regional aggression. aggressive against iran on its human rights violations. i'll just bring up for the consideration of the body here some concerns i have. i don't see it. this administration was silent during iran's green revolution, when the iranian people were in the streets revolting against a regime. they needed u.s. leadership the most at that time. and since the administration began its negotiations with iran , we have had a grand total of three, three human rights abuse designations, three designations against a backdrop of a record number of executions under the so-called moderate party. more executions. this year than under his

leadership -- than under alternative leadership in the past. if you are seeing unparalleled levels of repression and executions and we don't see that being countered forcefully, i come to a certain conclusion. i see the same thing with the administration not confronting assad's mass murder. assad is iranian-backed. now, you know, from my standpoint, if the administration is locked into an agreement, i will tell you how i think. i presume the administration will defend that agreement. and i presume that that will mean ignoring iran's abuses at home and probably ignoring iran's aggression abroad. the negotiations were constraint on the administration taking

action and protesting. and i presume that the new agreement is going to be a constraint on the administration's taking action against iran. i'm just pointing out my view on this based upon what i have observed, going back to the green revolution and this model with iran. i wish that the administration would take on a new life in confronting iran. i don't see it. and will have a really bad deal to contend with. and the other part of the deal, other points were made here tonight, but sanctions relief provided to iran under this agreement will enable them to increase the size and scope of their ballistic missiles. so the other observation i would make is the medium and long-term threat of an a ballistic missile that can reach the united states is very real.

that is what we have heard from so many retired officers and what we have heard from the pentagon. and yet the administration has been reluctant to ensure that the united states has adequate, protective measures to guard the homeland against the ballistic missile threat. one of his first major decisions was to cut funding for the and therefense agency was signed missile agreements with poland and the czech republic in terms of the interceptor program that was supposed to defend united states and europe against any potential launch and contrary to the representation provided to congress as part of the new start, the president canceled phase four of the missile plan which was designed to increase

protection of the u.s. homeland. now that this agreement will prompt resources and technology advancements into the ballistic missile threat to the u.s. by that my other hope is that this institution will have uniform opposition to the administration's record of cutting missile defense and support proactive measures to protect the u.s. homeland, because i will remind everyone here, iran claims today that they are not bound in this agreement on the issue of ballistic missiles. they do not recognize the u.n. sanctions on their ballistic missiles and they're claiming we did not put it into the agreement. as far as they are concerned, they are moving forward. they are moving forward with their ballistic missile program. i yield two minutes to the mr. man from colorado,

croff manning. mr. coffman: i rise in opposition to the iran agreement. in 2009, i was able to visit israel and was in separate meetings with the prime minister and then president perez and the israeli chief of staff of i.d.f. i asked the same question, what would it take to stop iran from imagining a nuclear weapon? and they all gave me the same answer. they said you have to impose economic sanctions that are tough enough that the government of iran fears a collapse of the economy and resulting loss of power and that is the only thing short of war that will cause them to give them their quest for a nuclear weapon. the obama administration merely to bring them to the negotiating

table threw them a lifeline and before even going to the congress of the united states, ent to the united nations to unravel economic sanctions on iran. the ambassador to the united states from israel said that even though the president has tried to box the congress in, that we have -- the united states has a $17 trillion economy. and by the united states imposing economic sanctions on iran, that, in fact, other countries will be forced to follow in order to be able to do business with the united states. this is really the hope and change applied to american national security. the hope and change is that the conduct of iran will change over time. that the ruling party will somehow become enlightened and

when they say "death to america," it's more of a cultural expression. en 241 marines died from a iranian-backed hezbollah guerilla in a truck bomb in 1983 -- may marines died have more time? mr. royce: yield the gentleman an additional minute. mr. coffman: in 1996, when 19 airmen died in the khobart towers by an iranian-backed attack, when they say "death to america," they mean death to america. we were losing soldiers and rines on the ground due to i.e.d.'s. we did recon aceance and

