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 gentleman reserves.

the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: before i yield myself such time as i shall consume, i'd like to yield 30 seconds to the ranking member of the budget committee, mr. van hollen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for 30 second. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank my friend, mr. levin. this agreement represents the best path to achieving our goal of preventing iran from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon, and it advances the national security interests of the united states and our allies, including israel. i ask that the remainder of my remarks be placed in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: thank you, mr. speaker. for far too long we faced the nightmare of iran with nuclear bombs. impacted by heavy sanctions, iran finally agreed to negotiate, led by the united states and five other nations. after agreeing on a framework,

which iran complied with, the parties completed the much-detailed joint comprehensive plan of action. when i issued my statement of support for jcpoa six weeks ago, its fate was uncertain. what decisively turned the tide was the impassioned leadership of the president with secretaries kerry and moniz, combined with a momentus outpouring of support outside the political realm from a vast array of scientific experts, experienced diplomats, key figures from all religious faiths, a wide variety of military leaders and informed expressions from major former governmental figures of the highest integrity, including colin powell.

. it also became increasingly clear that there was no other workable alternative. this point was reinforced by the joint statement yesterday from prime minister -- british prime minister cameron, french president holland, and chairman chancellor merkel. they said among other points, and i quote, this is not an agreement based on trust or any assumption about how iran may look in 10 or 15 years. it's based on detailed tightly written controls that are verifiable and long lasting. iran will have strong incentives not to cheat. the near certainty of getting caught and the consequences that

would follow would make this a losing proposition. it is now absolutely clear that the jcpoa will go into effect. requiring the initial set of detailed obligations that iran must fulfill. .t is therefore time to go on this institution, which has been a major center of attacks on the jcpoa, would hopefully have those who opposed now join with those who support the agreement and work together to rekindle the kind of overall bipartisanship that senator van denburg of michigan urged should apply to key foreign policy issues as they approached the water's edge. surely this kind of rekindled bipartisanship needs to be

undertaken in particular to take steps to deepen support for israel's security. to fight and defeat terrorism. and to rekindle efforts for viable peace negotiations. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on h.r. 3461, which is a vote of approval for the comprehensive agreement that would prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon. i urge my colleagues to vote no on h.r. 3460, which would suspend the president's authority to waive sanctions and in effect prevent him from implementing the comprehensive agreement. i close, it is indeed time to move on and to take next steps. tolure to do so with instead

perpetuate partisanship will, i strongly believe, be counterproductive for any who try it and for our entire nation. we can and we must do much better. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is ecognized. mr. ryan: you mean wisconsin? the speaker pro tempore: wisconsin. mr. ryan: please, please, don't say california. mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield 1 1/2 minutes to a member of the ways and means committee, the distinguished lady from kansas, ms. jenkins. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from kansas is recognized for a minute and a half. ms. jenkins: i thank the gentleman for yielding. sanctions are about more than nuclear weapons. they are about the principles and values america holds dear. iran continues to hold american prisoners hostage. sponsors terrorism around the

world. and american soldiers have died because of the terrorist actions of iran. iran st this week the supreme leader said, israel will be destroyed within 25 years. now, every lawmaker must ask, are we willing to put $150 billion into the hands of an iranian regime who chants death to america and wants to eliminate israel from the earth? we must ask, are we willing to risk american lives on the promises of a leader who believes those same american lives are worth nothing? i refuse to sit idly by while this administration leaves the safety, stability, and security of everyone, everywhere at the whim of iran whose neighbors fear them and allies consist of the assad regime and hezbollah.

this agreement with iran would threaten all that we hold dear. i encourage my colleagues to join the bipartisan opposition against the iran deal and instead support the security of america above the dangerous desires of iran. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back of the the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: it's now my pleasure to yield four minutes to mr. rangel, to put it mildly, a senior member of our committee. mr. rangel: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from new york is recognized for four minutes. mr. rangel: my fellow members, this is an historic occasion for the house and very emotional time for me because unfortunately i have known -- i have known the horrors of war and i speak for all of those that had this horrendous

experience to say that we should always give diplomacy a chance before we put any american in harm's way. i don't think any of us with any degree of certainty have any idea whether this agreement is going to hold. or we can contain the criminal and human ambitions of the leadership in iran. what we do know is that the international powers p, not just f china, not just of russia -- powers, not just of china, not just of russia, but the united kingdom, france, germany, and thinking the united states of america truly believe that this is the best possible way to avoid war.

it would seem to me that now is in the time for us to engage exchanges that separate and bring us apart as a nation. the rules of the house and the senate make it abundantly clear that whether you like it or not this is going to become the policy of the united states of america. this will not be the policy of president obama, of democrats or republicans, but the policy of our great nation. it pains me as i'm about to leave service in this august body that we have people in this hamber that have such hatred and disdain for the leadership

of this country that they would put this feeling above what is the best policy for the security of this great beloved nation of mine. i know that if the president of the united states was able to walk on water, there would be people in this chamber that would say, see, we told you that he couldn't swim. -- i what i am saying if don't think i can do that because you said that china and russia supporting this because they want to sell arms to iran. nd i think that was despicable because that includes united kingdom, that includes france, that includes germany, that

includes people that are talking about this is the best way that we are able to do this. so what i am saying is this. 14 years ago a terrible thing happened to my country, to my ity, when terrorists struck on 9/11, and now we have the opportunity to bring our country together the way we did then. 14 years ago there were no republicans, there were no democrats, there were americans that would say we have to come together. we are not going to change this agreement. this is the policy of the united states of america or soon will be. should we not be saying, what is the enforcement, what are we going to do, what happens if they violate it? are we here to embarrass presidents, republicans or democrats, or are we here to preserve -- the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. rangel: thank you, mr. chairman. or are we here to preserve the dignity and the integrity of the united states of america no matter who is the president? if ever there was a time for us to come together and support the policy, the time is now. thank you so much for giving me this opportunity. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves. mr. ryan: i give myself 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, the oldest trick in the book, if you cannot win a debate on the merits is to impugn the other person's motives. people who are opposing this agreement, whether they be republicans or many of the democrats who are opposing this agreement are opposing this agreement because it's a terrible agreement and there is no other reason. with that i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlelady from tennessee, a member of the ways

and means committee, mrs. black. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will remind all persons in the gallery that they are here as guests of the house and that any manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is a violation of the house rules. the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. black: thank you, mr. speaker. this nuclear deal isn't much of a deal at all. it's a gift to the iranian regime. we're sorry we gave them permanent sanction relief to the tune of $150 billion in exchange for temporary enrichment restrictions. mr. speaker, the ayatollah calls the united states a great satan. just this week he said that israel will not exist in 25 years. imagine that evil that this regime can carry out when they cash in their billions. under this agreement iran will undoubtedly become the central bank of fear. what's more, with this deal we shrunked off the opportunity for time anywhere inspections.

instead we gave iran and opportunity in many ways for investigations of their nuclear sites and conceal the signs of compliance. even worse, under the secret side deals, that was not transmitted here to congress, we learned that iran will be allowed to self-inspect a key military base. so to be clear, members of this body who vote for this agreement will be voting for a deal that they have not seen in full. mr. speaker, i'm not prepared to tell tennesseans that i represent that the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism without knowing every last deal. we cannot and should not leave anything to chance when it comes to the security of the america and our allies. i will be casting my vote on behalf of the tennessee's sixth district against this dangerous deal. i urge my colleagues to do the same. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i now yield 2 1/2 minutes to another so valuable

member of our committee, mr. lewis from georgia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. lewis: i thank my friend, the ranking member, for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in support of diplomacy, a pathway to peace. for many months i thought long and hard about this decision. attended briefings, red documents, and met with citizens of my district. i even had a long executive session with my staff. i reflected on the words that dr. martin luther king jr. to call upon us to rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter but beautiful struggle for the world. the way of peace is one of those principles as thought and reflection, i believe that this is a good deal. no, it may not be perfect, but do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

