from any other administration from turning the switch on immigration. mr. gowdy has ensured enforcement of our immigration laws despite the purposeful inaction of any administration. his legislation the michael davis jr. and danny oliver in honor of state and local law enforcement act, allows states and localities to enact and enforce immigration laws of their own as long as they are consistent with federal law. jurisdictions could proactively take responsibility for protecting their communities and ensuring the integrity of our immigration system. today we are making an important down payment on protecting our constituents, and i appreciate the majority leader's commitment to me that we will take additional action to ensure compliance with our immigration laws in the future. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 3009, enforce the law for

sanctuary cities act, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's recognized. mr. conyers: members of the congress, i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 3009, the enforce the law for sanctuary cities act. this thoroughly flawed measure is a blatant attempt by the -- most of the majority to insert its anti-immigrant status agenda into local policing initiatives. and it does this by prohibiting state and local governments from receiving critical criminal justice funds if they have policies that prioritize public safety and community policing over federal

immigration enforcement. the bill absolutely makes no sense because rather than improving public safety, it will achieve the complete opposite, and that's not just my conclusion. law enforcement agencies from across the united states and numerous organizations such as the major county sheriffs association, the fraternal order of police, the law enforcement immigration task force, the united states conference of mayors and the national league of cities all oppose this bill. in effect, this bill would punish law enforcement officers by withholding the funds they need to do their jobs, and it would require states and localities to prioritize

federal immigration enforcement ahead of enforcing and enhancing public safety. reactionary proposals such as this legislation will only make our communities less safe because immigrants will not report crimes or otherwise cooperate with the police if they fear they or their family members may be asked for their immigration status. as a result, crimes will go unsolved and unpunished while criminals are free to victimize more people. in addition, withholding crucial united states department of justice funds from local communities will not lower crime. studies have demonstrated that these programs, particularly the cops and byrne jag funds

provide crucial support services to fight criminal activity, but a vote for h.r. 3009 is a vote to take these funds away and to risk making communities less safe. all of us on both sides of the aisle are opposed to violent crime. there is simply no debate about that. not one of us would condone what happened to kate steinle in san francisco, but 3009 is simply the wrong approach. i agree with the major cities chiefs association that the best way to reduce crime in their cities is to gain the communities' trust and cooperation. i also believe that the majority of immigrants in this country are hardworking, law-abiding residents and comprehensive immigration reform would allow these

law-abiding individuals to come out of the shadows and get right with the law. such legislative reform would enable immigration customs enforcement to focus its limited resources on deporting the worst elements while ensuring that our entire community, citizens and immigrants alike are protected from harm. instead of considering this commonsense solution, the majority, most of them have repeatedly voted to deport dreamers to deport the parents of united states citizens and to deport vulnerable children fleeing persecution, violence and trafficking. and now the majority in the

form of h.r. 3009 asks us to override the public safety mission of state and local enforcement agencies to increase deportations. i strenuously urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerous legislation, and, madam speaker i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, is recognized. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, it's now my pleasure to yield four minutes to the chief sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from california, mr. hunter. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for four minutes. mr. hunter: thank you, madam chairman. let me say to chairman goodlatte, thank you very much for your leadership on this. thanks for moving this so quickly. this is a timely bill, and i just want to thank you and your committee for moving it so quick. this legislation is about one thing. that's accountability. .

the american people have the right to not give their tax dollars to municipalities and states that do not follow federal law. there's loss of changes to enforcement that must be imposed on sanctuary cities. we'll work towards those things. this republican congress will work towards those things. just as we are putting in motion a mechanism today that holds sanctuary cities accountable. i think we can all agree any locality must comply with the law. and they are required to coordinate and cooperate with the federal government. if an arrest is made, the federal government should be notified. the fact that san francisco and l.a. and other cities disagree with the politics of federal enforcement does not give them a free pass to subvert the law. if they do there has to be consequences. the way we impose consequences on these sanctuary cities is by hitting them where it hurts that's in their pocketbook. it's simple, if you don't comply with the law as it stands now, then you don't receive coveted federal money intended for law

enforcement. that money allocated for fiscal year 2015 alone almost adds up to $1 billion. $800 million are going to municipalities cities, counties, and states that care more about illegal alien criminals felons, than they do their own citizens. it's time we stand up to sanctuary cities and begin holding them accountable for their failure to uphold the law. i come as a representative that has sanctuary cities in my district. they are going to lose money for this. they are going to lose money because they are not complying with federal law. but the money that they get, this federal money that they get, it's taxpayer money from states like wisconsin, from new york, south carolina, from florida, throughout the entire country. people around this country don't want their money going to states and cities that don't care to follow the federal law. again, if you're a state or city or locality, then you choose to

defy federal immigration law, you'll be cut off from three federal programs of the the state criminal alien assistance program. the community oriented policing services program, and the byrne jack program. these are the three funds that will get cut if you are a sanctuary city. all you have to do to receive these funds is comply with the federal law. this bill is the first step in restoring accountability in our immigration system. our border infrastructure continues to fall short in too many places. and i'm as frustrated as anyone in this congress that the administration refuses to enforce federal immigration law. these are all serious issues that need to be addressed, and i look forward to working with this congress and chairman goodlatte in the future to advance these goals. i urge all my colleagues to support h.r. 3009. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the that. virginia reserves. gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: i'm pleased to recognize zoe lofgren of california for four minutes.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for four minutes. ms. lofgren: madam speaker, we have an immigration system that's badly broken. there are 11 million undocumented people in this country and contrary to what donald trump may think, the majority of these people are not rapists. they are hardworking people. spouses and parents of u.s. citizens dreamers, entrepreneurs. who want an opportunity to come forward submit to background checks and become fully american. faced with a broken system state and local law enforcement have adopted policies to enhance public safety and maintain community trust because when people are afraid of the police when they are afraid that the police might ask them or their family about their immigration status, they are afraid to report crimes, unlikely to cooperate with investigations, and then criminals thrive and the general public suffers. this bill puts an impossible choice between state and local law enforcement agencies. they can either abandon policies

that work or they can lose the federal funds they rely on to police their communities and protect them. dangers posed by this bill are real. 144 national state, and local advocacy organizations have written he opposing this bill because -- written opposing this bill because of the detrimental impact it would have on public safety. big cities but also little ones like dayton ohio most people don't think of as an sanctuary city. there they are told not to check immigration stay tuffs witnesses or victims or to ask about immigration during minor traffic stops. the police chief there has explained that this policy has helped them have a safer community. according to the chief, after the policy was adopted, serious violent crime dropped nearly 22%, and serious property crime decreased almost 15%.

madam speaker, why should dayton ohio, be barred from receiving funds for policing when their policies work? now, punishing the law enforcement officers by withholding the funds they need is not only incorrect, it's why the bill is opposed by the major counties, association, the sheriff's association, the fraternal order of police, dozens of sheriffs and police chiefs. the president has said, we should deport felons not families. and that's what his priority enforcement program does. but the second of homeland security told the judiciary committee just last week that withholding funds from communities would be a huge setback in efforts to improve the relationship between d.h.s., state, and local law enforcement, and communities across the contry. it has been said -- country. it has been said that this bill is a response to the tragic murder of katherine steinle in

san francisco. just up the road from my district. however, nothing in this bill would have prevented that outrageous murder of ms. steinle. nothing in the bill would have required the bureau of prison and i.c.e. to consult with san francisco to ascertain whether or not the 20-year-old warrant would lead to a prosecution. nothing in this bill would have required i.c.e. to obtain a warrant as is necessary to hold people beyond the term of their criminal sentence. nothing in the bill would even have affected the sheriff of san francisco's decision to release the individual charged with murdering ms. steinle. that tragedy should not be used to advance a different agenda this bill. over the last year, we have come to the floor to vote on bills to deport the dream act kids, to deport the parents of u.s. citizens, to deport vulnerable

children fleeing persecution and sex trafficking. today we are asked to vote on a bill that overrides state and local law enforcement agencies and decrease deportations all around. we had the votes to pass immigration reform in the last congress and i hope we can get back to that point -- i would ask for an additional 15 seconds. i would note that we have an opportunity here to learn from the tragedy in san francisco to come up with real solutions that would make our community safer. instead of using that tragedy as an excuse to promote a different agenda. with that i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i yield myself 15 seconds to make it very clear nothing in this bill requires any officer of the law to ask

