nuclear weapon. under his deal, iran's nuclear program will not be dismantled but only temporarily slowed and that is if they don't cheat. but the president's team has failed to achieve any time anywhere inspections. thus it will be impossible to ensure that the iranians are not cheating. we are told the iranians will turn themselves in if they cheat. really? in short, the president's agreement rewards iran's terrorist-sponsoring regime with billions of dollars in relief without any guarantee of compliance. when you look at the record, mr. speaker, i don't trust this administration. i don't trust the iranians. why would we ever trust the two together. for the sake of our national security, i urge all of my colleagues to reject this flawed and dangerous agreement. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr.

engel. mr. engel: i yield three minutes to the the gentleman from north carolina, mr. price. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. price. mr. price: i rise in support of this historic nuclear agreement with the united states and iran. for the sake of our national security and that of our allies, we must seize this unique opportunity. in the midst of these wild charges, let's try to get some perspective. in fact this agreement goes far beyond any negotiated nuclear deal in history. it will reduce iran's stockpile uranium by more than 98%. it will permanently prevent the and -- plutonium pathway dismantle its centrifuges including more advanced models and terminate enrichment at

fordo. -- a s an unprecedented massive degrading of iran's nuclear program. no military strike or strikes could achieve as much. i challenge anyone to find an agreement that will do as much. they won't, they haven't, because they can't. there simply isn't a viable diplomatic alternative for preventing an iranian nuclear weapon. the notion that we could somehow unilaterally reject the agreement and compel the p-5 plus one to resume negotiations is fantasy. our international partners have made clear that reinstating the effective sanctions regime that

brought iran to the negotiating table would be impossible. for congress to scuttle this deal would destroy our credibility as a negotiating party and would very likely put iran right back on the path to developing a weapon. the stakes couldn't be higher. the nuclear issue should transcend political opportunism and partisan rancor. we should be working together across partisan lines to ensure the swift and effective implementation of the jcpoa. we should be exploring ways that we can enhance cooperative efforts with israel, with the international community, to address iran's support for hezbollah and its gross abuse of human rights as well as other critical challenges in the middle east. today, we can start down that path by supporting the agreement. i urge my colleagues to vote yes

on the resolution of approval. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. royce. mr. royce: i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from north carolina, ms. foxx. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlelady from north carolina, ms. foxx, for two minutes. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank my colleague from the foreign affairs committee for his leadership on this work. mr. speaker, i rise to express my strong opposition to this legislation and clear the way for the president's misguided deal with iran. the united states must continue to stand between iran and nuclear weapons capability, but instead the deal legitimizes iran's nuclear achievements and strengthens its extremist regime. they have agreement gradually removes the key barriers that prevent iran from obtaining nuclear weapon capabilities, from growing its economic influence in the middle east and from continuing its state

funding of terrorist organizations that threaten securi of this country and the well being of our allies. this deal lifts crit c58 economic sanctions that have limited iran's scope of influence in the region. removes the arms embargo and lifts missile program restrictions. for these reasons i oppose the president's deal and urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. engel. mr. engel: i'd like to inquire how much time i have left. the speaker pro tempore: eight minutes. mr. engel: thank you. i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. hi pinskey. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois for two minutes. mr. lipinski: the iran nuclear agreement should be judged on what's best for our national security and what is more likely to produce peace. i believe peace has a better

chance if we reject this deal, keep sanctions on and go back to the negotiating table to get a better agreement. this agreement was supposed to prevent iran from obtain agnew clear weapon. but at best, iran will be a nuclear threat in 15 years. by practically guaranteeing and legitimizing this access, there will be a rush by others in the reto gain their own nuclear weapons, creating a dangerous arms race in a volatile part of the world. the inspection protocols in the agreement are troubling because they give iran 24 days to delay inspection requests at suspected nuclear sites, a far cry from any time, anywhere. the agreement contains deeply concerning sanctions relief on iran's acquisition of conventional weapons and ballistic missile technology in five and eight years

respectively. these are just some of my concerns that lead me, after careful consideration, to oppose this agreement. mr. speaker, we should and we can do better. i urge my colleagues to reject this resolution. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. royce. mr. royce: i yield two minutes o the gentleman from michigan, mr. troth. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. trott: the fact that we're talking about entering into this agreement is troubling. the united states of america is going to enter into a deal with a regular nation who refuses to release the four americans they are holding, who has cheated on every deal they've been party to over the last 30 years, who is

party to secret deals we cannot see, who calls all of us the great satan, calls for death to our citizens, and wants to wipe israel off the face of the earth. and we're told the deals -- the deal is necessary because the united states of america has no other option. has it really come to this? we have options. one option is a better deal. and a better deal looks like this. release the four americans, no sunset clause, and inspections just like we were promised any time, anywhere. if these terms are unacceptable to iran, then the united states of america will use all of its economic might to put tough sanctions back in place. if we do this deal, let's look at what the next 25 years -- years looks like. immediately in the next 12 months irke ran will get their hands on $50 billion to $150 billion. the money will not be used for their citizens but to perpetuate terror around the world. iran gets its moneying we don't get our four americans.

over the next four months they'll start to cheat and get a bomb or two. over the next 12 months we'll start an arms race in the middle east. over the next five year, we'll try to snap back sanctions but that will be unisket every bays long-term contracts will be grandfathered in. in eight years they'll have a ballistic missile. in 10 years, they'll have a ballistic missile with a nuclear bomb pointed at the united states of america and in 25 years our friend and ally israel may not exist. i've been in business for 25 years before i got here. one thing i learned is you cannot do a good deal with a bad guy. we cannot do this deal with iraq. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york, mr. engel. mr. engel: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york for three minutes. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the

resolution of approval of the joint comprehensive plan of action. throughout this debate, there have been acquisitions questioning the motives and loyalties of members in making this decision. it is precisely because i believe this agreement is in the interest of the united states and because i've been a strong supporter of israel my entire life that i am supporting the iran nuclear agreement. this must not be a vote of politics but of conscience. i for one could not hi with myself if i voted in a way that i believe would put the lives of american citizens and israelis at greater risk of an iranian knew leer bomb. my priority and overriding idea in this is prevent iran from obtain agnew clear bomb. the interest of the united states and israel in this respect are identical. in addition to constituting an exiss ten rble threat to israel a knew leer-armed iran would make the threats more dangerous and difficult to counter and would pose a greater danger to the united states, to the

region, and to the world. the question before us is not whether this is a good deal. the question is which of the two options available to us, supporting or rejecting the deal is more likely to avert a nuclear armed iran. i have concluded after examining all the arguments that supporting the iran new clear agreement gives us the better chance of preventing iran of developing a now clear weapon. the agreement will shut iran's pathways to developing the necessary fissionable material for a nuclear bomb for at least 15 years. the inspection and verification procedures against ill list plutonium production are airtight. the questions that have been raised about inspection procedures, the so-called side deal the alleged self-inspection, do not relate to the central issue of production of fissionable materials. and without fissionable material, you cannot make a bomb. even after 15 years, with when

some of the restrictions will be eased, we would still know instantly about any attempt to make bomb materials because the inspectors and the electronic and photographic surveillance will still be there. the options available to a future president for stopping iran then would be better than the options available now if the deal is rejected because we would have more access, instant intelligence, and more knowledge of the iranian program. the argument that if we reject the deal we can force iran back to the negotiating table and obtain a better deal is a fantasy. it is not a viable alternative. the other countries that have joined us in multiplat ral sanctions against iran have made it clear that they will drop their sanctions if we reject a deal and american sanctions by themselves have proven ineffective in coercing iran. we must be very clear that if necessary, the united states will use mill fair force to prevent an iranian nuclear bomb. but the odds of that being necessary are significantly less