security. and iran iran what was called an explosive force penetrator that was designed to penetrate the thickest hulls and kill hundreds of soldiers. when the americans say "death to america," they mean it. this deal will threaten the stability of the region, the security of the united states and end of israel and i would urge my colleagues to vote no. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from california. ms. waters: the gentleman from, i yield, five minutes. mr. lynch: i thank the gentlelady from california for leading this debate on our behalf and i want to thank her for the great work she has been doing on all of this. i rise in support of h.r. 3461,

legislation to approve the iran nuclear agreement. while i will ghit this deal is not absolutely perfect, it does offer the best chance of preventing iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. the agreement is an opportunity, the likes of which we could not even imagine a few years ago, a chance to stop iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to do so without engaging in another costly and bloody war. i did not reach this conclusion lightly and i closely examined the deal. i also spoke to experts and numerous officials that are closely involved in the talks including one of the inspectors and carefully weighed the arguments from both sides. while i still have some concerns, i do not see an alternative that will constrain their nuclear program and maintain the global cooperation needed to enforce these limits.

mr. speaker, the plain language of this agreement explicitly states that under no circumstances will iran will seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons, closed quote. there is no waiver, no exception, no qualifier or sunset. nuclear never have an a weapon. nobody believes a simple affirmation is enough with nare history and this deal imposes tough limitations and includes safeguards to ensure that if iran cheats we will know and impose economic sanctions or as the president has indicated, military option remains on the table. i want to note some of the limitations that are in the agreement. iran must cut its uranium stockpile by 96%. t has 7,500 kilograms of

low-enriched uranium. 7,500 to 300. it must cut its centrifuge capacity to 6 thoism 104. of the 5,000, it must be the lower efficiency, lower generation centrifuges. the heff water plant at arak must be removed and filled with concrete and must be redesigned for nuclear energy purposes only. mr. speaker, we all know this deal is not based on trust. in fact, it assumes iran will try to cheat. that's why the regime is so intrusive. inspectors will have use of the most advanced technology available and subjects iran's nuclear fuel cycle to inspections from uranium mining and waste disposal.

no other member of the treaty is subject to that scrutiny nor would we be inspecting their fuel cycle if we trusted them. let's be clear about something. the united states did not negotiate this agreement alone. this was a joint effort with the u.k., germany, france, china and rush and e.u. those countries are in a more vulnerable position than the united states if iran should violate this agreement. now any observer of foreign affairs will tell you it has been next to impossible to get these countries to agree on anything, much less a deal with such significance on this. yet, that is what we have here. an agreement with global major powers ready to enforce an agreement. if we are the only country to say no to diplomacy and yes to military action, we may do so

alone. mr. speaker, as i stated earlier, this agreement is not perfect. no one got everything they wanted in this agreement. for every critic who says the p5+1 gave away too much, there is one in iran who says they did the same. the success will hinge on its implementation. it would be better use of our energies to ensure that this deal succeeds and the iaea has what is necessary to carry out its mandate. one final point. if some of the critics are right and we eventually have to resort to a military option with or without our international neighbors, i think it would be much better for us to have had hundreds of inspectors on the ground inspecting nuclear and non-nuclear facilities -- may i have another 30 seconds -- it would be far better for us and

our international allies to have had international inspectors, hundreds on the ground in iran so that if we do have to take military action, we have that information. we have that intelligence so that any military action that eventually is necessary, will be much more effective. but i agree that this agreement is our best chance. this opportunity for diplomacy. and i ask my colleagues to support it. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield two minutes to the the gentleman from westerman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. westerman: thank you, mr. speaker, i rise tonight in strong disagreement with the president's deal. tonight is the eve of the 14th anniversary of the attacks on america by islamic terrorists.

