their i.p.o. using form s-1. ultimately they had to go and update the entire s-1 which is a process that took weeks of work and required help from outside legal counsel. if the provision from h.r. 1723 had been in place they could simply include a reference to any additional documentation filed alongside their original s-1 form which would have taken much less time and required

significantly less legal help. additionally, investors would still be protected by having access to all needed information from the s-1 form as well as any additional documentation. i'd like to close by asking for support for this commonsense and strong bipartisan legislation that would streamline the paperwork that small businesses are required to file. this is something that the s.e.c.'s own working group on small business capital formation has recommended for several years now but the s.e.c. has failed to act upon. furthermore, this piece of legislation passed the committee earlier this year, as i voted earlier, on a vote of 60-0. i urge passage of this legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from missouri yields back the balance of her time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: thank you very much mr. speaker. i am pleased to also support this legislation.

this bipartisan legislation is another example of how we can work together on the financial services committee on behalf of small businesses in this country. both democrats and republicans have said over and over again that we must do everything that we can to support our small businesses. that's from capital formation to making sure that we get rid of bureaucratic rules and regulations and again, this is another great example of that and i'm pleased to be a part of that and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. hurt: thank you mr. speaker. i would again like to thank the ranking member for working together on this piece of bipartisan legislation. i also want to thank the chairman, chairman hensarling, as well as representative wagner and representative sule for their laser focus -- sewell for their laser focus on streamlining s.e.c. regulations that is costly while still

remaining a rock-solid commitment to investor protection. so it's my hope that the house will adopt this measure and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia yields back the balance of his time. all time having expired on this bill the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 1723. those in favor will say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended -- mr. hurt: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia. mr. hurt: on that i request a -- the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the

gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. hurt: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 1847, as amended, to amend the securities exchange act of 1934 and the commodity exchange act to repeal the indemnification requirements for regulatory authorities to obtain access to swap data required to be provided by swaps entities under such acts. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1847, a bill to amend the securities exchange act of 1934 and the commodity exchange act to repeal the indemnification requirements for regulatory authorities to obtain access to swap data required to be provided by swaps entities under such acts. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule the gentleman from virginia, mr. hurt, and the gentlewoman from california, ms. waters, each will control 20 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. hurt: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and

include extraneous material on this bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. hurt: mr. speaker, i also ask unanimous consent that the exchange of letters between the committees of jurisdiction be included in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, those will be included. mr. hurt: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to yield all remaining time to the gentleman from georgia, mr. austin scott, and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control the time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from georgia will control the time. the gentleman is now recognized, the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 1847, the swap data repository and clearing-house indemnification correction act of 2015. i'd like to thank chairman hensarling. the members of our committee have appreciated close working relationship we have with the financial services committee we

have on these issues. h.r. 1847 is a targeted correction to remove barriers to information sharing. dodd-frank currently requires indemnification agreements for requesting data or -- of swap data res to pores or clearing-houses. they would abide requirements and indemnify anything of litigation requesting information. unfortunately, the concept of indemnification does not exist in any foreign jurisdictions therefore they cannot agree to these requirements. this may hinder our ability to make workable data sharing arrangements with those regulators and fragment the marketplace by encouraging them to establish their own data repositories. h.r. 1847 addresses this potential data sharing problem by removing the indemnification

requirements while maintaining obligations. this technical correction has been a long-standing priority for congress. similar legislation passed the house in the 113th congress by a vote of 420-2, and passed the house again this year as part of h.r. 37. the prothe moting job creation and reducing burdens act. this identical language, included in h.r. 2989, the commodity end user relief act, which a small technical change was accepted by the house. i'd like to yield such time as the gentleman from arkansas may consume and thank him for his continued work on this technical but critical issue and certainly hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting h.r. 1847, to ensure that regulators and market participants have access to a global set of swap market data. the speaker pro tempore: before the gentleman from arkansas is recognized the chair will

recognize the gentlewoman from california. ms. waters: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for such time. ms. waters: thank you mr. speaker. transparent trading of derivatives, along with real-time reporting of trades, swap data res to pores -- repositories is a crucial element of the dodd-frank act. this bill makes necessary technical changes to better enable our nation's regulators to share that data with derivatives with one another and their foreign counterparts. an unintended result in dodd-frank of trying to protect both regulators and the data repository fathers burdensome litigation was that other regulators lacked the authority to pay future legal expenses, thus threatening to prevent the sharing of information. this was clearly not intended as one of the primary goals of

title 7 was enable -- to enable regulators and the public to better understand the derivatives market. h.r. 1847 addresses those concerns, and it it is supported by the industry and advocates like americans for financial reform alike. i also understand the bill includes additional changes to the legislation requested by the s.e.c. to better target the statutory change. i thank representative moore and representative crawford for working together in a bipartisan manner to address these issues and solve a very real threat to cross-border regulatory, cooperation and oversight. so i'd urge support of this legislation, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. i apologize to ms. waters for getting ahead of myself and yielding such time as the

gentleman from arkansas may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. crawford: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, mr. scott and i'd like to thank the other co-sponsors of this bill, ms. huizenga, ms. moore thank you, and mr. maloney for joining me in this bipartisan effort to help bring transparency to the global swap markets. and certainly appreciate the subcommittee chairman's support as well. while i might not agree with everything in the dodd-frank law today i believe we're working towards its bipartisan goal of giving regulators the tools they need to improve systemic risk mitigation in the global financial markets. i think everyone agrees that lack of transparency in the over-the-counter derivatives market escalated the crisis of 2008. in order to provide market transparency the dodd-frank law requires posttrade reporting to swap data repositories so that regulators and market participants have access to real-time market data that will help identify systemic risk in

the financial system. so far we've made great strides in reaching this goal but unfortunately a provision in the law threatens to undermine our progress unless we fix it. currently dodd-frank includes a provision requiring a foreign regulator to indemnify a u.s.-based s.g.r. for any expense relating to a question of the market data. while the intent of the provision was to protect market confidentiality it threatens to fragment it because it's a major stumbling block to our regulators' ability to conversate with foreign counterpart. regulators were unable to see a complete picture of the marketplace. without effective coordination between the international regulators and s.g.r.'s, mitigating global risk is severely limited. my bill fixes this problem by removing the indemnification provisions in dodd-frank. this legislation has broad bipartisan support and has passed the house by an overwhelming vote of 420-2 in

the last congress, as chairman scott indicated. additionally, both the s.e.c. and cftc are on record supporting this bill. if left unresolved the indemnification provision in dodd-frank has the potential to reduce over-the-counter derivatives market and undo the great progress being made by more than 50 regulators worldwide. in passing this legs, we ensure that leg -- legislation, we ensure that they have a set of data which is essential to maintaining risk mitigation. i strongly urge my colleagues to vote yes on this bill, and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: thank you very much mr. speaker. i'm very pleased to yield to ms. moore, who happens to be the ranking member from the subcommittee of monetary policy and trade subcommittee as much time as she may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from wisconsin is recognized for such time as she may consume.

ms. moore: thank you so much. and thank you, madam ranking member, for this opportunity to speak on h.r. 1847. i want to thank all of my co-sponsors on this legislation, representative huizenga representative crawford and representative sean patrick maloney. the house financial services and the agriculture committees have passed this legislation with bipartisan support and without controversy in 2013, 2014 and 2015. . this bill has passed the house several times with overwhelming margins. it's supported by the s.e.c. at the bipartisan policy septre five-year lookback at dodd-frank just last week, the question was put to former commodity futures trading commission person jill summers what was yet to be done in

dodd-frank that needs to be done? had her answer, fixing the indemnification provision. so here we are today and we have an opportunity to do this with that bill. let me try to make this real simple. a major objective of the dodd-frank act was to improve transparency and eliminate systemic risks in a global derivatives market. this bill is a technical fix to ensure that the goal of swaps transparency is realized. in fact, dodd-frank created swap data reposs tories during the crisis -- repositories, during the crisis these s.d.r.s did not exist. as a matter of fact to quote warren buffett when he described the situation that we were in he said only when the tide goes out do you discover who has been swimming nicked.

so -- naked. so this is a really important feature of dodd-frank. however as written the provision threatens the reporting regime and threatens to fragment the collection of data by imposing an unnecessary requirement on foreign s.d.r.s and regulators that would impede compliance. so by eliminating this unnecessary requirement, this bill makes it possible to achieve the goal of bringing comprehensive swap trade information, transparency, and oversight to the global derivatives market. regardless of your position on derivatives or dodd-frank this bill makes sense. i urge all my colleagues to support and i yield back to the gentlelady from california. the speaker pro tempore: the the gentlewoman from wisconsin yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i have no other speakers at the moment. i'll continue to reserve the balance of my time or i'm

prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the the gentleman from georgia has no additional speakers. the gentleman from california is recognized. ms. waters: thank you mr. speaker. i have no additional speakers. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california yields back. the gentleman from georgia is recognized to close debate on this legislation. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i want to thank both the democrats and republicans who have worked on this. the house has acted several times in a bipartisan manner on this legislation, 420-2 on very similar legislation. we passed this multiple times. i would yield back any balance of my time and just encourage all members to support this piece of legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia yields back the balance of his time. all time having now expired on this bill, the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 1847. as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without

objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. hurt: i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 2064 as amended to amend certain provisions of the securities laws relating to the treatment of emerging growth companies. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 152 h.r. 2064, a bill to amend certain provisions of the securities law relating to the treatment of emerging growth companies.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from virginia, mr. hurt, and the gentlewoman from california ms. waters, each will control 20 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. hurt: thank you mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. hurt: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time. mr. hurt: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 2064, the improving access to capital for emerging growth companies act. i would like to thank representative delaney for the efforts to move this through the financial services committee on a unanimous bipartisan vote. a key component of the jobs act was the so-called i.p.o. initial public offering the i.p.o. on ramp provisions of title 1 which create add new classification of public company known as an emerging growth company. emerging growth companies allow

small companies access in capital in the public markets to utilize streamlined registration and reporting requirements for up to five years after their initial public offering. in doing so, emerging growth companies are able to spend less resources complying with costly regulations designed for the largest public companies. just over three years since the job acts enactment, we continue to witness the successful results ofists implementation. emerging companies represented 86% of the 288 initial public official, allowing these companies to raise over $42 billion in capital. that capital represents real dollars that can be used by these companies to invest in research development, innovative products, and most important new jobs in their communities. while these numbers are encouraging, more can still be done to incentivize companies to access capital in our public markets. h.r. 206 will decrease the retired time for confidential registration statement to be on file with the s.e.c. before an emerging grothe company may conduct a road show from 21

days to 15. and will further streamline disclosure requirements for emerging growth companies. these targeted changes to the federal securities laws will make i.p.o.s even more appealing to emerging growth companies. one witness at a previous capital market subcommittee hearing commented, we support this bill as it creates generally greater optionality for issuers without altering the ultimate level of required disclosure to investors. this bill is in keeping with the philosophy that underlies title one of the jobs act and creation of safe harbor such as testing the waters and confidential filings. we believe for example that providing issuers with the ability to file without full financial statements will cut issuer time to market which is beneficial in mitigating market risk and speeding access to capital. i ask that my colleagues join me in supporting h.r. 206 and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: thank you very much mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlewoman is recognized for such time she may consume. ms. waters: thank you very much, mr. speaker. emerging growth companies act is a good bill and the product of bipartisan compromise. the bill was amended last year to invest protection concerns while still retaining key relief for small businesses. h.r. 2064 amends title 1 of the jump-start our business start-up act of 2012 to provide emerging companies -- growth companies that is e.g.c.s with additional flexibility when going public. during a hearing on this bill, one witness expressed concerns that two years of financial statements are necessary for the s.e.c. to compare years doing its review, and at a minimum insurers should be required to provide what they have. my fear is that if a company were allowed to delay its filing as this bill would allow, it would only likely

delay s.e.c.'s review resulting in no real benefit to the issuer. i would also like to emphasize the problem congress gets into when it preempts the regulators by trying to issue rules by legislation. when we get it wrong, it takes another act of congress to fix it. however, i support this legislation today because it seems as if a consensus has emerged that this technical fix is appropriate. so i thank you and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. hurt: mr. speaker, i would like to first thank the ranking member for her support of this good legislation and at this time now my pleasure to be able to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. fincher, a co-author of this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. fincher: thank you mr. speaker.

i rise today, mr. speaker, in support of h.r. 2064, the improving access to capital for emerging growth companies act. i was pleased to introduce this legislation with my colleague, congressman john delaney of maryland. this legislation builds upon the success of the original bipartisan jobs act that i worked on which create add new category of stock offering for emerging growth companies which have proven to be a major new source of job creation for the 21st crentry. job creation is the number one reason to support this legislation. its companies are able to expand and go public. they are able to hire more employees and ultimately invest more in our economy. our bill makes important changes to the registration process to ensure that these companies have the most efficient streamline access to the market. shortening the 21-day filing period to 15 days would save companies exposure to some market volume tillity before public launch. the purpose of the 21-day period is to allow the

information about the e.g.c. i.p.o. to disseminate to the public before purchase orders are taken. with today's technology the current 21-day quiet period is unnecessarily long. the shortened time period would allow the benefit of clear visibility in marketing additions and would save companies from having to update financials and other disclosures before public launch. the bill calls for a grace period of the jobs act protections to an issuer who loses e.g.c. status mid i.p.o. process. under current law if the company exceeds the e.g.c. status criteria during the i.p.o. process, it no longer qualifies for the designation. this discourages a borderline e.g.c. that may be considering going pub rick from -- public from making an offering. the grace period would allow an issuer who qualifies as an e.g. c. for filing to continue to be treated as an e.g.c. through

the date on which it completes its initial public offering of one year has passed which ever comes first. finally, the bill would permit e.g.c.'s to avoid encuring specific expense an effort of preparing and having audited financials and related disclosures for the past periods that will not be included in the prospectus to investors. this legislation was reported out of committee unanimously and i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support passage of h.r. 2064 today. this is a simple adjustment to reduce the burdens placed on smaller companies that are trying to access the market, grow their businesses, and hire more employees. now more than ever as members of congress we need to be focused on ways to facilitate job creation. this bill is an important step in that direction. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee yields back. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i'm very pleased and proud to

yield time to the gentleman from maryland mr. delaney, because of his leadership not only ton this issue but on small -- only on this issue but on small business, opportunities on e.g.c.s, and the fact that he negotiated on this legislation led us to bipartisan support. mr. delaney, i yield to you as much time as you may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for such time he may consume. mr. delaney: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the ranking member for his support and leadership on this legislation. i also want to thank the gentleman from virginia for his support and most importantly i want to thank my friend, the gentleman from tennessee, for giving me the opportunity to co-author this piece of legislation with him. mr. speaker, emerging growth companies that raise capital from private investors have two options available to them to give their investors a return. the first option is to take the company public, and the second option is to sell the business. the data overwhelmingly

suggests that when companies go public the companies are very likely to take the capital they raise in a public offering, invest it in the business, create jobs, and hire americans. as compared to when companies are sold which are often done for strategy reasons based on consolidations and often result in jobs being lost. so while companies are completely free to make whatever voice they want to make, we as policymakers should certainly be trying to level the playing field as it relates to initial public official to make them more accessible for emerging growth companies, particularly if they can be done without compromising investor protection. i believe strongly that h.r. 206 does in fact, do that. my colleague from tennessee went through the specifics in terms of the processes that are being improved by the bill. i have some firsthand experience with this process having started two businesses in the private sector and taken them both public on the new york stock exchange. an experience that taught me

that a company's initial public offering as it relates to due diligence and scrutiny and oversight is the day where 24ef6 the -- where they have the most focus by regulators and investors and underwriters. it's a time where peef an opportunity for more flex interaround timing which i believe this bill does and do successfully. it will lead to more initial public official. it will hopefully reverse the trends that we have seen across the last several decades with the number of initial public official, have decreased, and as i said if my opening comments, the more i.p.o.s we have the more likely companies will invest in their businesses, create jobs, and hire americans. it's good or our economy. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 2064. thank you, mr. speaker. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland yields back his time. the gentleman. there are very few people in congress today who have worked harder and understand better the importance of access to

capital for our small businesses and for job creation. mr. hurt: and -- than does the chairman of our subcommittee on capital markets. it's my pleasure to yield to him as much time as he may consume, to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. garrett: i thank the speaker and i thank the vice chairman for those remarks and do i in fact rise in support of the bill h.r. 2064, the improving access to capital for emerging growth companies e.g.c.'s. i also want to thank my friend, mr. delainy, and my other friend, mr. pinch -- delaney, and my other friend, mr. fincher, for their hard work on the underlying piece of legislation. because of the jobs act we have seen a significant increase, a resurgence, if you will, in initial public offerings. with 2014 being the best year for i.p.o.'s in more than a decade now. if you look back, you know, study after study has shown

that job creation expands significantly once a public goes public. so congress then should do what? we should do more to reduce the burdens on these small and growing companies that want to access to the markets and want access there to capital and want access then therefore to grow and expand and create job creation. and that's exactly what this legislation does. h.r. 24 would expand upon the success of the jobs act by making significant improvements in title 1 of that bill, including reducing the number of days that an emerging growth company would have to wait before commencing with the so-called road shows, once it files. with the s.e.c. and it would significantly reduce and simplify the financial disclosures that go along with it. you see, these are targeted and incremental changes that reflect the feedback and input that the financial services committee, members who supported it, the vice chairman as well, has received since the jobs act passed back in 2022. we had a number of hearings on

this and one witness told our committee, quote, this bill is in keeping with the philosophy that underlying title 1 of the jobs act and the creation of safe harbors such as testing the waters and confidential filings end quote. so providing issuers with the ability to file without financial statements will cut issuers' time to the markets, which is at the end of the day, beneficial in mitigating market risk and speeding access to capital. with that said, by removing some of the ongoing hurdles to the public this bill, h.r. 2064, would help promote growth, help promote job creation through our entire country, our entire economy, and therefore i urge its swift passage. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: thank you, mr. speaker. i think that this is the last bill that we're taking up on suspension today. what you have seen is a fine example of both sides of the

aisle working to do the best thing that we could possibly do for our constituents there. have been bills that were presented today that were suspect perhaps when they first were introduced. there were bills today where we had technical corrections, there were bills today where we had bipartisan support where we never thought we would get bipartisan support. so i would like the work that we have done on the floor today to demonstrate that we do have the ability to work together in the best interests of the citizens of this country. and to the degree that we understand that even in dodd-frank, where there may still be some concerns, that we can be civil about it, that we can be considerate about it and that we recognize that not only may there be places where technical corrections in

dodd-frank, but in the jobs act and other bills that we will -- we have heard today and that we will hear in the future. so i'm very pleased to have been a part of the work that we have done here on this floor today to get together in a bipartisan way again, to act in the best interest of all of the people of this country and i would yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from virginia voiced. mr. hurt: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the ranking member again and those on her side of the aisle for looking for ways we can work together on -- for job creation and streamlining of the regulatory structure as it relates to our financial markets. i represent virginia's fifth district. over the last 10, 20 years we've seen a tremendous amount of high unemployment. i would suggest to you that legislation like the legislation that representative fincher and representative delaney have put forward today is the kind of legislation that

will lead to more private capital on main street all across the fifth district of virginia and all across america and i would suggest to you that that is why this bill deserves this full support from the house of representatives today. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time having now expired on this bill, the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill, h.r. 2064, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, proceedings will resume on motions to suspend the rules previously postponed. votes will be taken in the following order.

h.r. 251 by the yeas and nays, h.r. 2997 by the yeas and nays, h.r. 1723 by the yeas and nays. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute votes. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from missouri, mr. luetkemeyer, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 251 which the -- on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 251, a bill to transfer the position of special assistance for veterans affairs in the department of housing and urban development to the office of the secretary and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of

representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 412, the nays are one. the bill is passed. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from missouri, mr. luetkemeyer, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2997 on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2997, a bill to authorize the secretary of housing and urban development to carry out a demonstration program, to enter into budget-neutral performance-based contract for improvements for multifamily residential units. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device.

this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 395, the nays are 28. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from virginia, mr. hurt suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1723 on which the yeas and

nays are ordered. the clerk will report the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1723, a bill to direct the securities and exchange commission to allow small companies to move forward by reference of such form. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 426, the nays are zero. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: members please clear the well. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as co-sponsor of h.r. 272 2. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as co-sponsor of h.r. 2722. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that my name be withdrawn as

co-sponsor of h.r. 2722. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from alabama seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a co-spon or of h.r. 2722. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? >> madam chair, i ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a co-sponsor of h.r. 2722. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent -- the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a co-sponsor of h.r. 272 2. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from south dakota seek recognition? mrs. noem: i ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a co-sponsor of h.r. 272.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from -- the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to be removed as a co-sponsor of h.r. 2722. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a co-sponsor for h.r. 272 2. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a co-sponsor of h.r. 272 2. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that my name be removed from the bill number h.r. 2722. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from tennessee seek recognition? mrs. black: i ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a co-sponsor of h.r. 2722. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a co-sponsor of h.r. 2722.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas seek reck snigs? >> i ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as co--- co-sponsor of h.r. 2722. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as co-sponsor of h.r. 2722. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from north dakota seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as co-sponsor of h.r. 2722. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from indiana seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as co-sponsor of h.r. 2722. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from tennessee seek recognition? mrs. blackburn: i ask that my name be removed as a co-sponsor of h.r. 2722. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as co-sponsor of h.r. 2722.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from wyoming seek reck snigs? >> i ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as co-sponsor of h.r. 272. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from virginia seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that my name be removed from h.r. 2722. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition. ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent to indicate that i was unavoidbly detained in h.r. 2141 of home for heroes act and ask that my vote be recorded as kwlie. without objection. the gentlewoman's statement will appear in the record. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute

speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute. >> madam speaker, i rise in support of the establishing mandatory minimums for illegal reap entry act, also known as kate's law. this bill makes mandates five-year minimum prison sentences for illegal immigrants who return to the u.s. after being deported and comes indirect response to the murder of katherine steinly in san francisco by a man who had been deported from the united states five times. kate's law sends a strong message to any person considering illegal reentry. come back and you will face

serious consequences. this bill strengthens the rule of law and leaves no room for selective enforcement or any sanctuary city. my deepest condolences go out to kate steinly and her loved ones. we cannot undo this tragedy but we must work to prevent others by securing the board -- border and strictly enforcing the law. i kwleeled back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? >> permission to address the house and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: last week i was profoundly disappointed to learn just how large the recent data breach was in which personal information was accessed in the files of the office of personnel management. that breach and the one before it was unacceptable and it's a problem that requires an all

hands on deck approach to prevent future cyberattacks and protect those whose information has been accessed. i'm proud to represent 62,000 federal employees in maryland's fifth district. they deserve to know and all our employees do that the personal information they submit when they serve our country is safe and secure and they will be protected against the identity theft and their information wasn't accessed. the resignation of the director does not solve the underlying problem that made o.p.m. vulnerable to these kinds of attacks. i intend to work closely with the interim director to ensure that o.p.m. has the resources it needs to upgrade its systems and prevent a reoccurance of this event. this breach and the one preceded it how we must do more to make america's networks the safest in the world.

