traditional nonproliferation concerns that the u.s. government has, when those nonproliferation concerns are not what's actually motivating the difference is this. i talked to a high level of official about a year ago. thesis that the united states is aligning with iran. i pointed to a number of different examples where i saw that happening on the ground in iraq, syria, and lebanon. he said, you've got it totally wrong, mike. the thing about barack obama is that he approaches the region like a lawyer. each problem in the region is a separate file, so there's an iranian nuclear file, there's an iraq file, there's a syria file, there's the palestinian file and

so on and so forth. and he adamantly refuses, he treats each case on a case by case basis and refuses to make a connection between the different cases. and i look at that, that's what it looks like if you're a high level official in the obama administration dealing with the president. "new york times" famously described the president in a meeting about syria where he was thumbing through his blackberry , reading, distracted while this discussion about whether the united states should arm the opposition was going on or not. my view on that is the president had in fact connected up all of the dots. he just wasn't sharing the connections that he had made with his officials. he was allowing meetings like this one to go on, allowing the bureaucracy to do different things, keeping everybody busy,

because he knew that the siegel most important thing was what he said in a letter to the wall street journal -- don't worry, mr. supreme leader, the united states will not do anything on the ground in serial to harm assad. this is the guarantee he gave to khamenei. if you look now, for a couple of years, we have been arming and training the syrian opposition and have spent $500 million on training. we produced what? actuallyrs who have signed a declaration saying that they won't do anything to harm assad. nowhere has president obama gone out in public and said, i'm not going to do anything to harm assad because i made this promise to khamenei, because i don't want to do anything to throw a wrench in the works of the iran deal or because i want to coordinate with iran in the region. he hasn't said that publicly and he hasn't told that to his officials in the syria meeting

where everything is going around. he let that meeting go around and around and around and finally, when the national security -- the major members of the national security council said, we should arm the opposition, he said, no, i don't want to do it. he ate up months and months of government time debating this issue and then nixed it and that's what's happened time and time again. all what that matters in the end is what we do or don't do to stop iran on the ground in these areas. and as long as he is comfortable knowing that we can make sure that we don't do anything to stop them, he gets what he wants without ever declaring what it is. lee: david, i was going to ask you a question unless you wanted to say something, just wanted to change, just wanted to change tracks a little bit. does the parchin deal, does the parchin side deal, secret side

deal, does this hurt the iaea? i don't think the administration is necessarily looking to hurt the organization, but do you think it does? david: the short answer is i'm worried it does. but i think there needs to be some background. the united states has tremendous influence with the iaea. but it doesn't pull its strings. and kind of as a background, i don't know if you remember in the press there was discussion that the negotiators were going to put in -- create a list of sites and people that the iaea would get access to. and that that was going to be kind of -- the reporting was it was going to be hard-wired into the deal. they went to the iaea and they said, look, we have our own list. in essence, kind of pushing back. i don't think the negotiators really knew what to do. so, i would think that this iran-iaea deal was not done with the approval of the united

states. again, this is just my own experience. i don't think they would have said, go do this. they have been pretty clear in meetings i've had, they want access to parchin. they don't -- some of them don't think anything will be found. lee: i want to be clear, the u.s. does or the iaea does? david: the u.s. wants access the iaea to have access to parchin. they want the iaea to have access to other sites that are associated with p.m.d. and the reason is simple. iran can't create presidents -- ts thatnt -- preceden sites in iran are off limits. the safeguards agreements do not distinguish between military and civilian sites. under the traditional safeguards agreement, the iaea can go where it needs to go and there's no such distinction. it can ask to go to a military

site. the board wouldn't have said, you can't do that because it's a military site. it never would have done that. so the united states has strongly wanted to have the precedent set that iran can't deny access. but they want a deal. and so this gets into a very complicated debate. how's the u.s. going to react? i think part of the problem i've seen from, again from europe is that i think both sides are so distorting the facts, i mean, let me be honest, that it's hard to have an honest debate and an objective debate about this. we live on the left. that's where we are. i'll admit it. my group wants nuclear disarmament. and we see iran and north korea as the front line of efforts to get nuclear disarmament. not wrestling with u.s. nuclear weapons stock pile sides, so we're deeply committed to these causes traditionally associated with the left. and we're deeply disturbed by how the left has bought into positions and says things that

don't even -- aren't even consistent with their own views. secrecy at the iaea, that's traditionally a left view, iaea needs to be more open. large centrifuge programs, millions, hundreds hundreds of thousands of centrifuges in iran in 15 to 20 years. i mean, most of them are anti-nuclear power or at least don't buy into large sensitive enrichment programs in dangerous regions of the world. and yet they did. and have. so i think there is a need to pull back from this kind of polarization, to have a more honest discussion. and in that i would say that the implementation of this deal does matter and that the united states and others, the public, should be pushing that the iaea do a rigorous job, they recover from this iran-iaea or this parchin deal and that they push hard to get access to bolster their credibility. and make sure, with the support

of the member states, that they march into this, you know, postimplementation day agreement as strong as possible. and then i would say, what do we do? this is a town that works with congress. i would hope that congress does create legislation that puts in conditions to make sure that the deal is implemented better. i mean, we've proposed one, again, i don't know, we don't lobby and follow all the politics of it, and it seems very chaotic right now, that congress would pass a law that said, u.s. sanctions, again, it would be u.s. sanctions wouldn't be removed unless iran addresses the iaea's p.m.d. concerns. you could have one -- on another issue, you could have policy of the united states, we don't accept iran building an unnecessary, uneconomical, large, and i emphasize large, they can have some, large centrifuge program after year 13, is when it starts to happen,

in a dangerous region of the world. it's just our policy to oppose that. doesn't mean you renegotiate the deal. you just say, look, we're going to oppose that. what does that mean? well, the country sells a nuclear power plant to iran and china's talking about it now, i'm sure russia has been, you say, look, all the fuel has to be provided for that reactor for the lifetime of the reactor. you eliminate any motivation for iran to produce the enriched uranium or even have an argument to produce the enriched uranium for those reactors. it is going to be hard enough to get a program large enough, but you could simply say that a condition of supply is that all -- condition of suppliers is that all the fuel is provided for that reactor, would not be provided indigenously. if iran wants reactors, it will sign that deal. and i can give other examples where you can actually create policies or actions now that can , in a sense, mitigate the weaknesses of this deal. lee: omri, did you want to follow up?

among other things, i would like to ask you to, politically speaking, what are the mechanisms that you think have led to -- i just want to go through one more round and open up to a question or two. what are the political mechanisms or exigencies that have led to this moment where we wound up with this agreement, parchin, secret side deal, and how do we avoid it and the -- in the future? omri: sure. one of the hallmarks of this debate is it's a more specific version of what mike was talking about, which is, this has not been -- and i suppose a more specific version of what david's talking about -- this has not been a clean public debate. this has not been a debate -- a lot of this debate has occurred with not just different claims

being made, but claims that were either in one way or another not binding. the usual way that the risk of oversimplification, the usual way policy proceeds is policymakers lay out their goals, they articulate why they believe that a particular policy has more benefits than costs and then they defend them. but we've gone through a two-year process where the administration repeatedly told lawmakers, please back off. if you give us breathing room, we will do things like -- of course the iranians will be forced to come clean, under secretary sherman, every time they went to the hill, emphasized that. of course inspectors will have to get access to parchin, state department spokeswoman once sarcastically brushed off a reporter who asked about that and said, i think we would find it very hard to accept an agreement where inspectors didn't have access to parchin. we would shutter fordo. we would get them to dismantle centrifuges.