these were direct and premeditated attacks on our soil that targeted and murdered thousands of americans just because they were americans. t was a dirty and cowardly act that reflects least values. those who finance terror and plan terrorist attacks and those who carry them out. who would have thought we would be here at this time debating whether to approve an agreement with the number one state sponsor of terrorism in the world. a deal with a country that chants "death to america." a bill that removes sanctions dollars billions of to a regime that wants to kill us. deal that a deal that allows them to make

nuclear fuel that most likely will be used in nuclear weapons. there is a better way to deal with this regime by not make anything concessions until iran demonstrates they can be civilized and trusted. they must earn our trust. mr. speaker, america's $18 billion to $19 billion dwarfs iran's $4 billion economy and say they would side with us. i never thought i'd see the day when america would negotiate with terrorists or those who sought to protect us would agree secrecy. shrouded in not the congress' deal, not the united states' deal, but the deal of the president and those

who support them. i encourage a strong no vote on this deal. i encourage this chamber, the senate, and the administration -- mr. royce: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. mr. westerman: i urge the administration to do the right thing by rejecting this deal in its entirity and i pray that god would intervene and help us. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady is recognized. mr. watt -- ms. waters: i yield to the gentleman for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> as the only ph.d. physicist in congress, the only ph.d. scientist of any kind, i have taken very seriously my responsibility to review the technical assets of the proposed agreement and after over a dozen briefings, many of them individual, classified briefings by the technical experts who supported our negotiators, i have come to support this deal,

not based on trust of iran but based on science. so i'd like to take a moment to make four technical points that underpin my support of this deal. first in regards to the claim that iran gets to be in charge of inspecting itself in investigations of its past weaponization activities. this is simply not true. the investigations will be carried out by a team of iaea inspectors using equipment and sampling kits prepared by the iaea with samples being sent to the international network of analytical laboratories, of which a number of u.s. lab arer tos are members. i urge my colleagues to harbor doubts about this inspection regime to avail themselveses of classified briefings on the details. what i can say publicly is that our technical experts have full confidence in the technical inspection capabilities of the iaea. secondly, in regards to the 24-day inspection delay, which

has been a source of concern for many, including myself. under the proposed agreement, iran's declared nuclear facilities will be available for any time, anywhere inspection. however, for undeclared facilities, including military facilities, iran has the opportunity to contest what is normally a 24-hour inspection regime under the nonproliferation treaty with additional protocol for a period of up to 24 days. this is clearly not ideal, it is a negotiated number. however, when i look closely at the many steps that must be taken to produce and to test a nuclear weapon, the ability to detect activities in a window of 24 days versus 24 hours has limited operational significant. -- significance. this is because while many steps toward weaponization can unfortunately be hidden from even a 24-hour inspection, things like design and testing of nonnuclear components, but the moment that iran touches nuclear materials, it will be

subject to detection by the iaea event even months after any attempted scrubbing of the facility. thirdly, i support the administration's estimate of a one-year minimum breakout time. this is the reaction time the world community will have for a diplomatic, economic, and military response if iran decides to reyume -- resume its knew kyler weapons program. buzz of the importance of this issue, i have spent a great deal of time and effort personally vetting this estimate. the breakout time calculation is complex because there are many possible paths to obtain the fissile material for a first weapon and each of these must be examined. and after many hours of study and detailed questioning of our experts, i have concluded that the one-year estimate for the minimum breakout time is accurate. mr. foster: fourth in regards to the weaponization timeline. this is the time needed by iran from the point that it possesses a sufficient quantity of nuclear material for a first weapon to

the time that it will take them to assemble and to test that first nuclear weapon. unfortunately, iran has made significant progress toward weaponization, including such items as the multipoint initiation system for implosion devices that is referenced in the iaea report of 2011. moreover if iran breaks out of this agreement, it will resume the weaponization activities during the same year that it takes to accumulate fissile materials for a first weapon. therefore, i concur with the assessment that in the context of a one-year breakout effort, the additional time for weaponization may be small. however, at the end of this agreement, when the breakout time to obtain fissile material is shortened, the weaponization activities become the dominant factor in the timeline. this underscores the importance of maintaining maximum visibility into all aspects of the iranian nuclear capability, a position that is surely

strengthened by the adoption of this agreement and also of significantly strengthening the nonproliferation treaty for iran and all other nuclear threshold countries. this must be the work of the coming decade, so that by the end of the main terms of this agreement, iran and its neighbors in the middle east and around the world will be found by a much -- will be bound by a much stronger and more verifiable nonproliferation treaty. as was emphasized by former senators dick luber and sam nun who gentlemen who have reduced the threat of nuclear war instead of just talking about it, that this is not a perfect deal but it is the best path forward and our best chance to achieve our goal of preventing iran from developing nuclear weapons. so i urge my colleagues to support the joint comprehensive plan of action as the best opportunity to prevent a nuclear armed iran. and remember, we did not negotiate this deal alone but if we walk away we walk away alone.

