senate is going to reject this agreement. there are a few dissenting votes, we'll find out how many, we have four senator who was not made a public decision. i believe one will make a decision, may already have done it. so we expect to know very soon where everybody stands. but we, as everyone knows, we have enough votes to make sure that the president's veto, if necessary, will not be verridden. >> a lot of us who have worked on this are puzzled by what the theory is, if the congress were to -- >> senator susan collins the latest to announce her opposition. discussion in the senate, follow that on c-span2. the house coming in now to begin their legislative work. recorded votes on postponed

questions will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 1344, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 182, h.r. 1344, a bill to amend the public health service act to reauthorize a program for early detection, diagnosis, and treatment regarding deaf and hard-of-hearing newborns, infants, and young children. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from kentucky, mr. guthrie, and the gentleman from texas, mr. green, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. mr. guthrie: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and and insert remarks extraneous materials on the record on the bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. guthrie: mr. speaker, i

yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. guthrie: thank you. i'm pleased that the house is considering h.r. 1344, the early hearing detection and intervention act of 2015. this bipartisan bill sets a strong precedent on working big issues before congress this month. the bill, which i introduced with congresswoman lois capps, re-authorizes the program for early detection, diagnosis and treatment of deaf and hard-of-hearing newborns, infants and young children. h.r. 1344 encourages hearing tests and intervention for newborn babies. through early detection, these children and their families can be made aware of the children's hearing loss and given access to specialized early intervention providers and programs in order to help them meet their potential. this re-authorization increases the focus on lawsuit follow yut -- losses follow-up so those

don't stop with identification. they may go on to receive intervention, treatment or introduction of deaf services. this program has proven success. in 2000, only 40% of newborns were screened for hearing loss. that number rose to just over 86% in 2011, and today the c.d.c. reports roughly 97% of all infant children are screened for hearing loss. in closing, i want to thank my colleague, congresswoman capps, for her leadership over the years on this important bipartisan issue. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 1344, so we can continue these vital services for newborn babies and young children. thank you, mr. speaker. i reserve the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. green: i rise in support of h.r. 1344, the early hearing

detection and intervention act, led by representatives lois capps and guthrie. develop ook steps to an act, and this further refines the early hearing detection and intervention act. early detection of a child's hearing loss increases chances that hearing services can be helpful. it can significantly improve quality of life, education outcomes for children with hearing impairment. the vast majority of deaf children are born to parents who do not have impaired hearing and may not be able to identify their child's condition early on. the outreach services provided for by the program re-authorizes -- re-authorized in this bill will ensure children and their parents receive screenings and

followup. chairman upton, ranking member pallone, chairman pitts for their work to advance this important legislation. i, my colleagues to support h.r. 1344, the early detection and prevention act. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert a statement by the ranking member of our committee, frank pallone be placed in the record. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. guthrie: i have no further speakers, i continue to reserve my sometime. -- my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. green: i yield to my colleague from california, the co-sponsor of the bill, the gentlelady from california. mrs. capps: i rise in strong support of h.r. 1344, the early hear degree text and intervention act which i was pleased to co-sponsor with my colleague in kentucky,

congressman brett guthrie. hearing loss in newborns is considered an invisible disability. almost three in every 1,000 children in the united states are born deaf or hard of hearing and many more lose their hearing later on in childhood. when hearing loss is left undetected, it can impede speech, listening wadge -- language and cognitive development. we know when hearing loss is caught early, children have much better outcomes. early intervention can help them overcome hearing issues and get them ready to learn on par with their peers. that is exactly what the early hearing detection intervention , does.onounced eddie ehdi has helped identify children in need of care early then interventions are most effective. since the implementation of the ehdi program 15 years ago, we've seen tremendous increase in the

number of newborns who are being screened for hearing loss. back in 2000, when we first set up the ehti program, only 44% of newborns in the country were being screened for hearing loss. now we are screening newborns at a rate of over 96%. s that remarkable achievement, but our work is not done. while it's important that all by bies are screened if hearing loss, it's just as important that those who do not pass this screen regular seve a diagnostic evaluation and be connected to early ver intention programs. unfortunately, according to the centers for disease control, 36% of newborns who failed their initial hearing screening are not receiving appropriate followup care. this re-authorization effort will focus on those children helping to bridge the gap between screening and intervention. my background as a school nurse for every 20 years, i have worked with so many students who were lagging behind their classmates due to undiagnosed or

untreated hearing loss. may i ask for an additional 30 seconds? these children did not need to suffer. we can and must help them succeed through stronger investments in followup and interventions, such as sign language training, hearing aids and speech language development. early identification and intervention are both keys to a child's well being. our legislation would ensure that these programs are there for the children who need it. a vote for this bill is a vote to keep this program strong. i urge my colleagues to support our bipartisan bill and i yield back to the chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves this egentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. guthrie: i continue to reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. green: we're read iy to close -- we're ready to close if my colleague is. i urge support of this measure

and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. guthrie: i thank my friend from kale, mrs. capps, working -- for working together to move this bipartisan bill forward. our subcommittee ranking, mr. green, our chairman, chairman pitts, i was involved in this effort in kentucky when i was in the state senate and have seen the difference that it makes and i'm glad to be involved in this on a national level to know that 97% of our babies are screened so they can get intervention and treatment very early in their life makes a big difference. i'm proud to be part of this and i urge my colleagues to vote for h.r. 1344 and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the as h r. 1344 -- h.r. 1344 amended? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the

rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid n the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. guthrie: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules d pass the bill h.r. 1725 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1725 a bill to amend and re-authorize the controlled substance monitoring program under section 3990 of the public health service act and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from kentucky, mr. guthrie, and the gentleman from texas, mr. greene -- mr. green, will each control 20 minutes this chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. mr. guthrie: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials on the -- in the record on the bill. the speaker pro tempore: without

objection. mr. guthrie: mr. speaker, i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. guthrie: i rise today in support of h.r. 1725, the national all schedules prescription reporting re-authorization act of 2015, introduced by my colleagues, mr. whitfield, mr. kennedy, mr. bucshon and mr. pallone. prescription drug abuse is an epidemic in this country and sadly kentucky is impacted by high rates of prescription drug abuse. every year, there are 15,000 overdose deaths from prescription main receive -- relievers. for every overdose death, there are 32 emergency department visits. one important tool we have as a nation to combat this epidemic is prescription drug monitoring programs. they prevent doctor shopping and help physicians make more informed clinical digs. re-authorizing this will provide

grants to states to provide prezrippings drug monitoring programs. they can access a patient's prescription history to help identify patients at risk for addiction those abusing prescription drugs. t also helps identify best practices -- practices for new ways to improve existing monitoring programs. i urge my colleagues to support this bill and reserve the balance of my too many. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky -- balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. green: i rise in support of h.r. 1725 the national all schedules prescription electronic reporting act, this importance slegs sponsored by ranking member pallone, representative whitfield and representative bucshon. it's needed to ensure that

physicians have pdmp's at the point of care as their name suggests, pdmp's help physicians and every providers to make appropriate prescribing decisions while ensuring patients with legitimate main% needs have access to necessary kear. we're in the middle of an epidemic of prescription drug opioid abuse, misuse and overdose. according to the centers for disease control, more than 16,000 americans died from opioid related overdose. pdmp's are an integral part to the nation's effort to combat the ongoing epidemic. they allow early indication, timely intervention to prevent prescription drug use. states have recognized that pdmp's are a vital tool to address this public health crisis as demonstrated by their universal adoption amongst the states. h.r. 1725 re-authorizes grans to

states to enhance pdmp's making further improvements to the program. they are needed to help states utilize this effective tool and incentive information sharing across state lines and further information and best pracktess. i want to thank members pallone, representatives kennedy, whitfield, bucshon for their leadership and i want to thank my colleagues on the energy and commerce committee for the commitment to addressing our nation's opioid epidemic. i inch my colleagues to support h.r. 1725 and i reserve the balance of my time. mr. speaker, i'd also ask unanimous consent to place in the statement -- to place a statement in the record by ranking member pallone. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. guthrie: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield four minutes to my fellow kentuckian who has worked tirelessly on these issues in the energy and commerce committee and back home to try to address the prescription drug problem in our state, i'd like to yield four