any question of any victims of crime about their immigration status. all it does is prohibit cities and counties from ordering their officers to not communicate with i.c.e. or gather information from i.c.e. about the status of individuals. this is a good bill. now it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, the former chairman of the judiciary committee, and the current chairman of the science committee, mr. smith. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. smith: madam speaker, first of all let me thank the gentleman from virginia and a good friend and the chairman of the judiciary committee for yielding me time. madam speaker, i support h.r. 3009law for sanctuary city act. the bill is appropriately named since sanctuary cities violate current laws that require these jurisdictions to share information with federal authorities about illegal immigrants who have been arrested. h.r. 3009 helps enforce an immigration bill i introduced several years ago that became law. this legislation withholds

certain federal funds from sanctuary jurisdictions that hide the immigration status of illegal immigrants charged with crimes. these reforms serve as a first step in keeping dangerous criminals off our streets and out of our neighborhoods. sang two wirery -- sanctuary cities have increased under this administration you which has done nothing to discourage them. during only an eight-month period last year, sanctuary cities released almost 9,000 illegal immigrants charged with or convicted of serious crimes. one quarter have already been arrested again for committing more crimes like murder and sexual assault. when does it end? i don't understand how anyone could oppose enforcing immigration laws. the victims are not democrats or are innocent americans. many of the crimes committed by illegal immigrants could have been prevented if the obama administration had enforced

immigration laws. instead it has chosen to ignore them and innocent americans continue to pay a steep price. i thank the gentleman from california, mr. hunter, for authoring this legislation and i urge its approval and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves . the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i would like now to yield to a senior member of the judiciary the gentleman from new york mr. nadler, four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for four minutes. mr. nadler: i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam speaker, i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 3009, which will make communities across the country less safe from crime. this legislation would withhold needed federal fund interesting cities that prohibit their law enforcement authorities from collecting information on a person's immigration status or that have policies restricting

the disclosure of this information to other governmental entities. many cities, including new york, have made the reasonable determination that they will not question victims of crime or witnesses to a crime about their immigration status. they believe that it is counterproductive to make them afraid to cooperate with law enforcement. but this note says we in congress knows better and in the name of protecting public safety we'll deny such cities the funds that they need to protect the public safety. many cities think that their communities are safer when the victim of domestic violence feels comfortable asking the police for protection from her abuser. without fear of deportation. they believe that witnesses to a murder ought to step forward and assist law enforcement in tracking down the perpetrator without fear they'll face consequences of their own if they step forward. they think that good policing depends on building trust with their residents, and that's striking fear among immigrants that they may be deported if they report a crime makes

everyone less safe. punishing residents of cities whose officials have made such decisions is both unfair and unwise. new york city alone could lose $57 million under this legislation. this would not only punish the public officials who set these policies and the undocumented residents in their communities, but it would punish all innocent people to depend on federal resources to protect public safety. my heart is with the steinle family. and we all share their outrage at kate's senseless murder, but this bill and other attempts to punish so-called sanctuary cities would do nothing to address the issues that might have prevented her death. instead of taking positive steps to improve communication between federal, state, and local authorities, this bill simply demonizes immigrants and perpetuates the myth that they are more prone to commit a crime than is the native born population. this legislation might fit comfortably in donald trump's campaign platform but no business on the house floor. i urge my colleagues to vote no

and i yield to the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyrs: -- mr. conyers: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i just wanted to make clear that the gentleman from virginia, chairman of the committee is wrong about this bill. he says it only prohibits states and localities from adopting policies about not communicating with i.c.e. this is not true. the bill also prohibits state and local law enforcement agencies from adopting policies directing their officers not to collect information about immigration status for the general public. any individual, the bill says. any individual. so it doesn't state that state

and local police must gather immigration status information for the federal government. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i yield the balance of my time. mr. nadler: i thank the gentleman. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, is recognized. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, i yield myself 15 seconds to say, again, nothing in the bill requires any officer to ask any question of any victim of crimes about their imcombration status. all it does is prohibit cities and counties from ordering their officers to not communicate with i.c.e. or gather information status of individuals. this time it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, a member of the judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa is recognized for two minutes. mr. king: thank you madam

speaker. i thank the gentleman, the chairman of the judiciary committee, and appreciate this bill coming to the floor. i hear this discussion and it seems to me there's a consistent theme that the people on the other side of the aisle are opposed to bringing together law enforcement. they say nothing in this bill could have prevented the tragic murder of kate steinle. i would suggest if we had no sanctuary jurisdictions in america, there's a lot greater chance that his deportation would have stuck and if we had a president of the united states who worked to get our law enforcement officers to coordinate at each level of our political subdivisions rather than litigate when they do mirror federal law, likely we had a chance to prevent not only her tragic death but that of thousands and thousands of others. i support this bill. it is encompassed within an amendment i brought to the floor here on june 3 that

passed with 227 votes. i congratulate duncan hunter for his persistence on this legislation that's six years long. i'm grateful to be working on an immigration issue with a second generation of hunters. i see there's much more enforcement that's ahead of us, but this is a step and it's a step that helps us find out, are people for a threat of enforcement and bringing some leverage to bring the political subdivisions in line rather than having them throughout the law which they've -- flout the law which they've consistently done and grown dramatically under the obama administration? there's much more that i'd like to do, much more to do. i'd like to move kate's law. i'd like to make it incremental so it goes from a five-year mandatory to 10-year mandatory on second offense and move it up the line. i'd like to pass a new i.d. act so the i.r.s. can help enforce this. i'd like to build a fence, a

wall madam speaker. and i'd like to repass the border bill we did last summer. there are a good number of things. we need to make detainers mandatory and tighten up the loophole language. all that we got a chance to do after labor day. today we need to do what we can do and that's pass the bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. conyers: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you madam speaker. i'm pleased now to recognize the gentleman from north carolina, mr. price, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. price: madam speaker i rise in opposition to this misguided legislation. offered under the false pretense that it has something to do with the tragic murder of kathryn steinle in san francisco. make no mistake ms. steinle's killer should not have been on the streets. we must get to the bottom of the official misjudgment and

negligence and the bureaucratic breakdown that led to this tragedy. as the former chairman of the homeland security appropriations subcommittee, i take a backseat to no one when it comes to deporting dangerous criminal aliens who pose a threat to public safety. but we also need to be very clear about this. this tragedy has nothing to do with so-called sanctuary cities. the bill before us would punish some of the most vulnerable cities high on the list, places like san francisco, new york, miami, chicago punish them for exercising their lawful discretion in dealing with noncriminals or those with minor violations. they do this in order to protect the public and enforce the law which requires trust and cooperation with immigrant communities. to scapegoat entire cities and

make law enforcement less effective through this bill is simply inexcusable. i urge its defeat. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from virginia mr. goodlatte, is recognized. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, i yield myself 15 seconds to say to the gentleman from north carolina this bill has everything to do with what happened in san francisco, the tragic murder of kate steinle was because the city of san francisco was not following the law and contacting the immigration service and doing things to make sure that he was deported. instead, they released him back onto the streets. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. goodlatte: it's now my privilege to recognize the gentleman from california, mr. calvert, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. calvert: madam speaker, i rise today in support of this bill and support of american families. this week we've heard powerful

and heartbreaking stories from families who have lost a loved one at the hands of an illegal immigrant. oftentimes, these individuals were able to operate freely because of the sanctuary policies of certain u.s. cities, policies that ignore federal immigration law. it is time this congress put the lives and welfare of american citizens and legal residents first. it's time to protect the innocent. this means not another kate josh dennis, danny, grant and countless others. it is time to penalize cities that willfully ignore federal law to the detriment of citizens and legal residents. i encourage my fellow members to read this testimony from this week's senate hearing, read about the lives lost, the brutality of the crimes, the lack of remorse by the perpetrators and the heartbreak of the families. today we have a choice protect fellow americans or give sanctuary to criminal aliens.

thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i am pleased now to recognize an excellent member of the judiciary committee from illinois, mr. gutierrez, for 2 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. gutierrez: just a would you weeks into his campaign and donald trump has a bill on the floor of the house. that is better than some of the senators he's running against. donald trump announces his campaign saying mexican immigrants are mostly murders, drug dealers and rapists what is the response from -- murderers, drug dealers and rapists and what is the response? some try to distance themselves from his comments. ok. but here we are on the floor of the house passing a bill to jump on the trump bandwagon,

cynically exploiting a family's tragedy in san francisco to score political points. i have been very clear from day one, despite efforts by heardlines efforts, this lopez sanchez, who pulls a trigger in san francisco should have been deported and never turned over. i have no sympathy for him and i said on this floor and i will say it again murderers should rot in hell. the breakdown by the federal government, the federal government to deporting known criminals as they have done before to keep them in jail while -- is what led to an american woman losing her life. she's just about the age of my daughter when she was killed. a tragedy and a preventable tragedy if the federal government had done what it's supposed to do and preventable if this congress does what it's supposed to do, address immigration years ago, as my side of the aisle pleaded you to do. but this republican proposal is not a serious attempt of fixing the problem. instead of piecemeal measures

maximizing deportation, the congress needs to enact comprehensive immigration reform that combines smart enforcement at the border and the interior with a clear plan for reduesing the size of the undocumented -- reducing the size of the undocumented population in america. we do this by having a modern visa system so people can come with visas and background checks, not with smugglers or overstaying visas and just blending in. we do this by telling millions of people who have never committed crimes come forward, admit you're here illegally, go through a background check and go to the right side of the law. get them on the books so they no longer need to worry about their local police working with or without the deportation system. if you get millions and millions of immigrants inside the law, then the ones who are criminals can't qualify to get inside the law, they will stick out like sore thumbs, not blend in to our communities across america and cause havoc as they did in san francisco. but this is a very -- but this

is very specifically the approach the republican majority refused to touch with a 10-foot pole because they see demagogues like donald trump firing off -- mr. conyers: i yield the gentleman 15 seakeds. mr. gutierrez: but this approach of bringing millions and millions of immigrants inside the law so that we can get after the criminals that stick out like sore thumbs outside of the law, this approach is what has been the approach that the republican majority refuses to touch with a 10-foot pole because they see demagogues like donald trump firing off and want to take the easy way out. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, it's now my pleasure to yield three minutes to the gentleman from arizona, mr. salmon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for three minutes. mr. salmon: thanks, mr. chairman. i'd like to thank my colleague, duncan hunter, for working with me in crafting this important

piece of legislation. as a co-author of this bill i'm very proud of seeing the house taking action on in front. also want to thank leadership for bringing this bill to the floor. we're hearing some strange rhetoric here today, especially from the other side of the aisle. i hear about vulnerable cities. how about vulnerable tax-paying americans? i hear about sanctuary for thugs like the one that killed kate steinle. shouldn't our city be a sanctuary for law-abiding american citizens who have a right to walk on safe streets? make no mistake, this is a very, very important bill. from 2010 to 2014, the number 121 should stick in everybody's minds. 121 illegal immigrants with lengthy criminal records went on to commit murder after they were let out to do this -- their heinous crimes. that's why i was so appalled to hear one of my colleagues

across the aisle call the murder of american citizens like kate steinle and my constituent, grant ronnebeck, a little thing. such disgusting remarks and flagrant disregard for life especially the lives of those that we claim to represent i find repulsive. in fact such calous remarks only serve to -- callous remarks only shows americans wanting us to protect our borders and citizens and stand up and take america back. it's time to stand up and be heard and demand that the federal government fulfills this most basic duties. these sanctuary cities that refuse to uphold the law and openly broadcast the fact that they are flouting the law make our country less safe and only serve to perpetuate tragedies like the one we saw in san francisco.

not only are these supposed sanctuary cities ignoring the law but they're broadcasting the fact illegal immigrant felons, like kate steinle's murder, a seven-time felon who flat out admitted one of the reasons he chose to stay in san francisco -- in fact, the predominant role he chose to stay because he knew they would protect him. well, who's going to protect law-abiding americans? when will american cities be sanctuaries for americans and not for illegal felons? unfortunately, these sanctuary cities are not being held accountable by this administration, which has demonstrated time and time again it has no interest in securing the border or upholding existing immigration law. with this in mind i think that we have a responsibility to stand up and do what's right. this sanctuary cities policy and fixing it so that they have to abide by the laws that we pass here in congress to protect our borders and protect our citizens has to be adhered to.

it's just common sense and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i yield the balance of my time to representative lofgren and ask unanimous consent that she be permitted to control the time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: thank you. madam speaker, i would like to yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. beto o'rourke, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. o'rourke: i thank the gentlewoman from california for yielding. madam speaker, i'd like to bring the perspective of my community, the community i have the honor of representing in congress, el paso, texas, to bear in this discussion. el paso is the safest community over 500,000 population in the united states today and it has been for the last four years in a row. and that is, you know, some

people think despite the fact that it is connected to ciudad juarez at the u.s.-mexico border and the fact that it has a large number of immigrants in the community. i say and the people in that community agrees is because of the immigrants that participate and contribute to the american dream. and on issues and matters of law enforcement, i tend to defer to the experts, and big city police chiefs and county sheriffs like the sheriff in el paso, texas, say for them to prevent crime and to solve crimes it's necessary to be able to work with everyone in the community without fear that they are going to be enforcing federal law enforcement mandates to the exclusion of the public safety of the people that i have the honor of representing. and for that reason i urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this proposal, a solution in search of a problem. with that, madam speake i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i

yield myself 15 seconds to say yet again nothing in this bill requires any officer to ask any question of any vtims of crime about their immigration status. . all it does is probit cities and counties to offer information stat bus their individus. at this time it's my pleasure to yield got minutes to the gentlewoman from tenssee, mrs. blackburn. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from tennessee is recoized for two minutes. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank the gentleman from virginia for hisork. so constently working on this issue of how we deal with the criminal illegal alien population, and also with the sanctuary cindies. ihank mr. hunter for the work that he has -- cities. i thank mr. hunter for the work he has done on this bill. i chuckled when congressman king , the gentleman from iowa, mentioned the second generation of hunters. because, yes, we do know that his father was very involved in

this issue, and focusing on making certa that we keep our cities safe. you know, as we have this debate, and as we look at these sanctuary city policies that certain counties and cities and states have exercised, we've come to realize that through the years, every state's become a border state and every town a border town. because of the criminal, illegal alien population that will gravitate towa these sanctuary citie. l.a. los angeles was the first sact wear city in 1979. we hear people say oh, this is an issue that's been around for a long time. mr. speaker, that does not mean you do not address t issue. it means you solve the problem. you bring forward solutions. and that's what we are doing here today. the sentencing u.s. sentencing commission recently released some data that i think is instructive to this debate.

illegal aliens accoted for almost 75% of federal sentences for drug possessions. and made up ore than 1/3 of all federal sentences in 2014. that is why we are dealing with this issue. our constituents are saying, you need to put this on the front burner and deal with this issue. that is what we are doing here. look at the state of texas. i just recently read these stats from them. texas department of public service released a report. another minute? mr. goodlatte: i'm pleased to yield an additional minute to the gentlewoman from tennessee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized for an additional minute. mrs. blackburn: in texas the department of public safety released a report that between 2008 and 2014 foreign aliens

committed over 600000 crimes and almost 3,000 murders. in the state of texas. that is the reason that we come here to address this issue. you know mr. speaker, the crime rate from illegal aliens in this country should be zero. it should be zero. because it should not be tolerated. with that i thank the gentleman for yielding the extra time and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: mr. speaker, i would be pleased now to recognize the gentleman from california, mr. becerra, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. becerra: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. the man who killed catherine steinly should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. more importantly, the officials

who released the person who killed her, released this man from custody, they dropped the ball, they should be held accountable. but this bill punishes the police in my city of los angeles , the police in the city of knocksville, the police in manchester, new hampshire. it punishes police that had nothing to do with the crime that occurred in san francisco. it takes away money from the police department in los angeles and knocksville and manchester. when we need to put people and police on the street to protect all of us. but this would deprive our cities of moneys that we have earned because we paid our taxes. why? because the proponents of this bill say that our cities are violating the law. if we are violating the law name the law we are violating. we are not violating any law. you just don't like the policy. don't take the donald trump

bait. don't punish others for the crime of someone else. in our country, you go after the person who is criminally liable. go after that individual. and lock them up forever. but don't tell the police in los angeles or in manchester or in knoxville tennessee, and all the other cities that are trying to have a working relationship between their police and their growing immigrant communities that they will be able to collaborate so we can go after the criminals. because that's what you're doing. you're taking money away from l.a., even though this crime did not happen in my city. and you're telling my police department and the men and women in uniform in l.a. that they will have fewer officers on either side because you're going to take money away, because you don't like that some guy committed a criminal act he killed someone, he should be punished for it, but we had nothing to do with it. go after the folks that are accountable. this is not the way we do justice in america. and it is wrong.