and then, as those commitments to fall by the wayside, a number of things happened. the main one was this claim that often was done unblinkingly of, well, we never said that in the first place. of course this got to the level of absurdity with the any time, anywhere inspections, where secretary kerry said, nobody ever mentioned any time, anywhere to me. and people said, secretary z, who is sitting next to you, mentioned that. that happened in interviews, it happened during testimony. we haven't had the usual way the public deliberation proceeds which is on the basis of, doesn't have -- listen, nobody's asking and it will never be achieved and actually existing democracies, nobody's asking for absolute facts, absolute honesty. everybody comes to the table as a computer. but the idea that there's no accountability for past commitments, commitments made to lawmakers, commitments articulated to journalists, commitments developed in public, is a very strange thing, even if

you don't assume the doran thesis that there is actually a grand strategy being pursued that involves, if not full blown realignment, then at least entente with iran. even if you don't accept that. from the outside looking in, it's just a very strange debate. but there is reason to believe that that's being pursued. it's not just the right and not just opponents of the deal who have said that what's effectively being negotiated is entente with iran. the policy chief, i think he's the policy chief, at the pro-iran lobby here in town wrote an article about a month ago that said that israel will find itself completely internationally isolated unless it accepts u.s.-iran entente as foreseen by the deal. so it's a very, very strange debate. the answer to your question, this is the side deals debate in a macrocosm, the answer is, there need to be more transparency. the corker-cardin legislation

was designed to allow a more robust public debate, having facts in hand about what the deal actually does. which is one of the reasons why this side deals issue and why the p.m.d. issue has legs both politically and in a policy sense and in a public affairs since. -- sense. it's because just to take these documents that were submitted, congress asked the president to submit documents outlining what actually is in the deal, so they could have this debate in public. the documents that were submitted we now know were either, in some cases full-blown -- fully classified, so, again, the p.m.d.'s issue, right, which was kind of -- people rolled their eyes when this came out. a kind of nonpublic document that says the administration has concluded we don't need iran to come clean and then it says, and for the reason why, see the classified document that's also attached. it made a mockery of that requirement. but we also know more broadly

but we also know more broadly that those documents, and i believe it was the daily beast that reported this, the administration appears to have gone out of its way to mix classified with nonclassified material, into each of the documents they submitted in turn, in order to prevent them from being disclosed publicly. and that undercuts the ability to have a debate and, again, why do you overclassify something? you overclassify something accidentally or because of institutional needs or because risk-rewards indicate you should classify rather than declassify. but a lot of the reasons you classify something is to prevent embarrassment, and that appears to have occurred a lot during this debate. lee: mike, would you like to -- then i think i'm going to open it up for a question or two, but if you would like to summarize, as it were? michael: i'll just say that, with respect to what omri just said, i, too, have been

disturbed by the way that the administration has presented things. on monday in a way that it completely contradicted on tuesday. and then nobody is troubled by it. but i would also add that this has played out and this has played out from the moment the interim deal was signed in november of 2013. the final agreement that we got was pretty well prefigured in the interim agreement. the interim agreement gave the iranians the right to request right -- course and the request recourse and the right to enrich. time, while the negotiations and agreement was being negotiated, we suck greater and greater coordination between the iranians and the u.s. on the ground in the middle east, to the point where we saw

shiite militias enjoying the air cover of the united states air force. informed, has been and what is surprising to me is the number of people who have seen this clearly and have pretended not to. i can't completely explain why that is. >> we saw some of the statements coming out, especially some of the democratic senators coming out in support of the jcb away, -- jpcpoa. if you look at a lot of people coming out in favor of the deal, it is really like he's enteric writing -- esoteric writing. they're describing why the deal is deeply problematic. some people do actually recognize it, but --

>> the way the administration has helped those people emotionally get over there by its latest talking point, which is that we are going to push back against the iranians after the deal, and the deal was going to help us do that in the region and help us do this pushback. it is the new slogan. on the one hand, we have this picture of the deal that will strengthen iran economically, militarily, and diplomatically, and it will do so immediately. you can see that happening before your eyes with the trade deals and so on, with the russians releasing the 300 antiaircraft missiles, so on and so forth. you can see it happening before your eyes. the administration is saying, yes we are strengthening iran, but we are going to push back against it.

if you believe that, go ahead and support this deal, but it is simply not going to happen. it is not going to make pushback easier. iss pushback talking point something that plays out among a number of things we have discussed him about at the biggest talking point is this idea that the administration consistently says whatever they have to say to get through new facts and testimony until on the ground made it untenable. in september 2013, we were going to enter iran's nuclear program. that was secretary sherman's explicit testimony. my 2014, some of that has changed, but by then we will have a verification regime that will be the world's toughest and have anytime, anywhere inspections. the iranians simply said, no, we continue to give up, until our goal began -- became a one-year

break out. no coming clean by the iranians. the fear among skeptics of this isl and critics of this deal that this administration down on to double sections enforcement. it will take its place alongside the resolution of pmd's, the dismantling of centrifuges. as a promise the administration made to get congress to back out of for long enough to create new facts on the ground. we are already seeing that. at the same time be a ministrations as it will double that on sections enforcement, we leaders -- quds

force leaders under travel bans traveling to russia. fox news quoted literally flight number and the flight times of the plane that was taken to moscow in violation of the international travel ban, and the administration for several days said, "we just don't know." it was a caricature of looking the other way. literally as they were on the hill saying we will double down on sections enforcement in order to provide the emotional buttressing to those who are concerned about iranian expansion. after this, there is nothing left. the reason why they had to make these commitments to congress, the latest being the pushback and to double down argument, is because congress has been in a position to jam up what lawmakers leave is a bad deal. bipartisan majorities in both chambers to believe it

is bad. once that is over, there will not be another commitment of this sort, because the administration will not have to do it. the fear is that there will be insteadntability and of pushing back, we will end up seating syria to russian court nation. >> against the to those issues. -- i can't speak to those issues. i would just caution that there are a lot of positive things in this agreement. sure, the duration is not one of them. based on my experience in europe , our allies were not particularly happy with that. the 20 to 30 year range was the original goal. the 10 years is just not enough. an easy negotiation. it is an agreement that is very long, has lots of moving parts, and decisions were made in the negotiation and i don't think

it was made by obama -- i think was made by competent that would try to win on this or insist on winning on that, they would give on that. it is an imperfect deal, but it is the deal and it is going to have to be omitted. i would argue that there is a need to try to fix these weaknesses rather than draw party lines and continue this battle and definitely. i think israel will be shooting itself in the foot if it does not start contributing very actively to try to strengthen this deal. i think it can be done, i think there is support around the world, i don't know how many of you have read about the procurement. it is a key part of this agreement, both on the verification side and on trying to enforce bans on iran getting arms and missiles.

it still has to be created. there will be important meetings alongside the general assembly -- >> there is another place where their allies -- >> the iaea thing is very important. there is no intention to get iran to confess. it should, but it doesn't seem that -- and my understanding from negotiators, it it is not the supreme leader saying, oh my god, we would never have nuclear weapons, it is who gets blamed for sanctions. the iranian narrative blames the west for all of its suffering on sections. if they said we did have a nuclear weapons program, guess what the iranian dust -- domestic arguments -- domestic audience is going to conclude. that issue cannot be settled until there is some resolution on the sanctions.

>> i'm sorry, what issue? >> that i wrong -- iran could come clean. to do with the thought law. it has everything to do with who gets blamed for sections in iran and . iaeank the idea of the effort is not to get iran to come clean, it is to say, we think this is what has happened. this and that, it didn't get there were couple is that goal. to know the people, -- or accomplish that goal. to know the people and the sides. it could just be that iran had a nuclear weapons program. that may be all that takes place. and theird access credibility is not undermined, that would be, i would argue, the sufficient outcome of this whole issue. again, i think that it is very important to try to find ways to

strengthen this deal and get the on some of -- get beyond this fight. there will be global warfare in the house to undermine the deal. in the 1990's, we supported the deal despite the iaea being thrown under the bus. same arguments -- there will be war, you cannot let the iaea do their job, it will cause soldiers to be a serrated. -- incinerated. we made a deal and reluctantly went along, but congress didn't -- and every time you need a money, it was a nightmare. and lindsey graham has art he said it -- would -- has already said it. we would hold up money for the iaea. if you are trying to kill the bill, it is not -- the deal, it is not a crazy strategy.

debate to shift the how we strengthen this, even though many don't like it. i would argue that -- the discussions in europe were very different. it is really different. you don't have this congress to there is much more of a willingness to look at the pluses and minuses and move on. no one is saying this is a perfect deal, not anyone i have talked to. what they say here i heard is very different than what they may say there. >> michael? >> in the spirit of bipartisan compromise, i will say that i am in favor of giving the iaea to money and needs to do its job. >> did you have anything else? , we think we do have time

started a little late, so let's take one or two questions. that gentleman all the way in the back -- i think we have a microphone circulating, so if you could just wait one moment. student at george washington university. you are discussing the kind of if, then thing for congressional and the trust between congress and the administration, how congress has repeatedly tried to undermine the deal throughout the process and not getting it all the breathing room that is possible. and how that has affected the administrations trust of congress. the two way relationship has become difficult from both sides. i was wondering what your opinion would be on how congress constrict and the deal -- can strengthen the deal going forward. >> thank you.

