so i think -- we owe them a debt of gratitude for their work on that. on this question -- i got this question also from cardinal dole and and as i understand it -- i understand -- maybe i don't understand it, but the holocaust museum is going through a policy review as to whether it should characterize what is happening in the middle east as genocide toward christians and also otherwise. this is not administration policy this is holocaust museum policy. i think -- i'm not aware of us making a determination in any case about determining whether there is genocide in the middle east. i could take that question on and see if we can check it to see if we are undertaking a review of that.

but at the time when i talked to cardinal dolan last year, we were not. i want to be careful here because i don't want to make sure we are not expressly calling it genocide. we have not taken on this question of characterizing the ongoing violence as genocide. reporter: i wanted to ask you about the politics brings out the best in us and not the worst and regretted that politics is so divisive and what lessons he has learned about that or what he might do differently to bring out the best in politics. and including language that clearly was a direct response to donald trump and ted cruz in the

speech and if you are trying to bring out the best in politics, why wait until the republican primary? mr. mcdonough: on the question -- i think the president believed it was important that there be an alternative to rebut the public wisdom in the debate. and that is fully consistent with the tone of his speech and the content of the speech and

also what he said. i thought his characterization of the founders and the vigor with which they debated forcefully issues that in many ways both strongly held but also opposed what a good example. tom daschle who i worked for for a long time said it was the music democracy. but without the music, it just doesn't work. what i would say back, i don't see him offering a different narrative or a different

argument as being inconsistent with the politics that rises above kind of the -- otherwise unproductive nature of some of this -- unproductive conduct so far. in terms of what specifically he'll do, i don't want to front line on that and i think you will see a lot -- be one of those things that you will want to have kind of reported after the fact rather than lead up to conduct thereof. but i guess i want to underscore what he said, which is this

can't be -- this is not just a question of who controls the next congress and the next president. he really put a call out to american citizens to engage. and i think you will see him engaging with american citizens directly. on the full range of policy questions including the ones we just talked about, but also directly engaging with them in small groups in living rooms and towns across the country and those are going to be in red and blue states. and so ultimately as he said, we need hard work in this democracy and we want to make sure that the american people that are driving that change. mr. cook: we've got about 10 minutes left and 11 questions. i'm not going to be able to get to everybody. nice to have some substantive answers. all in life is not a tweet. but there may be some frustration. mr. mcdonough: you share a lot

of wisdom. reporter: the rankor and -- [indiscernible] reporter: since you have been around the white house and congress all these yeas and talked with the president about his have you of how that unfolded? what is responsible for that? apart from the question you just took on, what can we do going forward. when he looks at the situation and look at how this has played out over the past seven years, who's responsible? mr. mcdonough: so, you know, i think he talked a little bit about that last night.

i think -- what strikes me is republicans and democrats say this to me -- i assume they say it to you guys, too, off the record, republicans and democrats are struck by the noise signal ratio or the politics ratio of their job and obviously, they wished the ratio was much more substantive than they find it when they get here. and you know -- probably the reason you are asking the questions are the reasons i don't want to answer it. but as i think there are a lot of us to blame. i think it's the structure of our campaigns, the structure of

our districts, kind of what's happening in terms of news media, that is to say you can select the news media the same way you select your neighborhood, your church, so it ends up being -- you can end up in an echo chamber unless you aggressively work to get out of that, to seek different chambers of information and friendships and ideas, you end up -- and i think that that ultimately is the thing that we rely on you all and your jobs are so important.

i think we have as individuals here -- look i'm struck by the fact that republicans and democrats on the hill, they don't spend a lot of time together, period. so that's one thing i have tried to do and will continue to do here over the course of the next year if the president keeps me on the job and see if we get anywhere. i'm filibustering the answer because i don't know precisely and we'll keep track of different things. reporter: can you ghiff us information of how much political capital the president plans to use this year. mr. mcdonough: the president has had a bunch of conversations with susan and gail and others.

you know at the world bank and other places. he came back -- i forget, i think it was over the summer having read some on malaria and he said, you know how close we are breaking through on malaria. are we beating malaria? and i confessed that i didn't. so susan and gail and ben did a lot of work on this over the course of the fall. i think this is something that along with pepfar, something

that that president bush and ambassador -- secretary rice and mike those guys should really feel good about. they got us up the impact curve on h.i.v., on malar a yeah and t.b. that maybe if we give it a little extra push here, maybe we can close this out. we're going to push on this and the president did put it in there deliberately. on ebola that liberia comes clean again which will then be each of the three countries at the epicenter of the ebola

epidemic having come out of the depth of that epidemic. the capability inside usaid, n.i.h., c.d.c. and u.s. military is a gem for the united states government and for the united states people. this is a capability that from the response -- the haiti earthquake to ongoing efforts in sudan to treat infectious disease to h.i.v. to malaria. these guys are unbelievably good and we should be proud of their work.