with approval of this deal than with rejection of the agreement. going forward, it remains vital that we continue to pursue ways to further -- can i have an additional 20 seconds? mr. engel: i yield the gentleman an additional half minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. nadler: thank you. going forward it remains vital that we continue to pursue ways to further guarantee the security of israel and other allies in the middle east. this will require strict and diligent oversight, maintaining israel's qualitative military edge and countering iran's support of terrorism and other destabilizing conduct. we must be ready to take action against iran's nefarious behavior and iran must know the yeats will never allow it to pose a nuclear threat to the region and the world. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from kale, mr. royce. mr. royce: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. dent. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. dent is recognized for three minutes. mr. dent: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to this bill and the underlying iran nuclear agreement. goshting from a position of strength, the deal before us fails to achieve the goal of preventing iran's capacity to develop a nuclear weapon. it simply contains or manages iran's nuclear program. by agreeing to a lax enforcement and inspections regime, and fanciful, unrealistic snapback sanctions, the administration has accepted that iran should remain one year away from a nuclear bomb. i am not prepared to accept that. the sanctions relief will provide iran with billions of dollars, funds that will bolster the revolutionary guard and nonstate militant groups. the deal ends the conventional arms embargo and the prohibition

on ballistic missile technology. not only will this result in conventional arms flowing to oups, like hezbollah, it concedes the delivery system for a nuclear bomb. this will provide iran with nuclear infrastructure a missile delivery system, and the funds to pay for it all. y the way, the i in icbm means intercontinental. i don't believe that new zealand and mexico are the intended targets. that would be us. this deal cripples and shatters the current notion of nuclear nonproliferation. if iran can enrich uranium, which they can under this agreement, their gulf ashe neighbors will likely want to do the same. -- their gulf arab neighbors will likely want to do the same. i do not want a nuclearized middle east a region of instability new york a nonstate

axis. someone explain how deterrence works under that scenario. we should not reward the ayatollah with billions of dollars and sophisticated weapons in exchange for temporary and unenforceable nuclear restrictions. mr. speaker, i have always supported diplomatic resolutions to iran's nuclear issue but this is a dangerously weak adwreement. i urge my colleagues -- agreement. i urge my colleagues to reject it and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. engel. mr. engel: i now yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. var gas. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. vargas, for one minute. mr. vargas: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from california for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise today in opposition to the joint comprehensive plan of action between the p-5 plus one and iran. the deal fails to dismantle

iran's nuclear program. it fails to guarantee intrusive enough inspections to ensure that iran does not cheat and it fails to keep iran from achieving nuclear threshold status and it rewards iran's horrific behavior in the initial phase of this -- behavior. in the initial phase of this agreement, iran would receive a whopping relief package potentially totaling $150 billion. we know iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism and this will embolden the regime openly committed to confronting the united states and destabilizing the middle east. in eight years, iran legally expands its ballistic missile program and continues expanding its intercontinental ballistic missile program under the guise of satellite testing. who do we think -- ecently as yesterday

mr. engel: i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman. . vargas: ayatolla declared, i'm saying to israel they will not live to see the end of 25 years. there will be no such thing as a zionist regime. this is a bad deal and should reject it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields and the chair recognizes mr. royce. mr. royce: i yield two minutes conaway. mr. conaway: i rise in strong opposition to the approval process that's going on in the underlying deal with iran. it is one of the most consequential foreign policies we will confront. this is a terrible deal. i can't state it any more

forcefully. we have seen this movie before. in 1994, president clinton's eal with north korea would rip them apart. that didn't happen and this is the exact same language we heard on that floor then. nd look at their current record. chief state sponsor of terrorism as their economy improves with the dropping of the sanctions, do you think that this ayatolla will become a moderate voice in his country? do you think he will take those resources and expand the mischief he has conducted around the world? the other side has given up on the snapback provisions and said those won't happen because we can't reinforce the sanctions. mr. speaker, this deal ushers in a world that is less safe, less

stable and less secure. trust must be earned. i trust iran's word when they say israel must go away. i trust iran when they say "death to america." do not trust iran when they ill play -- say they will be trusted. we don't know what the activities might be. they will cheat and have cheated and will continue to cheat. we cannot trust these people with a deal. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the motion of approval and reject this deal, tell the world where we stand and see the threat that these folks represent to the world. we can see it and we must vote no. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: i yield one and a

half minutes to the gentleman from texas mr. hinojosa. mr. hinojosa: i rise in opposition to house resolution 64 which disapproves of the plan of action negotiated by thep 5 plus 1. i participated in classified briefings and listened to the many details. this agreement may not be perfect but it's the most viable option we have in reducing iran's capability in acquiring a nuclear weapon. the agreement will silence nuclear breakout times, reduces the number of centrifuges and decreases iran's stockpiles. more importantly, the agreement allows the international atomic intelligence agency to seek

compliance. if iran cheats, sanctions will be re-imposed. in every situation that involves the possibility of military force, i will always side with exploring and exhausting every possible avenue to a diplomat attic resolution. i support the agreement because it provides a solution rather than a worse-case scenario. in support of the 35 generals and admirals and 29 of the scientists confident we are on the right track, all of these distinguished leaders agree that this agreement is the most effective means currently available to prevent iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes mr. royce. mr. royce: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from indiana, mr. messer, the chair of the republican policy committee. the speaker pro tempore: the

chair reck in nieses the gentleman from indiana for three minutes. mr. messer: i rise today to opsose this legislation and joint comprehensive plan of action also known as the iran nuclear deal. the chief reason for this opposition is important yet simple. the iran nuclear deal doesn't make america safer or israel safer or make the rest of the world safer either. whatever your thoughts on this nuclear deal, we should be able to agree, the world would be a much more dangerous and unstable place if iran were to obtain a nuclear weapon. unfortunately, the deal the president negotiated won't stop that from happening. instead, under this deal, iran keeps its nuclear facilities. it will be allowed to self-police those facilities and report directly to the iaea. an idea that would be laughable if it were not so crazy.

iran will get to enrich uranium, all while receiving sanctions relief to the tune of $150 billion. pumped into a $400 billion a year national economy. $150 billion that will be used by iran to bank roll terrorist organizations, furet destabilize the middle east and continue their work to wipe israel off the map. it was ronald reagan who said trust, but verify, during arms control negotiations with communist russia more than a generation ago, but seems the obama administration is asking us to trust iran and then trust some more. well, i'm not willing to do that and the american people aren't willing to do that either. we need to stop this bad deal before it's too late.

and negotiate a better deal, a deal that stops iran's nuclear program and ensures the safety f america, israel and the the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. connolly: you know, i rise in support of the joint comprehensive plan of action and against the resolution -- well, actually in favor of the resolution. i must say in starting, we are at a paradox call moment. the fears the haunting specter of terrible things, the threats posed by a nuclear iran are all legitimate fears and legitimate haunting specters. avoided.hogomeny to be but ironically, those concerns

and fears and outcomes raised by my friends on the other side of the aisle and the opponents actually come through and are realized if they do what they want us to do, which is to reject this agreement. the alternative to this greement is an unconstrained iranian nuclear program, mr. speaker. hanging overall of our heads and the security of the united states and israel and regional partners, who knows. the false hope offered by the critics is let's return to the negotiating table to seek a better deal. man i respect at one of our hearings that chairman royce chaired, former senator leiberman said just that. i said how does that work.

he said well, it's not going to work and let's start over. the proposition that we would renounce our own agreement that we negotiated wrought by more than a year of tough negotiations and expect that our negotiating partners, including russia and china and iran itself, to sit back down at the table and start all over again is r our leadership delusional. cannot be naive about the scenario which congress rejects this agreement brokered by our own country. among our allies we divest ourselves and among our add versus areas we confirm the suspicion we cannot be trusted.