it is wrong for you to tell all these communities that have established a working relationship between their police officers and their growing immigrant communities that they're going to now lose funds to hire more police officers. wrong way to do it. that's the donald trump bait. don't take it. let's vote this down. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. members are reminded that their remarks should be directed to the chair. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the gentleman from california, to tell him that the law that sanctuary cities are violating is title 8, section 1373 of the united states code, communication between government agencies and the immigration and naturalization service. and the failure to do that has resulted in 8000 criminal aliens being released onto our streets just last year by sanctuary cities and those ,000 criminal aliens have since -- 8,000 criminal aliens have since then commit thed almost --

committed almost 1,900 additional crimes. my time's expired and i'm pleased to yield two minutes to -- three minutes to -- the speaker pro tempore: reserve. the gentleman will control. the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. >> thank you mr. speaker. i rise today in support of the enforce our laws for sanctuary cities act, because we've got to stop the madness of not enforcing our laws. in the last weeks we've seen coverage of two terrible murders that occurred because our laws went unenforced. my thoughts, prayers and condolences go out to the families of the victims. sadly these tragedies are a representation of a larger, deeper and more troubling problem. while today i wish we were also considering legislation by mr. gowdy to address the administration's abysmal lack of respect for our immigration laws, or chairman mccaul's bill to secure the border, and chairman smith's bill to implement e-verify, to stop

businesses from exploiting undocumented workers, this bill is a step in the right direction. mr. farenthold: it will stop the american people from subsidizing local law enforcement departments that refuse to do their jobs and enforce the law. but let's take the emotion out of this. let's take it out of the immigration issue and border security issue, which are emotionally charged. this is a fiscal responsibility bill. if we were spending money for a defense contractor to develop a new weapons system and they weren't developing that weapons system we'd take the money back. well, here we're giving money to law enforcement to work with i.c.e. to deal with criminal aliens, and they're not doing it. of course we've got to take the money back. it would be foolish to do anything else. mr. speaker, this horrible loss of life that we've seen is a result of the negligence and complete lack of respect for the rule of law that this administration and the mayers of sanctuary cities took an oath to uphold is appalling.

today we're going to be able to deal with one part of that problem, and i'm going to encourage all of my colleagues to vote with me, to support h.r. 3009 and put our nation back on the path to sanity. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: mr. speaker, may i inquire how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady has 9 3/4 minutes remaining. the gentleman from virginia has seven -- 7 1/2. ms. lofgren: i reserve at this point. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, we have only one additional speaker and we i think have the right to close. so we would ask the gentlewoman to proceed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: mr. speaker, community trust policies result in more efficient policing. when state and local law enforcement agencies promote

community trust policies, public safety's increased. the current new york police commissioner and former chief of police in los angeles said, when officers can speak freely with victims and witnesses it goes a long way towards making every american neighborhood much safer. here's a case study. new haven connecticut. according to a 2010 report by the police executive research forum, new haven, connecticut, developed a community trust policy in which new haven police assured immigrant communities that the police department's goals were to address crime and to make the streets safer and they encouraged people to report crime and to cooperate regardless of their immigration status. the city law prohibited immigration status inquiries of crime victims, witnesses or others who approached police for assistance. i would note that the bill

before us would prohibit this policy, this law that new haven adopted. the result of new haven's policy and their other community trust policies were stronger ties between law enforcement and the immigrant community. so over the next several years, new haven experienced a 46% decrease in murders and a 13% decrease in rape incidents. this policy, which this bill would prohibit, worked. now, this was a very important result and after learning of it the united states conference of mayors, a group that most of us trust pretty much, did a survey of cities around the united states who adopted the same trust policies. they include augusta, georgia, new brunswick, new jersey, and a whole host of others.

they found that all of these cities also reported the same kind of reduction in crime after they adopted these policies. so adopting these policies is an important component of keeping communities safe. and this bill would prohibit that. it would prohibit it. now, i understand the outrage over mr. lopez sanchez. in fact, i share it. obviously he's been accused of murder and even when we have a situation like this, we have to have a trial. but i believe personally that he is guilty based on all the evidence. i believe he should not have been out on that street in san francisco. and if you look at his record, and i'll go through it a little bit it actually makes certain points. i've heard people say, well, we've got open borders and

that's why he was here. in fact, that's not the case. this individual attempted to enter the united states repeatedly and he was caught by the border patrol, just as they're supposed to do their job, and what happened then? he was deported repeatedly in the 1990's, and then they started prosecuting him for felony re-entry after removal. he served 16 years in federal prison for the felony of re-entering after removal. so our laws went after him. he should not have been released in san francisco. but i think some of what we need to do, see what policies would have kept him off that street. i will deal with those in just one second. but first i would like to yield two minutes to mr. becerra for a point that he would like to make. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes.

mr. becerra: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i took a look at the statute, the section that the chairman cited, as the authority that a law has been violated by san francisco or any other -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will direct his remarks to the chair. mr. becerra: mr. chairman, i will direct my remarks to you. may i ask, mr. chairman, if any of my time has been consumed as a result of the chairman's interpretation of my remarks? -- interruption of my remarks? the speaker pro tempore: no, sir. mr. becerra: i thank the chairman. mr. chairman the chairman of the committee made a statement that the law that had been violated by san francisco and the law that would be violated by places like los angeles, that would cause this legislation to have my community of los angeles lose money for its police officers, was a particular section in the code. i've read the code. i'm looking at it right now. that section relates to information being provided about the immigration status of an

individual. we're not talking about the immigration status of an individual. we all knew that this individual was not documented. we knew his status. the information that was not conveyed in this particular case is that the individual is going to be released from custody. . this will bill doesn't change that. there was no law violated by the city of san francisco. certainly my city of los angeles didn't violate any law. the city of knocksville, tennessee, didn't violate any law. the city of manchester, new hampshire, didn't violate any law. i could name you cities and towns who are trying to have working relationships with their immigrant community that didn't violate any law. but this law would punish cities and towns because this wishes to extract policies. there is no state or city law in america that supersedes federal

law. federal law is the law of the land. the chairman knows that and we all know that. so to pretend that somehow cities are violating federal law is a farce. it is a tactic that donald trump is using right now as he goes out and campaigns for deny our police departments funding. i thank the gentlelady for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: i just want to close by posing some of the questions that this bill does not deal and that i think should command our attention. in this case, we had an individual who had a criminal record. he had attempted to enter the united states. was apprehended, deported, was prosecuted and convicted for

illegal entry after removal. after serving over four years for the last felony prosecution, he was ready to be deported. but they found, even though he had been deported many times before with an outstanding bench warrant from 1995 where the underlying offense was marijuana possession, all of a sudden, this year, he was sent to san francisco. i think one of the questions we need to ask is what is the process of outstanding warrants and interface with the bureau of prisons when someone should be deported. apparently there was no communication between the federal government and the prosecuting attorney in san francisco. he was sent to, apparently san francisco, but the district attorney did not see this matter

until he was already in custody. now, i don't fault the district attorney for not prosecuting on a 20-year-old marijuana possession case. where would you find the witnesses? and in fact, california today marijuana possession is an infraction, not a misdemeanor, but the point is, he should have never been in san francisco to begin with. we need to look at the processes that we have to make sure that we don't have this kind of situation again. and clearly, he should not have been released when the district attorney declined to prosecute. at this point i would like to yield a minute to my colleague from california, mr. sam farr. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. farr: thank you very much. i represent many small communities in california that have a lot of gang violence, hispanic young men against

hispanic young men. they're not undocumented. they are second-generation gang. a lot of killings. labeled the murder capital in the united states. what the communities have been trying to do is work out community policing, where you really trust the cops. they ask them to be a sanctuary city because what the local cops didn't like, they would come in and do raids and round up innocent people. and there was lots of confusion. our office would get involved trying to chase people down and all these things. the cities are saying let's not turn over the names we stop on mr. allen: infraction. let them come down and do jail checks. they don't want to do jail checks. it's not fun and fancy.