i think the bush administration should be proud of their work. reporter: no executive orders or executive actions announced last night. mr. mcdonough: i think the speech itself was an executive action. reporter: if congress won't act, i will. am i wrong, we are starting to see a somewhat more constrained view of utility of executive action as he gets later in his presidency. with the gun action, it was coloring within the lines. and offering guidance. is there an understanding that anything done by executive action can be undone by executive action. is there an evolution of the president's utility of executive

power? mr. mcdonough: we'll do executive actions throughout the course of the year, i'm confident of that. there is -- go back to the first question, process is your friend, but process dictates what you can do and we want to make sure we get the executive actions that we undertake are not left hanging out there subject to congress undoing them and so we're very mindful of time frames by which we have to meet our targets. so process is your friend but process has a lot of requirktse. i think what -- requirmentes. and not leave hanging subjective

to undoing through congressional review act or otherwise. that's point one. point two is that we have no -- you know, we could try to administer appetite suppress ants, but the president said i'm going to demand of you guys and ask myself one question. what i'm going to demand of you is that everything we do is infused with the fence of possibility that has undergirarded this administration but also this country for time and memorial. and two, he said i'm going to be asking myself why not.

and so i think that's the spirit with which we'll approach the last year. and three is, frankly that's part of the way we approached last year and as i said at the beginning, we feel good about last year. we are going to lean pretty hard into it. mr. cook: appreciate you spending with us. mr. mcdonough: i appreciate it guys. thanks for having me. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright nati

>> on today's "washington journal" matthew lee of the associated press on the iran nuclear deal and the release of ten u.s. sailors. then a discussion about president obama's economic mishel.ith lawrence >> features this weekend on american history tv on

c-span-3. saturday night on lectures and history. brook simpson on the president's wartime roll including wars waged without formal declaration. >> it's the president's job to educate. the president would say i know you don't understand this. it's really not any reason you should have understood this. it was in a place far, far away with people who speak a different language. and so i'm going to explain to you what american interests are. we'll let congress respond to that. i will let opinion makers .espond i am going to explain and ask you to do this. > sunday morning at 10:00 on road to the white house, the

1996 campaign. his walk across new hampshire to greet voters. later at 4:00 p.m. eastern on reel america, a 1963 interview with martin luther king jr. on his nonviolent approach to civil rights. >> some years ago when i first studied the philosophy and the method of nonviolent resistance i came to the conclusion that it was the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom and human dignity and i would say that this overall direct action movement with its it-ins and its stand-ins, it's wait-ins, its marches and pilgrimmages and all struggle have been patterned a great deal after gandhi.

>> for the entire schedule go to c-span.org. >> today at the house house debated a bill to prevent the obama administration from lifting sanctions against iran as part of an agreement on iran's nuclear program. all ref reason for this resolution -- one of the reasons -- and that is since the obama administration sealed the nuclear deal with iran, iran has been on a bit of a tear. has accelerated its missile program at the request of president rouhani. it has taken an additional

american hostage. it has stepped up the slaughter in syria. days after that agreement was finalized, you had iranian rockets firing 1,500 yards off the u.s. aircraft carrier truman. and just yesterday, iran detained 10 u.s. sailors, which was not appreciated, especially coming on the aftermath of firing those rockets near the truman. now, we're all relieved to learn this morning that the ailors have been released. yet, in what could be a matter f days, iran will cash in with $100 billion-plus in sanctions relief, money which is now in

escrow, and i'm sure it's occurred to many of us that if ran behaves this way now, in a few days when it gets its hand on the bank roll, especially when it's going to the irgc, not the iranian people, what other actions are we going to e from the iranian revolutionary guards corps? we had a story this weekend, front page in the weekend edition of "the wall street journal," and the headline of that story is, "nuclear deal uels iran's hardliners." iran's hardliners will be the biggest winner out of this. the revolutionary guard, the held adical forces that these 10 u.s. sailors, that force and their proxies control

many of the industries that will benefit from the influx of hard currency and new investment, whether it's energy or construction, they control it. the icbm program, they control it. and just as many of us warned prior to this deal about the be a tight for enforcement once this deal gets under way, there is no pushback from the administration on this. since the nuclear deal, iran has tested two ballistic miiles. now, that is in violation of u.n. security council resolution. this administration's response was to announce and then abandon new sanctions within a very short time frame apparently to not offend the supreme leader, not to risk its flawed nuclear deal. en it comes to iran, we need