thank you, ranking member, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. royce: we did not negotiate this deal alone. also negotiating this deal was iran and was russia and was china. true enough. but when it comes to the question of inspections, i do not have the document that indicates how these inspections will be done. but what i do know is what is reported to be the procedure. and what is asserted also by the iranians to be the procedure. and as reported, it is iran, not international inspectors, who will provide the agencies the photos of the locations. it is iran that will provide the agency videos of the locations.

it is iran, not international inspectors, who will provide the agency the environmental samples . and it is iran that will use iran's authenticated equipment, not the equipment of the international inspectors. so the point i make again is that one of the reasons we wanted to have the agreement, the side agreement the two side agreements, including the one addressing the 12 questions that have never been answered about the thousand pages of bombwork that the iaea had in its possession that iran supposedly conducted at parchin was to get iran to answer these questions and to this day, to my knowledge, scientists in iran are not available to answer these questions. now perhaps if we obtain these

documents, these two side agreement, we will have the details that assure us that finally these 12 questions have been answered but i can tell you during the interim agreement, we only got half of the first question answered and after that, iran shut it down. there was to be no more discussion about their past bomb work. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from mississippi, mr. trent kelly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mississippi is recognized for two minutes. mr. kelly: mr. speaker, i rise today to voice my opposition to the iran nuclear agreement. i ask for unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. i thank the gentleman from california for yielding to me and on the eve of september 11, i remember the american lives lost to terrorism and the unfortunate reality that people want to do america harm. based on my review of the agreement combined with my

personal experience of being deployed in the army in iraq in 2005 and again in 2009 and 2010 and seeing firsthand the iranian influence there, i have no reason to believe that iran will act in good faith in this agreement. it's not just my concerns that i have regarding this deal. but it's also my concerns i've consistently heard throughout the august work month from my constituents regardless of party affiliation that did not support this agreement with iran. lifting economic sanctions that congress has imposed for more than two decades only gives iran a recognized state sponsor of terrorism since 1984, access to billions of dollars to finance terrorism activities in the region and to get closer to their ultimate goal of build agnew clear weapon. i oppose with all my heart and soul the iran nuclear agreement because i do not believe the agreement negotiated by the

administration is in the best interests of our national security nor is it in the best interest of our allies in the middle east, nor is it in the best interest of america. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: i yield to the gentleman from new york, four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for four minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentlelady from california, my friend, for yielding. mr. tonko: this agreement, mr. speaker is the best option available to prevent iran from acquire agnew clear weapon. the alternatives are simply too risky and too costly, which is why the deal's opponents have failed to articulate a realistic alternative. during any time in congress i have voted for every bill that imposed crippling sanctions on iran which brought the regime to the negotiating table and united the world to stop iran's pursuits of a nuclear weapon. sanctions were meant to be a

tool to ensure negotiations. that is exactly what they have done. but as we have learned from the past decade, sanctions alone are not enough to stop iran from expanding its nuclear program. before negotiations began, iran greatly increased its enrichment stockpile and centrifuge capacity despite sanctions. that is why a verifiable agreement that will cut off iran's ability to build a nuclear weapon is necessary. the international atomic energy agency will have nearly continuous access to iran's declared nuclear facility and can gain unprecedented access to other suspicious, undeclared sites in as little as 24 hours. under this agreement, iran will dismantle 2/3 of its installed centrifuges, remove over 97% of its uranium stockpile and make changes to its iraq plue phone yum reactor before it receives relief. ernest tary of energy

moniz said this increases iran's breakout time from two to three months today to at least 12 months going forward this will give us ample opportunity to catch and stop iran should it choose to pursue a nuclear weapon. some have have -- some have suggest wed need to reject this deal to get a better one but i have found no evidence to show that a better deal is possible. it's clear that some of our negotiating partners and other allies don't want more sangs. if we reject this deal, the robust international sanctions regime would erode if not unravel entirely. in the meantime, iran could move forward with its enrichment program without inspections, limitations on manufacturing, installation, research and development of knew centrifuges and constraints on its enriched uranium stockpile. simply put, no deal would mean no inspections and no constraints on iran's nuclear ambitions.