and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from alabama seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute. mrs. roby: mr. speaker, i rise to raise awareness about a disturbing development. video surfaced of dr. deborah nucotulo admitting in fact, bragging about the harvesting and trafficking of fetal organs after abortion. to those who haven't seen the video, i urge you and encourage you to watch it but you need to be forewarned. the callous way that she details how babies can be killed in such a way that their tinny hearts, lungs can be taken and sold for profit is simply horrifying. the doctor -- we have been getting good, so i'm not going

to crush that part and crush below and above and see if i can get it all intact. this is one of those moments we have to ask ourselves, who are we, are we going to tolerate this inhumanity and look the other way while babies are killed and organs are harvested for profit. these aren't specimens, these are babies for goodness sake. i may only have one minute today but i promise we aren't done talking about this. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute and revise and stepped my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. swalwell: i rise to tim, a santa clara valley authority bus driver was driving his bus on i-680 and said to be on the look

out of a child that was abducted that morning and included a description of the suspect and child. quickly, they may be on the bus tim pulled off the road, made up a story to the other passengers that he needed to look for a missing backpack and get a good look at the suspect and the child. after the search, his pusishon increased and was told to continue on his route. he drove his bus slowly, going at least 35 miles an hour, when the police were able to meet the bus, capture the suspect when it stopped at the bus station. tim's quick thinking allowed this kidnapping suspect to be apprehended without incident and for the child to be rescued safely. thank you tim, your bravery and quick thinking sived the life, held someone to account and is an inspiration to all of us. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. sanford: i ask my name be removed as a co-sponsor of h.r. 2722 the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a co-sponsor of h.r. 2722. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. are there further one-minute requests? under the speaker's announced policy of january 6 2015, the gentlewoman from north carolina, mrs. ellmers is recognized as the designee of the majority leader. mr. emmer: i ask unanimous consent that members have five legislative days to extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the topic of this special order.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. emmer: i stand with my fellow members of the republican women's policy to discuss an issue of concern that's on the minds of every american, especially moms. the topic of concern to so many of today is our security. we face isis and the nuclear agreement with iran. as threats continue to grow overseas, so should our response. we need to lay out a plan of success and cannot stand by while the islamic state continues to grow. mrs. ellmers: this is an imminent threat to the united states. yet another national security concern facing us today is iran, the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism. last night, iran and the other

world powers reached a so-called nuclear deal. i remain deeply skeptical of this so-called deal. iran has threatened israel. prime minister netanyahu has already called this deal quote, a historic mistake. the president promised us that he would walk away from a bad deal, but instead he is foresaking his promises, neglected our allies and disregarded the concerns of the american people. because of this of the many freedoms we enjoy here in the united states, we will always have a target on our backs. this is precisely why we must maintain a robust military presence. at home in north carolina i have the privilege of representing the nation's largest army installation fort bragg and there was a loss of 842 soldiers.

i firmly believe that any troop reduction is not the best interests of the national security we have. however, in light of the troop reduction, i did receive a piece of positive news regarding a decision by the air force. the air force has decided to stop pursuing their destructive proposal which is to close the 440th airlift wing. our military is one of the best and the brightest. these men and women are the most well trained and well equipped in the world. we are blessed to live in a country that stands for justice and embodies freedom and exemplifies liberty. madam speaker, thank you. i yield to the gentlelady from missouri. >> i thank the gentlelady for having this special order. mrs. wagner: madam speaker, i come to the floor today to sound the alarm about the mistake of historic proportions agreed to

by the obama administration last night in vienna in his hace to reach an agreement at any cost, the president has agreed to far-reaching concessions in nearly every area that was supposed to prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. in contravention of his stated goal, the deal agreed to by the president last night affords iran legitimacy for a partial nuclear program now and for a full and unfettered program after 15 years. madam speaker, let me repeat myself for the sake of clarity. under this deal, iran will be able to develop a nuclear program without absolutely no restriction less than 15 years from now. under this deal, iran will be allowed to continue to operate more than 6000 centrifuges and will hold on to nearly 300 kilo

grams of enrichede uranium. iran will receive hundreds of billions of sanctions relief and regain the access to conventional arms and missiles that it has been denied for nearly a decade. iran will be free to transfer these weapons to hezbollah, the syrian government, yemen rebels who threaten israel and further inflame the region already in crisis. iran will be free to use the weapons and money provided by this agreement to fuel its terrorist aspirations around the region and the world. this is a completely unacceptable outcome for the united states israel and our allies and the middle east. wagering the peace and security of the united states, israel and the world on the small chance of a hateful and deceitful regime will suddenly change its comportment is not only wrong, it is foolish and it is

dangerous. iran's decades' long record of state shife upon sored terrorism just this past friday, this past friday in tehran, iran ran -- iranians led the people in chants death to america. the president is signing a deal with those fanatics, a deal that will pave the way for iran to obtain a nuclear women. as prime minister netanyahu told us a bad deal is worse than no deal. madam speaker this is a bad deal. the president expects congress to stand by and do nothing while he trades the security of the u.s. and its allies for a legacy burnishing his accomplishments. and agrees on a deal that would endanger the stability of the entire middle east and

jeopardize u.s. national security. that must not happen. as the 60-day review process begins, congress must unequivocally reject this agreement by voting for a resolution of disapproval. we will not stand by while the american people's security is traded for some empty promises. iran would start a new arms race in the middle east and pose an intolerable threat to the united states and its allies, especially israel. madam speaker, as prime minister netanyahu said in this very chamber again, standing up to iran is not easy. standing up to dark and murderous regimes never is but for the sake of our children and our children's children, we must face down this threat down now before it is too late. i urge my colleagues to review this agreement with an eye towards history, towards the past, towards the present and towards the future of a region

critical to america's national interests. iran has a record of deception and hostility towards american interests. no amount of wishful thinking will change their tendencies. congress must use this opportunity to stand up for what's right. the united states must not break down but must stand together united against the threat of a nuclear iran in order to guarantee a free and peaceful tomorrow. thank you, madam speaker. and i yield back. >> i want to thank my dear friend from north carolina for organizing this segs today -- session today. last week i don't think you were really entirely aware of how topical the topic would be today and i'm so pleased that you did organize this so thank you. now, many of us are still reviewing having just received the 150 pages of text that make

up this deal with iran, but from what i've heard thus far it leaves me highly skeptical that the accord that was reached, it does not advance our interest in the region and signifies a retreat from the world stage. let me first say that even if we take the president at his words, the words that i heard this morning, and we assume for a second that this deal cuts off, quote every pathway to a nuclear weapon, end of quote there are still significant ramifications for granting 150 billion dollars in sanctions relief to a country whose unofficial motto we just heard from the gentlelady from missouri has become death to america. mrs. brooks: as israeli ambassador dermer told some of my constituents just last night, $150 billion infusion of cash into iran's coffers is like $8 trillion flowing into the united states treasury, and that money will go towards funding the ayatollah's terror

machines. ranging from assad's regime in syria hezbollah and lebanon, the hewitties in yemen, the islamic jihad in gaza, just to name a few. many of iran's terror proxies throughout the region. this is compounded by the fact that the deal will lift the conventional arms embargo in iran in no more than five years and the embargo in missile sales in no more than eight years. so what the deal appears to do is give the iranian regime $150 billion in sanctions relief while simultaneously allowing them to buy more conventional weapons, weapons that we know have been used in the past to actually kill american soldiers. now, this also -- this isn't to mention the unintended consequence that effectively shredding our foreign policy playbook that guides us -- guided us for decades. this is a horrible mistake.

not only did prime minister netanyahu the historical mistake, but will allow them to pursue their aggressions in the region. as the congresswoman from missouri said, it will start a nuclear arms race in the middle east. just today, former c.i.a. director general hayden testified that not only do we need to understand that our nuclear focus does not make other realities go away, even if we had a successful conclusion to these nuclear negotiations issues will remain. i will close by reminding what our other issues with iran include. we know and believe they are the largest state supporter sponsor of terrorism. they hold american hostages without a fair trial. they support palestinian terrorism and they destabilize iraq, where we have invested so much treasure and lives. hayden concluded the issue is not just iran's nuclear

problem. the issue is iran itself. so madam speaker, no deal is clearly a better outcome than a bad deal and i, too, am extremely concerned the obama administration has negotiated a bad deal. i assure you that my colleagues and i will leave no detail of the final negotiated terms unexplored as this decision comes with consequences that will reverberate for generations moving forward. the world cannot afford a nuclear iran and thus cannot afford a deal with unacceptable terms. thank you. i yield back. mrs. ellmers: i now recognize the gentlelady from indiana as well. mrs. walorski: madam speaker, i rise to express my deepest concern that the president of the united states has signed an agreement with the leading state sponsor of terrorism, iran. we now have from this administration -- we have collectively created a pathway for iran to create a nuclear bomb.

this agreement endangers the lives of americans by providing billions of dollars in sanctions relief for iran to continue killing americans. the lack of adequate safeguards and controls in this plan literally allows iran to choose if and when they agree to verification is deeply troubling and should be to every american. especially when we start by lifting sanctions without any verification. also, let's not forget that by lifting the weapons embargo, iran will increase their stockpile of missiles icbm's directly from russia, able to strike this homeland and/or more advanced weapons that will lead to an arms race in the middle east. once again the president is bypassing the american people by threatening a veto of any legislation that comes from here that would curb his agreement. the president of the united states continues to reject the will of the american people. as this unrest continues the united states has to maintain our rich partnership with our

allies including israel, sitting directly in line with iran. i just want to say to my colleagues here very quickly. let's not forget it was just a couple of months ago that president -- prime minister netanyahu of israel stood in this very place right here. it was an unbelievable moment for this country. he traveled all the way here to tell this body and to tell the american people how bad of a deal and how dangerous this agreement is. and if you work here, i can tell you there was electricity in this place. people were moved and america heard for the first time what a danger this was not only to us and our homeland but the exsention threat to the nation of -- exowe tension threat to the nation of israel. they were moved and the next morning our nation was not the same. i just appreciate so much to my

colleagues to my colleague from north carolina for allowing us to talk about this tonight. see, the american people know this is not just a bad deal, this is not just a danger to our nation, this is a complete unraveling of the middle east as we know it today, and we are going to do everything we can. i will tell you i will do everything we can. we rose our right hand to protect this nation from eye tack. and i yield back the balance of my time and i thank you very much for doing this tonight. mrs. ellmers: the gentlelady yields back. i now recognize the gentlelady from utah. ms. love: when it comes to the deal with iran i want to tell you how serious this is. that is because the stakes have never been higher. are we willing to continue to gamble with america's future and american lives? iran is a snake in the grass. its leaders have made it very

clear they want to implement shahrya law, not freedom. iran does not value human life the way we do. they have shown that they're willing to hurt their own women and children. on the other hand, we have a president of the united states of america that said he will veto any efforts to stop this bad deal. that shows he has no interest in listening to the american people. how can we claim we're fighting terror when we're giving the leading state sponsors of terrorism a break to the tune of billions of dollars? at this rate we will all but build the nuclear weapons for them in 15 years. now that a deal with iran is in place, here's what's most concerning. they'll turn around and build a nuclear weapon anyway, funded by the profits made from the lack of sanctions. this is not a joke. this is not a game. iran has a history of noncompliance, a great

indicator of what's going to happen in the future is what has happened in the past. so how do we know they'll never change? how do we know they will change? we don't. chances are they won't change. ronald reagan was an advocate of peace through strength. he said that the world would experience peace when the united states was a beacon of strength. i ask you all to stand strong with the united states against iran and against any administration that would like to silence us, the american people. thank you and i yield back. mrs. ellmers: the gentlelady yields back. i now yield time to the gentlelady from the great state of alabama. mrs. roby: i thank my friend from north carolina. this is a great opportunity today for all of us ladies to be down here on the floor together having a little conversation about what we recognize and can see matters to the majority of americans and that's the safety of this country and our national

defense, our ability to defend against enemies. to my friend from north carolina there's a lot of those out there right now. as we watch the lack of leadership in this administration, we've seen these enemies raise their heads and it's by no mistake because they will seek to fill a void and that's exactly what's happening around the world. all of our colleagues that have talked earlier in this hour about the bad, bad deal with iran, you know, this comes at a time not only where we're seeing the atrocities of isis and other groups around the world but also at a time when we've cut our military, not through the muscle, but into the bone. and all of us here, we all have military interests in some respect throughout our district and i know you have a large

military presence in your district and others here joining us today, our colleagues, so no one here has not felt the pain of what these cuts look like. but, you know, to my colleagues, if we don't do something about the sequester here when it goes into full implementation, we're already cutting combat aviation brigades. we'll have to cut even more. of course i represent fort rutger where we train these folks and -- at the army aviation center of excellence. so certainly these realities are not lost on these. i know you represent fort bragg and others here, the gentlelady from tennessee has a large military presence. so i guess the conversation that i want to have with you guys today on behalf of our constituents is, what are we going to do about it? we've got to figure this out because if we don't, it's going

to be irresponsible as it relates for our readiness and our ability to defend this nation. we owe it to our military families, our men and women that wear the uniform to ensure they have everything that they need every time we send them into harm's way. so this is really a dangerous time in our country and certainly it's not lost on everyone here as it relates to iran and the bad deal that was negotiated there. we've got to be willing to do our part as it relates to that deal and here in this legislative body be willing to use the tools that we have and stand up against it and use the courage that we all have in our hearts to fight against this knowing that it's going to not just have a huge impact on our security here at home but our very important allies in the middle east. i just got back from a codel in the spring where we went to

saudi arabia and iraq and israel and, you know, our allies over there are looking at us right now going what, what? so anyway, i share my frustration with you and i know you share it with me as well, but we need to give the army what they need, we need to give the military what they need and know that we are having the appropriate impact in the parts of the world that are under so much pressure right now and as it relates to this plan. so i hope we can continue this dialogue. i appreciate all of you coming to the floor and letting me be a part of this. i just am very concerned. this is what literally keeps all of us up at night worrying about the future of our country and our safety, not just here at home but for all the men and women that are serving our country abroad.

and so again i hope that we collectively can put our heads together and figure out a way how to end the sequester, particularly as it relates to defense once and for all. i thank the gentlelady. mrs. ellmers: the gentlelady yields back. i now yield to the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. black: thank you madam speaker. it's an honor to be here and be part of today's women's policy committee on this special order on national security and i want to thank the gentlelady from north carolina for bringing us together on this very important topic. i rise today to specifically address the president's attempts to strike a deal with both iran and cuba. first iran. after four missed deadlines president obama announced a deal this morning with iran, the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism and a nation whose ayatollah famously called the united states, i quote, the great satan.

it was a deal praised by the likes of syria and russia and condemned by our allies such as israel. and what's more under the agreement international inspectors must ask iran's permission before reviewing its nuclear sites. by the way, after which iran has two weeks to decide whether to even grant it. all told iran would have 24 days to drag out this process and conceal signs of noncompliance. . this will agreement amounts to unress through apiecement. under the review act, congress does have the power to vote down a bad deal that threatens our national security and i believe this is a bad deal and i intend to use what we can do to show the president we do not support this deal. unfortunately the president's

efforts to cozy up to rogue nations doesn't end there. president obama is attempting to normalize relations with cuba. here again, the president is clearly more interested in striking a deal, any deal, rather than the details of what's actually in the deal. consider this. cuba was listed as a state sponsor of terrorism until the end of may. and now the president wants to open up an embassy on the shores of havana. can you tell me what has changed? just last week, i led nearly 20 of my colleagues in sending a letter to the president citing a report from the department of homeland security, which found more than 21,000 cuban nationals with felony convictions living within our borders. and these individuals r-rated by our department of homeland security as a threat one level,

meaning that they are the worst of the worst. they have no legal status as they have been given orders to be removed, but they're roaming our streets, because cuba will not take back its criminals. madam speaker, if the president insists on opening the door to negotiations with tyrants like castro, the very least he could do is to follow the law on this simple matter and take back these criminals into his own country. when it comes to iran and cuba, the president must put national security and the well-being of the united states before his political legacy. thank you again my colleague and friend from north carolina for this special order today to bring these very important issues to the american people. and i yield back. mrs. ellmers: i now yield to the other gentlelady from tennessee.

mrs. blackburn: i thank the gentlelady from north carolina for pulling us together. you know, when you talk about issues that are women's issues right now, national security is at the top of the heap. and as we have talked about soccer moms and wal-mart moms and all these other descriptions during the years, right now, we are looking at a category of security moms, because the issue of security is what mothers are talking about. and i appreciate so much the leadership of the gentlelady from north carolina for pulling us together. and we have two other colleagues who have yet to join us to talk about this issue coast to coast. this is what people are talking about and they sit in disbelief at what this administration is doing whether it is iran,

whether it is other foreign policy. our friends andial jice look at us as the gentlelady from alabama said and they say what are you doing and where have you been and what are you thinking? we have a thinking problem as we would say in nashville. our enemies look at us and say asleep at the wheel. that is our opportunity. and they look at what we are doing to our military and i think -- thank the gentlelady from alabama for talking about her love for fort rucker and the men and women there and i know the gentlelady sits down with them like i do, with the families, with the leadership team and with the men and women in uniform at fort campbell, which is located in my district

and they are terribly concerned. they have a mission to fulfill. and it is diss pass cabble that this administration will try to continue and cut and cut and cut our military. cut the numbers, don't give them raises, don't give them all the tools and training, don't give them the flying hours. guess what, madam speaker? every bit of that affects the effectiveness of our men and women in uniform. and i yield to the gentlelady from alabama for just a moment to expand on the point of the cuts that are taking place at fort rubbinger and what that means -- rucker and what that means to her constituents. mrs. roby: the shared concern

that we have for our men and women in uniform and for their families as well. if the sequester goes into full effect, not only when we are cutting from 12 tabs now aviation brigades to 10, there is a potential we will have to go to nine. what that means directly for rucker, we decrease our student load, the number of army aviation pilots that we are training. what that means for our country is we are no longer ready. you could make the argument that that in fact is the case now, they are going to do everything we asked them to do with what they have. we know that about the united states military the best in the world. but we are spreading them more and more thin to the point where -- we're fighting an enemy

overseas right now whether you want to call it war or not, it's happening. and our men and women are in harm's way, there are boots on the ground. and if these cuts move forward, they are going to suffer plor. i appreciate you drawing attention to rucker. mrs. blackburn: i thank the gentlelady for yielding back and she makes the point that is so very important. the readiness and the ability to fight 21st century warfare on a lot of different fronts. my colleagues and i will say naming and knowing your enemy radical islamic extremists. that's the enemy. and that is one of the reasons that this deal that the president announced this morning is so terribly disturbing to us. his advisers had said that no deal is better than a bad deal. and guess what? what we saw from the president this morning is a pretty bad

deal. here's what iran gets to keep in this deal. 5060 centrifuges and eight-year limitation on uranium enrichment. eight-year limitation. so then are we setting a time certain that iran can move forward? this is something that our constituents and the american people need to know about. and then you look at the other components of this. the iaea not having the ability to move forward and inspect any time anywhere, but having to give that two-week notice. that is something again of tremendous concern. you know, the president has threatened to veto any legislation that impedes the nuclear deal. my hope is that congress is going to stand up and we will say no to the president and this

deal and we will say yes to increasing the security of this nation. with that, i yield back to the gentlelady from north carolina. mrs. ellmers: i now yield to the the gentleman from washington, mr. new house. --newhouse. mr. newhouse: i a send a rule for filing under the rule. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 362, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 2898 to provide drought relief in the state of california and for other purposes. and providing for consideration of the bill, h.r. 3038, to provide an extension of federal aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety funded out of the highway trust fund and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar

and ordered printed. >> i presental privileged report for printing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany h.r. 3049, a bill making appropriations for agriculture, rural development, food and drug administration and related agencies programs for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2016, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the unionian -- union calendar and ordered printed. points of order are reserved. mrs. ellmers: i now yield to the gentlelady from wyoming. mrs. lummis: i thank the gentlelady from north carolina for sponsoring this special order allowing the women of the republican conference to talk about an issue that is affecting all americans, men and women. with benjamin netanyahu calling this deal a historic mistake,

historic think about israel and history. and when you have their prime minister calling this a historic mistake, we should be paying attention. madam chairman, there is a very real and present danger of nuclear proliferation because of this deal. so it's critical that america not let her military preparedness for deterrence deteriorate. it will have exactly the opposite effect of that which the administration intends. consequently we need all three legs of the nuclear triad land, air and water for a strong defense and deterrence against attack. with the triad of bombers,

submarines and icbm's missiles are on alert protecting america and detering her enemies, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. we should be talking with poland with the czech republic. we should make that they have adequate missile defense. we have to start talking to saudi arabia. if israel and saudi arabia are already today talking about the consequences of a deal with iran , what does that tell you? well it tells you just what the lady from alabama was telling us a few minutes ago when they visited there. security in saudi arabia, homeland security is an enormous issue. and it's because there are always terrorists coming into saudi arabia trying to get at mecca and medina and to do

something that will cause -- incite religious battles. so when they have one of their most feared adversaries, now being in a position in eight years and having now the money because of the lifting of the sanctions to go ahead with a nuclear program, what do you think they are going to do? what are the saudis going to do? it is critical that we maintain world peace and deterrence of nuclear war, our own ability to respond and to deter. madam chairman, i thank you for this special order. i thank you for your diligent work in this regard. and i yield back. mrs. ellmers: thank you, the gentlelady yields back. i yield time to the gentlelady from florida.

ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you so much. i want to thank my friend and colleague and chair of the republican women's policy committee, congresswoman ellmers for leading the charge on this special order so we can discuss issues of national security. and as we've heard, madam speaker and will continue to hear tonight there is no shortage of national security threats that are facing us today. that's not what should scare us. what should scare us is that the obama administration has no strategy, no plan in place to address some of the most serious threats that are out there, but perhaps the most pressing issue currently facing u.s. national security and the security of our friend and ally, the democratic jewish state of israel and indeed global security is a nuclear armed iran. and if we want to discuss national security threats, we can spend all day discussing the one the administration just set

into motion when it and the rest of the p-5 plus one nation announced this nuclear agreement with iran. let's set aside for a moment the fact that the administration just guaranteed that iran will become a nuclear threshold state as a result of this deal. and we can all set our timers on when that first iranian bomb will be produced, thanks to this weak and dangerous deal. let's let's focus on the fact that the administration guaranteed iranian billions of dollars that it will have to fill its coffers to underwrite its support for terror and that the u.s. and aimed at our interests around the world and especially our ally, the democratic jewish state of israel. remember, this is the same regime that was responsible for building and providing the vast

majority of roadside bombs that killed and injured thousands of our brave men and women who served valiantly in iraq. it is the same regime that has propped up the murderous assad regime in syria that supports the shiite militias, all of which contributed greatly to the size of the -- rise of the sunni arab tribe isil, which has become one of the greatest security threats of the u.s. as well. this regime is responsible for the bombing of the u.s. marine barracks and the u.s. embassy bombings in beirut and continues to support hezbollah and hamas as the terror groups that target israel. and if this terrifying scenario wasn't bad enough, madam speaker, the obama administration has included in this sweetheart of a deal for the iranian regime lifting all u.n. security council resolutions including the arms

embargo. and that won't even last the duration of the deal, but it will be only in five years. madam speaker what has iran done to deserve a lifting of the arms embarringo, the lifting of sanctions -- embargo, the lifting of sanctions against its missile ballistic program? iran continues to stoke sectarian violence, foment instability in the middle east, flex ig its muscles with the arms and military equipment that it already has. now we're prepared to lift the arms embargo on that murderous regime, lift the restrictions in place on its ballistic missile program, the most expansive program out of any country in the region, what kind of message did we just send to our partners in the region who fear iran's hegemonic ambitions?

we just allowed their most feared enemy to become a nuclear state. to have access to have even more money to support its illicit activities and to bolster its conventional wemsweps and ballistic missile program -- weapons and ballistic missile program. talk about threat to our national security, madam speaker. wow. this nuclear deal that the obama administration announced this morning just guaranteed an all-out conventional and nuclear arms race that very well could lead to what the president claimed he was trying to avoid, a war. whether it's iran or whether it's cuba as mrs. black of tennessee pointed out, president obama is going legacy shopping. i fear that israel will be next on obama's legacy shopping list. i worry that president obama will force israel to accept a bad peace deal with the palestinians. madam speaker let's shut down obama's legacy store. we just can't afford it.

thank you, mrs. ellmers, thank you very much for your leadership on this national security threat. thank you. mrs. ellmers: the gentlelady yields back. i now yield time to the gentlelady from new york. >> thank you madam chair. madam speaker, just this past monday the iraqi government declared it was beginning a major military operation to take western anbar province from isis. ramadi and fallujah is the same region which isis seized this past may. ms. stefanik: american-led air strikes permeated on anbar province. i support military targeted air strikes which continue to attack the islamic state within syria and iraq. along with air strikes, u.s. troops serve as a part of an advise and assist role in iraq and continue to do so in afghanistan. since september 11 2001, the army's 10th mountain division

has been the most actively deployed division to iraq and afghanistan. and i am honored to represent the 10th mountain division, a light infantry division comprised of confident skilled workers. in new york's country we understand what fighting for our nation's liberties and freedom really means. come the holidays, these brave soldiers from the 10th mountain division will be serving our nation in highly kinetic combat zones. so when i speak against isis their barbaric tactics and the instability they create around the country, i am speaking for my constituents, the brave service men and women who are overseas right now fighting to protect our national security. i speak for their loved ones, the military families who are back in the north country at fort drum worrying about their safety and looking forward to the day they arrive back home. this is why i am extremely frustrated when cuts to our

defense budget continue. sequestration is a real threat to our national security. sequestration was proposed by this administration, signed into law by this president and passed by a previous congress. as isis remains a major source of terrorism, an instability throughout the middle east, here in congress we must discuss real solutions related to stabilizing the region, continued threats to our own national security the readiness for our armed forces and the tools they need to keep our country safe. the national defense authorization act provides our nation's armed forces with the resources they need to defend our national security against isis. and soon this imperative piece of legislation will be on its way to the president for his signature. a veto could threaten the safety of our nation's service members and our country's defense. our national security is gravely at risk as long as isis remained intact and our troops

are tasked with doing more with less. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting our armed forces in fighting against defense sequestration and i implore this president to sign the national defense authorization act. i yield back. mrs. ellmers: the gentlelady yields back. i like to say how much i appreciate receiving general townsend to the 18th airborne corps as commanding general from the 10th mountain division. i know that you appreciate him as much as i do. ms. stefanik: absolutely. thank you, madam chair. mrs. ellmers: the gentlelady yields back. i now yield to the gentlelady from arizona. ms. mcsally: thank you madam chair. i really appreciate you organizing this so that the women in our conference can speak about something that's vitally important to our communities. i tell you everywhere i go in my district, my constituents are concerned about the security of our nation and

making sure that our men and women in uniform have everything they need in order to defend america. having served 26 years in uniform myself and representing a district of 85,000 veterans and two military bases, right now we have over 750 of them deployed overseas in the fight against isis and also to work with our allies, to deter russia's aggression. people are deeply concerned about what appears to be a failed and not just appears to be a failed defense strategy and foreign policy out of this administration, and i can tell you as i look around the world and i've been doing national security for 30 years, we are in a more dangerous world than i've ever seen in my lifetime. again, i got the experience of six combat deployments, couple masters' degrees. taking a look at this, we don't have enough time to go around the world with the threats emanating. the one obviously taking up the news today is the bad deal related to iran and their march towards a nuclear capability. now, i'm going to read the

whole thing tonight and tomorrow and make sure we see all the details, but it seems like on its surface the goal post has been moved and the deal that has been negotiated is one where myopically the administration wanted to get a deal really at all costs and that cost is quite high to our national security, to the security of our friends and our allies with significant destabilization in the middle east. while we have iran which is the greatest state sponsor of terror, you know continuing to destabilize and fight proxy wars in the region continuing to threaten americans, they have blood on their hands of american soldiers in iraq and lebanon and in other places, continuing to threaten israel and destabilizing the region and propping up nonstate actors in their proxy wars. and none of that is changing and now we basically are legitimizing that and not addressing any of these other issues while potentially lifting the arms embargo, this is a potentially reckless direction we are going in.

and i can tell you my constituents have been talking to me even today about the concerns and just the myopic focus of this administration on this particular bad deal. if we take a larger view of the middle east, there appears to be an absolutely incoherent strategy in the middle east. while we have the general responsible for the force responsible for all these activities these terrorist activities i mentioned, actually commanding the ground forces in iraq to take back tikrit, while we're providing the airpower and sort of pretending we're not operating in the same space for the same objective then we see what iran is doing to continue to destabilize both in yemen, in -- their support to hamas and hezbollah and all of this is just absolutely incoherent. if you were to try and ask somebody, what are we trying to do in the middle east relative to iran i don't think anybody could answer that. i don't think this president could answer this.

there is this deep concern of this lack of coherencey. when it comes to the fight against isis we are doing these anemic attacks from the air and having been a fighter pilot myself and been involved in the targeting process from being a flight lead running the counterterrorism operations in africa, i'm familiar with the targeting process. isis is gaining momentum to recruit foreign fighters, over 20,000 have been recruited and it looks like they are taking us on and winning because we are putting the bar so high on targets we could strike. legitimate targets that we are having pilots fly away on and let continue to thrive and murder massive number of citizens in iraq and syria gaining a foothold gaining territory and using social media to gain new recruits, it looks like they're winning. we have an absolutely incoherent military strategy in

the fight against isis. not using our power in the way it should be used in order to achieve our national security objectives. we had the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs in front of us on the house armed services committee a couple weeks ago where they said related to this strategy, hope is not a strategy but it looks like we're relying on. we're hoping that the iraqis have an inclusive government which they've shown time and time again that they're failing to do. and while iraq has their national security interests certainly in the region we have our own interest in making sure that isis does not gain a strong foothold with resources and are the desire to recruit, train and inspire individuals to attack americans and take away our way of life. this strategy has just been failed coming out of this administration. russia just another example. the squadron that i commanded is soon coming back from a deployment to russia. a-10's over in the region to help assure and train our allies against the continued aggression that we're seeing

from russia. incoming potential chairman of the joint chiefs declared in a hearing that he believes russia is the largest threat we're potentially dealing with. yet the weakness from this administration in standing up and leading to defend our national security interests and reassure our allies is allowing putin to fill that vacuum. who's next, they're wondering? the ballotics and other allies in the region -- the baltics and other allies in the region. this is just another example, you know. what china is doing in the south and east china seas is just, you know, one more example of us not leading and not being able to assure our allies, showing weakness. our friends are wondering, can they count on us anymore, and our enemies are no longer afraid of us. this is the dangerous world we are in. now, some of these factors were going to happen anyway. but american leadership can make or break situations, and we can change the course of

international events if we're leading or we're not leading. and this administration says they're leading behind. in the military we call that following. there is no such thing as lead behind. we need to make sure we have a strong national security strategy, that we have a capable of military. sequestration is -- the impact it's having on our military -- i have friends ands individuals i know that are still -- and individuals that i know that are still trying to serve, they're trying to deal with the lack of resources and the diminishing capabilities and training and readiness. that is a -- that is not a strategy by budget. that is a budget-based strategy. i have been against sequestration. we need to work together so we can give the men and women in the military everything they need to defend america. and the last point i'll make -- and there are many to make but we don't have enough time -- is that we passed the national defense authorization act for the last 54 years. this is an important piece of legislation that gives the troops the authorization, the

pay raises, everything that they need, combating sexual assault, all the different things we have authorized in the ndaa and this president is threatening to veto it. and i really hope that those around america who are listening to this will rise up and call their members of congress, call their senators, call the white house and tell them this is not -- you don't play politics with our men and women in uniform. this is about national security and national defense. you need to sign that bill. we're working through conference right now to hopefully get it done before we go into recess, and this is an important piece of legislation and we should not be playing political games with our national security. so thank you, madam chairman, for organizing this. thanks for the opportunity to come down and speak on behalf of our constituents, on behalf of those that are serving in my district, serving right now overseas the men and women in uniform, we owe it to them to make sure we have a strong national security and we have a strong military we give them everything we need and we provide leadership in the world and we need to -- i look

forward to continuing these discussions. thank you and i yield back. mrs. ellmers: i thank the gentlelady. and madam speaker, on behalf of the members of the republican women's policy committee, i would like to end this special order today by thanking our troops and their families. . these people protect our freedom, idealings and way of life. it's equally as important that we recognize the sacrifices that military spouses and children make as well. these -- they deserve our unwavering support for putting the safety and security of our country first. may god continue to bless this great nation and our men and women in uniform. madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time to conclude this special order on national security. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask

unanimous consent that my name be removed as a co-responseer of h.r. 2722. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a co-sponsor of h.r. 2722. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015 the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. garamendi: madam speaker, thank you for the opportunity. we're going to spend about an hour here talking about something that is of great importance to the american people, to the economy, to the strength of america, and indeed

the discussion we just heard about national security. it's about how we can build the american economy. and build jobs for the working men and women country, the great middle class. there will be much discussion in the days ahead about the iran nuclear deal and that will be something that is of importance. but today one question that we ought to ask each other is, if we don't have a deal, then what? and the answer to that is, nothing good. but let's talk about make it in america. this is an agenda that the minority whip put together about four years ago and it's about building the american economy. how we can do it. and the make it in america agenda has moved along over these last four years almost five years now, with numerous

pieces of legislation. and we're going to talk about those. earlier -- actually last week the minority whip, mr. steny hoyer, put together a hearing on this subject matter and those democrats that have introduced legislation over this many years and have reintroduced that legislation testified at the hearing about their pieces of legislation. the result of that was, wow what if we did those things? what if we actually passed those pieces of legislation, what if they became law? well, i'll tell you what it would mean. what it would mean is an enormous opportunity for this economy to grow and for the great american middle class to enjoy higher wages more jobs and more opportunities. essentially the legislation came down in these various ways. trade legislation.

for example the big discussion we've had over the last three months about trade policy and the trans-pacific partnership extremely important for american manufacturing. done properly, probably would grow the american manufacturing. on the other hand, what we've seen in the many years previously is the trade policy can hollow out destroy american manufacturing. so we talked about trade policy and one issue of extreme importance to me is the maintenance of the buy america provisions. this is law that's been in place for more than 50 years and it see essentially says, you're going to spend -- and it essentially says if you're going to spend american money, american taxpayer money, then spend it on american goods and equipment. tax policy extremely important. you can, as present tax policy is set in place, encourage the

offshoring of american jobs. american corporations taking their capital, running off to the lowest wage rate country in the world, planting their capital there, building their manufacturing facilities and leaving behind the american worker. so there are numerous ideas on tax policy. energy policy. another issue. we now know that we have had a very robust, large expansion of american energy production, natural gas and oil, so much so that we are likely to ship off in the days ahead, liquefied -- ahead liquefied natural gas. well, if we do a little bit of that it's probably ok. we do too much of that we raise american prices for energy and then we are going to see a less robust american

manufacturing. labor policy, how we encourage labor wage rates and the re-education for those men and women who have lost their job. education is extremely important. research and infrastructure. these are the essential elements of the make it in america policy. we'll be talking about all of these today. and as my colleagues come in, i want to welcome them to the floor. i see our colleague from the great northeast. would you like to take the floor and talk about some of your legislation on the issue of make it in america, we'd be delighted to have you join us. perhaps at that microphone. i know that you've been working on this a long time in your area and you have introduced bills in the last congress and you have new bills in this congress. please. >> thank you very much, mr. garamendi. i appreciate you yielding and i appreciate you taking the time to share with the american

people our make it in america agenda. i really want to thank you for the fantastic work that you've been doing on growing domestic manufacturing in the country and we're joined by our wonderful leader, mr. steny hoyer, and his leadership on this issue is now legendary. so thank you for that. new hampshire has had a long history of being a leader in the manufacturing industry. ms. kuster: all the way back to the paper mills at the turn of the century the textile mills. at one point in manchester new hampshire, we made a mile of cloth a day and we were leaders in that. and so from the beginning of the time that i've served here in congress, i've been highly focused on how we can support successful local businesses and embrace innovation to help move our manufacturing economy into the 21st century. in new hampshire and across the country we've -- we have some

of the hardest working and most innovative companies in the world. i've had the opportunity to visit dozens of companies in my congress, visiting manufacturing companies, community colleges, community groups and organizations all across the granite state that are harnessing these new technologies to revitalize the manufacturing sector and breathe new life into our industry. in key new hampshire, -- key, new hampshire, in the southwest corner of my district, for example, we have a regional center for advanced manufacturing, bringing together leaders from the community, from the k-12 school unit there, public schools from our community college, river valley community college from our state university system, and students and leaders from all across the region learning and teaching the trades of tomorrow.

coming up in october new hampshire will celebrate a full manufacturing week. the fabulous program it started out one day, it's now exploded into a whole week, hundreds if not thousands of students from the high schools will come in to our manufacturing companies and will have a chance to see firsthand what this looks like, the machines, the computerized, precision manufacturing, this is not your grandfather's factory. it's not dirty. it's not noisy. in fact, it's pristine, clean the machines are run on computerized programming and every employee in the company needs to have the latest in education and talent. people will be able to come into the companies and see what the work is that's going on. i've had the chance to see the c.n.c. computerized machines working with wood, working with

textiles working in glass. even counting and organizing eggs at a wonderful pete and jerry's organic egg farm. the problem is that during the last several decades lower wages, lack of access to education and skill training, and changes in our global economy have stacked the deck against our u.s. manufacturers and these issues are standing in the way of innovation. so that is why we have all come together with this make it in america agenda, to make the right policy changes, to help level the playing field, so that our manufacturers can grow and successfully create more jobs. that's my number one priority, jobs and economic development. so as part of the make it in america agenda that i'm supporting, we've developed a strong, comprehensive plan to

help manufacturers thrive in the 21st century. and the great thing about manufacturing, as my good colleague, mr. garamendi, has pointed out, is whether you're working on transportation policy education taxes, regulatory issues, trade, or most any other issues, we can take actions that help manufacturers. and that's exactly what our make it in america agenda is seeking to do. one bill that i introduced and i'm working hard to include -- include it in the agenda, i'm working hard to pass, is the work force development investment act. what this important piece of legislation would do is create a tax break for employers who partner with their community colleges to provide skill training for specific jobs in their respected industries. as i go around visiting these companies, they do have jobs available, but they don't always have people in the community with the skills that they need.

and so for example, the nashua community college, we got funding to create a new program that would train people in this advanced manufacturing precision manufacturing computerized techniques and those people will come out with a two-year associate's degree and walk directly into jobs $55,000 with great benefits and a great quality of life right there in new hampshire. my legislation would do all of this encouraging greater collaboration between community colleges and employers to make sure that students not only have the right skills to succeed, but are on a path to employment when they graduate. so again i thank mr. hoyer, mr. garamendi, and everyone else who's worked to shape this strong manufacturing agenda, i'm proud to be a part of it, and i yield back the balance of my time. mr. garamendi: thank you so very very much. i think new hampshire's very fortunate to have your leadership on manufacturing.

i think i want to go up there and watch your manufacturing week. i'm not running for president, so that's not why i'd go. i noticed that we have our leader who has put together this program over the last five years, has geared us up with the hearing last week from all of the members of the democratic caucus that have introduced legislation, mr. hoyer, you are our leader, you have made make it in america an american agenda. thank you so very much for that leadership. and thank you for being here. and last week's conference, we've got more work to do, we need to get all this legislation in place and i know with your leadership we got a good shot at it. mr. hoyer, welcome. mr. hoyer: i thank you very much mr. garamendi. do you such an extraordinary job for california. and have for a long period of time. but you're doing an extraordinary job here in washington on behalf of america. on behalf of america's workers on behalf of america's manufactures -- manufacturers,

and on behalf of making sure that we make it here and sell it here and everywhere. that's what make it in america is about and nobody, including myself, has been any more tenacious in forming -- in informing people about this agenda and i thank you for that. i want to thank annie cufter. congresswoman cufter and i had -- kuster. congresswoman kuster and i had an opportunity to go to a manufacturing facility in her district. they were excited about making their business more technology focused and making it more efficient and more productive and, yes, more profitable. but the good news is they were retaining jobs in that effort. so i thank congresswoman kuster . i want to thank don norcross who is a new member of the congress, but not new to supporting the make it in

america he may not have called it that in nming, but make it in america lenl -- new jersey but make it in america legislation and a policies. mr. norcross comes from a background of working family and he's made them proud, made us proud and we welcome him to this effort. . i noticed also that sheila jackson lee from houston is also on the floor who's been a tenacious and very, very faithful spokesperson and worker on behalf of make it in america. i'm proud to share with my colleagues that house democrats held a hearing as has been mentioned, this past thursday to begin exploring how to improve expand and adapt the make it in america plan in 2015 and beyond. in fact one of the things we want to find out is how to create a better environment for new tech nothings -- technologies, for new ways of doing better to make it in

america. representative garamendi was one of 44 members who participated at last week's hearing. for the past five years we've worked together in a bipartisan way to enact already 16 make it in america bills into law. these bills included measures to clear the backlog of patent application re-authorize the america competes act and expand investments in work force development which is what mr. garamendi was talking about and ms. kuster was talking about training in new technologies. if we are going to compete worldwide in this global market place america has to be the high value end of the market of the global marketplace. and as a result, we need to make sure that we educate and train people to effectively participate and compete and succeed in that high-tech environment. for the past five years, make it in america has been focused

on creating the conditions business to i owe vate, manufacture and create jobs -- innovate manufacture and create jobs here in the united states of america. now with the rise of new technologies with the potential of transforming our economy, it is now time to update the make it in america plan to address today's challenges and build on past successes. that's why mr. speaker, the house -- the hearings that house democrats held on thursday was the first in what will be a series of hearings to solicit feedback from members, entrepreneurs, job creators, in other words economists, innovators and others who have insites to share how we can be -- insights to share how we can be more successful. these hearings are entitled, make it in america, what's next. five years have gone by circumstances have changed. challenges have changed. opportunities have changed. we need to be making sure that we're in a position to seize

those opportunities on behalf of all of our people. this is a process of listening, learning and then implementing the best ideas that emerge. thursday's hearings, mr. garamendi, you participated in, you were one of the leaders there which highlighted members' ideas and feedback they have received from speaking and meeting with constituents back home was a great success. i want to emphasize that. we take from time to time breaks and we call them district work periods. some people call them vacations. almost every member on both sides of the aisle use a district work period to go among their constituents, go to businesses, go to schools, go to construction sites, go to offices and talk to people about what they think. that's what our founding fathers had in mind. house members close to the people, listen to the people, bring their views here. that's what we did at this hearing. we heard about the economic

impact of the so-called internet of things, which in my generation would have been -- what language are you speaking, internet of things, which uses wireless technology to connect everyday objects. your home, your refrigerator, your air-conditioner, your television, everyday objects we're all connected now. we also heard about maker fairs and fab labs where students and professionals alike can put tinkering into innovation. i sometimes say, mr. gare mendy one of the policies we ought to do is -- garamendi, one of the policies we ought to do is -- a president talked about a chicken in every pot. we ought to give a garage to every graduating high school students. it seems everything is generated in a garage in america, although as bill foster pointed out, these fab labs and maker fairs were the perhaps the new garages of our

time. representative garamendi, as i said, was among those who spoke about new ways to help traditional manufacturing when he discussed the role our shipbuilding industry plays in helping american businesses move natural gas and other goods to market at home and abroad. that shipbuilding industry was critically important to us winning in world war ii, and now, as mr. garamendi pointed out, it is a shadow of its former self. and we need to rebuild it and we need to be shipping goods on american fleets. these were just some of the things that came up in the hearing, and i encourage all of my colleagues and all americans to go online to democraticwhip.gov and read members' testimony. ms. kuster's testimony is on that. mr. garamendi's and mr. norcross' tms are on the web and you can see their

perspective. add them all together and you see an agenda to create jobs in america. that's what we're focused on. that's what the people want us focused on. that's what we'll work on. that's what make it in america is all about. i want to express my gratitude, again, to all the members who participated in had the first hearing including, of course the leader of this special order, mr. garamendi from california, and i thank him for yielding and i yield back the balance of my time to him. mr. garamendi: mr. hoyer none of this would be happening were it not for your leadership. you brought us together, 34 members of the democratic caucus each with more -- one or more specific pieces of legislation to move the make it in america agenda so that americans can have those middle-class jobs and beyond and above and in the process grow the american economy. it's the fairway to do it. it's the -- it's the fair way to do it.