a policy of more backbone, not more backing down, because it was not supposed to be this way with this deal. . in anoupsing the deal, president obama claimed that american sanctions on iran for its support of terrorism, its human rights abuses, its ballistic missile program will continue to be fully enforced. those were the president's words. just after that was secretary kerry's argument testifying before the foreign affairs committee. this legislation is a first step in holding the administration to these commitments. and under this bill, before the president can lift sanctions on a particular person or bank or company to implement the nuclear deal, he must certify that their removal is related

to iran's nuclear program alone. that's who we were told would be getting the sanctions relief. not those tied to terrorism. not those tied to iran's ballistic missile or other illicit weapons programs that were under sanction from the u.n. resolutions. when the treasury department sanctioned bank melie in 2007, it noted that the institution had provided banking services to the iranian revolutionary guards corps and the kuds force. they are in charge of assassinations outside of iran. as we all know, the revolutionary guards have committed acts of terrorism and commit -- committed those missile tests that we just recently saw. why, then, is this bank set to receive sanctions relief in the coming days? and bank seppa, one of iran's

largest banks, will be another big winner of sanctions relief in the coming days. when that bank was designated, and that was january of 2007, then treasury undersecretary stuart levy voted with this argument, bank seppa is the financial linchpin of iran's missile procurement network. what we have to think about here is there's one reason, one reason why a state develops icbms. it's to deliver a nuclear payload. it's to deliver a weapon. so, he says it is the financial linchpin and has actively assisted iran's pursuit of missiles capable of carrying weapons of mass destruction. with iran's ballistic missile program advancing, its president, rouhani, just called for the program to be

accelerated. that's what we have in the face of this agreement. we should not be letting this bank off the ropes. opening it for business from europe to asia. to be clear, those iranian banks and individuals not supporting terrorism, not supporting icbms, they can be delisted. that was what was originally represented to this congress. but not those threatening our national security. not those making threats to us while the ayatollah is saying death to america, death to israel. that is what this legislation does and it's the policy that the administration explained to this house. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to oppose this measure and i yield myself such time as i may consume.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. engel: thank you. first, i do want to thank my good friend, chairman ed royce. it's not very often we find ourselves on different sides of foreign affairs issues, which runs edit to the way he our committee. but in this case, in my view, this bill isn't the right fit or the right approach. we should go back to the drawing board rather than ramming through a partisan measure that will never become law. we should go through our normal process of drafting legislation in a bipartisan way with input from both sides rather than advancing something that was put together without a single democrat having any input whatsoever. as a result, this bill does not have a single democratic co-sponsor. if we are going to pass legislation like this, it only works if we do it in a bipartisan way, as americans, not as democrats or republicans. we should come back here with a bipartisan bill that can actually move forward just as

we have done again and again and again on the foreign affairs committee. the question is here not whether iran is a good player. iran is a bad player. in fact, it's a terrible player. and it's important that we do act on the challenge of iran. like chairman royce, i oppose the iran deal. but our side lost the debate. the deal is in place. now we need to make sure that iran is living up to its commitments under that deal. that every word of the deal is enforced. that we crack down on iran's other bad behavior. and that we take steps to shore up the security of israel and our other allies in the region. that's the kind of bill i want to support, and we can do it together. but this bill doesn't address any of the issues. stead, this bill would establish an impossible standard for the president. order to ys that in

remove a bern -- person or company from a nuclear sanctions list, the president would have to certify that the person or company never at any sanctionable in behavior, including support for iran's weapons of mass destruction programs. well, if they had never engaged in sanctionable behavior, why would they be on the sanction list in the first place? it doesn't make sense, mr. speaker. now, this could be a drafting flaw or could just be about embarrassing the president. it would make it impossible san the united states to immediate its obligations under the jcpoa. that worries me. rather than holding iran's feet to the fire and strengthening oversight, we seem to be going down the same path we have with the affordable care act. 62 times we voted to repeal it. a couple months ago we had a vote which essentially repeals the jcpoa, and now we are doing it a second time. will we do it 60 more times? it's waste of all of our time.