the theory that this started off as a relationship of trust and the descended into distrust is a difficult one to sustain, if that asause we know now early as january 2014, in the case of this particular meeting, the national security advisor ben rhodes was taking meetings -- withator's validator's to discuss how congress could be iced out of the process. that meeting was to create a front that would circumvent congress. whether or not that was justified -- the secretary kerry said the reason they did not pursue a treaty is because they knew they could not get 3. -- could not get two thirds. i think that at various times, -- less was left

cooperative and at various times more cooperative, but there is been an enormous appetite in congress for the last two years to pass nonnuclear sanctions, which are explicitly permitted under the jcp away. they were told to not mess this up for us. of course you are a lad to do it, but please don't. and congress didn't. republican and democratic did not.s i think congress has provided an enormous amount of breathing room over the better instincts of many of its members. i believe it was senator booker, one of the democratic senators who came out in support of the cpoa, he said i think we haven't made them -- we have made a mistake by not

pursuing more sections. moving forward, congress will have to do -- congress will have -- there will be efforts to kill the deal and strengthen the deal, but one of the things we're going to see as an effort to work with the administration to make good on their pledge to double down on nonnuclear sanctions. if it does turn out that the pledge for nonnuclear sanctions was another one of these commitments that were made just to get of the news cycle, then i think you'll see a record of all -- irreparable harm to the relations. >> let's take one more. this gentleman right here on my left. >> thank you. i am a recently retired state department officer. in the last week or so, one of the new aspects has been that

the agreement allows for some limited continuing research on uranium. but it stops any research on plutonium. whatu really want a bomb, you really want is plutonium. i wonder if you can comment on that spin. >> there was a new york times piece on the iraq reactor. thing, theut a key plutonium separation. the iraq reactor was secondary to enrichment, and part of the main reason is that it was not done. it turned out it was not close to being operational. iran would said that it -- had said that it did not have a plan to separate the plutonium produced in the reactor. this gives iran the ability to make weapons grade uranium that can then use -- be used in a

bomb. when finished, it would give iran the ability to have plutonium and spend fuel. they needed a reprocessing plant. yes, we think iran was working on that years ago, but it stopped. -- the uranium enrichment part is always gotten priority. everyone is happy with the limitations on the iraq reactor, for sure, but the story i think has been -- i think over several find what was happening. -- oversimplified what was happening. keep in mind, i don't know anyone who has made a bomb using uranium oxide. they use metal.

iran is committed not to do that alongch indefinitely, with several other nuclear weapon eyes asian activities. -- nuclear weaponization activities. i don't know who originated, certainly and of the french were big proponents. i think that is an important achievement. it is also another reason why you want parchin to go right. that experiment is related to the development of a nuclear weapons component. it is very small scale hard-to-find and you want the iaea to be able to go places quickly without challenge in order to verify that those kinds of activities are not taking place. in the final agreement, it is going to be the nuclear weapon eyes asian activities that are banned. will have to verify them, and they are difficult to verify. if you cannot get to the military sites, you cannot verify that part of the agreement at all.

>> david, thank you very much. i think that will bring our panel to a close. i want to thank david albright and michael durand. and i want to figure c-span audience and thank you all -- i want to thank our c-span audience and thank you all for showing up this afternoon. announcer: next, a house floor debate on the iran to clear agreement. then, another chance to see a discussion on the accommodation process of the agreement and these ideals with the international atomic energy agency. on newsmakers, ohio congressman jim gordon -- jim jordan. he will discuss land parenthood funding, prospects for a government shutdown, the irs, and the special committee investigating benghazi, and what he expects from secretary clinton's testimony. "newsmakers per goat sunday at 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span.

>> he was a nazi. for theesponsible murder of thousands of jews. announcer: this sunday night on on her lifer teege altering discovery that her grandfather was a nazi concentration camp commandant. >> he was a tremendously cruel .erson, trainedwo dogs that he to tear humans apart. i think that sums it up really good. there was a pleasure that he felt when he killed people.

this is something that when you are normal, if you don't have this aspect in your personality, it is very difficult to grasp. at 8:00r: sunday night eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a. announcer: the republican led house voted to 69-162 to reject the iran nuclear agreement. 25 democrats voted with republicans on the measure. on thursday, democrats were able to block a vote on the iran agreement, guaranteeing that any distillation disapproving would not have to pace -- face a presidential veto. wouldnd measure passed deny the president the ability to waive, suspend, or reduce sections on iran. it's too would have to be approved by the senate. here is the house floor debate on the iran nuclear agreement. empore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. royce: mr. speaker, i rise in support of this legislation which would prohibit the president from waiving iran

sanctions and prevent the implementation of this fatally flawed agreement. last night we spent many hours debating this agreement. we heard from members on both sides of the aisle, members who have deep concerns about where we are headed. mr. speaker, let's be very clear, this isn't just a bad deal. it's a disastrous deal. it's a disaster for the united states. it's a disaster for our allies and friends in the region, including israel. and when you think about it, when we think about the letter that we sent, 84% of us in this house signed the letter asking for four critical things in this negotiation. we got rolled on every one of the four. iran won on every point. iran gets to keep its nuclear infrastructure. the obama administration collapsed on the issue of verification.

we don't have anywhere, any time inspections in here. we have got self-inspections by the iranian regime with respect to parchin, which is the one military site where we know, we know that the iranians, because of 1,000 pages of documents, did most of their bomb work. and they say now, no, no, no. we'll do the inspections. we'll turn that stuff over, but nobody's going into our military sites. that's the argument they are making. and the sunset clause in this means the key parts of this deal expire at the end of the deal. so, we've got prominent sanctions relief for the iranian regime, relief that's going to go into their military in exchange for temporary constraints on iran's nuclear program. and the restrictions on iran's missile program designed to deliver those weapons -- now, this came up in the 11th hour of this negotiation, no one anticipated it being in the

agreement. at the 11th hour the russians came forward and on behalf of the iranians said we want the lifting of the sanctions, international sanctions that the community has on the icbm program and on the arms transfers. with respect to iran. and unbelievably we ended up getting rolled on this as well. as the secretary of defense told congress, the i in icbm stands for intercontinental, meaning flying, from iran to the united states. that is why, that is why we never wanted this lifted. it also provides resources and legitimacy to the iranian revolutionary guard corps. the very same organization that hakilled 500 u.s. troops in iraq. this nuclear deal really needs

to be put in a larger context of the administration's iran policy. it is very dangerous, very risky. i'd say doomed to fail as a policy given the fact that we haven't seen any adjustment out of iran other than a recommittal on the part of the regime in iran where they say we are not going to be bound by any of the ballistic missile constraints. we don't intend to follow that. and by the way, we're advancing new ballistic missiles and targeting and putting that into the hands of hezbollah and into the hands of hamas. that's the messaging we have seen this week out of iran. so i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you. mr. speaker and members, i

strongly oppose h.r. 3460 because it is another attempt to derail diplomacy and set the united states on the path to war. h.r. 3460 suspends until january 21, 2017, meaning through the rest of president obama's term, the authority of the president to waive, suspend, or reduce sanctions pursuant to the iran nuclear agreement. this legislation was introduced less than 48 hours ago, and has absolutely no committee process. while the foreign affairs committee has held 30 hearings since the announcement of the

joint plan of action in november , 2013, this legislation has never even been a topic of committee discussion. so this is not a serious attempt to legislate. put simply, it's a political attack on the president of the attempt to s and an derail a good deal that is in the best interest of the our ation. but iran -- the iran deal represents the cumulative effects of countless diplomats after imposing some of the toughest sanctions in the the ry, the p 35 plus one, u.s. -- the p5+1, the u.s., united kingdom, germany, france, russia, were able to bring iran

to the table and strike a deal that achieves our core strategy objectives. president obama and secretary of state kerry deserve our respect and thanks for this achievement. they kept together a coalition that forced iran to make serious concessions in how they operate their domestic nuclear program. redid not get everything that we wanted, but we achieved a verifiable deal that is our best hope to prevent iran from developing a nuclear weapon. details of the deal are commendable, among other things, iran will reduce its uranium stockpile by 98%, and lower its

enrichment level below weapon levels. this will increase the breakout time or how long it takes to create a weapon to one year. in addition, the international atomic energy agency will oversee testing and inspections and cheating will be severely punished with snapback provisions that reimpose the crippling sanctions that brought iran to the table. unfortunately, it appears that the majority does not understand progress in diplomacy. those who are trying to undermine this historic agreement are motivated by the same naive approach to negotiation that has paralyzed this congress. this time unless they get

everything they want, they will not accept the deal that forestalls war and prevents iran from becoming a nuclear power. it this intransigence may be new in its degree, but it is an old and regretful approach taken by critics of diplomacy. i remember almost 30 years ago when a president late in his second term reached out his hand in peace. attempts to constrain and ultimately reduce the nuclear stockpiles were mocked. i rarely saw eye to eye with that president, but nearly three decades later i'm glad that he stood up when he did. that president was ronald reagan

