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 night, 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 against american interests with impunity. i urge my colleagues to support the underlying legislation and stop the lifting of sanctions on iran that would provide billions of dollars in economic relief. let's send a clear message that iran's aggression against the united states and its allies will not go unchallenged by congress. history will judge our actions on this issue. as history will judge the president and the administration on their actions

on this issue. let history be the judge. let's support this legislation, h.r. 3622. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields 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 he reserves. he gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. russell, author of this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for three minutes. mr. russell: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman, for your leadership on this bill. there's been a lot of accusations about what is in this bill and the content. but the fact of the matter is what is being quoted is simply not in the bill. . it said it would deprive the authority of the president to make decisions. that's not the case.

the president may lift, spelled out, if he meets the certain certification criteria. what's that criteria? that they are no longer conducting activity and they have justification for that relief. where this language never at any time is being quoted, mr. speaker, by my esteemed and caring colleagues on this issue, i know how they feel about this issue personally, and i commend them for it, because we're on common ground here, but they are quoting something that is simply not in the bill, when they say never at any time, that's not there. the president may lift the sanctions. what we're calling for is a vertfication as to why. if he comes in and makes the case, look, this bank has corrected its behavior, the general had some epiphany and he no longer is a terrorist, then fine. we can have that certification and the president does that. talking about several -- there was no bipartisan effort. every single speaker that has said that there was not a

bipartisan effort i have personally been in contact with. personally. talking on this particular issue. and so that is simply not the case. i'm kind of hurt by that because i reached out to all of them and i didn't deny any of them a chance for amendment, dialogue or discussion. and i do think that we have much common ground to go on here. i think it's also important that it says that it doesn't advance goals, it's upholding the law. the law, which is the comprehensive iran sanctions and divestment act of 2010, says that if there are people on terror and human rights lists, that they shouldn't come off without certification. we agree. that's why we're saying, we have to have the similar certification for those that overlap on the joint agreement. that's why we've identified them. the hundreds of others that were mentioned by the opponents of this measure, mr. speaker, they weren't on those lists. that's why they're not there. they weren't targeted for this. only those that are on the

terror and human rights or nuclear proliferation with missiles list, if they're there, then that's why they've been targeted. this isn't apparently about the merit of the measure or how we feel about national security of the united states. it's now become an issue about process. well, i guess that experience doesn't matter. it's about process. we need to do what is right for the country, mr. speaker. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from new york is ecognized. >> may i ask the chairman if there are any more speakers on he other side? >> i'll just reserve the right to close, mr. engel. and i will close. no additional speakers. mr. engel: ok. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: then i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. engel: let me, first, clear up, i think, what's a misperception. there are roughly 700 iranian entities on our sanctions list. of those, only 200 are removed from sanctions and those are those who were involved in the nuclear program. it's not true that the jcpoa removes sanctions on entities that are engaged in terrorism or proliferation or human rights violations. this is black and white in the jcpoa. entity by entity we know exactly who will be removed. none of them are involved in terrorism or other behavior. we know who will be removed. there is a list in the annex, i have it right here. every company that will be removed. and none of them are removed for terrorism or other maligned behavior. so i want to just make that very, very clear.

let me say that i think everyone on both sides has good intentions. and i think that we don't disagree about iran. the question here is not whether iran is a bad play or a good -- player or a good player. i don't trust the iranians. i voted against the deal. and i don't believe anything the government sails. that's not the question here -- says. that's not the question here. the question is, how do you combat it in a unified way? how do you do it -- we're not interested in embarrassing the president. certainly not on this side of the aisle. we're not interested in playing gotcha with the president either. we want to have a bill that has input from both sides so we can accomplish what both of us say we want to accomplish, and that's to hold iran's feet to the fire. i want to make sure that the jcpoa, again, which i did not support, but it's the law, that

iran is complying with everything it's supposed to be doing. and that's where our effort should be. to make sure that they do that and then to also make sure that our ally -- our allies like israel have the kind of help they need to maintain their qualitative military edge and to have another memorandum of understanding with the united states that supports israel. this is what we should be concentrating on. not embarrassing the president or playing gotcha. that doesn't do anything. mr. russell, the gentleman from oklahoma, did come up to me and ask me if i would co-sponsor the bill. but that was after it was already drafted. having no input into the bill. so, that's not really a way of being collaborative, if you really want to be collaborative. i appreciate what the gentleman from oklahoma says. i don't doubt his sincerity and he obviously worked very hard on this bill. but many of us have difficulties with it. so we don't have difficulties with the end product, with what we want to accomplish, with the