minutes to mr. whitfield of kentucky. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. whitfield: thank you very much for yielding time. i rise today in support of h.r. 1725, the national all-schedules prescription electronic reporting re-authorize act, as we call it, nasper. i introduced this legislation earlier this year with my colleagues, congressman bucshon of indiana, frank pallone of new jersey, joe kennedy of massachusetts. . i want to thank chairman upton, ranking member pallone, ranking member green and congressman guthrie for helping move this bill through the committee and subcommittee. it is already been stated the importance of this legislation to re-authorize nasper. prescription drug overdose death is reaching an epidemic

proportion. tragically, it has increased in america by fivefold since 1980 and drug overdose now kills more americans than automobile accidents. in my home state of kentucky, more than 1,000 individuals die each year from prescription drug overdose, which is the third highest rate in the country. 10 years ago, nasper was signed into law to assist states in combating prescription drug abuse through the creation and improvement of prescription drug monitoring programs, which experts agree are one of the most promising clinical tools to address this epidemic. so today we come to the floor to re-authorize this important legislation, and i hope that we can continue our efforts to obtain adequate funding from the appropriations committee for nasper.

while there is no silver bullet to solve the problem, we do have an opportunity to make a difference by advancing this re-authorization act, and i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting that effort, and i would yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman reserves. mr. guthrie: iry serve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from -- mr. guthrie: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. green: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. green: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. guthrie: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd also like to yield to a colleague, friend, neighbor, our districts are joined on the ohio river, who's a physician who understands these issues so i'd like to yield to dr. bucshon from indiana. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bucshon: i rise an an original co-sponsor of this legislation, h.r. 1725.

the re-authorization of nasper would allow samhsa to give grants to states for the establishment, improvement of prescription drug monitoring programs, or pdmp's, offering timely access to accurate prescription information to health care providers. as a physician, i understand this is critical to a provider's ability to screen and treat patients at risk for addiction. the nasper program also promotes greater information sharing by states by requiring grantees to facilitate these monitoring programs with at least one bordering state while simultaneously protecting against unauthorized access to patient records. this re-authorization language would also encourage states to explore ways to incorporate access to their pdmp's such as electronic health records and eprescribing. this is a commonsense measure to protect the public.

i want to thank mr. whitfield, mr. kennedy and ranking member pallone for their work on this legislation. i urge all of my colleagues to support this important bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. mr. guthrie: i reserve and have no further speakers. mr. green: we have no further speakers and we yield back our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back the balance. mr. guthrie: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate -- i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. guthrie: i appreciate mr. whitfield, dr. bucshon, certainly mr. kennedy and mr. pallone for bringing forth this bill. it's important to our state, our neighboring states and for the citizens throughout this country, and i urge my colleagues to vote for h.r. 1725, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 1725, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair,

2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. guthrie: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 1462. the speaker pro tempore: sport title of the bill. to combat the ll rise of prenatal opioid abuse and neonatal abstinence syndrome. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from kentucky, mr. guthrie, and the gentleman from texas, mr. green, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. mr. guthrie: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks nd insert extraneous materials in the bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. guthrie: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is

recognized. mr. guthrie: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 1462, the protecting our infants act of 2015, introduced by my colleagues ms. clark and mr. stivers. over the past several years, oip united addiction has riven, reaching epidemic proportions. the overdose from heroin rose from 2010 to 2012. one of the issues that's risen neonatal abstinence syndrome. they are addicted to opioid and suffer issues that can last for weeks keeping otherwise healthy infants confined to the hospital at the start of their lives. n.a.s. can result from the use of prescription drugs or from he illegal use of opioids. sadly this has tripled in the united states. this is a rapidly growing problem that needs to be addressed for the safety of our mothers and children. h.r. 1462 would address the

increasing problem of prenatal opioid abuse and neonatal abstinence syndrome. women of childbearing age is a crucial in addressing n.s.a. the government accountability office has identified that more research is needed in this area to help treat babies with n.a.s. this legislation would fill his reach gap by providing opioid abuse s of and n.a.s. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 1462, the protecting our infants act, led by representative kathryn clark and steve stivers.

the centers from disease control and prevention said drug overdose is the leading cause of injury and death in the united states. from 2004 to 2013, the incidents of rate of neonatal abstinence syndrome, n.a.s., has quadrupled. n.a.s. has referred to drug ithdrawal due to exposure of opioids. babies born with n.a.s. often requires weeks of hospitalization and can suffer from seizures and other severe complications. there's urgent need for research to facilitate the identification and treatment of n.a.s. and determine long-term health impacts. the g.a.o. and other experts identifies specific research aps related to best treatment. the long-term effects of preterm drug exposure and best practices of screening, diagnosis and treatment of

n.a.s. the protecting our infants act takes steps to reduce the numbers of newborns born to opioids and improve the care. it will facilitate the development and recommendations for treatment, coordination a national strategy to close the known gaps in research and coordination. it will also help states improve data collection and surveillance activities. i want to thank representatives clark and stivers for their leadership. i also want to thank chairman upton, ranking member pallone, chairman pitts and my colleagues on the energy and commerce committee for advancing this important legislation. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 1462, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. guthrie: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield three minutes to my friend from the neighboring state of west virginia, mr. jenkins for -- i'd like to recognize him for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia is recognized for three minutes. mr. jenkins: thank you very much. thank you very much, mr. speaker. every day in hospitals across

the third congressional district of west virginia and the country, babies begin their lives going through drug withdrawal because they were exposed during pregnancy. as you have heard, it's the diagnosis known as neonatal abstinence syndrome, or n.a.s. no baby, no baby deserves to start his or her life in withdrawal. from heroin or other opioids but sadly the rate of babies born with n.a.s., again, as you have heard, has skyrocketed nationally. doctors, nurses, caregivers are providing innovative care for newborns with n.a.s., but there are still gaps in research and our understanding of how best to care for our most vulnerable. the protecting our infants act makes significant strides in addressing this nationwide gap and developing these strategies, and i am proud to be a co-sponsor of this bill.

west virginia has been at the forefront of this epidemic with n.a.s. rates much higher than the national average. our nurses and doctors are tirelessly working to care for newborns with n.a.s., and having additional resources and research will only further their efforts in providing the best possible care. i have met with caregivers throughout my district to discuss their approaches to treating n.a.s., and i know this legislation will help in their efforts to treat these babies. while we must continue to guarantee that newborns receive the absolute best care, we must also address the issue of addiction in pregnant and postnatal women. this legislation will help identify and develop treatment methods for expectant mothers with opioid addictions, leading to healthier outcomes for

mother and baby alike. n.a.s. is a nationwide crisis, one that impacts urban, rural and suburban areas. nearly every district in america has been touched by heroin and opioid addiction. we must address the impact this addiction has on our most vulnerable in society, our newborn babies. i commend congresswoman clark for her efforts on this important legislation, and i urge my colleagues to support this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. guthrie: continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield to the co-sponsor of the bill, representative clark, as much time as she consumes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from massachusetts is recognized. ms. clark: thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank the gentleman from

texas for yielding. our nation is experiencing a deadly opiod epidemic, an epidemic that knows no boundaries and destroys lives, families and communities. today, 58 babies, one baby every 25 minutes, will be born suffering from the same pain adults describe as the worst pain of their lives. it is the pain of drug withdrawal. neonatal abstinence syndrome, or n.a.s. for short, occurs when babies are born dependent on opioids and one of the chief causes of the significant surge of newborns in neonatal intensive care units across the nation. over the last decade, the number of infants born dependent on powerful drugs has grown nearly fivefold. in states like massachusetts, n.a.s. is occurring at a rate three times the national