the negotiations would collapse and our leverage would be diminished in all future u.s.-led negotiations. most concerning of all, we would return once again to the situation we're at, one of deep anxiety and uncertainty regarding iran's nuclear ambitions. critics of the agreement have offered no alternative and have tried to dine this agreement by what it is not. it is not a perfect deal that dismantles every nut and bolt of iranian nuclear development programs, peaceful or otherwise. it's not a comprehensive resolution of the entire relationship and the myriad issues the u.s. and our allies have with the repressive regime in tehran and its support for terrorists in the region. no one ever said it would be. what arms control agreement in the history of our country has

ever attempted to sir cuck subscribe every aspect of a relationship with our adverse sear and certainly not this one. in other words, this agreement is the indictment matic alternative we sought to attain when we entered into negotiations. the deal adheres to the high standards of verification, transparency and compliance on which any acceptable agreement with iran must be founded. that isn't just my words, that's what former republican secretary of state, colin powell," says. said. ce scowcroft that's what former senator john warner says. the agreementally recollects an intrees i have regime that provides the iaea to declare nuclear facilities.

additionally, they will be able to monitor iran's supply chain including uranium mines, mills, centrifuges, storage facilities and dedicated procurement for nuclear-related or dual-use technology. the agreement will have major components and place strict restrictions on the iranian nuclear program. if these restrictions are not adhered to, the united states can at any time revive the sanctions currently in place. congress should be able to conduct close oversight to ensure the terms are implemented d iran is living up to its obligations. it isn't about trust. secretary of state clinton today echoed the words distrust and verify. she supports the agreement. more broadly the united states ust signal to iran that it

condemnable record of human rights will not be tolerated, nor will we hide with disagreement that action and our response to it. quite the opposite. we will redouble our efforts to stop them and that egregious behavior. mr. speaker, in closing, article 1, section 8, clause 11 of the constitution, vests congress with the duty to authorize war. implicit in that text, congress' additional responsibility to exhaust all reasonable alternatives before committing the american people and our men d women in uniform to such a fateful path. the plan of action represents our best endeavor to provide just that alternative. it is the product of earnest diplomacy and congress should put aside partisanship and

support it for the sake of our country. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. royce. mr. royce: mr. speaker, several members mr. royce: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. royce: several members spoke of iran's commitment under this agreement. while it's true that iran committed to taking certain steps under this agreement, it's also true that iranians have never complied with any agreement related to its weapons program. so let's start with considering what iran's leaders have been saying today about this agreement. this is what they say. they say that iran can pursue the development of missiles without any restrictions. how can that be given what's in this agreement? president rahani, the supposed moderate here, has argued

repeatedly that the only restrictions on iran's missile development are in the u.n. security council resolution endorsing the deal. he says it's not in the agreement itself they don't recognize the security council resolution. so he says, we're not restricted by this agreement. so what you're quoting, they say they're not restricted by that. and iranian leaders say that iran can violate the u.n. security council resolutions without violating the agreement, sanctions do not, therefore, snap back if iran violates the u.n. security council resolutions, according to iran, and that iran intends to violate the u.n. security council restrictions on weapons sales. and on imports. this is president rahani, again. we will sell and buy weapons whenever and wherever we deem it necessary. we will not wait for permission from anyone or any resolution.

unquote. so iran's defense minister has said that iran is negotiating right now to purchase russian fighter jets. we know they're negotiating in terms of ballistic missiles right now. they're in violation of the agreement. we don't see any intention, any intention to enforce that. so we've got to ask ourselves, just what kind of agreement is this? who is this agreement with? as the committee heard sterday, it's an agreement whose regime -- with a regime whose world view was founded in part on fiery, anti-americanism and a view of americanism as satanism. i don't have to tell the members here, i mean, they hear it every week. those of you that are watching what's coming out of iran. death to america, every week. mr. speaker, this agreement

gives up too much, too fast with not enough in return, and we have to judge it on the long-term national security interests of the united states. does it make the region and the stable?re safe, secure, in my mind clearly it does not. so i don't feel this is worthy of house support. but i yield two minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. sanford. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina, mr. sanford is recognized for two minutes. mr. sanford: thank you, mr. speaker. i too rise in opposition to this accord, partly based on what's been discussed here the last couple of hours but also partly history.

we were here together in the 1990's and then-president clinton at that time met with north korea and they formed an accord that basically said we'll give you benefits now for the promise of becoming a responsible member of the world community going forward. the benefits went and accrued to north korea, the responsible membership in the world community never came. in that regard, the president is certainly well intended in his efforts, this promise will prove s real as the notion of, you like your health insurance you can keep it. his intentions were good but it didn't pan out. i don't think it'll be any different in this particular deal and in that regard i think it's important to think about what neighbors think of neighbors. in this case it's important to look at what the prime minister of israel has said, that he believes that this is a mistake of, quote, historic proportions. i think in many ways it mirrors what we saw in 1938. at that point, neville chamberlain negotiated with hitler and gai away

czechoslovakia in the process. but there in the munich accords there was a promise of peace, lasting peace, in our time. the peace lasted less than a year and it did not materialize. i think that the saying is that those who don't learn from history are destinned to repeat it. i think we would be very well advised to look at the recent history of the 1990's in the north korea deal, the history of the 1930's and a whole lots of history across the last thousand years that say trading off peace for security is never something that works so well. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly. mr. connolly: thank you, mr. chairman. before i recognize mr. meeks of new york i would simply say i think that last analogy is invidious. the history of world war ii is the fact that people ignored warnings for so long that by the time munich happened it most

certainly wasn't peaceful. what should have happened is active engagement to preclude that ever happening and that's precisely what this administration has done and it will prevent a munich. it will prevent appeasement. it will provide the engagement, dynamic engagement we need to prevent a nuclear iran. i now proudly yield four minutes to my friend from new york, gregory meeks. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york for four minutes. mr. meeks: thank you. mr. speaker, dr. wing once said, on some issues, expedientcy asks the question is it politics, vanity asks the question is it popular, but conscience asks the question, is it right. and there comes a time when one must take a position that is

neither safe nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because one's conscience tells them it is right. i have often reflected on those words when faced with tough decisions. today's vote on the joint comprehensive plan of action is one of the most consequential votes we will take as members of congress. my support for the iran agreement is about doing what's right for america, our allies, and the world. it is indeed a matter of conscience. since the conclusion of the agreement, i have traveled to 10 nations and vetted this deal from every angle i could think of so that at this moment of decision i could act without reservation and with a full understanding. as i listened to this debate, i am deeply disheartened that we are not adequately weighing the realities of our globalized world. after years of effort toward a

more unified approach to addressing iran's nuclear ambitions, key partners in the middle east region and most of our allies consider the iran agreement as an important next step in diplomatic efforts. former u.s. ambassadors, former israeli military, former u.s. sec re-- secretaries of state including colin powell and so many others from an array of vantage points have expressed support for this landmark deal as has over 100 nations. we should not ignore the considered judgment of scientists, security experts, renowned diplomats and our allies. the consensus is that this is a good deal. now some of my colleagues believe that despite the risk, rejecting this deal can lead to a better deal down the road. others oppose the deal out of reck less -- reckless political gamesmanship. what is clore to me in my assess

only they have risks involved in supporting or rejecting the joint comprehensive plan of action, congress derail this is deal, history will record such act as a monumental mistake and the alternatives will not change iranian nuclear weaponization pursuits. rejecting the plan and resorting to unilateral sanctions would prove futile as it has in the past while relying on military action would not curb iran's ambitions or erase its technical knowledge. critics also assert this deal does not address concerns about issues with iran that are outside the scope of the plan. we know from past experience that reaching an agreement on one critical issue does not preclude us from working on other serious concerns by other means. we negotiated with the soviet union through strategic arms limitations talks which took place in the midst of the vietnam war which was waged against us with soviet made arms