some have suggested that we cannot make an agreement with a country that we do not trust but we must remember that this deal is not based on trust but rather the most intrusive inspections regime on which we have ever agreed. we do not trust the soviet union or did not trust the soviet union especially when we negotiated in harm's -- an arms reduction treaty with them in devastating proxy wars arn the worldful today we are not debating whether to trust iran, we are debating whether and how to enhance monitoring of its nuclear program. i remain committed to working with the administration and my colleagues here in congress to coen tain iran's conventional capability that threatens stability in the region and throughout the world. but know that this deal is the best option to take the nuclear issue out of the equation and with that, i urge my colleagues to approve this agreement. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. and again thank the gentlelady,

my friend from california, for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield myself such time as i may consume. in terms of viewing this as the most intrusive regime, i remember south africa. we put the kinds of sanctions on south africa that we tried to get the administration to put on iran. we had legislation here by a vote of 400-20 to do that and the administration blocked that legislation in the senate. that would have given us real leverage. in south africa, when we put those sanctions on, it actually gave the regime a choice between compromise on its nuclear program and dropping apartheid and changing its system or

economic collapse and the choice was made in south africa to turn over their nuclear bomb to the international inspectors. i would consider that an intrusive regime. i wouldn't consider this one in the case of libya. they turned over their weapons programs to international inspectors, allowed them in and allowed them to take them out. i don't know why we say this is the most intrusive regime. it seems to me that clearly in cases where we forced the issue, where we actually in south africa put the totality of sanctions in place that congress in both the house and the senate in a bipartisan way felt were mandatory to force the south african hand.

in that case, yes, we got them to give up their nuclear capabilities and their right to enrich and all of that. i don't see that here. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. garrett: the president has made promises that this deal would prohibit nuclear weapons. this deal does not do that at all. the iranian regime has done nothing to earn the trust of the international community and this agreement rewards iran with sanction relief. i was a member of the conference committee and i support tough strict -- you see the iranian sanctions were designed to force a peaceful resolution to this ongoing situation and it was clear by many that the sanctions were working. they had an inflation rate of 35% and the value of their

currency was falling. iran had no choice but come to come to the negotiation table. the u.s. what in a position of power to negotiate a good deal. instead we have a deal which allows iran to use centrifuges and continue to enrich uranium and a deal where after 15 years it will be unclear what if nyack cease the inspectors will have and a deal where iran can dispute inspections and delay for 24 days. this isn't any time anywhere inspections that the administration has promised us. the president said this deal is built on verifications. that is simply not true. congress hasn't received all the details related to the detail. there are side deals as well. what makes us believe that iran will abide by the agreement we see let alone by the side deals that we have not seen? this deal asked us to trust a

country that holds american hostages and called for the destruction of the united states and its allies. not a surprise that iran and it's allies are celebrating. it is obvious this deal deals little to secure national security. there are still alternatives. sanctions have worked and let's negotiate a good deal. we can use those sanctions from the very committee i was on to negotiate a good deal and i urge my colleagues to join me in protecting the security of the united states and securing the protection of the allies and i yield. ms. waters: i reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from arizona, mr. schweikert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is ecognized for three minutes. mr. schweikert: mr. speaker, and first, i would like to thank chairman royce. you have dealt with this and done this very honorably. it's been powerful to watch. there has been amazing testimony given to us. there has been great speakers here. i fear something very important has not gotten enough understanding and enough focus. who in this body is going to take responsibility when the iranian regime is flushed with cash and the death and destruction that is coming with that? who here is going to take responsibility for the displaced