average. n.a.s. births are five times more costly than healthy ones. costs have risen to more than $1.5 billion a year, 80% of which are paid for by medicaid. because of the skyrocketing rise of n.a.s. cases and costs, doctors are desperately trying find the most effective method of diagnosis and treatment, but there is little coordination of data and best practices and protocols among states, health care systems and practitioners. and no medications have been approved by the u.s. food and drug administration for treating these babies. the protecting our infants act is the first federal bill to take proactive steps in addressing the rise of n.a.s. with broad bipartisan support in both chambers, this is an

opportunity for congress to make a difference for babies suffering from opioid exposure and the families struggling with addiction. this bill directs the department of health and human services to develop the protocols for treating and preventing n.a.s. the protecting our infants act helps babies suffering from opioid withdrawal by making sure they get the best care available. this act will ensure that every hospital has access to the best practices and that states have the public health data they need to address this crisis. this is good for our families, good for our health care providers, and good for our nation's bottom line. i want to thank my colleagues in the house, in particular scifres.an steve

m grateful for his help in addressing this problem. senators rate to feel others who sponsored this in the senate. i urge my colleagues to pass the bipartisan protecting our infants act and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. green: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. guthrie: thank you, mr. speaker. i would like to yield five minutes to my friend from ohio, mr. scifres. -- mr. stivers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. stivers: i rise today to support a bill that my colleague from massachusetts, ms. clarke, clark and i

introduced. i want to thank her for her hard work and commitment to protecting america's children this bill has the support of 95 bipartisan co-sponsors. it's a targeted effort to address a national epidemic of babies being born addicted to drugs. recent data has shown that this sue, called neonatal abstinence syndrome. symptoms of this can last for months and lead to weeks of hospitalization and have a lifelong impact. a report by a journal of the american medical association showed that the number of newborns diagnosed with n.a.s. trip frled 2000 to 2009. in my home state of ohio, the rate of neonatal abstinence syndrome grew over 600% between

2004 and 2011. it's take an heavy toll on ohio's health care system and ohio's families. treating infants with n.a.s. resulted in 19,000 hospital stays, and that was back in 2011, and it's been on the rise ever since this issue is especially devastating to our families and especially devastating to the youngest among us, the babies who are born addicted to drugs. i recently heard from a grandmother to three babies born with n.a.s. she was pleading for help for her innocent grandchildren and she wanted to make sure we did something about this terrible disease. i'm proud to say that the response in my district has been strong to our bill. there's a health care system lled adina medical center in chill co-thee, ohio, and -- --

a hillicothe, ohio, thev program piloted by ob/gyns, they have 15 pregnant women addicted to drugs, they have served those women, they are on their second class to try to get those women off of drugs before they deliver. i'm happy to report that because of the support of the ambingts dina health system, up in of the women in that group delivered a baby with n.a.s. due to the zhofse pilot, there's a permanent program starting now, it already has a wait list. i'm really excited to say that there are people out there showing real leadership. last week, i hosted my fourth annual opiate round table from my district to talk about a lot of issues, we talked about this bill and how important it was. i'm so proud it's on the floor today. i'm proud to support this to

help our nation's most innocent citizens. thank you so much. again, i want to thank katherine clark for her leadership on this bill and her commitment. i yield back the balance of my time. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. mr. green: we have no other speakers. we encourage our colleagues to support this bill and close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. guthrie: thank you, mr. speaker. during the hearing on the energy and commerce committee, one of he physicians testified, the neonaytologists, they researched further into what's moving forward in this bill. i learned even more from personal stories about how important it is and how critical this is and how sad it is for children to be born addicted and how the opportunity is for us to help. and i certainly appreciate my

friend from massachusetts, ms. clark, my friend from ohio, mr. stivers, and i encourage my colleagues to vote for h.r. 1462, protecting our infants act of 2015. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 1462. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the luols are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. guthrie: i move that the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 2820. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. he clerk: h.r. 2820, a bill to re-authorize the stem cell therapeutic act of 2015 and

other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky, mr. guthrie and the gentleman from texas, mr. green each will control 20 minutes this echair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. mr. guthrie: i ask that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on the bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. guthrie: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. guthrie: i rise in support of h.r. 2820, the stem cell therapeutic and research authorization act of 2015, introduced by my colleague, mr. smith of new jersey. stem cell has been used to -- bone marrow transplants have en used for years to treat diseases, and stem cells more recently have been used in treatment of those conditions. it can be difficult to find bone

marrow michigans -- matches and in some cases cord blood can be used instead. the need for this life-saving transplantation has risen 25% since 2005. h.r. 2820 re-authorizes the national marrow donor program and creates a national network of public cord blood banks. the legislation also provides health care proprofession -- health care professionals the ability to search for bone marrow and umbilical cord blood. h.r. 2020 also bolster patient and advocacy services, provides for public and professional education and collects and analyzes reports on transplant outcomes. i urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and eserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. green: i yield myself such time as i may consume.

i rise in support of h.r. 2820, the stem chele therapeutic research authorization act. it's championed by representative doris matsui and chris smith. 20,000 people in the united states need bonn marrow or cord blood transplant each year. stem cells from cord blood and bone marrow are used to treat nearly 80 lifesaving diseases including cancers, blood diseases and immune disorders. h.r. 2820 provides federal support for cord blood donation and continues the national bone marrow registry and critical research this reauthorizes the cell transplantation program which includes the national bone marrow program. the program helps patients in need of lifesaving transplants find matching bone marrow donors or cord blood units. it also includes stem cell

therapeutic outcomes database which facilitates better understanding of the process. this will give hope to patients and their families in need of curative transplant. i want to thank representatives matsui and smith for their leadership and i thank chairman upton, ranking member pallone, chairman pitts and my deleengs energy and commerce committee for their support of this legislation. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. guthrie: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield six minutes to my good friend from new jersey, mr. smith. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: i thank the gentleman for yielding. malik was diagnosed 15 months ago at 15 months old a rare and life threatening metabolic disorder he had a cush -- curved spine and couldn't work. after receiving a cord blood transplant, malik is running

around, expected to have a normal life span. his mother, crystal, said, my son is extremely happy now, he's energetic, independent and the transplant saved his life. bone marrow donations provide lifesaving transplants for a myriad of diseases. kayla was only four months old when she was diagnosed with leukemia. john registered with the bone donor registry, he was a perfect match. kayla is now thriving at 2 years of age. not only has god created a pla centiand umbilical cord to nurture the precious life hoff an unborn child now we find he's left a great gift behind immediately after birth. something very special is left behind. cord blood that is teeming with life-saving stem cells.

breathtaking scientific breakthroughs have turned medical waste, post birth placentas and umbilical cord blood into miracles, treating more than 80 diseases including leukemia, lymphoma and sickle cell anemia. dr. joe an kirksburg of duke university, president of the cord blood administration, told chairman pitts in the subcommittee that sickle cell anemia can be cured with cord blood transplantation. it's become one of the most optimal donor sources for patients with sickle cell disease. h.r. 2820 under consideration by the house today, re-authorizes through 2020 the stem cell therapeutic and research act of 2005. a law i sponsored a decade ago, joined by archer davis of alabama, legislation that cleared the senate with the

incomparable health of senator hatch. that law built on the excellent work of our distinguished work -- on the work of our distinguished late colleague bill young of florida. it created a brand new national umbilical cord donation and transplantation program. special thanks, mr. speaker, to chairman upton and pitts for their outstanding leadership and help on this bill as well as strong support by ranking members pallone and my good friend mr. green. i'm grateful to our original sponsors, ms. matsui, mr. jolly, . fattah for their help, and special thanks to our staffment under the national cord blood inventory program, contracts are awarded to collect cord blood units donated after their mothers give birth. these units are made available through the c.w. "bill" young cell transplantation program,

also kuhled the match registry. it provides a single point of access, enabling those in need of lifesaving transplants to search for a match via an integrated nationwide network of bone marrow and cord blood stem cells. americans willing to volunteer are at the heart of the success of this program. in re-authorizing it, we are grateful for the adult donors willing to donate bone marrow or peripheral blood stem cells as well as mothers who donate their baby's cord blood to public cord blood banks. there are 13 cord blood banks, including new jersey cord blood bank in my own state which collects cord blood from five participating hospitals. mr. speaker, it ought to be noted as well that in addition to treating more than 80 diseases, cord blood units from the bank are also available for research on future freements. dr. kirksberg pointed out that

