question of -- that's been laid that it's this or war, i would just ask you, what would be better if you had to have a war, unventional war or nuclear war? >> i'm going to go back to the comment of the chairman of the joint chiefs, he doesn't buy into the premise at all. there's a whole range of options. one of those options which i raised earlier was the fact that we continue to forget, we in terms of the international market, this country is the 800 pound gorilla. if you give companies a choice between doing business with the united states or only doing business with iran, i'll just quote stewart levy, the former secretary of the treasury. it's a pretty easy choice for any business or any country to make. you know what the answer is going to be. the question is, are we going to impose that. and we've never gotten to the

point of really pushing that because we haven't been faced with a situation desperate enough. if we have to, if we have to reimpose sanctions, that is the way to do it. and give countries that choice and give the ayatollah that choice of whether he wants to see total economic collapse or real compromise on his nuclear program. >> gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from georgia, mr. collins is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chair. mr. chairman it's good to have you serving on the foreign affairs before this congress. i'm not going to stay long here. it just bothers me as one who, frankly i voted just a few months ago even against this. i felt like we left the moorings a long time ago. it's amazing in the last six to eight months hearing the administration going from we'll never allow them to have nuclear weapons and we'll do everything

in our power, well we'll let them get them in a certain timeframe. as one who also served in iraq back in 2008, it really -- the issue with the irg, mr. chairman, concerns me more than anything. and because it's getting sort of lost, i guess in the process of the nuclear agreement and the centrafuges and everything else. what we're doing here is strengthening the iranian irg. we're seeing it happen. we're seeing this take place. and really, sort of outside the circle of this entire agreement. i'm not sure why we chose to change, why we let this go. this is the part, frankly that i don't believe the world has an answer for. i don't believe this agreement has an answer for. why it was added at the last minute -- i know we talked about it in general here today. but this is the part from your perspective, why was this piece added? why -- besides the fact that

it's the biggest gift in my opinion to the iranian regime. the dealings with -- >> the lifting of the arms embargo? >> yes. i think this the countries around that, the biggest concern here. >> this is what held the deal up at the end. it was the introduction of the russians into the equation running interference for iran saying no, you're not going to get a deal. this is all second hand. i wasn't there in the room. but the russians saying no, yore not going to get a deal unless you -- we lift the sanctions, you know, on arms transfer. now, why would the russians be interested in that? i can tell you, in my opinion, it's because they intend, just as we see evidence of it right now, to make a lot of money by transferring arms to the iranian regime. they know that into the escrow account is going to come

$100 billion when this deal is done. and so they have the technical capability, for example, to sell targeting information to the iranians. right now the iranians can send those three stage icbm's up but they can't control where they land. they're not good at that. but i'm going to bet and hypothesize they would be willing to pay an awful lot of money to get that capability. the second thing is conventional arms. and this gives the russians the capability to transfer conventional arms. also, which, of course, the iranian government and the revolutionary guard corp really need to carry out their operations to assist the houthi rebels whether it's overthrowing yemen, whether it's the low level insurgency they're trying to inspire among the houthis in saudi arabia. where the oil fields are.

whether it's in syria where they're firing rockets right now into israel or were a few weeks ago. or whether it's in iraq, whether it's in lebanon where they're trying to strengthen hezbollah and take over lebanon. so they have an agenda where they're in need of hard currency and it's been caught off for a long time. this would give the iranian revolutionary guard corp a real shot in the arm in terms of getting the weapons it needs. that's why i think it was introduced in the 11th hour. >> i think that's what brings so much concern to the table, that you bring this in, basically held off to the very end when the deal was there and bring this in and the russians of course stepping in. this is the part that anyone who is concerned about israel, anyone that's concerned about the middle east in general in looking at this would say that this agreement, you know, not only just on its face has issues. you made a comment a few minutes ago i think goes back to my

heart and why it just distressed greatly the path we went on from the end of last year to this agreement, that was moving away from the sanctions and away from the international capability into -- at a point when you said they have to choose between us and those partners. we had that ability. we let that ability go. for whatever gain which it doesn't seem to be, especially as we get into the details of how it will be inspected and go forward except for political gain or legacy. whatever we want to call it. it's very disturbing that we had that leverage, we had even an election there that said right after he was elected you've got to go get the sanctions off. we're basically struggling here. and we let it go. i think the history that was spok spoken of earlier, the history will be how did we let this go when we were in a position of power and we went to a position of weakness. i don't want to see this go through h. we'll have to