yet those agreements lessened the danger of nuclear confrontation. finally, mr. speaker, the obama administration has shown tremendous leadership on the world stage by choosing the -- by choosing diplomacy first. leadership is never easy. by definition it is lonely and sometimes an unpopular exercise. today, we must show show the leadership, we must display fortitude and do what is right and what is right in this scenario is that we support the iran agreement. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. royce. mr. royce: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. lamb born. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado for two minutes. mr. lamborn: this deal is a ka litschlation by the greatest -- this deal is a ka litschlation -- capitulation by the greatest

nation in the world to one of the lowest rogue nations. iran doesn't even have to cheat to achieve nuclear weapons capabilities. by lifting the financial sanctions, we are literally financing the very weapons and terror that will be directed at us and our allies by the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world today. amazingly, we are aban conning the arms embargo and ballistic missile embargo against iran for good measure. not only is our national security threatened but our close ally israel fears for its very existence under this deal. we cannot abandon israel. let history record that i stand against this weak and dangerous deal with the regime that hates the u.s. and hates israel. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly. mr. connolly: i yield the distinguished gentlewoman from maryland, ms. edwards, three

minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlelady from maryland for three minutes. ms. edwards: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in strong support of the resolution approving the joint comprehensive plan of action regarding the nuclear program of iran, negotiated by the obama administration in concert with five other nations, the p-5 plus one. i want to commend president obama, secretary kerry, undersecretary sherman, sec remare moniz and their entire teams for their leadership and continued persistent engagement with international partners and members of congress to make this moment possible. none of us come to this decision lightly, perhaps the most important decision of our public life. no matter what decision we come. to but after reading the agreement and the classified and unclassified documents, taking part in briefings at the white capitol hill, on

meeting with constituents and studying the analysis of experts, i am confident that this strong diplomatic achievement provides the only option that prevents iran from obtain agnew clear weapon and by some estimates in as few as two to three months. this is not achieved by trust, mr. speaker. but through verification. after 14 years continuous military engagement for our armed services this agreement cuts off all pathways to an iranian nuclear weapon and does so without unnecessarily risking american lives in yet another military action. even as the agreement preserves that ultimate option should it be necessary in the event of iran's default. this agreement sends a clear message to iran that the global community stands united today and well into the future in ensuring that iran never obtains a nuclear weapon. now much has been said of iran's capacity after 10 to 15 years and even there the agreement places iran in the confines of

the nuclear nonproliferation treaty just as the rest of us are. if iran violates the agreement, they will without question face complete isolation, even more severe repercussions and the u.s. retains our ability to engage unilateral sanctions and our military option. it's true that this agreement is not perfect. but if this agreement does not go forward there is no better deal, mr. speaker. in fact, there is no deal. no sanctions, no international partners, no inspections, no deal. this is a negotiation which is by definition not perfect. it is my hope that we'll divorce ourselveses from the hyperbole and rhetoric in favor of the seriousness this issue deserves. i've concluded that the agreement is the best path forward. this is not just my considered judgment, it's the judgment of the highest levels of the military, nonproliferation experts, nuclear scientists and our diplomatic partners who join in their overwhelming support of

the agreement. as a congress we can only do our best and move -- and our part to move forward to provide the necessary resources for proper oversight to en-- to ensure effective monitoring and aggressive verification. if iran cheats, we'll know it. we'll know it quickly and we'll act decisively. once again the world turns to the united states for our leadership on dealing with iran and its nuclear program. this agreement reached through rigorous diplomacy in conjunction with our partners provoids the tools we need to provide a pathway to peace and curt for the united states, israel, the region and the world. i will vote to approve the joint comprehensive plan of action. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: mr. speaker, i would just -- reclaiming my time, i ould just note that over 200 retired generals, flag officers, admirals, signed a letter in opposition and we've

heard continuously, including this week, from retired generals and officers, admirals, about their concerns about this agreement. i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from washington state, cathy mcmorris rogers, the republican conference chair. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from washington is recognized for three minutes. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you. i thank the chairman for yielding. i votes this week on the president's nuclear deal with iran are some of the most important we've taken in years. as the world's largest sponsor of terror, iran continues to play an enormously destructive and destabilizing role in the world. iran's actions are destroying the lives of millions of vulnerable nnlts. the current refugee crisis in the middle east, in europe, is only the most recent example. iran has been propping up assad's regime in syria for the past four years, sending weapons and thousands of fighters there to brutalize the

syrian people. isis has exploited these conditions and now millions of syrians have been displaced. many of them going town manageable lengths to seek -- unimagine -- going to unimaginable lengths to seek refuge in europe. iran bears responsibility for this. this deal is not reform. this deal is incentivizing bad behavior. a vote in favor of this deal is a vote that favors party politics over the will of the american people and global security. it's a terrible way to do business. the american people deserve full transparency from the white house on this deal. as required by the law, and even basic respect for american voters. the president is required to turn over all the agreements, even the side deal, made with third parties. he's yet to do that. while i was home the last few weeks, in my district in eastern washington, not a day

passed that i didn't hear about grave concerns about this deal. and it wasn't republican versus democrat, liberals versus conservatives, it wasn't anti-president obama. people are sincerely worried about what this deal means for our safety and security. we're told by the administration that -- we were told early on that no deal was better than a bad deal. now the president claims it's either this deal or war. mr. speaker, we aren't asking the president to stop his efforts to reach an agreement with iran. we need a better deal. we are asking the president to continue and strenen his efforts so we get a -- strengthen his efforts so we get a deal that first, truly denies iran a path to a flirke nuclear dismant -- weapon by dismantling its

nuclear infrastructure. and compel iran to cease its support of terrorist organizations and brutal dictators like assad. whose action as are dust destabilizing the entire region, as well as europe. until this deal includes, at a minimum, these three components and the president has made his obligations under the law, i will continue to oppose it and i will urge my colleagues on both sides of the of the aisle to do the same. let's send the president back to the negotiating table. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. connolly: i thank the speaker. maybe the president can get some advice from the leadership of the republican caucus in how to figure out what resolution to bring to the floor. i now proudly yield four minutes to my friend from rhode island, mr. cicilline. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. cicilline: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, the question before us today is whether or not this body will approve the negotiated agreement to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear

weapon. it is one of the most consequential issues of our time and requires serious and sober consideration by every single member of this body. you would think, mr. speaker, that in a matter of such gravity involving the fosh affairs of our nation -- foreign affairs of our nation and the safety and security of our allies, particularly israel, we could set aside urges to score political points and avoid dangerous hyperbole and instead debate the merits and the shortfalls of this agreement. i regret that the process for considering this agreement has sometimes devolved into a sad show of partisanship. our nation is better than this. today, mr. speaker, i'm mindful of president kennedy's inaugural address, which he delivered from the east front of the capitol, just a few hundred feet from this chamber. addressing the threat from the soviet union, president kennedy said, let us begin anew, remembering on both sides that stability is not a sign of weakness. he went on to say, let us never negotiate out of fear, but let

us never fear to negotiate. those words still ring true today. this agreement shows the power of diplomacy, to advance our national security interests and ensures that before being required to send our brave men and women into a dangerous military conflict, that we've had the courage to exhaust every possible alternative. like all of my colleagues, i've penalty is the last two months carefully studying the terms of this agreement, that the united states and our negotiating partners reached. to prevent a knew luke -- a nuclear iran. meeting with experts, participating in dozens of classified briefings and committee hearings, meeting with the president and members of his administration as well as meeting with my constituents. after a great deal of serious deliberation, i believe that the united states and the world are safer with this deal in place than without it. i fully recognize that this agreement is not perfect. far from it. but like any decision in life, we have to confront the choices

that we face, not the one we would rather have before us or like to imagine. i believe approval of this agreement is the most responsible and effective way to prevent iran from developing a nuclear weapon. by its very terms it affirms that under no circumstance will iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to consider what we will be giving up if we reject this deal. this agreement requires iran to submit to the most intrusive rouse inspections regime ever -- rigorous inspections regime ever negotiated. this is in stark contrast to the complete lack of access currently available to the international community to monitor iran's nuclear program. if congress rejects the joint comprehensive plan of action it will mean zero restrictions on iran's nuclear ambitions, no limitation on their enrichment activities or centrifuge production, no ability for inspection of their nuclear program. many experts agree that rejection of this agreement

would mean iran to develop a nuclear weapon in just a matter of months. the worst possible outcome. approval of this agreement does not end our responsibility, mr. speaker. congress must work closely with the administration to ensure that we take additional steps to mitigate the risks reflected in the agreement, to discourage iran from escalating its destabilizing activities in the region and to enhance the likelihood that iran complice with all the terms of the agreement -- complies with all the terms of the agreement. additional resources have to be devoted to supporting, monitoring, verification and intelligence gathering activities. above all else, we must make it absolutely clear to iran that any violation of the agreement will be met with swift and decisive action by the united states and the international community. in the end, this was not an easy decision or one i arrived at quickly. there's risk in accepting this agreement and it contains real tradeoffs. no responsible person should claim otherwise.