i remember standing on this very floor seven years ago and speaking against a war in iraq. i said again and i will say gain today, war is bloody. it destroyed the hopes, aspirations, and the dreams of a people. the american people and the people around the world are sick and tired of war and violence. we do not need more bombs, missiles and guns. when you turn on the news, when you read the newspaper you see a mass dislocation. too many people suffering and many are desperate for a chance at peace. i believe in my heart of hearts that this may be the most important vote that we cast during our time in congress. to put it simple, it is

nonviolence or nonexistent. it is my hope that my vote today, along with the votes of others will be a down payment for peace toward a world community with itself. maybe with this deal, we will send a message that we can lay down the burden and tools of war. maybe we can come together as a family of human beings. mr. speaker, we have a moral obligation, a mission and a a chance. give peace thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: at this time, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from ohio, the speaker of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio, the speaker of the house, is recognized for one minute. the speaker: let me thank my colleague for yielding. my colleagues, later today we'll cast two votes and these votes will be amongst the most consequential votes that we'll

cast some of us in our careers. our founding fathers charged both the president and the congress with providing for the common defense for good reason. it's the core responsibility of our federal government. it's the key to our freedom and for all of our opportunities. and that's why at the front of the oath every member takes it states, i do solemnly swear that i will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic. so as we consider this nuclear agreement with iran, it's our duty to determine whether it will keep america safe. sadly, this deal is far worse than anything i could have imagined. why? because the president and his negotiators broke every one of their promises.

does this deal dismantle iran's nuclear program or shut off their path to a nuclear weapon as they promised it would? no. instead, it allows iran to keep thousands of nuclear centrifuges spinning as they are today. and within 10 years in the best case, it allows iran to achieve a nuclear status. was this agreement full-on verification? no. it appears the side deal will trust iran to self-inspect a key site where the regime conducted tests on nuclear detonators. of course, we have not seen that side deal and we don't know if there are other secret components. does this agreement allow inspectors to have anywhere 24/7 access as they promised it would? no. inspectors would have to wait up to 24 days of access to

suspicious sites. will sanctions snap back? no. the administration admits that nothing at the u.n. happens in a snap. does it shut down iran's ballistic missile program as they promised it would? no. actually the agreement lifts the arms and missile embargos n five and eight years respectively. and they are allowed to build icbm's capable of delivering a warhead right here in the nited states of america. does it help the leading sponsor of terror? yes. it gives them billions to support terror around that part of the year and it gives amnesty to the shadow commander responsible for the deaths of hundreds of american troops in

raq. and this is all without iran cheating. the ayatollah won't even have to cheat to be just steps away from a nuclear weapon. so today we are going to cast two votes and these votes are aimed at stopping president obama from unilaterally lifting sanctions on iran and ensuring ccountability. my colleagues in pursuing this deal with iran, president obama refused to listen. he ignored the concerns of the american people, national security experts and a bipartisan majority here in the congress. and now he's trying to enforce this deal over our objections. never in our history have something with so many consequences for our national security been rammed through with such little support.

today is september 11. today for all americans to come together and for us to keep the oath we swore to our constitution. so our fight to stop this bad deal frankly is just beginning. we will not let the american people down. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: it's now my pleasure to yield one minute to our leader who indeed, as she goes leader , has been our on this effort, the gentlelady from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. ms. pelosi: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding and i thank him for his leadership, for the courage it took for him and the humility to listen and to learn what was in this legislation

and this agreement and that is something that i commend the members of the house for doing, to listen and to learn. our distinguished speaker just referenced the oath of office that we take when we become members of congress, and it is a vow that we make to the american people, to protect and support our constitution and our responsibility to protect and defend the american people. today, mr. speaker, we will vote on an agreement to make america safer. indeed, to make the world a safer place. so say the nuclear scientists and the diplomats. so say the military and security leaders of both parties or of no party. so does the faith community beseach us to do. this morning father conroy offered a prayer to god to, quote, help the members of this house to recognize that you are

with us in our deliberations. indeed, as we cast our votes on this historic agreement, we were thankful to god that god was with us to, again, give us the humility to learn and the courage to act. and for that we should all be grateful. it's important to note that support for this agreement, as i have said, comes from both sides of the aisle, hundreds -- more than 100 former diplomats, democrats and republicans, ambassadors, etc., wrote, in our judgment the agreement deserves congressional support and the opportunity to show it will work. we firmly believe that the most effective way, mr. speaker, to protect u.s. national security and that of our allies and friends is to ensure that the tough-minded diplomacy has a chance to succeed before considering the more costly

risks and alternatives. 36 generals and admirals wrote, there is no better option to prevent an iranian nuclear weapon. if the iranians cheat, as the speaker suggested they might, if the iranians cheat, our advanced technology, intelligence and inspections will reveal it. and the u.s. military options remain on the table. and if the deal is rejected by america, the iranians could not -- could have a nuclear weapon within a year. the choice is stark. what is mysterious to me, when our colleagues come to the floor under this agreement iran can be a nuclear power in 10 tore 15 years, so we should reject this agreement. no. without the agreement, they are a threshold nuclear power right now and could have a weapon

within months or a year. seems to me the choice is clear as the generals and admirals pointed out. it's also interesting to note that our distinguished speaker pointed out that some shortcomings in his view in the agreement. ell, that is disagreed by -- by the best nuclear physicists who wrote to congratulate the president on the agreement. as they wrote, we consider -- now, these are noble laureates, these are engineers, nuclear physicists who work and specialize in nuclear weapons, research and development. they said, we consider the joint comprehensive plan of action of the united states and its partners negotiated with iran will advance the cause of peace and security in the middle east and can serve -- this is really important --

this can serve as a guidepost for future nonproliferation agreements. they went on to say, this is an innovative agreement with much more stringent constraints than any previously negotiated nonproliferation framework. that's why they were congratulating the president of the united states. i mentioned the prayer of father conroy this morning. i also this morning saw in "the washington post" that the prime minister of the u.k., david cameron, the french president, holla information de, and german chanceler angela merkel said, this is an important moment, these heads of states said, it's a crucial opportunity at a time of heightened global uncertainty to show what diplomacy can achieve. these heads of state went on to

say, this is not an agreement based on trust or any assumption of how iran may look in so or 15 years. it's based on detailed, tightly written controls that are verifiable and long lasting. we condemn, they said, in no uncertain terms that iran does not recognize the existence of the state of israel and the unacceptable language that iran's leaders use about israel. israel's security matters are and will remain our key interests too. prime minister cameron, president hollande and chanceler merkel then said, we will not have reached the nuclear deal with iran if we did not think that it removed a threat to the region and the nonproliferation regime as a whole. we are confident that the agreement provides the foundation for resolving the conflict on iran's nuclear program permanently. that is why we now want to

embark on the full implementation of the joint comprehensive plan of action. today, i urge my colleagues to vote in support of the agreement that enhances our vigilance and strengthens our security. i just always am fond of quoting sol men in the bible. -- solomon in the bible. he was uncertain as to his ability to be king in terms of his wisdom and the rest. and he prayed to god and prayed that god would give him the wisdom because david was such a great king and how could he -- said to god, going to be the king of your people. help me with knowledge. wisdom. with wisdom. christ -- excuse me -- god came to him in the night and said, solomon, because you did not ask for longevity, because you did not ask for great riches,

because you did not ask for vengeance upon your enemies, i will give you more wisdom than anyone has ever had and you will be renowned for wisdom. the solomon of wisdom which sprang from humility. e humility to pray for enlightenment, for knowledge, for wisdom, for judgment. and that humility is so essential in the job that we do here, that we don't have foregone conclusions. that's why i'm so proud of my members who spent so much time tudying this issue, not only reading the agreement and the classified sections and the rest but seeking answers, having information, seeking validation from generals and admirals and scientists and leaders of other countries as to what their actions would be

should we unfortunately reject this, which happily we will not do today. they had the humility to open their minds to learn, and when they learned they had the where to take an action some other of their friends may not have arrived at because they didn't have the benefit of all of this information. we know one thing, that we have to come together in the end, to protect our country and stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. . i say that i've had decades of experience track iran and its nuclear ambitions, longer than anyone, more than two times longer than anyone on the intelligence committee, so i know of what i speak and i went to the intelligence committee to stop the proliferation of