continue to fight this. i appreciate the chairman's vigilance. >> thank you very much, the gentleman from alabama. >> mr. chairman. thank you for you and your staff for the excellent work you've done on this. i serve on the armed services committee. we've been looking at this from our perspective. and the thing that botherers me the most about this is that when we're talking about these things the state department gets to negotiate this, men and women in the uniforms of the united states of america have to defend against it. i don't think people have been thinking about that. back earlier this year in the armed services committee we heard from the defense intelligence agency. this is not classified so i'm not releasing anything. this is what they told us. the islamic republic of iran continues to threaten u.s. strategic interests in the middle east. iran's actions and policies are

designed to further its goal of becoming the dominant regional power as well as to enhance its strategic depth. iran views the united states as its most capable adversary and has fashioned its military strategy and doctrine accordingly. they talk about more specifics about what they're doing. they make this statement, numerous underground facilities reduce the vulnerability of critical elements of iran's military. so they can hide from us what they're doing, strengthen and make it more difficult for our conventional weapons to reach them. then they go on to talk about nuclear weapons. this national intelligence agency, we continue to assess that iran's goal is to develop capabilities that would allow it to build missile deliverable nuclear weapons. the regime faces no insurmountable technical

barriers to producing a nuclear weapon. iran's overall defense strategy relies on a substantial inventory of theater ballistic missiles capable of reaching as far as southeastern europe. iran continues to develop more sophisticated missiles and to improve the range and accuracy of current missile systems. iran has publicly stated it intends to launch a space launch vehicle as early as this year that could be capable of intercontinental ballistic missile ranges. in july of this year before the senate armed services committee, general dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities. and then earlier this year, the director of national intelligence said we judge that

tehran would choose ballistic missiles as its preferred method of delivering nuclear weapons. iran's ballistic missiles are inherently capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction. so from the point of view of protecting the people of the united states, the burden of which falls on those men and women out there in ships today and in airplanes and our wonderful ground forces, let me ask you to confirm or not what general dempsey has posed to us. are these circumstances that we are relieving pressure on iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities? >> i believe that the chairman of the joint chiefs, as well as the secretary of defense were correct. and i believe it was a blunder. it was a blunder in the final hours of negotiation. and i would maybe credit this to the zeal for the deal. i don't know. but to concur, to concur, with

the pressure from russia and iran, to lift the arms embargo, to lift that prohibition, prohibition on assistance with the icbm program as well as their conventional arms, i think that that was not in the interests, securities interests of the united states. >> you would agree that that relieved pressure on iran's ballistic missile capabilities? >> absolutely. because it will allow russia to operate, for example, with iran on their icbm program in the future. which i don't think under any conditions we should have entertained. >> you know, one of the things that bothers a lot of people about this deal, is that we hear a lot about a lot of people are doing this because they have some special relationship with israel, they want to protect israel. i'm a strong supporter of israel. i make no apologies for that.

i oppose the deal because it's bad for the united states of america. they don't need intercontinental ballistic missiles to hit israel. they need icbm's to hit us. and that's their intent. that's what -- these aren't partisan people, the defense intelligence agency. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. the director of national intelligence. these are professionals. and they're all telling us the same thing, that these icbm's, these ballistic missiles threaten the defense of the united states. >> if i could respond to that, in the words of the ayatollah, in keeping with the point you're making, israel is just the little satan. we are the great satan. in his equation. so i concur with your -- >> will the gentleman yield? >> yes, sir. first of all, i would, again,

remind the gentleman, this agreement is about preventing iran from getting a nuclear weapon. which i would like to think we could all agree would be a bad idea. i wanted to pick up something the gentleman said about the decisions that are made by the state department have to be, you know -- the burden falls on our men and women who serve our country in the military. i think this is a good moment to remind everybody here, we talk about our responsibility to our troops, that we are at war right now, not in iran, but in iraq and in syria. and to the beth st of my knowle, this institution can't get the spine together to actually bring an authorization to the floor and do our constitutional job to take responsibility for what these men and women are now having to deal with. i mean, every day we are engaged in military actions bombing every day, i know the chairman agrees that we ought to have an