it's the right way to do it to grow it in a fair way so the middle class is there. it's the future. it's been the past. it can be the future with the legislation. each one of these ideas -- trade, taxes, energy, labor, education, research and infrastructure, the 34 members of your caucus brought forth legislation in each and every one of those areas. mr. hoyer: if the gentleman will yield? mr. garamendi: certainly. mr. hoyer: you know, the last item on there is infrastructure. when you build infrastructure in america you don't create jobs anyplace other than america. we're hopefully going to have a highway bill, and we need a permanent highway bill, a long-term six-year minimum highway bill so we can lend confidence to the marketplace that the infrastructure's going to be in place because we're going to make it in america a good solid competitive infrastructure is absolutely essential. i thank the gentleman for that list. i thank him for his work, and i

thank him for the -- oops. maybe -- i'll say a few things while the gentleman is restoring make it in america to its rightful place. mr. garamendi: i'm going to move this thing along. i see several of our colleagues have joined us here. sheila jackson lee, you said you had a brief presentation. please take the floor and then mr. norcross and then we'll -- marcy kaptur is here from ohio. so here we go. ms. jackson lee: let me add my appreciation as well to be one of the members who joined mr. hoyer five years ago to emphasize that make it in america is a double win. make it in america and we will make it in america, and that is what this message has been and i want to thank my good friend from california for leading this effort. and i just want to read what many of our constituents

appreciate as being part of this make it in america, the fair trade concept, taxes, energy, labor education research and infrastructure. all of these are part if they work fairly for the working man and woman. highlighted "the wall street journal" earlier this year, 2014 marked the best year for job growth in 15 years with employers adding 2.95 million jobs, and the unemployment rate falling to a postrecession low of 5.6%. for the first time since the recession ended, payrolls are expected to grow in all of america's cities and throughout the u.s., they're expected to add another 2.6 million jobs. houston is ranked as a top city for stem occupations, jobs requiring a degree in science technology, engineering and math. and of course, we are engaged in the energy sector. and for that we need employees. all of my colleagues who

believe in make it in america collectively have put in place nearly 14u7bd additional bills that have been intro-- 14 additional bills that have been introduced to focus on make it in america. and as well, all of us have focused on this concept of skills training. i introduced h.r. 73, the america rising act of 2015, which stands for realizing the informational skills and initiative of new graduates establishing a grant program for stipends to assist in the cost of compensation paid by employers to certain recent college graduates and provides funding for their further education in subjects relating to mathematics, science, engineering and technology. but what i want to say this evening is that this is a movement that should continue. i'm very delighted that america recognizes that manufacturing is an economic engine and i want to make mention of the houston community college that

i've had a meeting with over the last week to particularly focus on a new facility that we hope will be finalized that will have automotive technology at the highest level and manufacturing as part of its training. this is to help not only recent graduates or individuals in what we call early college but it's to help adults to be retrained for important elements that will manufacture, something i want to see increased in houston, and as well will have us at the highest levels of technology. it's no longer the auto mechanic, it's the automotive engineer, a person that can deal with the sophisticated electric cars solar driven cars and others that make a difference in our lives. so i want to thank the gentleman for having this very special special order, as he's done over the years and months and to say that we are committed to passing legislation building

infrastructure increasing our education and research and in particular providing a new generation of an opportunity for creating jobs and putting america, as it has been in the past at the top in production, manufacturing, research and certainly technology. with that i thank the gentleman and yield back my time. mr. garamendi: thank you very much, ms. jackson lee. i really appreciate it. as we talk about each of these things, you are talking labor and education and the way they come together and in doing so increasing the productivity, the ability of an american worker to get a job in the new manufacturing world in which we are living. and so these things do come together, all of these pieces of the puzzle. 34 members of the caucus, over 100 pieces of legislation in all of these areas. joining us, mr. norcross, thank you very much for joining us today. you were, i think introduced very nicely by the minority whip and so welcome. mr. norcross: thank you.

we certainly appreciate what you're doing here today and that's highlighting what is going on in america. in south jersey where i am from, born and raised half century ago we knew what it was like to make it in america. i lived in the viktor building where the -- victor building were the victrollas were made. my father's first job is now in the building where i live, which means they are not manufacturing there anymore. during the hay day we built chips at new york chip yard. in -- new york ship yard. in fact that's where the first -- campbell soup, who is still in our city made soups which are now known around the world. but we look at over the last half century and say how things

have changed. many of those jobs have moved out because of bad trade deals. i have many, many empty warehouses and manufacturing plants where once thousands of people worked. but we're on the rise again, and i just want to highlight a couple of items that is going to help us make it in america again. . we have a startup company by dr. sing who was educated at the university of pennsylvania and he's now going to make s.m.r., small mod lar reactors unconditionally safe, clean, carbon-free. and he was looking for a place to make it. he could have gone anywhere in the world. he's coming to camden, new jersey, here in america. why? because of the educational system, because of those men and women that are going to be

trained there. because we know in education, not one size fits all. most parents you hear day in and day out that they want to send their children to college. the fact of the matter is, not everybody wants or needs to go to college. we have those who are serving in the military, those in our trade programs, and we take a look at those trade programs they're the backbone of what's going to be happening in the next generation of making it in america. dr. sing is going to start out with 400 employees and go to 1,000 after a few years, creating these new s.m.r.'s, which is high-tech but very labor-intensive, whether it's art welding electricians, carpenters they all have to have an education. not all of them have to go to college, but those are w.h.o. are going to enkneeing -- but those who are engineering this

obviously do. working with your hands is a noble trade. i like to tell people i started out with an -- started out as an electrician. i'm still an electrician, i just wear a tie. having flexible wage learning like the community clidge system, which i believe is the most -- college system, which i believe is the most affordable quality education that somebody leaving high school can go to you know, not everybody understands when they get out of high school where they want to go. but having that educational system, whether it's through the community college or through an apprenticeship program, is the way you can make it in america. now, when we take a look back over the last 50 years, we've had our ups and downs in america. but we always know the best social program is a job. when you have a job, many of those other issues that you're facing when you're unemployed tend to go away. and when you have that job, you can make it in america. i'd like to thank my colleague from california for having us

down here today, talking about this very important issue, making it in america is about having a job. and when we stay focused on that here in congress, america will win. i yield back. mr. garamendi: i thank you very much, mr. norcross. i knew that you would come out of a family -- i knew that you had come out of a family that was in the building trades. you're an electrician. you're also a member of congress. you're bringing something very valuable and that is hands-on experience in the working world where the middle class has seen their -- part of the american economy stall out. not able to climb ahead. but over the last 20 years we've seen this american middle class basically just barely able to hold its ground. one of the reasons is the enormous decline in the manufacturing industry in this nation. and also that this nation has not been keeping up with the

needs of infrastructure. and so as we look at the make it in america agenda yes, education absolutely important, so that the workers of today and tomorrow are prepared for the kind of jobs that are out there, electricians, i'm sure you can speak to this, when you started in the business, it was one kind of skill set and as you proceeded, you found a need for additional. would you like to talk about how that works? and the way it might integrate with the small modular reactors? mr. norcross: certainly. i appreciate you yielding back. when we look at the educational system apprenticeship programs have been around since the beginning of time. whether it was the shoemaker, the carpenter. i started out, it was a four-year apprenticeship program. today it's up to five years-plus depending on what specialty area you would like to focus on. but those are the jobs that, when you're working, you're going to school, you're paying

your taxes, when you're not working, you're not paying your taxes and the system is a drag. you can't find a better way. when i say the best social program is a job, it's good for america. pays the taxes. that means you're going to afford to send your kids to college if they want to go to college. i have three children. two of them want to go to college. one wanted to become an electrician. they each value what they do so much and they're proud of what they do. mr. garamendi: perhaps it was your testimony at the hearing that mr. hoyer put together. and they were talking about job training programs. and i believe one witness, maybe you, said that the largest technical training program in the nation are the apprenticeship programs nat unions run -- programs that the

unions run. so the electricians union their apprenticeship program, the plumbers union, and steel workers and so forth, each have an apprenticeship training program and when taken together, it is the single largest training -- job training program in the nation. you said you spent some time at that? mr. norcross: it's interesting you bring that up. there's 15 different craft unions and the fact of the matter is sometimes we can't see the forest through the trees. they are one of the largest training -- $1.9 billion a year, privately funded, not through any government funds through the apprenticeship tramming -- training program of those 15 craft unions. it's so important because it's in place, that means that when they're working, they're putting that next generation of people to work. we need people to be in stems, the engineers, but these apprenticeship programs, over 900 sites around the country are training carpenters

plumbers cement masons laborers, each and every day. and they've been doing it. the way we can help make it in america is start the infrastructure up. so that they can start that next generation of folks. because the apprenticeship program only works when the journeyman is teaching the apprentice. mr. garamendi: in terms of public policy, we passed a new piece of legislation, the work force innovation act last year and it seems to me that that piece of legislation, which provides a federal assistance for various kinds of work force preparation education and other activities, to the extent that that can be brought into and connected with the apprenticeship programs that those labor unions that you just described are running out there, we might see even a more robust program within these -- and these are employer and union both of them participating in the

apprenticeship programs. mr. norcross: it's interesting you brought that up today. i spoke in front of a conference and they have a program called helmets to hard hats which is taking those veterans, who are returning home, and looking for an opportunity, and those opportunities aren't always there, but those building trades in new jersey alone over the last four years have taken in 500 veterans into their apprenticeship programs. so it's taking an existing program, giving not a handout but just an opportunity to those vets and they are some of the best apprentices we have ever had and it works extremely well. mr. garamendi: i was at a -- we had a job fair out in california two weeks ago and i was talking to some of the folks that were looking for a job and many of them had gone to the community college taken a preapprenticeship training program so they would be prepared and have the necessary education to go into the apprenticeship programs very, very important part of the make it in america agenda, part of

the education coupled with labor. it is a very, very powerful piece of this. thank you so very much for participanting today and closing comment? mr. norcross: you bring up a good point. just the one issue, the apprenticeship program is give an opportunity to those who might not normally look into it. women, minorities and those who haven't been exposed to the trades. i think it's a great point. do you want to be up there when it's in the middle of the summer, do you want to be out there in the cold? the preatenities program lets them see if this is what they want to do. great opportunity to make it in america with that i thank you for your time. mr. garamendi: i'm going to pass this discussion on to a lady that knows a lot about the manufacturing, she comes from the heart of the manufacturing center in the united states, the great state of ohio, ms. kaptur, thank you so very much for joining us this afternoon. ms. kaptur: i want to thank you, congressman garamendi, for your continuing leadership on jobs in america and make it in

america. it is a pleasure to join also with congressman norcross and shermwhon are here tonight after hours -- sherman who are here tonight after hours. as we attempt to bring the cause of the american people here to our nation's capitol. i want to thank you for the logo of make it in america. we in the midwest would also say, make it and grow it in america. because agriculture is a major underpinning of ohio as well and i know it is of california. i want to begin my remarks tonight by saying that the american economy in a way is upside down. we've seen 2/3 of the manufacturing jobs in america eliminated over the last three decades, and it isn't just because of technology. it's because those jobs have been outsourced. the third world environments where people work for penny-wage jobs and their livelihoods don't really increase, they aren't bettering themselves, they're basically not starving. they certainly don't live a

middle class way of life. but 2/3 of the manufacturing jobs gone in america. and at the same time we see the financial sector growing in power. six banks head quarlt quartered on wall street -- headquartered on wall street mainly controlling the investment that occurs, that allows the outsourcing. the very same characters that brought this economy down. and hurt the world through the development of derivatives. it's been interesting to read about the greek financial crisis and to see that goldman sachs is right in there again creating a derivative instrument that can't hold water. so the intertube is just leaking all over the place. so it's important for the american people to see that manufacturing jobs have gone down, we've lost 2/3 of them and the financial sector meanwhile has gained power. the very same characters that are outsourcing these jobs. because who has the money to invest in third world environments?

it sure isn't the community banks that i represent. now let me point out that over the last 30 years, we haven't had a single year where the united states was able to send more out, export goods, than import from other places. so we've been upside down as an economy now for going on 30 years. and, for my region, that means the average family has had their income go down, their net effective buying power $7,000. the middle class hemorrhages. let's look at the numbers. we've had over $10 trillion of trade deficit since the mid 1970's, when the first free trade agreement was signed. that probably translates, $10 trillion, probably translates into a loss of over 40 million jobs, over that period of time. we're growing now sluggishly because the make it and grow it part of america have been very,

very trimmed-back. you lose 2/3 of your merchandizing jobs, you have growing -- manufacturing jobs, you have growing poverty and you have sinking wages and sidging buyer power across our -- sinking buying power across our country. now, if you look at -- there's a book, i recommend it to everybody, "america theocracy." he talks about the financialization of the u.s. economy. loss of manufacturing jobs, increase of jobs in the financial sector, high rewards for the people that sit at the top, but for everybody else, sinking wages and a shrinking middle class. the derivative instruments that hurt our country and collateralized debt obligations that threw us into a spin back in the -- in 2008, those weren't invented by people in toledo and i doubt they were invented by people in cleveland or central california. they were invented by money

changers and they had figured out how to trade away american jobs, make huge, huge profits for their shareholders at the expense of the rest, of the rest of the american people, the 99%. on agriculture i want to say that what has happened over the same period of time, because we have a vast underpinning of agriculture in this country, but even with it even with it 15% of our food is now imported. it used to be about 3%. start looking at the shelves, you're going, what did we trade away for that or that or that? certainly in pharmaceuticals we've traded away most of those jobs someplace else. and isn't it interesting that the cost of pharmaceuticals hasn't gone down, as we've just seen an a.f.c. large of drugs -- avalanche of drugs coming in here, whether they be generic or brand name, there are people who are financing this

outsourcing and they are sitting fat and happy in the major financial center of our country. i can go through my region i can look at companies like dixon, it didn't get outsourced because of -- or it didn't close its doors in ohio because it couldn't make its crayons and school supplies anymore, it was moved to mexico where it sits next to mexico city, moved from ohio down there. delphi moved from the same general area, port clinton, ohio, ford focus just last week announced 4,000 jobs out of suburban detroit down to mexico. champion spark plug in toledo, closed ac lynn stamping in toledo closed the list goes on and on. . and we say to ourselves,

couldn't be a better ford stamping plant doors shut, jobs gone. 2/3. that's just one part of america. 2/3 of the manufacturing jobs of this country lost. our economy is lopsided. it's benefiting a fufmente we're seeding the field and that's why the american people feel the pinch. i just wanted to make one other important point where the gentleman references research and innovation. there will be a patent bill coming up here very soon, which i hope people will vote against because it will further dampen the ability of individual inventors and those working in our universities inventing the new products of the future and will reward only the big companies. and i say to my colleagues, if you haven't decided how to vote on h.r. , i hope you vote no on what is being called the innovation act, because what it is it is a transfer of more power to the biggest global corporations to say to their patents full steam ahead, but

if you're an individual out there in america or you are a person who doesn't have a whole legal team of lawyers who are at your -- being paid at your behest, you don't have a chance. you won't have a chance with h.r. 9. we have a bill, h.r. 2045, that i hope people will look at as an alternative supported by all the research universities, small inventors across our country who can't afford any longer to put their invention out there because they don't have the legal or financial capacity to defend it. there's something really insidious about what is going on with our patent system and will make it so much harder. i read in our local newspaper the other day, they listed all the patents that had been approved this year over the first half of the year from my part of the country. there wasn't a single individual patent approved. every single patent that was approved belonged to a company that had already been

successful. there wasn't even a university patent approved. i thought, oh, my goodness. this is really not going to support innovation. this only supports the very same big pocketed folks who already hold all the power in this society and have far too much sway in this congress. so i thank the gentleman for allowing me to add my two cents to the discussion this evening and to say the american people deserve a better deal than this. and i hope that members will look at our glass-steagall act as well, that is my bill, elizabeth warren's bill over in the other body, to break up the big banks and to have more democratic activity among the financial institutions of this country and not just lodging over 2/3 of the power in the big six. it's really warping our society and it's making it much less representative. it is harming manufacturing.

it is harming agriculture. it is harming innovation. thank you. thank you congressman garamendi, for the phenomenal work you do and those whose districts have been affected and those that represent all of america, not just the wealthiest part of it. mr. garamendi: thank you for bringing us the message from america's heartland. agriculture is also a manufacturing industry. grow -- food the farmers grow but the processors are manufacturing that and bringing added value. you're quite correct about the escape of capital, using tax policy and trade policy to encourage american companies to take their capital and build overseas leaving american workers behind. ms. kaptur: could i ask the gentleman to yield five seconds? i want to put on the record that our glass-steagall bill to essentially break up the big

banks and take the investment side of the operation away from the prudent banking portion of it is h.r. 381. we have over 60 co-sponsors of our bill here in the house, and i hope you see american people sponsor our glass-steagall restoration act h.r. 381. mr. garamendi: ms. kaptur, thank you so very, very much. you talked about things important along the way. the trade policy, the tax policy, the escape of american capital, leaving american workers behind. economic theory capital, labor, resources. if one of those leaves -- in this case capital, the american worker's left behind. the make it in america agenda is all about rebuilding the foundation of america's economic growth. and we can do that in several ways. i'm going to wrap up with a very quick rendition of several policy opportunities that

present themselves to us. first of all at the bottom of that list -- not because it's at the bottom but because it's just there -- is the issue of infrastructure. we're faced with a huge challenge, one that unfortunately i'm afraid the congress will once again duck the challenge of creating a robust program to revitalize the american infrastructure. infrastructure is the foundation. it's the sanitation, the water systems. it's the roads, the airports. it's the rivers, the ports the transportation systems. the president has introduced in the last congress the grow america act. we now call it the grow america act 2. unfortunately this week tomorrow, our majority, our republican colleagues are failing to address this issue. instead they're going back to a childhood game called kick

the can. in this case, kick the can down the road for another six months instead of putting in place a long-term five or six-year transportation program that can accomplish all of these things -- the rail the buses, the ports, the bridges, the highways, the sanitation systems the communication systems. the leadership in the house on the republican side is simply missing the fundamental necessity of infrastructure. and by the way, this goes back to the founding fathers. george washington asked alexander hamilton to develop an economic plan. he came back with one called manufacturers, and in that was an infrastructure. hamilton said -- alexander hamilton the first secretary of the treasury said, we must build the roads -- postal roads at that time -- we must about the canals and we must build the ports if we're going to

have a strong economy. so the infrastructure is critically important to the make it in america agenda. another one is using our tax dollars. using our tax dollars to build the american economy, to make it in america. this is a story of two bridges. very, very quickly. one bridge on the west coast. this is called the for example-oakland bay bill. a multibillion-dollar project. the other one on the east coast -- and this is on the hudson river in new york city. the new york tapan zee bridge. the san francisco bay bridge, the state of california decided they would seek chinese steel because it was supposed to be 10% cheaper to build the bridge. well, the result was 6,000 jobs

for china a brand new steel mill. the most high-tech steel mill in the world. and for america, taken to the cleaners. it was a significant overrun of multimillions of dollars, a delay of years and years, steel that was shoddy, welds that was shoddy and a lesson for america, spend our tax dollars on american-made equipment and supplies. buy american steel. those 6,000 jobs could have been in america. that steel mill could have been in america and the shoddy work would not have occurred. new york decided to buy american steel. so what happens? on time, under budget 7,7 -- excuse me 7,728 american jobs created. the story of two coasts. california stupid policy.