in addition to the use in patients with malignant diseases, cord blood is showing enormous potential for use in cellular therapy and other regenerative medicine. cord-blood ede-rived medicines like vaccines for cancer are being tried. they are being used to boost immune system. these approaches utilize cord blood banked by family banks may help patients with type 1 diabetes as well as other diseases, she testified a few months ago. she also pointed out over the last six years we have initiated trials of the patient's own cord ood in babies with birth asphyxia, cerebral palsy and other diseases. she is doing incredible work on an issue i have worked on for 20

dwhreerks disability known as autismful she said we've learned when a donor cell is infused to one's body they go to the brain and help heal the brain. when a child has a brain injury around birth, they can use their own cord blood cells to address the damage that's occurred. for many diseases, including blood cancers and sickle cell disease, cellular therapy is the best hope for a cure. last year i visited, mr. speaker, celgene corporation of summit, new jersey, to learn of their extraordinary effort to heal diabetic foot users and have turned amniotic membrane into wound management that has vants vanced, it's on the market, past stage 3 clinical trials. this legislation authorizes $265 million over five years and ensures thousands of

present-day -- mr. guthrie: i yield another 130ekds. mr. smith: i appreciate the gentleman for yielding. ensures thousands of present-day and future patients benefit from this exciting field of regenerative medicine. we've only just begun. this legislation furts that work. i again -- furthers that work. i again thank my colleagues for their bipartisan support. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. guthrie: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. green: mr. speaker, we have no other speakers and i'd be glad to yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. guthrie: thank you, mr. speaker. i close with a quick story. a good friend of mine, philip, great friends with his family and he went off to play golf in college. a great athlete and all of a sudden he came down with leukemia. and i remember there were some issues about his sister being able to donate bone marrow, so my town, bowling green, kentucky, recognized a bone marrow drive to see if anyone

could help philip. i remember going three times, and it was so overwhelmed with volunteers trying to have their bone marrow -- their blood type to see if they matched, that it just overwhelmed the system. i remember finally getting through late in the afternoon and people waited all day to see if they could help match and help philip. it turned out his sister could donate and he's a healthy person with family and children and everything is going well. about a year after that i was in holiday world with my family. i was having a day with them, and my cell phone rang. and it turned out i matched because of going to get my bone marrow tested or my blood tested that i matched someone and the lady got on the phone and she said, do you know what, she told me what it takes to be a donor, do you want to go forward? i remember standing there going, here i am with my family

having fun, laughing and having a great afternoon and there's some family somewhere, it's anonymous -- not having the same experience probably trying to figure out if their loved one is going to live or survive or what's the prognosis. i went through the process. i remember going through having my blood taken and several steps and just getting close to the actual time to do the bone marrow transplant, for whatever reason we got notified it wasn't going forward. couldn't do that for many reasons. one hopefully is the anonymous person was cured or maybe a sibling matched like it happened with philip. i wonder about the life on the other end because they don't tell you for reasons of anonymity. it's just something that always weighed on my mind and even sitting here and getting ready to close i was thinking, who was on the other end, and i hope they have a good story as

well as philip. but what i want to stress is how important it is that families in need and worry and wondering what's going to happen with their loved one and the loved one themselves and this is something we can do. it was something we were able to do and people in my community and people across the country can do to try to help people live long and fruitful lives and our prayers are answered with philip. and this is an opportunity for us to come together in a bipartisan way -- as all the bills -- as i go de los, we've been through four bills in the last -- as i go through this, we've been through four bills in the last hour and everyone has been bipartisan. we've been able to come together where we agree and work together, we can work for infants, families suffering with lieu creama and other -- leukemia disorders, for infants with opioid disorders.

i appreciate the effort of our ranking member, mr. green, in bringing us all together. our subcommittee chairman, mr. pitts. and i look forward to voting for this bill and i urge all my colleagues to vote for h.r. 2820 and appreciate my friend, mr. smith, for bringing it forward. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 2820. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. burgess: i move the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 1359. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 1359, an act to allow manufacturers to meet warranty and labeling requirements for consumer products by displaying the

terms of warranties on internet websites, and for other urposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas, mr. burgess, and the gentleman from iowa, mr. lows beck, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the record on the bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas, mr. burgess, is recognized. mr. burgess: the e-warranty act of 2015 modernizes current warrant requirements by allowing -- warranty requirements by allowing them to post warranty information online. i want to thank senator fischer and congressman mullin for crafting bipartisan legislation, opening a path for manufacturers to conduct their business more efficiently in the digital age age. this legs will give them better access -- this legislation will give them better access and

reducing costs for manufacturers. the energy and commerce committee anonymously forwarded the companion bill, h.r. 3154, to the house floor in july after consideration by the subcommittee on commerce, manufacturing and trade. the subcommittee has been studying how the use of the internet and other advanced technologies has generated great advances for consumers and creating jobs. simple things like this will create savings across multiple industries. we will continue to look for ways to roll back outdated regulations that slow down our ecommerce economy and hurt jobs. this legislation does just that by bringing warranty regulations into the 21st century. i urge my colleagues to vote for s. 1359, and i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from iowa, mr. loebsack, is recognized. mr. loebsack: mr. speaker, i

yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. loebsack: i thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of s. 1359, the e-warranty act of 2015. i'm pleased the house is considering this bipartisan, bicameral legislation. s. 1359 is identical to h.r. 3154, the e-warranty act of 2015, which i was very, very happy to introduce with my good friend, mr. mullen from oklahoma. this will -- mr. mullin from oklahoma. this will allow warranty information to be posted online. this solution makes sense for both manufacturers and consumers as many of which prefer the option of providing or receiving warranty information in electronic rather than paper form. not only will this bill reduce waste, it will make it easier for consumers to find warranty information quickly and easily without worrying that it will be lost or discarded. i thank the committee for

bringing this bill forward, and i urge support for this bill, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to recognize the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. mullin, the author of the house-sponsored legislation, for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mullin: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, congressman loebsack. i was going to correct that, by the way, but i appreciate -- i appreciate chairman burgess and the committee for allowing this bill to come to the floor. this is one of those commonsense bills that brings a regulation that was put in place nearly 40 years and brings it to today's technology. this bill has passed the senate, senate by unanimous consent, and is identical to h.r. 3154 that congressman loebsack and i introduced and which passed the committee by voice vote.

this bipartisan e-warranty act of 2015 gives manufacturers the option of fulfilling their warranty notice requirements by posting the information on their website. our current federal regulation, as i stated earlier, was developed nearly 40 years ago. the role has changed since then, and like many regulations, this has become outdated. warranty requirements ensure consumers get important information when they purchase a product, and we need to make sure these methods for delivering this information keep pace with innovation. i urge all members to vote yes on this commonsense bill, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from iowa is recognized. mr. loebsack: mr. speaker, it appears we have no further speakers so i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd simply add i encourage all members to vote in favor of the legislation, and i'll yield

back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yield it's back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass senate 1359. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed -- mr. burgess: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. burgess: mr. speaker, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman requests the yeas and nays. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this uestion will be postponed. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until

tweeting this photo outside the rules committee meeting room. no line outside house rules meeting on a meeting. floor debate will be discussed at 5:00 p.m. eastern. we will take a look inside that meeting room.

rules getting set to meet. we will have live coverage for you coming up shortly here on c-span. tweet from christina marcos, who covers the hill for "the hill," you can read more at thehill.com. the house will debate iran on the floor for a whooping 11 hours over the next few days. final vote friday, 9/11 anniversary, per rules chairman sessions. that from christina marcos from "the hill." we'll find out shortly as they come into session here, the rules committee at 5:00 p.m. eastern. and we will stay here live on c-span.