authorization here. but, i mean, you know, at least on this vote, at least on this issue here, you can vote no. you know, if enough people vote no and the president doesn't get his way. then this can't go forward. we're at war right now, and we don't even talk about it. so i appreciate the concern for our troops, but i wish there was -- >> reclaiming my time, mr. mcgovern. the truth of the matter is this will provide money to a regime that takes that money and gives it to terrorist groups that target u.s. military personnel and have killed them. and this will increase the likelihood of that, not decrease it. which is -- excuse me i have my time. which is exactly general dempsey's point. and the burden does fall on them. this is not about what's happening in syria right now, it's what's happening in iran and what iran intends to do

throughout the middle east against the interests and the people of the united states of america. in 1938, england decided to go to munich and appease hitler. do you know what happened? we had world war ii. winston churchill wrote a book -- i did not give my time, mr. mcgovern i still have my time. he wrote a book called while england slept. john f. kennedy wrote his senior thesis called why england slept. i can't imagine john f. kennedy agreeing to this agreement, knowing what we know from these non-partisan professionals who deal with the defense of our country. i was in the store the other day buying some groceries. a woman came up to me with tears in her eyes. because she was so worried about this, not because she was

concerned about israel, she was concerned about herself. and i think it behooves us in this congress to understand that our main job here is to defend the american people. this deal based upon what we know from the non-partisan professionals that defend this country endangers the american people. and i will vote against it and i hope we will have a vigorous debate on the floor about it. so we can make sure the people of america know what the truth is and so we can have a vote so everybody in america can know where we all stand as their representati representatives. and at the end of the day the american people can make a decision about whether we made the right decision. i have not given up my time. i have not given up my time.

this deal was negotiated because somebody had a desire to get an agreement almost under any circumstance. because if you look at what general dempsey said, he said under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities. do you know what? under these circumstances, we did it. and why america would sleep in the middle of that, i don't understand. and i yield back, mr. chairman. >> i guess, you think you're in the senate where you filibuster. yeah, i do, mr. chairman. one is to characterize this deal in those terms, i think, is irresponsible. to be honest with you. and i -- it goes to the motives of the people who have been working diligently to try to negotiate a deal to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon. i think it is in the interest of the united states of america to make sure iran does not get a

nuclear weapon. this is our best opportunity to do so. the gentleman is against that, fine. for the gentleman to twist history is irresponsible. i get the administration a great deal of credit for coming up with an agreement. which has the support of major non-proliferation experts, national security experts, from colin powell, the way this has been characterized is like nobody of any gravtas believes there is any disagreement on this is wrong. to go down that road to characterize it the way the gentleman is i don't think is appropriate. you know, he can vote against it and those of us who support it can vote for t. and we will have a vote on this. my point originally was that this congress is shirking its responsibility in a war that we

involved with in iraq and syria right now. that this congress has just walked away from and totally turned its back on the american forces that are over there right now. and my constituents are wondering why is it we're putting more and more money and more american forces into iraq, a government that now is totally aligned with iran. maybe the gentleman, if he comes to massachusetts can answer that question. >> mr. chairman may i respond very briefly? >> one moment, please. does the gentleman seek further time or did you yield? >> i yield. i believe in back and forth. >> well, you may believe in that. do you wish to entertain the gentleman? >> i do. i'm happy to yield to the gentleman. >> i have great respect for mr. mcgovern. he's a capable member of this house. i think this is the very heart of this matter. clear statements -- i think it would be irresponsible not to bring them up.

yes, we need to have a vigorous debate. i'm not questioning people's motives. i'm questioning the rationale. and if we can't have a debate where we question the rationale of the single most important vote this congress has taken since we declared war on japan and germany, i think we would be shirking our responsibilities. i stand by my comments. i would be happy to come to the gentleman's district and i would be happy for you to come to my district. i had 16 town halls in my district the last few weeks, i can guarantee you there wasn't a single person in any of my districts who was for this deal. you may talk about these great experts, but the people of america don't like this deal, nor should they h. thank you sir, i yield back. >> the gentleman from the state of washington, the gentleman, mr. newhouse is recognized. >> thank you chairman sessions, i appreciate that.