. when he signed the treaty with mr. gorbachev, he faced the same fury we face today. however, the soviet union was replaced by a growing number of free and independent states and 28 years later the united states is still standing and remains as strong as ever. the lesson in all of this is that diplomacy is rarely clean and it develops in its own time. there are stops and starts. things move forward. sometimes backwards. and even often sideways. but repeatedly we have shown that a step in the direction of peace will be met in kind,

whether a republican or democratic president seeks that piece -- peace, congress has an obligation to support those efforts. i'm proud of our president's efforts to forge a new path with iran. the iran deal prevents iran from developing a bomb, creates new foundation for diplomacy and and stands as a proud tradition of progress. i urge my colleagues to carefully consider and oppose i . 3460, and mr. speaker, reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: mr. speaker, i'd make the point with respect to ronald reagan, when president reagan was presented a bad deal

in his negotiations with the russians, at that point -- at that point he walked away from that deal. he pushed away from the deal because in his mind we could come back and get a better deal if we stood our ground. this was not the circumstance with respect to our negotiations with iran. with iranian negotiations, we had four points that this congress, 8 % of us sent a -- 84% of us sent a letter to the secretary of state. those points was to be anywhere, anytime inspections. it was supposed to last multiple decades. we were not supposed to lift the sanctions upfront but do it over the entirety of the agreement in order to get compliance, to ensure we had compliance. it was to make certain that those 12 questions that the iaea had asked were answered.

these were all important because, again, as reagan ointed out to the russians, he threw their own expression back to them. there is an old russian expression, trust but verify, and that's what we need to apply to the agreement. that's the last point i would make here, the verification component of it. when you have side agreements, which congress has not seen, and those side agreements allow, in the case of parchin, where we have ample evidence of their past bomb work, allow the iranians to do their own inspections. i mean, i always thought it was going to be international inspectors that did the international inspections. not the iranians themselves. and for these reasons i do not think it's anational just. i think we -- analogous. i think we should do what reagan did, no, we need a tter negotiation and we need

to trust but verify. i yield to the gentleman from montana for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. zink: we are talking about billions of dollars into iran. at least 500 troops, which i served with in yirke, died as a result of iran. mr. zinke: iran is not our friend. they are our enemy. at this -- at least this regime. you cannot say that hezbollah or hamas, the surrogates of iran, would not do the same on 9/11 as what occurred today in 2001. let's look at this deal. general dempsey, the chairman

of the joint chiefs of staff said upped no circumstances do we send missile technology to iran and yet for five years we relax sanctions to include missile systems, to include the same missile systems that iran has given to hamas. at least 1,000 of them directly and as many 10,000 into israel from gaza. in eight years we will relax sanctions on icbm's. there is only one purpose for an icbm and that is to strike america. yet, in 10 years -- remember, part of the deal, dismantle for dismantle. dismantle the sanctions. iran was going to dismantle their nuclear facilities, their capabilities and their ambitions. in 10 years the centrifuges that are not dismantled come out, they're upgraded and in 13 years, by experts, iran will have the capability of having at least 100 nuclear-tipped

icbm's. how is that in the best interest of america? how is that in the best interest of our allies in the middle east? how is that in the best interest of america and the world? it is not. the policy of the united states has been to reduce our stockpiles, reduce the countries that hold these incredible, destructive weapons -- ukraine, south africa are examples. lastly -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. royce: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. zinke: lastly, how could anyone vote for a deal in which full disclosure of documents is not delivered? no member of this body has been privy to the secret deal between the international atomic energy agency and iran. no member has read this. and yet the verification is so incredibly critical and yet

we're willing to cede our sovereignty. no americans on it for a verification process that is 24 days that even general hayden says you can only monitor what you can see. this is a bad deal. the argument is take this deal or go to war. i say this deal promotes war. it promotes nuclear proliferation. it's not the best interest of the united states and it puts ourselves, americans, and the world at risk. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you. i yield to the distinguished gentleman from california, mr. huffman, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. huffman: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, i rise in support of the joint comprehensive plan of action because we cannot allow iran to have a nuclear weapon and this is the smartest, most responsible way to prevent that.

nuclear experts, our own military and intelligence communities and all five nations that have negotiated with us, countries that have a direct interest in preventing an iranian bomb, all agree this deal will work. t does it by restricting their enrichment to nonthreatening level and has an unprecedented of inspections, mechanisms that are not built on trust, they are built on distrust and verification. is this deal perfect? no. i would prefer a deal that permanently bans all enrichment. however, experts agree that this deal can and will keep iran's nuclear program in a box for at least the next 15 years. now, opponents think we should blow this deal up, walk away and try for a better deal. with all due respect, i think they're in denial. all of our negotiating partners tell us that's not going to happen. we'd go forward with a much weaker hand, without any,

perhaps, sanctioned partners at all with a huge loss of credibility for abandoning our own deal. blowing this deal up only makes sense if you're prepared to go to war. and i know that across the aisle -- i'm distressed to say -- many think that's a good idea. i'm concerned across the aisle there is a outbreak of dick cheney fever and apple neshia. they want to -- amnesia. they want to take us back to the years where militarism made us less safe. there is a smarter way forward to prevent iran from having a bomb. let's give diplomacy and peace a chance. let's support this agreement. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. george holding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. holding: i thank the chairman. the chairman is one of the most brightest and inciteful foreign policy minds that this congress has ever produced.

i rise in support of the legislation in front of us. mr. speaker, for years our nation, in conjunction with partners across the globe, built up a robust sanctions package against the regime in tehran for their illegal nuclear work, among other illicit actions and activities and these sanctions worked, mr. speaker. iran's economy crumbled which forced them to the negotiating table. only trouble is, mr. speaker, on the other side of that negotiating table was the obama administration, a group so eager to sign a deal that they gave into the iranians at every turn and forgot the true nature and evil of who they were dealing with. to get a deal the administration walked back many of their initial demands, demands that actually might have made this a better deal. mr. speaker, it is all too clear that this deal must be reworked and rejected. now, i certainly believe that there is a role for diplomacy, but diplomacy must come from a source of strength, not

weakness and capitulation, which is why the legislation before us today is so important. the waivers built into our sanctions were not meant to be used by any president to force and reement, pass congress the majority people. we should not be relaxing sanctions and giving iran more money. more money to spread terror, more money to execute civilians, more money to support murderous proxy regimes. mr. speaker, this deal cannot stand, and i urge support of this deal and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield two minutes to the distinguished the gentlelady from california, ms. chu. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for two minutes. ms. chu: i rise today against this measure to restrain president obama from lifting sanctions and to support the iran deal, the most important

step that we could take to secure the future of this planet by stopping iran's nuclear program for 15 years. a nuclear iran is an unacceptable danger. iran's support of terror and aggression throughout the world, its stated threats to israel and the nuclear arms race they would trigger are the reasons the world's major powers came together to put crushing sanctions on iran in the first place. currently iran could produce enough material for a nuclear weapon in two to three months. under this deal, iran must take several unprecedented steps that would prevent them from having a nuclear weapon in 15 years. this deal goes further than any agreement in history by including inspections of iran's entire uranium enrichment supply chain for up to 25 years. additionally, iran will be subject to inspections under the additional protocol forever. it is those crushing economic sanctions that brought iran to the table to finally accept the

nuclear deal. what is critical to remember is that our terrorism sanctions a ll remain in place, and if military strike is necessary, the u.s. will have the time and temmings to intervene but -- intelligence to intervene but without the threat of a nuclear bomb in 15 years. without this deal, sanctions will be lifted anyway and we will be left with nothing but fear, uncertainty and an unfettered iran. considering the anxiety of recent years when the prospect of a military strike on iran felt imminent, this deal is a welcomed alternative, and the risks of rejecting it are too great. for the sake of our -- the security of our allies and our position as a trustworthy global leader, i urge my colleagues to support the deal and reject this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield two minutes

to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. jeff duncan, chairman of the foreign affairs subcommittee on the western hemisphere. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. duncan: thank you, mr. chairman. let me just pause to say that i remember the events of 9/11/01 and i want to thank the first responders and those men and women in uniform and those that protect us every day. mr. speaker, i strongly oppose the nuclear agreement with iran. i strongly oppose giving the president the ability to unilaterally lift sanctions, congressional sanctions. our allies don't trust us and our enemies don't fear us. i think we ought to take iran at its word. here's some quotes. during the negotiations, ayatollah said this, the enemies are talking about the options they have on the table. they should know that the first option on our table is the annihilation of israel.