weapons of mass destruction. that gave me some judgment as to what the president brought back in this agreement. and still, i want to subject it to the harshest scrutiny as from my experience, if i thought that this was the best possible deal we could achieve. we mustn't judge achievements. -- we mustn't judge agreements by with they don't do but what they do do. this makes our country safer and our friends in the region safer as their own national security experts have attested. i thank my colleagues, i thank you for listening, for learning, for coming to whatever conclusion you came to but understanding at the end of the day we have a respect for each other's opinion and a regard for our responsibilities to our people, to people in the region, our friends in israel and also a

tpwhrobal responsibility. bop i could join the nuclear physicists in congratulating president barack obama for his great leadership in giving us his opportunity. today we will not just be making history, we will be making progress for the cause of peace in the world. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield three minutes to the gentleman, mr. roskam. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes mr. roskam: thank you, mr. speaker, and thank you, chairman ryan. the leader first said we prayed for wisdom and so he he -- and so the question is she called us to act humbly, the question is, are we willing to submit

ourselves to the collective wisdom of a majority of this body and a majority of the other body? i would suggest a majority of this body and a majority of the other body think this is a bad idea. she also admonished us that we should listen and learn. that's not a bad idea. so let's listen to what's in the bill itself. the bill itself gives $150 billion in sanctions relief to the iranian government. then the question is what do we expect with $150 billion is it all going to go to pave roads? is it going to build schools in tehran? is it going to fix water systems? i don't think so. and neither does president obama. listen to his own words. let's stipulate, this is barack obama, let's stipulate that some of the money will flow to activities we object to. we have no illusions about the iranian government or the significance of the revolutionary guard.

listen to the national security advisor, susan rice, when she says we should expect that some portion of that money would go to the iranian mill tear and could potentially be used for all kinds of bad behavior we have seen in the region up until now. so let's listen to those words. they're clear. they're obvious. they're now -- so now think in term o-- in terms of percentages. is it going to be half? is it going to be a quarter? is it going to be 10%? is it going to be 1%? 1% of that money, $1.5 billion, doing what? fund hag mas. funding hezbollah. killing americans. let's listen and let's learn. now my friend from new york said this is definitely the policy of the united states. definitely. it's a fait accompli. there's no reason to have this discussion. it's all over in his world

view. i don't buy it. i don't buy that for a second. i'm not going to lay down here and let the president of the united states run roughshod in this probably, let's think about it. is this just a bad idea, or is this the worst bill ever? the worst idea ever? and i think it wins the worst idea ever award. it was a week ago when it was crazy talk at the idea that the president of the united states had standing, i will not yield, that the president of the united states has standing or that -- it was crazy talk a week ago at the house of representatives had standing in the courts and now you know what the courts have said? the house has standing. so the notion that this is all done and that this is just a settled case, it's not. so i think we've got to be very, very clear about what's going on. and we need to listen and we need to learn, and we need to vote no. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. blumenauer: our speaker stood before us a few minutes ago and sounded a somber, serious note. i'm sorry the process we're going through does not reflect that somber, serious attitude. it's sad that it's come to this. a parody of what could have been a week-long, thoughtful, thorough debate about our relationship with iran which republicans instead have turned into an incoherent partisan shouting match. it ignores the realities, the complexity, and the opportunity. there's been no discussion, for example, about how the america -- about how america seriously mismanaged our relationship with iran since we helped the british overthrow their

popularly elected government in 1953 and install the shah. how we backed the murderous saddam hussein against iran which cost million os lives weak rooked the other way when he used poison gas, a real weapons of mass destruction. how we labeled them the axis of evil when they were working with us in a post-taliban afghanistan. it's amazing that the majority of iranians still like us. now, i strongly oppose the current iranian leadership. but for years, i've been working for diplomatic solutions with other countries because sanctions only work when other countries join us. well, they did. and we have an opportunity today to enforce a nonnuclear future for iran. the republican talking point is somehow they're going to get $150 billion.

that talking point ignores the reality. those five powerful countries that joined with us to help get the agreement, they're going to walk away if america walks away. then, multilateral sanctions will dissolve and iran will get its money anyway and nuclear weapons if it wants in a year or two. and it will be the united states and israel that will be isolated and the world will be less safe. these are some of the reasons that the major independent experts have said this agreement is the best alternative for the united states. not a perfect agreement. but the best agreement. let's use all of our time and energy to make this agreement work, strengthen relationships in the middle east to avoid more mistakes by the same people who gave you the disastrous iraq war. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman's time has expire thsmed egentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield three minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, mr. kelly of pennsylvania. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognize for three minutes. mr. kelly: i thank think chairman. -- i thank the chairman. this is a horrible deal. you never get what you deserve in a deal, you get what you negotiate. let me give you a contract between what two presidents say when they talk about deals. president obama said it's either this agreement or war. president reagan said there's no argument over the choice between peace and war. but there's only one guaranteed way you can have peace and you can have it in a second. surrender. now i want you to let your mind drift back to 14 years ago on the morning very eerily like today where america awoke and some americans were going off to work in the world trade center. some americans were going off to work in the pentagon. and some americans boarded

flights for destinations that they thought they were going to get. to 3,000 americans said good-bye that morning to their families and their loved ones, thinking they would see them again. never knowing that they would never be able to say that again, would never be able to kiss them good-bye, would never again celebrate a birthday or any other meaningful event in their life because of an act of terrorism. flight 93, and by the way, it 37 united flight 93, with passengers and seven crew members boarded an airplane destinned for san francisco. that is not where the plane landed. that plane is embedded in a smoldering cratering in the peaceful countryside of shanksville, pennsylvania, because of terrorists. the members of that flight crew and those passengers performed the greatest act of religious sacrifice that you can do.

they gave up their lives for the lives of their fellow americans. they walked away from a future filled with promise and decided it was more important at that moment to sacrifice themselves. how in the world can we sit in america's house and i speak to you today not as a republican but as an american. my friends, as we let our eyes fill with tears over the great loss that day, and as our ears pick up on the message from our enemies in the east, death to israel, death to the great satan, death to america, let us resound with love and strength and say listen never again, never again, never again. let those words echo forever and ever. not only in your ears but in your heart. do not cave in. do not sacrifice the safety, the security, and the stability

of 330 million americans for the legacy of one man. that is not who we are. that is not who we've ever been. and that's not who we will ever be. my friends, and i mean sincerely my friends and my fellow americans, vote against the greatest betrayal we have ever seen in this country. this is not a deal that protects america. it is unenforceable, unverifiable. this is a horrible deal. mr. chairman, thank you so much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. minute n: i pause for a . i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. doggett: as the last speech

indicates, it is hardly by chance that the house republican leadership has scheduled these votes on 9/11. votes on a proposal, an agreement, to prevent iran from developing a nuclear weapon ever. the justifiable fear of another terrorist attack and the justifiable outrage about the terrorist attack of 9/11 have been exploited before today. they were exploited to justify the disastrous invasion of iraq. while few americans today will recall that actually after 9/11, there was some early support in iran against al qaeda terrorism, few can forget the of the repeated and rather deceitful warning that promoted the rush to war in iraq. we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.

nce again, the specter of this mushroom cloud is being raised with those who would interfere with an international diplomatic success. an agreement that would avoid putting us on another path to war. and the same kind of folks that urged us to rush into baghdad are the same folks that told us back before we even had this agreement that it wouldn't work and we ought to begin bombing in tehran and the surrounding area. who said it will only take a few days of bombs and it'll all be over. the same poor logic that took us into a disaster in iraq that cost so many families. the ultimate sacrifice and the waste of over $1 trillion. this is not a debate about the trinh towers. t is -- about the twin towers.

it is a debate that would be a twin wrong if we follow the same approach we took last time. i've supported sanctions against iran. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognize for 30 seconds. mr. doggett: supported them at each opportunity. but this is not about sanctions. this is about a last ditch effort to undermine a diplomatic victory. those who reject this victory, are weak on alternatives. they talk about a secret, the biggest secret is what they would do other than bomb first and ask questions later. he director of the mossad, the israeli c.i.a. said we're putting in place a verification system which is second to none and has no precedent. ultimately, reason will prevail this week in congress the president will be sustained, and families here and in israel will be safer. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr.