people around the region? who is going to take responsibility what some of the experts have told us the potential financing of a sunni-shia war in the region? the amount of death that whether it be the $59 billion the administration talks about or sits in billion that accounts around the world that is going to be handed back? i hold up this board next to me. so you can see this is more, so much more than just the neighbors around iran. the bad acts have been happening all over the world. ell me why there is an iranian revolution guard money showing up in our hemisphere? earlier there were meetings in panama and had leaders telling

us they are seeing iranian money moving through their banks financing bad actors and creating death and destruction trying to finance the overthrows of them. are we prepared as a body particularly those who will vote for this? to step up and take responsibility for the lives that are about to be lost, for the governments that are going to be overthrown and the destruction and displaced people, the refugees, the cascade that comes from that. we are about to hand billions and billions and billions of dollars to a regime that is committed to destroying our way of life, but also destroying their own neighbors. and that's what's on-line right now.

we are about to execute a vote here that is going to kill, maim, destabilize not only the region, the world and those who are about to vote for this, i expect you to step up and be responsible for what you have done. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i reserve the right to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. ms. waters: thank you, mr. chairman and members. we've heard a lot in these debates that have gone on today. and i would like to take this opportunity to try and reinforce the tremendous support that we

have for this deal. i would like to also debunk the idea that somehow this administration is not concerned enough about the security of this country. let me just share with you the tremendous support that this deal has. i will do that by reading some ex serpts from and insert into the record an open letter signed y 36 retired u.s. generals and admirals, who make the case that addressing the risk of a nuclear diplomat ith iran itically is far spore than doing it militarily. these retired leaders say this about the nuclear agreement with iran, that, and i quote, there

is no better option to prevent an iranian nuclear weapon. if the iranians cheat, our advanced technology, intelligence and the inspections will reveal it. and u.s. military options remain on the table. and if the deal is rejected by america, the iranians would have a nuclear weapon within a year. the choice is tcha stark. uote, end quote. recognizing the importance of strong multi lateral coordination and action, the retired military leaders go on to say if at some point it becomes necessary to consider military action against iran, gather sufficient international support for such an effort would be possible if we are given the

path a chance. must exhaust diplomatic options a chance. mr. chairman, and members, while i have great respect for all of the members of this house for e most part, i do not accept the notion that members who have not served the way that these generals and admirals have served this country would know better about our security. and so i would like to insert that information into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. waters: i would like to share something with someone i have known very well. a "washington post" article that i'm going to quote from. and the quotes will be from republican and former treasury secretary paulsen.

and he will not only make very strong statements about his support for this deal, he slams the naysayers of this iranian deal. let me read from and insert into the record a "washington post" article from august 14, in which former treasury secretary hank paulsen was asked what he viability of he maintaining sanctions against iran if the united states decided to walk away from the nuclear deal that has been decided between iran and the international community. it's important to note that former secretary paulsen, a republican, was in charge of administering the administration's sanctions under president george w. bush during the period when the international community was just beginning to enact a current regime of sanctions over iran's

nuclear ambitions. this was his response and i quote, somewhere between naive and unrealistic to assume that we, the united states of america, has negotiated something like this with the five other parties and with the whole world community watching that we could back away from that and that the others would go with us or even that our allies would go with us, end of quote. paulsen viewed as farfetched the idea that the united states could force other nations into lockstep into a more hard line pproach to iran by threatening them with secondary sanctions. he said, quote, it is unrealistic to believe if we back away that the sanctions would stay in place. i'm just trying to envision a sanction in european banks on

forcing them or japanese banks or big chinese banks, end quote. in fact, the former treasury secretary could hardly hide his disdain with those who could strike a path to a better deal than the one that was reached. and he said, i had a seat in washington when we dealt with a big messy problem, when there weren't any beautiful solutions, paulsen said. and he said you are deciding between doing something that was objectionable or doing nothing at all that would be more objectionable. i don't particularly like it when people criticize something that is big and important that has been done if they don't have a better idea, end of quote. aving said that,