the ayatollah khomeini said this, the iranian people and leadership with god's help will increase their defensive capacity, capability each day. through the iran deal we're getting ready to give iran $150 billion. they can do a lot of damage with that. they're the largest state sponsor of terrorism. they're responsible for killing people in indonesia, in india and all across the globe. . the ayatollah has said we will not stop supporting our allies. that's hamas, that's hezbollah, and other terrorist groups. they have said their own words, take them at their word, they will continue to support materially and financially the terrorism groups like in yemen. there's nothing we can do to stop it. they have also said that we, western powers, will not have access to secret military sites

or secret nuclear sites. yet we are going to give them 24 days in this agreement? america, i didn't say 24 hours, i said 24 days advance notice. 24 days advance notice before we are going to inspect a site. are you kidding me? we are going to allow them to self-regulate. that means they can go out in the desert and get clean dirt and air and provide that. that's like telling a regular drug user you can bring somebody else's urine and hair sample to a drug test. this is crazy that we are giving iran $150 billion and an opportunity to get a nuclear weapon in 10 years or less. 10 years or less assuming they are going to adhere to every line of the agreement which nobody i talked to believes iran will adhere to the agreement. they will have a nuclear weapon. the immediate concern is $150 billion and lifting sanctions. money given to iran so they can continue to fund terrorism around the globe. people will die as a result of this agreement.

$150 billion can buy a lot of weapons, financial support for terrorist groups, continue attacking our allies and americans anywhere they are in the world. mr. chairman, i strongly oppose that as you can tell by my passion today, it's time for us to really talk in real terms about what this agreement is. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased now to recognize the gentlelady from california, ms. sanchez, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for two minutes. ms. sanchez: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman. they sound like warmongers, don't they? those iranian leaders. so we sit here today humbled at the task before us. we sit here as members of the world's greatest legislative

body debating the future of our country and the future of the world. because iran with a nuclear weapon is a threat to the world. after months of intense review and passion and conversation with the people i represent and with advisors, with my colleagues, after 19 years on the armed services committee, 17 of those on the committee that deals with nuclear proliferation and nonproliferation, chairing that committee for the democrats , i believe that diplomacy first is the best path for the united states and our allies. we stand here to discuss the issues of war and peace. of whether we believe in diplomacy with verification or armed engagement. we sit here and we reflect on all of those that will be affected by our votes.

my family, our family, the soldiers, and countless others. but can we look them directly in the eye and say we did all that we could do? can we tell them we did not give diplomacy a chance? so don't get me wrong. i'm no fan of iran. when some many in this chamber rush to war in iraq, i stood up and said no. and i said, at that time, iran is where we need to keep our focus. we need to ensure that this deal is implemented, and we need to hold those accountable to implement it correctly. and that's our role as members of congress. no deal is perfect. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired.

ms. sanchez: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from california can is recognized. mr. royce: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. meehan. the eaker pro tempore: gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. mr. meehan: i want to thank the chairman for his leadership. mr. speaker, i raise rise in opposition to the iran deal. i believe the inspections regime is weak. i don't think the iranians can be trusted. nor can we reasonably assume that iran will hold up its end of the deal. a broad swath of sanctions is lifted all at once and the deal lists the arms embargo. iran will further destabilize an already dangerous middle east by trafficking more weapons and rockets to its terrorist proxies like hamas and hezbollah. iran's coffers will be flush with cash to fund iranian terror around the world. but iranian terrorism isn't new. iran is the leading state

sponsor of terrorism. its support and influence was there in beirut in 1983, khobar 1998. in 1996, nairobi in on this day, 9/11. it's been there at suicide bombings on buses at shopping malls and pisa shops. it supported hostage takings and assassinations around the world. and to this we are to look to diplomacy? u.s. law allows victims these attacks to sue iran for damages in u.s. courts. over the last 15 years the united states courts have handed down more than 80 judgments against iran with $43 billion in damages. of course not a penny has been paid. i know there's disagreement on this overall issue, but truly we can agree that iran should have to pay out these damages to its victims' families before iran benefits from u.s. sanctions leaf. i have introduced a justice for victims of iran act. it requires the president to

certify that iran has paid all judgments owed to its victims before u.s. sanctions can be lifted. our position is, not one cent. and sanctions relief for iran until it pays up to its victims. not one cent. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield to a distinguished member of the judiciary committee, the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee, four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for four minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman very much. what a weighty responsibility to stand on this floor on september 11. for those of us who were here in this body on that day, there's no more solemn responsibility than the national security of this nation. for that reason i'm gratified to my ranking member for being able to serve with him through those

very difficult times and to be one of the original members of the new homeland security committee. i state on both those -- stayed on both those committees who hold in their hands the constitutional rights but also the national security. so i rise today with a heavy very to speak to this difficult decision. so i start by saying, i stand here as a mother. i will choose to speak to that child in israel and the child in urban and rural america, and the children around the world, and i would ask my colleagues the question, what is our burden and responsibility to those children that if we have an opportunity not for peace but an opportunity to stop a potential nuclear rogue. would we not take that opportunity? or would we find all kinds of obstacles?

i rise in opposition to the underlying bill and i rise today in support of this nonnuclear proliferation agreement. i thank the president and secretary kerry, but i thank more importantly, republicans and democrats and independents. i thank the negotiators. mr. speaker, what we have is the statement and the agreement signed by iran that it will never, never become a nuclear power. this agreement creates an enforceable road map for dismantling iran's nuclear program. before the interim joint agreement in 2013, iran went from operating approximately 164 centrifuges to 10,000. and then they went to 19,000. but this agreement brings them down to 6,000. is that not a standing in the gap against a known actor of terrorism? and then of course we have them

at 300 k.g. enriched uranium and they are only allowed to ebb rich 3.67. we have a road -- enrich 3.67. we have a road map for the various entities that contributed to their ability to make a nuclear bomb. make no mistake about it. you cannot take away knowledge. even if you bomb iran through war, you cannot take away knowledge. they will ultimately have the ability to come back again. now we have an agreement with the p5+1. this is not munich. for munich was a capitulation. no one in this agreement is capitulating to iran. we are demanding that iran cease and desist. tell the american people the truth. this is the best pathway to ensuring that the scientists and all. and for those who say that it is a reckless regime or scheme, rather, of inspection, they are wrong. because the only 24-day process deals with the undeclared.

and even that has an ultimatum that the sanctions will snap back. but the iaea inspectors trained by the united states, the united states will be present on site at the iaea, and many members travel there and got a direct briefing of the intenseness of their inspection process. america will be on site when they come back with their inspection materials, and we will be at the table. we'll also be engaged in the redesign of some of those facilities in iran for more civilian uses. i ask you, mr. speaker, that if we have the opportunity to take away -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. jackson lee: if we have the opportunity -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. jackson lee: to save a child from a speeding train, would we not take that opportunity to -- you the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. jackson lee: i think we would.

we need to save the children. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is no longer in recognition. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i'm pleased to yield one minute to our majority leader, mr. mccarthy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to take a moment and thank the chairman. for his work that was done to the american public that they have been able to see directly through what this iran agreement's about. interesting thing is happening on this floor as i sit around and listen. i'm hearing republicans and democrats on the same side. those that are opposed to it are bipartisan. those that support this all come from one place. when i came to congress the one thing you were always told is, find a committee and stick with that committee because what

happens is you get expertise. you care about banking you go to financial services, you get expertise year over year. taxes, ways and means. comes to foreign affairs, you get the expertise of something like this. you know what? i have listened to those who sit on those committees. and i look to the chairmen and the ranking member on the democratic side. you know what i heard from both of them? they are in the same position. they are opposed to this agreement. they took their years of expertise, they read through it, they did the hearings, and they came to the same conclusion. so i wonder, could that happen on the other side of this building inside the senate, because they have committees as well? the same bipartisan conclusion ame. it just didn't even come from the committees.