reed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. reed: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, chairman, for yielding. i listened to this debate. i read this agreement. and i heard my colleague from illinois say something that resonates with me. we should listen. first and foremost, we should listen to the american people. they are overwhelmingly saying this is dangerous, reject this deal. let's listen to the leaders that say this puts us in more jeopardy of going to war. we all want peace. there's not a human being in america that wants to go to war, and to classify us on this side of the aisle as having a esire to go to war, shame. you get peace through strenk and you need to put the --

through strength and you need to put the american citizens first. what about our four fellow american citizens that are sitting in iranian jail right now and the president said we tried to negotiate it but they wouldn't talk to us? well, then you walk away. at about the families that are represented in the $47 billion worth of judgments that have been filed against iran because they suffered terrorist acts at the hands of iran? and we're going to give $150 billion to iran without paying those fellow american citizens, those families who suffered and lost their loved ones? stupidity. american citizens always must be first. iran has made no confusion -- raised no confusion as to what its intention is here. it wants a nuclear weapon. it wants to destroy israel. it wants to destroy america.

listen to their own words, and if you do, we would say we want peace but it will be on our terms from a position of strength. vote no on this deal. nd i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from. mr. levin: i yield to another member of our committee, mr. crowley of new york. mr. crowley: i like mike, i admire him but i think he is it a disservice to the house and this debate to bring up the issue of 9/11. i do thank him for his honesty to say this is all about, having this debate today and this vote today to stir the emotions of the american people. my emotions always start on this day. 14 years ago i knew people who died that day. my cousin died. my friends died. i don't need to be reminded of that but it will not cloud my decisionmaking on this

important issue. today i stand in support of a joint comprehensive plan of action. this has been a difficult decision for me and i know it's been for many of my colleagues as well. there are those who came out against this deal before you even read it. for those that took the time to read the agreement and came to a given conclusion, you have my deep and profound respect because we both share the same goals. but after carefully studying this agreement, i believe it is important to give diplomacy the opportunity to succeed. the agreement takes important steps to address iran's nuclear program. under this agreement, both the current unirain yum and plutonium paths to a bomb -- uranium and plutonium paths to a bomb is put to rest and it will be centralized in a single facility that is pen trabble by u.s. -- penetrateable by u.s.

airpower and it does not constrain the united states by bolstering our allies and by pushing back iran's other nefarious activities. there is more we can do and must do including strengthening israel, jordan and our other allies in the region. israel is the only country being threatened with annihilation. i know that. o it needs and deserves a quat -- quantitative and qualitative military advantage. and if this deal doesn't work or iran's leadership somehow gets the idea that they can attack us or wipe out our friends, the united states and our allies will have the capability, the will and the power to confront iran's nuclear program and destroy it. we have the best military in the world. we have the best intelligence service in the world. and america will always be

prepared. the fact is no one here can predict whether iran will give up its program, not republicans nor democrats, and if they tonight, we have options. but we can do this and give this plan the opportunity to work, and i am prepared to do that. now, after all this discussion and talk about bipartisanship, a real profile of courage would be for one of you to support your president. one republican to stand and support your president. 13 -- i ask for an additional 30 second. levin letch i yield one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. crowley: 13 years ago i stood in the house of representatives and i gave the benefit of the doubt to the then president and he took us to war. i will give today the benefit of the doubt to your president

to take us to peace, and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman -- the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: at this time i'd like to yield a minute to the distinguished member from the ways and means committee, the gentleman from texas, mr. brady. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized -- will the entleman restate -- one minute . the gentleman is recognized. mr. brady: thank you, mr. speaker. i didn't take an oath of office to defend my president. i took an oath of office to defend my country. the world is a dangerous place and nothing makes it more dangerous than a nuclear armed iran. versus t a republican democrat issue. this is truth versus false. i read the agreement. i studied it. you have to ask yourself three key questions. does it stop iran's nuclear capability for the long term? no. does it stop the spread of nuclear weapons in the middle

east? no. more importantly, does this make america and our allies, like israel, safer? no. even supporters believe that to be true. no. america deserves, israel deserves, our world deserves an agreement that dismantles iran's nuclear capability, not just delays it for a small while, at best. that's why i oppose this agreement. it makes our country and our allies at risk. that's why i support stopping the president, suspending the president from lifting the sanctions in this agreement. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: could the speaker indicate how much time there is on both sides? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan has 8 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from wisconsin has 12 3/4 minutes remaining. mr. levin: i'll reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: at this time, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, mr. dold.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. dold: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the chairman for yielding. and i've had an opportunity to listen to the debate and some of the things going on, yes, they're heated, but as we look at this agreement, historic agreement -- my good friend from new york just asked, will you stand with your president? i have stood with the president before, but i think it's also important that we take a look at this agreement. this is an historic mistake. this is one that will jeopardize the safety and security of the united states. and i want to echo that this is a bipartisan opposition, so this is not about left versus right. this is about right versus wrong. and ultimately when i tuck my children in bed at night, a 13-year-old and 11 yorlede and 8-year-old and i look in the faces of those that are here, these young americans and i wonder what type of country they will inherit with a nuclear-armed iran, for me that is unacceptable. our stated objectives, our goals were to make sure that

iran never has the ability to achieve a nuclear weapon, and yet this agreement, according to bob menendez, all but preserves it. a nuclear-armed iran, one that shouts "death to america," they want to wipe israel off the face of the map, this agreement, ballistic missile embargo is lifted in eight years and arms embargo in five, my friends, what do you use a ballistic missile for? i would argue it's not to drop leaflets, it's not for humanitarian purposes, it is to rain terror down on the united states of america. and for me that is completely unacceptable. and, again, i don't care where you come from, what district you're in. this is about, will we be safer, and the answer is simply no. i believe that this agreement ultimately will be an arms race in the middle east. we talked about france. we talked about the u.k. we've talked about germany. has anybody asked the

neighborhood, the saudi arabia, the u.a.e., egypt or israel? the answer is no because they're uniformerly against this because they know iran's ultimate goal is to not only devastate that region but to devastate the united states of america. this is one of the things that, again, must unite us. this is not about partisanship. mr. ryan: i give the gentleman another 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. dold: this is not about partisanship. please hear me. we don't want to bring up 9/11 in the sense we want to do it on this day, 9/11, but i do think it smacks the idea we never want to see that dirty bomb that comes into a containership, that goes into new york or miami or washington, d.c., because you know what, no one wants to relive what happened on that day 14 years ago. and yet if we do not step up in a united front and stop this, my fear is that we will relive that day again. that for me is unacceptable, and i implore you all, my

colleagues, my friends, to stand up against this awful, historic mistake. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i'll reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman continues to reserve his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: at this time i yield two minutes to the distinguished chairman of the budget committee, member of the ways and means committee, mr. price. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. price: thank you, mr. speaker. this week iran's supreme leader ayatollah khamenei, the person who president obama and his administration said reached agreement and doubled down and declared the united states the great satan and he said, quote, after negotiations there will be nothing left of israel in 25 years and then jihaddi more alwill not leave a moment of -- morale will not leave a moment of sirenity. this is who the president of

the united states say he's blindly trusting. this is -- there are no anytime, anyplace inspections. there's no accountability for past iranian nuclear activities. conventional armament bans will be lifted. ballistic missile bans will be lifted. and to put it plainly, mr. speaker, this agreement paves a shiny yellow brick road to death and destruction around the world, not to mention an unprecedented nuclear arms race across the entire middle east. we should have made sure that not a single resource or benefit received by iran funds islamic terrorism. we should have made sure that iran publicly accept israel's right to exist. that genocide is unacceptable, that stated goals of wiping entire groups of people and nations off the earth is unacceptable. and at the very least, we should have made certain that four american hostages, including a christian pastor, being held in iran were

released. of course not a single one of these objectives were achieved. the administration thought that compelling iran to renounce nuclear holocaust or islamic terrorism or genocide were simply far too unreasonable to request. if this deal goes through, time will surely demonstrate that it will be a shameful stain in the history of the world. now, we pray that terrible ramifications do not come to fruition. however, if past is prologue, this agreement may very well make any further action or concerns voiced by anyone too little too late. a nuclear iran spells nothing but disaster for safety at home and abroad. this agreement must be rejected. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield 2 1/2 minutes now to the gentleman from illinois, a distinguished member of our committee, mr. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank the gentleman for

yielding. after listening to this debate, i commend president obama and secretary kerry for their leadership in crafting the joint comprehensive plan of plus reached twheep p-5 one nations and iran. i do so because this is a plan which promotes peace and security not war or a continuous threat of war. yes, no agreement is perfect and no agreement will fully satisfy everyone but i can tell you that for me and the constituents of the seventh district of illinois, we say let's give peace a chance. we say, let's support the position of our president. but we also say, let's support the position of our experts.