let's put our heads together and come up with bipartisan bill that works. 62 times to vote to repeal the affordable care act. my opinion those were symbolic votes because we knew the president would never repeal his own bill. and today this is a symbolic vote. because we know the president is never going to sink his own agreement. my constituents don't want symbolic votes, mr. speaker, they want results. and symbolic votes won't help us crack down on iran's support of terrorism or our behavior. i am confident we can work in a bipartisan way to craft legislation. we have done it again and again and again on the foreign affairs committee. just look at the iran sanctions ll that chairman royce and i wrote in 2013. it passed unanimously out of the foreign affairs committee. unanimously. and we have people who believe

in their politics from the to the left and everywhere in between. it came to the floor and passed by a vote of 400-8. that's the kind of thing we should be doing now on this very serious issue. if we are serious about this issue, that's the approach we eed to to the left and take. i'm confident that in the days ahead i will be working with chairman royce and all of our members to bring forward good bipartisan legislation. but this bill is the wrong way to go. i don't impugn anybody's mow tiffs. i know people worked hard on this. but this is just simply in my opinion the wrong way to go. so i'll vote against t i urge my colleagues to do the same. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield five minutes to the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. russell, the author of this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. russell: thank you, mr. chairman. 19 august 2015, and i quote, the president of the united

states, i made sure that the united states reserved its right to maintain and enforce existing sanctions and deploy new sanctions to address those continuing concerns. which we fully intend to do when circumstances warrant. i'm confident that in the days it is imperative that we take steps to deal with iran's destabilizing activities for support of terrorism. involves continued enforcement of international and united states law, including sanctions related to iran's nonnuclear activities. we will maintain, and i'm quoting the president, powerful sanctions targeting iran's support for groups such as hezbollah, its destabilizing role in yemen, backing of the asat regime. -- assad program, and rights at home, end quote. this is in direct response, mr. speaker, to the gentleman who s saying that he's not for

upholding these things today. had many bipartisan fashion voted against this agreement. the president has stated clearly that under the terms of the comprehensive iran sanctions and accountability and investment act of 2010 tsh -- divestment act of 2010, would he not interfere with the human rights list or terrorist list. the sample fact is, i read every single word of the joint agreement, there are had many b voted against this agreement. the president has stated learly that under the hundreds of people annexed to that ngs as list. among them are more than 50 that are on the terrorist list and human rights list as violators. the president said they will not be lifted off, and yet there they are. that's what this bill does. it's interesting, last week, and i quote a letter by our esteemed colleagues on the other side of the aisle, mr. speaker, and here is the letter hat they sent to the president of the united states reinforcing why this bill is a good idea. iran's destabilizing behavior in the region and continued support for terrorism represent an unacceptable threat to our

closest allies as well as our own national security. as the international community prepares for the implementation of the joint agreement, iran must understand that violating international laws, treaties, and agreements will have serious consequences. we call on the administration, this is their words, mr. speaker, to immediately announce new u.s. sanctions against individuals and entities involved in iran's ballistic missile program and o ensure that iran is held accountable for its actions. i continue to quote this letter. inaction from the united states would send the misguided message that in the wake of the joint agreement, the international community has lost the willingness to hold the iranian regime accountable for its support for terrorism and other offensive angsts throughout the region, including syria, yemen, lebanon, and the gaza strip. this behavor, including ballistic missile tests, as the chairman spoke about, poses a direct threat to american national security interests in those -- and those of our allies, end quote. mr. speaker, this was signed by

representatives lowey, our esteemed colleague that is at the podium now on the other side of the aisle, mr. engel, the leader of the democratic national committee for congress, debi wasserman schultz, the esteem colleague, mr. sires, mr. connolly, mrs. davis, of people and mr. nadler. with them. we agree totally with them that these sanctions should be upheld. that the law is the law. that the 2010 iran sanctions accountability and divestment act is still the law. that's what this bill does. there's been claims that it was not done in a bipartisan fashion. and i find this somewhat with t we agree totally with them that these sanctions should puzzling because i personally alked, mr. speaker, to mr. engel about this bill. i went item for item through it. what its content was. i reached out to democratic

leadership in august. i have been working this bill since july. so, yes, we can do a bipartisan fashion. i regret because i'm a freshman and only have fought on three continents and foreign affairs and national security background that i'm not on the foreign affairs committee, but that doesn't denote, mr. speaker, a lack of understanding of the way the world works and what the threat is in the united states of america when we have made a law that says if you're a terrorist or human rights violator, we are not going to allow you to have sanctions relief under the jcpoa. the president said that's what he's going to do. democrats and republicans have said that's what they will engel about this uphold, that's what this bill does. yet we see puzzlingly opposition to these very things. here's what the bill is. annex to the joint agreement lifts sanctions for hundreds of individuals. for nuclear proliferation or human rights violation and terrorist violation. more than 50 of these individuals and entities have been identified on the joint agreement for sanctions relief. this simply requires that before those are delisted the president certify why. it doesn't say they can never come off. read section 4. it's pretty clear it says that