the next democratic leader in the senate, the number two is opposed to the iran agreement. the american public always asks us for bipartisanship. this has brought us together. but it's not just in this house. it's almost in the majority of houses across america. you see, in the latest poll, only 21% of the american people actually approve of the deal. 49% oppose. more than two to one. only 2% of americans are confident that iran will abide by the agreement. why? because they never have before. iran has a history of not living p to their promises. it's clear today that what the

president said he did not achieve. r. speaker, just in april it president obama said he will, and i quote, do what is necessary to prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. he said he would implement this deal, and i quote, to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. he did the opposite. in 13 years iran can have a nuclear weapon, not just because iran wants it, but america will say, then, it's ok. 13 years is not that far away. but that's not all iran gets in this deal. while we had sanctions on iran, the only reason they wanted to

come to the table, what did they do with their money, even though it was scars, but they didn't have much? it funded terrorism around the world. well, what does this deal do? it gives them as much or maybe even more than the bailout that greece got. so what will iran become? they will become the central bank for terror in the world. that's what we're voting on today. if you want to know the truth about the deal, you go even further because there are side secret agreements we do not know. so on this side of the aisle we think we should keep with the law. we think when 400 people on this floor voted for the corker-cardin bill that said you had to have all agreements. we felt when there was 98 senators and only one opposed that you'd want to hold to the same agreement.

why would anybody want to vote on something without having all the facts? especially after you read the do ts that maybe iran can self-inspection. well, if that's the case, why don't we wring to the floor and change the olympic committee and those athletes should be able to test them 70's -- themselves? i look for the education committee, maybe students should grade themselves. maybe that's facetious, but this is probably the most important bill you will vote on . your term in congress don't fall to political pressure because you don't need to. the bipartisanship, the majority of americans stands opposed. the expertise in this house hat you respect, regardless of what party you're in, because

you elected them to head those committees, are opposed. if that's not enough, study history. history always repeats itself. have we not learned peace without freedom is meaningless? the president said he would not agree to any bad deal. well, i believe we can have a better deal. you know, history has shown chamberlain just wanted peace. history has shown at other times in america where presidents have stood up and stepped back and got a better agreement. ronald reagan wanted to end the nuclear weapons when it came to the soviet union. in the end of ronald reagan's second term he sat in iceland with gorbachev. he sat down across the table and he got almost everything he had asked for, but gorbachev

asked for one more item. he asked that america would end their f.d. investment. ronald reagan had a choice. ronald reagan said no, but he said, i'll do something even better. i'll provide you the technology as well so everyone in the world could be safe. gosh shaff said no -- gorbachev said no. so that's a defining moment, not for that man but for this world, and ronald reagan got up and walked away. some people criticized on political basis, but i ask you this -- would the soviet union have collapsed with the berlin -- or the berlin wall collapsed at the time it did had reagan kept his firm and word for a better deal? peace without freedom is

meaningless. this deal does not bring greater freedom to the world. it brings a nuclear missile race. this is not just about america, iran or a few other countries. no country in the middle east will sit back after this action . the world will not be safer. we will not be freer, but there's still an opportunity. history has shown if we're willing to stand up, take a step back and get a better agreement, we can have peace and freedom. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, how much time remains on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan has 13 minutes. the gentleman from california minutes.

the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you. i'm pleased now to recognize the distinguished gentleman from illinois, mr. gutierrez, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. gutierrez: mr. speaker, i'm -- i have a proud record, a record as strong as any member in congress in supporting israel and it's because of this support that i backed the deal that the president and our allies have negotiated. if i thought that this agreement made the state of israel more vulnerable, i would not support it. but that's just not the case. every security expert i trust, like colin powell, supports this deal, and almost every former government official i deeply distrust, like vice president dick cheney, opposes the agreement. this is one of the most detailed international agreements of its kind in memory, and it was no small task of american diplomacy, statesmanship and good old-fashioned negotiating that brought the deal to reality. the power and position of the united states as a world leader brought our allies to the table. it achieved an outcome our country working alone could not

have achieved. it is not something that europeans, the russians, the chinese or even the united nations could have achieved. it is not something sanctions alone could achieve, and not something that war alone could achieve. the united states working with our friends and in some cases our rivals brought about this end to iran's nuclear weapons program with an agreement for verifiable, enforceable, effective curbs on iran's nuclear ambitions and it is in iran's interest to abide by this agreement. with this one step forward, the u.s. has helped erase our record of international shortsightedness. it gets us back on track as a leader who leverages our economic power, our military power, our powers to persuade and compromise and bring people together. there are not many times in a person's congressional career, in the course of history, for that matter, when a person can cast a vote literally for war or peace. voting to support the iran agreement is a vote to give peace a chance.

stand up for men and women in uniform and their families and our nations by avoiding war. let us support a deal that is good for israel, good for america, good for peace and good for the world. mr. speaker, i'd like now to ask unanimous consent, representative yarmuth and i wrote an op-ed peace for "the hill" newspaper saying that iran deal is a good deal for america and a good deal for the world. i ask that be entered in the world. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from indiana, mr. todd young. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. young: i thank the chairman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise to join the bipartisan opposition to the president's nuclear deal with iran. i didn't arrive at this decision lightly. as a former marine corps intelligence officer, i know

the difficulty of detecting covert military activity, and i fully expect iran to cheat. for years president obama has said no deal would be better than a bad deal. now as the sun sets on his final term, he's jammed congress with an agreement riddled with dangerous concessions. no matter the verification arrangements, this deal does not block iran's pathway to a nuclear weapon. this much we know. rewarding the largest sponsor of international terrorism with billions of dollars and long-range missiles requires americans to compromise our nation's security. it's too high of price and one this marine's unwilling to pay. so as sure iran will continue chanting "death to america, "death to israel," i will oppose this agreement and i will resolve to work in a

nonpartisan basis to proserve peace by projecting -- preserve peace by projecting strength. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. speaker, i'm pleased now to recognize the distinguished gentleman from california, mr. thompson, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. thompson: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, a nuclear armed iran is certainly unacceptable. and there are two ways to prevent iran from developing a nuclear weapon -- diplomacy and military force. as someone who served in combat, i believe our nation's first choice should always be diplomacy. i say first choice because nothing in this deal takes military action off the table. but before we go down that road, we need to give diplomacy a shot, and this deal is the best way forward.

i'm not new to the issue. i just finished serving eight years on the intelligence committee. i reviewed the intelligence, i've read the classified documents and i've had numerous briefings with experts from every side of this issue. there is no other deal to be had. it's this or it's the status quo, and make no mistake, the status quo leaves iran just a short time away from a bomb. all of the intelligence clearly points towards the fact that this agreement is far better than doing nothing, better than the status quo. iran is already a nuclear threshold state. if we reject this deal, iran will keep getting closer and closer towards the development of their nuclear weapon. if we accept the deal, we will be able to halt iran's activities. the iaea will have enormous access to conduct inspections, and iran must forever honor the conditions of the

nonproliferation treaty or face the consequences. this deal isn't about trust. i don't trust iran, and i don't like their leadership, but as has been pointed out, you don't negotiate peace agreements with those you know, like and trust. this deal is about verification. it's about making iran prove it's not developing a nuclear weapon. it's about keeping america and our allies safe. it's our best and only peaceful path forward. i urge the house to approve the iran nuclear deal, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. adam kinzinger. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. kinzinger: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. speaker. first question is, has iran earned the right to be trusted? now, if the answer to that is yes, then i'd ask how. tell me how iran has earned this right to be trusted?

if the answer is no, then obviously you would have to verify if you trust. if you don't trust. but if you actually look at the verification in this deal, in many cases we're finding out from these secret agreements, it's actually iran varyfying for themselves that in fact they are going to be nuclear-free. you know, i'm a veteran of yirke iraq, and one of the things largely forgotten in this debate is that iraq is responsible for the deaths for the hundreds, if not thousands of american soldiers both directly and indirectly through the explosive foreign penetrators they send to iraq to kill american troops. you know, the other thing is iran in this deal -- there's all this talk about iran cheating. we know it's in the d.n.a. of iran to cheat anyway, but they don't even need to cheat. they can follow this deal to the t and become a zero-time breakout nuclear state. you don't even need to have nuclear weapons to have the same kind of power if you're a zero-time breakout nuclear state.