let's support the position of our allies. let's heed the words of the prophets who say come and let us reason together. we shall all be utterly -- or we shall all be utterly destroyed by the edge of the sword. so yes, we say let's support the most rational, the most logical, the most comprehensive, and the most effective path to peace that we know. and yes, it's not about supporting the position of any single individual. but it's about supporting what is good for america. it is about supporting what a good to help stabilize our world.

so we can exist with the idea that peace is indeed possible and war is not inevitable. yes, i support the president nd i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: at this time i yield one and a half minutes to the distinguished member from nebraska, mr. smith. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one and a half minutes. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i rise today in strong opposition to lifting economic sanctions on iran. throughout august, i spoke with many nebraskans all across my district at public meetings, in addition to their frustration over the reach of the federal government, the most common concern they shared with me involved the iran deal. the ramifications of this agreement will impact not only our country's future but also, i believe, the stability of the world. i'm opposed to this deal and believe congress must reject it

and allow u.s. negotiators to go back to the table. permanently lifting economic sanctions on iran as this deal does would allow global financial resources to flow into a country still included on our list of state sponsors of terrorism. not only does this deal end long-held sanctions, it also lifts arms embargos as we have heard. the embargo ends in five years under this agreement and the ballistic missile ban is lifted in eight years. we should be mindful of our closest ally in the region, israel, whose leaders continue to warn us of the dangers of trusting the iranian regime. the president said our options are accepting this deal or going to war. i think that rhetoric is irresponsible. economic sanctions have served as one of the most effective peaceful methods of suppressing the iranian regime. when our national security is on the line, reaching no deal is certainly better than advancing a bad deal. congress must stop this bad deal and pursue a stronger

agreement which enforces greater measures on iran and ensures the safety of our country and our allies. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: how much time is there. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan has 6 1/2 minutes remain, the gentleman from wisconsin has 6 3/4 minutes remaining. mr. levin: i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from michigan, mrs. dingell. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. ms. din fwell: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. levin, for yielding me the time. first, i rise with so many of my colleagues today in remembrance of one of the worst days in our nation's history. it is a solemn day of remembrance and prayer for those who lost their lives on that fateful day. as americans, we must be united as a nation in fighting terrorism which we know remains a threat every single day in this country.

september 11 is a day burned in the hearts and souls of all americans and we must work hard together, together, to ensure that we never witness such a horrific tragedy in our homeland ever again. we all agree never again. and i say that like my colleagues from new york, mr. crowley, as a woman who lost a cousin and a -- in a terrorist act and watched a woman i love never recover from her son's death. we all care. congress and this country as a whole have a responsibility to work with nations across the world in pursuant -- in pursuit of peace. my district is home to one of he largest populations of arab americans in the country who,

like is many of us -- who, like so many of us, came to the united states as immigrants. they are among the most patriotic americans i know. they are proud to be americans and have made numerous contributions to this great nation. and today, i ask you to also remember this. i rise in support of the joint comprehensive plan of action. like so many, it was not an easy decision and it was made with the most -- utmost respect for my colleagues and friends on both sides of the aisle. this process has shown me that no matter what decision one reaches on this issue, almost everyone shares the same concern. and they've been named and reviewed many times so i'm not going to go over them. but what i do want to say is,

and we've said many times, it's not based on trust. it's based on verification. and that's the last point i want to address today. congressional oversight of the iran deal will not end with this vote. in fact, it will just be the beginning. this effort must be bipartisan and i hope it will be divorced from the acrimonious politic that was dominated too much of this discussion. mr. levin: i yield the gentlelady 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. dingell: to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle let's work together for peace in the middle east and across the aisle. politics and rhetoric only complicate an already difficult decision. september 11 should be a day we

used to remind us of what binds us together, the values we share, the love of america that every one of us in this institution has, and let's work together to protect this nation we so dearly love. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: at this time i would like to yield 2 1/2 minutes to the distinguished member from minnesota, mr. paulsen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognize for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. paulsen: several years ago, 400 members of congress in this body a huge bipartisan majority, voted to increase sanctions on iran because they recognized that smart, targeted sanctions would curtail the iranian economy and help unite the world against the iranian nuclear weapons program. desperate for sanctions relief, iran came to the negotiation table. i support diplomatic efforts, it was hopeful that the president would be able to bring back a good deal.

in fact, 365 representatives, 84% of the house, sent a letter to the president saying we could accept the deal that accomplished four things. this a long-lasting deal that ensured iran had no pathway to a bomb, that it fully disclosed the military aspects of its program, that we had any time, anywhere inspections, and that we addressed iran's ballistic missile capabilities and its destabilizing role in the region. sadly none of these principles were met in this deal. the president claimed thises the strongest nonproliferation deal ever negotiated. that isn't true. in our nonproliferation agreement with libya, we demanded they completely eliminate sentry fuges, halt all advanced centrifuge development, completely eliminate its uranium stockpile, give unfettered access to the iaea and completely eliminate its long range missile program and would

ratify the safest safeguards known as the additional protocol. under this agreement, iran doesn't have to do any of this. will a nuclear iran make the world a safer place? instead of giving the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism hundreds of billions of dollars and more intercontinental ballistic missile tknology and weapons, we should demand a better bay. the president should be working with congress in a bipartisan way because the world deserves a verifiable, enforceable, and accountable agreement that enhances safety, stability, and security. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: at this time i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from arizona, ms. mcsally. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognize for two minutes. ms. mcsally: mr. speaker, i rise today on behalf of those who do not have a voice today in this debate, that's the over 500 service men and women who

died in iraq because of the export of vehicle-borne i.e.d. technology by iran. by the brutal terrorist leader suleimani who used money from iran and who will be get manager money to export with the sole purpose to kill american troops and the thousands who are wounded. i deployed to this region six times in my military career. and our military is concerned about this administration turning their back on the men and women who died. and the strength that they need in order to keep that region safe and secure. this is a slap in the face to those who paid that sacrifice. suleimani is a brutal man, we have studied him throughout my military career. he's exporting terror all over the region, not just in the region, he's responsible for deaths in india and latin america. he's funding money to the assad

regime. over 250,000 dead. hezbollah and hamas. i said a few -- i stood a few weeks ago on the oming they have gaza strip where thousands of rockets were lauged last summer, killing innocent civilians in israel. israelis have seven to 30 seconds to run to shelter. they are funded and exported by suleimani in iran. we stood on the northern border near where hezbollah, funded by on -- by iran is stockpiling over 100,000 rockets. this is a dangerous deal. and this is not about a choice between this deal or war. those of us who served in the military, we want war less than anybody else. we know the price. we want diplomacy. those sanctions were working. we just cranked them up in the last 18 months. they are cash-strapped in iran. they are fighting in between their desires and different factions of how will they use that money to continue to move their nuclear program forward or export terror. we have them exactly where we

wanted and then gave up. if we give them -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for an additional 15 seconds. ms. mcsally: with the icbm embargo, it is going to be a more dangerous military action and more american lives will be lost. -- it is potentially war. i ask you to please vote against this deal. it is dangerous for the many reasons my colleagues have mention bud do it on bhf of those who dway the ultimate sacrifice. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan has three minutes. mr. levin: are you ready to close? i yield myself the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: we've had a vigorous debate. this agreement is going into effect. as we have debated here this morning, that's a fact. and so this is the challenge

before this body. and that is whether we will try to recapture some real bipartisanship or if we essentially will forfeit it. there's work to be done implementing this agreement. that's acknowledged by all. and the question is, whether we will join together to try to make it work, an agreement that i support, but i think the same responsibility is incumbent pon those who oppose it. or as the speaker said, he says they've just begun to fight. that, i think, is the wrong approach in a very important way.

