mr. royce: i yield one minute to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. pittinger, a member of the committee on financial services. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for one minute. mr. pittenger: thank you, mr. chairman. for yielding this time. and thank you for your strong leadership to reject this administration's agreement with iran. this deal is a dramatic reversal of u.s. policy in the middle east and toward the iranian government. for years the iranian government has actively opposed u.s. interests in the region and has directly financed the world's most oppressive terrorist groups, most notably hezbollah. mr. speaker, as a result of this agreement, over $100 billion will be released from -- back to the mullahs in iran. 46 banks in iran will now be approved to transmit money through the international financial system. look at what they've -- look at what they've done previously with their finances. we gave them $700 million a month as a precondition

mr. royce: thank you. thank you very much, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to submit extraneous materials on this measure. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. royce: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the chair would ask all members to please take their seats. ask all members and staff to please their conversations from the floor. mr. royce: mr. speaker, i think we all know why we are here to debate this resolution today. and the bottom line is that for those of us that were involved in this agreement, we always thought that international inspections were going to be done by international inspectors. not by the iranians. not by those in the iranian regime. and whether you like the iran agreement or not, one thing i think all members can agree on is that sound verification must viable drock of any agreement. iran cannot cheat and get

mr. royce: mr. speaker, several members mr. royce: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. royce: several members spoke of iran's commitment under this agreement. while it's true that iran committed to taking certain steps under this agreement, it's also true that iranians have never complied with any agreement related to its weapons program. so let's start with considering what iran's leaders have been saying today about this agreement. this is what they say. they say that iran can pursue the development of missiles without any restrictions. how can that be given what's in this agreement? president rahani, the supposed moderate here, has argued repeatedly that the only restrictions on iran's missile development are in the u.n. security council resolution endorsing the deal. he says it's not in the agreement itself they don't recognize the security council resolution. so he says, we're not restricted by this agreement. so what you're quoti

mr. royce: thank you, mr. speaker. just to take a brief moment to respond to my colleague from california, i wish it were so simple that a credible alternative was the passage of a bill in congress that had not passed before that we could pass now. mr. schiff: and through the mere act of our legislation, compel the rest of the world to join us in a new negotiation and a stronger rounleds of sanctions. -- round of sanctions. we simply don't have that power . what's more, to imagine that a new sanctions bill will somehow come back to the table ready to concede its entire enrichment program is simply not credible. if that's what we're left with, we're really left with no good alternative. again, i think that is precisely why we need to move forward with the agreement that has been reached between the world powers and iran. at this point i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentlelady from minnesota, ms. mccollum. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: thank you, mr. speake

mr. royce: mr. speaker, i rise in support of this legislation which would prohibit the president from waiving iran sanctions and prevent the implementation of this fatally flawed agreement. last night we spent many hours debating this agreement. we heard from members on both sides of the aisle, members who have deep concerns about where we are headed. mr. speaker, let's be very clear, this isn't just a bad deal. it's a disastrous deal. it's a disaster for the united states. it's a disaster for our allies and friends in the region, including israel. and when you think about it, when we think about the letter that we sent, 84% of us in this house signed the letter asking for four critical things in this negotiation. we got rolled on every one of the four. iran won on every point. iran gets to keep its nuclear infrastructure. the obama administration collapsed on the issue of verification. we don't have anywhere, any time inspections in here. we have got self-inspections by the iranian regime with resp

mr. royce: yield the gentleman an additional minute. mr. coffman: in 1996, when 19 airmen died in the khobart towers by an iranian-backed attack, when they say "death to america," they mean death to america. we were losing soldiers and rines on the ground due to i.e.d.'s. we did recon aceance and security. and iran iran what was called an explosive force penetrator that was designed to penetrate the thickest hulls and kill hundreds of soldiers. when the americans say "death to america," they mean it. this deal will threaten the stability of the region, the security of the united states and end of israel and i would urge my colleagues to vote no. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from california. ms. waters: the gentleman from, i yield, five minutes. mr. lynch: i thank the gentlelady from california for leading this debate on our behalf and i want to thank her for the great work she has been doing on all of this. i rise in support of h.r. 3461, legislation to approve the