i would like to discuss a -- discuss a point i don't think has been discussed enough in this debate. iran could move in any direction over the next 10 years. we're aware of the less benign scenarios, but there's also the scenario in which the agreement helps to amplify the voices of those in iran who want peace and regional and international accommodation and i have hope with respect to this latter possibility and i'll tell you why. it is because more than half the population of iran today, almost 55% is under 30 years old. and the youth unemployment rate is somewhere between 27% and 40%. i have hope that these young people, given the opportunity to work, to achieve prosperity, and to live peacefully, will in fact help animate the kind of change in iran that will inteed move it to become a response -- will

indeed move it to become a responsible member of the world community. this is a possibility i urge members to keep in mind when they vote on the resolution before us today and finally -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. waters: i big your pardon. the speaker pro tempore: your time has expired. ms. waters: thank you very much, i have no more time and i would just urge my colleagues to support this important deal and agreement. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield myself the remainder of my time. mr. speaker, to begin with, i would also like to submit for the record a letter by 200 retired generals and flag officers, admirals, in terms of why they are opposed to this deal and why they feel it would make the national security challenges for the united states more problematic. the second point i would make is

that the head of hezbollah says this about this deal -- iran will become richer and wealthier and will also become more influential you should the deal. this week he says. he says this will also reinforce the position of its allies. a stronger and wealthier iran in the coming phase will be able to stand by its allies and especially the palestinian resistance more than at any other time in history. what does that mean? i can tell you what it means because in 2006, then i chaired the terrorism -- when i chaired the terrorism subcommittee we were in haifa when he was firing off the iranian made rockets with 90,000 ball bearings in the war heads into the town of haifa. that were 600 victims inside the trauma hospitals.

d now iran has transferred over 80,000 missiles. but what is it he wants that he doesn't have currently? he wants guidance systems so that those missiles will hit targets such as individual buildings in tel aviv, the airport, jerusalem. that's what he needs. and that is what iran is telling him it will provide. it needs the hard currency and with this agreement will come the hard currency. it's also committed to restock the inventory that hamas used when it fire off its rockets into israel from gaza. and to rebuild the tunnels. iraniansis is what the seek to fund. to do that, they need the sanctions lifted.

and when they lift those sanctions, who is going to be the primary beneficiary? it is going to be people such as the iranian revolutionary guard corps that will be strengthened. look, speaker, if this agreement goes through, iran gets a cash bonanza. it gets a boost to its international standing. it gets a lighted path toward nuclear weapons. with sweeping sanctions relief, we have lessened our ability to challenge iran's conduct across the board. as iran grows stronger, we will be weaker to respond. and so the question before us today is whether temporary constraints on iran's nuclear program are worth the price of permanent sanctions relief. and when i say the revolutionary

guard is going to be the beneficiary, i say that because they're the ones that have taken over so many of the major companies in iran. and they are working to destabilize the entire middle east. that organization fuels the assad regime in syria. in syria today, those rockets are being launched by the quds forces into israel. they are going to provide them with more weapons, more military personnel, that organization backs the hue tee rebels. -- the hutti rebels. there's 200 quds forces on the vanguard. when they overthrew our ally in yemen and overran that country. and it's responsible for the deaths of hundreds of american troops in iraq. and the irgc exports terrorism

throughout that region. it holds sway over iran's nuclear program. it brutally, brutally represses internal dissent. and it's part of -- and as part of the iranian agreement, the irgc is going to be bolstered in a big way and i'll explain how else. it's going to have the funds to build up its tanks, the fighter jets, the intercontinental ballistic missiles and the european sanctions on the elite quds forces. this is a group that does the political assassinations, assassinations outside of iran and does the terrorist work outside of iran. that's going to be lifted on the -- on the european side. the administration signed off on these concessions. the deal will allow sales of aircraft and parts to iranian airlines which the quds forces use to move its people and

weapons throughout the region. the irgc controls key parts, as i said, of the iranian economy. the largest construction companies. the telecom sector. shipping. 90 current and former irgc officials and companies will be taken off the sanctions list as a result of this deal. and even sanctions on the head of iran's elite quds force, general suleimani, will be coming off. he's been involved in the plot to assassinate the saudi ambassador, here in washington, d.c. while still under a u.n. travel ban, he traveled to moscow on july 24, 10 days after the iran nuclear agreement was announced. and he held meet wgs a russian defense minister and with president vladimir putin. believe me, those meetings are about weapons systems which the russians want to sell to the quds forces, to the iranians. so the irgc is the biggest