the president must certify justification on why that is the case. what this bill is not, a knee-jerk reaction, partisan ploy that's quickly crafted due to recent events. we have been working months on this. the bill was crafted without major efforts, not true. as i have proven this morning. this is upholding the law. mr. speaker, i urge let's have the discussion. i know my colleagues feel deeply about this. i know that they also would like to see this continue. let's pass this bill. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: thank you, mr. speaker. it's now my pleasure to jackson lee three minutes to my friend and colleague, very valued member of foreign affairs committee and ranking member of the subcommittee on the middle east, mr. deutch of florida. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. deutch: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend, the ranking engel, for his

leadership today. i deeply appreciate the bipartisan way that he and chairman royce have run our committee. when it comes to the goal we all share of preventing iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. i'm also grateful for the commitment that my friend, mr. russell, has made to this same issue and to his service to our country. this legislation, unfortunately, doesn't advance this goal that we share. nor does it prevent iran's other provocative illegal and destabilizing regional activity. i oppose the nuclear deal and i'm concern with the deal itself and what iran might try to do with billions of dollars in sanction relief. i've also been clear about my frustration that the ballistic missile tests undertaken by of u.s. and tion international law have not yet resulted in sanctions, either by the united nations security council or by the administration. . we should be working together to put forward legislation that

strengthens the enforcement of the jcpoa and prevents iran from continuing its sponsorship of terror, its illegal missile development and gross human rights violations. this bill, mr. speaker, doesn't do any of those things. some of my colleagues claim the bill will prevent entities from getting sanctions relief under the deal that has ties to terrorism or w.m.d. proliferation. i've expressed directly to the administration to ensure any entity that's subject to sanctions relief under the nuclear deal be carefully investigated and resanctioned if they are found to be in violation of human rights abuses. it doesn't do that. it provides certification that the 400 entities named in the jcpoa are not part of the development of weapons of mass destruction. this will devote significant time and resources to a certification that can never be met while also preventingly importantly implementation of the jcpoa.

instead of devoting the resources to sanctioning individuals and entities that support terrorism and violate human rights, dangerous activities that were never part of the nuclear deal, it devotes enormous resources to a process that won't accomplish that. iran must pay the price for its continued bad behavior. furthermore, mr. speaker, the bill before us today adds the al tehran's proxies to divestment act. one of most important laws. now, we want them to support these terrorist organizations. but unfortunately some of our european friends tried to distinguish between military and terror groups. they shouldn't. there is no distinction. i've spoken out against this policy. nevertheless, because of this discrepancy, because of naming hese terror groups in cisada -- now is the time for us to be working with our allies to craft the toughest

international sanctions to crackdown on iran's dangerous activities. mr. speaker, whether you supported this deal or not, as mr. engel said, it's going forward. we should be looking for bipartisan ways to make sure it not -- mr. engel: i yield the gentleman one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. deutch: we should be looking sure that it has the most stringent verification and compliance and if a violation occurs or if iran continues to engage in illegal activities that were never a part of this nuclear deal, we must ensure that we have the tools to enact punishing these sanctions with the support of the international partners but certainly with the full bipartisan support of the united states congress. finally, mr. speaker, i cannot speak about iran on the floor of the u.s. house without making clear that every one of us, 435 members of the house of representatives, stand united

in our commitment to bringing amir, om iran jason, and my - sayeed constituent, bob livingston. they sit in iran but we look forward to bringing them how many. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, judge poe, part of the subcommittee on terrorism, nonproliferation and trade. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. poe: i thank the gentleman for his time and his work on this legislation. i do want to comment that the ranking member, plengle, i value his wisdom on the issue of iran and especially in defense of israel. we happen to disagree on this specific legislation. mr. speaker, the nuclear agreement with the -- that the administration made with iran was still a bad deal for

america. as a former judge down in texas, i know that when the bad guys do bad things, you don't reward bad conduct. at a time when the administration needs to be strong and firm, it seems to be showing wobbly knees on this deal. now, we're left with a deal where the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism is only a few steps away from a nuclear bomb. the administration's continued leniency with iran is conceding even more than what is required in the deal. the administration is making this bad deal even worse. now, the president promised the american people that this bad deal still allows nonnuclear-related sanctions on iran. good for the president. great promise. and iran, not to the shock of any of us, have violated some of the rules that they are to abide by. they violated two u.n. resolutions restricting ballistic missile tests last