new york wise policy. spend the american taxpayer dollars on american-made goods and equipment. one final thing, and then i'm going to return this over to the speaker. i don't know if you can see that but that's a liquefied natural gas tanker. america later this year will begin to export natural gas in the form of l.n.g. liquified natural gas. this is a big deal. big potential for the gas industry. they're going to make a lot of money because the cost of natural gas around the world is maybe twice to three times what the price would be in the united states. so the gas companies are all for shipping gas overseas. we need to be careful about this because if we ship too much overseas, we're going to raise the price.

the facility in the gulf coast will take 100 tankers. and i have legislation that says, if we're going to ship a strategic national asset overseas, then we ought to take care of the rest of the national security. shipbuilding absolutely essential. american mariners captains and sea men and women absolutely essential to america's national defense and security. america it in america ship it on american-built tankers. we're talking about tens of thousands of jobs and a supply chain for jobs across america. i just got a few minutes, and i noticed that my colleague from new york, the east-west show is back in force. mr. tonko, thank you for coming in so quietly. i didn't see you on my left side. please join us and let's talk about it make it in america. mr. tonko: well, thank you

representative garamendi. always a pleasure to join you on the house floor to speak to any issue, but in this case make it in america. you know, i am certain through the hour you have talked about the capital and physical infrastructure demands but we also have to highlight the human infrastructure portion of the equation that will resound in the greatest success for the make it in america agenda and that is training the skilled talent that we need. we need to promote the development the advancement of manufacturing. advanced manufacturing, as it's been coined of late. but it's an innovation economy and so that means dealing with issues in production with great precision and that great precision requires extremely gifted skill sets and education. apprenticeship programs and higher ed.

making sure we have a growing force of engineers where we're woefully underproducing the amount of engineers we require. there are bits of legislation that all of us have co-sponsored that we are perhaps leading a sponsor that will encourage the development of the engineering development engineers that we require for our being able to be the great manufacturing nation as we move forward. those are important elements. making certain we have the precision instrumentation that will enable us to, again, compete because we are the cheap -- not the cheapest but the wisest investment that's made. it's not going to be significant by dollar only, but what is the best product, what is the most thoughtful product that is developed for whatever needs society may have? so the engineering component of all of this is very important. the skill set component is very important. as we move forward we need to make sure that human

infrastructure is geared up and ready to go with cutting edge skill sets that speak to today's economy, and that is very important. we have always prided ourselves on a strong work force, a well-trained well-educated, well-equipped force that goes out there and enables us to compete and to compete effectively in a global race on innovation, and that has grown significant over the last decade. we see more and more investment coming in that human infrastructure from nations around the world that will then be competing with this nation to be able to export its goods. so a full compliment of programming, of programs that are essential in policy format and resource advocacy and investing in that make it in america agenda, investment here where there are rightful anticipations of lucrative returns on the taxpayer dollars that are invested. so i thank you for the

laser-sharp focus you put onto make it in america as an agenda and the underscoring of importance you have drawn to manufacturing as a sector. it was walked away from by previous administrations. this administration, the obama administration, has talked about sound investment in advanced manufacturing and enable us to stop the loss of manufacturing jobs where we're losing 1.1 out of four. we're still pretty high in terms of manufacturing jobs, but we have to stop that and the way we do it is by turning it around with policy and resource advocacy and i thank you again for your leadership in this regard. mr. garamendi: mr. tonko, thank you. i know your previous work before you came to congress several years ago was in the state of new york working on the innovation economy and you have certainly ramped up innovation economy in the state of new york and now you're bringing that experience here with legislation. .

the make it in america agenda. i'm going to put it up quickly here, because you talked about this and the make it in america agenda is about rebuilding the middle class. 34 members of the democratic caucus talked last week about their legislation, dealing with trade and taxes, energy, labor education, research and infrastructure, about how that constellation of issues comes together to boost the american middle class to give every american an opportunity for that middle-class job. and i see we are out of time and maybe we are already out of time. so i'm going to say, i want to thank my colleagues, mr. hoyer for leading us in this. mr. tonko, you have 30 seconds to close. mr. tonko: let's move forward with investment. it happens when we have a focus

on where to apply our resources to human infrastructure so as to be the strongest competitor out there in a global race for the kingpin of the innovation economy and whoever wins that race becomes the go-to agent for the worldwide economy. we can't afford to hesitate or fail. thank you for leading us. mr. garamendi: mr. speaker. we yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's policy of january 6, 2015, the chair recognizes the gentleman from california mr. sherman. mr. sherman: revise and stepped. i would like to praise mr. garamendi, the gentleman from california, for this excellent presentation on why we should make it in america. but i'm here today to talk about something that was made in vienna, namely, the iran nuclear deal.

i'm going to start with a few observations and then get to the heart of my remarks. the first observation is that we ought to set the record straight. the sanctions that brought iran to the table were imposed by congress over the objection of the executive branch of government. for 30 years, congress had it right, and for 30 years, the executive branch had it wrong. for 30 years every time we passed sanctions they would be argued against and thwarted and what occurred down, due to the efforts of several administrations. and the only time congress got it wrong is when the house of representatives got it right and passed tough sanctions legislation that went over to the senate where, unfortunately some in the senior body listened to the administrations at the

time and failed to pass our legislation. the second observation i would like to make is that the deal in vienna lifts a number of sanctions, which were not imposed as a result of iran's nuclear activity. it provides greater sanctions' relief than that which was supposed to be provided. i'm in particular note that the arms embargo against iran and -- an iran that has created mischief in syria, yemen and elsewhere will be phased out. and the iran sanctions act will be waived. the iran sanctions act was passed by the congress in the early 1990's. a review of that bill indicates that only one of three reasons it was passed was iran's work with w.m.d.'s and weapons of

mass destruction come in three forms, not only the nuclear but also the chemical and the biological. i would recommend 1/9th reason that congress passed that bill is iran's nuclear program and yet those sanctions are being waived. and we see the sanctions relief is so complete not only are we waiving our secondary sanctions to allow iran to do business with the rest of the world, we are allowing iran to export to the united states. we won't buy their oil, but buy the things we don't need and couldn't sell anywhere else. the next observation i would like to make is that there are those who say that this deal may only work for about 10 years, but the iranian government will get better over the next 10 years. do not hold your breath. the whole purpose of sanctions is to put pressure on the

government which either causes it to change its policy or creates a change in regime. that's what you do when you are trying to force a change in government. showering this government with economic benefits is not going to lead to its destruction or its eclipse. the same look at tehran, what you see is what you get. another observation is about missiles. it is unfortunate that this deal will allow iran in eight years to get more missile technology. there is only one reason for them to be working on them and that is to deliver a nuclear payload to a different continent than their own namely ours, namely europe. there is no other reason. iran is not trying to fly to the moon, but trying to get a nuclear device to north america or europe.

but let us not be sagguined about missiles. a nuclear weapon, they vary in size but they are about the size of a person and you can smuggle one inside the united states about the size of a human being. the heart of our effort has got to be to stop their nuclear weapons program. and in the heart of my speech is to focus on the deal from a nuclear weapons' perspective. now, the political pundits outside this capitol are all trying to make this a -- evaluate the president are you for him, against him. is this a good deal. did the president do a good job. those may be relevant to those seeking ratings, but we in congress have got to deal with a

completely different question, what should congress do at this time under these circumstances in the real world as it exists today where the president has agreed to sign this deal, not as it existed two days ago, not as it existed a decade ago when we should have been enforcing sanctions laws, but what should congress do today? in order to reach that conclusion, we need to look at the overall deal and realize it has different phases. it is a different deal over time. so let us look at the deal from the good, the bad and the ugly. in the first year, the most important good parts occur. iran must ship 90% of its uranium stockpiles out of the country and mothball 2/3 of the centrifuges. as we craft our policy, we

should be loathed to give up those two advantages. we must whenever we focus on anything, say yes there are bad parts of this deal, but 2/3 of the centrifuges, 90% of the stockpiles, that's something we need to be focused on. so that's the good. the bad also occurs in the first year. iran will get its hands on 120 billion-plus dollars of their own money that we have under the sanctions have been able to freeze in various money centers around the world. what will they use this $120 billion for? part of it will go to help their own people because they have raised expectations. a good part will go to graft and corruption in the iranian regime because it is after all the iranian regime. a large portion of that will go

to kill sunni muslims. some of them deserve it, most do not. and what is left over will be used to kill americans and israelis. so there is bad in the first year and good in the first year. but what is truly ugly occurs after 10 years. yet after year 10 iran can have an unlimited number of centrifuges of unlimited quality . as the president himself says, at that point, their breakout time, the amount of time from the day they kick out the inspectors to the day they have enough files aisle material slinches to virtually zero, days for the first bomb a few more days for the second bomb. why is this? because after 10 years, iran will be allowed to create a huge

industrial facility, capable of supporting several electric generation-nuclear plants and it is counterintuitive but true, it takes an awful lot more enrichment to power a nuclear plant than to create a nuclear bomb. we are in a situation where iran has an industrial-sized giant bakery, capable of feeding many of their cities and all they need for a nuclear bomb is a bag full of bread crumbs. obviously, once they go big once they go industrial, once we get to the ugly part of this deal iran is a nuclear power. perhaps not an admitted nuclear, but a nuclear power nevertheless. we are faced with the good the bad and the ugly. but the question is, what should

congress do? one choice before it and i hope it is the choice we will take is to consider a resolution of approval of this deal and to vote it down by an overwhelming majority. what will this do? it will demonstrate for the world that the american people, the american congress and future administrations are not morally or legally bound by this agreement and it will set the stage for a subsequent administration to demand that the limits on iranian centrifuges are continued well past year 10 of this agreement. so the current administration will take advantage of the good. we will suffer the bad, but in the future we will not have to deal with the ugly. the second approach we can take is to consider a resolution of

disapproval. unlike a resolution of approval, a resolution of disapproval,, if adopted would have immediate legal effects under u.s. law. it would blow a hole in the deal, but as i'll get to it, possibly the wrong hole and perhaps no hole at all. because if we were to consider ar resolution of disapproval, i think it would pass this house. i think it might get 60 votes in the other body. the president has announced he will veto it. and then -- as far as i can tell, we would not override the veto. now, this would have a similar legal effect to us voting down a resolution of approval. after all a majority of the house and senate would have voted to disapprove. but that last picture would be a picture of the proponents of

this agreement winning by not losing more than 2/3 of the vote. that conveys in the most confused way the fact that this agreement will not be binding on future administrations and future congresses. and there is of course the possibility that we somehow override a presidential veto. that does not put us back where we were yesterday. that does not re-institute sanctions. that does not create a good platform for creating a better deal because by then, many u.n. sanctions will be lifted. our trading partners in europe will already be doing business. the president will have told the world that iran is acting reasonably and congress is acting unreasonably. under such a circumstance, iran would get the lion's share of

sanction's relief and would be denied because u.s. law would remain in effect. but iran would have every excuse not to deliver the important good parts of this deal, not to ship their uranium stockpiles out of the country, not to decommission 2/3 of their centrifuges. so if we so if we pass over a presidential veto a resolution of disapproval, we have not blown up the deal and taken us back to where we had the deal. rather we have created a circumstance where iran has literally split the u.s. government. with congress pushing in one direction, the president pushing in another direction, and every nation in the world taking its cue from the president. instead i suggest that we would be in a stronger position if we

demonstrate to the world that congress does not accept this agreement it is not binding on the american people, the president may not be legally constrained for the remainder of his term in implementing this deal, getting us the good suffering the bad, but knowing that the ugly is something that needs to be confronted by another administration. it is another administration that will need to prevent iran from claiming that it will have the right to unlimited centrifuges 10 years from now but instead demanding a renegotiation of this deal. finally, the sanctions relief promised in vienna is relief only from those sanctions due to iran's nuclear program. it is not a get out of jail free card. it is not a protection and grant

of authority to tehran to engage in all kinds of evil activity in the middle east and elsewhere. if iran continues to support isaud, we need to impose -- assad, we need to impose addition sanctions for that reason. if they continue to destabilize yemen, we need to impose sanctions for that reason. and we cannot give iran a free pass just because they've entered into this particular deal. this is not rapprochement with iran. this is a deal that -- that has in its first year the good and the bad and in its 10th year is so ugly we have to demand additional negotiations. and when we make that demand, we need to make that demand in the voice of a new -- of a president and a future administration who is determined to say that iran can never have an unlimited number of centrifuges. iran can never have an unlimited

quality of centrifuges. iran can never be a few days from a nuclear weapon. and that in order to prevent that, we have the legal right to put all options on the table. with that i yield back and see nothing one else on the floor to make the motion, i move now that the house adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until

>> now the president had previously said that this deal only would consider nuclear sanctions, but to some in congress are saying missiles should not be lifted as part of the deal, so there could be some controversy and would be interesting to see if it plays some democrats who previously declared their position who will come out against the deal. >> you wrote about president obama. he said he would veto any legislation that blocks this iran deal. what can you tell us from the white house angle of things? >> that veto threat was long

assumed. the president has always had the upper hand here in foreign policy. what congress did is they gave themselves a little bit more authority to review the deal, but in order to stop the deal from going forward to stop the lifting of sanctions, it's going to require the house and the senate to have a 2/3 majority to overcome the veto. that is going to be pretty difficult. we saw that shortly after the supreme agreement was announced about 150 house democrats signed a letter saying that so long as the final deal follows the april agreement, they would stand with the president in helping him to hold a veto. it's going to be pretty hard for opponents of this deal to actually block it. it's not impossible, but it's going to be pretty hard. >> let's focus in on a couple of

lawmakers, chair of the foreign relations committee, bob corker and the ranking member, ben cardin what have their reactions been or any other democrats or republicans? >> senator corker came out saying that he was deeply skeptical that a deal with iran would hold. he didn't completely condemn the deal but he wanted to review it and hold hearings on the matter. i do not know what ben cardin said. >> what's the timetable? when will congress get to see the text of this deal and then moving forward, what's the time frame? >> according to the statement released by the iranians and european members, we should see the full text of the deal released later today. i don't know if that means it will be formally sent to congress, but should be online the main text.

>> and rachel, a lot of information here. we are going to keep following you on twitter and you are reporting. thanks so much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> the news on the deal broke overnight from vienna and at 7:00 president obama announced that the u.s. and the negotiating partners reached an agreement over iran's nuclear program. the president praised the deal and would veto any measure from congress. his announcement from the white house is 15 minutes. president obama: today after two years of negotiations, the united states, together with our international partners has achieved something that decades of animosity has not, a comprehensive long-term deal with iran that will prevent it

from obtaining a nuclear weapon. this deal demonstrates that american ms. pelosi: can bring about change, change that makes our country safer and more secure. this deal is in line with a tradition of american leadership. it's now more than 50 years since president kennedy stood before the american people and said let us never negotiate out of fear but let us never fear to negotiate. he was speaking then about the need for discussions between the united states and the soviet union which led to efforts to restrict the spread of nuclear weapons. in those days, the risk was a stroffic nuclear war. in our time, the risk is that nuclear weapons will spread to more and more countries, particularly in the middle east the most volatile region in our world. today, because americans negotiated from a position of strength and principle, we have

stopped the spread of nuclear weapons in this region. because of this deal, the international community will be able to verify that the islamic republic of iran will not develop a nuclear weapon. this deal meets every single one of the bottom lines that we established when we achieved a framework earlier this spring. every pathway to a nuclear weapon is cut off. and the inspection and transparency regime necessary to verify that objective will be put in place. because of this deal iran will not produce the highly enriched uranium and weapons-grade plutonium that form the materials necessary for a nuclear bomb. because of this deal, iran will remove 2/3 of its installed centrifuges, the machines necessary to produce highly enriched uranium for a bomb and store them under constant international supervision.

iran will not use its advanced centrifuges to produce uranium for the next decade and will get 98% of its stockpile of enrichede uranium. iran currently has a stockpile that can produce up to 10 nuclear weapons. because of this deal that stockpile will be reduced to a fraction of what would be required. this stockpile limitation will last for 15 years. iran will modify the core of its reactor in iraq. it will not produce weapons-grade plutonium and has agreed to send it out of the country for at least the next 15 years, iran will not build any new heavy water reactors. because of this deal, we will for the first time be in a position to verify all of these commitments. that means this deal is not

built on trust. it is built on verification. inspectors will have 24/7 access to iran's key nuclear facility. we will have its uranium mines and mills and conversion facility and its centrifuge manufacturing and storage facilities. this ensures that iran will not be able to divert materials. some of these transparency measures will be in place for 25 years. because of this deal, inspectors will be able to access any suspicious location, put simply, the organization responsible for the inspections will have access where necessary when necessary. that arrangement is permanent. and the iaea has reached an agreement with iran to get access that it needs to complete its investigation into the possible of military dimensions

of iran's past military research. iran is prohibited from pursuing a weapon, which provided the basis for the international community's efforts to apply pressure on iran. as iran takes steps to implement this deal, it will rereceive relief from the sanctions we put in place because of iran's nuclear program. both america's own sanctions and sanctions imposed by the united nations' security council. iran must complete steps before it receives new sanctions relief. and over the course of the next decade, iran must abide by the deal before additional sanctions are lifted, including for five years restrictions related to arms and eight years related to ballistic missiles. this will be memorialized and

endorsed in a united nations security council resolution. if iran violates, all these will snap back into place. there are very real consequences for a violation. that's the deal. it has the full backing of the international community. congress will now have an opportunity to review the details and my administration will provide extensive briefings as this moves forward. as the american people and congress will review the details, consider what happens in a world without this deal. without this deal, there is no scenario where the world joins us in sanctioning iran until it completely dismantles its nuclear program. nothing suggests that it will recap pit you late under that pressure and the world would not

support to permanently iran into sanctions. and that is what we have done. without this deal, there would be no agreed-upon limitations for the iran nuclear program. iran could produce, operate and test more and more centrifuges. iran could produce plutonium for a bomb and we would not have any of the inspections to allow us to detect a covert nuclear weapons program. no deal means no lasting deal. such a scenario would make it more likely that other countries would feel compelled. threatening a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region of the world and presents the united states to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. i have been president and

commander of chief for over six years. the gravest decision that any president has to make. many times in multiple countries, i have decided to use force. i will never hesitate to do so when it is in our national security interests. i strongly believe that our national security interests now depends upon presenting iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, which means that without a diplomatic resolution, neither i nor a future president would face a decision about whether or not tore obtain a nuclear weapon or to use our military to stop it, but simply no deal means a greater chance of more war in the middle east. moreover, we give nothing up by testing whether or not this problem can be solved

peacefully. if iran violates the deal, the same options that are available to me today will be available to any u.s. president in the future i have no doubt 10, 15 years from now, the person who holds this office will be in a far stronger position and with the inspections and transparency that allow us to monitor the iranian program. for this reason, i believe that it would be irresponsible to walk away from this deal. but, on such a tough issue, it is important for the american people and representatives in congress get a full opportunity to review the deal. after all, the details matter. and we have had some of the finest nuclear scientists in the world working through those details. and we are dealing with a country, iran, that has been a sworn adversary of the united states for over 35 years. so i welcome a robust debate in

congress and i welcome scrutiny of the details of this agreement. i will remind congress that you don't make deals like this with your friends. we negotiated arms control agreements with the soviet union when that nation was committed to our destruction. and those agreements ultimately made us safer. i'm confident that this agreement will meet the national security interests of the united states and our allies. i will veto any legislation that prevents the successful implementation of this deal. we do not have to accept an inevitable spiral into conflict. we certainly shouldn't seek it. and precisely because the stakes are so high, this is not the time for politics or posturing. tough talk from washington does not solve problems. hard-knows diplomacy leadership that has united the world's major powers offers a more

effective way to verify that iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapon. now that doesn't mean that this deal with resolve all of our differences with iran. we share the concerns expressed by the middle east about iran's support for terrorism and use of proxies to destabilize the priege. but that is why we are taking this step, because an iran armed with a nuclear weapon would be far more destabilizing to our friends and to the world. meanwhile, we will maintain our own sanctions related to iran's support. we will continue our unprecedented efforts to strengthen israel's security efforts that go beyond what any administration has done before and we will continue the work we did at camp david to elevate our partnership with the gulf states

to counter threats from iran or terrorist groups like isil. however, i believe we must continue to test whether or not this region which has known so much suffering, so much bloodshed, can move in a different direction. time and again i have made clear to the iranian people we will be open to engagement on the basis of mutual interests and respect. our differences are real. and the difficult history between our nations cannot be ignored. but it is possible to change. the path of violence and rigid ideology, of foreign policy based on threats to attack your neighbors or eradicate israel, that's a dead end. a different path, one of tolerance and one of peaceful resolution of conflict leads more integration into the global economy and more engagement with

the ninl community and the iranian people to prosper and thrive. this deal offers an opportunity to move in a new direction. we should seize it. we have come a long way to reach this point. decades of an iranian nuclear program, many years of sanctions and many months of intense negotiations. today, i want to thank the members of congress from both parties who help put us in place the sanctions as well as the other countries who joined us in that effort. i want to thank our negotiating partners united kingdom, france germany russia, china and european union for our unity which showed that the world can do remarkable things when we share what we can do when we do not split apart. i thank the american negotiating

team. we had a team of experts working for several weeks including our secretary of energy and i want to particularly thank john kerry, our secretary of state, who began his service to this country more than four decades ago when he put on our uniform and went off to war. he is making our country safer through strong and safer american diplomacy. history shows that america leads with our might and our principles. it shows that we are stronger not when we are alone but when we bring the world together. today's announcement marks one more chapter in this pursuit of a safer and more helpful, more hopeful world. thank you. god bless you. and god bless the united states of america. [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> president obama joined by the vice president about 7:00 a.m. eastern this morning. iranian president also spoke to his nation today. announcing that all sanctions against iran would be lifted following that agreement over its nuclear agreement with the p-5 plus one countries. his speech is courtesy of iran's english language news channel. it's 38 minutes.