you just need to have the threat to marry a nuclear weapon to an intercontinental ballistic missile, which by the way we give iran the right to have in year eight. icbm's married up to a nuclear-tipped weapon. and iran can take weapons from russia, europe, frankly the united states if we wanted to sell it to them, because we lifted the arms embargo against them. south korea, the united arab emirates asked us to enrich uranium, friends of the united states and we told them know because of our dedication to keeping nuclear weapons out of the wrong hands. so we denied our best friends the right to enrich uranium and we're getting ready to give it to our worst enemy. this deal will in effect end the nuclear nonproliferation treaty for the world because we can never deny anybody the right to enrich uranium in the future. with that i urge the rejection of this deal, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california

reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. . mr. conyers: i'm pleased to recognize the gentleman from washington, mr. mcdermott, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for two minutes. -- mcdermott: mr. speaker the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for three minutes. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, by now i should be used to the wild and spurious charges my republican colleagues will level at the administration when they know they are about to lose a big battle. this is an extremely well conceived arms agreement that does exactly what needs to be done when it comes to preventing iran from getting a nuclear weapon. if it's enforced. that is not -- there is not an argument or an objection against it that has not been debunked by actual regional and nuclear

experts, on both sides of the aisle. not yet a single republican in the entire united states congress is willing to consider the deal's exceptional merits. not a single one. now, that's politics. that's not policy. instead we spent two days watching the republicans trip over themselves on how best to unanimously disapprove of this deal. if we disapprove, where does it lead? you heard either to war or -- let's go get another deal. that's not going to happen. everyone told us that's not going to happen. it's the same neocons that led us into 15 years of war in the middle east now want us to leave the thing open with iran. don't settle it. we have seen secondary -- secretary kerry and secretary moniz go toe to toe with the iranians for months during the

through the night meetings and countless strained arguments, our diplomats ultimately delivered the most far-reaching, far-reaching nuclear agreement in history. there's nothing that compares with what we have here. that's real leadership. of course we have seen this shameful campaigns of misinformation and vitriol before. obamacare, if you were to play the obamacare arguments, they are the same ones you are hearing today. fear, fear, folks. you're going to lose your doctor. lose everything. and yet we now have it in place and 20 million people have more health care. now, we are seeing it again. a republican, teddy roosevelt, said it best. credit goes to the man who is actually in the arena whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood and who survives valiantly

who at best knows in the end triumph of high achievement and at the worst if he fails at least fails while daring greatly so his place shall not be with these cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat. the president has gone out of the line. he's listened to this stuff for two years and came back with an agreement which is -- you got experts in israel. you got experts around the world saying that this is a good deal. now, imagine we were making this agreement 70 years ago with the japanese. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. mcdermott: we would have the same argument. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. mcdermott: vote against this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. yielding myself such

time as i might -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. royce: i yield myself two minutes. i want to underscore the point the gentleman from illinois made a few minutes ago. this deal effectively shreds the bipartisan nonproliferation treaty. . bipartisan accomplishment an accomplishment that has served to curtail proliferation for 50 years now. as a consequence of this action, for the first time, we are going to make an exception for iran, an exception that everyone else is going to demand. and we are going to see an arms race if this deal goes through. not just in the middle east but threaten s going to the wider world as well. i yield one minute to the gentleman from missouri -- the

gentlelady from missouri, mrs. hartzler. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from missouri is recognized for one minute. mrs. hartzler: i rise today to voice my strong opposition to the president's nuclear agreement with iran. it is not good for america or her allies. the administration would have us believe that the only alternative to this deal is war. those of us saying this is a bad deal are not advocating for war. we are advocating for a better deal. one that effectively prevents iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon now, 15 years from nourks and into the future. instead of preventing a nuclear weapon capable iran, this deal allows iran to keep its nuclear infrastructure, gives iran billions of dollars in sanctions relief to promote terrorism and throughout the region, does not allow for any time, anywhere inspections, lifts the arms embargo, allows iran to aguirre intercontinental

ballistic missiles, and does nothing, nothing to free the four american hostages being held by iran. quite simply, this is a bad deal that aims to solidify a legacy rather than prevent a nuclear weapon capable state sponsor of terrorism. i urge my colleagues to reject this deal. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased now to recognize the gentleman from minnesota, mr. nolan, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for two minutes. mr. nolan: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you members of the house. first of all i want to compliment all my colleagues for all the time that everyone has spent going through the classified, the documents, listening to the hearings, to the ambassadors from all the other nations, listening to people on every side of this issue. the decision we have to make right here now today is what does this decision ultimately --

what are the consequences ultimately of this decision? and the fact is we have learned that iran is only several weeks away from the possibility of developing a nuclear weapon. those are the hard cold facts we have been told. they haven't because of the sanctions and the restriction that is are in place. they have enough fissile material to make eight to 10, maybe as many as 12 nuclear weapons. so what does this deal do? it makes them give up 98% of that fissile material. they won't have enough to build one bomb if this agreement is fully implemented. it makes them get rid of 2/3 of the centrifuges. they will not be able to develop one bomb if this deal is implemented. if this deal is implemented, we retain the support of the international community, all of whom are committed to seeing to it that iran does not have a nuclear weapon. and for those who prefer a military option, it is not taken off the table. we need to remind ourselves that

until all of these conditions are met, none of the sanctions are lifted. and they can be snapped back in a minute. we've got 24 hours, seven day a week, camera inspection. we have unprecedented inspection. if they violate this agreement, we'll know about it. we can snap back the sanctions, and for those who want a military option, that is still on the table. this agreement gives peace a chance. this agreement gives diplomacy a chance. it's something that we can ill afford. the opposite may very well be, may very well be something that forces us into another war in the middle east costing us trillions in treasuries. costing us blood and creating the prospects of a conflageration that is unimaginable and unacceptable. we must give diplomacy a chance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from california is

recognized. mr. royce: i yield one minute to the gentleman from arkansas, mr. steve womack. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for one minute. mr. womack: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the chairman for his leadership. on this issue. mr. speaker, over the last few days our nation has heard from its elected representatives on the joint comprehensive plan of action, affectionately known as the iran nuclear deal. i stand here today to add my name to the list of members who recognize what a terrible deal this is and the grave danger a yes vote creates for humanity. it's been said by most that this will be one of the most important votes a member will cast in his or her term in congress. i agree. it's been said by many it paves the way for a nuclear armed iran. i agree. it's been said by many that lifting of sanctions will further destabilize an already troubled region. i agree. and it's indisputable, mr. speaker, as most have admitted, that iran is the largest state sponsor of terror.

i could go on and on. self-inspections, biffles, retention of centrifuges, side deals. mr. speaker, this is not just a bad deal. it's unconscionable that we would consider anything that leaves a path for iran to possess a weapon as this agreement does. a yes vote, mr. speaker, will be on the wrong side of history. i urge my colleagues to stand with the american people. defeat the resolution. and stop -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. r. conyers: mr. speaker, i recognize -- yield two minutes to mr. pascrell of new jersey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. speaker, with all the rhetoric invoked around this agreement, i am reminded of

what president ronald reagan since his name was used just a few moments ago by the leader, when he told soviet leader gorbachev in november of 1985 when they discussed the nuclear arms reduction. go back to history. and not have selective history. president reagan said this, i bet the hardliners in both of our countries, as he spoke to mckale, are leading when we shake hands. if that doesn't resonate, what will? and when the united states ruck an agreement with the soviet union, two years later to reduce the size of our nation's nuclear arsenals, president reagan received much criticism, including as conservative columnist george will put it,

for accelerating -- listen to this. the moral disarmament of the west by elevating wishful thinking to the status of political philosophy, unquote. almost 30 years later we see president reagan's actions were not a capitulation to an entrenched enemy, but instead of underpinnings of a larger strategy that reduced the nuclear threat. look, this agreement should not be judged on its ability to curb iran's hateful rhetoric or role in destabilizing the middle east because that was never the goal of the agreement. no agreement can be perfect. but i am not convinced that a, quote-unquote, better deal which exists only in the abstract at this point, will materialize if

congress were to reject the one before us. rejecting this agreement, mr. speaker, would require the world's largest economies who are party to this multilateral agreement to follow our lead and reimpose sanctions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. pascrell: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield one minute to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. ryan costello. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. costello: mr. speaker, this is a bad deal. even many of those who have found a way to justify voting for this deal can see it's a bad deal. this deal enables iran more money to fund terror, accumulate more power, and it will lead to a nuclear arms race in the middle east and those points around disputable. this deal authorizes iran so much control over the inspection process that it is not possible to say that this deal provides the level of verification that even the administration demanded up until a few months ago. why do i say that? because we can't even see what