spend time with experts in the intel community and our military establishment, our diplomatic corps for the terms of the agreement. we hope they'll consult with nuclear experts and nonproliferation experts to understand the consequences of the step ice ran would have to take to reduce their iranian stockpiles to shut down the plutonium path to the nuclear weapon and agree to the most intrusive steps that have ever been expected. on the republican side of the aisle, we saw a lot of republicans in congress, nearly all of them in fact, announce before the agreement was reached. that was the source of some disappointment. but that is why i can relay to you that we feel gratified today because the vast majority of those who did take time to

consider the terms of the agreement and participate in briefings and meetings and in many cases even hear firsthand from the president about what he believes are the most important aspects of the agreement, that those individuals have over the last couple of months indicated their plan to support the agreement before the united states congress. >> are you asking those to filibuster? >> we expect those members of congress who support the agreement to take the necessary steps in congress to prevent congress from undermining the anticipating some arguments we may hear in the other side, you've heard me and both my predecessors in the obama administration express frustration at the rule os they

have united states senate that were, to his credit, effectively employed by minority leader mitch mcconnel to stymy many aspects of the president's agenda, including high riorities. because of the 670-vote threshold required to do anything that the senate. o it would be ironic for mitch mcconnel to now express concern about a tactic he employed on countless occasions. the orthing i'd point out is the 60-vote threshold is the one approved by those 98 senators who voted for the corker-cardin

bill earlier. this is how every understood that the proceed wrurexr congress to consider this greement would work. is the administration and help g settlement manager refugees be resettled in the united states? >> what this alludes to is essentially a reconsideration led by the department to see exactly what the administration and the country can do to help our allies and partners in europe deal with this significant and growing humanitarian situation that is an outgrowth of the instability we have seen in the middle east and in north africa.

the united states, it should be pointed out, has already taken a number of significant steps to try to address this humanitarian crisis. the united states is the single largers hi lateral donor for humanitarian assistance for those fleeing violence in their community. the united states has been an active participant in efforts led by thetown try to resolve equally the political disagreement inside of syria that's led to so much political instability and outright iolence in that country. do we continue to be concerned about the vulnerable position of o many people who are facing violence in their home country? and the yeats and the way we play a leading role in

confronting many other difficult problems are pri paired to continue to play a leading role in trying to assist those organizations that are trying to meet the needs ands byic humanitarian needs of these individuals. >> so you want to help other allies deal with the issue, not allow more refugees into the united states? >> this is something that's under the active consideration of the state department and so yf anything -- any new approaches to announce at this point. but certainly consistent with the statement that was issued yesterday, the administration is act ily considering a range of approaches to contribute to the solution of the very difficult afpblg

>> [inaudible] >> there's no specific piece of legislation, but i wouldn't rule importance of this at this point we're focused on trying to determine what's best for the policies would be, we'll certainly evaluate those policies in the context of the costs associated with them but that is an evaluation that's ongoing. >> does the white house believe the united states has a responsibility to take a greater role in accepting some of these refugees that are really overcrowding europe to some extent right now? >> just as i mentioned, the united states, particularly under the leadership of president obama, is looked upon by the world to take a leading role in responding to a wide

variety of challenging situations. and there's no denying that the situation that many of our are ean partners confronting is a significant one. they've had a significant burden with regard to syrian refugees and others fleeing syria because of violence there. and the united states has provided significant financial support in other -- and other kinds of support to those countries as they have tried to meet the base exhumanitarian needs of those fleeing violence in syria. so this is -- the situation is not new and our efforts to try to assist those countries bearing the brunt of the situation is not new. it does appear the situation is worsening. that's why the united states is

going to continue to consider additional steps that we can take to help those countries that are bearing the brunt of this burden right now. >> i have two quick questions to clarify, do you expect all those 41 people supporting the deal to also oppose -- >> good afternoon. the rules committee will come to order. welcome back from our august work period. it's exciting to see each of us together as we gather back, virginia foxx was delighted, she even smiled at me, and that's -- used to be a certain thing, now .t's a rare day so i hope that everybody had a chance to be with their families and their constituents and also get back to enjoying that 95 degrees in rochester, new york. mr. sessions: one of the issues

i heard a lot about in the break back in dallas was the issue that today is before the rules committee. that is h.j.res. 64, which would disapprove with this administration's deal on iranian nuclear weapons. the american people are looking for an explanation of what we're going to do. there are a lot of questions that 23409 only surround this but there are questions about our future, i think h.r. 64 provides our best opportunity to do exactly that. to dissect it, to look at it, and certainly today we're going to have a number of witnesses who will provide expert testimony to that end. the last few years the administration ted set on cutting a deal with iranians regarding this nuclear program. i don't think that's any secret. in the last few months it's become clear they're interested in cutting any good deal with

the iranians. because the administration negotiated from a position of weakness, i think it's ended up with a deal that gives iran everything it wanted and leaves the american people wondering what we got in return. it cut a deal that gives iran permanent sanctions relief for temporary afwroments that merely keep ice ran for building a nuclear bomb in the near term. it's now up to congress to stop this deal so that the iranian reyeem does not have access to the nearly $150 billion that it would then use to continue to fund terrorist organizations that destabilize the middle east and the world, including the united states of america. this deal pardons iran's revious actions, it encourages them to continue to undermine our allies and turns iran from a nuclear pariah into a nuclear

partner this week congress will have an opportunity to completely review this deal with information that has been provided to us and it's -- and the foremost congressional expert on the deal is chairman royce. he's led over 30 hearings and brief option this deal. i look forward to his insight and i also know that we have two other important witnesses that represent the democrat party, mr. levin, from the ways and means committee, and certainly ms. waters, ranking member of the financial services committee. i am aware that this is a big deal. this committee is prepared to ask tough questions. this committee is prepared to ask serious and long-range questions about the future of not only this deal but to understand more about what we're trying to accomplish here today. before we defer to our first panel that will include not only mr. levin but also ms. waters

and i would ask that they feel free to come join the table at any point they would choose to, i would defer to my colleague, my dear friend, the gentlewoman from rochester, new york, for any statement she would choose to make. >> i thank the gentleman. i look forward to hearing what the witnesses need to say. ms. slaughter: i need to correct one thick, you said this was an agreement between the president of the united states and iran. this is an agreement between the security council of the united nations and iran that was negotiated by five countryings plus one, which we all know. security council has already voted 15-0 on this plan. and i'm assuming that that is the controlling vote. but in any case we know that has been said that

this is dead on arrival in the senate. we spent 5 votes on trying to kill health care, but anyway, thank you for yielding me the time. the joint comprehensive plan of action with iran has been held as, quote, remarkable, end quote, by retired army general colin powell and i think all of us admire him. he's former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. obviously knowing everything he needs to know about military porpgses -- operations and also former secretary of state for former president george w. bush. it has the broad support of the international community. even members of israel's security community have come out in support of this unprecedented, comprehensive, and enforceable afwreelt. even so opponents decry it as weak, riddled with loopholes and inadequate. to those people i ask what is the alternative? the agreement has flaws,

perhaps, but it is my firm belief that without it, we will go down an ever-quickening path toward a nuclear-armed iran which is unaccept to believe all of us. this agreement is a step toward peace, toward diplomacy, toward unifying the international community. our negotiating partners, great britain, china, russia, germany, and france, along with the rest of the world, are looking for congress of the united states not to embarrass itself in our -- and i urge my colleagues to support it. thank you very much and i yield back the balance of my time. mr. sessions: ms. slaughter, thank you very much. i want to welcome not only ms. waters and mr. levin and the young chairman of the committee, mr. royce, for taking time to be th us today, obviously everything will be on the record. you know you are here to provide expert testimony. you recognize that -- and i do

too, that this is a very serious issue and i appreciate every one of you being here today. mr. chairman, you're recognized. . royce: [inaudible] mr. sessions: is that microphone on? mr. royce: i guess i would start with the observation that the premise there that the patroling -- controlling vote would be the security council vote which ms. slaughter raised sort of goes against the very intention of the house and senate in passing legislation in the first place that would give congress a vote on this. and this really raised the question, the timing of going to the security council, before we received the briefing on the agreement itself and before the people's representatives in the house and senate even had an opportunity to be recorded on this, the fact that the assertion would make -- would be made that the controlling vote would be the security council of