mr. royce, your discussion with the chairman makes it clear. a wealthier, more militarized iran poses a significant threat to the stability of our allies in the region. especially to our friend israel. given the ayatollah's continued public incitement of violence against israel, what steps can congress take in tandem with these approval of the joint agreement to bolster israel's security and stability in the middle east? >> well, representative foxx, let me share with you my concerns in terms of what i saw close on the basis of iran's transfer. mr. royce: on the basis of iran's transfer of military capability to hezbollah. in 2016 when i was chairman of the -- 2006 when i was chairman of the terrorist subcommittee, anti-terrorism subcommittee, we were in haifa when it was being shelled. by the hezbollah regime. and at that point forces were on the ground. iranian forces were assisting. they maybe had 10,000 rockets and missiles in the inventory. in haifa they were slamming these missiles, each

mr. royce: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 412, i call up h.r. 3460 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3460, a bill to suspend until january 21, 2017, the authority of the president to wave, suspend, reduce, provide relief from, or otherwise limit the application of sanctions pursuant to an agreement related to the nuclear program of iran. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 412, the bill is considered as read. the bill shall be debatable for two hours with 30 minutes controlled by the chair of the committee on foreign affairs or his designee, 30 minutes of the chair controlled by the committee of the ways and means, and one hour controlled by the minority leader or her designee, the gentleman from california, mr. royce, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan, the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, and the gentleman from michigan mr. levin each control 30 minutes. the chair reco

mr. royce: thank you, mr. chairman. i would just make the observation that congress registered its concerns very early in this process. and in a bipartisan way. because if we think back to the legislate -- legislation that i and eliot engel originally authored and tried to push in terms of the negotiation, that legislation which passed this house 400-20 and then was blocked over in the senate at the request of the administration and could not come up, that would have given the ayatollah a choice between economic collapse or real compromise on his nuclear program. and i want to get to this point. that the president offers a false choice between this agroment or war.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. royce. mr. royce: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. nunes, chairman of the permanent select committee on intelligence. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california, mr. nunes, is recognized for three minutes. mr. nunes: thank you for yielding. mr. speaker, although the obama administration has pitched the iran nuclear accord to prevent the ayatollahs from making nuclear weapons, it lifts their activities after 10 to 15 years. many of my fellow members wonder how the administration can be so naive as to pave the way for an iranian bomb in the course of trying to prevent an iranian bomb. well, the answer is clear to me. the president is gambling. he's betting on the very act of engaging with iran will moderate the regime's behavior. so that in a decade or so from now we won't have to worry about it anymore. he has called his engagement with iran a cat -- calculated risk. indeed it is a risk. as i said, the president is placing a bet, but why would an

mr. royce: and i'll reserve the right to close then. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker and my colleagues, just over half century ago john f. kennedy in an era of difficult engagements with the soviets said, let us never negotiate out of fear but et us never fear to negotiate. president obama's diplomacy with iran is grounded in strength and realism, but it's animated by something all too rare in foreign relations, hope. this is a strong deal that represents our best hope for less -- lasting security and peace. as a veteran, i stand with our president and support this deal. thank you. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield myself the remainder of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. royce: thank you, mr. speaker. president reagan walked away from a bad deal in iceland. he walked away and then he applied pr

mr. royce: thank you, mr. chairman. i would just make the observation that congress registered its concerns very early in this process. and in a bipartisan way. because if we think back to the legislate -- legislation that i and eliot engel originally authored and tried to push in terms of the negotiation, that legislation which passed this house 400-20 and then was blocked over in the senate at the request of the administration and could not come up, that would have given the ayatollah a choice between economic collapse or real compromise on his nuclear program. and i want to get to this point. that the president offers a false choice between this agroment or war. even a supporter of the deal testified in front of the committee that i chair i wouldn't say that if you were opposed to this deal that somehow that leads to war. i think that's false, said the witness on behalf of the administration. it is false. it is false. indeed the country's top military office, chairman of the joint chiefs, recently testified in front