>> just recited -- greetings to to the prophet muhammad and his the imam of the martyrs, particularly the nuclear

martyrs. salutations on the imam of the time. it is a month of blessings. it's a month of seeking proximity to god almighty. and this month's rear of rama dan was i heard based on what i have eye heard, many people in the prayers in the night of the grand neist they pray to god almighty praying for iran's nuclear negotiating team, in order to reach a good deal and i

announce to great nation of iran that god has accepted their prayers and has responded to their prayers. today we are in a critical juncture in the history -- with respect to the history of our country and our revolution and also the conditions that prevails in the region. until fact, in the past 12 years that -- in fact witnessed illusions by the major powers and such illusions were spread by them in the global community and for the public opinion. you see that this page has turned, in fact, a new chapter

has been opened. this new chapter is based upon the fact that the solution that are short of roots with less costs in order to come up with solutions for the problems. speaking of iran's important nuclear issue on the one hand turning into a political and international issue. to the extent that, it was

raised that chapter 7 of the u.n. and there were several resolutions calling for sanctions against iran. and on the other hand, the issue has turned into a subject for spreading iranaphobia, claiming that iran is after manufacturing nuclear weapons or w.m.d.'s and on the other hand, you see that from the view of science and technology and development, from the view of research and development of scientific progress, this was an important issue for us and it has turned into a subject related to our national pride and dignity. economically speaking those

imposing sanctions have sought to put us under pressure, and that has created a difficult situation, a difficult condition in society as i had earlier said the sanctions regime was never successful, but at the same time , it has affected peoples' lives. i'm pleased that today after 23 months of negotiations by the islamic republic of iran with six world powers, today, we have managed to reach a new point of

course, the month has always been a month of blessing for the administration and it's been a fateful month and the day of the month of r mp amadan was the day of invest titure and the oath taking and today you see that today is the day for the deal reached between iran and six world powers concerning the joint plan of action. in order to resolve this nuclear issue, we had to take the

necessary steps in different sectors. from the political point of view , we had to make the necessary political arrangements from the view of the public opinion in order to know that through negotiators, i'm going to read the text of statements. to negotiate means to bargain, means that you give money and you have a desire. we were not after benefiting from charities.

we were after negotiating. we were after protecting our national interests and we were after engaging in a just bargaining process in order to maintain our national interests. we have always stressed that this is not going to be a win-lose negotiation. it's not -- i mean it's not that you see one side becoming a winner becoming victorious. if it's a win-lose negotiation, it's not going to be sustainable agreement. we will not come up with a sustainable agreement. in order to obtain the sustainable agreement, they should be a win-win situation for both parties and both sides. we did clarify with our

gashteors and have started the talks and negotiations since 23 months ago in order to have an achievement in the course of negotiations, we were in need of domestic and international consensus. it is quite clear that politicians, associations and political factions, they do not share common views, but with respect to subjects pertaining to our national interests and national security security and national development and nuclear issues relating to our national security it's related to national development and also it's related to our national interests.

so, you see that fortunately -- free democratic atmosphere prevailing in our society, we managed to reach a consensus in this regard. the path of negotiations were from the very beginning, 12 years ago, but 12 years ago, based on the view of the leader of the islamic revolution, the path of negotiations started from the very first day and we have been negotiating since 2002 in tehran or the european capitals, we have been witnessing these negotiations

and we continue to talk. in the course of the 2013 presidential elections, our people expressed views and explicitly said we want an administration that would actually protect the nuclear achievements of the country, along with protecting peace and contributing to the country's development and also profit welfare. and this was the path that the administration pursued. of course, the great nation of iran is a symbol of courtesy and

logic and rationality. from the very first day on the day of the oath taking ceremony, i said that the west can interact with us provided that it sets aside and eliminates the approach of intimidation of threats and instead the west should choose the path of dignity and respect. what we have attained today as a deal within the framework of the comprehensive joint plan of action, it has its roots in iran's interaction and also dignity shown by the people of the plus-one group. and in the absence of these parameters, we wouldn't have been able to come up with any

achievement. in the meantime, in order to gain success in the course of negotiations, we had to be able to actually improve our economy under sanctions and in the conditions of speculation. when we started the negotiations , we had an inflation rate above 40% and our economic growth rate was minus 6.8%. but in the course of negotiations by proving our economic condition we managed to contain the inflation and we come up with a positive economic growth, and this was the strongest message conveyed by the 11th administration, strongest message sent by us to

the p-5, plus one countries. what matters the most was the steadfastness and patience and resistance shown by the courageous nation of iran. and today, with the grace of god , has been a year of steadfastness and resistance and at the same time brought about victory and success for us and this was an indication of people of steadfastness and resistance and brought the other party to the negotiation table. in the course of these negotiations, we were pursuing four objectives. the first objective was to protect our nuclear capability

and technologies and even nuclear activities, to continue such activities inside the country. the second objective was to actually put an end to the inhumane and tyrannical sanctions. the third objective was to address all the resolutions that from our point of view, those were illegal resolutions. we were after illegal resolutions by the u.n. security council. and the fourth objective was to actually take -- take the nuclear docs out of chapter 7 and out of the u.n. embassy and

on the deal reached today and the on the joint comprehensive plan of action are the four objectives have been attained. of course in the past 23 months, in order to observe the red line and at the same time gain our objectives, you are aware that an extraordinary effort was made by iranian diplomats and lawyers and economists and also nuclear scientists. under initial dates of the negotiations, the other party told us that during the period of limitation and you see that based on the deal, set that period of limitation to be eight

years with this period of limitation, they said iran should only have 100 centrifuges after continued discussions and debate they came up with a figure of 1,000 centrifuges and had a great deal of resistance. they said that they will agree with 4,000 centrifuges something that cannot be changed anymore, but today, the deal was reached and based on this deal, we have 6,000 centrifuges 5,000 in that time and 1,000. these centrifuges will remain and all the centrifuges in that time will continue their enrichment activities. they said that that the limitation period must be set for 20 to 25 years.

later, they said, 20 plus 10 years and then said 20 years must be -- their final view point, but this figure was reduced to -- was originally reduced to 10 years and in the course of the final negotiations, the figure was reduced to eight years, concerning research and development, they said that research and development must be only about ir-1. feasible concerning ir-1. it was a ridiculous statement and it was illogical because we already had ir-1 and it was operating and did not make any sense. later they said, it has to be ir-2 and eventually, they said

it must not go beyond ir-8. and what we were seeking is our stakes in ir-8 and wanted a deal so on the day of the implementation of the deal, the u.s. would be inguessed into ir-8. and today we have attained such a deal today. regarding -- they said, a reactor can remain, but heavy water has no meaning there, it's meaningless and they consider it a red line. but we have reached a deal today. and based on this deal it has been explicitly made to heavy water and that the reactor will

be completed with heavy water based on the deal. it's difficult to hear the name do not name it -- we won't hear it. and then they said that -- and they said that there should be no centrifuges and also it's going to be a recent center for isotopes and they said one cascade should remain. let me tell that you that there within one of the sent funals and part of it will be allocated to r&d concerning

sustainable eyes taupes. regarding the annulment or lifting of sanctions they said that the sanctions will not be lifted at once and they said that the sanctions must be lifted step by step and several months in order to build trust and then we will gradually lift the sanctions. we are not going to lift the sanctions, do not speak of lifting up sanctions, they said the sanctions have to be first suspended and then in years to come, if the iaea gave a positive report, then the sanctions would be lifted step by step. today i announced to the great navings iran that based on this deal and the day of implementation of the deal, all the sanctions, even arms embargos and even missile -relative sanctions, that, as

stipulated by the resolution, would all be lifted and all the financial and banking sanctions, sanctions related to insurance, transportation and also sanctions related to refineries and valuable metals, precious metals, all the economic sanctions will be fully lifted. they will be lifted, not suspended. and even the arms embargo will be eliminated and there will be a sort of limitation for five years and speaking of commodities or dual use commodities or goods, there will be a committee that the case will be looked into by that committee and in this way regarding the u.n.s remain

lusion, they said that how can we anal a resolution that has not been implemented, and they told us to implement these resolutions for at least six months and in this way the resolutioning will be analed. based on today's deal and the upcoming days, when this deal is endorsed by the u.n. all the previous six resolutions will be analed. and also regarding the nuclear iran in order to take it out of the u.n., they said that the iaea should present a report that will include a 20-year period, but today, without regard without considering that report by the iaea, after the implementation of the deal

it will be taken out after 10 years. we may be asked whether this deal is based upon the confidence and trust in the group of countries and if it was the case, then there's no need for 23 months of negotiations and we had 1 nights of continued negotiation -- 1 nights of continued negotiations -- 18 nights of continued negotiations. speaking of trust, the implementation of this deal will be the starting point for a test if this deal is precisely implemented every step of the implementation of this deal can gradually -- can

gradually eliminate mistrust. it is quite clear that based on -- we're going to start a procedure by closely monitoring the implementation of this deal . and of course there are countries that have a very bad record, some of these countries have a bad record concerning iran and some of them do not have a good record concerning iran. of course, this is a mutual deal ary sip rocal deal. we have -- a reciprocal deal. we have already examined such a deal that was an entering agreement reached in geneva. regarding -- we took the necessary steps for obtaining the final deal. today the implementation of the deal is reciprocal if they

abide and adhere to this deal we will also comply with it. the iranian nation has always shown this, it has always fulfilled its promise, in the course of history, and we will fulfill our promise provided that the other party would also fulfill its promises. of course there are several steps and stages with respect to the deal today was actually the first stage. that means all the seven countries have agreed on annexes and they have actually agreed with full text and the annexes of the deal. speaking of the next stage in

the days to come, the text of the deal and also the text that has been prepared for the unsc, it has to be endorsed by the u.n. security council based on article 25 not in chapter seven. and in case of relating to annulment of resolutions relating to article 41. later there are stages in other countries and these stages have to continue and after the termination of these stages on a day, that is the day known as the day of agreement, in fact today was the day of a joint statement.

several days later when the u.n. or the unsc endorses the statement, that will be the day of finalizing of agreement -- the agreement after almost two -- approximately two months, we will reach that day of agreement and the day of agreement is a day when the e.u. and the u.s. will openly announce and declare the lifting of all sanctions and openly announce the decisions. and then from that day, iran's measures will begin and these measures will be accompanied with their executive actions, with the lifting of the sanctions. and that's going to take up some time. that may also take two months.

that will be the day of the implementation of the deal. so several months from now we will have the day for the full implementation of the deal, we have these stages before us and of course this is the most important day in the past 12 years. today is a day that historically speaking, major world countries and powers have recognized iran's nuclear program. today's the day that after 12 years the world powers have announced that regarding nuclear technology and modern technologies they will help iran and today's the day that

world powers have announced that all sanctions will be lifted and all tyrannical resolutions will be analed and a normal situation will -- analed and a normal situation -- annulled and a normal situation will prevail. today is an end, today marks an end to acts of tyranny and oppression against the great nation of iran and at the same time it's the starting point for a new trend in order to commence new cooperation at the global level. speaking of the people of tehran and other cities, they

are witnessing that the change of sanctions have been torn apart -- chains of sanctions have basketball torn -- have been torn apart and a they are happy about this and the people of gaza and the west bank and the people of lebanon, they are also happy. because the usurper zionist regime made few tile efforts made futile efforts in the past 23 months and all these futile efforts have been crushed and defeated and the regional nations are also pleased because many baseless pretexts for acts of tyranny against the region claiming that iran is

after manufacturing a nuclear weapon a nuclear bomb, they will all be pre-- all these pretexts will come to an end if some of the countries want to announce that we prevented iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon . the whole world knows very well that the manufacturing of a nuclear bomb based on a fatwa by the leader is considered as haram, forbidden by religion, and also a wrong action. iran has never sought to manufacture a nuclear weapon and will never seek manufacturing a nuclear weapon. in case of an agreement or the be a sense of an agreement. so if they want to speak of an achievement, they should speak

of a real achievement. the real achievement is that a new atmosphere has been created in the region for the sake of cooperation at the regional and global levels. i deem it necessary here to thank all those people who have played their role in order to attain this historic deal. i wish to appreciate the great nation of iran for its steadfastness and resistance in the past 12 years in the face of pressures and i wish to thank the leader of the islamic revolution who guided us during

hardships and he guided the nation and the administration through his prudence and provided us guidelines and he also shouldered a heavy burden. i also wish to thank the parliament, the speaker of the parliament the judiciary, the judiciary chief, the armed forces all those who supported the nation, the government and the islamic establishment, the expediency council, the experts, the seminaries, the solvers -- the sources of

emulation, academics, young people, women and all the people from different walks of life, i wish to appreciate them all and their smiles have always given us hope and their decisions have always empowered us. i declare this, that in case of -- everyone is free to criticize but i will not allow anyone to destroy people's hope . people's hope for economic prosperity people's hope for peace and security. i will not -- peace of security in the region of the world i will not allow anyone to

destroy such a hope through lying, by lying or leveling allegations. i will not allow anyone to harm people's trust. today is not the end day, actually. today is the day of -- it's a day that marks the starting point, a starting point for a new move, a new dynamism and exuberance starting today for a new hope a better future for our young people. and a starting point for a more rapid move for the country -- for our great country, iran, for its development and progress. in conclusion, i wish to address the regional and neighboring countries. do not be deceived by the

propaganda of the zionist regime. and the ill wishers of this nation. iran and iran's power is your power and might. we consider regional security as our own security, we consider stability of regional states our own stability, we consider science, knowledge and our development, these are -- our scientific progress, these are all to the benefit of neighboring and regional states. iran has not been after w.m.d.'s and is not after w.m.d.'s, will not be after w.m.d.'s. iran has not been and is not after, will not be after putting pressure on regional states. the country, speaking of our -- we see a new chapter has been opened in our relations with

you, we call for greater cordiality, greater brotherhood, more unity and further expansion of relations. thank you very much, the great nation of iran. we look forward to your further progress and dynamism and we will tread interest this path successfully to its end with your help. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> next, reaction from house republican leaders to the iran nuclear deal. they also talk about a republican water measure expected on the house floor later this week. this briefing is about 10 minutes.

speaker boehner: at the outset of the iran negotiations, the obama administration said that a good deal would affirm that iran does not have the right to enrich. they also said that keeping sanctions in place until iran met concrete verifiable standards. and they believed that they had to stop iran's drive for a nuclear bomb. the president has abandoned all of those goals and that's why the deal that we have out there, in my view, from what i know thus far, is unacceptable. it's going to hand a dangerous regime billions of dollars in sanctions relief while paving the way for a nuclear iran. this isn't about democrats or republicans. it's not a partisan issue at

all. it's about right versus wrong. and we're going to do everything we can to get to the details and if in fact it's as bad a deal as i think it is at this moment, we'll do everything we can to stop it. >> the president announced this morning an agreement with nuclear weapons with iran. mr. mccarthy: history has always proven peace without freedom is meaningless. congress will have a role. we'll look at every detail. we'll look at the future. we'll look at the criteria. and we will have a say. there's another bill that will be on the floor this week, it brings a great interest to many throughout the country. it deals with the water issue through the west. i want to congratulate david valadao. one thing you have to look at, if you're from california, the challenge that we have. the challenge does not have to be as great as it is. the last two congresses, with republicans in control we passed the bill that would give us greater reserves to be able

to deal with the drought. unfortunately the senate never took it up. the president felt this issue was so great that he took air force one and he flew to california. he walked the ar i had land, the dry land, with the farmers and he said he would do something about it. but nothing has been done. now is their moment, that they can come to an agreement dealing with an issue that affect it's all. -- affects all. in california, this bill is very simple it. does four things -- simple. it does four things. allows water to flow through the delta, provides greater storage from those that we have promised for years in the past, that have just stayed in a stalemate. increased the reservoirs that we have today. for the last 30 years, you have built no new ones but the population has continued to grow in california. protect the water rights and the state project. it's simple, it's commonsense and david valadao has led the charge to make a real difference.

>> it's clear that the administration wanted to deal with iran at any cost and unfortunately they got a deal with iran at a dangerously high cost. mr. scalise: i think history will look back, if this is able to go forward, on this bad deal as the sanctions beginning of iran's paggets to a nuclear weapon. and that's dangerous not only for america, but for all of our allies throughout the middle east especially israel. we will fight hard to reject this deal using every tool we have. >> we are a little over six months into america's new congress and on issue after issue, what you have seen is we are promoting solutions 21st century solutions to the challenges that americans face all across the country. we trust people to make better decisions for themselves and the federal -- than the federal government ever will and our goal is to empower people, empower families, empower communities to be able to make those best decisions. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: just

look at the student success act. which is about empowering local leaders, parents, teachers and students. last week we passed by big bipartisan support the 21st century cures act which is gisksing hope to millions of americans for life-saving innovation. we passed the resilient federal forest act which is a bipartisan collaborative approach to ensuring better management of our forests in reducing the likelihood of catastrophic fire. we passed the u.s. freedom act, which ended bulk collection of america's phone data. and we've made veterans a priority. unanimously passing the clay hunt suicide prevention act and the hire more heroes act. i'm proud of the work that we've done over the first six months and confident that we will continue to do more work to improve people's lives in eastern washington and all across this country.

>> over the past six months the house has stripped away needless regulations passed a budget that achieves balance, passed new tools to fight human trafficking reformed s.g.r. so our doctors can continue to afford to provide services to medicare patients, pushed for job-creating policies like the keystone x.l. pipeline and protected college savings plans for hardworking families trying to ensure a better life for their kids. mr. jenkins: and this week the house will -- ms. jenkins: and this week the house will advance more regulations to help our veterans with the veterans entrepreneurship act so that our veterans have the support they deserve to start their own business and succeed. it's amazing what we can do in congress when we put the priorities of the american people first, not the priorities of bureaucrats in washington. this is just a start. house republicans will continue our work to pass solutions that

bring increased prosperity promote achievement and build the opportunity economy the american people deserve. >> so this week my bill comes up. 29 . this bill is something that's very personal to me because i'm a farm. i grew up in the central valley. decided to run for congress. but my background is still agriculture, i still farm to this day. and watching all my friends and neighbors, the people living in my community, suffer because of the regulations that are passed by this building, we're trying to change that. mr. valadao: we've got a new piece of legislation that really makes a different but to the folks that -- difference but to the folks who live in the valley when you look around to all the folks who have now lost their jobs, i mean, we've got people living in shacks alongside of the road and it's gotten to that point where we're trucking water to some of these homes. it's a real dire situation. and for most people around the nation, they think this doesn't affect them, you've got to remember that we grow food. we grow food for everybody around the nation.

this is having a real impact. i know every mother, every father out there, when they're budgeting what money they have to spend, they look at what they spend on groceries and this has had a real impact. food prices have risen. this has a direct effect on that side of it. this is a bill that respects the nation as a -- effects the nation as a whole. it's very important that we get this legislation passed, very important that the senate takes it up and it's very important that the president signs this. because there's water that we did have this year. we are in a drought and the excuse of being in a drought does not work anymore. we had opportunities this past winter, even in a dry year, where there was water that was going through the delta and we had an opportunity to pump some of that water and actually help owe live -- alleviate the situation we have in the valley and that wasn't taken up because of bad policy that we can fix in this house this week. so thank you. questioner: [inaudible]

do you intend to pressure democrats -- [inaudible] speaker boehner: once the agreement is submitted formally, congress will have 60 days to review it and then to pass judgment on it. we haven't made any decisions in terms of how we will proceed or when we will proceed. but i think it's pretty clear, it should be clear that we do intend to act. questioner: [inaudible] speaker boehner: there will be a lot of time for people to look at the details of this agreement and come to a decision. questioner: [inaudible] it

sounds like you've already rejected it. speaker boehner: based on what i know now it doesn't look like a very good deal. i want to review all the facts. but based on what i know, i'm highly skeptical at best. questioner: [inaudible] -- what is the prognosis for -- [inaudible] >> in the last few congresses we've passed legislation but this past election cycle things have changed. mr. valadao: we have new leadership there and i do believe there's a real opportunity to get it done. the bill's going to pass the way it passes in its current form off the house floor. what happens in the senate is still up in the air. we do believe we have some support over there. questioner: [inaudible] speaker boehner: i wonder if she brought her emails with

her. questioner: [inaudible] speaker boehner: there were an awful lot of if's and and's and but's there so i think i'll pass on that. welcome to the capitol. if hillary clinton wants the benghazi committee to finish their work, she could help them by turning over all of her emails sooner rather than later. questioner: last week -- [inaudible] speaker boehner: we had a very good meeting with the chairman last week and frankly the week before. there's a lot of issues that -- a lot of moving parts around here.