ms. lofgren: i would yield and additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. farr: this bill just busts all that. all the trust that has been built. the san francisco deal was a big screw-up between law enforcement but don't penalize these cities that are doing a lot of wonderful things to do community policing and believe confidence in their law enforcement. you are going to create more problems than you ever imagined, people not wanting to report crimes and not talk to cops. and you are using the heavy hand of government. let's air this out and address the problems that congresswoman lofgren talked about and not adopt this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i yield myself a minute to respond to both gentlemen from california.

first go with regard to mr. becerra the fact of the matter is that title 8 of the united states code, section 1373 related to communication between government agencies and immigration and naturalization service is an important statute and sanctuary cities violate that statute when they pass ordinances that prohibit, prohibit their law enforcement officers from communicating with the immigration and naturalization service. this yields situations like what occurred in san francisco, because the sheriff there had a policy saying they could not communicate with the i.n.s. and one san francisco supervise -- supervisor has called upon the city to change the policy so they will communicate. this bill, which cuts off funds to cities that have provisions

that contradict and violate the united states law does the same thing by a different route. and it will save many lives in the future if local law enforcement will communicate with the i.n.s. to the gentleman from california, mr. farr, i just want to repeat again what i said several times here. there's nothing in this bill -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. goodlatte: i yield myself 15 seconds. nothing in this bill that requires any officer to ask any question of any victim of crimes about their immigration status or to reveal that information to the i.n.s. so i would urge folks to look at what this bill very straightforward simple bill says federal law governance immigration policy and local government shouldn't have hundreds of different immigration policies.

>> law enforcement grants from sanctuary cities. secretary of state john kerry was joined bring energy secretary moniz and jack lew. they appeared before the senate foreign relations committee. and we'll get an update on the safety practices after it shipped live and thrarks spores to laboratories. . whereas today's iran hearing the. you will see the headline from today's washington host.

during the hearing senator rubio said" it is important for the world and especially iran to understand that this is a deal where survival is not guaranteed beyond the term of the current president. the florida republican went on, even if this deal narrowly avoids defeat, the iranian regime and world should know that this is your deal with iran, and the next president is under no legal or moral obligation to live up to it. later in the hearing, senator paul asked secretary kerry if this agreement prevents iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and about a recent comment from iran's ayatollah. here's part of that exchange. >> the point is, everyone who is for the agreement is that you are saying this all prevent them and the ayatollah saying the opposite.

sec. kerry: the ayatollah has actually said that there is no decision there whatsoever. he is protecting his domestic turf. senator: he's saying this is not true. they said the same thing when you came out in with your statement about what you thought the agreement meant. i want to negotiated sentiment. but it troubled us that immediately, the iranians a the opposite. senator: they are not thing the opposite of this. in fact his quote is in this document that iran will never go after a nuclear weapon and say happily put that in. the intel community will tell you they have made zero decision. senator: he said this week that they stopped iran and they know it's not true. sec. lew: and you know why he's

saying that? because he doesn't believe the american stopped it. he believes he stopped it. sec. kerry: he is to clear the policy of the country is not to do it. as a matter of sovereignty and pride, he made a truce in. he doesn't believe the american stopped it he said he didn't want one in the first place. >> c-span is partnering with the new hampshire union leader. all current and likely candidates have been invited to participate. it is live on c-span and c-span radio and c-span.org. today's senate foreign relations committee hearing on the iran nuclear agreement, secretary of state john kerry and an insert -- energy secretary ernest moneys and secretary jack lew joined secretary kerry today.

senator bob corker chairs. [applause] sen. corker: i want to thank the witnesses for being here today. we look forward to couples and hearing. i want to thank all of those also who are in attendance. i know there was an outbreak

prior to his convening. we thank you for being here. we do hope you will respect that now that the meeting is in order, outbursts of any kind are unwarranted and respect the democratic process that is taking place here. we thank you for being here, we also thank you for your courtesy as we move ahead. other witnesses have agreed to be here as long as we wish. we will start with seven minute questions. based on live from -- last night visitation, there is sometimes a tendency to want to interject. what i would say is obviously we conduct our meetings with a lot of respect and courtesy. i would ask the witnesses that they would to respond directly to the question from senators on both sides of the aisle as if they ask it directly to a

witness. get them to respond. someone else wants to interject they can indicate they want to do so, but senators should feel free to say no i just wanted that witness and move on to the next to make your that we don't end up in a filibuster situation. we are able to fully get our questions answered. i want to start today by thinking our committee. we would not be here today, we would not have the information that we have today if we had not passed the iran nuclear agreement review act. this would not be taking place. i think the american people now understand what this debate was all about. when congress put in place sanctions to bring iran's -- iran successfully to the table as we did, we granted the executive branch something

called a national security waiver. what that meant was the executive branch had the ability to way our congressionally mandated sanctions to suspend them until such a time as we permanently waived them down the road. as you know, unfortunately over the objections of senator cordon and myself, the executive branch went directly to the united nations this monday morning with something that was not in the spirit of this. but this is what was always intended. i do want to say that while secretary kerry has often said congress will have the ability to weigh in at some point in time prior to this law being passed and causing the searing to happen today, we now read the agreement and realize that what he meant was eight years from now we would have the opportunity to way and because that's what it's -- that's what is stated in the agreement. i want to thank everybody for

coming together unanimously making that happen. and getting as a role. a role that it not exist prior to that passing. i have to say we had everything last night and i left there. i talk to members on both sides of the aisle, i was fairly depressed. after last night's presentation. with every detail of the deal that was laid out all are witnesses successfully batted them away with the hyperbole that it's either this deal war. therefore, we were never able to appropriately question or get into any of the details because every time i did it was either this deal or war. i believe that to be hyperbole. i know the secretary last night pulled out a letter that was written in 2008 by the prior

administration. i don't know if he will refer to that today, and i thought about it last night. i realized that what he was really pointing out with a letter is unless we give iran what they want, ask. that's what really that letter wa let me just walk through that. we've been through an incredible journey. we began 20 months or so ago with a country that was a rogue nation. that had a boot on its neck. our goal was to dismantle the program. we have ended up in a situation where the deal that is on the table basically codifies the industrialization of their nuclear program. it's a an amazing transition that has occurred. yet everyone here, not a person in this room including our witnesses -- everyone here knows there is not one practical need

for the program that they are building. not one. we are not a single witness can lay out any reasoning -- not a single reason for iran to be developing this program from the standpoint of what it means to them from a civil standpoint. not one. months after this agreement goes into effect, we realize that after monday, unless congress intervenes, in 90 days will be implemented. and then six months after that a total of nine months from now all of the sanctions that exist against iran will be lifted. incredible. there will be a few remaining sanctions, but the big ones that matter will be lifted. they will have access to billions of dollars. their economy will be growing. they will be shipping oil around

the world. it's an amazing thing. so what happens, i think all this figure this out as we went to the deal, right now we have some leverage. but nine months from now, the leveraged shift to them because we have a sanction snapback. what they have if we to apply that is what's called a nuclear snapback. the way the deal is structured they can immediately just began. if you had sanctions we are out of the deal. they can immediately snapback. the leveraged shift to them. the possible military dimensions, i think most of us call it the previous military dimensions. we know they were involved in that. basically that has no bearing for the agreement. i know our witnesses will say if they don't deal with is properly we want to implement. but according to the agreement it has no bearing whatsoever on whether the sanctions are removed or not. yet that was such an important piece for everyone to know.