but i am certain, mr. speaker, that rejecting this agreement would present even greater and more dangerous risks to our national security and our allies than the risks associated with going forward. because of this, i intend to support the resolution of approval and urge my colleagues to do the same. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, chairman of the committee on the judiciary. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for three minutes. mr. goodlatte: thank you, mr. speaker. and i want to thank chairman royce for his outstanding leadership on this issue. mr. speaker, our founding fathers included in the preamble of the united states constitution the intention of our government to provide for the common defense, protecting and defending our nation was not an afterthought, it was a first thought. the defense of america and our allies has always been a strategic and moral goal.

the agreement we have before us today, however, primarily meets iran's goals. sanctions are lifted, nuclear research and development continues and america's safety is compromised. under this deal, in a matter of years, likely in our lifetimes, but certainly in the lifetime of our children and grandchildren, iran will have the bomb. the president of the united states has said that this agreement is not based on trust but on verification. i wish that was true. because this agreement shouldn't be based on trust. i certainly do not trust a government that has acted as a bank for terrorists. any agreement should be based on verification. but where is the simple assurance of any time, anywhere inspections? we don't have verifation. what we have is misplaced hope. hope that iran has disclosed all of its past nuclear activities, hope that iran will be transparent, hope that iran has somehow changed. earlier this year 367

bipartisan members of congress sent a letter to the president outlining several conditions that any final nuclear agreement must address. unfortunately the agreement we have before us does not meet congressional standards and has numerous fatal flaws. for example, in 2012 congress barred iranians from coming here to study nuclear science and nuclear engineering at u.s. universities. one would think that's a good policy, given that they're seeking to get the bomb. in one of the most outrageous provisions of this deal, the department of homeland security and the department of state will no longer be allowed to enforce the bar. this deal will actually make the u.s. an accomplice to iran's nuclear weapons program by granting iranians the ability to come to the u.s., to acquire knowledge instrumental in their being able to design and build nuclear bombs. other concerns include giving iran a signing bonus, lifting the arms embargo, failure to

cut off iran's pathway to the bomb and the lack of protection for not only our own safety but for the safety of the world. a nuclear iran is a threat to our great ally israel, but is also a threat to the rest of the middle east, america and the world. while the administration has said that any deal is better than no deal, thomas jefferson once said, delay is preferable to error. and i agree with jefferson. had our negotiators remained at the table a while longer, perhapses we would not be where we are today. yet as it stands, this so-called deal, if it goes through, will likely mark the pages of history as a great error. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. connolly: i'm reminded back to churchill, said it's always better to jaw-jaw than war-war. i now yield two minutes to ms. barbara lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for

two minutes. ms. lee: thank you very much. first i want to thank representative connolly for yielding me time and really for your tremendous leadership on this very vital issue. also i must salute our leader pelosi for her unwavering support and hard work for global peace and security. mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of h.r. 3461, a resolution to approve the joint comprehensive plan of action. in the last two congresses, mind you, i introduced the prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and war -- and stop war through diplomacy act. which called for the appointment of a high-level special envoy to address iran's nuclear program and an end to the no-contact policy between our diplomats and since the 1970's, quite frankly, i have worked on many nuclear nonproliferation issues and believe very strongly that the deal that president obama and our p5+1 partners negotiated demonstrates how effective diplomacy can be. it will lead us closer to a world where our children and future generations can live without the fear of iran

acquiring a nuclear weapon. the jcpoa, supported by the majority of americans and key international allies, including france, germany and britain, still not perfect, it's the best way to prevent iran from ever acquiring a nuclear weapon. the iran nuclear deal puts into place the most intrusive inspection system, including a 24/7 surveillance of iran's enrichment facilities and reactors. it cuts off all of iran's pathways to a nuclear weapon and it will enhance regional and global security. united nations ambassador samantha powers stated in her recent political op ed, if we walk away, there is no diplomatic door number two. no do-over, no rewrite of the deal on the table. rejecting the iran deal will isolate the united states from our international partners and will not make us any safer and it certainly won't result in a better deal with iran. instead it would allow iran to accelerate their weapons

programs with no oversight and that is unacceptable. we cannot afford the alternative to this deal. this is a defining moment for our country, for our world. let us continue to work for peace. we all know that the military option is always there. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this resolution of approval. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. rothfus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. roth fust: i rise in strong -- mr. rothfus: i rise in strong opposition to this resolution and against this disastrous agreement with iran. the actions iran will be allowed to pursue under this agreement fall far short of the commitment the president made to the american people, to verfully p

fieably prevent iran getting a nuclear weapon. iran will maintain a robust instra chuckture and be capable of enriching uranium and be capable of carrying a bomb to israel, europe or the yeats. instead of any time, anywhere inspections, they have time to cover their tracks. it will profind -- provide funds to back their terrorist enterprise. it is time to develop a better deal. while this house actually votes on the merits of the deal, i know what happened today in the other house of congress, the senate. there, almost all democrats have joined to block a vote on this deal. one democrat who wanted to vote was senator schumer of new york. senator shoup schumer released a statement last month that show head understands the ded -- the defects of this deal, from the

billions and the inspections. senator schumer concluded we would be worse off with this agroment than without it. but there is another choice, mr. speaker. a better deal. one negotiated with a clear understanding of the nature of our enemyism ask my colleagues to rejeck this deal, encourage the president to go back to the negotiating table and to vote no on this resolution. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. connolly: john kennedy negotiated the first nuclear treatment with our arch enemy, the soviet union he said we should never negotiate out of fear but we should never fear to negotiate. i now yield two minutes to my friend from california, congresswoman lois capps. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minks. mrs. capps: i thank my colleague for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the p-5 plus one nuclear agreement with iran,

formerly known as the -- formally known as the joint omprehensive plan of action. this is one of the most important votes i'll take in my time in congress. the idea has always been to diplomatically cut off iran's path to nuclear weapon and verify transparency of their capability. it is clear to me as well as numerous experts around the globe that this agreement achieves these critical goals. it not only cuts off all pathways to nuclear weapons, it imposes unprecedented and permanent inspections, ensures we can automatly reinstate national sanctions if iran violates the agreement. in contrast, defeating this deal would allow iran to resume its nuclear program with no restrictions or oversight, increasing the likelihood of military conflict and the weapons race, precisely the scenario sanctions were designed

to prevent. another costly war in the middle east would put american lives at risk and undermine the security of our nation and allies, including israel. while the risk of a nuclear armed iran are unquestionably dire, there's no scenario in which these risks are reduced by reject this is deal. there are no decision us take more seriously than those that involve potentially sending american troop into harm's way. this is undeniably one of those decisions. under this agreement every option is and will remain on the table including military force but we have a solemn obligation to ensure that every diplomatic avenue is exhausted -- exhausted before military action is taken. that's why i opposed the war in iraq, why i support this nuclear deal with iran. this deal has not been perfect but perfect is not and never has been an option. those urging defeat of this deal have a response blet to propose a viable alternative yet no such alternative has been put forward. the agreement before us is the best path available.