end goal, i should say. we have difficulties by the way this is done. and this seem, again, more to us like embarrassing the president, calling him names, than really putting our heads together in a collaborative way and really doing something that will hold iran's feet to the fire. so, i believe in the old adage that politics should stop at the water's edge when we're talking about foreign affairs. that's why i love the foreign affairs committee. our nation's security and our interests abroad are too important to let partisan politics get in the way. 99 times out of 100 the foreign affairs committee operates in that spirit and this bill is an exception to that. and i think the lack of input from both sides of the aisle, the lack of time the foreign affairs committee didn't spend working on it, is reflected in the final product. i'm not pointing a finger at anybody. i think mr. rut are russell is sincere -- mr. russell is sincere about this. i think we want the same thing. but this bill is deeply flawed. it would force the president to

meet an impossible standard on an issue where congress had already spoken. that's no way to advance our interests abroad. that's no way to hold iran accountable. so let's vote down this bill, go back to the drawing board, and come back with bipartisan legislation that would actually help us achieve our aims. i urge a no voluntary et -- vote -- a no vote. again, the question here is not whether iran can be trusted. they cannot. iran's a bad player. three people on this side of the aisle who spoke against this bill voted against the jcpoa. so it's not matter of just trying to rubber stamp what the administration wants or anything like that. no. we don't think that this bill goes in the right direction. we don't want to embarrass the president. we want to work with the president to make sure that iran's feet are held to the fire. so, again, we had the vote on the iran bill. i voted no.

my friends on that side of the aisle voted no. but we lost. so let's not repeat what we've done with the affordable care act 62 times, again and again and again, playing gotcha with the president. let's do something that really works. let's put our heads together, that makes it work. we can take parts of this bill and put it together into a bipartisan bill. i'm not owe polesed to that. but -- opposed to that. but we've got to do it together. politics needs to stop. -- stop at the water's edge. so let's now work together to ensure that iran is complying with the jcpoa. that would be a positive step forward. let's hold their feet to the fire, let's make sure they do what they're supposed to do. because i don't trust them any more than anybody on that side of the aisle. so i urge a no vote, let's go back to the drawing board. let's do what the foreign affairs committee is known for doing for the past three years under the leadership of chairman royce and myself, we believe that we're the most bipartisan committee in the congress, we believe that's the

way foreign policy should be created. and i know we can do better. and again, i don't inpune anybody's notives. let's put our heads together and come up with a bill that we can pass and be proud of. i urge a no vote. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield myself such time as may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. he has another four minutes. mr. royce: i appreciate all the members that have engaged in this debate. as ranking member engel noted, this is not usually the place we find ourselves. but what we have seen from iran over the last few months is that the iranian threat isn't going away. so we'll have to keep working together to address the iranian threat. and i look forward to that continuing collaboration. as the iran nuclear agreement gets set for implementation,

some 500 specific individuals and companies and several banks are set to get relief for their ties to the nuclear program. this bill simply asks the president to ensure that those receiving this reprieve are not involved in iran's support for terrorism, nor are they involved in the missile development program that iran continues to push for intercontinental ballistic missile. -- missiles. soon, maybe in a matter of days, iran will get access to over $100 billion in frozen oil assets. and this is not going to go to the iranians on the street. this is not going to go to small businesses in iran, to those that despise their government. it is going to go to the regime, it's going to go to the iranian revolutionary guard corps, the reason it would work that way is because that's the

entity that nationalized these businesses years ago, after 1979. and they are the ones that right now control approximately a quarter of the entire economy, including the major businesses, such as, for example, energy or construction . and if we look at what the u.s. y says nt of treasure about this -- treasury says about this, they label the irgc as the most powerful economic actor in the country. so, this entity has deep reach into those critical sectors of the economic infrastructure, as the treasury tells us. and the irgc's largest business is its construction arm, which

controls 800 affiliated companies and billions, billions of dollars in assets. these activities in turn, and here's the problem, here's the neck us -- nexus of the problem, fund iran's ballistic missile program, what we had hoped for was, of course, to temper the appetite of the regime to move forward with that icbm program. instead what we see is a huge step up several weeks ago. as the president of iran announced this huge step up, and now as we see these icbm's that are being launched and tested. and we also see the military activities, the regional aggression, the call for the overthrow of the government it's in yemen -- governments in yemen, which they actually carried out. in bahrain and saudi arabia. this is a huge problem because the irgc are doing this.