both to this agreement but also beyond. because there's work to be done in terms of efforts to reinforce security in the middle east, especially for israel. there's work to be done in the middle east and beyond in terms of fighting terrorism. there's work to be done outside of the middle east, everywhere, so i think it's a deep mistake to leave this moment here with this agreement going into effect saying the fight will continue. no, the fight should be with all of us together to make this work and to address the continuing challenges that face this country and the middle east and eyond.

so i close as someone with everybody else who worked so hard on this, who has come to a conclusion each on our own, but i think the tenor here sometimes is deeply troubling. and i thank the -- think the speaker's statement, the fight has just begun, over what? i hope not over the effort to continue the flames of partisanship that sometimes have captured this debate and before. we all took the pledge. we have a solemn obligation, i think, to work together. and i think it would be a deep mistake to have it forfeited for reasons of political advantage. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i yield myself the remainder of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, it's no secret that we believe that the president has exceeded his authority in so many ways. that he stretched the separation of powers on lots of issues. and on most of those issues i believe we can fix those problems. on most of those issues, whether it's regulations or domestic laws, i believe we in this body with the next administration will have the power and ability to fix this. this is one where i don't think we can. i think he stretch the constitution because this should be a treaty. this is an executive agreement. when asked why, they said we couldn't pass a treaty. so much for the constitution that we all swore to uphold. mr. speaker, i don't think the president's going to get the legacy that he thinks he's going to get or that he's hoping he's

going to get. i'd like to ask unanimous consent to put in the record a letter from 194 former military officers. it says this agreement is unverifiable. as military officers, we find it unconscionable that such a windfall could be given to a regime that even the obama administration has acknowledged will use a portion of such funds to continue to support terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. ryan: this is an agreement that waives the sanctions against terrorism. this is a regime that funds terrorism. it said nothing about stopping further terrorism. it lifts the bans on conventional weapons so they could arm back up. it lifts the bans on intercontinental missiles. the only reason you have an icbm is to put a nuclear weapon on it. it guarantees iran becomes a nuclear power. and it gives them $150 billion up front to finance it.

about a decades ago -- about a decade ago i was in debate in a tank graveyard, spent the morning walking through acres of destroyed m-1 abram tanks, humvees, mraps and they had the same kind of signature blast, a whole right through it, killing whoever was inside, our soldiers. then we went up to baghdad and met with one of our senior commanders, and we asked, what is killing all of our service members? hat is doing this? e.f.p.'s, explosively formed penetrators. he got one of them they conif i stated. he showed us what it was. a highly sophisticated machine explosive device with wiring on it that said, made in iran. brought by a gentleman maimed solely manny -- solely mainy. this is not a person for some

person's legacy. this is a vote to put yourself on the right side of announcer: lisa mascaro is covering the iran nuclear agreement. they are happy at the white house. -- i'm gratified about the lawmakers led by democratic leader pelosi. she got the vote and 25 voted against the iran deal in the house. lisa this is not a win for : president obama and his legacy. but really for the democratic leadership here in congress. leader pelosi was able to keep so many of her democratic lawmakers, they are in the minority, keep them aligned behind president obama.

enough members that had the republicans succeeded in sending a resolution of disapproval to the president and if he had sent it back with a veto, she would have had the numbers to uphold it and a testament to leader pelosi of keeping folks together on a very, very difficult issue. over the last several weeks, they are taking so much care to make their decisions, talking to so many constituents, having so much pressure. they were releasing pages and pages long statements of their views. it was a very difficult decision but leader pelosi was able to keep her democrats behind the president and that was a real change from what people thought going into this. republicans had the wind at their back and they really came out not with the outcome. host: the house took up and

passed two measures, one dealing with their contention that the administration hadn't provided enough information on the so-called side deals and the other one preventing the president from lifting those sanctions, so republicans see this as a win, but does this mean in terms of any future action in the senate? guest: this is a slow motion end of the debate. i think we will continue to see votes like this. possibly more in the house and certainly senate majority leader mitch mcconnell has set up another vote in the senate for next tuesday evening to try again to break the democratic filibuster on the senate resolution of disapproval of the deal. those efforts at this point appear to be largely symbolic because it does not seem that republicans are going to be able to change any of their democratic colleagues to join them on this.

once these lawmakers have made up their minds again on a very difficult decision, it's difficult for them to switch back. so these measures will sort of be out there and will be continued efforts but i don't know that it will result in any changes to the implementation of the iran deal which as you know by september 17 was the original deadline. congress said will flow past that and take up these issues down the road. host: you talk about symbolic, one of the headlines in your piece says that as well. after failing to block iran deal, g.o.p. conducts symbolic votes. take us back to the house and their determination to switch from a resolution of disapproval to this three-prong approach rather than trying to pass an approval. what's the fallout of that and is there any fallout in terms of

the rank and file on the republican side? guest: you have had a last-minute upsurge of revolt in the house. republican leaders have an agreed upon plan in both the house and senate. and rank and file lawmakers decided not to go along. this shouldn't be surprising because there was a lot of concern among rank and file lawmakers over the plan or the strategy. but it did blindside john boehner and kevin mccarthy and had to switch gears this week. while the senate was passing or was trying to pass this disapproval resolution, they said we'll take this opportunity and disapprove of the resolution and veto showdown with the white house and force president obama to have to veto the bill and send it back to congress.

and if congress is unable to overturn that veto, republicans thought it would be a strong show of their disappointment in their rejection of this deal. of course that didn't happen. it didn't get out of the senate and the house never voted on that because of their own infighting. the problem with the rank and file were practical and political. they didn't think it was strong enough and had concerns about the side deals that the international atomic energy agency has negotiated with iran. and they wanted more meat to it. they also on a practical level -- they were frustrated by what was happening in the senate and the democrats' ability to filibuster and wanted to do something stronger that would put everyone in the house owe stronger footing. and that didn't pass either and this issue that was in republicans' favor collapsed

around them. follow lisa. thanks for that update. announcer: next, discussion about the implementation of the inspection process of the iran agreement and side deals with the atomic energy agency. after that, another chance to see the house floor debate. a.m., yourt devon call -- live at 7 a.m., your walls and comments on -- calls and comments in washington journal. >> people having business before the honorable supreme court of the united's eighth must give -- united states must give their attention. >> the petitioner versus arizona. >> rules against it.

>> madison is probably the most famous piece this court ever decided. >> it existed as people here on land where slavery was not legally recognized. >> putting the brown decision into effect would take presidential orders and the president of federal troops and marshals and the courage of children. >> we wanted to the cases -- pick cases that had the direction of society and changed society. >> so she told them they would have to have her searched. to see the patriot and see what it was wish they refused out of this. they're asking.

the police officer handcuffed her. >> i cannot imagine bringing the constitution to life and telling the human story behind great supreme court cases. forcedly opposed the internment of japanese americans during world war ii. being convicted of failing to report for relocation, he took his case all the way to the supreme court. >> quite often in many of our most famous decisions are the ones the court took which was unpopular. >> if you had to pick one freedom that was the most essential to the functioning of a democracy has to be freedom of speech. >> let's go through a few cases that illustrate dramatically and visually what it means to live in a society of 310 million different people who helped

stick together because they believe in the rule of law. announcer: landmark cases, an exploration of 12 historic supreme court decisions and the human stories behind them. series and c-span produced in cooperation with the national constitution center. debuting monday, october 5 at 9 p.m. institute the hudson hosts david albright and others for a discussion on the inspection process under the iran nuclear agreement and additional implementations for the international atomic energy agency. this is about one hour and a half. >> thank you.