i appreciate you having such patience for this important topic. chairman royce thank you for being with us. so much time given to this issue in iran. i've only been in the house for almost nine months now. i think i'll be able to say if i'm lucky enough to be here in another nine years, this is probably going to be the most important vote i take. all of us collectively will probably be able to say something similar. i read the agreement. i went downstairs and availed myself and took the time to read what was in it. i've gone to israel to visit with people in that country to hear their concerns. their questions. things that i felt that i needed to understand. i've listened intently to chairman carey -- secretary carey, and secretary lew. i went into this process with as open a mind as possible because

this is an important decision. it's not a republican versus a democrat decision. if it's a good deal, it's a good deal. if it's not, it's not. it shouldn't be just because we have a particular letter behind your name. i'm afraid it's turning into that. that's very, very unfortunate. but i have -- after all this process and very much enjoyed the conversation today, this has been very helpful. some of the new things have come out to me. and so that's been helpful to help solidify my decision. i still have some grave concerns. and i wanted to ask you chairman royce, if you could help me get through some of these things. we've had, i think, a fairly long history, bipartisan history, of opposing a nuclear iran. the world has also been working hard to make sure that doesn't happen. and it seems to me that even if

iran followed this agreement to a t, that within a very short time, within a decade, they would be on a path to having a nuclear weapon clearly with the blessing of the international community and the united states. it seems to me that gthis goes against what we've been trying to achieve. it goes against the stability of the region and the world. can you comment on that? is that a correct assessment, chairman? >> i think that assessment is correct. mr. newhouse, i think that in ten plus years, between 10 and 15 years they are going to be on the threshold of having that capability. and that is if they do not cheat. if they cheat, it will be sooner. but it is the other consequences of this agreement, which are so concerning, because in releasing

$100 billion or so into the hands of the government in iran, which actually controls the contracts, controls the iranian economy, controls the companies in iran which will be doing business with companies around the world, you give them the whe wherewi wherewithad to do something they have not been able to do. it is the largest terror network that we're dealing with on the planet. as we discussed previously, throughout the region, they have big ambitions. when you talk about egypt, and you think about the fact that it was the iranian regime that was putting money into the hands of the muslim brotherhood or funding hamas. what do we think is going to happen when they have that kind of capability not just to transfer the resources but now they're talking about transferring weapons. i think it is going to be a huge

challenge when you have the force and you have individuals like general suleimani out there in the region now with limitless resources virtually. what we're talking about is just the down payment with $100 billion. after that come the contracts. come the contracts that put the money further into the hands of the ayatollah and his allies in that regime. so every aspect of this, the commitment to build ballistic missiles, when you have someone on the ropes, why give them the wherewithal to fund their ballistic missile program when you have the ayatollah on record saying it's every military man's responsibility to help mass produce icbm's? what do we think he means by that? unfortunately, i'll just conclude with this. for me, i believe he means this, when he says death to america, death to israel, i take him

seriously. because in the past when people have talked like that, we've ignored their rhetoric at our peril. especially in cases with personalities that have already shown themselves willing to break international law and commit mayhem throughout the region. underwrite political assassinations, kill their own people, hold u.s. citizens as hostages. i take them at their word. therefore, i think it would behoove us to defeat this deal and push for one that gives the iranian regime, you know, gives the international community a choice. either do business with the united states or you do business with iran, but you don't do both. so if you don't want to deal in the international market or in the international financial system with the united states, so be it. you're out.

as i said, stewart levy over at treasury indicated to me, when he was there, that this ultimately is the way to force real compromise that you need in their nuclear program. so that's the conclusion i've reached. thanks. >> thank you mr. chairman. the -- i don't buy into the premise that it's this deal or a war that that's the only two options. i think there's a lot of things that are available to us. and we should exercise every one of those options. not only the future -- in the shirt te short term, maybe this helps me. ten years to me, it isn't very long. a decade from now -- i'm from the rural area the horse will be out of the barn and you will not be ail to put it back in. i think every effort we can