i think he understands that it may not have been his preference, but it's clearly the congress' preference in terms of how we proceed. spending was offset by other reductions in mandatory spending and we have a good relationship but we keep working on it. questioner: did obama or anyone from the administration tell you -- [inaudible] speaker boehner: the president called me last night and toldmy i should expect an agreement -- told me i should expect an agreement in his words was imminent. i said i was skeptical. thank you. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> now reaction from presidential candidate and former secretary of state hillary clinton to the iran deal. she met with house democrats on

capitol hill and is introduced by minority leader nancy pelosi. ms. pelosi: here we are. good morning everyone. today was, as you can imagine, a very special occasion from for the house democratic caucus. -- for the house democratic caucus. we were pleased to welcome in the fullest sense of that word secretary hillary clinton to our caucus for a discussion of how we go forward. a good deal of time in the caucus was spent on the economy, the creation of jobs, entrepreneurship and all that goes into making that a success for our country. the secretary pleased the members with her discussion about fairness and growth, growth and fairness, how they are connected. as is always with our caucus it was very substantive. members are knowledgeable about their issues and relationships between investing in our children and their education

and the success of our economy. the success of women when bim succeed -- women, when women succeed, america succeeds, very important. it won't surprise you to know that the subject of iran also came up during the discussion as part of it. but overwhelmingly our discussion was about the economy. and so again in gratitude and in most welcoming spirit, it is my honor to present to you the secretary of state, the former secretary of state, candidate for president of the united states who many of you heard me say over and over again when she enters the oval office, she'd be one of the most prepared people to do so in recent history. with that i present hillary clinton. mrs. clinton: i want to thank leader pelosi and the entire cause can you -- caucus for welcoming me so warmly and having such a positive, robust discussion about the issues that people around the country are talking to me about and in

particular giving me a chance to talk further about the economic speech with the agenda that i laid out yesterday, for strong growth, for fair growth and for long-term growth. as the leader said, iran did obviously come up. this is a very important moment. the president called me late last night to tell me that agreement had been reached. i applaud him and both secretary kerry and secretary moniz for their extraordinary efforts in bringing about this conclusion. based on what i know now and i will be being briefed as soon as i finish addressing you, this is an important step in putting the lid on iran's nuclear program. there will be a number of

issues that have to be addressed. i want to just mention two. the first is enforcement. this agreement will have to be enforced vigorously, relentlessly. we have in the agreement the access for inspections and the transparency that was absolutely necessary. but we have to treat this as enforcement effort, which i certainly strongly support. and as president would be absolutely devoted to ensuring that the agreement is followed. and secondly, this does put a lid on the nuclear program, but we still have a lot of concern about the bad behavior and the actions by iran, which remains the largest state sponsor of terrorism, which does go after

and undermine governments in the region, that poses an existential threat to israel, that unfairly, unlawfully confines and tries americans on trumped-up charges. that bad behavior is something we have to address. having been part of building the coalition that brought us to the point of this agreement, i think we will have to immediately, upon completion of this agreement and its rigorous enforcement, look to see how we build a coalition to try to prevent and undermine iran's bad behaviors in other arenas. i will be talking as soon as i leave you with the other secretaries of state and other national security advisors to

get more details. but as i say, i think this is an important step that puts the lid on iran's nuclear programs and it will enable us then to turn our attention, as it must, to doing what we can with other partners in the region and beyond, to try to prevent and contain iran's other bad actions. so all in all i think we have to look at this seriously, evaluate it carefully, but i believe based on what i know now this is an important step. thank you all very much. questioner: do you support the deal? does it embolden iran? [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> following their weekly party

caucus, republican senators spoke to reporters about the iran nuclear agreement. next we hear from foreign relations committee chair senator bob corker and armed services committee chair senator john mccain. senator corker: good afternoon, everyone. obviously the big news of the day is the proposed agreement with the iranians. i've asked chairman corker and chairman mccain to join us today to give you their take on what this agreement appears to involve. senator corker: thank you. today at about 10:05 we received 159 pages of a portion of the agreement. there are other porpgses -- portions that are yet to come. we still have the classified annexes, we have the certifications from the director of national

intelligence and secretary of state. so we expect to receive those materials over the next several days and at that point in time, the 60-day review process will begin. i have to say that when we passed over with the the interim agreement from dismantling their program, to moving towards agreeing that there would be enrichment, then over time moving to what i would call managed proliferation, we really kraused the rube con and -- crossed the rube con and -- rubicon and i think numbers of people have been looking at the qualitative issues what have remains. the issues of previous military dimensions and making sure we fully understand how that's dealt with. the issue of any time, anywhere inspections and how that's dealt with. the issue of ballistic missiles and how that's dealt with. the issue of research and development and how that is dealt with and the entire issue

of sanctions relief. i will say that right now, based on our staff going through the agreement for a couple of hours and meeting with me prior to this, i would say the agreement has taken a downward trend, a downward trend. the arms embargo issue the conventional arms are going to be em-- embargo will be lifted in five years. missile defense missile development in eight years. we're going to have shoot of the anytime, anywhere is not anytime, anywhere. and so there's numbers of issues that are going to be of great concern. but here's what we're going to do. over the next 60 days, we're going to go through this in great detail, we're going to have a thoughtful and deliberate process. my guess is, based on timing, we'll have hearings that will be in the next two or three weeks and likely what we'll do is vote on this when we return from recess. i'm very skeptical, but i don't

-- i want to go through this process and make sure we fully understand what it is that we're voting on. my guess is, i'll close with this those who believe that this truly is going to keep iran from getting a nuclear weapon will vote for it. those who believe that that is not the case and the world is not going to be safer, and in some ways it may paving the way for them to get a nuclear weapon, will vote against it. that's our responsibility and i look forward to carrying out those responsibilities with other members of the senate and house. senator mccain: we intend to review the provisions of this agreement thoroughly, the armed services committee will hold hearings on it, especially the verification regime and the effect on the regional military balance. we know that this agreement went from the initial objective of iran never having a nuclear weapon to a period of time

where iran will be able to behave with impunity and without restraint. there is no addressing in this agreement that we've seen that addresses iran's role as a chief sponsor of terror throughout the region, there is no addressing of their continued aggression and basically controlling four countries. iraq syria, iran and lebron. i recently came back -- lebanon. i recently came back from afghanistan and learned that the iranians are now providing weapons to the taliban. there's no provisions for the terrorist activities of iran, the chief sponsor of terrorism in the region. apparently there are sanctions lifted on various institutions that have been involved in the arms business and in particular there's allegations that the sanctions are lifted against

the head of the iranian revolutionary guard, who was responsible for the deaths, according to general dunford, before the armed services committee, the copper-tipped i.d.'s were sent into iraq by him, that are responsible for the death of 500 marines and soldiers. this deal, as far as i can tell has gone from preventing iran from ever having a nuclear weapon to now lifting restrictions on iran, including on conventional weapons within five years, which secretary kerry assured us there would be no connection between conventional weapons and nuclear weapons. i predicted that in their desperation, that the president and john kerry would make a bad deal. it looks very much like he made -- they made a worse deal than even we had feared.

questioner: what would have been an acceptable deal in your mind? senator mcconnell: this appears to be, again, we're going to take a look at it, as tchareman corker and mccain have said, it appears to fall well short of what the goal we all thought was trying to be achieved, which was that iran would not be a nuclear state. so describing the perfect deal, i guess, would be a deal under which iran would not be able to acquire nuclear weapons. questioner: the white house says that any deal when you're negotiating with your enemies is not going to be perfect. do they have a point? senator mcconnell: this is considerably short of perfection apparently. we knew what was working. sanctions. imagine what we might have now if we'd spent the last two years ratch he will etting up the sanctions as -- ratcheting up the sanctions as opposed to this. questioner: in the past few

days, many of your colleagues, including some of of the senators standing here have been putting public pressure on secretary clinton, saying she owns this deal, she should repudiate it, that would put pressure on democrats to vote with you on an yofe ride. that didn't happen today. she all but endorsed the deal. how does that complicate your efforts that are going to be coming up to override what's likely to be a presidential veto? senator mcconnell: the president is the most important democrat in the country and he's obviously in favor of this. he negotiated it. he's going to work hard to get the 34 votes that i know he knows he needs in order to sustain it. it will be a real challenge for him because i think it falls short in a lot of ways. questioner: secretary clinton -- [inaudible] senator mcconnell: i'm sure he's going to work hard to get his 34 votes. questioner: on the budget of -- issue of budget reck can sillation, how do you -- reconciliation, how do you plan to use it? do you plan to use it to repeal the affordable care act? and when will the authorizing

committees report budget reconciliations? senator mcconnell: i don't have a time to give you but we're certainly going to consider using budget reconciliation for repealing as much of obamacare as is reconcilable. there are certain rules that have to be applied to what is reconcilable. and that's an active consideration, as you can imagine. questioner: on the highway bill, how long do you intend to move the highway bill for and do you have, from senator hatch and others, the kind of offsets that you need? senator mcconnell: let me say there's bipartisan enthusiasm for a multiyear highway bill. we've had some conversations inside our conference about a way to pay for that. and i've also had conversations with prom nebt democrats who are involved in -- prominent democrat wloss are involved in this issue and we are hoping to be able to come together in some way to get a multiyear highway bill.

i'm fairly optimistic that we can do that. thanks a lot. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> congressman brad sherman of california spoke on the house floor earlier this evening about the iran nuclear deal. mr. sherman, a member of the foreign affairs committee, and former chair of the subcommittee on terrorism nonproliferation and trade, spoke about what he sees as the good, bad and ugly of the deal with iran over its nuclear program. his remarks are 15 minutes. the gentleman from california mr. sherman. mr. sherman: revise and stepped. i would like to praise mr. garamendi, the gentleman from california, for this excellent presentation on why we should make it in america. but i'm here today to talk about something that was made in vienna, namely, the iran nuclear deal. i'm going to start with a few

observations and then get to the heart of my remarks. the first observation is that we ought to set the record straight. the sanctions that brought iran to the table were imposed by congress over the objection of the executive branch of government. for 30 years, congress had it right, and for 30 years, the executive branch had it wrong. for 30 years every time we passed sanctions they would be argued against and thwarted and what occurred down, due to the efforts of several administrations. and the only time congress got it wrong is when the house of representatives got it right and passed tough sanctions legislation that went over to the senate where, unfortunately some in the senior body listened to the administrations at the time and failed to pass our

legislation. the second observation i would like to make is that the deal in vienna lifts a number of sanctions, which were not imposed as a result of iran's nuclear activity. it provides greater sanctions' relief than that which was supposed to be provided. i'm in particular note that the arms embargo against iran and -- an iran that has created mischief in syria, yemen and elsewhere will be phased out. and the iran sanctions act will be waived. the iran sanctions act was passed by the congress in the early 1990's. a review of that bill indicates that only one of three reasons it was passed was iran's work with w.m.d.'s and weapons of mass destruction come in three forms, not only the nuclear but

also the chemical and the biological. i would recommend 1/9th reason that congress passed that bill is iran's nuclear program and yet those sanctions are being waived. and we see the sanctions relief is so complete not only are we waiving our secondary sanctions to allow iran to do business with the rest of the world, we are allowing iran to export to the united states. we won't buy their oil, but buy the things we don't need and couldn't sell anywhere else. the next observation i would like to make is that there are those who say that this deal may only work for about 10 years, but the iranian government will get better over the next 10 years. do not hold your breath. the whole purpose of sanctions is to put pressure on the government which either causes it to change its policy or

creates a change in regime. that's what you do when you are trying to force a change in government. showering this government with economic benefits is not going to lead to its destruction or its eclipse. the same look at tehran, what you see is what you get. another observation is about missiles. it is unfortunate that this deal will allow iran in eight years to get more missile technology. there is only one reason for them to be working on them and that is to deliver a nuclear payload to a different continent than their own namely ours, namely europe. there is no other reason. iran is not trying to fly to the moon, but trying to get a nuclear device to north america or europe. but let us not be sagguined

about missiles. a nuclear weapon, they vary in size but they are about the size of a person and you can smuggle one inside the united states about the size of a human being. the heart of our effort has got to be to stop their nuclear weapons program. and in the heart of my speech is to focus on the deal from a nuclear weapons' perspective. now, the political pundits outside this capitol are all trying to make this a -- evaluate the president are you for him, against him. is this a good deal. did the president do a good job. those may be relevant to those seeking ratings, but we in congress have got to deal with a completely different question, what should congress do at this

time under these circumstances in the real world as it exists today where the president has agreed to sign this deal, not as it existed two days ago, not as it existed a decade ago when we should have been enforcing sanctions laws, but what should congress do today? in order to reach that conclusion, we need to look at the overall deal and realize it has different phases. it is a different deal over time. so let us look at the deal from the good, the bad and the ugly. in the first year, the most important good parts occur. iran must ship 90% of its uranium stockpiles out of the country and mothball 2/3 of the centrifuges. as we craft our policy, we should be loathed to give up

those two advantages. we must whenever we focus on anything, say yes there are bad parts of this deal, but 2/3 of the centrifuges, 90% of the stockpiles, that's something we need to be focused on. so that's the good. the bad also occurs in the first year. iran will get its hands on 120 billion-plus dollars of their own money that we have under the sanctions have been able to freeze in various money centers around the world. what will they use this $120 billion for? part of it will go to help their own people because they have raised expectations. a good part will go to graft and corruption in the iranian regime because it is after all the iranian regime. a large portion of that will go to kill sunni muslims.

some of them deserve it, most do not. and what is left over will be used to kill americans and israelis. so there is bad in the first year and good in the first year. but what is truly ugly occurs after 10 years. yet after year 10 iran can have an unlimited number of centrifuges of unlimited quality . as the president himself says, at that point, their breakout time, the amount of time from the day they kick out the inspectors to the day they have enough files aisle material slinches to virtually zero, days for the first bomb a few more days for the second bomb. why is this? because after 10 years, iran will be allowed to create a huge industrial facility, capable of

supporting several electric generation-nuclear plants and it is counterintuitive but true, it takes an awful lot more enrichment to power a nuclear plant than to create a nuclear bomb. we are in a situation where iran has an industrial-sized giant bakery, capable of feeding many of their cities and all they need for a nuclear bomb is a bag full of bread crumbs. obviously, once they go big once they go industrial, once we get to the ugly part of this deal iran is a nuclear power. perhaps not an admitted nuclear, but a nuclear power nevertheless. we are faced with the good the bad and the ugly. but the question is, what should congress do? one choice before it and i hope

it is the choice we will take is to consider a resolution of approval of this deal and to vote it down by an overwhelming majority. what will this do? it will demonstrate for the world that the american people, the american congress and future administrations are not morally or legally bound by this agreement and it will set the stage for a subsequent administration to demand that the limits on iranian centrifuges are continued well past year 10 of this agreement. so the current administration will take advantage of the good. we will suffer the bad, but in the future we will not have to deal with the ugly. the second approach we can take is to consider a resolution of disapproval. unlike a resolution of approval, a resolution of disapproval,, if

adopted would have immediate legal effects under u.s. law. it would blow a hole in the deal, but as i'll get to it, possibly the wrong hole and perhaps no hole at all. because if we were to consider ar resolution of disapproval, i think it would pass this house. i think it might get 60 votes in the other body. the president has announced he will veto it. and then -- as far as i can tell, we would not override the veto. now, this would have a similar legal effect to us voting down a resolution of approval. after all a majority of the house and senate would have voted to disapprove. but that last picture would be a picture of the proponents of this agreement winning by not

losing more than 2/3 of the vote. that conveys in the most confused way the fact that this agreement will not be binding on future administrations and future congresses. and there is of course the possibility that we somehow override a presidential veto. that does not put us back where we were yesterday. that does not re-institute sanctions. that does not create a good platform for creating a better deal because by then, many u.n. sanctions will be lifted. our trading partners in europe will already be doing business. the president will have told the world that iran is acting reasonably and congress is acting unreasonably. under such a circumstance, iran would get the lion's share of

sanction's relief and would be denied because u.s. law would remain in effect. but iran would have every excuse not to deliver the important good parts of this deal, not to ship their uranium stockpiles out of the country, not to decommission 2/3 of their centrifuges. so if we so if we pass over a presidential veto a resolution of disapproval, we have not blown up the deal and taken us back to where we had the deal. rather we have created a circumstance where iran has literally split the u.s. government. with congress pushing in one direction, the president pushing in another direction, and every nation in the world taking its cue from the president. instead i suggest that we would be in a stronger position if we demonstrate to the world that

congress does not accept this agreement it is not binding on the american people, the president may not be legally constrained for the remainder of his term in implementing this deal, getting us the good suffering the bad, but knowing that the ugly is something that needs to be confronted by another administration. it is another administration that will need to prevent iran from claiming that it will have the right to unlimited centrifuges 10 years from now but instead demanding a renegotiation of this deal. finally, the sanctions relief promised in vienna is relief only from those sanctions due to iran's nuclear program. it is not a get out of jail free card. it is not a protection and grant of authority to tehran to engage in all kinds of evil activity in

the middle east and elsewhere. if iran continues to support isaud, we need to impose -- assad, we need to impose addition sanctions for that reason. if they continue to destabilize yemen, we need to impose sanctions for that reason. and we cannot give iran a free pass just because they've entered into this particular deal. this is not rapprochement with iran. this is a deal that -- that has in its first year the good and the bad and in its 10th year is so ugly we have to demand additional negotiations. and when we make that demand, we need to make that demand in the voice of a new -- of a president and a future administration who is determined to say that iran can never have an unlimited number of centrifuges. iran can never have an unlimited quality of centrifuges. iran can never be a few days

from a nuclear weapon. and that in order to prevent that, we have the legal right to put all options on the table. >> many are reactions today to the iranian nuclear deal announced overnight in vienna and this morning by president obama. here on c-span, we will show you the comments of president obama at the white house as the deal between the p5+1 countries and the iranians was announced at the white house, an agreement that would freeze or limit the iranian nuclear program and would left many of the economic and individual sanctions that have been imposed on the iranian nation. after we show you the president's comments, we will look for your comments -- we will hear from you on facebook, facebook talk.com/cspan, and

reaction online all across the country. "the wall street journal," and how it may play out in congress. they are saying "the iran nuclear deal ignites a fierce debate." allies including is late -- the congress will have a role to play in the iranian nuclear deal. they have 60 days to approve it once they receive it. president obama was also speaking to the iranian people, reflected in this headline in "the washington post." to sell the deal, obama speaks to the iranian people. the president urges a rainy and to embrace reason in order to end three decades of enmity. we will look at more reaction in the media and your reaction, as well, on phones, on twitter, and

on facebook.com/c-span. at 7:00 this morning, the president in the vice president announced the news of the deal being reached with the iranians. president obama: after two years of negotiations, the united states together with our international partners have achieved something that decades of animosity have not -- a comprehensive long-term deal with iran that will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon. this deal demonstrates that american diplomacy can bring about real and meaningful change, change that makes our country and the world safer and more secure. this deal is also in line with a tradition of american leadership. it's now more than 50 years since president kennedy stood before the american people and said, "let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate." he was speaking then about the need for discussions between the

united states and the soviet union, which led to efforts to restrict spread of nuclear weapons. in those days, the risk was a catastrophic nuclear war between two superpowers. in our time, the risk is that nuclear weapons will spread to more and more countries, particularly in the middle east, the most volatile region in our world. today, because america negotiated from a position of strength and principle, we have stopped the spread of nuclear weapons in this region. because of this deal, the international community will be able to verify that the islamic republic of iran will not develop a nuclear weapon. this deal meets every single one of the bottom lines that we established when we achieved a framework earlier this spring. every pathway to a nuclear weapon is cut off, and the inspection and transparency regime necessary to verify that

objective will be put in place. because of this deal, iran will not produce the highly enriched uranium and weapons grade plutonium that can build a nuclear bomb. iran will remove 2/3 of its installed centrifuges, the machines to build a bomb and store them under constant international supervision. iran will not use is advanced centrifuges to produce enriched uranium for the next decade. iran will also get rid of 98% of its stockpile of enriched uranium. to put that in perspective, iran currently has a stockpile that can produce up to 10 nuclear weapons. because of this deal, that stockpile will be reduced to a fraction of what would be required for a single weapon. this stockpile limitation will last for 15 years. because of this deal, iran will modify the core of its reactor

in iraq so that it will not produce weapons-grade plutonium, and it has agreed to ship the spent fuel from the reactor out of the country for the lifetime of the reactor. for at least the next 15 years iran will not build any new heavy-water reactors. because of this deal, we will for the first time be in a position to verify all of these commitments. that means this deal is not built on trust. it is built on verification. inspectors will have 24/7 access to iran's key nuclear facilities. iran will have access to iran's entire nuclear supply chain, its mines, conversion facility, and its centrifuge manufacturing and storage facilities. this ensures that iran will not shall able to divert materials from known facilities to covert ones. some of these transparency measures will be in place for 25 years.

because of this deal, inspectors will be able to access any suspicious locations. put simply, the organization responsible for the inspections, the iaea, will have access where necessary when necessary. that arrangement is permanent. and the iaea has also reached access to iran to get access that it needs to complete its investigation into possible military dimensions of iran's past nuclear research. finally, iran is permanently prohibited from pursuing a nuclear weapon under the nuclear none proliferation treaty which provided the basis for the international community's efforts to apply pressure on iran. as iran take steps to implement this deal, it will receive relief from the sanctions that we put in place because of iran's nuclear program. both america's own sanctions and sanctions imposed by the united nations security council. this relief will be phased in.

iran must complete key nuclear steps before it begins to receive new sanctions relief. and over the course of the next decade, iran must abide by the deal before additional sanctions are lifted, including five years for restrictions related to arms and eight years for restrictions related to ballistic missiles. all of this will be memorialized and endorsed in a new united nations security council resolution, and if iran violates the deal, all of these sanctions will snap back into place, so there is a very clear incentive for iran to follow through, and there are very real consequences for a violation. that's the deal. it has the full backing of the international community. congress will now have an opportunity to review the details, and my administration stands ready to provide extensive briefings on how this will move forward. as the american people and congress review the deal, it

will be important to consider the alternative. consider what happens in a world without this deal. without this deal, there is no scenario where the world joins us in sanctioning iran until it completely dismantles its nuclear program. nothing we know about the iranian government suggests that can would simply capitulate under that kind of pressure and support an effort to permanently push iran into submission. we put this in place to get a diplomatic resolution, and that is what we have done. without this deal, there would be no agreed-upon limitations for the iranian nuclear program. iran could produce, operate, and test more and more centrifuges. iran could fuel a reactor capable of producing plutonium for a bomb, and we would not have any of the inspections that allow us to detect a covert nuclear weapons program. in other words, no deal means no lasting constraints on iran's nuclear program.