the united nations rather than congress after congress had passed legislation and after that legislation was signed by the president of the united states to have our input, and have f that was for us to the responseability to look into this agreement before we made an informed decision upon whether or not it was in the interest of the united states. now we have healed some 30 hearings in the foreign affairs committee and briefings, and i just want to share with members here, with the chairman and ranking member that we very much appreciate the committee on rules to consider this house joint resolution 64. what this resolution would do is a resolution of disapproval that i introduced that would prevent a flawed nuclear agreement from being implemented. as you know this legislation is possible because of the vote we made here in the house and in

the senate on the iran nuclear agreement review act that overwhelmingly passed. the vote was 400-25. it was again signed into law by the president. and that legislation established a process for congress to review the final nuclear agreement with iran and then take an up or down vote on the merits. and review we have. so many of you had the opportunity to see some of the coverage of the committee hearings but we've conducted that review in a bipartisan way. ranking member engel has been a tireless partner in this. the bipartisan way in which the committee has approached this issue wouldn't surprise mr. collins or judge hastings. we've kept to our collaborative roots since those members left the committee. while we strive to present a united front to the world, we

can't always agree. mr. chairman, i don't relish bringing this to the floor, we all wanted the negotiations to succeed. i'm afraid this agreement not only comes up short, it is fatally flawed. indeeding it is dangerous. a few key concerns we have heard from experts incommittee. first, iran is not required to dismantle key bomb-making technology. second, iran is permitted a vast enrichment capacity, reversing decades of bipartisan, nonproliferation policy that never imagined endorsing this type of nuclear infrastructure for any country. never mind the country like iran. and, iran is allowed to continue ts research and development to gain an industrial scale nuclear program once this agreement begins to expire in as little as 10 years. 10 years is a flash in time.

and then the iranian obligations start to unwind. i just don't see that as a formula for a safer, more secure region. while members of congress insisted on anywhere, any time inspections, iran has agreed to something that they call managed ccess. so instead of allowing inspectors into suspicious sights in 24 hours, it will take 24 days. but not military sights. there have been revelations about a site agreement between iran and the united nations nuclear watchdog. this sets conditions in which a key iranian military site suspected of nuclear bombwork will be explored. there's a thousand pages of documents they have on the bombwork done there. and while the details have been

kept from congress directly, it's reported that instead of international inspectors doing the international inspecting, we're going to have iranians themselves take the inspection lead. iran has cheated on every agreement they have signed to date. why are we trusting them to self-police? and the deal guts the sanctions web that is putting intense pressure on iran. virtually all sanctions disappear. billions will be made available to iran to pursue its terrorism and when i say iran, remember the way it's set up there, with the irgc controlling so many of the countries, this is not like a normal business arrangement in a company. when these companies were nationalized by the government, they were turned over to the

irgc. so it is those particular elements that are going to be strengthened in this deal. if we have $100 billion that comes out of escrow and go into those accounts, this is the situation where you've got a free functioning economy where maybe laborers push for higher wages, no, the irgc will control that money and they will dee side what to spend it on. we have already seen a little bit of their pronouncements about what's important to them. giving to hezbollah, the types of systems g.p.s. systems, that will allow pez lolba to fire some 80,000-plus rockets and missiles that the irgc have supplied hezbollah. getting to hamas the weapons to replace those that have already been fired resm building the tunnels that eliot engel and i have been inful that's another commitment, apparently, that the irgc is making. so when we put that down payment

into their hands, that's for the down -- that's where the down payment goes. and as iran will be reconnected to the global economy, this is going to jump start those businesses that the irgc runs over there. to our dismay, in addition, iran won a late concession to remove international restrictions on its ballistic missile program. and on conventional arms. frankly when we talk about the removal on ballistic missile programs, we have to remember the words of the ayatollah, it's the responsibility of every military man to figure out in iran how to help mass produce icbm's. i don't think he's talking about a space program with that comment. mr. chairman, and the reason i don't think it is because he follows it up with death to america. that's why i think that his line of thought is one which is a national security threat to the

united states. so chairman, those are just a few of the reasons that i'm opposed to this agreement. i appreciate the fact that this committee and the leadership from both parties recognize the gravity of the vote ewe will have this week and i ask that the rules make as much time as possible for floor debate so that as many members as possible can have their voices heard on this historic agreement. and that this be considered you should a closed rule so that we can have the straight up or down vote as envisioned by the iran nuclear agreement review act passed last spring. whatever your view on this agreement, i think we can all agree we face a very difficult and gravely threatened -- threatening challenge from the iranian regime. this is a regime, again that chants on a weekly bay cisse death to america, death to israel. frankly, they mean it. the region is a mess and congress has a role to play and i feel, working with my

colleagues and friend eliot engel, that we have done a good job vetting this agreement and now members can come to their own conclusions as to whether this improve ours national security. i feel it doesn't but the house will come to its collective decision as it should an i appreciate your time and i look forward to your questions. mr. sessions: thank you very much. i note that both of our witnesses that appear first from financial services and ways and means i believe are in support of the administration's side, would that be correct? then i will make you -- i will allow you to determine which of you would present first, knowing you both, mr. levin will present on behalf of the ways and means committee. he'll be recognized. mr. levin: we'll both be recognized. mr. sessions: i'm talking about

you being recognized first. mr. levin: hello, everybody, after a few, more than a few weeks away. i had a chance before we left, it seems so long ago, to speak out on this and to express my position. since then, like all of you, we've gone home, we've talked to vastly and intensely -- and intensively with our constituents and others. i think that's been a productive process. as i understand it, you're going to allow many, many hours of debate, which i think is a very wise choice. so let me not go into a lot of detail, there'll be many hours of debate and i'll participate in them. i thought instead i'd refer to the statements of two people, my hope is that my reference to them and your reference to them

right spark some kind of bipartisanship in this institution on this issue. i'd first like to refer as mentioned by louise slaughter, on statements, the testimony sunday of colin powell. he's the former secretary of state, we know he has an ill lust res you career. here's what he said, and i quote, i think this is a good deal. i've studied very carefully the outline of the deal and what's in that deal. and i've also carefully looked at the opposition to the deal, and my judgment after balancing these two sets of information is that it's a pretty good deal. now i know there are objections to it but here's why i think it's a good deal. one of the great concerns that

the opposition has that we're leaving open a lane for iranians to go back to create agnew clear weapon in 10 or 15 years, they're forgetting the reality, that they've been on a super highway for the last 10 years to create a nuclear weapon or a new clear weapons program with no speed limit. and then he refers to the reduction in the centrifuges and in the stockpile, a very dramatic reduction. and then he goes on to say, and again i quote, and so we have stopped this highway race that they were going down and i think that's very important. now will they comply with it? will they actually do all of this? will they get nothing until they show compliance and that's the important part of this. as he said, they'll get nothing until they show compliance.

the other criticism of this deal and i continue quoting colin powell, has to do with behavior changes. why didn't we ask for -- it wasn't enough to just try to slow them down on the nuclear front or stop their ability to get a nuclear weapon. it is, should we also put in this deal having them stop the funding of hamas, stopping the funding of hezbollah, stopping the backing of assad and syria. i intersect here, i think we all deeply feel the importance of that. and here's how he continues. i think all of these are important objectives and they should not be set aside because of this deal. we have to keep pushing on the bad behavior that the iranians show constantly throughout the world but this deal specifically had to do with the thing that was most concerning to the world, most dangerous to the world, and that was their nuclear program which could

produce a weapon in a very short period of time. that has been thrown into a detour. and then he continues, and i'm reminded of what my former boss ronald reagan used to say when he talked to the soviets. trust but verify. with respect to the iranians, it's don't trust, never trust, and always verify. and i think a very vigorous verification program has been put in place with the iaea and other international organizations and then he continued, and so even if we were going to kill this deal which is 23409 going to happen, it's going to take effect anyway because all of these other countries that were in it with us are going to move forward. the u.n. is going to move forward and 100 nations have already agreed to this deal think thanksgiving a -- thinking