thank you very much for coming to hudson institute. i want to thank our c-span audience. the panel -- first of all, i represent mike and he will not make it. he thought that he would get out earlier. they are voting on the iran issues, and as many of you may know, representative pompeo and senator tom cotton, who we had a few weeks ago -- these are the had aotton, who we few weeks ago -- these are the lead advocates for congressional review on the secret side deals between iran and the ieee eight -- iaea. even if he cannot be here, i hope you will follow what he is doing, what senator tom cotton

is doing and -- what representative tom cotton is doing and we have a fantastic whol led by dave albright has been to hudson before. mr. albright has been the analysis that his organization, isis has been providing on the iran deal, as well as different n nuclearhat the ira facilities are invaluable and i recommend that you follow what they are doing. so, thank you again, david, for being here with us again. and we have the managing director of present strategy for the israel project. i highly recommend his work, which has been taking up a lot of the political and policy matters regarding the iran deal and debate.

i am told in washington -- this is his first time at hudson. thank you for being here. to his left is my hudson colleague, the hudson institute senior fellow michael durand. it is always a pleasure to sit on the same panel with mike. theill be taking up some of implications of the joint plan of action, especially how it relates to american strategy in the middle east and what it looks like and what that deal and the ramifications of the deal look like in the broader middle east. so, it is an exceptional panel. i look forward to learning a lot do, too.and i hope you right now, david, if you could start? you very much. let's confess this is my first back in washington officially since the end of may, so i have

missed much of the personal contact going on in this agreement. might institute and i are neutral on this deal. we were deeply involved in developing provisions in the deal. we worked closely with .egotiators in the agreement some of the negotiators have said some of the provisions -- our name is on it. we share it with other government or groups, but our name is on several of these provisions. -- we see weaknesses in the deal. in order to do objective, nonpartisan analysis, we would not take sides in this debate. even when i was in europe, we have done nothing else but look

at this deal. we have put out 10 provisional reports on this deal which i would recommend you look at if you're interested. it's very competition. it has many strengths, it has many weaknesses. one of the issues today is over the adequacy of the deal to solve the problem of access and to contribute to solving the problems associated with determining the verification of the allegations that iran had a nuclear weapons program in the past. and to do that in the context of the implementation period over the fall and winter, and is that verification effort going to strengthen the verification of the final deal, or is it going to create precedents and weaken verification? what i would like to do is just

quickly summarize a report we will either issue today or monday on this agreement, and also some general issues around satellite imagery of the site. it's very clear that the iaea has reported regularly they have been undermined on doing effective verification. that is the starting point. they do not know what has taken place, but there are now some images.e it's problematic for verification. i would argue that this deal has further top located the verification of that site. it's not a public agreement. i worked on -- we have worked intensively on iran since 2002 and i have worked with many

countries, inspectors in the 1990's. we have published extensively other grimace. organization that requires secrecy. but it has not been secret. iran has complained bitterly about that for years. they could make this -i-8 deal public and release it to the member states in that would be consistent with what they have been doing on iran. i think the secrecy of it raises questions that you need to be addressed. and also in my experience, they -- andssively classify

they will do it for all of the same reasons. it may have nothing to do with legitimate ones -- proprietary information, security information, embarrassing information. i would argue in this case it's a little embarrassing what this eel has. -- deal has. i think you have all had the chance to see the details. the associated press went to pretty great lengths to try to get a draft of it. they then confirmed -- at least they told me -- i think they reported that the final deal was not that different from the draft. what you have is a situation where there will be videotaping of potential locations were sampling would take place, and would direct the iranians to take the samples and that's not the normal way to do things. i will give you an example. is a secret centrifuge

development facility. iran denied there was such a thing. iran got access and brought in a very top-level centrifuge expert with that access who looked around. and when they did the sampling finally, they did not find any trace of an rich uranium in the area that had been heavily modified. but in the secondary building the foundation. that it not been modified. it had traces of enriched uranium. you need to look. i brought a simple and north korea. i can't show it. this is actually a document -- this is arward -- processing plant in the early 1990's and north korea. korea did not expect environmental sampling. it was a highly classified method that was unclassified as a result of the iraqi war in 1991, to strengthen the iaea

and so they deployed it. they are looking behind this box. again, north korea did not expect it. the idea is it was not disturbed . they will look at where the paint does not look solid. that is very hard to do with a video camera. so i think a video camera opens up additional methods and it's not the normal way they have been doing it. i think that is a problem. -- they are not getting access to the physical locations where samples are being taken. and the deal, as reported by the ap says the director general and general canirector go as a courtesy visit. in my own work with the ap, and i talked to be journalists

involved in this, he believes the deal that he was shown and able to transcribe, it has some errors in it. is he has reported that that an accurate rendition. in testimony i know that u.s. officials have testified and i won't say who -- sometimes it's congressional congressmen have said -- the sampling would be access would follow. so, the access is coming at a point where it is not as useful. politically access is important, but again he wanted to drive the inspection effort and the environmental sampling effort, not be put on at the end of the process. what happens if there are other sites? there are other sites associated less civil military dimensions of iran's nuclear program.

are they going to be subject to these kinds of rules when they go there? another reason you want access is to talk to the scientists said and engineers involved. whether that will happen, i don't know. these are confidential arrangements. some people object to the word secrecy. to me it's all the same. technically it is a confidential agreement. but will they be able to do the job, which is to come to closure iran's pastion of nuclear activity. scheme, theer long-term agreement, you have to ask whether this is setting a precedent for that.

i think legally with the additional protocol you could argue it is not. but iran has violated safeguard agreements many times. it has pushed to be envelope. let's say you go out and there is a suspect site. the clock starts kicking -- starts ticking. iran says no, you can't have access, but you can do the video monitoring and we will take the samples. what's going to happen? i would argue and worry, actually, that there are countries in europe that will have heavy investments in iran, and iran is going to be appealing to them to say, look, this worked in this case. you accepted it publicly. do you really want to snap back sanctions over something that's proven or was acceptable in a highly controversial case like

parchin? i would worry that the europeans may not stick with the united states. i think the u.s. will vote to snap back. but i think there's worry the united states -- the others may not. certainly you can't count on russia and china. you just need one of the three to say, maybe we're not going to go with this. so i think it's also in the long-term, it's a problem -- the long term, it's a problem. finally, we want the iaea to be as strong as it can be. it can be incredibly strong. in north korea they nailed the north koreans to the wall with environmental sampling and other evidence to say they had an undeclared production of plutonium and separation of plutonium. they didn't know how much, but they had them cold. there have been other cases where they've done. that they caught them despite modification. but, iran's gotten better at modification. it's certainly learned. and i think we can't -- i think the electric example actually proves the case that you have to worry more about parchin.

it doesn't prove the case that the iaea will find it no matter what. the iranians have learned and they are probably much better at modification and undermining the iaea than before and so you want to make sure that the iaea goes into this long term agreement as strong as possible, it does address or satisfy the concerns over the possible military dimensions of iran's program and we get closure on that and we in a sense march into this agreement where the iaea has as much credibility as possible. i worry that the way it's going is they're going to have reduced credibility and that's going to give an advantage to iran, it's going to come back to haunt us. lee: thank you very much. that was a terrific introduction. one of the topics i want to come back, regarding the iaea's credibility and how this might be affected by that, but one

thing i wanted to check before we went on to omri, when you were saying that the draft that the a.p. published, they checked that with, you were saying, the iaea verifying that that was close to that, or -- david: no. they went to member states. this is how this works. the iaea people -- let me not put words in a.p. they have sources, they're based in vienna. and they went to sources to verify. one can imagine, too, that -- well, let me end it there. i don't want to take any more time. lee: that story was sourced to officials from member states. specifically. omri, if would you like to pick up. fill out some of the -- omri: sure. i think in addition to the geopolitical environment and the verification regime, it's important to understand the dynamics that have emerged here in town over the last month, two months, certainly before that, this debate has been shaping up for several years.