utilize or exercise to get a better deal -- and i think we can. we need to. so i appreciate the time that we're taking today. i hope -- and i believe we will be taking a lot of time in the coming days to debate and discuss this. we need to vet this very carefully. i hope every member of the body votes their conscious and listens intently and makes as good a decision as they possibly can. with that, mr. chairman i'll yield back. >> i want to thank you for taking the time to be here today and for your intention to detail and the things which you've done. i want to point out two staff members you have. they came by to brief me this morning. we spent about an hour. i found them most instructive to talk with me about the issues surrounding this entire matter to where we got closer folks. we will do our very best to get you on the floor here very

quickly. with enough time for not only you, but the other relevant committees that would choose to speak about the various parts of this. i want to thank you for your leadership on behalf of your party and also this conference. >> thank you chairman sessions i want to thank the other members of the committee. >> i want to thank you mr. royce, and thank you for your staying power. thank you. appreciate it. >> thank you very much. >> mr. chairman if you would make sure anything you brought by that you want to have included we'll do that and i want to thank you very much. we now move to the second panel, the gentleman from tyler, texas would be asked to come and be a part of this. does theç gentlewoman of houst texas seek to be a part of the second panel? i would ask the gentlemen to please come join us. obviously, i'm looking at what i

believe is why you're here, mr. gomer. i don't know what -- how the gentlewoman wishes -- she would be joining you? >> no. >> not joining you. i do not have a piece, necessarily, any amendment i'm aware of that you're here for. i'm first going to -- does the gentlewoman wish to speak about the deal as a whole? and on the procedure of such. that would be great you're both going to be here for some period of time to get through this. so the gentle woman of texas would be recognized. if the gentlewoman would like to do that. mr. gomer is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you everybody here. i don't have to take too long. the chairman, chairman royce, has been quite clear and very articulate. and there have been some great

questions. the deal is fatally flawed as he said, as he pointed out iran has violated every deal they've ever made since 1979. i would suggest, though, when it comes to the un agreement and the 15 parties that voted, taking the current bill to the floor would not be a cupitchulation on our obligation to the the un. it would be a capitulation on our oath to support and defend the constitution. it's very clear. article ii, the gentleman has already pointed out, section ii, talking about the president, he shall center the power by and with the advice and consent of the senate to make treaties provided 2/3 of the senators present concur. and i know mr. royce, chairman

royce, had said that that would be the preferred method except that the president's already threatened that he would veto any effort along those lines. well, the fact is, that article ii, section ii when it comes to treaties does not make any provision for the president's veto. the senate can take a matter up that is a treaty. which this clearly is. and then if they vote 2/3 to ratify, it's ratified. if they don't, there is no veto available to the president. having consulted with numerous constitutional law professors, including berkeley constitutional law expert, a professor there, who says that although the senate may say the president needs to submit the

iranian agreement as a treaty for ratification, that actually the senate could call it up on @r(t&ho court should say it failed to get the 2/3 necessary for ratification. and, therefore, it is not binding upon, nor is it a forcible against the united states. so it's a question. are we going to ignore the constitution? and i didn't vote for the corker bill like some of my friends here did not. but it is important to note that everyone that did vote for the corker carden bill had plenty of assurances that that was from the president and the secretary of state, that that was the proper thing to do. and, in fact, the president, his spokes people were saying this was an executive agreement, it does not require any kind of

ratification under article ii. they made very clear that this -- in fact, as i noted in the findings, in the amendment on march 11th, secretary of state kerry had stated very clearly that he was not negotiating a legally binding plan. and then they go on -- and i think we all know that any international -- any agreement between the the united states and another country that affects changes, modified an existing treaty is a treaty and it does require ratification by 2/3 of the senate. well, this iranian deal, which really is a treaty, does that. article i of the treaty on non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, which the u.s. is signatory. this is number 23 of the

findings, under which the united states is not in any way to assist encourage or induce iran to acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. or control over such weapons or explosive devices. clearly, now we know this iranian deal is a treaty. because it does affect that under the non-proliferation treaty. we also know that directly or indirectly we're not supposed to allow acquisition of nuclear weapons or capabilities of controlling nuclear weapons for iran. and that is being changed. number 25 points out that article iii of the non-proliferation treaty regarding international inspectors in iran, and i'm quoting, shall have access at all times to all place and data and to any person who by reason