it has my full support and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. royce: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. desantis, a member of the committee on foreign affairs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. desantis: in 2012, when the president was running for re-election, he said, iran is simple. we'll remove sangs when they dismantle and give up their nuclear program. that was a promise he made the american people and this deal doesn't come close to that. iran is allowed to mane tain a vast, vast nuclear infrastructure. two year ago in this house we passed more robust sanctions which would have further tightened the screws on the iranian regime and i think at that time iran wanted to get out of the sangs. if you asked iran what they wanted, they would have wanted sanctions releaf, they need the money, the regime needed it to

so fidfi themselves in power. of course they wanted to keep their new clear program. and to fund terrorism this gives iran everything it wants. i join my colleagues to urge we resoundingly reject this agreement. i want to point out something that i think is personal to a lot of veterans. this is an uparmored humvee in iraq, probably 2007, 2008 time period. and it's ripped to shreds by an e.f.p. device, explosively formed penetrator. this is something the explosion will cause pieces of metal to go 3,000 meters per second. it will rah vadge those in the humvee and will go through the armor. it caused the death, these devices, of hundreds of our servicemens and wounded many, many more. why do i bring that up? well, because this was perpetrated by this man. suleimani, the head of the quds force, and he was orchestrating

those attack it is on american service members. bad enough, right, we're doing a deal with a country that has a lot of american blood on its hand but it's even worse than that. this deal relieves the international sanctions on this man and the quds force. it empowers the very people who harmed our service members in iraq. i think that that is an insult to the memory of the people who lost lives on our behalf and to their families and so for that reason, in addition to all the other great ones that have been mentioned, we need to reject this deal, resoundingly. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman tees i'm -- the gentleman's time has expire. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. connolly: i would point out for the record, suleimani remains on the list. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes.

i'd like to thank the gentleman for yielding. in 2012, prime minister of israel, minister netanyahu, went to the u.n. with a graph. much like the one right beside me. it was a picture of a bomb with a red line and the prime minister said, the red line must be drawn on iran's nuclear enrichment program. this deal does that. today, we can say that iran cannot produce or stockpile highly enriched uranium and it has to get rid of 98% of the low enriched uranium. to make sure that they don't

achieve a nuclear weapon, we have the strictest inspection regime in the history of nuclear agreements. the impetus for the two years of negotiation has been achieved. so what's the problem? the gears of war have been halted when we prove that negotiation and diplomacy are the best methods of achieving peace. this deal is a triumph of diplomacy over military conflict. it's a win for those who reject the misconception that diplomacy is weakness. in 2003, vice president chaney -- cheney said i have been charged by the president with making sure that none of the tyrannies of the world are negotiating -- negotiated with. war suing decades of

brought 6,842 soldiers home in coffins and squandered trillion -- trillions of dolls of american taxpayers. yet we have learned from that. we learned our lesson to we must -- lesson that we must negotiate. we must talk it out before we begin to shoot it out. and the fact that the majority of americans support this deal means that people are tired of sacrificing so much for the bankrupt idea that a conversation is a ka pitch ration. this agreement keeps nuclear -- is a capitulation. this agreement keeps nuclear weapons out of the hands of iranians. few sentry had a tuges, by 2013, they had 22,000ing all while we were rattling sabers and making bravado type comments about what we were going to do to them, they were making centrifuges.

we have brought that process to a stop. we will continue to sanction human rights violators wherever they are, including in iran. and we will also continue to confront people who support terrorism. but the best way to empower reformers within iran is to engage. diplomatic victories require playing the long game. you need patience and you need unshakeable courage in your convictions. let me say that i remember the moment in 2007 when then-senator obama said he would engage in personal diplomacy with leaders in the middle east to stop bloodshed in the region and that's the moment i knew i would vote for him and i'm proud to stand here nearly a decade later to congratulate the president for this diplomatic victory and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expire. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. curbelo. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. curbelo: i thank the

gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, many of our colleagues have come to the floor today and stated that this is the most important vote or the most series of votes that we will take in this congress. and i agree with them. because these votes boil down to the fundamental question, what kind of world do we want to live in? what kind of a world do we want for ourselves, for our children, for our grandchildren, for future generations? do we want to live in a world where we legitimize the most radical, the most extremist the most terrorist government in the world? a government that has a long and well documented history of lying to the world, of holding americans hostage, of hanging homosexuals from cranes, of executing juveniles? do we want to empower that government with an investment of at least $56 billion? a portion of which will surely go to terrorist activities, not just in the middle east but all

over the world? do we want to guarantee that whether it's in 10 years or 13 years or 15 years or in 20 years, that same government will have the ability to build a nuclear arsenal? do we want to afford that same government the mullahs in iran, the ability to have intercontinental ballistic missiles? those aren't for israel. those aren't for the middle east. those are for us. and the only purpose of those missiles is to carry a nuclear warhead. what kind of a world do we want to live in? i believe, mr. speaker, that many years from now, my daughters, ages 5 and 3, will look up how their dad voted on this critical issue, and i think, i'm very hopeful, i'm confident, that they will thank me. because this is a bad deal. this is a deal that not only endangers our allies in the

middle east, it endangers us. and this is a deal where we have to ask ourselves who we are, what we stand for, and what kind of a world we want to live in. for that reason, i'm opposing this iran deal and i urge my colleagues to do the same. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expire thsmed egentleman from california reserves this egentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. connolly: mr. speaker, our friend from florida asks the right questions, but he's got the wrong answer. i want a world that roll back the nuclear capability of iran, not a world based on a false hope that we can make it work somehow without a plan. that's what put thinks world at risk. that's what put mischildren at grandchildren at risk. i'm not willing to take that risk. mr. speaker, before i recognize mrs. davis of california, can i inquire how much time is left on both sides? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia has 4 1/2 minute the gentleman from california has 42 1/2 minutes.

mr. connolly: mr. connolly: 42? the speaker pro tempore: yes. mr. connolly: what a lucky man my friend from california is. i now recognize my friend from california, mrs. davis. the speaker pro tempore: for how much time? mr. connolly: two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for two minutes. mrs. davis: thank you. thank you, mr. speaker. after much deliberation and soul searching, i'm convinced that the p5+1 joint comprehensive plan of action creates a viable path to reduce iran's nuclear weapons capability. for that reason, i believe this agreement is in the best interest of the united states. of course the agreement must also be in the best interests of our friends in the middle east. as someone who has lived in israel and has returned many times since, i understand that

for israelis and americans with close ties to israel, iran threaten toing -- threatening to wipe israel off the map is not an abstract concern. it has been less than 100 years since the jewish people nearly suffered such a fate. the threat of annihilation is very real. to israelis and it is very real to me. i would never take a vote that i thought could leave my grandchildren a world without a strong, safe israel. mr. speaker, i am under no illusions that this agreement will end iran's ambitions. but i can't allow their destabilizing behavior to have the protection of a nuclear umbrella. i agree with the former head of the i.d.f., the israeli defense force, intelligence, the head of that intelligence agency, that if we walk away from this

agreement, quote, iran will remain closer to a nuclear bomb in the coming years and the chances of a collapse of the sanctions regime will increase. unquote. nobody, nobody in this chamber, mr. speaker, trusts iran. that's why we need and we must have and take the responsibility to come together after this vote, to make sure that the united states is exercising all of its initiatives to implement this agreement and to address what we know will come, those inevitable challenges. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from nevada, mr. heck, a member of the armed services and intelligence committees.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nevada is recognized for two minutes. mr. heck: i thank the chairman. mr. speaker, when president obama announced that the p5+1 had reached an agreement on iran's nuclear program, he stated that the deal was not built on trust, that it was built on verification. this was a clear acknowledgment by the administration that the iran regime is not a trustworthy negotiating partner and that any agreement must contain a stringent verification guideline to ensure that iran adheres to its obligations. unfortunately the verification procedures in the joint comprehensive plan of action are impotent at best. while the agreement does allow for 24/7 monitoring of declared sites, it includes a provision that gives iran up to 24 days to grant inspectors access to suspected undeclared facilities. according to former iaea officials, this greatly increases the probability that nuclear activities could escape