but really after the announcement of the jcpoa in the middle of july you saw a particular kind of debate shape up here in town. and it has a range of dimensions that have to do with intersections between policy and politics, frustration on the hill. the administration is operating in an environment in which they've lost the benefit of the doubt with many lawmakers. both republican lawmakers and democratic lawmakers. and that comes from a number of places. it comes from frustration by lawmakers who believe that they were led, that they were essentially had their chains pulled for several years, for several years, of course, administration officials would

go to the hill and they would testify that if only were they to be given breathing room for negotiations they would bring home a deal that robustly resolved the possible military dimensions of iran's program, that would lead to the shuttering of fordo, that would lead very, very pointedly to any time, anywhere inspections. and members feel betrayed. they're saying openly that had they known back then that this would be the deal now, they would have pursued alternative legislative paths, including most prominently sanctions legislation. that's one place in which -- one reason that the administration has lost the benefit of the doubt. another reason is what members perceive to be simple dishonesty. they believe that the administration has repeatedly politicized intelligence as far as iranian cheating over the course of the jpoa, the interim joint plan of action. they believe that the administration is looking the other way on iranian sanctions busting of u.n. sanctions. they believe that they're not getting the information -- the

united nations panel, which was supposed to monitor compliance, and various members of congress are not getting the information that they deserve. of course this has recently come to a head in the last couple of days in the policy conversation when it comes to the politicalization of intelligence that has to do with isis. but that's also another thing that's in the air. which is to say they just don't trust the administration to give them accurate information. and then of course the third reason why they're operating in an environment of distrust is this specific debate over failing to transmit to lawmakers the side deals, the secret side deals, between the iaea and iran and, again, secret side deals is a loaded term. it's a term that's used by detractors and opponents of the deal but there was a moment, would have been two weeks ago, three weeks ago, there was a state department briefing at which an a.p. reporter finally got frustrated with the administration and said, can we stipulate that a deal that's classified we can call secret and a deal that's parallel we

can call side? that kind of ended the debate about whether there are secret side deals but the other side prefers to not call them secret side deals and uses lines like, this is not just secret, this is just the way adults do business. saying that to a lawmaker when they say there's a secret side deal is not a productive way to rebuild trust. that has occurred on a number of occasions. this specific issue, it takes place in a much broader environment and i don't choose your metaphor, underlines, highlight, puts an exclamation point at the end of, deep, deep, deep distrust on the hill toward the administration. which is one of the reasons why it has legs. why this idea of the secret side deals has legs. that's the political reason. the kind of public affairs reason, we'd call the communications reason, you know, if you quickly divide the town politics, policy, public affairs, politics is distrust on

the hill. the public affairs reason has to do with how the administration approached messaging on this issue. so the administration does polling, both sides on this debate do a ton of polling. both sides very, very early saw the same three things popping up. one was the importance of science and expertise, which is why the administration never missed an opportunity, especially during the last few months of the negotiation, to emphasize that scientists agree with them. this kind of reached a point that caused a lot of people to smirk. secretary of energy moniz during the vienna talks went to -- i went portugal or spain, somewhere in iberia, for an award. he came back and then he tweeted a picture. it's now back to work to lock in an agreement based on hard science. anywhere that they could insert the term they inserted it because they saw that it boosted

public popularity. the second thing that -- popularity. the second thing that both sides saw, how you described the agreement really mattered. if you described it as iran grease to never construct a nuclear weapon, they saw an eight to 10-point bump in approval. they then by the way took that wording and started inserting it into their own polls or into the polls of validaters in order to boost the numbers. that was the second thing. but the third thing that both sides saw was that voters overwhelmingly dislike iran, iran has the lowest favorability of most middle east actors, highest unfavorability. but the reason they do it, the reason that -- what causes that dislike is distrust. so you ask people, why should the u.s. stand in opposition to iran? it's a standard kind of wording that we use. they cite all sorts of things. iran is dedicated to the destruction of the u.s., destruction of our allies, iran stones rape victims for adultery, iran hangs gays from cranes. but what's underneath that is

distrust. they don't trust iran not to do those things. which is why you saw the administration develop the talking point that this deal was not built on trust. if you go back to their materials, that develops very, very, very early because they were seeing the same things we were seeing, which is distrust is potentially toxic to support of negotiations with iran. the side deals agreement in the same way that in a political dimension reinforces pre-existing distrust among lawmakers, in a public affairs dimension reinforces public distrust. the reason that this is so toxic in terms of the white house's public affairs campaign is because it very, very, very precisely casts a spotlight on something that they very much do not want to play with, which is distrust of iran. and now there's the policy implications. david talked a lot about this in

greater depth. one thing that i think it's important to note is that it's not just the policy community that's concerned about the parchin arrangement becoming a precedent, the arrangement of course is videotaping, allowing the iranians to take their own samples and hand them over to the agency, and negotiating with the iranians on a limited number of samples that will be taken from a limited number of places. congressman royce sent a letter to secretary kerry in which he also discussed his worry that this would become a precedent. he cited specifically one of the paragraphs in annex one of the jcpoa. somewhere in the 70's, for give me, i should know this. 71 or 77. that talks about alternative arrangements that the iranians are allowed to offer when the agency requests access. representative royce asked --

told secretary kerry, i worry that this will become a precedent. so you have this side deals issue playing out really across everything that counts in town here. politics, policy and public affairs. and in the last 48 hours, that has now become a legislative issue or at least an issue in the battle between congress and the president over the arrangement. so there's been a lot of talk on the hill, both among democrats and republicans, but in the context of this strategy, it's largely republican strategy, that the so-called corker clock, the 60-day clock during which congress has the right to review the jcpoa and if they feel so moved, to pass a resolution of disapproval, that that clock hasn't started. the administration and frankly leadership in the senate believe -- have stated that it started when the administration transmitted a number of documents relevant to their disclosure obligations.

some of those have been leaked, some of those haven't. those involve things like the u.s.'s collapse on p.m.d.'s, it involves arrangements, involves why the intelligence community believes that that collapse is justified. so we know the content of a number of these documents. they were transmitted -- they were transmitted within a couple of days of getting back from vienna. the clock, according to this reading, ends on september 17, which is the last day congress would have to pass a resolution of disapproval. there are many people who are now claiming that because of the nontransmission of the iaea side deals, that clock hasn't started. there was, until the last 48 hours, no real recourse for those people. they could complain they could say it was illegal. there wasn't much they could do. on tuesday, d.c. district court ruled for the first time ever, this was in the context of an obamacare case, that injury that's done to congress' article one prerogatives is in fact something that can be litigated. in more technical terms, they

granted standing to the house to pursue claims of energy again -- injury against the president. that created the possibility, this has now been discussed by several legal scholars, but it's being written about broadly, the main one is a "the washington post" legal blogger, and he has taken this, he's now written two articles that says that in fact the injury done to congress' article one prerogatives does constitute something that can be litigated. he published his first analysis of this yesterday, just afternoon, at roughly the same time, and i mean within 15 minutes, "politico" posted an article with a statement from speaker boehner saying that based on the new ruling, i.e., the finding that congress has standings to pursue litigation, he may well sue president obama or the house may well sue president obama over the nontransmission of documents. now, the reasoning is actually a

little bit subtle. the reasoning is that the corker clock never started which means congress never had the ability to weigh in at all. so it's not your usual claim that it's illegal to waive sanctions. if that occurs then it would obviously change the policy -- it would radically change the policy environment. for instance, one of the things that the iranians are counting on is a stable regulatory environment that would encourage companies to enter. it's difficult to see how companies could enter in a political environment in which there's bipartisan opposition in both chambers of congress to the deal and a legal environment that is uncertain. i think on that point -- lee: thanks. that's fantastic. do you know, i mean, if speaker of the house boehner, if he'd been moving on that before the "post" piece? something they were talking about before? omri: there were definitely discussions at the beginning of the week and beforehand about a possible litigation strategy but they usually ended with the idea that congress would not be able to find a way to have standing

and it would just get bounced out of court. now, if you read the "politico" article it specifically cites the reasoning behind this new district court finding. but -- lee: were they all waiting for this decision to come down? omri: i think they'd been looking for ways to enforce what they consider to be their prerogatives. one of the weird things about the kind of politics around the corker-cardin debate, and the side deals specifically that we're discussing today, is not meeting the corker-cardin requirements, which is to say, not turning over all of the documents that are relevant to the deal, is disobeying congress' prerogatives on a piece of legislation about congress' prerogatives. right, it's not just not enforcing legislation. it's not enforcing legislation that's specifically about enforcing legislation. and that was passed by enormous majorities.