of his occupation deals with materials, equipment or facilities which are required by the statute to be safeguarded. obviously, this deal -- people on this committee have talked repeatedly about what will be allowed and not allowed. it is changing the non-proliferation treaty. that makes it a treaty. then, of course, it mondays the non-proliferation treaty outside the prescribed method of amendment in article viii of the non-proliferation treaty. so we were assured and all of those that voted for the corker carden bill in the house and in the senate relied on the representations of the president, the secretary of state, all their spokes people, that this was not going to do any of those things, not going to be binding. and if those had been accurate, then the carden cork -- corker carden bill was a good way to

get congress with a say in this negotiation. now, that we see it truly is a treaty, to do anything but bring a bill, i don't care whose name is on it. i don't care we put the whole rules committee. but let's bring a bill to the floor, not the one that's going to say we approve or disapprove, because that is in effect, bring r bringing our approval, disapproval vote to effect when it's really a sham. this is a treaty. it's clearly a treaty. and i wish the house had a say in treaties. it doesn't. so the house ought to demand that the senate take up their role, corker carden doesn't apply here. and i know my friend is down on the floor.

he has a privileged motion he's making that actually corker carden has not been triggered yet because all of the agreement has not been provided to the house as required under corker carden. so he's got a point. but i would submit to this committee the truth is, this is a treaty and we need to vote and call it what it is. i tell you what, america will be proud that 2/3 that have been referenced here will be proud, and those who would quote ronald reagan, trust but verify as my friend from oklahoma pointed out. he walked away from the bad deal at reykjavik and as a result of his steadfastness brought down an evil empire in the soviet union. we can help do that, too, with iran. but not if we treat a treaty as anything other than a treaty. so i will encourage you to

accept any kind of amendment you wish to make in the nature of a institute. anybody's name on it, you care to put on there, but we need to call this what it is. and america will be grateful. i feel so strongly about this. if we'll just do what the constitution says, i'm willing to make my leadership happy. and not run again. i feel that strongly about it. but it is imperative that we follow the constitution here. and if we don't follow the constitution, i'm going to be around probably for a long time the biggest pain in the rear that people can imagine. i thank the gentleman and yield back. >> yes, sir. mr. jackson lee? >> i thank you for delaying your time for this second panel. and i also want to join some of the comments that i've heard, this has been a very deliberative discussion. for those of us who are able to hear a good part of it, it was

thoughtful and very helpful. i indicated that i want today just briefly discuss one or two procedural points one of which i've heard a number of people indicate to give us a vigorous amount of time for debate. i'd like to offer an eight hour debate per day wednesday and thursday, and then maybe half that amount, four hours on friday. i do believe that more than a ten hour debate on a 435 person congress is vitally important. i've heard a number of timeframes. but we may have individuals who want to raise constitutional issues. and i think this is a very important vote. the second point i want to make, and i think the tone here was very appropriate. is we have the responsibility not to frighten the american people. we do have differences of opinion. it is going to probably be emotional.

all of us will probably be making statements of our affection for israel and the work we've done for israel, as well as, i assume, some of us will also speak about peace in the middle east. and we'll also recognize the heinousness of some of the actions of iran. i don't think that we will deny the discussion on the floor. but what i wanted to say is as i listened to chairman royce, who worked and had the house version of public law number 114-17, which is the public law of the corker carden bill, i just want to read the provisions, as i heard the discussion i want to make the point. that as we proceed with the joint comprehensive plan of action, there is existing public law that will guide the enforcement or the response that congress can have. i also want to, as i read these

provisions into the record, mr. chairman, saying, that i have nod heard the administration counter with the alternative is war. i think what the point is, is that if necessary, that the united states is both as the singular world power. and some argue that franchised terrorism makes terrorism fighting in a different format. is well prepared the address the breaches that iran may encounter if necessary in an approach that may require military utilization. but i have not heard any of the members here document the so-called alternative is war. let me just read so that we know that congress is not relieved of her constitutional responsibilities or statutory responsibilities. the public law says, after the congressional review period the president would be required to provide an assessment to congress every 90 days on iran's

compliance with the agreement. in the event the president cannot certify compliance or if the president determines there has been a material breach of the agreement, congress could vote on an expedited basis to restore sanctions that have been waived or suspended under the agreement. the bill also requires the president to make a series of detailed reports to congress on a range of issues. including iran's nuclear program, its ballistic missiles work, which i heard vigorously discussed here and support of terrorism globally. we know the agreement does not give iran a pass on the issues of sanctions and its terrorist activities. i close by saying that all of us want the hostages to be returned. i don't think the story is finished or the door is closed. i hope as we continue this, that we'll be reminded of congress's continuing engagement and responsibility as dictated by public law 114-17.