anytime anywhere inspections last night we had witnesses saying i never said that. it's been a part of our mantra from day one. it's been a part of their mantra from day one. anywhere anytime. now we have a process that they are declaring is 24 days, but we all know that's not right. 24 days begins after the iaea has found violations that they are concerned about. and then you give iran time to risk on to that and then by the time it takes then there is a 24 new process, but it could be months. as we know, and laboratories when you are developing a nuclear warhead it's very easy to cover things up like that. all the focus has been on finding uranium. there are other aspects of this that are very difficult to find. i know they have said this is the most comprehensive

inspection regime we ever had. that is not true. i talked to secretaries of state and others. we had a far more comprehensive and rapid inspection program in iraq area for more. that certainly did not service particularly well. bennett and i have written a letter asking for additional materials that we do not now have. one of the items we do not have is regarding the agreement between iran and the iaea. we're never going to get that letter, so the inspection entity that we are relying upon to find out whether iran is cheating, we are not in going to have access to that agreement. we do know one of the characteristics is very interesting. we had a professional athlete in chattanooga this is about a month there. he is incredibly -- a role

model. he is -- incredible integrity. he is a role model of the world. i was talking to him a couple of weeks ago about the program that professional athletes through for drug testing area it's incredible. that is anytime anywhere. there are qualities to this that unfortunately -- i'm told i cannot get into. but there are qualities to this program that would not be unlike causing athletes to just mail in their own urine specimens in the mail and as believing that that is where it came from. i've got some questions. i want to talk a little bit about who we are dealing with here. most of us have been to iraq many times. i will never forget visiting the

general in baghdad. every time we visited him, he would have on his coffee table the isps. that were used to maim and kill americans. they were made. the ied's. they were laying there on the coffee table. every single one of them made by ron. once we developed the technology to counter that what they did next was developed something called nef the explosively formed penetrator. what they do if they have an explosion that heats up copper to go through a piece of machinery to maim and dismember americans. this was all iran. every single bit of it. we've all been out to walter

reed and visited these incredible euros that have lost in some cases to arms and a leg. some cases to listen to arms. we see them all over the country. they are living with us today. this is the country that we are dealing with. the country that created some of the most disturbing types and methods of maiming americans that have ever been seen. they try to kill an ambassador here in washington dc not long ago. we know that area we went over to -- to see something at the holocaust museum. i young man named caesar had taken photographs of the syrian presence which by the way iran supports. syria -- assad would not even be

in office today at work for iran. we went over and envisioned what the torture the tapping. it's been photographed and chronicled. many of you have seen it on the internet. it's an amazing thing. it is happening right now as we sit here. some people might say what i was a rack and should we have been there not? this is happening this very second with the support of iran. people's genitals right now being amputated, people are being electrocuted. this is happening this very second. in a prison in iran -- in syria that iran is supporting. some would say we have not done as much as we could stop it because of these negotiations. when i was in college, i was a particularly good student. the first part of student --

college i was interested in sports, the latter part of his interested in working. i learned one thing. i learned about the critical path method and i ended up building buildings all over our country. i learned you start with something like this and you lay out a vision and then you build it out. you begin with the end in mind and you put first things first. it's sort of the critical path. what i've seen our secretary do is -- i know he has developed a tremendous warmth with iran's foreign ministers. he talks about it often. but what i think you've actually done in these negotiations is codify a perfectly aligned pathway for iran to get a nuclear weapon just by abiding by this agreement. i look at the things that they need to do the way played out. i don't think you could more perfectly laid out.

from my perspective mr. secretary i'm sorry not unlike a hotel guest that leaves only with a hotel bathrobe on his back, i believe you have been fleeced. in the process, what you've really done here and do to iran from being a pariah to now congress being a pariah. a few weeks ago, you were saying that no deal is better than a bad deal. and i know that there is no way that you couldn't possibly been thinking about war a few weeks ago. no way. and yet what you say to us now and you set it over and over yesterday and i've seen you say it over and over and television

is that it somehow congress were to turn this down, the only option is war. whereas a few weeks ago, for you to turn it down the only option was -- is war. i don't think you can have it both ways. let me just say this. if congress were to say the sanctions cannot be lifted, it would not be any different than the snapback that we now have where in essence the united states on its own can implement snapback but my guess is the other countries as you stated before would come along. we have to decide which way that it is. i know you state with the degree of disdain about a regional partners when you describe their reaction to this deal. but one of the things we have to remember is if we'd actually dealt with dismantling their nuclear program, they would not

be responding in the way that they have area and but not only is this -- has this not occurred in addition, we are listing the ballistic missile embargo in a years. i have no idea how that even entered into the equation, but it did at the end. we are listing conventional weapons embargo in five years. and in a very acute way unbelievably, we are immediately lifting the ballistic missile testing programs. were lifting the ban. so i have to say that based on my reading i believe that you have crossed a new threshold in u.s. foreign-policy. now it is the policy of the united states to enable a state sponsor of terror to obtain

sophisticated industrial nuclear development programs that have as we know only one real practical need. that is what you are here today to ask us to support. i look forward to your testimony and the appropriate western. senator cardin. senator: first thank you very much for convening this hearing. incredible service to our country, incredible sacrifice to their families. we thank you very much for your dedicated service and your hard work and what you have -- your service to america. the iranian nuclear agreement review act that the senator -- referred to past earlier this

year was an effort by the members of congress to set up the appropriate review for a potential deal with iran. we are extremely pleased that after very difficult negotiations, we were able to get a unanimous vote of this committee and get the support of the white house and we believe we accomplished two major objectives. first of course we set up the appropriate review for congress. it allows us to take action, but we don't have to take action. it recognizes the fact that the sanction regime was passed by congress area and that we have a role to play in regards to implementing any agreement as we now see in the jcp away. it set off an orderly process. this hearing is part of the process.

it took you two years to negotiate this agreement, it took you two months in vienna to get to the final details. we are on day four of our review at 60 days. i have not reached a conclusion. and i would hope that most members would want to get all of the information and allow those who are directly involved to make their case. we have hearings set up next week and the following week area that we will get outside experts. many of us have taken advantage of that opportunity in the past. i would hope that we would all use that opportunity for drawing a conclusion. this is a very important agreement from the point of view of u.s. foreign-policy. iran and the region is critically important to the united states security. but there is a second objective to this nuclear review act. and that is to concentrate all

of our efforts on the bad guy iran. and seek with unity as much as we could in the united states. so that our negotiators could concentrate on vienna and not on washington. in dealing with getting the very best possible agreement. i must tell you mr. chairman, i looked at the framework that was agreed to in april, and looking at the final agreement that we got today, our negotiators got an awful lot. particularly on the nuclear front which is beyond my expertise. we got things that there were many rumors during these last couple of months of what was going to be in this agreement. and how it was going to be weekend from the framework. that in fact have been strickland since the april framework. i just want to applaud our negotiators for taking the strength of our unity and turning it into results. and we will be talking a little

bit about that. the objective is clearly to prevent iran from ever becoming a nuclear weapon power. that is our simple objective. we know who we are dealing with. this is a state sponsor of terrorism. this is a country that abuses human rights, that violates ballistic missile area. we know all that. but we singularly are trying to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear weapon power because we know that is a game changer in the region. that's the objective of this agreement. the standard that we have to use , because there is no trust in iran. the supreme leader on friday after the agreement was entered into said we will trample upon america. we don't trust iran. but we have to leave emotion out

of this. we have to look at the agreement. we have to determine whether the compliance with this agreement by the united states will put us on a path that makes us less likely for more likely that iran will become a nuclear weapon power. that has to be the test that we use. so mr. chairman, i have any questions that i hope we will get answers to today. i hope those answers will provoke debate among us in congress and the american people and help us make the right decisions. since there is no trust, the inspection and enforcement regime is particularly important. we need to understand how it works. do we have sufficient time to discover if iran is violating the terms of this agreement in order to take effective action to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear weapon power? that is a question we need to understand. we need to know the breakout times. we need to know what happens

after the time periods. do we have sufficient opportunity to prevent them from ever becoming a nuclear weapon holder? are the inspections robust enough to deter iran from cheating? if they do, what we discover and be able to take action? mr. chairman, you raise the 24 window. i think all of us recognize there is going to be a protocol for inspection. that does not get us by surprise. but we need to know whether the 24 hours delay, knowing what iran is likely to do, does that compromise our ability to have effective inspections? i hope our witnesses will deal with it today, because that is a matter of major concern. we need to know the answer to that. have we cut off all pathways for iran to obtain a nuclear weapon? particularly if the covert military used operations. we know that is a major concern.