detection. while this verification scheme is already embarrassingly weak, it gets worse, when one considers the secret side deals that prevent inspection of the parchin military complex and allow iran to inspect itself. this is not the any time, anywhere inspections the administration claimed it was pursuing. the fact is that in spite of claims of the administration, this agreement is not built on verification, it is built on trust. it requires us to trust a regime that is the largest exporter of terrorism in the world, that has already violated the interim nuclear agreement and whose supreme leader just today stated that israel will not exist in 25 years. mr. speaker, as the president himself has said, no deal is better than a bad deal. mr. speaker, this is a bad deal. and i urge my colleagues to reject it and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. connolly: thank you, mr. speaker. i now recognize my friend, mr. cohen of tennessee, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for two minutes. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. in 1963 president kennedy served in this chamber. he spoke at a american university about preventing nuclear war. and that to do so is necessary to deal with our most feared and distrusted enemy at the time, the soviet union. as mistrusted and evil in the eyes of americans then as iran is today. as you recall, the prime minister boldly stated, we will bury you. president kennedy understood, though, that in negotiationses with an enemy, quote, we must diversity those confrontations which bring an adversary to the choice of humiliating retreat or nuclear war. president obama, along with the

other five nations at the negotiating table in vienna, confronted the same reality. when president reagan engaged with the soviet unionings he also was negotiating with our -- union, he also was negotiating with our most feared and distrusted enemy. in negotiations with iran, it has been the same for president obama as it was for president kennedy in negotiating with the soviet union. and both president kennedy and president obama had the same goals as america's had for over a half a century, and that is to prevent nuclear war. and to do so it has been necessary to deal with an untrusted foe. i have listened to my constituents, i've been privy to many classified briefings, i've spoken personally to president obama and secretary kerry, met with officials in vienna, at the headquarters of the iaea, and with diplomats and officials from europe and asia. over those past several weeks and months, i've often thought about president kennedy's eloquent words at american university in august of 1963 when he said that in the final

analysis we all inhabit the same small planet. we all breathe the same air. we all cherish our children's future and we're all mortal. the same holds true today. i support this agreement based upon the information i've demreemed from the aforementioned individuals and groups and with the understanding there's no more important mission than preventing nuclear war. our people and our planet are in the balance. i'm convinced this is the most effective way to ensure iran will not build a nuclear weapon. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, chairman of the committee on science, space and technology. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i want to thank the gentleman from california, the chairman of the committee, for yielding me time. and for the excellent job he's been doing tonight during the debate on this particular issue. mr. speaker, this week is a somber week for our nation. september 11 reminds us of the sacred responsibility we in

congress have to protect the american people from those who want to kill us. that is why we must oppose the iran deal. this deal only emboldens our enemies at the expense of our friends and our own national security. so it is no surprise that a majority in congress oppose this deal as do most americans. for many reasons. first, it allows iran to develop nuclear weapons in the future. second, it lists sanction -- lifts sanctions and frees up as much as $150 billion in assets for iran. these funds inevitably will be used by iran to export terrorism as even the president himself has admitted. third, the longstanding arms embargo against iran will be lifted. this enables iran to buy long range surface to aramisles from russia by the end of the year -- air missiles from russia by the end of the year. there's no way to look at their

sites. iran is given weeks, if not months, of advanced notice of any inspection. this provides ample time for iran to hide evidence of nuclear weapons activities and violate the agreement. secret deals that the administration has hidden from congress and the american people have now been revealed. one secret deal permits iran to conduct its own inspections at a military facilityment ised of ties to nuclear weapons -- facilities suspected of ties to nuclear weapons. this deal directly threatens the security and future of israel. the iran deal destabilizes the middle east, jeopardizes america's security and endangers the world. the iran deal must be opposed now and in the future. remember, this is not the law of the land. this deal is a nonbinding executive agreement. only the constitution is the law of the land. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. the gentleman from virginia has 30 seconds. mr. connolly: thank you, mr. speaker. in closing, i hope our fellow americans understand what's really at stake here. engagement and the rollback of a nuclear threat, or the connecticut option, which is military intervention that takes us down a path that will lead to more terrorism, more violence and the necessity of troops on the ground. i choose the former and i believe our fellow americans will too. 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 gentleman from michigan, mr. bishop. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. chairman, thank you, mr. speaker. rise today to raise my objection to the joint comprehensive plan of action and to call on my colleagues to do the same.

in march i joined 346 of my bipartisan colleagues in a letter outlining the issues needed to be addressed by iran in a comprehensive nuclear agreement. the last sentence of that agreement said, congress must be convinced that the agreements -- agreement's terms foreclose any pathway to a bomb and then and only then will congress be able to consider permanent sanctions relief. mr. speaker, i've read this entire agreement. and i am profoundly disappointed, disappointeded to say that it falls -- disappointed to say that it falls remarkably short of foreclosing a pathway to a bomb. to the contrary, this agreement brings iran to the brink of becoming a nuclear weapon state . and eight short years from now, provides them a pathway to acquiring technology to strike

europe and well beyond. to ease the concerns of my noncommittal colleagues, the president has promised a military option remains on the table. and i am simply awe-stricken by the fact that my colleagues on the left have fallen for other purposes she's assurances -- for these assurances. it's the same administration that promised the red line of syria -- in syria, it's the same empty rhetoric that has sustained the syrian civil war, the libyan civil war, isil's control of western iraq, and of course the imperialist vladimir putin that has annexed the sovereign territory of the ewe cravenlt -- ukraine. i therefore urge my colleagues any ject this deal and

deal that enables a belligerent state sponsor of terror to have access to hundreds of billions of dollars and nuclear weapons and will allow its atrocities to continue in perpetuity. all the while americans, four americans, one of them a native of the state of michigan, my home state, is being held hostage. how in the world -- mr. speaker, in no other world, public or private, would this agreement be considered credible. mr. royce: let me grant the gentleman an additional minute. mr. bishop: i'll take 30 seconds. mr. speaker, thank you. i apologize for going over. but i was saying that in no other world, mr. speaker, and to all of you, having served in the public and in the private sector, have ever i -- have i ever seen an agreement where we are negotiating with a party that has no respect for the other party. in this case, the supreme

leader of the state of iran, as late as yesterday, referred to the united states as the great satan and called for us to be wiped off the face of the erlingt -- face of the earth. not just israel. we're the great satan. they're satan, according to the ayatollah. we are the great satan. i object to entering an agreement with a country that has no respect. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. bishop: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chair. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. waters: i would like to start by thanking democratic leader pelosi for her tireless and unyielding advocacy for the iran nuclear deal agreed to between iran and six major world powers with the unanimous

support of the u.n. national security council. i very much share the leader's view that diplomacy and peace must be given every chance in our dealings with iran before we com -- contemplate the use of any other options. i also want to acknowledge the fact that acting with the president's full support, secretary of state john kerry has done a masterful job of holding the p5+1 coalition together. it was far from certain that russia and china, intent as each of them is on reducing america's influence in the world, would continue their participation in the tough multinational effort necessary to get us to this point. this agreement proves that world leaders terk spite being divided