and that will be part of the debate going forward so that it can be both a vigorous and factual debate being an effective story if you will because the american people will be watching on how we ultimately make the sdisdecision on a very important responsibility that has been given back to the congress. with that, i yield back. >> thank you very much. is there any member of the democrats' side here that has questions? seeing none, is there a republican member that would seek time? the gentleman from georgia, mr. collins is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. i think the issue -- it goes back to something the gentle lady from texas who i enjoy serving with on a committee. we talk about a lot of things. many times we have a difference of opinion. i think a difference of opinion is still here. in looking at this, the simple

fact that this issue of terrorism, the issue of the lifting of those iranian guard, those are issues that take away from those that were expressed earlier today by mr. mcgovern. this was the part that concerns many of us here at the end in the actual text and what was done in the longer part of this. not even getting to the fact of the nuclear agreements, the closing of the reactors or moving those. i think that's the part that came in at the end. it was a surprise to most watchers of the agreement. and then coming in and i think lends to gomer's part is the fact of when does this translate over from the agreement to the treaty aspect? there is a lot of concerns about that. i'm not sure how, though, we do not look at that aspect as a part. maybe i misunderstood what you said in your statements. that that was really address

said in other ways. would you like to explain more why this issue of the terrorism, the issues that were addressed earlier which you were here for when i spoke to the chairman, how that -- not really be a part of this treaty as far as affecting why we should not be in support of this? i may have misheard you. i would like to hear what you were discussing to you, mr. congress woman. >> let me add a little anecdote. today i was in the 9/11 memorial in new york, homeland security committee. if there's ever a more sobering and emotional experience, it is to go there and recognize what america has been through. through the actions of terrorists. the point that i was making, and i think it's been made here before, is that the sanctions, the actions of iran as all have

indicated, that it is a state sponsor of terrorism, those sanctions are terrorism. those sanctions are separated from the question of the issue of a nonnuclear agreement. but those will continue. >> i think the concern that i'm having is this part dealing with the iranian guard is not separate from this. this is still -- it was brought in to bear in this agreement. that was the concern as my friend from alabama was speaking about. i think understanding the threats that are there is a very real under current with the problems that we are having. many of us are struggling with just the framework and structure of how this is sit set up. take anything out of what i may or may not feel about the

motivations, the realistic possibility, getting to the heart of it is concerned. i appreciate you attempting to verify that now. >> if i might, i refer to a corporate pardon bill more than some. and there are provisions in that bill have that an intimate relationship with the administration and congress in terms of the kind of reporting which would include your concerns about the iranian guard. >> and i voted against that bill. i felt like we left our tradition when we left the sanctions part of this. we i believe we could have gotten a better deal. they had an election. they changed that. the first thing they want to do is get rid of sanctions. they go to the table and promise

everything. with a country that's never lived up to the most part of any agreements they have had, that's a concern to many of us. there's a difference in opinion. >> if i just may say a sentence. mr. collins and i have debates on the judiciary committee. but let me just say a counter to that would be we have obviously implemented sanctions on iran for a very, very long time. and they are at the breaking point and i would make the argument that this is a agreement pointedly directed at stopping the nuclear proliferation iran. so it's always a question of whether sanctions would break them any further. they are at their low point. i yield back. >> thank you very much. the gentleman yields back. any other member that seeks

time? thank you very much. i want to thank both of our witnesses for taking time. i know you sat here the bulk of the time and i know ms. lee, you put your time in the chair today. i appreciate it very much. >> thank you. >> anything that you have to leave for our great stenographer, would appreciate it. let's close the hearing portion of our effort on 64. and the chair will be in receipt of a motion. >> disapproving of the agreement transmitted to congress by the president on july 19, 2015 relating to the nuclear program of iran a. the rule provides 10 hour of debate by the respective chairs

and ranking minority members of the committees on foreign affairs, financial services, the judiciary, oversight and government forum and ways and means. the rule waves all points of order against consideration. the rule provides that the joint resolution shall be considered as read. the rule leaves all points of order against provisions in the joint resolution. rule provides the final period of debate which shall not exceed one hour equally dividing control by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on foreign affairs. the rule provides one motion to recommit. finally, second 2 of the rule provides that upon receipt of a message from the senate, transmitting hj res 61 with a senate amendment to the text thereof consisting only of the text of hj 64 as passed by the house. the house shall be considered to have concurred in the senate amendment or amendments.