month. so the treasury department told congress it would levy new sanctions on iran's primary financial sanctions. that would support the president's promise to america. but at the last minute, the state department got involved and said, whoa on those sanctions. not so fast. and no sanctions. more shaky knees, mr. speaker. why does the administration waffle on calling iran out for violations? america's national security interests seem to take a backseat to confronting iran politically. so i support h.r. 3662. this is an important bill to ensure the president can't lift sanctions on those institutions and individuals who are involved in terrorism. remember, mr. speaker, iran is still the number one world state sponsor of terrorism, and they are continuing their mischief throughout the world. we don't need to make it easier for iran's terror proxies to get even more money than the $100 billion they're getting in

the deal. so with this bill, the president must prove to congress that a person or entity has not given financial or material support to a terrorist organization before removing them from the sanctions list. sounds logical to me, mr. speaker. sanctions unrelated to the nuclear deal must remain in place. the national security of the united states is at stake, and that's just the way it is and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: mr. speaker, i now yield two minutes to my friend and colleague, a member of the appropriations committee, mr. price of north carolina. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. price: i thank my colleague. mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this deeply misguided legislation. reports from international experts, nuclear watchdogs and representatives of our international coalition made clear that iran is on its way

to fully dismantling its nuclear weapons program. breakout times at this moment have already been tripled, quadrupled. we need to understand, just because the jcpoa does not deal with all of iran's abuses doesn't mean that we shouldn't solve the nuclear issue. we have already had that debate. iran is still a state sponsor of terrorism, and the proposed expansion of its ballistic missile program is particularly troubling. these issues must be addressed. but a nuclear armed iran would only make these abuses more dangerous. foolish ld be wildly to suggest that we must forgo our only real opportunity to keep a nuclear weapon out of the regime's hands just because these ancillary issues remain. this bill would do exactly

that. it would scuttle the jcpoa. the result of years of international negotiation and diplomacy in cooperation with our international partners. absent the nuclear agreement, iran could resume its nuclear program without international oversight, could go back to that three-month breakout time and, by the way, continue the state sponsorship of terrorism, continue its human rights abuses, continue its ballistic missile expansion. in short, this bill would snatch defeat from the jaws of victory as the dismantling of iran's nuclear program proceeds. it would be reckless in the extreme, and i strongly urge my colleagues to reject it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois,

mr. roskam, a member of the committee on ways and means and co-sponsor of this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. roskam: thank you, chairman royce, for your leadership on this issue, and i'm rising in support of mr. russell's initiative. last nht, mr. speaker, there was a mr. murphy: throughout the room here -- there was a murmur throughout the room when the president made his state of the union address. he said the united states is perceived well around the world and in fact better than ever, there was an audible sense of outcry and people were really concerned about that assertion. then the president went on to make his point. but i think it is an admonition for us all to recognize, as judge poe said a couple moments ago, there is a wobblyness in this administration. in other words, how about provocations are the iranians able to move forward and the administration is inert. how many provocations can the iranians push and the

administration remains with no action? i'll tell you something, this is just off the news, reuters is reporting that the major general hassan zabadi, the head of the iranian armed forces, says of the naval incident that is being reconciled today that this should be a lesson to whom? to trouble makers in congress. trouble makers in congress who oppose iranian aggression. i think mr. russell's approach here is very common sense. it says those who have been complicit in terror sponsorship in the past should not get the benefit of the sanctions being raised. they don't get the benefit of participating in that. this should be certified clearly, according to mr. russell's language, and it makes all the sense in the world. the notion that somehow the administration is incapable of doing this i don't find persuasive. i think we need an administration that can make these certifications, that does

make these certifications, and if they can't, then these terror financiers ought not get the benefit of sanctions relief. i urge passage of this bill, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california reserves his time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: yes. it's now my pleasure to yield five minutes to a very valued member of our committee and ranking member on the asia subcommittee five years to mr. sherman of california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. sherman: thank you for the time. i voted for every sanctions bill on iran that's come to this floor. i helped draft many of them and i'm ready to help draft and work on and vote for sanctions bills on iran because iran continues its behavior in the rea of missiles, terrorism and seizing american hostages. i'm ready to work on and

support legislation to impose sanctions on iran, even if it's opposed by the administration. after all, almost every sanctions bill passed by this congress was opposed either by the george w. bush administration or by this administration. we need a good process to draft good legislation that will do what president obama told us we would do, and that is use sanctions to deal with iran's nonnuclear wrongdoing. but we need a good process that will get us good legislation. unfortunately, this is a bill that is the process of a -- the product of a bad process, a flawed process, and the bill itself is flawed. let's look at the process. almost 100 co-sponsors but all of them from one party.