that's why the -- is particularly important. the iaea, our inspectors, they have great credibility in this area. but we will want to know whether they have the capacity to do what we're asking them to do. it will they have the access that we need? because we do need to know about their prior military dimensions in order to be able to go forward and make sure that we can contain any opportunity. these are questions that we are going to ask. we have read the agreement. we still have questions. we hope we will get answers as to whether we have effectively prevented iran from using covert activities to develop a nuclear weapon. will this agreement provide us iaea with sufficient access to the people places and documents

so that we know their prior military dimensions? are the snapback provisions adequate? that's an issue that i hope we will have a chance to talk about. at the end of the time limit iran will have the capacity to expand as the chairman rightly pointed out to an industrial capacity. they can get to their in nuclear enrichment. that they can do. do we have sufficient capacity knowing their commitments for nonproliferation? knowing the requirements of the additional protocols, is that going to be adequate to prevent them -- if they try to become a nuclear weapon state, do we have sufficient tools to prevent them from becoming a nuclear weapon power. these are questions we need the answers to before we can make our judgments.

there are other areas, i want to be reassured that the u.s. still has the flexibility to impose nonnuclear sanctions for its support of terrorism. no one expects their bad behavior to change on implementation day. we know who we are dealing with. will we be able to use the powers we have used in the past and build upon them? particularly in light that they will have additional resources can we do that? can congress work with the administration to strengthen those tools without violating the jcp away? i want to know how the administration is updating its regional determine strategy. how we're going to work with our partners to build up their capacity to counter iran. especially israel. the chairman mentioned the lifting of the international

arms embargo. that is a great concern. as to what impact it will have on our regional partners, how will it impact an arms race in that region of the world russian mark these are questions we need to get the best information we can in making our decisions. lastly, let me mention this because i think it's critically important. what are our options if the u.s. wants away from this? how will we be perceived internationally? will we be able to maintain effective enforcement of sanctions with our international partners, whether ron come back to a negotiating table with a country that has walked away from an agreement? these are questions we need to understand. we need to know what the options are. what are the consequences if we don't go forward? mr. chairman, we have a full plate area i look forward to hearing from our witnesses. i hope that the members of this committee will use the information that we get today to debate the issue, take the time

that we have to do is right for the american people, and ultimately make the decision that we think is best to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear weapon power. sen. corker: thank you senator. i appreciate the way we work together and 70 issues. with that, i know that our witnesses here need no introduction. they are well known not only here but around the world in spite of our policy differences, i think each of us deeply appreciates the we deeply appreciate the tremendous effort that you have put up dust put out on behalf of our country. we thank you for being here today. we thank you for being willing to be here today as long as it takes for everyone to get their answers area with that, i would like to introduce collectively secretary john kerry who used to

serve with us and sit on the side of the diocese, -- deus. secretary lou who served and multiple positions here. certainly has been affirmed by this committee several times. we thank you all for your great service. in spite of some of the concerns that we have for today. i think you all understand the drill. take five minutes or so to explain as i looked it your testimony, i know it is very brief area of just to warn people in advance, i'm going to do for my questions and move to you immediately thereafter. i will use my time to interject's things move along area with that, secretary kerry. sec. kerry: thank you mr. chairman. we really do appreciate the

chance to discuss with you the conference a plan that we and our p5 plus one partners have developed with the ron regarding the future of its nuclear program. let me emphasize to everyone here, this is not just the united states of america. these are other nuclear powers, france. britain, russia. china. they have a pretty good understanding of this field. and of the challenges. i appreciate the way in which they and germany which was the plus one all caps again or, all contributed. all were part of this debate. you're are not just looking at what this table negotiated. you are looking at what the international community, the p5 plus one under the auspices of the united nations negotiated. and they are not dumb. they are experts. everyone of them in nuclear technology and ratification, verification. there are smart people who spent

a lifetime at this. and they signed off on this agreement. i am joined by two cabinet secretaries. i think all of you for the role the congress play. i was privileged to be the chair of this committee when we pass the iran sanctions effort. we all remember the debate that have to unanimously. it played a very significant role in bringing iran to the table and in helping to make it clear that we needed to bring about a serious and productive negotiation with the ron. from the day that those talks began, we were crystal clear that we would not accept anything less than a good deal. and we do find it up front. as a deal they closed off the four pathways to a bomb, the two uranium pathways, the one plutonium pathway and the covert pathway. we set our standard. we believe we have achieved that standard.

after almost two years a very intensive talks, the facts are really crystal clear. the plan that was announced last week in vienna is in fact a deal that does shut off those pathways. and provides us with guarantees for the lifetime of the npt. and the participation of iran that we will know what they are doing. the chairman mentioned in his opening comments some phrase about unless we give around what they want. folks, they are the have what they want. they got a 10 years ago or more. they already have conquered the fuel cycle. when we began our negotiations, iran had enough physical material for 10 to 12 bonds. they had 19,000 centrifuges.

they were actually dismantling their entire program, because when that was being talked about, that's when they went from 100 g centrifuges to 19,000. everyone here knows what this -- knows what the options are for stopping that. it's called military action. if they are not going to stop it

otherwise. they have proven that. they proved it during all those years. so under the terms of this agreement, they have agreed now to remove 98% of its stockpile. voluntarily, they're going to destroy 98% of the stockpile of enriched uranium. they will dismantle two thirds of their centrifuges, and they will take out the existing core of the heavywater reactor and fill it with concrete. iran has agreed to refrain from producing highly enriched uranium for at least 15 years. and if they began to do that, we will know it. immediately. they have also agreed to accept the additional protocol. that is an outgrowth of the failure of the north korea experience. it put in additional access

requirements precisely so that we do know what they're doing. and they have to ratify it before the human sanctions are lifted at the end of this process. they have to have passed it. they have agreed to live by it, from day one. they will live by the additional protocol. in addition, there are additional transparency measures. we can go into them in the course of this hearing. if they fail to comply, we will know it. we will know it quickly. we will be able to respond accordingly. by reinstituting sanctions, all the way up to the most akoni and options that we have today. none of them are off the table at any point in time. many of the measures that are in this agreement are there for not just 10 years, not just 15 years, not just 20 years area

not just 25, there are measures for each of those periods of time, but there for life. forever. as long as iran is within the npt. north korea pulled out of the npt. iran has not. remember that two years ago when our negotiations began, we faced an iran that was enriching uranium up to 20% at a facility that was secret and buried underground area that they were rapidly stockpiling enriched uranium and had installed nearly 20,000 centrifuges area that they were building a heavywater rap -- reactor that could produce weapons grade b -- plutonium at the rate of one to two bombs per year. the time. soon produce one physical weapon

was two to three months. if this deal is rejected, we return immediately to this reality. except that the diplomatic support that we've built with all these other countries, that we've accumulated would disappear overnight. let me underscore, the alternative to the deal that we have reached is not what i seems that apple tv suggesting. it is as a close better deal some sort of unicorn arrangement involving iran's complete capitulation, that is a fantasy. plain and simple. our own intelligence community will tell you that. every single department of art intelligence community will reinforce that. the choice we face is between an agreement that will ensure their nuclear program is limited rigorously scrutinized and wholly peaceful or no deal at all. that's a choice.

the fact is that there are 189 nations that lit by the npt. five of them are as we know the main nuclear powers of the u.n.. 184 them are nonnuclear. but they live by it. we have lived by what the iaea does with respect to ensuring what all of those 184 nations are doing. including 12 that enrich. if the u.s. congress moves to in the anna, the result will be the united states of america walking away from every one of the restrictions that we have achieved. and a great big green light for ron to double the pace of its uranium enrichment receivables feet ahead with a heavywater reactor and install new and more efficient centrifuges, and do it all without the unprecedented inspection and transparency

measures that we have secured. everything that we prevented will then start taking place. all of the voluntary rollbacks in their program will be undone. moreover if of u.s. after laboriously negotiating this agreement with five other partners were to walk away from his partners, we're on our own. our partners will not walk away with us. instead, they will walk away from the tough multilateral sanctions regime that they helped to put in place. and we will have squandered the best chance we have to solve this problem through peaceful means. make no mistake, president obama has made it crystal clear that we will never set a nuclear armed iran. he is the only president who is developed a weapon capable of guaranteeing that. he's not only developed at he is to put it. but the fact is they now have -- we all don't like it, but

whether we like it or not they have developed experience with the nuclear fuel cycle. they have developed the ability to produce the material for a bomb. we can't bomb that knowledge away. nor can we sanction that knowledge away. remember, sanctions did not stop the nuclear program from growing steadily to the point that it had accumulated enough you -- enough material to produce 10 nuclear weapons. by the way, they did not choose to produce them. unlike north korea,. the truth is, the vienna plan will provide a stronger and more confident in more lasting means of limiting their nuclear program than any alternative that has been spoken of area to those who are thinking about opposing the deal because of