it's a good deal and they're all going to move forward. we're going to be standing on the sidelines and so he finished at least i finished quoting this. now people will say no, can't trust them. i don't trust them. i say we have a deal, let's see how the inch -- see how they implement the deal. they don't implement it, bail out. none of our options are going. nub of our options are going. but this is something we ought to pursue and try to make it happen under the terms under which the deal was reached. secondly, i'd like to quote from brent scow contract, i had a -- scowcroft, i had a chance now six weeks ago to talk to him about this. he was, as you know, national security advisor to presidents gerald ford and george h.w. bush. i quote briefly from his op-ed. congress again faces a momentous

decision regarding u.s. policy toward the middle east. the forthcoming vote on the nuclear deal between p-5 plus one and iran will show the world whether the united states has the will and sense of responsibility to help stabilize the middle east or whether it will contribute to further turmoil including the possible spread of nuclear weapons. n my view, the jcpoa meets the key objective shared by cre cent -- recent administrations of both parties that iran limit itself to a strictly civilian nuclear program with unprecedented verification and the monitoring by the iaea and the u.n. security council. if the u.s. could have handed iran a take it or leave it agreement, the terms doubtless would have been more onerous on iran. but negotiated agreements, the

only ones that get signed in times of peace, are compromised by definition. it is what president reagan did with the soviet union on arms control. it is what president nixon did with china. and it's what tissue and it was the case with specific agreements with the soviet union and china. we will continue to have significant differences with iran on important issues including human rights, support for terrorist groups, and meddling in the internal affairs of neighbors. we must never tire of working to persuade iran to change their behavior on these issues and countering it where necessary. and then i conclude with this. there's no credible alternative for congress to prevent u.s. participation in the nuclear deal. if we walk away, we walk away alone. the world's leading powers work

together effectively because of u.s. leadership. the -- to turn our back on this accomplishment would be an abity case of the united states' unique role and responsibility incurring dismay among our allies and friends. we would lose all leverage over iran's nuclear activities. so let me just close, you know, i went back and looked at the van ments of senator derberg who came from michigan who talked about the importance of bipartisanship at the water's edge. i think he maybe was the first to say that. i think we all need to, as we proceed in this debate, to keep that very much in mind. the feelings are deep, mine are very deep going back from when i

was perhaps an infant. it was a matter of deep concern in our family regarding the establishment of a homeland for the jewish people in israel. we've all looked at this in a very, very delicate way. mr. chairman and ranking member, i hope you will allow long debate, i hope the debate may keep in mind what i said at the beginning, it is important, i think, to see if we can somehow, and maybe we'll have to do it afterwards, re-establish the bipartisanship on these key issues which has been a hallmark of this institution for a long time. thank you very much. mr. sessions: mr. levin, thank you very much. we'll now move to the fntsable

services angle and recognize the gentlewoman from los angeles, ms. waters. ms. waters: thank you, mr. chairman, ranking member slallingt -- slaughter and other members of the committee. i want to thank you for allowing me to testify before you on h.j. 64 resolution disapproving the joint comprehensive plan of action. mr. chairman and members, when i have a discussion with my staff about the rules committee meeting today, they basically said, you know, it's not necessary to go. and they said that even talk with -- they'd even talked with some of the staff people of the rule committees who said, well you know, this is debauchery. it's not really necessary. it's going to be a closed rule, there are no amendments. but i rushed from the plane, airplane coming in from los angeles today to be at this rules committee despite the fact that i guess it is known that it

is -- it will be a closed rule because i want to be recorded in history that i took every opportunity to make my voice heard on this defining issue. this is a defining issue for the world. not just for the united states of america. i want it to be known that i one e that the five plus who came together on this joint agreement is extraordinary. to have china and russia at the table talking about avert agnew clear war. it's extremely important. not only do i want to be recorded in history at every opportunity, i want -- i want to share with you and all my lleagues not only how i feel

but what i have learned as this debate has taken place around this country and in my district to testifyhere today before you on h.j. 64, this resolution disapproving the joint comprehensive plan of action, the nuclear deal reached between iran and six world powers that has the support of numerous foreign policy experts, military personnel, atomic energy experts, and the unanimous support of the national security council which the deal. in fare of i very much believe this deal is in the best interests of the united states and international security because it stands up very well as a barrier to proliferation for at least 15

years and it is -- and it establishes an intrusive inspections regime to ensure that iran's programs re-- iran's program remains heavily monitored and exclusively peaceful. i also believe that it was the best agreement that could have been reached. the argument from prime minister benjamin netanyahu and the house republican leadership supporting ignores ution that iranian regime. regime as cs see the one unwilling to show any accommodation. given this depiction whambings basis do they have for saying that somehow iran could have been persuaded to concede even more than they did? the other alternative which i believe many of the agleements

critics prefer is an attack on iran led by our country. the first thing that must be said about this is that every expert agreeps that short of an american occupation of iran, nothing could prevent an iranian nuclear capacity. the war in iraq that president bush initiated was the single biggest disaster any american president ever caused. war with iran would be far worse. i stand with the committee in opposing the war and as we look back and reflect on the loss o-- loss of life over 1,000 american soldiers and the cost of that war, i think we can all agree it was a mistake. if we fail to understand the

significance and the importance and in any waynt attempt to isolate ourselves it would be perhaps the biggest mistake this country has ever made. without this deal we would very quickly face the chisstwone irawing iranians to continue their march toward nuclear capability or using military force to temporarily stop it. let's be clear about one thing. congress reject this is deal. it will not -- rejects this deal, it will not lead to a better one. if the united states walks away, we walk away alone. the harsh international sanctions against iran that have been in place for over a decade were able to get iran to the negotiating table. but economic sanctions alone have not prepts iran from continuing to pursue a nuclear capability.

in fact, history suggests that continued economic pressures will not force iran to agree to everything we might want. despite harsh sanctions and isolation, north korea still became a nuclear weapons state, ippling sanctions on iran -- iraq still did not lead to saddam relenting to u.s. demands. there is no guarantee that even powerful sanctions and the threat of force will lead iran to eliminate all aspects of its nuclear program and plenty of reason to think perhaps it will not. instead, the united states will have broken from its european allies. the necessary international support needed for iran sanctions will likely erode. iran would be able to rapidly expand its capacity to produce bomb-grade materials and we would lose out on securing enhanced inspections needed to detect a clan december tine -- a

clandestine weapons effort. in other words the risk of a nuclear armed iran would significantly increase. this deal deserves support because it is a well-built agreement that has iran conceding that they will not pursue nuclear weapons. it is significantly constrained iranian nuclear efforts for more than 15 years and gives nuclear inspectors unprecedented access. iran must prove that its nuclear program is peaceful. if it fails to do so, with this bill the united states will have all of the tools it does now have in the future. and so, if i can just wrap this up by again reiterating to all of you that we all have an a ortunity to be a part of ignificant, important,

agreement, we all have an opportunity to be recorded in history the way i think we would like to be recorded, that we joined hands in an effort to bring about peace. i am more than optimistic that we can do this. i'm more than optimistic that we can begin to rely on the young people in iran, many of whom have demonstrated that they too want peace and that the ayatollah and others who have sent a different kind of message around the world consistently will not be in control forever. it is up to us to have a vision for this possibility and i want to be recorded that way. and i thank you for allowing me to be here at the rules committee today to be able to say one more time that i support

his agreement. mr. sessions: thank you very much. mr. chairman, you began talking about the process that we know the president did prefer to walk around congress, not needing, thinking he needed the congress involved. i am of the belief that something this big would involve, should involve congressional input and dialogue and that's really what the corker bill was about. nd you know, can you tell us quickly how did the corker bill ensure that congress has the opportunity to brock -- to block this deal and why we're here is relevant to your committee fnd the other committees of jurisdiction and why we're here today at the rules committee? mr. royce: thank you, mr. chairman. i would just make the observation that congress registered its concerns very early in this process. and in a bipartisan way.