such a scenario would make it more likely that other countries in the region would feel compelled to pursue their own nuclear programs, threatening a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region of the world. it would also present the united states with fewer options to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. i have been president and commander in chief for over six years now. time and again i have faced decisions about whether or not to use military force. the gravest decision that any president has to make. many times in multiple countries, i have decided to use force. i will never hesitate to do so when it is in our national security interest. i strongly believe that our national security interest now depends upon preventing iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, which means without a diplomatic resolution, either i or a future

u.s. president would face a decision about whether or not to allow iran to obtain a nuclear weapon or whether to use our military to stop it. put simply, no deal means a greater chance of more war in the middle east. moreover, we give nothing up by testing whether or not this problem can be solved peacefully. if in a worst-case scenario iran violates the deal, the same options that are available to me today would be available to any u.s. president in the future and i have no doubt that 10 years or 15 years from now, the person who holds this office would be in a far stronger position with iran further away from a weapon and with the inspections and transparency that allow us to monitor the iranian program. for this reason, i believe it would be irresponsible to walk away from this deal, but on such

a tough issue, it is important that the american people and the representatives in congress get a full opportunity to review the deal. after all, the details matter, and we have had some of the finest nuclear scientists in the world working through those details. and we are dealing with a country, iran, that has been a sworn adversary of the united states for over 35 years, so i welcome a robust debate in congress on this issue, and i welcome scrutiny of the details of this agreement. but i will remind congress that you don't make deals like this with your friends. we negotiated arms control agreements with the soviet union when the nation was committed to our destruction, and those agreements ultimately made us safer. i am confident that this deal will meet the national security interests of the united states and our allies, so i will veto any legislation that prevents the successful implementation of

this deal. we do not have to accept an inevitable spiral into conflict, and we certainly shouldn't seek it. and precisely because the stakes are so high, this is not the time for politics or posturing. tough talk from washington does not solve problems. hard-nosed diplomacy, leadership that has united the world's major powers offers a more effective way to verify that iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapon. now, that doesn't mean that this deal will resolve all of our differences with iran. we share the concerns expressed by many of our friends in the middle east, including israel and the gulf states, about iran's support for terrorism and its use of proxies to destabilize the region, but that is precisely why we are taking this step. because an iran armed with a nuclear weapon would be far more destabilizing and far more

dangerous to our friends and to the world. meanwhile, we will maintain our own sanctions related to iran's support for terrorism, its ballistic missile program, and its human rights violations. we will continue our unprecedented efforts to strengthen israel's security efforts that go beyond what any american administration has done before. and we will continue the work we began at camp david, to elevate our partnership with the gulf states to strengthen their capabilities to counter threats from iran or terrorist groups like isil. however, i believe we must continue to test whether or not this region, which has known so much suffering, so much bloodshed, can move in a different direction. time and again, i have made clear to the iranian people that we will always be open to engagement on the basis of mutual interests and mutual respect. our differences are real, and the difficult history between

our nations cannot be ignored, but it is possible to change. the path of violence and rigid ideology, a foreign policy based on threats to attack your neighbors or eradicate israel -- that's a dead end, a different path, one of tolerance, and peaceful resolution of conflict leads to more integration into the global economy, more engagement with the international community and the ability of the iranian people to prosper and thrive. this deal offers an opportunity to move in a new direction. we should seize it. we have come a long way to reach this point. decades of an iranian nuclear program, many years of sanctions, and many months of intense negotiation. today i want to thank the members of congress from both parties who helped us put in place the sanctions that have proven so effective as well as the other countries who joined

us in that effort. i want to thank our new voting partners -- the united kingdom france, germany, russia, china as well as the european union for our unity in this effort which showed that the world can do remarkable things when we share a vision of peacefully addressing conflicts. we showed what we can do when we do not split apart. finally, i want to thank the american negotiating team. we had a team of experts working for several weeks straight on this, including our secretary of energy, ernie moniz, and i want to thank john kerry, our secretary of state. who began his service to this country more than four decades ago when off to war. he is now making this country safer through his commitment to strong, principled american diplomacy. history shows that america must lead not just with our might but with our principles.

it shows we are stronger not when we are alone but when we bring the world together. today's announcement marks one more chapter in this pursuit of a safer and more helpful, more hopeful world. thank you. god bless you, and god bless the united states of america. >> president, joined by vice president joe biden around 7:00 this morning at the white house, announcing the deal between the iranians in the pg+15+1 countries. we want to get your thoughts today.

on facebook, at facebook.com/cspan or send us a tweet @cspan. we will have live coverage from the white house tomorrow at 1:00 p.m. eastern over on our companion network, c-span3. for the next 15 minutes your thoughts, your reactions -- we go first in north carolina democrat line. caller: good evening. the republicans are doing what they are usually doing -- criticizing the president. they are trying to make this work. -- aren't trying to make this work. they want to go to war. the president is trying to make the american people safe. all the republicans do is criticize, criticize, criticize.

all the presidents have done things to try and ring piece. when the republican president did this, everyone in the conservative network celebrated. host: you mentioned -- do you think this deal, from what you've heard about it, will keep the usa's? -- us safe? we should always -- caller: i think so. we should always give peace a chance. host: let's go to albany oregon. caller: hi. it's good to have agreement in iran. there is so much on settlement. -- onunsettlement. they extended the provision on the size of their reactors from 10 years to 25. host: i don't know -- just let

you know, the deal -- most of it hasn't arrived to members of congress yet. it is being published in various different places. the mechanics of this for capitol hill's concern -- once the lawmakers you receive it they have 60 days to approve it or disapprove it. the president that has he will veto any disapproval. here are some of what speaker john boehner had to say in his statement -- "deal will hand the iranians billions of dollars in sanctions relief while giving it time and space to reach a breakout threshold to produce a nuclear bomb, all without cheating." next caller -- democrat line. hi houston. caller: yes, sir.

i think this is a real bad deal. i think they should fill it up when they elect a new president let them make their own decisions instead of four people making the decisions for everybody. let's vote on it. host: to miami, florida -- republican line. maria? caller: thank you. i believe it is a terrible deal. a terrible deal. again, no one but the president or john kerry and a few others have had a say. i believe this is the beginning of the end of our country. i don't agree with the deal. host: all right. the deal wrapping up two years of negotiations, a long history with the iranians. i wanted to show you a chart from afp, the chart of relations -- particularly sanctions

relations -- between the u.s. and iran going back to 1979 and the iranian hostage situation. lots to look at their. -- at there. here is morrison fayetteville, north carolina. good evening. caller: good evening. host: what do you think of the proposed deal? caller: well, you know, i think it is a very good deal, and i think one of the things we should remember is that communications -- you have to communicate. if you don't communicate, you can't get anything done. it might be right or wrong, but you have to try -- you can just cut off in negotiation and expect anything to come out of it positive. i think it is the right thing to do and if it don't work, we can always bomb. that is always ready to go. that is what we are trying to neutralize, doing that, and i

think this is a positive step in that direction. host: you might expect the negative reaction from the campaign trail in particular from republican candidates. there is a tweet from rick perry. he says that president obama's decision to sign the nuclear deal with iranhe most destructive foreign-policy decisions in my lifetime. we go to our independent's line. thomas? caller: yes. i think this decision equates to neville chamberlain's decision in czechoslovakia. i think they will have to stand up and do something that should have been done -- i am just appalled at the way the news media is trying to make it sound like a great deal -- it is nothing but a sellout. host: looking at some of the

appended pieces, you can read now and tomorrow -- here's "the washington post," and their lead editorial. "mr. obama's complex and costly deal with iran." tehran's nuclear triumph -- and from "the new york times," "an there ran nuclear deal that reduces the chance of war." some of the opinions of major news organizations. to oklahoma and our republican line. dennis, hello. got a bad connection with you. see if you can call back in. columbia, maryland -- democrat line. caller: hi. i think this is a wonderful thing. the world is changing. pope francis has proven that all kinds of things that weren't

considered possible a few years ago are kind of happening now. i say, let's give peace a chance. there's all kinds of hate in the world, people that don't want to trust anything positive, but i think it is very positive and i'm very proud of president obama. host: lets give you a look at some of the twitter reaction. iranians and social media editors at iranian news organizations have tweeted out a number of things -- including this image. you can find many more in the hashtag they are using #irandeal. raoul from new york city independent line. caller: hi, how are you? host: fine. caller: this is a great deal. we have a lot more in common with the iranian people than we

do with the one or 2000 people running the country. to actually have the ability to bring our troops home -- it is a great deal, one of obama's greatest victories. we are using diplomacy and i think it shiows a change in relations. we don't have to rely on certain nations that are extremely one-sided. host: do you think that the deal, the issues on providing weapons to hezbollah and hamas with several americans still being held prisoner, should have been part of the negotiations? caller: i think it should have

been, but there are only four prisoners. saudi arabia has beheaded hundreds this week. you pick allies in terms of who has more in common with our nation. clearly there is nobody perfect but saudi arabia is a sponsor for jihad terrorism. there is a lot more terrorism coming out of saudi arabia. we think they are responsible on a governmental level with the 9/11 attacks. i think this signifies a shift in relations with them. we don't want to alienate saudi arabia but we do want to open doors. host: do you think this deal will anger the saudi's? caller: the saudis are afraid of losing their power. historically speaking, they have

been in existence, but the world has changed. it is a global world and people are connecting on twitter and facebook. i think it is more of a popular thing now -- does not really a dictatorship situation and people are waking up and want freedom. that doesn't really work well with the saudi situation 1000 people producing trillions of dollars, people are responding. i think the u.s. aligns with saudi arabia and it may have to be reevaluated. host: we appreciate your input. we are looking for yours for a couple more minutes. a couple comments on twitter -- this is about the politics on capitol hill from entouragemanu

raju. a signal that the white house will have to win hill approval. one man who looks like he's made his mind that this tim scott. he says that we shouldn't forget this is a regime holding americans indefinitely without reason and the arent deal did nothing to change that. ron is on our democrat line in evansville. hi. caller: hi. i think it is a good deal. let's get our president the benefit of the doubt. i think what we are seeing now, republicans especially those running for president, are rushing to judgment, some aren't even aware of the 170-page report. i don't see how they can express their concerns about looking at this report. let us not forget that this was

done, this agreement came under thorough study. it didn't happen overnight. once again, let's get our president the benefit of the doubt. host: mark in arkansas is on the republican line. should we give the president the benefit of the doubt, mark? caller: no, sir. i think it is a bad deal all around. iran has proven themselves in the past not to be trusted. they are -- president obama said that this would keep him from building a nuclear weapon, but they are going to do it anyway. they have hostages over there. they will do it anyway. what the united states should have done was not even gotten involved in this nuclear deal with iran, and if they decided to go ahead and try and build a

nuclear weapon, which they were going to do anyway, that is when the united states needed to show the nuclear might and do something about it. host: technically, this deal is not a treaty, it is an agreement between the p5+1 nations and the iranians a deal that has been in the work for over two years. it will be submitted to congress for their approval, and leaders of the foreign relations committee are saying that hearings will get underway soon but there are no indications that any final vote on this will be after the recess. let's get a couple more calls here. dallas, texas. jerry. caller: i think -- by excluding icbm's is part of the deal,

which is what delivers the bomb, they made a terrible mistake. frankly, if i had a choice between delivery and nuclear weapons itself, i would exclude -- i give them the bomb, maybe they might blow up themselves. if they can't blow up their neighbor, that is more important. i just think it is a terrible mistake to exclude all the mid range rockets and icbm's, and i think it is a terrible deal. host: where have you been following the story today? where are you getting your information on this story as it has broken? caller: well, i've been following the negotiations during the newspapers and television. for a long time. host: i appreciate you joining

conversation -- a couple more calls. he talked about the icbm's as a piece of the negotiation -- a couple elements in the deal, as analyzed by "the new york times" -- what iranians are asking for, what the u.s. wanted. iran wanted all sanctions lifted when the deal was signed, the u.s. wanted sanctions to be listed sequentially as iran complies with the requirements. what happened was it ran got more up front relief than the united states wanted, in the most important sanction on energy and financial industry could be lifted this year if iran complies with the principal requirements of the accord. all the nuclear inspections -- what arendt wanted was tehran as a signatory for inspectors, to visit suspect sites on short notice. last month, the supreme

leader ayatollah said there could be no inspections of military facilities. u.s. wanted anytime, anywhere. "times" says they took him on his word and it ran gave ground to allow continuous surveillance at enrichment site and centrifuge production and storage sites. some of the analysis there. as we go to anniston alabama. joel? caller: yes, sir. i certainly do not agree with it and i think the president is very naive to think that iran would coincide with these obligations. you just can't trust the enemy regardless of the situation and they have been an enemy for a while. i just don't think that we need to push it to where it can harm us even more. so i don't think -- again, i go

along with what john boehner said, i think it is paving a highway for destruction and i don't think iran can be trusted to do what they are supposed to do. i don't think it is a very smart deal on the president's side, to come up with something like this. host: thanks. let's go next to memphis. john? go ahead. caller: yes thanks for taking my call. i appreciate c-span keeping me up-to-date. the one thing i can't figure -- i'm going to have to look at this whole thing a little bit more -- i saw on y'all's soundbites with boehner and

mcconnell, and the presidents, if we don't trust it ran, which we shouldn't and there is no way we ever should, i'm about to detail how many years this lasts -- and i heard the president say, correctly or incorrectly that the most on any sanction was 25 years. pretty much at my age, i'm never going to have to deal with this, but my kids and grandkids are. the other thing that strikes me is that once they get their hands on all that money they are going to release, if you are saying -- if you aren't negotiating out of trust but out of verification, so you don't trust these people but you are going to give them all that money? like i say, i will have to see what the sanctions are, for how many years.

if it's not into perpetuity, and all these people that are calling up saying we ought to give peace a chance -- i think that other color had it right. neville chamberlain tried to give peace a chance. thank you so much host: thanks for all your calls and comments. more tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. eastern. we will hear more from the president about the iranian nuclear deal. he is holding a news conference tomorrow at 1:00 p.m. eastern at the white house. we will have that live for you on our companion network c-span3. the story broke overnight in vienna and was announced to the reporters there by the eu foreign policy chief and the foreign minister of iran. here's a look. >> it is a great honor for us to announce that we have reached an

agreement. with courage, political will, and leadership, we believe it is what the world was hoping for -- a shared commitment to peace, to join hands in order to make our world safer. this is an historic day, also because we are creating the conditions for building trust opening a new chapter in our relationship. these achievements are the result of a collective effort. no one ever thought it would be easy. historic decisions never are. but despite all twists and turns in the number of extensions, hope and determination enabled us to overcome all the difficult moments. we have always been aware that

we had a responsibility to our generation in the future onse es. thanks to the constructive engagement of all parties, the abilities of our team, we have successfully concluded negotiation and resolved the dispute that lasted more than 10 years. many people brought these difficult negotiations forward and we would like to thank them all, as we would like to thank the international atomic energy agency for its critical contributions, as well as the austrian government for the support and hospitality. thank you. we, the european union and the foreign minister of the islamic republic of iran, together with the foreign ministers of the people's republic of china, france germany, the russian

federation, the united kingdom the united states of america that here in vienna following several months of intensive work in different formats to negotiate the text of the joint plan of action based on the key parameters agreed on the second of april. we asked today and agreed on the final text. the three eu countries and the islamic republic of iran welcomed the historic joint comprehensive plan of action, which will ensure that iran's nuclear program will be faithful and mark a fundamental shift in their approach to the issue. they anticipate that full implementation of this plan of action will positively contributions to regional and international security. iran reaffirms that under no

circumstances will iran ever seek, develop, or acquire any nuclear weapon. the joint cover has a plan of action includes a rant's own long-term plan with agreed communications on the nuclear program, and it will use the comprehensive listing of old un security council sanctions as well as multilateral and national sanctions relating to the nuclear program, including access and areas of trade, technology, finance, and energy. the comprehensive plan of action comprises of five technical annexes on nuclear sanctions, a joint commission, and in limitation. these documents are detailed and specific. that is important because all sides wanted clarity so as to ensure that all ineffective implementation of the agreement.

the plan is a balanced field that respects the interests of all sides. it is also complex, detailed and technical. we cannot fully summarize the agreement now but the four main text and all its additions will be made public today and will be presented within the next two days by the ed+e3+3. we know this deal will be subject to intense scrutiny. but we are announcing today is not only a deal -- it is a good deal. a good deal for all sides and the wider international community. this agreement opens new possibilities and a way forward to end the crisis that has lasted for more than 10 years. we are committed to make sure this joint copperheads a plan of action is fully implemented

counting also on the contributions of the international atomic energy agency. we call on the whole community to support implementation of this historic effort. this is the conclusion of our negotiations but this is not the end of our common work. we will keep doing the important tasks together. thank you. [applause] >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. i join my companion and banking the members of the press for your patience, perseverance, and for keeping us company during these difficult negotiations. as has become our customary form of presentation, i will present exactly the same paper she read

in english and persian. it is the same thing. [speaking persian] >> it is an honor for us to announce that we have announced an agreement. their courage, political will, mutual respect and good and excellent leadership management, we have managed to obtain a conclusion that the world was looking for -- a commitment for peace and common effort toward making our world a more secure place. today is also an historic day

because we are creating the conditions for building trust and also creating a new chapter in our relations. this is the outcome of a collective effort, and no one perceived this to be an easy task. such historic decisions are not easy, but through all the ups and downs and the repeated extensions we maintained our hope and manage to overcome all the difficulties and hardships. we were always aware fact that we are responsible and accountable for the current and future generations and with respect to the commitment of all the negotiating parties we

managed to successfully conclude the negotiation. this was the dispute that has lasted for more than 10 years -- we managed to resolve the dispute. through the course of the decade, many people play the role in actually proceeding with the trend of the negotiations, and we thank them all, and at the same time, i wish to thank the iaea for its pivotal role in close cooperation. we appreciate the austrian government for its hospitality. the eu senior representatives and also the foreign minister and the foreign minister of the islamic republic of iran, the people's republic of china, france germany, britain and the

u.s., for several months of intensive negotiations. we have come together in vienna in order to read out the texts of these joint comprehensive plans of action with respect to a few key points. it was actually agreed upon earlier. we are negotiating the statement and today we have reached an agreement. the islamic people around, speaking of this plan of action, has guaranteed the peaceful nature of a ran is indicative, fundamental change in the approach toward this issue. we still welcome the plan of

action and its implementation will play a positive role in international peace and security. iran once again emphasizes that it does not seek nuclear weapons and is not have the manufacturing or acquiring nuclear weapons. this plan of action includes certain limits with the program and a comprehensive listing of all u.s. sanctions. unilateral and multilateral sanctions in relation with iran's nuclear program for having access to trade technology, and also financing of energy. the comprehensive joint kind of action comprises the main text and annexes regarding the

nuclear issue. these sanctions, peaceful cooperations, cooperation and the peaceful nuclear energy and the joint commission and also the plan of action. these documents are quite complicated with specific and detailed and one cannot present a summary of the documents here. the full text will be provided to the public today and it will be presented to the u.s. for group endorsement. we know that this agreement is going to be seriously scrutinized, but what we are announcing today is not just an

agreement. what we are announcing today is not just an agreement. it is a good deal. it is a good deal for all the parties and the international community as a whole. this deal will provide new opportunities and a step forward in order to put an end to a crisis that has lasted 10 years. we continue to make sure that this plan of action is fully implemented, and we do count on the iaea's assistance and help. we call on the international community to support the implementation of this historic effort. this is the end of our negotiations but it is not the end of our common effort.

we do jointly pursue this important responsibility. thank you very much. [applause] >> iranian president hassan rouhani spoke about the nuclear agreement reached between his country and the so-called p5+1 countries. in exchange for agreeing to curb its nuclear program, it ran will get relief from the international sanctions. this speech is courtesy of iran's english-language news channel.

>> [speaking arabic] >> just recited the verse from the holy koran. greetings to and salutations to the prophet of islam, prophet mohammad, and his infallible household and also the imam of the martyrs and the martyrs, particularly the nuclear

martyrs. salutations to the imam of the time. make his appearance. the month of ramadan is a month of blessings. it's a month of seeking proximity to god almighty. and this year's month of ramadan, what i heard -- based on what i heard, many people in their prayers in the night -- the grand night, they prayed to god almighty, praying for iran's nuclear negotiating team in order to reach a good deal and

now -- i announce to the great nation of iran that god has accepted their prayers and has responded to their prayers. today we are in a critical juncture in the history of -- with respect to the history of our country and our revolution and also the condition that prevails in the region. in fact in the past 12 years, in fact witnessed illusions by the major powers and such illusions was spread by them in the global community and for public opinion you see this page has turned and in fact a knew chapter has been

opened. this new chapter is based upon the fact that the solution there are shorter roots with less costs in order to come up with solutions to the problems speaking of iran's important nuclear issue that on the one hand it had turned into political and international issue to the extent that it was raised that the u.n. in chapter

7 of the u.n. and there was several resolutions calling for sanctions against iran and on the other hand the issue had turned into a subject for spreading iraniphobia in the region and the world claiming that iran is after manufacturing nuclear weapons or w.m.d.'s and on the other hand you see that from the view of science and technology and development it was from the view of research and development and signs of progress. this was an important issue for us, and it had turned into a subject related to our national pride and dignity. economically speaking.

those imposing sanctions had sought to put us under pressure and that had created a difficult situation -- a difficult condition in society. as i had earlier said, the sanctions regime was never successful but at the same time it had affected people's lives. i am pleased that today after 23 months of negotiations by the islamic republic of iran with six world powers, today we have managed to reach a new point.

of course the month of ramadan has always been a month of blessing for the 11th administration and it's been a fateful month and the month of ramadan 1393 iranian calendar was the day for investiture and then we had the day for the old taking and today you see that today is the day for the deal reached between iran and the six world powers concerning the joint comprehensive plan of action. in order to resolve this nuclear issue, we had to take the