mr. royce: i yield myself the remainder of my time. mr. speaker, to begin with, i would also like to submit for the record a letter by 200 retired generals and flag officers, admirals, in terms of why they are opposed to this deal and why they feel it would make the national security challenges for the united states more problematic. the second point i would make is that the head of hezbollah says this about this deal -- iran will become richer and wealthier and will also become more influential you should the deal. this week he says. he says this will also reinforce the position of its allies. a stronger and wealthier iran in the coming phase will be able to stand by its allies and especially the palestinian resistance more than at any other time in history. what does that mean? i can tell you what it means because in 2006, then i chaired the terrorism -- when i chaired the terrorism subcommittee we were in haifa when he was firing off the iranian made rockets with 90,000 ball bearings in the war heads into the town of haifa. that were 60

mr. royce: and i'll reserve the right to close then. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker and my colleagues, just over half century ago john f. kennedy in an era of difficult engagements with the soviets said, let us never negotiate out of fear but et us never fear to negotiate. president obama's diplomacy with iran is grounded in strength and realism, but it's animated by something all too rare in foreign relations, hope. this is a strong deal that represents our best hope for less -- lasting security and peace. as a veteran, i stand with our president and support this deal. thank you. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield myself the remainder of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. royce: thank you, mr. speaker. president reagan walked away from a bad deal in iceland. he walked away and then he applied pr

mr. royce will have a chance to raise these points, and we'll be fully prepared to answer them. >> but if the gentleman would yield, part of this is personal for me because one of those bills was my bill. and when you say the president did not oppose sanctions, it was my -- if you would yield, it was my legislation. it did pass 400-20. it passed unanimously through the committee. and yes, the president and the secretary of state opposed it every step of the way. and managed to block it in the senate. so for me, my personal experience is one of -- one of not being able to convince the administration that putting additional pressure on iran with sanctions would be helpful. and the conclusion i reached is one that was shared by the vast majority of this house at the time. >> if you look -- if i take back my time -- >> excuse me just a minute. i appreciate the gentlemen having a discussion back and forth. yes, sir? thank you very much. i want to be respectful to all three of you to get the things o

royce, i want to thank you very much. the gentlemen from columbus, ohio, the gentleman -- >> thank you, mr. chairman and i appreciate chairman royce running that was like watching the ohio state game last night you ran so fast. i appreciate you being here. you know, in congress, we set forward committees to create experts on lots of different areas. you've spent a lot of time in foreign affairs, as has your ranking member. i'm sorry we don't get the advantage of having him here today to talk about his perspective on this nor any other members from your committee. the other two minority members that were here, do they serve on your committee? >> no. >> do they serve on the intelligence committee by any chance? >> well, maybe in the distant past they may have. >> okay. but clearly not -- they're not getting the benefit of the current briefings and the current situation. has -- do you know if ranking member engel has made his position public? i believe he has. >> both on the house side, the chairman and ranking member are both opposed to the iranian nuclear deal. it's the same in the senate. bo

and i know mr. royce chairman royce, had said that that would be the preferred method except that the president's already threatened that he would veto any effort along those lines. well, the fact is, that article ii, section ii when it comes to treaties does not make any provision for the president's veto. the senate can take a matter up that is a treaty. which this clearly is. and then if they vote 2/3 to ratify, it's ratified. if they don't, there is no veto available to the president. having consulted with numerous constitutional law professors, including berkeley constitutional law expert, a professor there, who says that although the senate may say the president needs to submit the iranian agreement as a treaty for ratification, that actually the senate could call it up on @r(t&ho court should say it failed to get the 2/3 necessary for ratification. and, therefore, it is not binding upon, nor is it a forcible against the united states. so it's a question. are we going to ignore the constitution? and

and i know mr. royce chairman royce, had said that that would be the preferred method except that the president's already threatened that he would veto any effort along those lines. well, the fact is, that article ii, section ii when it comes to treaties does not make any provision for the president's veto. the senate can take a matter up that is a treaty. which this clearly is. and then if they vote 2/3 to ratify, it's ratified. if they don't, there is no veto available to the president. having consulted with numerous constitutional law professors, including berkeley constitutional law expert, a professor there, who says that although the senate may say the president needs to submit the iranian agreement as a treaty for ratification, that actually the senate could call it up on @r(t&ho court should say it failed to get the 2/3 necessary for ratification. and, therefore, it is not binding upon, nor is it a forcible against the united states. so it's a question. are we going to ignore the constitution? and