because if we think back to the legislate -- legislation that i and eliot engel originally authored and tried to push in terms of the negotiation, that legislation which passed this house 400-20 and then was blocked over in the senate at the request of the administration and could not come up, that would have given the ayatollah a choice between economic collapse or real compromise on his nuclear program. and i want to get to this point. that the president offers a false choice between this agroment or war. even a supporter of the deal testified in front of the committee that i chair i wouldn't say that if you were opposed to this deal that somehow that leads to war. i think that's false, said the witness on behalf of the administration. it is false. it is false. indeed the country's top military office, chairman of the

joint chiefs, recently testified in front of congress disputing the i sergs that it was this deal or war noting that the united states would have a range of options. what are those options? the most important one, the most important option that we had, the most effective sanctions against iran, have always been those that give companies and countries a choice to do business with iran or the united states and that indead is the premise of the legislation that we have passed 400-20. that is what we wanted to put into play. when given such a choice, which would still be possible to do if congress rejects this agree -- agreement, then the result in every case we've seen in the past is companies and countries choose the united states, they do not choose to do business and lock themselves out of our arket.

they have fought vigorously to oppose sanctions. then as now the obama administration claimed that imposing these sangs would divide the international coalition and leave the united states alone in the world. i'll remind you that didn't happen when we hung you have to tuff in 2011 when congress pushed for those sanctions and we got that set of sanctions through. inteed that's why iran is even at the table system of businesses and in particular banks will be hesitant to put a preem young -- a premium on the iranian market if that means getting shut out of the united states. i think all of us understand that. that's the pow thompe united states financial markets. that's the potential damage of reputational risk to any company that makes that decision. that's the power that we in congress wanted to deploy in this negotiation. and that's what the administration did not deploy flat out by blocking the legislation that i and eliot ngel passed out of this house.

while maintaining a united sanctions front will be difficult it will be easier to do so today than five years from now when iran is caught cheating and a sanctions regime must be reconstructed because i guarantee you based on iran's past behavior they will be caught cheating. you can have verifiable inspections, going back toray began's quote which is an old russian saying. it's the verification program that's missing here. that's what gives us such great qualms in moving forward with something that would allow the

iranians to do their own verification and bring that to the united nations. for all those reasons that's why we felt congress should be involved in negotiating this agreement and why we're very disappointing -- disappointed that, the letter we sent on the committee, 84% of the members of this house signed that letter for those four issues we wanted in this agrement and not one of those issues is in the agreement. anywhere, any time inspection, not there. don't lift the sanctions up front, hold them for the dureation of the agreement to make sure we have compliance -- not there the answers to the 12 questions from the iaea which for we have 1,000 pages of evidence, not there. the request that this be multiple decades instead of 10-plus years, not there. and then something we never even envisioned, they added lifting the arms embargo on iran itself so iran will have the ability to move forward with its icbm

program as well as transferring conventional arms to hezbollah and hamas. i've never seen anything negotiated as poorly as this agreement. and that's why we're here today, mr. chairman. mr. levin: mr. chairman, could i comment briefly? mr. sessions: yes, sir. mr. levin: i have a meeting at 6:00, i just need to keep. could i take a couple of minutes. mr. sessions: the gentleman would like a couple more minutes? would this be opening statement or to reply to a question? mr. levin: i ask if i could comment on what the -- mr. sessions: you'd like to reply to the same question, the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: thank you. it's sometimes said that the administration fought the sanctions throughout, that's not true. i was involved in many of the discussions about sanctions. and if anybody wants to raise

that question, i suggest that they talk to howard berman. it's not true. there were differences of opinion about the nature of the sanctions in some respects, it is incorrect to say that this administration opposed sanctions against iran. it's not true. and i just want to say one other word about this notion that we'll be stronger turning this down in terms of sanctions. i don't know of any responsible person who has looked at this who has the background in it who says that. i just suggest you look at the testimony of secretary jack lew. he just refutes this notion that if we turn this down, we can honor -- we can on our own effectively impose a stronger

sanctions regime. that's fallacious. we would walk alone as mr. scowcroft has said and colin powell said. the notion that we have the financial power when already other nations have begun to undertake some further economic ork with iran, it's -- it's an illusion. it's an illusion. because so many of the sanctions would disappear. the other countries would not participate and the ministers from the other countries have said very clearly taos that this notion that you can turn this own and have a stronger set of sanctions is something that is imaginary. i appreciate the chance to

answer your question. we'll have a full debate on this for hours, as many as you'll allow. mr. royce will have a chance to raise these points and we'll be fully prepared to answer them. but -- mr. royce: part of this is personal for me because one of those bills was my bill. and when you say the president did not oppose sanctions, it was my if you would yield, it was my legislation. it did pass 400-20. it passed unanimously through the committee. and yes the president and the secretary of state opposed it every step of the way. and managed to block it in the senate. so for me, my personal experience is one of -- one of not being table convince the administration that putting additional pressure on iran with sanctions would be helpful.

and the conclusion i reached is one that was shared by the vast majority of this house. mr. levin: if you look -- mr. sessions: i appreciate the gentleman having a discussion back and forth. we're going to continue. thank you very much. i want to be respectful to all three of you to get things out that you wanted to respond to a question. my last point that i'd like to make is simply this. the question about that this will lead to war. i think i have a tendency to understand that the american foreign policy i believe since the dropping of the bomb has been the belief that fewer countries should have access to nuclear weapons. and we've spent a great deal of time trying to watch that proliferation that might occur, whether it was breaking up the

soviet union or other nations as they go through their ups and downs and that it defies my lodger that we would just automatically say, but you can have it in 15 years. when we've tried to do everything we can do to not to that and it seems like when the negotiation fails, that's when you get war. i believe that to have any country that threaten ours allies or americans that it is in our best interest, mr. chairman, to make sure that we are doing what we can to protect this country and i believe it's capitulation and giving in to that so i have answered the question myself, i believe this is about making iran the middle person in the east. and that comes against conventional wisdom. i don't understand that. nd i'm worried about that.

mr. royce: if i could respond to that, again to quote the chairman of the joint chiefs, as he said, it is -- it does not mean that we would have a military conflict. he said, the united states has a range of options. he did not think it meant that. he thinks that it doesn't mean war. but what it does mean is rolling up our sleeves and turning up the economic pressure on the regime and on the regime's supporters and negotiating a better agreement that advances the national security interest of the united states and our allies and partners. that's something we will debate as we go forward. mr. sessions: my point was, in the negotiations, we gave it to them. if we didn't want them to have it, we shouldn't vfment mr. royce: we're not opposed to diplomacy, we're opposed to bad

diplomacy and that's what we're going to debafmente mr. levin: may i be excused. mr. sessions: you did tell me head of time you had other things to do. mr. levin: thank you. mr. sessions: ms. waters, will you be staying? the gentlewoman is invited to stay. the gentlewoman from north carolina, vice chairman of the committee, ms. foxx is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you. i want to thank the chairman of the committee for being here with us and thank ms. waters for being here also. mr. chairman, most of us here today believe the united states cannot tolerate a nuclear regime in iran. unfortunately, president obama and his allies have spent the last two months vilifying as warmongers those who are deeply concerned, as i am, that this

deal may postpone but will not prevent iran from gaining nuclear weapons. that is unfortunate rhetoric from those who themselves stated, you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care. before the final deal was announced, i spoke on the house floor about my concerns that inspectors from the international atomic energy agency would have limited access to key sites under untenable bureaucratic terms. given what we know about the text of the deal itself, from the text of the deal itself, what we've learned about the agreement between iran and the iaea, these concerns are well founded. in addition to allowing iran to continue and enhance its nuclear capabilities, this deal lifts crucial economic sanctions, allowing billions of dollars to

flow into the iranian economy. it is expected that much of this wind fall, estimated to exceed $100 billion, will pass through iran's economy to entities like hezbollah, which has dedicated itself to war with israel since the early 1980's. mr. royce, your discussion with the chairman makes it clear. a wealthier, more militarized iran poses a significant threat to the stability of our allies in the region. especially to our friend israel. given the ayatollah's continued public incitement of violence against israel, what steps can congress take in tandem with these approval of the joint agreement to bolster israel's security and stability in the middle east? >> well, representative foxx, let me share with you my concerns in terms of whai