the inspection procedures are. other than that iran gets to inspect itself. there's not accountability to iran in this deal. mr. speaker, i am perplexed how one can vote for this deal without knowing what the actual inspection and verification procedures are. we are sacrificing our strength and leverage to the unknown. what is known is that the statements coming out of tehran over the past week reinforce they cannot be trusted, that they will play games, and this their motives are evil and that their terror -- terrorist activities will continue. vote no to this deal. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. i yield one minute to the gentleman from michigan, representative tim walberg. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. mr. walberg: mr. speaker, i thank the chairman and the

ranking member in a bipartisan way for doing the work necessary to inform the american people as well as our body of the concerns here today. so i rise today in strong and bipartisan opposition to the president's dangerous deal with iran. . this gives iran ultimately everything they can, paving a way to build a nuclear build and destabilize the middle east. it gives them billions in sanctions relief that will be used to finance terrorism. it gives iran 24 tace to cover its tracks before inspectors are allowed in. it even includes secret side deals that president, congress and the american people have not seen. meanwhile, four americans tragically languish in iranian prisons, including one michiganian. mr. speaker, in moments like this, party politics must take a backseat to the safety of the american people. i urge my colleagues to stand with our ally, israel, stand for security, stand for peace, stand for america.

don't reward iran for spreading terrorism, abusing human rights and holding americans hostage. we ject this deal and let's de-- reject this deal and let's demand the right one. i yield become. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: we reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield one minute to the gentleman from indiana, mr. todd rokita. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for one minute. mr. rokita: i thank the chairman. mr. speaker, constituent, deborah, visited me the other day and owns a restaurant in indiana and she was perplexed about this agreement. one of the things she mentioned, in her restaurant, osha, the e.p.a. and anyone else from the federal government can come and inspect her at any time with no notice. such is the case with this upside down administration. our own americans can be

inspected at any time, yet, when it comes to the world's biggest sponsor of terrorism, we can't inspect them at all. we have to go through a third party and wait at least 24 days. common sense turned upside down. except in this case, mr. speaker, it's with grave danger to americans and grave danger to our friend, israel. now, the president says it's either this deal or war, and in fact there is no other deal, and i think that's false. in fact, i believe this deal in all likelihood bring war. and why do i think that? we're putting $150 billion back in the hands of iranians, and i want to know who here thinks they're going to build holts, who they'll use that $150 billion to help -- hospitals, who will use that $150 billion to help iranians? please reject this deal. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized.

mr. conyers: we reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. royce: i yield one minute to the gentleman from maine, mr. poliquin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maine is recognized for one minute. mr. poliquin: thank you, mr. speaker. the iranian government has american blood on its hands. it vows to kill as many more u.s. citizens as it can. it's committed to destroying israel and it funds, trains and arms terrorists throughout the middle east. this nuclear deal with iran does not dismantle their program. it rewards iran with $100 billion in cash in frozen assets, and there are no anytime anywhere inspections. in five years, iran can develop or buy conventional weapons, and in eight years it can buy or develop an intercontinental ballistic missile. now, some members here in the house and in the senate hope hat these radical mullahs will

abandon their request to become a military power. i submit to you, mr. chairman, mr. speaker, that hope is not a national security strategy, especially against those who wish to kill us. mr. chairman, the best way to protect our homeland and to keep us safe is to reject this deal. i encourage everybody. thank you, mr. chair. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, we're prepared to close on this side. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: and i'll reserve the right to close then. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker and my colleagues, just over half century ago john f. kennedy in an era of difficult engagements with the soviets said, let us

never negotiate out of fear but et us never fear to negotiate. president obama's diplomacy with iran is grounded in strength and realism, but it's animated by something all too rare in foreign relations, hope. this is a strong deal that represents our best hope for less -- lasting security and peace. as a veteran, i stand with our president and support this deal. thank you. i yield back 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 myself the remainder of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. royce: thank you, mr. speaker. president reagan walked away from a bad deal in iceland.

he walked away and then he applied pressure and as the consequence of that pressure he then got a good deal. in the case of this administration, they did not walk away from a bad deal during the interim agreement. as a matter of fact, this administration rejected the stronger pressure that this house passed with a vote of 400-20 and held that back up -- that bill up in the senate during its negotiations in the prior congress and did not give us the leverage we needed for a good deal but that is still available to us. and frankly we all have experience with north korea. we remember what happened, but iran won't have to cheat like north korea did to get close to a bomb. and that's because the essential restrictions on iran's key bomb making technology expire. they sunset in 10 to 15 years.

and after these restrictions expire, iran will be left with an internationally recognized industrial scale nuclear program and that is what the president concedes. as the president said of his own agreement in year 13, 14, 15, iran's breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero. a former state department official testified to the foreign affairs committee that this sunset clause is a disaster. it will ep able the leading state -- enable the leading state sponsor of terrorism to produce enough material for dozens of nuclear weapons, all under the terms of the agreement. as another expert witness pointed out, the bet that the administration is taking is that in 10 tore 15 years we will have a kinder, gentler iran, but we're not going to have a kinder, gentler iran because we are releasing to an $100 billion in immediate

sanctions relief. that's the down payment. s iran is guaranteed in this a reconnection to the global economy. now, the point i want to make to the members here, that does not go to the average iranian. it is the quds forces. it is the irgc. it is the clerics that took over the major corporations in iran, and they are the ones that are going to receive that $100 billion, and we already know the impact of that. it is going to solidify the supreme leader's grip on power. that's why he did the deal, to keep his revolution intact. we had the bottom falling out of the price of oil. we had hyperinflation in iran. we had -- we were in the position had we exerted the additional pressure to force a real choice between economic

collapse and actual compromise on this program rather than what we got. but by removing economic sanctions, the president is withdrawing one of our most successful peaceful tools in confronting the regime and as a result 200 retired generals and admirals concluded this agreement will enable iran to become far more dangerous. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan, is recognized. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i will yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i think this is a terrible deal. this administration has made a

lot of mistakes when it comes to foreign policy. this has got to be the worst one because this deal will not stop iran from getting a bomb. this deal will all but guarantee it. we went into these negotiations saying that iran had to eliminate its nuclear program, all of it, full stop. now they're saying that was unrealistic. too unreasonable. too high in the sky. and we're handing over hundreds of billions of dollars in sanctions relief. so iran gets billions of dollars in exchange for what, for taking up some, not all, just some of its nuclear program? and then in 10 or 15 years, all of these limits expire. in other words, they're getting something for essentially nothing. it's a steal, and that's if

they don't cheat. now, the administration says that this deal will bring about unprecedented transparency. we'll get regular access, they say. we'll see what iran's up to, they say. but if the inspectors think something's up, iran has 24 days to cover its tracks, and in some cases iran's own inspectors will get to collect the evidence. finally, against all of the advice from our military, we are going to let iran buy ballistic missiles in just eight years. mr. speaker, you only buy ballistic missiles if you're looking to build a bomb. i get why russia and china like this idea. they get another big customer. but i don't for the life of me understand why we would ever agree to this. mr. speaker, the president -- the president's taking a huge gamble here.

he thinks if we make nice with the iranian regime they'll change their ways, bring them into the global economy and they'll become more like us. now, i think the iranian people, they want democracy. they want freedom. but we are not talking about the iranian people here. we are talking about an extremist regime that is unaccountable to their own people. this is a regime that chants "death to america." this is a regime that funds terrorism all around the world. has is a regime that called for wiping israel off the map. i'm all for diplomacy, but i am not for rewarding a rogue regime. i'd also point out that the sanctions we are lifting will let european and asian companies build up iran's economy and they will make the

regime even stronger. and should iran start to cheat, which they have a pretty darn good track record of doing so, it will be that much harder to put back in place the sanctions. our trading partners, they'll feel the pinch and they won't want to hold this regime accountable. so i want to stress how firmly i oppose this deal. i know the president may have already lined up enough support to save his deal, but with this vote, with this vote we need to send a message to both iran and to the world the regime, the regime may have bamboozled this administration, but the american people know this is a rotten deal, and i fear that because of this deal the middle east and the world at large will only become a much, much more dangerous place. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the