thank you very much. now for myself for further explanation. this rule provides for consideration of the disapproval under closed rule. that way it can be a clear vote to court or you are against it. rule provides for 11 hours of debate, committees of jurisdiction lastly, the rule provides that the senate passes a joint resolution that is identical to the house version will consider it as adopted. i think what we have tried to do is have a long fruitful hearing where all members had an opportunity to be heard. you heard the motion from the gentle woman from north carol a carolina. >> i'm concerned, as i think we all are on number 8.

we are deeming we concur with whatever the senate does. why are we doing that? >> seasonally what's happening is is both of the bodies are going after the same time. they may name it something different. normally what happens is the house will pass something and the senate will take the measure up. this is being concurrently done by both sides. they make take up a different number of the bill. they may call their bill something different. as long as the text is exactly the same, we are saying we will adopt that. >> as long as it's exactly the same. >> exactly the same. but the title of the bill may be different. so the text of the bill. >> once again, i think because we are very fond over here of the order. >> fond or not, this is going to take us -- we have been

through 30 hearings on this matter. and the senate has their procedures and processes. all we are trying to simply say is if the bills are exactly, exactly the same text, the title of the bill does not have to be exactly the same. it is not a trick. >> all right. thank you for your explanation. >> this is not just a big serious question. but relating in section two of the rule we speak to what i gather are the relevant committees, foreign affairs, natural services, the judiciary oversight and government reform and ways and means. while i don't have any axes to grind with any of the committees, and i guess one could a argue that all committees of congress ought to

be involved, but is there any particular reason armed services is is not involved in the matter of dealing with this issue? >> at the time a bill is dropped, and i know we all ought to know this. i'm going to get to the answer. there are referrals made based upon the subjects subjective reading of the bill. and they did not receive any referral. so we did not include them. as pa hrrliamentarian. >> i appreciate the chair a's clarification. i would not even pursue it further other than to observe. >> there's a presentation of with what they may or may not

have had is given a a certain time. >> we had 10 hours of debate already. >> intelligence hasn't been heard from. >> you know, i might say that this is a very difficult issue. i thought we did a pretty good job of keeping that in check today. >> i understand the vote will now be on the motion from the gentlewoman from north carolina. those in favor say aye. those no. >> the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. and i will be handling this for republicans. >> and i will be handling for my side. >> i do not anticipate there will be further rules committee activity this week. and i thank you very much for this hearing.

>> director of national intelligence james clapper is the speaker today at the intelligence and national security summit. watch live starting at 8:30 a.m. eastern on c-span3. later, a house judiciary committee hearing looking at practices at planned parenthood and allegations of federal law violations by the organization. live at 10:30 a.m. eastern also on c-span3.

>> he was a nazi. concentration camp commandant, and he was responsible for the murder of thousands of jews. >> the sunday night on "q&a," jennifer teege on her life altering discovery that her grandfather was the concentration camp commandant -- also known as the butcher of clas-- jennifer: he was capable of -- he traineddogs, and them to care for humans apart. there was a pleasure that he people.n he killed

there is something that when you are normal, if you do not have this aspect of your personality, it is there he, very difficult to grasp. night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a." >> live today on c-span, "washington journal" is next. the house is in at 10:00 a.m. debate is one hour followed by 11 hours of general debate over the next relays -- three days. >> coming up and 45 minutes, senator ron johnson on the iran nuclear deal. then i look at the iran nuclear disapproval resolution with

representative david price. send the debate over gay the debate over gay marriage and the rule of law. ♪ host: good morning. it is wednesday, september 9. both chambers, a resolution disapproving of the iran nuclear deal. the house will begin 11 hours of debate today with a vote expected on friday. the senate could also hold a vote that day. with debate kicking off, we want to get your thoughts on what your message to congress is on the iran nuclear deal. if you supported, (202) 748-8000