on a range of issues can still work together and reach an agreement with profound implications for international peace and security. this is truly extraordinary. i support this agreement, not because it is perfect, but because it's a deal that stands up extremely well as a barrier against nuclear proliferation for at least 15 years. it also establishes an intrusive inspections regime to ensure that iran's program remains heavily monitored and exclusively peaceful for even longer. one of the most important provisions of this deal allowings any permanent member of the u.n. security council who can show that iran has violated the agreement, the ability to snap back the tough sanctions that had previously been in

place. now i know there are critics who believe that by rejecting the deal and increasing sanctions on iran that the u.s. can somehow coerce the leaders of iran to completely dismantle its nuclear program. as effective as the current sanctions have been, in bringing iran to the table to negotiate, they have not stopped iran from becoming a threshold nuclear state. if congress rejects this deal, it will not lead to a better one. if the u.s. walks away from this deal, we will have squandered the best chance we have to solve this problem through peaceful means. in fact, u.s. rejection of the deal is more likely to isolate the united states rather than iran from the rest of the world. it would reinforce questions around the world about our commitment to multilateralism

and american political dysfunction. furthermore, it would seriously undermine our ability to lead any future diplomatic efforts on terrorism and on a range of other issues important to our national security interests. so i urge my colleagues to support this resolution which is necessary for the success of the nuclear deal. the reservation of the international financial sanctions architecture and for maintaining the credibility of u.s. diplomatic commitment in the future. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield three minutes , the gentleman from alabama mr. palmer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. palmer: i rise in opposition to this ill-conceive agreement

between our current administration and the fanatical regime ruling the nation of iran. i find it impossible to understand how those sworn to protect the security and interests of the american people could enter into such a one-sided deal. this is a deal that expands the lethal potential of a ruthless regime by giving them a path to a nuclear weapon. a regime whose stated objective is the destruction of the united states. a regime committed to the complete and utter destruction of israel, our most trusted friend and ally in the middle east, and a regime that almost no one believes will honor this deal. it is incomprehensible that we would so blindly ignore the warnings of the world's most aggressive supporter of terrorism by allowing them access to $150 billion in assets and allowing them to use those assets to project their war against our nation and our allies. if the rantings of this regime are not enough to cause us to reject this deal, we should let

history instruct us. this regime has been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of soldiers, and for the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians in israel and other nations, and in 1999 they -- and in 2009, they murdered their own people. i believe the past mistakes of world leaders who failed to recognize the danger posed by ruthless regimes have been written in the pages of history with the blood of millions upon millions of people. we must not allow our nation to take rank with those nations and leaders from the past who chose appeasement over courage who chose to take what appeared to them to be the easy path instead of bearing the responsibility of making the harder decision because it was the right decision. if the administration is correct that allowing the ruling regime in iran to become armed with nuclear weapons will pose no threat to america or israel, then no one will remember how the members of this congress

voted. but if this administration and the supporters of this agreement are wrong and we suffer a catastrophic loss of lives, no one will ever forget what we did here. we will bear the burden of this vote for the rest of our lives. american -- america's foreign policy is at a crossroads. i'm reminded of how a great president described how to deal with dangerous nations. president theodore roosevelt said we should speak softly and carry a big stick he described this approach as the exercise of intelligent fore thought and decisive actions sufficiently far in advance of any likely crisis. this deal doesn't meet that standard. mr. speaker, this is the time when the burden of leadership that has been entrusted to every member of congress falls most heavily upon us. the american people look to us to do our duty and bear this responsibility without regard to party or politics. but -- to put their safety and security foremost. i urge all members of this house to put aside the politics and par sat -- partisanship that

otherwise divide us and stand together in opposition to this deal. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: i yield to the gentleman from michigan, five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. thank my friend for yielding. the goal of negotiations between iran and world powers has always been to prevent them from develop agnew clear weapon. i think we have to be realistic about this. this agreement, as opposed to rejecting the agreement, takes us very far toward that goal and i think accomplishes that goal in a way we should all be able to live with and accept. mr. kildee: the alternative is just too treacherous, i think, for us to even imagine. i've been involved in this issue for as long as i've been here, the last 2 1/2 years i've been

in congress. i have, as many members have had, countless numbers of hours of briefings. i have read the documents. i have read the classified reports. and i'm confident that this agreement simply put, makes the world a safer place. both for the u.s. and our allies. what this agreement does not do, however, and i think it's important to keep in context, agreement does not make iran a good actor on the world stage. it's intended to tamp down their nuclear aspirations. it doesn't mean iran can be trusted. in fact, the very nature of the agreement is that it will rely on inspections, it will rely on the eyes of the world to be on iran to ensure the agreement is adhered to with robust inspections. like any negotiated agreement, it's not perfect. but if iran cheats, we'll know

it. through inspections. if iran violates the agreement, our allies and the united states will be able to put back in place those sanctions that were so important to get them to the negotiating table in the first place. in fact, even if our allies don't agree, we would have the ability to unilaterally take steps to reenstate those important sanctions. finally, i think importantly, under this question, the u.s. will be in a much stronger position than we are today if in fact military intervention ultimately is required. because we will have allowed the diplomatic process to work, i believe and i think most americans believe, it strengthens our standing in the world if in fact the necessity of military action does come upon us. the fact that we gave diplomacy a chance, i think, is a really

important point. i know, and i've heard from friends on both sides of the aisle concerned about the americans that are being held. this is a subject that i know something about. i represent the families -- the family of amir hakmadi. i appreciate the efforts of member ops both sides to call upon iran to release the americans they hold. i thank chairman royce for his effort, through his leadership on the foreign affairs committee, to assist me in developing a resolution that allowed this house to speak with one voice on that question. but it would be a mistake, as some have suggested, to have included the freedom of innocent americans as one of the provisions of an agreement because by the very nature of an agreement, through negotiations, in order to secure a concession, in order to secure the release of those americans in exchange for something else that was negotiated at the bargaining

table, we would have had to exchange something that makes the world a less safe place. but don't take my word for it. listen to the position taken by that young, brave, man that i represent. that young marine, amerihakmadi who himself has said that the onus is on iran to unilaterally release him and not to include him as part of a transaction that deals with iran's nuclear capabilities. that's the position that i take because i think it's the right position. i think it's important to note that that's also the position that this brave young man who for four years has been sitting in an iranian jail cell also takes. finally, we have to be honest with ourselves about the question that is before us. now, if i were to have written this agreement by myself, it would be a different agreement. i'm sure that true of virtually

everybody in this house. the fact of the matter is, when evaluating our position on this question, we have to first search our own conscience but we have to measure the effective -- the effect of this agreement and the consequences of adhearing to and enacting this agreement with the consequences of walking away from a multilateral negotiated agreement with no prospect, listen to the voices of the other nations involved -- with no prospect of being able to come back to the negotiating table. the conclusion i think that i have come to in examining my conscience is that we are in a far better position as a world and we are far more secure through this agreement than we would be with the uncertainty of walking away from the diplomatic process and allowing iran to pursue a nuclear weapon in the next month. mr. waters: i yield to the gentleman 30 seconds.

mr. kildee: thank you, i thank my friend for yielding. this is the conclusion that i have come to but this is also the conclusion that experts on both sides of the political spectrum have come to. ambassador -- ambassadors from across the world, former secretaries of state, madeleine albright thinks this is the right path forward. former secretary of state colin powell thinks this is the right path forward. i understand that individuals in this house may come to different conclusions after examining the facts. the only thing i ask and encourage my colleagues to do is to vote your heart. vet what you think is right. examine the documents and do what you think is in the best interest of this country and the world and the conclusion i have come to is that supporting this agreement is the right thing. with that, mr. speaker, 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: i would also point out, though, that we have heard from many experts. we have heard from many generals, admirals, and there are other 200 generals and flag officers, admirals, who have come to the opposite conclusion. who have come to the conclusion that this makes the country less safe. and throughout the course of the afternoon and evening here, supporters of this agreement have argued that we will be aggressive against iran. aggressive against iran in its 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. bu