no democrat on the foreign affairs committee was invited to help draft the legislation or even invited to co-sponsor it. and now this bill comes to the floor under a closed rule, a rule that prevents us from offering amendments that will deal with the flaws in the bill. there are at least two such flaws. the first is that the bill deprives the president of the uthority to delist 489 entities. it locks those entities onto the s.d.n. list, but it leaves out 269 other entities, creating two classes of entities, one which must stay on the list under almost any circumstance i can think of. the others, which the president can remove, and there's no particular reason for the 269 entities to be treated differently than the 489.

all of them have been involved in supporting iran's proliferation and terrorist efforts. second, this bill creates too high a standard for the president to be able to remove an entity. he has to certify that they have never at any time in history engaged in the most trivial transaction. with a whole list of terrorist entities. . we need a better drafting of that portion of the bill that deals with delisting entities. perhaps entities that will -- have changed their behavior for well over a decade. i look forward to a bipartisan process, hopefully an open rule , and we see that reflected in the fact that i have interduesed -- introduced legislation, as an example, that would impose additional sanctions on the iran

revolutionary guard corps and it's co-sponsored by the chairman of our committee and immediate past chairman of the committee. i know our committee can work in a bipartisan way to create better legislation than that is before us. and we need additional sanctions on iran drafted carefully. because iran has engaged in a missile test in violation of u.n. security council resolutions. because iran's support for terrorism and assad is responsible for the deaths of tens and tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people in syria and yemen. and because iran used to hold four but now holds five american hostages, fortunately it does not hold our u.s. navy sailors, but it hold five american civilians. it is consistent with american policy and this

administration's policy. they negotiated a nuclear deal. they kept it only on the nuclear issue. not because america has conceded and accepted and given iran carte blanche to engage in terrorism and hostage taking, but because the president's policy was that we would deal with these issues separately. it is time for us to deal with these issues separately through well drafted, bipartisan legislation. i'm confident department in the weeks to come the administration will use its existing power to sanction additional entities as a result of iran's illegal missile test. i am confident that our committee will craft bipartisan legislation that will do what we know we need to do to deal with iran's wrongdoing outside the nuclear area. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from michigan,

mr. trot, a member of the committee on foreign affairs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. mr. trott: i rise today in support of h.r. 3662. when president obama announced the nuclear agreement, he promised that sanctions against iran's support of terrorism, human rights abuses, and its ballistic missile program would continue to be enforced. all this bill does is require the president to keep his word. if the bill passes, the president won't be able to give hezbollah, hamas, and other terrorist groups billions of dollars. they won't be able to use billions of dollars to continue testing long-range missiles in violation of u.n. resolutions. who can disagree with this goal ? well, the president probably disagrees, and some suggest if the bill reaches his desk he will veto it. we in congress, all we can do is try and remind the president about his promises surrounding this bill. this might also be a good time to remind the president about iran's behavor over the past two months. they convicted and imprisoned one of our journalists.

detained another american. they leased five al qaeda prisoners. they have not released the four americans they have been holding for years. they have tested their ballistic missiles. they fired a missile that came close to one of our naval vessels. and in the last 24 hours, they held 10 american sailors. it may rellwell be true that neither iran's behavior nor this bill will cause the president to realize he made a mistake trusting iran. will i rely on historians for that. it is unfortunate that this debate and this bill are necessary to remind the president that we expect him to keep his promise, his promise to withhold billions of dollars in sanctions relief that iran will otherwise use to spread terror and use to develop ballistic missiles aimed at our shores. ranking member engel may be correct that our actions today are symbolic. but we troublemakers in congress have no choice, we must try, we must try whenever possible to remind the president you cannot do a good

deal with a bad guy. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 3662. i yield back the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: may i ask how much time is left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york has 14 1/2 minutes. millennium challengele: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. . royce: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus, chairman of the energy subcommittee on environment and the economy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. shimkus: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. chairman, i appreciate your