now, during our hearings, members expressed concerns that there would be no pushback from the administration when it comes to iran's aggressive behavior. this has unfortunately proven correct. the response to two ballistic missile tests, the administration proposed a few modest sanctions, we were all notified about that, and what happened as soon as iran pushed back? what happened? the administration pulled them back. the iranian president ordered his defense ministry to accelerate its missile program just weeks after the obama administration joined with its diplomatic partners to sweep iran's past illicit nuclear weapons activities under the rug. again, countries pursue icbm's for one reason, to deliver a nuclear

ago saddamths hussein started this cruel war against kuwait. tonight the battle has been joined. the 28 countries with forces in the gulf area have exhausted all reasonable efforts to reach a peaceful resolution. saddamce but to drive from kuwait by force. all attacks are underway against

military targets in iran. the coalition waited 48 hours after the you and expired, then began their attacks. 00 on january 17, 1991. the first bomb would fall on baghdad and when operation desert shield became operation desert storm. planes were launched, from basis throughout the arabian peninsula from turkey, carriers and the red sea from the persian gulf, from the indian ocean. but even as far as the united states. >> to give you some idea of the order of magnitude, within the first 24 to 30 hours, we aloneed over 300 tankers to support the strike backers.

>> there had never been any launch as big ever in the history of the air force. in their opening attack, the allies combined their stealth and precision technology, electronic warfare tactics, and the classical elements of mass and surprise. >> we had been here since august. he had seen every day sitting up. defense of mode. he was used to seeing that every day. that's what we wanted him to see, the minutes the bombs started falling. warringbeyond the capabilities of the iraqi radars, our attacks aircraft are performing up in orbits with tankers so they're able to -- top off their fuel at the last moment before heading into the target area. >> although they numbered less than 3% of coalition fighters,

ae f-117's struck almost third of the targets on the first day. these stealth fighters led the attacks, penetrating the iraqi i adds unseen. first step that was taken that one could not stop was a [indiscernible] coming out of a ship. minutes, aour, 26 navy cruiser in the red sea launched a tomahawk planned missile. over 50 cruise missiles were launched that night. the second thing that occurred for us was taking down the special ops forces. warships1 minutes, led by helicopters took out two iraqi reporting sites on the border. this helped clear the way for non-stealthy fighters heading towards western iraq. >> the first actual bomb to fall

on a rock occurred about -- in iraq occurred in about nine minutes. stealth fighters and a heavy defenses around baghdad. f-117's right into downtown baghdad in the first hour and 20 minutes. >> their next target was the principal telephone communication facility, also dubbed the at&t building. >> what we refer to as the at&t building, their central, node in the whole country. it went blank at hr -- it was about them a second spirit that bomb hit the at&t building -- f our seconds. .hat bomb hit the at&t building

>> tonight at 8:00 eastern, on lectures in history, arizona state university professor brooks simpson on the president's wartime role, including wars waged without former congressional -- formal congressional declaration. >> it is the president's job to educate, to explain and educate. the president would say, i know you don't understand this. there's 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. will let opinion makers respond to that, members of my administration. i'm going to educate you, the new can help make a decision. i'm going to ask you to do this, i'm going to explain to you why. this is a course of action to pursue. >> sunday morning at 10:00 on

"right -- road to the white house rewind," the 1996 campaign and his walkander across new hampshire to greet voters. and later, at 4:00 p.m. eastern the 1963america," interview with reverend martin hiser king junior on nonviolent approach to civil rights, his comments on president kennedy possible rights bill, and how mahatma gandhi influenced his work. >> some years ago when i first studied the gandhian philosophy and the method of nonviolent resistance, i came to the conclusion that it was a most potent weapon available. itsall direct action, with movements and citians and stand-in's, wait-ins, kneel-ins, pilgrimages and all of the other elements in the

struggle have been pattern a great deal after gandhi. >> for the complete american history tv weekend schedule, go to www.c-span.org. booker t. said to him, you know, we have kids covered here thelabama, but it's really kids in the elementary school that have suffered. the african american kids are getting poor education, horrible buildings. separate and not equal. a sunday night on "q&a to get documentary filmmaker talks about her latest film, juliusald," about rosenwald and his partnership with booker t. washington and the african-american communities in the south to build schools and bring elementary education to children in rural america. id, why don't we

just use the kid houses? the best thing booker teedo washington ever said was say, no, i want the communities to build it. were these six schools built, and that's really amazing. intorom that it morphed 5000 schools all over the south, including maryland. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." affairse foreign subcommittee on asia and the pacific held a hearing wednesday examining north korea's recent nuclear test and security in northeast asia. this comes the day after the house passed the north korea sanctions enforcement act by a vote of 418-2. this is an hour and 45 minutes.