mr. royce: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd just make the observation that congress registered its concerns in this process and in a bipartisan way. because if we think back to the legislation that i and eliot engel originally authored and tried to push in terms of this negotiation, that legislation, which passed this house 400-20 -- 400-20 and then was blocked over in the senate at the request of the administration and could not come up, that would have given the ayatollah a choice between economic collapse or real compromise on his nuclear program. and i want to get to this point that the president offers a false choice between this agreement or war. even a supporter of the deal testified in front of the committee that i chair that i wouldn't say that if you were opposed to this deal that somehow that leads to war. i think that's false, said the witness on behalf of the administration. it is false. it is false. indeed, the country's top military office, the chairman of the joint chiefs recently testified in front of congr

i think my chairman mr. royce for this resolution. i yield back. the gentlelady yields back the gentlelady from california reserves. pleased to, i am yield to the gentlemen from south carolina. gentleman from south carolina is recognized for three minutes. today in joint conference of plan of action. plus germany. the european union, and a ran i support this deal because it is the best available option to prevent a ran from getting a nuclear weapon. all of us agree that it must be prevented. the opponents of this agreement say that a rant supports terrorism. i do not disagree with that. this deal is about only one issue. the issue that the entire world agrees is by far the most pressing. preventing iran from getting a nuclear weapon. it is precisely because they are sown a fairy us that this deal is so important. the interest of the design is and may remain a rand would be for more dangerous if they acquired a nuclear weapon. this deal is the best way to prevent that unacceptable outcome. the opponents of this agreement say that we cannot trust the

you chairman sessions i want to thank the other members of the committee. >> i want to thank you mr. royce, and thank you for your staying power. >> rachel oswald joins us from capitol hill reporting on the iran nuclear agreement. what can we expect as that debate it's underway in the senate? rachel: it's not clear that all senators will listen to this request for the august recess. said he only wanted them in their seats for the beginning of the debate. this is something that almost never happens, where you have all 100 voters at their desks. can'tt think of -- i think of any reporter that knows that has happened in recent memory. thatur article in cq says senate democrats are on the verge of a blocking the iran vote, a final filibuster on that resolution. what are you hearing on a democratic lance? --democratic plans? rachel: it's not clear whether there is enough support. at least three senators supported the deal. senator wyden told me this evening that they are undecided on the issue. minority leader harry reid and minority leader durban will be looking on the subject. those three sen

royce and the ferrari. and the pad in beverly hills. i had the surfboard and beach boys and the neil diamond and elvis presley's mr. and all them guys. the din na martins and nancy sinatra, will you do it to me i hear you do it good honey and will you come to my house later. so i went through all that. and i seen that was a bigger prison than the one i just got out of and i really didn't care to go back to prison. see, prison doesn't begin and end at the gate. prison is in the mind. it's locked in one world that's dead and dying, or it's open to a world that's free and alive. drugs, lsd i don't consider a drug, i don't consider paoti a drug, those are more or less religiously significant awareness mind expanding apparatuses that come from the intelligence of the universe. the reason that the girls like me was, hey now, hey now, i'm all around you, around you, hey now, hey now, up on your heart i can see through you and i play and i sing. and they say, hey, man, you got soul in that music. and i said, yeah, i play a little bit, you know. i like -- and they say, man, you're really somebody. i said, oh, i am? i just g

mr. ian robinson from bmw was saying that in china we have headwinds but in brazil we have a cliff. if you are going to be in a rolls-royces now a convertible. now guy, you can covet the convertible. those billionaires that used to populate the world. there are fewer of them. we will ask the ceo of he is concerned about the declining ranks of billionaires. i suspect he is not concerned because he has a beautiful product. they have unveiled this digitally. confidently say that i am the first journalists to touch one of these and i think it will be the only time i can touch this. i am wondering what will happen in this interview. i am looking forward to that. let's take you back to what is happening in germany. rolls-royce. -- rolls-royce is german owned. what are they saying about this refugee story and angela merkel's plan to admit 800,000 migrants. germany has an agent -- an aging population. hans: the carmakers want to do their part on the refugee crisis. there is a real demographic crisis in germany along with the short-term refugee situation. mr. ventured from corn last night as well as the daimler ceo saying that thi