what might happen in your 15 or 16 or 20, remember if we walk away, your 15 or 16 or 20 starts tomorrow. and without any of the long-term verification or transparency safeguards that we put in place. over the past week, i've spoken at length about what exactly this deal is. i also want to make clear what the deal was never intended to be. first of all as the chief negotiator, i can tell you i never uttered the word anywhere anytime, nor was it ever part of the discussion that we had with uranium. this plan was designed to address the nuclear issue. the nuclear issue alone. we knew that if we got caught up in all of the other issues, we would never get where we needed to stop the nuclear program area it would be rope a dope. staying there forever negotiating one that -- one

aspect or another. the highest priority of the president was to make sure that iran could not get a nuclear weapon. we were disciplined in that. we did not set out even though we don't like it, i have extensive plans that i will lay out to you if you want them. about how we are going to push back against their other activities, against terrorism and its support and contributions to sectarian violence in the middle east. all of those are unacceptable, they are is on acceptable to us as they are to you, but i have news for you. pushing back against an iran with a nuclear weapon is very different from pushing back against iran without one. we are guaranteeing they will have one. so we are very closely with the gulf states. it just today in saudi arabia, asked carter was there yesterday. the foreign minister said that the nuclear dear -- deal appears

to have all the provisions necessary to curtail the ability to obtain a nuclear weapon or it . i would suggest regularly that we are going to continue to press iran for information about the missing american, about the immediate release of americans who been unjustly held, and there is not a challenge in the entire region that we will not push back against if they are involved in it, but i would tell you none of those challenges will be enhanced if iran gets a nuclear weapon. the outcome cannot be guaranteed by sanctions alone. i wish you could, but it can't be. by the way it also can't be guaranteed by military action alone. our own military tells that. the only viable option here is a comprehensive diplomatic

resolution of the type that has -- that was reached in vienna. that deal, we believe. and we will show two today and in the days ahead will make our country and our allies safer. it will ensure that the nuclear program remains under intense group name for ever, and we will know what they're doing. it will ensure that the world community is united in ensuring that iran's nuclear activities will remain wholly peaceful even as we also stay united in pushing back against his other activities in the region which we object to. we believe this is a good deal for the world, a good deal for america, a good deal for allies and friends in the region. and we think it does deserve your support. sen. corker: thank you. secretary moneys. sec. moniz: i do appreciate the opportunity to come here.

the agreement prevents iran from getting a nuclear weapon and provide strong verification measures they give us time to respond if they chose to violate the terms. and it fundamentally takes none of our options up the table. i want to stress that the leading nuclear experts at the department of energy and our national laboratories were involved route the negotiations. they all played important roles. these experts were essential to evaluating and developing technical proposals and support of the u.s. delegation. as a result of their work, i am confident that the technical underpinnings of the steel are solid, and the department of energy stands ready to assist in the limitation area the deal meets the president's objectives and verification of the program

that is exclusively peaceful and sufficiently timed to respond to the present otherwise. the jcp away will extend for at least 10 years the time it would take for iran to produce just the material for a first nuclear explosive to at least one year from the current breakout time of two to three months. the deal addresses the enrichment of plutonium and covert pathways to a nuclear weapon. the first point i would like to make is that the parameters are maintained and strengthened, not weekend strengthened in the final agreement. this means restricting the number type, and location of centrifuges. dialing back the r&d program dramatically decreasing their stockpile. and prohibiting introduction and any material to oil. excess infrastructure also

removed. all of these reasons taken together established that when the you -- the new breakout timeline. something that we have not stress but i do want to add, at the end of these 10 years, iran will have far fewer than 19,000 centrifuges. because they knowledge the breakage rate. they will not have a large replacement capacity because of the agreement. in addition, they will have no source of weapons grade plutonium. the reactor is transformed under international oversight and participation to produce far less plutonium than the current design. and essentially, immediate recognition and they try to deviate from that. furthermore, all of the irradiated fuel from that

reactor goes out of the country for life. this deal goes beyond the parameters. one area is that iran will not engage in several activities that could contribute to the development of a nuclear explosive device. these commitments are indefinite, and in addition for 15 years iran will not pursue plutonium or uranium or uranium alloy metallurgy. because they will not engage in these activities, an additional. should be added to our stated breakout timeline. to be clear, the deal is not built on trust. it is hard-nosed. with hard-nosed requirements that will limit their activities and ensure inspections transparency and -- i can

assure you this is not what iran wanted. to preclude cheating, inspectors will be given unprecedented access to all of their facilities. and any other site that concern. as well as the entire nuclear supply chain on the uranium supply to the centrifuge manufacturing and operation. this access to the radium supply chain comes with a 25 year commitment. beyond 25 years, even after a quarter century of compliance, we still have as we have said many times the additional protocol in place to monitor their nuclear activities, but another thing we have also is their appearance to modify code 3.1 which means that they must notify the iaea even before they

start building any nuclear facility. this eliminates any -- a loophole where one could do something covertly and then say we were planning to notify before we brought in nuclear material. they must do this now in the planning stage, it's another thing we have beyond 25 years. the iaea will be permitted to use advanced technologies. including things like real-time enrichment monitoring which i might say as a technology developed by our laboratories. if the international community suspects iran is trying to cheat, the iaea can rip request access to any location. much has been made about a 24 day process for ensuring inspectors can get access, i would say unlike secretary kerry, i did say the words anytime anywhere area and i am very pleased that yesterday a

member of your caucus a member of your caucus acknowledged however that the full sentence was anytime anywhere in the sense of the well-defined process with the well-defined and time. i'm pleased that we've established that. in fact, the iaea can request access to any suspicious location with 24 hours notice under the additional protocol. the deal does not change that baseline. the issue is if there is then agreement is not reached then when they request access, the 24 day clock will start. this is a new tool, a finite time. a new tool for dissolving disputes for what we think is a short. of time. short is to find because of our confidence in environmental sampling that we will then be able to -- even after a tense

are made to remove the evidence of activities with nuclear material. in fact, iran's history provides a good example. in february 2003, the iaea requested access this is the silly in toronto area it was denied, negotiations dragged out for six months. even after that long delay environmental samples taken by the iaea revealed nuclear activity even though they had made a substantial effort to remove and cover up the evidence. we have in addition, conducted our own experience -- experiments to verify the ability to detect very small traces of uranium. the agreement will be implement today as is and said already. some 10 years 1525. as i've already described, the key transparency measures that they beyond 25 years of course

as long as iran is in the npt and if they were not in the npt every alarm bell would go awful over the place and appropriate actions would of course be taken. in closing, i just want to knowledge the tireless work of the negotiating team led by my colleague secretary kerry. the u.s. agency -- the u.s. multi agency delegation works together seamlessly. the e3 eu plus three displayed remarkable cohesion throughout this very complex endeavor. the continued collaboration and cooperation among the leading nations and particularly you got that i-5 and un security council is crucial to ensuring that iran complies with the jcp away so as to avoid the reimposition of a major international sanctions regime and probably other responses as well area i want to say again, the deal is based on science and analysis because of its deep grounding and exhaustive technical analysis

carried out largely buyer doe scientists and engineers. i am confident that this is a good deal for america, or allies, and for global security is. just respond to the ranking members -- ranking member. thank you for the opportunity to be here, i look forward to discussion. sen. corker: thank you very much. secretary lou. sec. lew: thanks to the opportunity to speak today about the joint comprehensive plan of action. foreign-policy decision of this significance deserves thorough review. i'm confident that a full and fair debate on the merits will make it clear that this deal strengthen our national security and that of our allies. powerful array of u.s. and international sanctions if iran constitutes the most effective sanctions regime in history. these measures have clearly

demonstrated to their leaders the cost of flouting international law cutting them off from the world's markets and crippling their economy. today, the iranian economy is about 20% smaller than it remained in the pre-2012 growth path. together we established a web of far reaching u.s. and international sanctions that persuaded iran's leadership to come to the table, prepared to roll back its nuclear program. international consensus and cooperation to achieve this is bible -- vital. the unity of purpose produced for tough un security council resolutions and national security sanctions in many countries. the point of these sanctions was to chang