>> we can join the international community in condemning the tests, but to work to find a feasible, lasting solution to address the north korea threat. for many in the united states, if we think of north korea it's usually the butts of a joke reference to either the

interview or "team america" movies. despite repeated calls from respectable civilian figures atop military leadership citing north korea as a top threat in the pacific theater, north korea obamato have been off the administration's radar. instead, they have dismissed the imminent threat by deploying so-called strategy of patients -- excuse me, strategic patience. for our allies in the region, north korean provocations mean so much more and they should for the united states as well. history has proven north korea has every intention to continue advancing its nuclear program the united states has shown a willingness to negotiate with north korea, if it is simply to first -- simply willing to take steps towards de-nuclearization. north korea has shown no interest in doing so, but it has successfully extracted food assistance and other foreign assistance from us by threatening nuclear activity. this is an unacceptable cycle that cannot continue. due to north korea's nuclear threat and proximity to our allies, south korea, japan, our

response options are limited but into twoely fall categories, sanctions and information flow. some argue for united nations sanctions, but others say that would exert little pressure on north korea largely due to china's lack of enforcement. korea as the north most heavily sanctioned state in the world, but that's not the case. subject to sanctions under 18 u.s. executive orders, and north korea is subject to 6. sherman royce for his work on the north korea sanctions legislation which passed the house yesterday. i am proud to vote for that and i think it's a good start, but much more needs to be done. that is why we are here today. relationships with north korea continues to be a problem. china favors north korea's status quo over the demise of fearsm regime, which it

could mean a unified united states allied korea as a neighbor, and a sizable flood of refugees crossing the border. interests are why china continues to prop up this pariah state with food, oil, and assistance. i'm deeply disappointed that china continues to allow of the regionstabilize in this manner. anda must tighten sanctions really enforce the sanctions in place and apply the unique north korea'sonly patron can provide. while nuclear tests quickly draws the world's attention towards north korean leadership, we muster a number there are 24 million people living in this closed off state, starved of basic necessities. furthermore, citizens are brainwashed into believing that their leadership is actually helping them. the north korea human rights act of 2004 initiated radio

broadcasting to provide basic knowledge of the outside world to the people of north korea. 12 years have since passed and technological advances have been made at our policy should reflect that reality. i intend to reduce legislation that would update this program to provide greater, more useful information to inform and empower their citizens. north korea was removed from the state sponsor of terrorism list in an attempt to bring it to the negotiation table and ultimately halt its nuclear program. debated this issue and many members believe it should be put back on the list. count me in that category. cyber attacks, shelling of south korean ships, north korea's alleged ties to hezbollah, and iran, and now this nuclear test, perhaps nuclear should be placed back on the list. the leaders of north korea as

well as china should understand that every pyongyang provocation provoke a congressional response in an attempt to alter north korea's ways. there's calamity across the focus, but ther obama administration's deployment of strategic patience comes, i believe, at our peril. be done with strategic patience. it is time for strategic clarity. we must be proactive in our efforts and i look forward to this important discussion of any recommendations this distinguished panel can offer. members present will be permitted to submit written statements to be included in the official hearing record, and without objection, the hearing record will remain open five calendar days to allow statements, questions, and extraneous materials for the record subject to the length, limitation in the rules. i will like to turn a time over to the ranking member for any comments he might make. >> thank you.

arth korea probably tested hydrogen boosted device, one that made use of hydrogen isotopes but did not get its power from the fusion of hydrogen atoms. said, it is perhaps have a decade or a decade before north korea tests a genuine thermonuclear weapon. i'm sure our witnesses will be able to clarify and give us some more precise estimate. we have throughout this century, now in its 16th year, had a policy which has completely , butd us as foreign policy has achieved what some would argue is the guiding force behind foreign policy, which is meeting domestic clinical concerns. neither the last administration nor this administration has