sponsor of terror throughout the middle east and even tried to carry out a terrorist attack here. and under the nuclear agreement as iran is reconnected to the global economy, the irgc is going to be the biggest winner. e agreement helps he yitmies suleimani and gives additional resources to the mastermind behind the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism and eyeing future weapons sales. it was russia that teemed -- team up with iran in the 11th hour, after we thought this deal was done, to insist on one more thing, the lift of -- lifting of the arms embargo. and i just ask you if they did that, whose side do you think moscow is going to take when iran test this is agreement? we talked a little bit about the younger generation in iran. yes, yes, the 55% is under 30. but it is not those 55% under 30

that are going to be empowered. the ones holding the strings now, because of the way the iranian economy works are the generals, are the clerics, they're the ones that have taken over the country -- the companies. so when you've got $60 billion to $100 billion, depending on whose figure you use and you lift the escrow on that and it goes back to iran, it's their accounts it goes into and they'll control the contracts going forward. how is that going to liberalize the economy or work to the benefit of the next generation in iran? no, it makes it more certain that the tyranny that this thee oklahomacy imposes -- that this theocracy imposes will be strengthened. we reverse decades of bipartisan u.s. policy, reremove the security council resolutions against iran's ill list nuclear

program and ok iran as a nuclear threshold state. that's what's been done here. and you and i know that once that process is under way, iran is going to produce nuclear weapons on a -- on an industrial scale when they're at the end of that process unless they cheat before they get to the end of the process. secretary kerry previously said we do not recognize iran's right to enrich and that there is no right to enrich in the m.p.t. however, this agreement legitimizes iran's vast nuclear program, including its right to enrich uranium which can be used to produce a nuclear warhead and i gearn tee you everybody in the region will be looking at that and say, we want the same agreement iran had. we want that same exemption to the m.p.t. and after the agreement's temporary limits expire, iran's nuclear program will be treated

in the same manner as that of any other nonnuclear weapons state party to the m.p.t. ok so we're going to treat iran like it's holland but it's not holland. it's been caught cheating. that's why we're here. it's been caught cheating in the past over and over on their agreements. iran can have a peaceful knew leer program without the ability to enrich uranium. this is something we all understand. many countries have this. it is this key bomb making technology that is so objectionable. so we have no problem with the idea of letting them have a peaceful nuclear program. but why give up the right to enrich? preventing the spread of this dangerous technology has been the foundation of our nonproliferation policy for decades. and as a result, over 20 countries have peaceful nuclear energy programs without a domestic enrichment program.

in fact, buying fuel for nuclear power plants abroad from countries like russia is much more cost effective than producing it domestically. so you have to ask, why do they want to produce it domestically? if this atpwhreement is allowed to go forward, the united states will recognize the ability of iran, the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, to enrich uranium, despite claims to the contrary, this will set a dangerous precedent. it will greatly undermine long-standing u.s. efforts to restrict the spread of this key bomb making technology. how can we tell our allies they can't have it if we do this? if fully implemented, this agreement will destroy the iran sanctions regime. which this congress has built up over decades despite opposition from several administrations.

we did that in congress. we pushed this. the billions in sanctions relief that iran will get will support its terrorist activity and those billions are just the down payment. under this agreement, european sanctions on the iranian revolutionary guard and elite leader of its elite quds force are removed and their job is to export the revolution, that means their job is to export terrorism. general dempsey, i'll close this with, testified that iranian militias such as those trained and equipped by suleimani killed 500 u.s. soldiers in iraq. removing sanctions on him and the irgc is so shocking that when the deal was first announced many thought it was a mistake. thought that that was not the case. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired and all time for debate has expired.

pursuant to house resolution 412, the previous question is ordered on the bill. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. hose opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: signed at the vienna on july 14, 2015, relating to the nuclear program of iran. the speaker pro tempore: the of tion is on the passage the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. royce on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.