leadership. you know how hard i work in supporting freedom and my opposition to totalitarian regimes. yesterday we passed h.r. 757, the north korean enforcement act. unfortunately i missed that vote. that happens here sometimes. you know how i fully support it. today we again address a problem with a rogue regime, iran. i voted against the flawed iranian deal. iran still holds a marine veteran, contractor, american pastor, and "washington post" reporter. they have tested two ballistic missiles. sanctions should not be waived by the u.s., that is why i support this bill. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from utah, mr. stewart, a member of the appropriations and intelligence committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah is recognized for two minutes. mr. stewart: thank you, mr. chairman. my work on the intelligence committee, i spend an awful lot

of my time on these types of issues. and i think there is much we could say about this bill, but at the end of the day it comes down to two fundamental questions, they are quite simple. the first is, do you believe the president will hold iran accountable? in an interview yesterday, i challenged the other person, show me the president's foreign policy success. because i believe this administration has been seven years of foreign policy failure from china to russia to afghanistan to syria. the list is long. and we have to ask, do we trust the president to implement policies that keep the world more or less safe? the second question is just as simple, that is, do we trust iran? and as i asked the secretary kerry, show me a single example of iran working with us or with our allies in any positive fashion. they are as has been said here,

the world's greatest sponsor of terrorism. recently they broke u.n. agreements not to test ballistic missiles. they have held our soldiers from hezbollah to hamas to syria. they foster terror and darkness everywhere they go. do we trust iran? the answer is very simply no. which is why this bill is so important. it helps us to hold iran accountable. it helps us to hold their proxies accountable. it removes the incentives for them to continue to expand their power and their policies and their goals, which are counter to u.s. and western goals throughout the world. that is why i support this bill. i urge my colleagues to as well. mr. chairman, thank you. i yield whack. -- back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: i now yield two minutes to my friend from texas, ms. sheila jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlewoman texas is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman from new york for his kindness and acknowledge the chairman of this committee for their courtesies in debating this legislation. first of all i think it is important for all of us to acknowledge the safe return of our united states sailors and to recognize that the united states was persistent and determined and as well made no apologies. and the iran government moved quickly to return them. be very clear that our soldiers, our sailors did nothing wrong. and obviously when other sailors are in trouble, let me thank those who remained as our heroes do. they leave no person in essence behind. i'm very grateful. i know their families are grateful in that they are safe. that, mr. speaker, is a distinctive point from where we are today. everyone knows that iran is a

bad actor. some of us on this floor voted for iran nonnuclear agreement. others did not. but i believe that we do ourselves harm when we continue to renegotiate or to revote, as we have continued to do for 62 times for obamacare. this legislation would restrict the president's ability to lift sanctions on iranian entities, thereby preventing the u.s. from carrying out its commitment under the joint comprehensive plan of action signed in vienna, austria, on july 14, 201r5. specifically the bill would require the president to certify the delisted entity has not knowingly facilitate a significant financial transaction or servais visses to terrorist affiliates. -- services to terrorist affiliates. this would be a very difficult and hindering aspect of the president's responsibilities and his role as the commander

in chief. it would specifically prevent delisting of 400 bank companies and individuals engaged in iran's nuclear program, particularly the central bank. section two would require the president to certify to congress that any entity from the office of foreign assets nctions list is not even knowingly facilitate. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: throughout this legislation, it is prohibit, stop. the president and the next president as our representative of the face of america internationally, has the responsibility to enforce this agreement. it was done primarily to stop iran's nuclear efforts. i, too, as someone who has supported this legislation, believe that sanctions should be increased and that we should respond to iran's ballistic missile episode. there are ways to do that by strengthening the sanctions.

tying the hands of the commander in chief anti-president of the united states. not renegotiating this on the floor of the house to the extent that we have, in essence, no way of giving the president latitude to negotiate. so i'd ask my colleagues to oppose this legislation because it is not legislation that enhances our place. it takes away from the president's authority. and it makes it very difficult to interact with iran. let me be very clear. iran has its troubles. it is a bad actor, but i will tell you there are better ways to handle this situation. i ask my colleagues to vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. lance, who is a co-sponsor of this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. lance: thank you, mr. speaker. my thanks to chairman royce and mr. russell for their tremendous leadership on this

issue. i rise today in strong support terror the hands of the h.r. n finance transparency act. the detention and interrogation of 10 american sailors near the straight of who are muzz is the latest in a significant list of iranian acts of aggression against american interests since president obama signed the iran nuclear agreement in october. thank god our sailors have been released. they never should have been detained. in recent weeks we have witnessed two reported long-range ballistic missile launches. a revelation by iran of a new underground missile depot, and firing of rockets near u.s. navy ships in the straight of hormuz. the tehran government continues to hold american hostages. these provocations and lack of response from the white house have merely emboldened iran to increase its aggression. iran believes it can act