slowed down north korea's nuclear program for any , and continuing this policy, or repeating what we have done but only in a louder voice is not going to yield a different result. but our policy has allowed us at to seem tough, and we have avoided offending wall street. these are important domestic lyrical objectives which have been fully achieved. ofviewed from the standpoint being popular domestically, our policy is a success. the world to protect from north korean nuclear weapons, it's been a complete failure. in terms of what we could do if sounding tough wasn't important, we could make it clear to china that if there was a unified

korea, american forces would not be north of the 38th parallel and might even be further south, there would be less reason for them to be there. we do not have any military forces defending any other china neighbors from china. we could offer north korea a ,ackage that's been done before but a nonaggression pact they had asked for, and we refuse to provide because dick cheney imagined invasion or at least did not want to give up that opportunity sometime in the future. the thing we are least likely to do is to make it clear to china that their access to u.s. markets depends upon them getting tough with north korea.

wall street would be aghast if we did it, so we won't. we are likely to continue the current circumstance. china is indeed miffed by what north korea has done, but is unwilling to change its policy and of course, china has been miffed by north korea many times in the past. china will not change its policy unless the reality changes. the current reality is they have free access to u.s. markets, and if they't be changed choose to continue the policy they have continued throughout this century, which is to subsidize north korea. if we want a policy that does not meet the mystic political maximizes themply carrots and sticks on north korea, it would be a matter of nonaggression pact, 38th

, and the threat of tariffs on chinese goods if china continues. always questioning it, but continues a policy of subsidizing north korea. my guess is it will simply out.nue to pull our hair korea, andout north talk tough, do nothing that offense wall street. and if you keep doing the same thing for now a 16-year-old century and expect a different result, that is the definition of insanity. thing i will ask our witnesses to comment on is whether we would actually get somewhere if we agree that north

korea could have a very limited number of atomic but not thermonuclear weapons, or is they are real -- or is there a >> just want to comment. i think many issues you raised are thought-provoking and reasonable. i would like to extend a hand across the divide to work with you to not just pull our hair out but actually get results. interests with special , so be it. of the more important goal is to have success. so world expects success and i want to say that i think you have raised legitimate issues that need to be explored and i intend to work with you to do that.

representative rohrabacher: thank you mr. chairman. thank you for holding this hearing at a significant moment. our relations with both koreas go back a long way and i have a long memory. i remember sitting right here in this room when the clinton administration proposed to us that we have -- that we cut a deal basically with north korea, that we would provide them with food and fuel for an agreement not to do with a apparently have been doing. which is, i don't know if we will call it a hydrogen booster device or nuclear weapon, the fact is they obviously have been spending their money on developing ways of mass murdering other people while we have been providing them the money for their food and fuel.

unacceptablehat is is to put it mildly and at that time i indicated and several other republicans, a couple of them democrats as well, pointed out that is what happened -- would happen, and surprise, they have used resources to develop weapons and we have subsidized them in using our money to provide them food and fuel. which they should be coming out of their, how do you say, hydrogen boosting device development budget. let me suggest that this nuclear explosion and the continued, the obvious continued work that north korea is doing on nuclear military devices, that should at least put us into a mindset that

we need to do something different than what we have been doing. that thee note president of japan has made it very clear that there are threats to the pacific and i would applaud that president for reaching out to south korea at this moment. the president of japan has gone the extra mile to address sensitivities in south korea that are left over from world war ii. and he needs to be applauded for that and he needs to be encouraged to rebuild japan's military strength so it can work with the u.s. in preserving the peace in that part of the world, instead of having the need -- u .s. carrying the entire load. that thenish by saying

other factor is, the chairman mentioned, china. it just as it was obvious that the north korean regime is corrupt and belligerent and as repressive as it is, would be using their money to develop weapons while we provide food and fuel, it is just as evident that they have a relationship with beijing that puts beijing in a position of influence with north korea, if not dominance of north korea. so, let us again to the point where we applaud the president of japan for reaching out in policies that will bring more stability to that part of the world, let us condemn beijing for not using its influence in a way that will bring stability and peace to the region. so we need to work together on this and mr. chairman, thank you. looking forward to hearing

specific and information from witnesses that will help us develop policy now as we go into this new era. mr. chairman: thank you. thank you.ive bera: a few weeks ago i had a chance to visit the republic of korea and visit with troops and to spend some days with the troops and also visiting with the koran -- korean foreign secretary. i also had a chance to go to the demilitarized zone and see the republic of korea troops. in demilitarized zone is oxymoron, this is one of the most heavily militarized zones in the world and it is a constant reminder that we are in a cease-fire, not a state of peace. listening to